Association of Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations vs traditional Medicare fee for service with spending, utilization, and patient experience.

IMPORTANCE: The Pioneer Accountable Care Organization (ACO) Model aims to drive health care organizations to reduce expenditures while improving quality for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether FFS beneficiaries aligned with Pioneer ACOs had smaller increases in spending and utilization than other FFS beneficiaries while retaining similar levels of care satisfaction in the first 2 years of the Pioneer ACO Model. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were FFS Medicare beneficiaries aligned with 32 ACOs (n = 675,712 in 2012; n = 806,258 in 2013) and a comparison group of alignment-eligible beneficiaries in the same markets (n = 13,203,694 in 2012; n = 12,134,154 in 2013). Analyses comprised difference-in-differences multivariable regression with Oaxaca-Blinder reweighting to model expenditure and utilization outcomes over a 2-year performance period (2012-2013) and 2-year baseline period (2010-2011) as well as adjusted analyses of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems (CAHPS) survey responses among random samples of beneficiaries in Pioneer ACOs (n = 13,097), FFS (n = 116,255), or Medicare Advantage (n = 203,736) for 2012 care. EXPOSURES: Beneficiary alignment with a Pioneer ACO in 2012 or 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Medicare spending, utilization, and CAHPS domain scores. RESULTS: Total spending for beneficiaries aligned with Pioneer ACOs in 2012 or 2013 increased from baseline to a lesser degree relative to comparison populations. Differential changes in spending were approximately -$35.62 (95% CI, -$40.12 to -$31.12) per-beneficiary-per-month (PBPM) in 2012 and -$11.18 (95% CI, -$15.84 to -$6.51) PBPM in 2013, which amounted to aggregate reductions in increases of approximately -$280 (95% CI, -$315 to -$244) million in 2012 and -$105 (95% CI, -$148 to -$61) million in 2013. Inpatient spending showed the largest differential change of any spending category (-$14.40 [95% CI, -$17.31 to -$11.49] PBPM in 2012; -$6.46 [95% CI, -$9.26 to -$3.66] PBPM in 2013). Changes in utilization of physician services, emergency department, and postacute care followed a similar pattern. Compared with other Medicare beneficiaries, ACO-aligned beneficiaries reported higher mean scores for timely care (77.2 [ACO] vs 71.2 [FFS] vs 72.7 [MA]) and for clinician communication (91.9 [ACO] vs 88.3 [FFS] vs 88.7 [MA]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the first 2 years of the Pioneer ACO Model, beneficiaries aligned with Pioneer ACOs, as compared with general Medicare FFS beneficiaries, exhibited smaller increases in total Medicare expenditures and differential reductions in utilization of different health services, with little difference in patient experience.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Community Mental Health Use Among Autistic Adolescents and Young Adults.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this cohort study was to evaluate differences in rate of co-occurring mental health (MH) conditions among transition-age autistic youth (TAYA) who are Black, indigenous, and other people of color, and to identify enabling variables associated with any community MH visit in this population. METHODS: Medicare-Medicaid Linked Enrollees Analytic Data Source 2012 data were used for this study. TAYA 14-29 years old who received fee-for-service Medicare, Medicaid, or both were included. Predisposing, enabling, and need variables associated with both presence of MH conditions and any community MH visit were examined with general linear modeling. RESULTS: N = 122,250 TAYA were included. Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic TAYA were significantly less likely than White TAYA to have a diagnosis of substance-use, depressive, anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorders. These groups were also significantly less likely to have had a community MH visit in the past year after controlling for predisposing, enabling, and need variables. Enabling variables associated with greater use of at least one community MH visit included dual enrollment in both Medicare and Medicaid and 12+ months of enrollment in 1115 or 1915(C) Medicaid waivers. DISCUSSION: Service delivery factors are an important area of future research, particularly dual enrollment and coverage disparities for Black, indigenous, and other people of color TAYA. Examining coverage of managed care enrollees, including differences by state, may offer additional insights on how these factors impact care.

Advancing Health Policy and Outcomes for People With Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities: A Community-Led Agenda.

Importance: At least 10 million people in the United States have an intellectual and/or developmental disability (IDD). People with IDD experience considerably higher rates of poor overall health, chronic conditions including diabetes, mental health challenges, maternal mortality, and preventable deaths. This Special Communication proposes national goals based on a community-led consensus model that advances priority health outcomes for people with IDD and their caregivers/partners and identifies critical policy opportunities and challenges in achieving these goals. A community-led consensus agenda offers a foundation for focusing research, improving data collection and quality measurement, enhancing coverage and payment for services, and investing in a prepared clinical workforce and infrastructure in ways that align with lived experiences and perspectives of community members. Observations: People with IDD prioritize holistic health outcomes and tailored supports and services, driven by personalized health goals, which shift over their life course. Caregivers/partners need support for their own well-being, and easy access to resources to optimize how they support loved ones with IDD. Development of an adequately prepared clinical workforce to serve people with IDD requires national and regional policy changes that incentivize and structure training and continuing education. Ensuring effective and high-value coverage, payment, and clinical decisions requires investments in new data repositories and data-sharing infrastructure, shared learning across public and private payers, and development of new technologies and tools to empower people with IDD to actively participate in their own health care. Conclusions and Relevance: Consensus health priorities identified in this project and centered on IDD community members' perspectives are generalizable to many other patient populations. Public and private payers and regulators setting standards for health information technology have an opportunity to promote clinical data collection that focuses on individuals' needs, quality measurement that emphasizes person-centered goals rather than primarily clinical guidelines, and direct involvement of community members in the design of payment policies. Clinical education leaders, accrediting bodies, and investors/entrepreneurs have an opportunity to innovate a better prepared health care workforce and shared data infrastructure to support value-based care programs.

Beyond demonstrations: implementing a primary care hybrid payment model in Medicare.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's (NASEM's) 2021 report on primary care called for a hybrid payment approach-a mix of fee-for-service and population-based payment-with performance accountability to strike the proper balance for desired practice transformation and to support primary care's important and expanding role. The NASEM report also proposed substantial increases to primary care payment and reforms to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. This paper addresses pragmatic ways to implement these recommendations, describing and proposing solutions to the main implementation challenges. The urgent need for primary care payment reform calls for adopting a hybrid model within the Medicare fee schedule rather than engaging in another round of demonstrations, despite legal and practical obstacles to adoption. The paper explores reasons for adopting a roughly 50:50 blend of fee-for-service and population-based payment and addresses other design features, presenting reasons why spending accountability should rely on utilization measures under primary care control rather than performance on total cost of care, and proposes a fresh approach to quality, emphasizing that quality measures should be parsimonious, focused on important outcomes with demonstrated quality improvement.

Association between quality of care and the sociodemographic composition of physicians' patient panels: a repeat cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pay-for-performance programs could worsen health disparities if providers who care for disadvantaged patients face systematic barriers to providing high-quality care. Risk adjustment that includes sociodemographic factors could mitigate the financial incentive to avoid disadvantaged patients. OBJECTIVE: To test for associations between quality of care and the composition of a physician's patient panel. DESIGN: Repeat cross-sectional analysis PARTICIPANTS: Nationally representative sample of US primary care physicians responding to a panel telephone survey in 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 MAIN MEASURES: Quality of primary care as measured by provision of eight recommended preventive services (diabetic monitoring [hemoglobin A1c testing, eye examinations, cholesterol testing and urine protein analysis], cancer screening [screening colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy and mammography], and vaccinations against influenza and pneumococcus) documented in Medicare claims data and the association between quality and the sociodemographic composition of physicians' patient panels. KEY RESULTS: Across eight quality measures, physicians' quality of care was not consistently associated with the composition of their patient panel either in a single year or between time periods. For example, a substantial number (seven) of the eighteen significant associations seen between sociodemographic characteristics and the delivery of preventive services in the first time period were no longer seen in the second time period. Among sociodemographic characteristics, panel Medicaid eligibility was most consistently associated with differences in the delivery of preventive services between time points; among preventive services, the delivery of influenza vaccine was most likely to demonstrate disparities in both time points. CONCLUSIONS: In a Medicare pay-for-performance program, a better understanding of the effect of effect of patient panel composition on physicians' quality of care may be necessary before implementing routine statistical adjustment, since the association of quality and sociodemographic composition is small and inconsistent. In addition, we observed improvements between time periods among physicians with varying panel composition.

Care patterns in Medicare and their implications for pay for performance.

BACKGROUND: Two assumptions underpin the implementation of pay for performance in Medicare: that with the use of claims data, patients can be assigned to a physician or to a practice that will have primary responsibility for their care, and that a meaningful fraction of the care physicians deliver is for patients for whom they have primary responsibility. METHODS: We analyzed Medicare claims from 2000 through 2002 for 1.79 million fee-for-service beneficiaries treated by 8604 respondents to the Community Tracking Study Physician Survey in 2000 and 2001. In separate analyses, we assigned each patient to the physician or primary care physician with whom the patient had had the most visits. We determined the number of physicians and practices seen annually, the percentage of care received from the assigned physician or practice, the stability of assignments over time, and the percentage of physicians' Medicare patients who were their assigned patients. RESULTS: Beneficiaries saw a median of two primary care physicians and five specialists working in four different practices. A median of 35% of beneficiaries' visits each year were with their assigned physicians; for 33% of beneficiaries, the assigned physician changed from one year to another. On the basis of all visits to any physician, a primary care physician's assigned patients accounted for a median of 39% of the physician's Medicare patients and 62% of Medicare visits. For medical specialists, the respective percentages were 6% and 10%. On the basis of visits to primary care physicians only, 79% of beneficiaries could be assigned to a physician, and a median of 31% of beneficiaries' visits were with that assigned primary care physician. CONCLUSIONS: In fee-for-service Medicare, the dispersion of patients' care among multiple physicians will limit the effectiveness of pay-for-performance initiatives that rely on a single retrospective method of assigning responsibility for patient care.

Good neighbors: how will the patient-centered medical home relate to the rest of the health-care delivery system?

Recent policy focus on models of the patient-centered medical home raises questions about how medical home practices will relate to the rest of the health-care delivery system. This paper presents a conceptual framework of how patients and clinicians might interact in a medical neighborhood; outlines key features of a neighborhood and incentives for medical neighbors to participate in care coordination; identifies the policy considerations in designing neighborhoods; and puts forth a research agenda to support the development and evaluation of medical neighborhoods.

Are electronic medical records helpful for care coordination? Experiences of physician practices.

BACKGROUND: Policies promoting widespread adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs) are premised on the hope that they can improve the coordination of care. Yet little is known about whether and how physician practices use current EMRs to facilitate coordination. OBJECTIVES: We examine whether and how practices use commercial EMRs to support coordination tasks and identify work-around practices have created to address new coordination challenges. DESIGN, SETTING: Semi-structured telephone interviews in 12 randomly selected communities. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty respondents, including 52 physicians or staff from 26 practices with commercial ambulatory care EMRs in place for at least 2 years, chief medical officers at four EMR vendors, and four national thought leaders. RESULTS: Six major themes emerged: (1) EMRs facilitate within-office care coordination, chiefly by providing access to data during patient encounters and through electronic messaging; (2) EMRs are less able to support coordination between clinicians and settings, in part due to their design and a lack of standardization of key data elements required for information exchange; (3) managing information overflow from EMRs is a challenge for clinicians; (4) clinicians believe current EMRs cannot adequately capture the medical decision-making process and future care plans to support coordination; (5) realizing EMRs' potential for facilitating coordination requires evolution of practice operational processes; (6) current fee-for-service reimbursement encourages EMR use for documentation of billable events (office visits, procedures) and not of care coordination (which is not a billable activity). CONCLUSIONS: There is a gap between policy-makers' expectation of, and clinical practitioners' experience with, current electronic medical records' ability to support coordination of care. Policymakers could expand current health information technology policies to support assessment of how well the technology facilitates tasks necessary for coordination. By reforming payment policy to include care coordination, policymakers could encourage the evolution of EMR technology to include capabilities that support coordination, for example, allowing for inter-practice data exchange and multi-provider clinical decision support.

Primary care physicians' links to other physicians through Medicare patients: the scope of care coordination.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians are expected to coordinate care for their patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the number of physician peers providing care to the Medicare patients of a primary care physician. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of claims data. SETTING: Fee-for-service Medicare in 2005. PARTICIPANTS: 2284 primary care physicians who responded to the 2004 to 2005 Community Tracking Study Physician Survey. MEASUREMENTS: Primary patients for each physician were defined as beneficiaries for whom the physician billed for more evaluation and management visits than any other physician in 2005. The number of physician peers for each physician was the sum of other unique physicians that the index physician's primary patients visited plus other unique physicians who served as the primary physician for each of the index physician's nonprimary patients during 2005. RESULTS: The typical primary care physician has 229 (interquartile range, 125 to 340) other physicians working in 117 (interquartile range, 66 to 175) practices with which care must be coordinated, equivalent to an additional 99 physicians and 53 practices for every 100 Medicare beneficiaries managed by the primary care physician. When only the 31% of a primary care physician's primary patients who had 4 or more chronic conditions was considered, the median number of peers involved was still substantial (86 physicians in 36 practices). The number of peers varied with geographic region, practice type, and reliance on Medicaid revenues. LIMITATIONS: Estimates are based only on fee-for-service Medicare patients and physician peers, and the number of peers is therefore probably an underestimate. The modest response rate of the Community Tracking Study Physician Survey may bias results in unpredictable directions. CONCLUSION: In caring for his or her own primary and nonprimary patients during a single year, each primary care physician potentially must coordinate with a large number of individual physician colleagues who also provide care to these patients. FUNDING: National Institute on Aging, American Medical Group Association, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Physician consideration of patients' out-of-pocket costs in making common clinical decisions.

BACKGROUND: Patients face growing cost-sharing through higher deductibles and other out-of-pocket (OP) expenses, with uncertain effects on clinical decision making. METHODS: We analyzed data on 6628 respondents to the nationally representative 2004-2005 Community Tracking Study Physician Survey to examine how frequently physicians report considering their insured patients' OP expenses when prescribing drugs, selecting diagnostic tests, and choosing inpatient vs outpatient care settings. Responses were dichotomized as always/usually vs sometimes/rarely/never. In separate multivariate logistic regressions, we examined associations between physicians' reported frequency of considering OP costs for each type of decision and characteristics of individual physicians and their practices. RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent of physicians reported routinely considering OP costs when prescribing drugs, while 51.2% reported doing so when selecting care settings, and 40.2% when selecting diagnostic tests. In adjusted analyses, primary care physicians were more likely than medical specialists to consider patients' OP costs in choosing prescription drugs (85.3% vs 74.5%) (P<.001), care settings (53.9% vs 43.1%) (P<.001), and diagnostic tests (46.3% vs 29.9%) (P<.001). Physicians working in large groups or health maintenance organizations were more likely to consider OP costs in prescribing generic drugs (P<.001 for comparisons with solo and 2-person practices), but those in solo or 2-person practices were more likely to do so in choosing tests and care settings (P<.05 for all comparisons with other practice types). Physicians providing at least 10 hours of charity care a month were more likely than those not providing any to consider OP costs in both diagnostic testing (40.7% vs 35.8%) (P<.001) and care setting decisions (51.4% vs 47.6%) (P<.005). CONCLUSION: Cost-sharing arrangements targeting patients are likely to have limited effects in safely reducing health care spending because physicians do not routinely consider patients' OP costs when making decisions regarding more expensive medical services.

Primary care physicians who treat blacks and whites.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, black patients generally receive lower-quality health care than white patients. Black patients may receive their care from a subgroup of physicians whose qualifications or resources are inferior to those of the physicians who treat white patients. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 150,391 visits by black Medicare beneficiaries and white Medicare beneficiaries 65 years of age or older for medical "evaluation and management" who were seen by 4355 primary care physicians who participated in a biannual telephone survey, the 2000-2001 Community Tracking Study Physician Survey. RESULTS: Most visits by black patients were with a small group of physicians (80 percent of visits were accounted for by 22 percent of physicians) who provided only a small percentage of care to white patients. In a comparison of visits by white patients and black patients, we found that the physicians whom the black patients visited were less likely to be board certified (77.4 percent) than were the physicians visited by the white patients (86.1 percent, P=0.02) and also more likely to report that they were unable to provide high-quality care to all their patients (27.8 percent vs. 19.3 percent, P=0.005). The physicians treating black patients also reported facing greater difficulties in obtaining access for their patients to high-quality subspecialists, high-quality diagnostic imaging, and nonemergency admission to the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Black patients and white patients are to a large extent treated by different physicians. The physicians treating black patients may be less well trained clinically and may have less access to important clinical resources than physicians treating white patients. Further research should be conducted to address the extent to which these differences may be responsible for disparities in health care.

Predictors of the growing influence of clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Despite the proliferation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), physicians have been slow to adopt them. OBJECTIVE: Describe changes in the reported effect of CPGs on physicians' clinical practice over the past decade, and identify the practice characteristics associated with those changes. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Longitudinal and cross-sectional analyses of rounds 1-4 of the Community Tracking Study Physician Survey, a nationally representative survey, conducted periodically between 1996 and 2005. MEASUREMENTS: The cross-sectional outcome was the reported effect of CPGs on the physician's practice (very large, large, moderate, small, very small, and no effect). The longitudinal outcome was the change in reported effect of CPGs between two consecutive rounds for panel respondents. Independent variables included changes in physicians' practice characteristics (size, ownership, capitation, availability of information technology (IT) to access guidelines, whether quality measures and profiling affect compensation, and revenue sources). RESULTS: The proportion of primary care physicians reporting that CPGs had a very large or large effect on their practice increased significantly from 1997 to 2005, from 16.4% to 38.7% (P < .0001). The corresponding change for specialists was 18.9% to 28.2% (P < .0001). In longitudinal multivariate analyses, practice characteristics associated with an increase in effect of CPGs included acquiring IT to access guidelines, an increase in the impact that quality measures and profiling have on compensation, and an increase in the proportion of practice revenue under capitation or derived from Medicaid. CONCLUSIONS: Promotion of wider adoption of health IT, and financial incentives linked to validated quality measures, may facilitate further growth in the impact of CPGs.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Rates and Age of Diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder.

This cohort study uses electronic health record data to assess racial and ethnic disparities in prevalence or median age of diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in children.

Health care market trends and the evolution of hospitalist use and roles.

OBJECTIVE: To describe local health care market dynamics that support increasing use of hospitalists' services and changes in their roles. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews in 12 randomly selected, nationally representative communities in the Community Tracking Study conducted in 2002-2003. Interviews were coded in qualitative data analysis software. We identified patterns and themes within and across study sites, and verified conclusions by triangulating responses from different respondent types, examining outliers, searching for corroborating or disconfirming evidence, and testing rival explanations. SETTING: Medical groups, hospitals, and health plans in 12 representative communities. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seven purposively sampled executives at the 3-4 largest medical groups, hospitals, and health plans in each community: medical directors and medical staff presidents; chief executive and managing officers; executives responsible for contracting, physician networks, hospital patient safety, patient care services, planning, and marketing; and local medical and hospital association leaders. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We asked plan and hospital respondents about their competitive strategies, including their experience with cost pressures, hospital patient flow problems, and hospital patient safety efforts. We asked all respondents about changes in their local market over the past 2 years generally, and specifically: hospitals' and physicians' responses to market pressures; payment arrangements hospitals and physicians had with private health plans; and physicians' relationships with plans and hospitals. We drew on data on hospitalist practice structures, employment relationships, and productivity/compensation from the Society for Hospital Medicine's 2002 membership survey. Factors that fomented the creation of the hospital medicine movement persist, including cost pressures and primary care physicians' decreasing inpatient volume. But emerging influences made hospitalists even more attractive, including worsening problems with patient flow in hospitals, rising malpractice costs, and the growing national focus on patient safety. Local market forces resulted in new hospitalist roles and program structures, regarding which organizations sponsored hospitalist programs, employed them, and the functions they served in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have important implications for patients, hospitalists, and their employers. Hospitalists may require changes in education and training, develop competing goals and priorities, and face new issues in their relationships with health plans, hospitals, and other physicians.

A widening rift in access and quality: growing evidence of economic disparities.

Data from the Community Tracking Study provide a valuable perspective from which to observe how economic disparities--largely a function of different sources of coverage--influence access to medical care in the United States. Many recent investments and initiatives are focused on affluent communities and are accessible mainly to people with employer-based or Medicare coverage. For people with Medicaid or no coverage at all, access to basic care is worsening, as a result of stalled coverage expansions and service cutbacks. An improving economy could forestall further cuts and permit reversal of earlier Hones, but progress in closing this rift does not appear imminent.

Use of dialysis educators beyond nurses and physicians and outcomes in patients with kidney failure.

This study examined whether patient education by nonmedical personnel (eg, social workers, dietitians) is associated with patient outcomes in a prospective cohort study of 1,005 incident dialysis patients treated at 79 United States clinics. Logistic and Poisson regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the relationship between clinic use of nonmedical educators and patient satisfaction and self-management, hospitalization, and survival, respectively. Patients treated at clinics reporting use of nonmedical educators (84%) were more likely to be satisfied with the amount of information on dialysis modalities (odds ratio [OR]=.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08--2.58) and with the amount of information they received on dialysis (OR=1.23, 95% CI 0.90--1.67; marginally significant) than those treated at clinics without nonmedical educators (16%). These patients were also less likely to be hospitalized (incidence rate ratio [IRR]=0.91, 95% CI 0.80--1.03), but the association was of borderline statistical significance. Overall satisfaction, patient self-management, and mortality were not significantly associated with use of nonmedical educators. Use of nonmedical staff for patient education at dialysis centers has a limited but positive effect on patient satisfaction and hospitalization.

Delivery of preventive services to older adults by primary care physicians.

CONTEXT: Rates of preventive services remain below national goals. OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics of physicians and their practices that are associated with the quality of preventive care their patients receive. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of data on US physician respondents to the 2000-2001 Community Tracking Study Physician Survey linked to claims data on Medicare beneficiaries they treated in 2001. Physician variables included training and qualifications and sex. Practice setting variables included practice type, size, sources of revenue, and access to information technology. Analyses were adjusted for patient demographics and comorbidity, as well as community characteristics. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Primary care delivered by 3660 physicians providing usual care to 24 581 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of eligible beneficiaries receiving each of 6 preventive services: diabetic monitoring with hemoglobin A(1c) measurement or eye examinations, screening for colon or breast cancer, and vaccination for influenza or pneumococcus in 2001. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of beneficiaries receiving services was below national goals. Physician and, more consistently, practice-level characteristics were both associated with differences in the delivery of services. The strongest associations were with practice type and the percentage of practice revenue derived from Medicaid. For instance, beneficiaries receiving usual care in practices with less than 6% of revenue from Medicaid were more likely than those with more than 15% of revenue derived from Medicaid to receive diabetic eye examinations (48.9% vs 43%; P = .02), hemoglobin A1c monitoring (61.2% vs 48.4%; P<.001), mammograms (52.1% vs 38.9%; P<.001), colon cancer screening (10.0% vs 8.5%; P = .60), and influenza (50.2% vs 39.2%; P<.001) and pneumococcal (8.2% vs 6.4%; P<.001) vaccinations. Other variables associated with delivery of preventive services after adjustment for patient and geographic factors included obtaining usual health care from a physician who worked in group practices of 3 or more, who was a graduate of a US or Canadian medical school, or who reported availability of information technology to generate preventive care reminders or access treatment guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of routine preventive services is suboptimal for Medicare beneficiaries. However, patients treated within particular practice settings and by particular subgroups of physicians are at particular risk of low-quality care. Profiling these practices may help develop tailored interventions that can be directed to sites where the opportunities for quality improvement are greatest.