Veterans' Experiences With Outpatient Care: Comparing The Veterans Affairs System With Community-Based Care.

Timely access to outpatient care was a primary driver behind the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA's) increased purchase of community-based care under the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, known as the Choice Act. To compare veterans' experiences in VA-delivered and community-based outpatient care after implementation of the act, we assessed veterans' scores on four dimensions of experience-access, communication, coordination, and provider rating-for outpatient specialty, primary, and mental health care received during 2016-17. Patient experiences were better for VA than for community care in all respects except access. For specialty care, access scores were better in the community; for primary and mental health care, access scores were similar in the two settings. Although all specialty care scores and the primary care coordination score improved over time, the gaps between settings did not shrink. As purchased care further expands under the VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act of 2018, which replaced the Choice Act in 2019, monitoring of meaningful differences between settings should continue, with the results used to inform both VA purchasing decisions and patients' care choices.

Recommendations for the Evaluation of Cross-System Care Coordination from the VA State-of-the-art Working Group on VA/Non-VA Care.

In response to widespread concerns regarding Veterans' access to VA care, Congress enacted the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014, which required VA to establish the Veterans Choice Program (VCP). Since the inception of VCP, more than two million Veterans have received care from community providers, representing approximately 25% of Veterans enrolled in VA care. However, expanded access to non-VA care has created challenges in care coordination between VA and community health systems. In March 2018, the VA Health Services Research & Development Service hosted a VA State of the Art conference (SOTA) focused on care coordination. The SOTA convened VA researchers, program directors, clinicians, and policy makers to identify knowledge gaps regarding care coordination within the VA and between VA and community systems of care. This article provides a summary and synthesis of relevant literature and provides recommendations generated from the SOTA about how to evaluate cross-system care coordination. Care coordination is typically evaluated using health outcomes including hospital readmissions and death; however, in cross-system evaluations of care coordination, measures such as access, cost, Veteran/patient and provider satisfaction (including with cross-system communication), comparable quality metrics, context (urban vs. rural), and patient complexity (medical and mental health conditions) need to be included to fully evaluate care coordination effectiveness. Future research should examine the role of multiple individuals coordinating VA and non-VA care, and how these coordinators work together to optimize coordination.

Measuring patient-centered medical home access and continuity in clinics with part-time clinicians.

OBJECTIVES: Common patient-centered medical home (PCMH) performance measures value access to a single primary care provider (PCP), which may have unintended consequences for clinics that rely on part-time PCPs and team-based care. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 110,454 primary care visits from 2 Veterans Health Administration clinics from 2010 to 2012. Multi-level models examined associations between PCP availability in clinic, and performance on access and continuity measures. Patient experiences with access and continuity were compared using 2012 patient survey data (N = 2881). RESULTS: Patients of PCPs with fewer half-day clinic sessions per week were significantly less likely to get a requested same-day appointment with their usual PCP (predicted probability 17% for PCPs with 2 sessions/week, 20% for 5 sessions/week, and 26% for 10 sessions/week). Among requests that did not result in a same-day appointment with the usual PCP, there were no significant differences in same-day access to a different PCP, or access within 2 to 7 days with patients' usual PCP. Overall, patients had >92% continuity with their usual PCP at the hospital-based site regardless of PCP sessions/week. Patients of full-time PCPs reported timely appointments for urgent needs more often than patients of part-time PCPs (82% vs 71%; P < .01), but reported similar experiences with routine access and continuity. CONCLUSIONS: Part-time PCP performance appeared worse when using measures focused on same-day access to patients' usual PCP. However, clinic-level same-day access, same-week access to the usual PCP, and overall continuity were similar for patients of part-time and full-time PCPs. Measures of in-person access to a usual PCP do not capture alternate access approaches encouraged by PCMH, and often used by part-time providers, such as team-based or non-face-to-face care.