Group Antenatal Care: A Paradigm Shift to Explore for Positive Impacts in Resource-poor Settings.

The delivery of high-quality antenatal care is a perennial global concern for improving maternal and neonatal outcomes. Antenatal care is currently provided mainly on a one-to-one basis, but growing evidence has emerged to support the effectiveness of group antenatal care. Providing care in a small group gives expectant mothers the opportunity to have discussions with their peers about certain issues and concerns that are unique to them and to form a support system that will improve the quality and utilization of antenatal care services. The aim of this article is to promote group antenatal care as a means to increase utilization of healthcare.

Organizational integration, practice capabilities, and outcomes in clinically complex medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between clinical integration and financial integration, quality-focused care delivery processes, and beneficiary utilization and outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Multiphysician practices in the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (response rate 47%) and 2017 Medicare claims data. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries attributed to physician practices, focusing on two domains of integration: clinical (coordination of patient services, use of protocols, individual clinician measures, access to information) and financial (financial management and planning across operating units). We examined the association between integration domains, the adoption of quality-focused care delivery processes, beneficiary utilization and health-related outcomes, and price-adjusted spending using linear regression adjusting for practice and beneficiary characteristics, weighting to account for sampling and nonresponse. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: 1 604 580 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 or older attributed to 2113 practices. Of these, 414 209 beneficiaries were considered clinically complex (frailty or 2 + chronic conditions). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Financial integration and clinical integration were weakly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.19). Clinical integration was associated with significantly greater adoption of quality-focused care delivery processes, while financial integration was associated with lower adoption of these processes. Integration was not generally associated with reduced utilization or better beneficiary-level health-related outcomes, but both clinical integration and financial integration were associated with lower spending in both the complex and noncomplex cohorts: (clinical complex cohort: -$2518, [95% CI: -3324, -1712]; clinical noncomplex cohort: -$255 [95% CI: -413, -97]; financial complex cohort: -$997 [95% CI: -$1320, -$679]; and financial noncomplex cohort: -$143 [95% CI: -210, -$76]). CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of financial integration were not associated with improved care delivery or with better health-related beneficiary outcomes. Nonfinancial forms of integration deserve greater attention, as practices scoring high in clinical integration are more likely to adopt quality-focused care delivery processes and have greater associated reductions in spending in complex patients.

Use of Internal Performance Measurement to Guide Improvement Within Medical Groups.

BACKGROUND: Public reporting of provider performance currently encompasses a range of measures of quality, cost, and patient experience of care. However, little is known about how medical groups use measures for performance improvement. This information could help medical groups undertake internal measurement while helping payers, policy makers, and measurement experts develop more useful publicly reported measures and quality improvement strategies. METHODS: An exploratory, qualitative study was conducted of ambulatory care medical groups across the United States that currently gather their own performance data. RESULTS: Eighty-three interviews were conducted with 91 individuals representing 37 medical groups. Findings were distilled into three major themes: (1) measures used internally, (2) strategies for using internal measurement for performance improvement, and (3) other uses of internal measurement. Medical groups used both clinical and business process measures, including measures from external measure sets and internally derived measures. Strategies for using internal measurement for quality improvement included taking a gradual, iterative approach and setting clear goals with high priority, finding workable approaches to data sharing, and fostering engagement by focusing on actionable measures. Measurement was also used to check accuracy of external performance reports, clarify and manage conflicting external measurement requirements, and prepare for anticipated external measurement requirements. Respondents in most groups did not report a need to assess costs of internal measurement or the capacity to do so. CONCLUSION: Despite challenges and barriers, respondents found great value in conducting internal measurement. Their experiences may provide valuable lessons and knowledge for medical group leaders in earlier stages of establishing internal measurement programs.

Critical Lessons From High-Value Oncology Practices.

IMPORTANCE: Cancer care is expensive. Cancer care provided by practice organizations varies in total spending incurred by patients and payers during treatment episodes and in quality of care, and this unnecessary variation contributes to the high cost. OBJECTIVE: To use the variation in total spending and quality of care to assess oncology practice attributes distinguishing "high value" that may be tested and adopted by others to produce similar results. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: "Positive deviance" was used in this exploratory mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) analysis of interview results. To quantify value, oncology practices located near the US Pacific Northwest and Midwest with low mean insurer-allowed spending were identified. Among those, practices with high quality were selected. A team then conducted site visits to interview practice personnel from June 2, 2015, through October 3, 2015, and to probe for attributes of high-value care. A qualitative analysis of their interview results was performed, and a panel of experienced oncologists was convened to review attributes occurring uniquely or frequently in low-spending practices for their contribution to value improvement and ease of implementation. Four positive deviant (ie, low-spending) oncology practices and 3 oncology practices that ranked near the middle of the spending distribution were studied. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Thematic saturation in a qualitative analysis of high-value care attributes. RESULTS: From the 7 oncology practices studied, 13 attributes within the following 5 themes emerged: treatment planning and goal setting, services supporting the patient journey, technical support and physical layout, care team organization and function, and external context. Five attributes (ie, conservative use of imaging, early discussion of treatment limitations and consequences, single point of contact, maximal use of registered nurses for interventions, and a multicomponent health care system) most sharply distinguished the high-value practice sites. The expert oncologist panel judged 3 attributes (ie, early and normalized palliative care, ambulatory rapid response, and early discussion of treatment limitations and consequences) to carry the highest immediate potential for lowering spending without compromising the quality of care. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Oncology practice attributes warranting further testing were identified that may lower total spending for high-quality oncology care.

Large Independent Primary Care Medical Groups.

PURPOSE: In the turbulent US health care environment, many primary care physicians seek hospital employment. Large physician-owned primary care groups are an alternative, but few physicians or policy makers realize that such groups exist. We wanted to describe these groups, their advantages, and their challenges. METHODS: We identified 21 groups and studied 5 that varied in size and location. We conducted interviews with group leaders, surveyed randomly selected group physicians, and interviewed external observers-leaders of a health plan, hospital, and specialty medical group that shared patients with the group. We triangulated responses from group leaders, group physicians, and external observers to identify key themes. RESULTS: The groups' physicians work in small practices, with the group providing economies of scale necessary to develop laboratory and imaging services, health information technology, and quality improvement infrastructure. The groups differ in their size and the extent to which they engage in value-based contracting, though all are moving to increase the amount of financial risk they take for their quality and cost performance. Unlike hospital-employed and multispecialty groups, independent primary care groups can aim to reduce health care costs without conflicting incentives to fill hospital beds and keep specialist incomes high. Each group was positively regarded by external observers. The groups are under pressure, however, to sell to organizations that can provide capital for additional infrastructure to engage in value-based contracting, as well as provide substantial income to physicians from the sale. CONCLUSIONS: Large, independent primary care groups have the potential to make primary care attractive to physicians and to improve patient care by combining human scale advantages of physician autonomy and the small practice setting with resources that are important to succeed in value-based contracting.

Group Prenatal Care: A Financial Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple studies have demonstrated improved perinatal outcomes for group prenatal care (GPC) when compared to traditional prenatal care. Benefits of GPC include lower rates of prematurity and low birth weight, fewer cesarean deliveries, improved breastfeeding outcomes and improved maternal satisfaction with care. However, the outpatient financial costs of running a GPC program are not well established. METHODS: This study involved the creation of a financial model that forecasted costs and revenues for prenatal care groups with various numbers of participants based on numerous variables, including patient population, payor mix, patient show rates, staffing mix, supply usage and overhead costs. The model was developed for use in an urban underserved practice. RESULTS: Adjusted revenue per pregnancy in this model was found to be $989.93 for traditional care and $1080.69 for GPC. Cost neutrality for GPC was achieved when each group enrolled an average of 10.652 women with an enriched staffing model or 4.801 women when groups were staffed by a single nurse and single clinician. CONCLUSIONS: Mathematical cost-benefit modeling in an urban underserved practice demonstrated that GPC can be not only financially sustainable but possibly a net income generator for the outpatient clinic. Use of this model could offer maternity care practices an important tool for demonstrating the financial practicality of GPC.

The role of medical group practice administrators in the adoption and implementation of Medicare's physician quality reporting system.

BACKGROUND: Although there are numerous studies of the factors influencing the adoption of quality assurance (QA) programs by medical group practices, few have focused on the role of group practice administrators. PURPOSE: To gain insights into the role these administrators play in QA programs, we analyzed how medical practices adopted and implemented the Medicare Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), the largest physician quality reporting system in the United States. METHODOLOGY: We conducted focus group interviews in 2011 with a national convenience sample of 76 medical group practice administrators. Responses were organized and analyzed using the innovation decision framework of Van de Ven and colleagues. FINDINGS: Administrators conducted due diligence on PQRS, influenced how the issue was presented to physicians for adoption, and managed implementation thereafter. Administrators' recommendations were heavily influenced by practice characteristics, financial incentives, and practice commitments to early adoption of quality improvement innovations. Virtually, all who attempted it agreed that PQRS was straightforward to implement. However, the complexities of Medicare's PQRS reports impeded use of the data by administrators to support quality management. DISCUSSION: Group practice administrators are playing a prominent role in activities related to the quality of patient care--they are not limited to the business side of the practice. Especially, as PQRS becomes more nearly universal after 2014, Medicare should take account of the role that administrators play, by more actively engaging administrators in shaping these programs and making it easier for administrators to use the results. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: More research is needed on the rapidly evolving role of nonphysician administration in medical group practices. Practice administrators have a larger role than commonly understood in how quality reporting initiatives are adopted and used and are in an exceptional position to influence the more appropriate use of these resources if supported by more useful forms of quality reporting.

Evaluation of a policy to strengthen case management and quality of diabetes care in general practice in Denmark.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utilization of a policy for strengthening general practitioner's case management and quality of care of diabetes patients in Denmark incentivized by a novel payment mode. We also want to elucidate any geographical variation or variation on the basis of practice features such as solo- or group practice, size of practice and age of the GP. METHODS: On the basis registers encompassing reimbursement data from GPs and practice specific information about geographical location (region), type of practice (solo- or group-practice), size of practice (number of patients listed) and age of the GP were are able to determine differences in use of the policy in relation to the practice-specific information. RESULTS: At the end of the study period (2007-2012) approximately 30% of practices have enrolled extending services to approximately 10% of the diabetes population. There is regional--as well as organizational differences between GPs who have enrolled and the national averages with enrolees being younger, from larger practices and with more patients listed. CONCLUSIONS: Our study documents an organizationally and regionally varied and limited utilization with the overall incentive structure defined in the policy not strong enough to move the majority of GPs to change their way of delivering and financing care for patients with diabetes within a period of more than 5 years.

The PGP demonstrations: were they sufficient to justify accountable care organizations?

The Physician Group Practice (PGP) Demonstration Project was designed to try to establish whether high-quality healthcare can be delivered to Medicare patients, while simultaneously lowering overall Medicare costs. In this project, participating healthcare organizations were provided a portion of any savings achieved, provided that certain quality goals were also achieved. The results of this project were used to provide evidence as to the feasibility of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), a healthcare delivery approach, which is rapidly becoming more prevalent. While the quality measures achieved by the vast majority of participants in the PGP Demonstration Project were widespread, the financial performance of these organizations was quite mixed. Many participating organizations received no shared savings whatsoever, while one received more "shared savings" payment that the others combined. Problems with the evidence supporting PGPs' cost savings are discussed, and, based on these concerns, the future success of ACOs is questioned.

Case studies in clinical transformation.

Keys to success in undertaking clinical transformation initiatives include: Payer alignment. Robust technology (e.g., tools that can migrate patient data into disease registries). Commitment to making the investments and process changes needed to support population health management. Partnerships with local employers. Small steps toward greater value.

Michigan's Physician Group Incentive Program offers a regional model for incremental 'fee for value' payment reform.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan partnered with providers across the state to create an innovative, "fee for value" physician incentive program that would deliver high-quality, efficient care. The Physician Group Incentive Program rewards physician organizations-formal groups of physicians and practices that can accept incentive payments on behalf of their members-based on the number of quality and utilization measures they adopt, such as generic drug dispensing rates, and on their performance on these measures across their patient populations. Physicians also receive payments for implementing a range of patient-centered medical home capabilities, such as patient registries, and they receive higher fees for office visits for incorporating these capabilities into routine practice while also improving performance. Taken together, the incentive dollars, fee increases, and care management payments amount to a potential increase in reimbursement of 40 percent or more from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for practices designated as high-performing patient-centered medical homes. At the same time, we estimate that implementing the patient-centered medical home capabilities was associated with $155 million in lower medical costs in program year 2011 for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan members. We intend to devote a higher percentage of reimbursement over time to communities of caregivers that offer high-value, system-based care, and a lower percentage of reimbursement to individual physicians on a service-specific basis.

Use of quality indicators in patient care: a senior primary care physician trying to take good care of his patients.

Dr A is a senior primary care physician who recently moved from a small private practice to a larger group-model practice. He believes he was able to provide higher-quality and more individualized care for his patients in his small practice. As Dr A has discovered, quality measurement and improvement activities in primary care have evolved from a focus on an individual patient in an examination room to a systems approach that incorporates population management. Although many frustrations remain with physicians' ability to measure and influence the quality of care received by populations of patients, quality measures and monitoring have improved and should continue to improve. However, the perspective of patients and experienced physicians like Dr A also should be incorporated into quality measurement and management systems. Dr A clearly has the welfare of his patients at heart, and his experience and perspective could help improve his organization's systems of care and identify resources to deliver the best care.

Variations in patients' assessment of chronic illness care across organizational models of primary health care: a multilevel cohort analysis.

PURPOSE: To measure patients' assessment of chronic illness care and its variation across primary healthcare (PHC) models. METHODS: We recruited 776 patients with diabetes, heart failure, arthritis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from 33 PHC clinics. Face-to-face interviews, followed by a telephone interview at 12 months, were conducted using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). Multilevel regression was used in the analysis. RESULTS: The mean PACIC score was low at 2.5 on a scale of 1 to 5. PACIC scores were highest among patients affiliated with family medicine groups (mean, 2.78) and lowest for contact models (mean, 2.35). Patients with arthritis and older persons generally reported a lower assessment of chronic care. CONCLUSION: Family medicine groups represent an integrated model of PHC associated with higher levels of achievement in chronic care. Variations across PHC organizations suggest that some models are more appropriate for improving management of chronic illness.