Association Between Individual Primary Care Physician Merit-based Incentive Payment System Score and Measures of Process and Patient Outcomes.

Importance: The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) influences reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of US physicians, but little is known about whether program performance accurately captures the quality of care they provide. Objective: To examine whether primary care physicians' MIPS scores are associated with performance on process and outcome measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of 80 246 US primary care physicians participating in the MIPS program in 2019. Exposures: MIPS score. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association between physician MIPS scores and performance on 5 unadjusted process measures, 6 adjusted outcome measures, and a composite outcome measure. Results: The study population included 3.4 million patients attributed to 80 246 primary care physicians, including 4773 physicians with low MIPS scores (≤30), 6151 physicians with medium MIPS scores (>30-75), and 69 322 physicians with high MIPS scores (>75). Compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly worse mean performance on 3 of 5 process measures: diabetic eye examinations (56.1% vs 63.2%; difference, -7.1 percentage points [95% CI, -8.0 to -6.2]; P < .001), diabetic HbA1c screening (84.6% vs 89.4%; difference, -4.8 percentage points [95% CI, -5.4 to -4.2]; P < .001), and mammography screening (58.2% vs 70.4%; difference, -12.2 percentage points [95% CI, -13.1 to -11.4]; P < .001) but significantly better mean performance on rates of influenza vaccination (78.0% vs 76.8%; difference, 1.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.0 to 2.5]; P = .045] and tobacco screening (95.0% vs 94.1%; difference, 0.9 percentage points [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]; P = .001). MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with risk-adjusted patient outcomes: compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly better mean performance on 1 outcome (307.6 vs 316.4 emergency department visits per 1000 patients; difference, -8.9 [95% CI, -13.7 to -4.1]; P < .001), worse performance on 1 outcome (255.4 vs 225.2 all-cause hospitalizations per 1000 patients; difference, 30.2 [95% CI, 24.8 to 35.7]; P < .001), and did not have significantly different performance on 4 ambulatory care-sensitive admission outcomes. Nineteen percent of physicians with low MIPS scores had composite outcomes performance in the top quintile, while 21% of physicians with high MIPS scores had outcomes in the bottom quintile. Physicians with low MIPS scores but superior outcomes cared for more medically complex and socially vulnerable patients, compared with physicians with low MIPS scores and poor outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among US primary care physicians in 2019, MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with performance on process and outcome measures. These findings suggest that the MIPS program may be ineffective at measuring and incentivizing quality improvement among US physicians.

Using Consistently Low Performance to Identify Low-Quality Physician Groups.

Importance: There has been a growth in the use of performance-based payment models in the past decade, but inherently noisy and stochastic quality measures complicate the assessment of the quality of physician groups. Examining consistently low performance across multiple measures or multiple years could potentially identify a subset of low-quality physician groups. Objective: To identify low-performing physician groups based on consistently low performance after adjusting for patient characteristics across multiple measures or multiple years for 10 commonly used quality measures for diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used medical and pharmacy claims and laboratory data for enrollees ages 18 to 65 years with diabetes or CVD in an Aetna health insurance plan between 2016 and 2019. Each physician group's risk-adjusted performance for a given year was estimated using mixed-effects linear probability regression models. Performance was correlated across measures and time, and the proportion of physician groups that performed in the bottom quartile was examined across multiple measures or multiple years. Data analysis was conducted between September 2020 and May 2021. Exposures: Primary care physician groups. Main Outcomes and Measures: Performance scores of 6 quality measures for diabetes and 4 for CVD, including hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing, low-density lipoprotein testing, statin use, HbA1c control, low-density lipoprotein control, and hospital-based utilization. Results: A total of 786 641 unique enrollees treated by 890 physician groups were included; 414 655 (52.7%) of the enrollees were men and the mean (SD) age was 53 (9.5) years. After adjusting for age, sex, and clinical and social risk variables, correlations among individual measures were weak (eg, performance-adjusted correlation between any statin use and LDL testing for patients with diabetes, r = -0.10) to moderate (correlation between LDL testing for diabetes and LDL testing for CVD, r = .43), but year-to-year correlations for all measures were moderate to strong. One percent or fewer of physician groups performed in the bottom quartile for all 6 diabetes measures or all 4 cardiovascular disease measures in any given year, while 14 (4.0%) to 39 groups (11.1%) were in the bottom quartile in all 4 years for any given measure other than hospital-based utilization for CVD (1.1%). Conclusions and Relevance: A subset of physician groups that was consistently low performing could be identified by considering performance measures across multiple years. Considering the consistency of group performance could contribute a novel method to identify physician groups most likely to benefit from limited resources.

Payment Discrepancies and Access to Primary Care Physicians for Dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Physicians often receive lower payments for dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries versus nondual Medicare beneficiaries because of state reimbursement caps. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) primary care fee bump temporarily eliminated this differential in 2013-2014. OBJECTIVE: To examine how dual payment policy impacts primary care physicians' (PCP) acceptance of duals. RESEARCH DESIGN: We assessed differences in the likelihood that PCPs had dual caseloads of ≥10% or 20% in states with lower versus full dual reimbursement using linear probability models adjusted for physician and area-level traits. Using a triple-difference approach, we examined changes in dual caseloads for PCPs versus a control group of specialists in states with fee bumps versus no change during years postbump versus prebump. SUBJECTS: PCPs and specialists (cardiologists, orthopedic surgeons, general surgeons) that billed fee-for-service Medicare. MEASURES: State dual payment policies and physicians' dual caseloads as a percentage of their Medicare patients. RESULTS: In 2012, 81% of PCPs had dual caseloads of ≥10% and this was less likely among PCPs in states with lower versus full dual reimbursement (eg, difference=-4.52 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -6.80 to -2.25). The proportion of PCPs with dual caseloads of ≥10% or 20% decreased significantly between 2012 and 2017 and the fee bump was not consistently associated with increases in dual caseloads. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-ACA, PCPs' participation in the dual program appeared to be lower in states with lower reimbursement for duals. Despite the ACA fee bump, dual caseloads declined over time, raising concerns of worsening access to care.

Payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Changes to the method of payment for healthcare providers, including pay-for-performance schemes, are increasingly being used by governments, health insurers, and employers to help align financial incentives with health system goals. In this review we focused on changes to the method and level of payment for all types of healthcare providers in outpatient healthcare settings. Outpatient healthcare settings, broadly defined as 'out of hospital' care including primary care, are important for health systems in reducing the use of more expensive hospital services. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings on the quantity and quality of health service provision, patient outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes, cost of service provision, and adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase (searched 5 March 2019), and several other databases. In addition, we searched clinical trials platforms, grey literature, screened reference lists of included studies, did a cited reference search for included studies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We screened records from an updated search in August 2020, with any potentially relevant studies categorised as awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies that compared different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient care settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We conducted a structured synthesis. We first categorised the payment methods comparisons and outcomes, and then described the effects of different types of payment methods on different outcome categories. Where feasible, we used meta-analysis to synthesise the effects of payment interventions under the same category. Where it was not possible to perform meta-analysis, we have reported means/medians and full ranges of the available point estimates. We have reported the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the relative difference (as per cent change or mean difference (MD)) for continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies in the review: 12 randomised trials, 13 controlled before-and-after studies, one interrupted time series, and one repeated measure study. Most healthcare providers were primary care physicians. Most of the payment methods were implemented by health insurance schemes in high-income countries, with only one study from a low- or middle-income country. The included studies were categorised into four groups based on comparisons of different payment methods. (1) Pay for performance (P4P) plus existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings P4P incentives probably improve child immunisation status (RR 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.36; 3760 patients; moderate-certainty evidence) and may slightly increase the number of patients who are asked more detailed questions on their disease by their pharmacist (MD 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.54; 454 patients; low-certainty evidence). P4P may slightly improve primary care physicians' prescribing of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medicines compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.12; 362 patients; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effects of extra P4P incentives on mean blood pressure reduction for patients and costs for providing services compared with an existing payment method (very low-certainty evidence). Outcomes related to workload or other health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial found that compared to the control group, the performance of incentivised professionals was not sustained after the P4P intervention had ended. (2) Fee for service (FFS) compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings We are uncertain about the effect of FFS on the quantity of health services delivered (outpatient visits and hospitalisations), patient health outcomes, and total drugs cost compared to an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. The quality of service provision and health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial reported that physicians paid via FFS may see more well patients than salaried physicians (low-certainty evidence), possibly implying that more unnecessary services were delivered through FFS. (3) FFS mixed with existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings FFS mixed payment method may increase the quantity of health services provided compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of FFS mixed payment on quality of services provided, patient health outcomes, and health professional outcomes compared with an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. Cost outcomes and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies. (4) Enhanced FFS compared with FFS for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings Enhanced FFS (higher FFS payment) probably increases child immunisation rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether higher FFS payment results in more primary care visits and about the effect of enhanced FFS on the net expenditure per year on covered children with regular FFS (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of service provision, patient outcomes, health professional outcomes, and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings, P4P or an increase in FFS payment level probably increases the quantity of health service provision (moderate-certainty evidence), and P4P may slightly improve the quality of service provision for targeted conditions (low-certainty evidence). The effects of changes in payment methods on health outcomes is uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. Information to explore the influence of specific payment method design features, such as the size of incentives and type of performance measures, was insufficient. Furthermore, due to limited and very low-certainty evidence, it is uncertain if changing payment models without including additional funding for professionals would have similar effects. There is a need for further well-conducted research on payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings in low- and middle-income countries; more studies comparing the impacts of different designs of the same payment method; and studies that consider the unintended consequences of payment interventions.

Trends in Total and Out-of-Pocket Expenditures for Visits to Primary Care Physicians, by Insurance Type, 2002-2017.

PURPOSE: Total and out-of-pocket visit expenditures for primary care physician visits may affect how primary care is delivered. We determined trends in these expenditures for visits to US primary care physicians. METHODS: Using the 2002-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we ascertained changes in total and out-of-pocket visit expenditures for primary care visits for Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. We calculated mean values for each insurer using a generalized linear model and a 2-part model, respectively. RESULTS: Analyses were based on 750,837 primary care visits during 2002-2017. Over time, the proportion of primary care visits associated with private insurance or no insurance decreased, while Medicare- or Medicaid-associated visits increased. The proportion of visits with $0 out-of-pocket expenditure increased, primarily from an increase in $0 private insurance visits. Total expenditure per visit increased for private insurance and Medicare visits, but did not notably change for Medicaid visits. Out-of-pocket expenditures rose primarily from increases in private insurance visits with higher expenditures of this type. Medicare and Medicaid had minimal change in out-of-pocket expenditure per visit. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2002 and 2017, mean total expenditures and out-of-pocket expenditures increased for primary care visits, but at notably lower rates than those previously documented for emergency department visits. A rise in total expenditure per visit was identified for private insurance and Medicare, but not for Medicaid. Out-of-pocket expenditures increased marginally related to changes in out-of-pocket expenditures for private insurance visits. We would expect increasing difficulty with primary care physician access, particularly for Medicaid patients, if the current trends continue.

Primary care physician practice styles and quality, cost, and productivity.

OBJECTIVES: To assess quality, cost, physician productivity, and patient experience for 2 primary care physician (PCP) practice styles: the focused, who typically address only the patient's acute problem, versus the max-packers, who typically address additional conditions also. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study using administrative data, electronic health record (EHR) data, and patient surveys. Data represent 285 PCPs (779 PCP-years) in a large, multispecialty group practice during 2011, 2012, and 2013. METHODS: PCPs were ranked each year by their number of additional conditions addressed during acute care visits. The top one-third (max-packers) addressed 25.4% more "other problems" than expected, while focused PCPs (bottom one-third) addressed 20.3% fewer than expected. Outcomes were resource use, clinical quality metrics, patient-reported experience, physician time using the EHR, and physician productivity. All measures were risk-adjusted to account for patient mix. T tests were used to compare measures. RESULTS: Relative to a focused pattern of care, max-packing was associated with 3.4% lower overall resource use, consistently better scores for the available clinical quality metrics, and comparable patient experience (except for worse wait time ratings). Patients of focused PCPs used 7.3% more specialist services, in terms of costs, than patients of max-packers ($1218 vs $1136; P <.001). Max-packers spent 40 minutes more per clinical day using the EHR. PCPs with less appointment availability and who used a mix of appointment slots were more likely to be max-packers. CONCLUSIONS: Max-packing behavior yields desirable outcomes at lower overall cost but involves more conventionally uncompensated PCP time. Alternatives to compensation just for face-to-face visits and using more flexible scheduling may be needed to support max-packing.

Outcomes of primary care delivery by nurse practitioners: Utilization, cost, and quality of care.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether nurse practitioner (NP)-assigned patients exhibited differences in utilization, costs, and clinical outcomes compared to medical doctor (MD)-assigned patients. DATA SOURCES: Veterans Affairs (VA) administrative data capturing characteristics, outcomes, and provider assignments of 806 434 VA patients assigned to an MD primary care provider (PCP) who left VA practice between 2010 and 2012. STUDY DESIGN: We applied a difference-in-difference approach comparing outcomes between patients reassigned to MD and NP PCPs, respectively. We examined measures of outpatient (primary care, specialty care, and mental health) and inpatient (total and ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations) utilization, costs (outpatient, inpatient and total), and clinical outcomes (control of hemoglobin A1c, LDL, and blood pressure) in the year following reassignment. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Compared to MD-assigned patients, NP-assigned patients were less likely to use primary care and specialty care services and incurred fewer total and ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations. Differences in costs, clinical outcomes, and receipt of diagnostic tests between groups were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients reassigned to NPs experienced similar outcomes and incurred less utilization at comparable cost relative to MD patients. NPs may offer a cost-effective approach to addressing anticipated shortages of primary care physicians.

Billing Codes Determine Lower Physician Income for Primary Care and Non-Procedural Specialties.

The income gap between specialists and primary care physicians and among specialists is well established, but the drivers of this difference are not well delineated. Using the Community Tracking Study (CTS) Physician Survey, we sought to isolate and compare premiums paid to physicians for specialization and the proportion of time spent on offices visit rather than procedures. We divided medical subspecialties according the proportion of Medicare billing for Evaluation and Management (E&M) codes for the specialty as a whole. We report substantial differences in income across physician specialty, and over 70 percent of the difference in income remained controlling for factors that may confound the relationship between income and specialty including gender, location and type of practice, and hours. We note a large variation in premiums for specialization: 11.3-46.8 percent above family medicine after controlling for confounders. Classifying medical subspecialties by E&M billing as procedural versus non-procedural specialties revealed clear income differences. Controlling for confounders, procedural medical specialties earned 37.5 percent more than family medicine, as compared with 15.3 percent for non-procedural medical specialties. This analysis suggests that differences in physician income and resulting incentives are a direct consequence of the payment structure itself, rather than compensation for additional years of training or a reflection of different underlying demographics.

Features of U.S. Primary Care Physicians and Their Practices Associated with Advance Care Planning Conversations.

INTRODUCTION: Primary care practices are essential settings for Advance Care Planning (ACP) conversations with patients. We hypothesized that such conversations occur more routinely in Advanced Primary Care/Patient Centered Medical Home (APCP/PCMH) Practices using practice transformation strategies. METHODS: We analyzed characteristics of physician respondents and their practices associated with ACP discussions in older and sicker patients using US data from the 2015 Commonwealth Fund International Survey of Primary Care Physicians in 10 Nations. The primary outcome was how routinely these ACP conversations are reported. We developed an index of APCP/PCMH features as a practice covariable. RESULTS: Respondents (N = 1001) were predominantly male (60%) and ≥45 years old (74%). Multivariable analyses showed that suburban practice location was associated with fewer ACP conversations; working in a practice commonly seeing patients with multiple chronic conditions or who have palliative care needs, and working in a practice from which home visits are made, were associated with more ACP conversations. Physicians compensated in part by capitation were more likely to report ACP conversations. No association was found between a single item asking if the practice was an APCP/PCMH and having ACP conversations. However, higher scores on an index of APCP/PCMH features were associated with more ACP conversations. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of US primary care physicians, the types of patients seen, practice location, and physician compensation influenced whether physicians routinely discuss ACP with patients who are older and sicker. Practices demonstrating more features of APCP/PCMH models of primary care are also associated with ACP discussions.

Accountable Care Organizations Serving Deprived Communities Are Less Likely to Share in Savings.

PURPOSE: Primary care physicians are increasingly participating in accountable care organizations (ACOs). While prior studies have identified ACO and patient characteristics associated with savings, none have examined characteristics of the communities served by ACOs. Our objective was to assess the relationship between an ACO's service area characteristics and its savings rate. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we used the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2014 Medicare Shared Savings Program ACO Provider and Beneficiary, and Public Use Files to identify ACO and beneficiary characteristics. We used the American Community Survey to measure community deprivation at the ACO service area-level by using the social deprivation index. The outcome of interest was the ACO savings rate. We conducted bivariate analyses and regressions, adjusting for ACO organization and beneficiary characteristics. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 320 ACOs participating in the Shared Savings Plan. The savings rate for ACOs serving the most deprived communities was 1.19% compared with 1.14% for those serving the least deprived. Adjusting for ACO and beneficiary characteristics, however, ACOs serving the most deprived had a savings rate that was 2.3 percentage points lower than those serving the least deprived. CONCLUSIONS: ACOs serving deprived communities generate less savings. These findings are important to primary care practices, payers, and policy makers anticipating continued ACO expansion, if population health is to be achieved equitably.

The Association Between Primary Care Physician Compensation and Patterns of Care Delivery, 2012-2015.

As health systems seek to incentivize physicians to deliver high-value care, the relationship between physician compensation and health care delivery is an important knowledge gap. To examine physician compensation nationally and its relationship with care delivery, we examined 2012-2015 cross-sectional data on ambulatory primary care physician visits from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Among 175 762 office visits with 3826 primary care physicians, 15.4% of primary care physicians reported salary-based, 4.5% productivity-based, and 12.9% "mixed" compensation, while 61.4% were practice owners. After adjustment, delivery of out-of-visit/office care was more common for practice owners and "mixed" compensation primary care physicians, while there was little association between compensation type and rates of high- or low-value care delivery. Despite early health reform efforts, the overall landscape of physician compensation has remained strongly tethered to fee-for-service. The lack of consistent association between compensation and care delivery raises questions about the potential impact of payment reform on individual physicians' behavior.

Variation Among Primary Care Physicians in 30-Day Readmissions.

Background: Whether readmission rates vary by primary care physician (PCP) is unknown, although federal policy holds PCPs accountable for reducing readmissions. Objective: To determine whether 30-day readmission rates vary by PCP. Design: Retrospective cohort study using marginal models and multilevel logistic regression with 100% of data on Texas Medicare claims from 2008 to 2015. Setting: Texas. Participants: Patients discharged alive between 1 January 2008 and 30 November 2015 who had a PCP in the prior year and whose PCP had at least 50 admissions in the study period. Measurements: Readmission within 30 days of discharge. Follow-up visits with a PCP within 7 days of discharge were also measured. Results: Between 2012 and 2015, the mean risk-standardized rate of 30-day readmissions was 12.9%. Of 4230 PCPs, 1 had a readmission rate that was significantly higher than the mean and none had a significantly lower rate. The 10th and 90th percentiles of PCP readmission rates were 12.4% and 13.4%, respectively, each only 0.5 percentage point different from the mean. The 99th percentile of PCP readmission rates was 14.0%, 1.1 percentage points higher than the mean. Detecting a 1.1-percentage point difference from the mean adjusted readmission rate would require more than 3500 admissions per PCP per year. Limitations: Only fee-for-service Medicare patients in a single state were included. The authors could not account for confounders not included in Medicare databases or classify readmissions as avoidable. Conclusion: Variation in readmission rates among PCPs is very low. Programs holding PCPs accountable for readmissions may prove ineffective. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Primary Care Physician Networks In Medicare Advantage.

Medicare Advantage (MA) plans often establish restrictive networks of covered providers. Some policy makers have raised concerns that networks may have become excessively restrictive over time, potentially interfering with patients' access to providers. Because of data limitations, little is known about the breadth of MA networks. Taking a novel approach, we used Medicare Part D claims data for 2011-15 to examine how primary care physician networks have changed over time and what demographic and plan characteristics are associated with varying levels of network breadth. Our findings indicate that the share of MA plans with broad networks increased from 80.1 percent in 2011 to 82.5 percent in 2015. Enrollment in broad-network plans grew from 54.1 percent to 64.9 percent over the same period. In an adjusted analysis, we detected no significant time trend. In addition, narrow networks were associated with urbanicity, higher income, higher physician density, and more competition among plans. Health maintenance organizations had narrower networks than did point-of-service plans, whose networks were narrower than those of preferred provider organizations.

Key factors for sustainable integration of pharmacists in team-based primary care physician practices.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) identify strategies for financial justification of pharmacists integrated into team-based primary care, (2) describe the payment models currently used for integration of pharmacists into team-based primary care, and (3) elicit key factors facilitating sustainable pharmacist-provided patient care services in the primary care setting. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis using semistructured interviews. SETTING: Nonacademic outpatient primary care physician practices throughout the United States from January to April 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Pharmacists responsible for leadership of clinical pharmacists in primary care practices whose positions are supported through nondispensing patient care services. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Current payment model, infrastructure, documentation strategies, and methods of quality assessment. RESULTS: Twelve interviews were conducted. Practices included a combination of single- and mixed-payer models in integrated and nonintegrated health systems. Various billing strategies were used, particularly in nonintegrated models, to sustain pharmacists in primary care practices utilizing both fee-for-service (FFS) and value-based incentives payments. Five main themes were elicited: (1) Pharmacists are integrated and valuable members of health care teams; (2) pharmacists are documenting in an accessible electronic health record; (3) data tracking is a facilitator for justifying and adapting practice; (4) systematized processes for pharmacist integration exist in each practice; and (5) pharmacists' responsibilities on the team have grown and evolved over time. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists' contributions to improving patients' medication-related care are the same regardless of payment model. Financially sustainable integration of pharmacists on the team involves using a combination of FFS and value-based incentive payments, consistent documentation, meaningful collection of pharmacists' contributions to improve the quality of care, and a firm understanding of the practice's needs and financial structure. These themes can be used as a guide for pharmacists as they establish themselves in an FFS environment and adapt to a future in value-based care.

Costs of pharmacotherapy of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in relation to changing Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines (2007, 2011, and 2017 updates).

INTRODUCTION Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the most common chronic noninfectious diseases. The clinical management is determined by patient assignment to the severity stage of the disease in accordance with the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines. OBJECTIVES Our aim was to determine the economic implications of changing GOLD guidelines (2007, 2011, and 2017 updates) and their impact on the direct costs of pharmacological treatment of patients diagnosed with COPD. PATIENTS AND METHODS This analysis was based on data provided by a group of 298 out of 500 randomly selected primary care physicians in Poland (response rate, 59.6%). Each primary care physician provided information on 10 consecutive patients with COPD. These data were used to simulate the economic consequences of the 2007, 2011, and 2017 GOLD guideline updates. RESULTS Regardless of the GOLD guidelines used, pharmacotherapy of patients with a very severe form of COPD was most expensive. Pharmacotherapy costs would be reduced with each subsequent guideline. In the same group of 2597 COPD patients, the average monthly cost of the first­line pharmacotherapy as well as the overall costs of pharmacotherapy (first- and second­line) per patient would be the lowest when applying the therapeutic regimen in accordance with the 2017 GOLD guidelines. CONCLUSIONS Implementation of 2011 and 2017 GOLD guidelines, as compared with the 2007 update, would result in a reduction of direct costs of COPD treatment.

Explaining primary care physicians' decision to quit patient-centered medical homes: Evidence from Quebec, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the factors explaining primary care physicians' (PCPs) decision to leave patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs). DATA SOURCES: Five-year longitudinal data on all the 906 PCPs who joined a PCMH in the Canadian province of Quebec, known there as a Family Medicine Group. STUDY DESIGN: We use fixed-effects and random-effects logit models, with a variety of regression specifications and various subsamples. In addition to these models, we examine the robustness of our results using survival analysis, one lag in the regressions and focusing on a matched sample of quitters and stayers. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We extract information from Quebec's universal health insurer billing data on all the PCPs who joined a PCMH between 2003 and 2005, supplemented by information on their elderly and chronically ill patients. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: About 17 percent of PCPs leave PCMHs within 5 years of follow-up. Physicians' demographics have little influence. However, those with more complex patients and higher revenues are less likely to leave the medical homes. These findings are robust across a variety of specifications. CONCLUSION: As expected, higher revenue favors retention. Importantly, our results suggest that PCMH may provide appropriate support to physicians dealing with complex patients.

Effects of Pay-for-Performance for Primary Care Physicians on Preventable Diabetes-Related Hospitalization Costs Among Adults in New Brunswick, Canada: A Quasiexperimental Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: In New Brunswick, Canada, 13.6% of the population 35 years of age and older is living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. To address public health and clinical challenges, pay-for-performance (P4P) for family physicians was introduced in 2010 to enable comprehensive diabetes management. This study assesses the impacts of the P4P scheme on excess health-care costs. METHODS: We used a quasiexperimental study design drawing on linked population-based administrative data sets of physician billings, hospital discharge abstracts and provider and resident registrations. Prospective cohorts of patients with diabetes were identified through a validated algorithm tracing individuals' interactions with the health-care system. We applied propensity-score difference-in-differences estimation for the effects of P4P on preventable diabetes-related hospitalization costs according to patients' exposures to physicians' uptake of the incentive. RESULTS: Coverage of incentivized care peaked at less than half (44%) of adults with diabetes, who tended to be younger and less often presenting comorbid conditions compared to those whose providers did not claim incentives. The introduction of P4P was attributed to significantly lower diabetes hospitalization costs among newly diagnosed patients (-0.083; p<0.01) and improved compensation for physicians. No cost avoidance was established among medium-term and longer-term patients or for hospitalizations for conditions concordant with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of New Brunswick's P4P for diabetes care are mixed. Results reflect the deficient evidence base on the effects of P4P on patient-oriented and policymaker-important health outcomes. The high risk for multiple morbidities among patients with diabetes and the heterogeneity of physician responses to performance incentives may be hindering the effectiveness of P4P in improving diabetes outcomes.

Medication adherence, costs, and ER visits of nurse practitioner and primary care physician patients: Evidence from three cohorts of Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: To compare medication adherence, cost, and utilization in Medicare beneficiaries attributed to nurse practitioners (NP) and primary care physicians (PCP). DATA: Medicare Part A, B, and D claims and beneficiary summary file data, years 2009-2013. STUDY DESIGN: We used propensity score-weighted analyses combined with logistic regression and generalized estimating equations to test differences in good medication adherence (proportion of days covered (PDC >0.8); office-based and specialty care costs; and ER visits. DATA EXTRACTION: Beneficiaries with prescription claims for anti-diabetics, renin-angiotensin system antagonists (RASA), or statins. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: There were no differences in good medication adherence (PDC >0.8) between NP and PCP attributed beneficiaries taking anti-diabetics or RASA. Beneficiaries taking statins had a slightly higher probability of good adherence when attributed to PCPs (74.6% vs 75.5%; P < 0.05). NP attributed beneficiaries had lower office-based and specialty care costs and were less likely to experience an ER visit across all three medication cohorts (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Examining the impact of NP and PCP provided care on outcomes beyond the primary care setting is important to the Medicare program in general but will also help practices seeking to meet benchmarks under alternative payment models that incentivize higher quality and lower costs.