"What We're Doing Now Is More Than Water Cooler": Perspectives of Primary Care Leaders on Leading Through (and Beyond) COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 presented numerous challenges to primary care, but little formal research has explored the experience of practice leaders and their strategies for managing teams as the crisis unfolded. OBJECTIVE: Describe the experience of leaders in US primary care delivery organizations, and their strategies for leading teams during COVID-19 and beyond. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews performed between 9/15/2020 and 8/31/2021. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sample of 17 clinical leaders in a range of US primary care organizations. APPROACH: An iterative grounded review of interview transcripts was performed, followed by immersion/crystallization analysis. KEY RESULTS: Early in the pandemic, practice leaders reported facing rapid change and the need for constant decision-making, amidst an environment of stress, fear, and uncertainty, but this was buffered by a strong sense of purpose. Later, leaders noted the emergence of layered crises, and evolving challenges including fatigue, burnout, and strained relationships within their organizations and with the communities they serve. Leaders described four interrelated strategies for supporting their teams: (1) Being intentionally present, physically and emotionally; (2) Frequent and transparent communication; (3) Deepening and broadening relationships; (4) Increasing adaptive decision-making, alternating between formal hierarchical and flexible participatory processes. These strategies were influenced by individual leaders' perceived autonomy, which was impacted by the leader's specific role, and organizational size, complexity, and funding model. CONCLUSIONS: As the burnout and workforce crises have accelerated, the identified strategies can be useful to leaders to support teams and build organizational resilience in primary care moving forward.

Early Impact of VA MISSION Act Implementation on Primary Care Appointment Wait Time.

BACKGROUND: Through Community Care Networks (CCNs) implemented with the VA MISSION Act, VA expanded provider contracting and instituted network adequacy standards for Veterans' community care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether early CCN implementation impacted community primary care (PC) appointment wait times overall, and by rural/urban and PC shortage area (HPSA) status. DESIGN: Using VA administrative data from February 2019 through February 2020 and a difference-in-differences approach, we compared wait times before and after CCN implementation for appointments scheduled by VA facilities that did (CCN appointments) and did not (comparison appointments) implement CCNs. We ran regression models with all appointments, and stratified by rural/urban and PC HPSA status. All models adjusted for Veteran characteristics and VA facility-level clustering. APPOINTMENTS: 13,720 CCN and 40,638 comparison appointments. MAIN MEASURES: Wait time, measured as number of days from authorization to use community PC to a Veteran's first corresponding appointment. KEY RESULTS: Overall, unadjusted wait times increased by 35.7 days ([34.4, 37.1] 95% CI) after CCN implementation. In adjusted analysis, comparison wait times increased on average 33.7 days ([26.3, 41.2] 95% CI, p < 0.001) after CCN implementation; there was no significant difference for CCN wait times (across-group mean difference: 5.4 days, [-3.8, 14.6] 95% CI, p = 0.25). In stratified analyses, comparison wait time increases ranged from 29.6 days ([20.8, 38.4] 95% CI, p < 0.001) to 42.1 days ([32.9, 51.3] 95% CI, p > 0.001) after CCN implementation, while additional differences for CCN appointments ranged from 13.4 days ([3.5, 23.4] 95% CI, p = 0.008) to -15.1 days ([-30.1, -0.1] 95% CI, p = 0.05) for urban and PC HPSA appointments, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: After early CCN implementation, community PC wait times increased sharply at VA facilities that did and did not implement CCNs, regardless of rural/urban or PC HPSA status, suggesting community care demand likely overwhelmed VA resources such that CCNs had limited impact.

Hospital Readmissions Among Veterans Within 90 Days of Discharge Following Initial Hospitalization for COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Some patients experience ongoing sequelae after discharge, including rehospitalization; therefore, outcomes following COVID-19 hospitalization are of continued interest. We examined readmissions within 90 days of hospital discharge for veterans hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first 10 months of the pandemic in the US. METHODS: Veterans hospitalized with COVID-19 at a Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospital from March 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020 were followed for 90 days after discharge to determine readmission rates. RESULTS: Of 20,414 veterans hospitalized with COVID-19 during this time period, 13% (n = 2,643) died in the hospital. Among survivors (n = 17,771), 16% (n = 2,764) were readmitted within 90 days of discharge, with a mean time to readmission of 21.6 days (SD = 21.1). Characteristics of the initial COVID-19 hospitalization associated with readmission included length of stay, mechanical ventilator use, higher comorbidity index score, current smoking, urban residence, discharged against medical advice, and hospitalized from September through December 2020 versus March through August 2020 (all P values <.02). Veterans readmitted from September through December 2020 were more often White, lived in a rural or highly rural area, and had shorter initial hospitalizations than veterans hospitalized earlier in the year. CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 of 6 veterans discharged alive following a COVID-19 hospitalization from March 1 through December 31, 2020, were readmitted within 90 days. The longer the hospital stay, the greater the likelihood of readmission. Readmissions also were more likely when the initial admission required mechanical ventilation, or when the veteran had multiple comorbidities, smoked, or lived in an urban area. COVID-19 hospitalizations were shorter from September through December 2020, suggesting that hospital over-capacity may have resulted in earlier discharges and increased readmissions. Efforts to monitor and provide support for patients discharged in high bed-capacity situations may help avoid readmissions.

Balancing the benefits of patient-clinician relationships with professional boundaries in Home-based Primary Care.

In the home care setting, boundaries may be difficult to identify when behavioral changes are made to accommodate the nature of care being delivered. In this secondary qualitative study, we examined how Home-based Primary Care (HBPC) clinicians understand role and relationship boundaries with patients and how these dynamics support patient care. The data set consisted of 14 semi-structured interviews with HBPC clinicians representing multiple disciplines and field observations of 6 HBPC team meetings. Using a directed approach to content analysis, we identified and described how HBPC clinicians worked to build relationships with patients, experienced challenges with emotional attachment, and negotiated boundaries in the patient-clinician relationship. Our findings illustrate how the home care setting is a site for which strong, therapeutic patient-clinician relationships can be developed while also highlighting the work that clinicians must do to balance addressing patient needs stemming from social isolation and adherence to their own professional boundaries.

"Eyes in the Home": Addressing Social Complexity in Veterans Affairs Home-Based Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Home-Based Primary Care (HBPC) has demonstrated success in decreasing risk of hospitalization and improving patient satisfaction through patient targeting and integrating long-term services and supports. Less is known about how HBPC teams approach social factors. OBJECTIVE: Describe HBPC providers' knowledge of social complexity among HBPC patients and how this knowledge impacts care delivery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Between 2018 and 2019, we conducted in-person semi-structured interviews with 14 HBPC providers representing nursing, medicine, physical therapy, pharmacy, and psychology, at an urban Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. We also conducted field observations of 6 HBPC team meetings and 2 home visits. APPROACH: We employed an exploratory, content-driven approach to qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: Four thematic categories were identified: (1) HBPC patients are socially isolated and have multiple layers of medical and social complexity that compromise their ability to use clinic-based care; (2) providers having "eyes in the home" yields essential information not accessible in outpatient clinics; (3) HBPC fills gaps in instrumental support, many of which are not medical; and (4) addressing social complexity requires a flexible care design that HBPC provides. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: HBPC providers emphasized the importance of having "eyes in the home" to observe and address the care needs of homebound Veterans who are older, socially isolated, and have functional limitations. Patient selection criteria and discharge recommendations for a resource-intensive program like VA HBPC should include considerations for the compounding effects of medical and social complexity. Additionally, staffing that provides resources for these effects should be integrated into HBPC programming.

Integrating Interprofessional Trainees into a Complex Care Program for Veterans Experiencing Homelessness: Effects on Health Services Utilization.

PURPOSE: High-quality, comprehensive care of vulnerable populations requires interprofessional ambulatory care teams skilled in addressing complex social, medical, and psychological needs. Training health professionals in interprofessional settings is crucial for building a competent future workforce. The impacts on care utilization of adding continuity trainees to ambulatory teams serving vulnerable populations have not been described. We aim to understand how the addition of interprofessional trainees to an ambulatory clinic caring for Veterans experiencing homelessness impacts medical and mental health services utilization. METHODS: Trainees from five professions were incorporated into an interprofessional ambulatory clinic for Veterans experiencing homelessness starting in July 2016. We performed clinic-level interrupted time series (ITS) analyses of pre- and post-intervention utilization measures among patients enrolled in this training continuity clinic, compared to three similar VA homeless clinics without training programs from October 2015 to September 2018. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 37,671 patient- months. There was no significant difference between the intervention and comparison groups' post-intervention slopes for numbers of primary care visits (difference in slopes =-0.16 visits/100 patients/month; 95% CI -0.40, 0.08; p=0.19), emergency department visits (difference in slopes = 0.08 visits/100 patients/month; 95% CI -0.16, 0.32; p=0.50), mental health visits (difference in slopes = -1.37 visits/month; 95% CI -2.95, 0.20; p= 0.09), and psychiatric hospitalizations (-0.005 admissions/100 patients/month; 95% CI -0.02, 0.01; p= 0.62). We found a clinically insignificant change in medical hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Adding continuity trainees from five health professions to an interprofessional ambulatory clinic caring for Veterans experiencing homelessness did not adversely impact inpatient and outpatient care utilization. An organized team-based care approach is beneficial for vulnerable patients and provides a meaningful educational experience for interprofessional trainees by building health professionals' capabilities to care for vulnerable populations.

Creating change, challenging structure: graduate and faculty perspectives on the implementation of an interprofessional education program in veterans affairs primary care.

Interprofessional clinical education programs have the potential to impact participants' professional expectations and practices related to team-based care. In this qualitative study, research team members interviewed 38 graduates and 19 faculty members from such an interprofessional training program, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Centers of Excellence in Primary Care Education (CoEPCE). Semi-structured interviews with participants enquired about skills gained, impact on career expectations, and barriers to implementing interprofessional skills in the post-training workplace. Data were coded and analyzed using a hybrid inductive/deductive approach. Participants perceived that the program was successful in creating new norms of flattened team hierarchies, broadening graduates' understanding of role interaction, and teaching interactional skills involving teamwork. Participants reported organizational and systemic barriers to changing existing primary care practice. Interprofessional clinical education programs may help new professionals recognize and act on opportunities for improvement in existing practice. Healthcare employers must recognize changed expectations and provide opportunities for interprofessional collaboration to attract graduates from such programs.

Addressing Health-Related Social Needs: Value-Based Care or Values-Based Care?

Health-related social needs, such as food insecurity, housing instability, and lack of transportation, are associated with worse health outcomes, and are increasingly the focus of health-related social needs interventions within healthcare. Adoption of health-related social needs interventions is often justified by the potential to reduce healthcare costs. However, this can present a conundrum to clinicians. Physicians are often more accustomed to justifying clinical innovation based on improvements in health, in accord with the fundamental values of the medical profession, which include using our knowledge, skills, and the resources at our disposal to improve both individual and public health. In cases where health-related social needs interventions improve health but are not cost-saving, these two types of justifications can conflict. We provide a framework for considering these issues, and an agenda for scholarly work on this topic. Ultimately, if promoting patient and public health are key values for our profession, then understanding when to emphasize values-based care, rather than simply value-based care, is crucial to fulfilling our professional duty.

Interdisciplinary Team Perspectives on Mental Health Care in VA Home-Based Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: This qualitative study describes the structure and processes of providing care to U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Home-Based Primary Care (HBPC) enrollees with mental health care needs; explains the role of the HBPC psychologist; and describes how mental health treatment is integrated into care from the perspective of HBPC team members. DESIGN: HBPC programs were selected for in-person site visits based on initial surveys and low hospitalization rates. SETTING: Programs varied in setting, geographic locations, and primary care model. PARTICIPANTS: Eight site visits were completed. During visits, key informants including HBPC program directors, medical directors, team members, and other key staff involved with the HBPC program participated in semi-structured individual and group interviews. MEASUREMENTS: Recorded interviews, focus groups, and field observation notes. RESULTS: Qualitative thematic content analysis revealed four themes: 1) HBPC Veterans have not only complex physical needs but also co-occurring mental health needs; 2) the multi-faceted role of psychologists on HBPC teams, that includes providing care for Veterans and support for colleagues; 3) collaboration between medical and mental health providers as a means of caring for HBPC Veterans with mental health needs; and 4) gaps in providing mental health care on HBPC teams, primarily related to a lack of team psychiatrists and/or need for specialized medication management for psychiatric illness. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health providers are essential to HBPC teams. Given the significant mental health care needs of HBPC enrollees and the roles of HBPC mental health providers, HBPC teams should integrate both psychologists and consulting psychiatrists.

Primary Care Tasks Associated with Provider Burnout: Findings from a Veterans Health Administration Survey.

BACKGROUND: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is a primary care delivery model predicated on shared responsibility for patient care among members of an interprofessional team. Effective task sharing may reduce burnout among primary care providers (PCPs). However, little is known about the extent to which PCPs share these responsibilities, and which, if any, of the primary care tasks performed independently by the PCPs (vs. shared with the team) are particularly associated with PCP burnout. A better understanding of the relationship between these tasks and their effects on PCP burnout may help guide focused efforts aimed at reducing burnout. OBJECTIVE: To investigate (1) the extent to which PCPs share responsibility for 14 discrete primary care tasks with other team members, and (2) which, if any, of the primary care tasks performed by the PCPs (without reliance on team members) are associated with PCP burnout. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) survey data from two time periods. PARTICIPANTS: 327 providers from 23 VA primary care practices within one VHA regional network. MAIN MEASURES: The dependent variable was PCP report of burnout. Independent variables included PCP report of the extent to which they performed 14 discrete primary care tasks without reliance on team members; team functioning; and PCP-, clinic-, and system-level variables. KEY RESULTS: In adjusted models, PCP reports of intervening on patient lifestyle factors and educating patients about disease-specific self-care activities, without reliance on their teams, were significantly associated with burnout (intervening on lifestyle: b = 4.11, 95% CI = 0.39, 7.83, p = 0.03; educating patients: b = 3.83, 95% CI = 0.33, 7.32, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Performing behavioral counseling and self-management education tasks without relying on other team members for assistance was associated with PCP burnout. Expanding the roles of nurses and other healthcare professionals to assume responsibility for these tasks may ease PCP burden and reduce burnout.

Burnout Among Physicians, Advanced Practice Clinicians and Staff in Smaller Primary Care Practices.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among primary care physicians, advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants [APCs]), and staff is common and associated with negative consequences for patient care, but the association of burnout with characteristics of primary care practices is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between physician-, APC- and staff-reported burnout and specific structural, organizational, and contextual characteristics of smaller primary care practices. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from 9/22/2015-6/19/2017. SETTING: Sample of smaller primary care practices in the USA participating in a national initiative focused on improving the delivery of cardiovascular preventive services. PARTICIPANTS: 10,284 physicians, APCs and staff from 1380 primary care practices. MAIN MEASURE: Burnout was assessed with a validated single-item measure. KEY RESULTS: Burnout was reported by 20.4% of respondents overall. In a multivariable analysis, burnout was slightly more common among physicians and APCs (physician vs. non-clinical staff, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.49, APC vs. non-clinical staff, aOR = 1.34, 95% CI, 1.10-1.62). Other multivariable correlates of burnout included non-solo practice (2-5 physician/APCs vs. solo practice, aOR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.35-2.16), health system affiliation (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.42; 95%CI, 1.16-1.73), and Federally Qualified Health Center status (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.36; 95%CI, 1.03-1.78). Neither the proportion of patients on Medicare or Medicaid, nor practice-level patient volume (patient visits per physician/APC per day) were significantly associated with burnout. In analyses stratified by professional category, practice size was not associated with burnout for APCs, and participation in an accountable care organization was associated with burnout for clinical and non-clinical staff. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout is prevalent among physicians, APCs, and staff in smaller primary care practices. Members of solo practices less commonly report burnout, while members of health system-owned practices and Federally Qualified Health Centers more commonly report burnout, suggesting that practice level autonomy may be a critical determinant of burnout.

Sources of Distress in Primary Care Opioid Management and the Role of a Controlled Substance Review Group: A Qualitative Study.

Objective: The objective of the study was to explore provider perspectives surrounding opioid prescribing in the context of the early implementation of a multidisciplinary group, called the Controlled Substance Review Group, that provided structured opioid case discussion and consultation to primary care providers. Setting: A Veterans Health Administration primary care clinic in Portland, Oregon. Participants: 12 members of primary care clinic staff representing multiple disciplines with recent participation in the Controlled Substance Review Group. Methods: Six semistructured interviews with primary care providers, one focus group discussion with six Nurse Care Managers, and 28 structured observations of CSRG meetings were conducted. In an iterative process using applied thematic analysis, a trained qualitative researcher reviewed textual data for themes. Results: Four broad domains with associated themes emerged from the analysis: 1) challenges of pain management-objective pain measures, changing guidelines, lack of coordinated approach; 2) patient attachment to opioids-threats, entitlement, abandonment; 3) provider frustration-confrontation in clinic visits, lack of mental health engagement, complex social situation; and 4) role of the Controlled Substance Review Group-communication techniques, supporting mental health engagement, structured backing. Conclusions: Primary care providers experience stress associated with opioid prescribing, including the provision of appropriate pain management using opioid analgesics and difficult patient-provider communication. The Controlled Substance Review Group functions to support providers through assistance with decision-making and shared responsibility for decision outcomes.

Effectiveness of Intensive Primary Care Interventions: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Multicomponent, interdisciplinary intensive primary care programs target complex patients with the goal of preventing hospitalizations, but programs vary, and their effectiveness is not clear. In this study, we systematically reviewed the impact of intensive primary care programs on all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and emergency department use. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Reviews of Effects from inception to March 2017. Additional studies were identified from reference lists, hand searching, and consultation with content experts. We included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies of multicomponent, interdisciplinary intensive primary care programs targeting complex patients at high risk of hospitalization or death, with a comparison to usual primary care. Two investigators identified studies and abstracted data using a predefined protocol. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies (379,745 participants) were included. Three major intensive primary care program types were identified: primary care replacement (home-based; three RCTs, one observational study, N = 367,681), primary care replacement (clinic-based; three RCTs, two observational studies, N = 9561), and primary care augmentation, in which an interdisciplinary team was added to existing primary care (five RCTs, three observational studies, N = 2503). Most studies showed no impact of intensive primary care on mortality or emergency department use, and the effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations varied. There were no adverse effects reported. DISCUSSION: Intensive primary care interventions demonstrated varying effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations, and there was limited evidence that these interventions were associated with changes in mortality. While interventions could be grouped into categories, there was still substantial overlap between intervention approaches. Further work is needed to identify program features that may be associated with improved outcomes.

Trends in the ambulatory management of headache: analysis of NAMCS and NHAMCS data 1999-2010.

BACKGROUND: Headache is a frequent complaint and among the most common reasons for visiting a physician. OBJECTIVE: To characterize trends from 1999 through 2010 in the management of headache. DESIGN: Longitudinal trends analysis. DATA: Nationally representative sample of visits to clinicians for headache from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, excluding visits with "red flags," such as neurologic deficit, cancer, or trauma. MAIN MEASURES: Use of advanced imaging (CT/MRI), opioids/barbiturates, and referrals to other physicians (guideline-discordant indicators), as well as counseling on lifestyle modifications and use of preventive medications including verapamil, topiramate, amitriptyline, or propranolol (guideline-concordant during study period). We analyzed results using logistic regression, adjusting for patient and clinician characteristics, and weighted to reflect U.S. population estimates. Additionally, we stratified findings based on migraine versus non-migraine, acute versus chronic symptoms, and whether the clinician self-identified as the primary care physician. KEY RESULTS: We identified 9,362 visits for headache, representing an estimated 144 million visits during the study period. Nearly three-quarters of patients were female, and the mean age was approximately 46 years. Use of CT/MRI rose from 6.7% of visits in 1999-2000 to 13.9% in 2009-2010 (unadjusted p < 0.001), and referrals to other physicians increased from 6.9 % to 13.2% (p = 0.005). In contrast, clinician counseling declined from 23.5 % to 18.5% (p = 0.041). Use of preventive medications increased from 8.5 % to 15.9% (p = 0.001), while opioids/barbiturates remained unchanged, at approximately 18%. Adjusted trends were similar, as were results after stratifying by migraine versus non-migraine and acute versus chronic presentation. Primary care clinicians had lower odds of ordering CT/MRI (OR 0.56 [0.42, 0.74]). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to numerous guidelines, clinicians are increasingly ordering advanced imaging and referring to other physicians, and less frequently offering lifestyle counseling to their patients. The management of headache represents an important opportunity to improve the value of U.S. healthcare.

Comparative effectiveness of endovascular versus open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in the Medicare population.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is increasingly used for emergent treatment of ruptured AAA (rAAA). We sought to compare the perioperative and long-term mortality, procedure-related complications, and rates of reintervention of EVAR vs open aortic repair of rAAA in Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: We examined perioperative and long-term mortality and complications after EVAR or open aortic repair performed for rAAA in all traditional Medicare beneficiaries discharged from a United States hospital from 2001 to 2008. Patients were matched by propensity score on baseline demographics, coexisting conditions, admission source, and hospital volume of rAAA repair. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of bias that might have resulted from unmeasured confounders. RESULTS: Of 10,998 patients with repaired rAAA, 1126 underwent EVAR and 9872 underwent open repair. Propensity score matching yielded 1099 patient pairs. The average age was 78 years, and 72.4% were male. Perioperative mortality was 33.8% for EVAR and 47.7% for open repair (P < .001), and this difference persisted for >4 years. At 36 months, EVAR patients had higher rates of AAA-related reinterventions than open repair patients (endovascular reintervention, 10.9% vs 1.5%; P < .001), whereas open patients had more laparotomy-related complications (incisional hernia repair, 1.8% vs 6.2%; P < .001; all surgical complications, 4.4% vs 9.1%; P < .001). Use of EVAR for rAAA increased from 6% of cases in 2001 to 31% in 2008, whereas during the same interval, overall 30-day mortality for admission for rAAA, regardless of treatment, decreased from 55.8% to 50.9%. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR for rAAA is associated with lower perioperative and long-term mortality in Medicare beneficiaries. Increasing adoption of EVAR for rAAA is associated with an overall decrease in mortality of patients hospitalized for rAAA during the last decade.

Trends and quality of care in outpatient visits to generalist and specialist physicians delivering primary care in the United States, 1997-2010.

BACKGROUND: Although many specialists serve as primary care physicians (PCPs), the type of patients they serve, the range of services they provide, and the quality of care they deliver is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in patient, physician, and visit characteristics, and compare visit-based quality for visits to generalists and specialists self-identified as PCPs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study and time trend analysis. DATA: Nationally representative sample of visits to office-based physicians from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1997-2010. MAIN MEASURES: Proportions of primary care visits to generalist and specialists, patient characteristics, principal diagnoses, and quality. KEY RESULTS: Among 84,041 visits to self-identified PCPs representing an estimated 4.0 billion visits, 91.5 % were to generalists, 5.9 % were to medical specialists and 2.6 % were to obstetrician/gynecologists. The proportion of PCP visits to generalists increased from 88.4 % in 1997 to 92.4 % in 2010, but decreased for medical specialists from 8.0 % to 4.8 %, p = 0.04). The proportion of medical specialist visits in which the physician self-identified as the patient's PCP decreased from 30.6 % in 1997 to 9.8 % in 2010 (p < 0.01). Medical specialist PCPs take care of older patients (mean age 61 years), and dedicate most of their visits to chronic disease management (51.0 %), while generalist PCPs see younger patients (mean age 55.4 years) most commonly for new problems (40.5 %). Obstetrician/gynecologists self-identified as PCPs see younger patients (mean age 38.3 p < 0.01), primarily for preventive care (54.0 %, p < 0.01). Quality of care for cardiovascular disease was better in visits to cardiologists than in visits to generalists, but was similar or better in visits to generalists compared to visits to other medical specialists. CONCLUSIONS: Medical specialists are less frequently serving as PCPs for their patients over time. Generalist, medical specialist, and obstetrician/gynecologist PCPs serve different primary care roles for different populations. Delivery redesign efforts must account for the evolving role of generalist and specialist PCPs in the delivery of primary care.

Structuring payment to medical homes after the affordable care act.

The Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) is a leading model of primary care reform, a critical element of which is payment reform for primary care services. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the Accountable Care Organization (ACO) has emerged as a model of delivery system reform, and while there is theoretical alignment between the PCMH and ACOs, the discussion of physician payment within each model has remained distinct. Here we compare payment for medical homes with that for accountable care organizations, consider opportunities for integration, and discuss implications for policy makers and payers considering ACO models. The PCMH and ACO are complementary approaches to reformed care delivery: the PCMH ultimately requires strong integration with specialists and hospitals as seen under ACOs, and ACOs likely will require a high functioning primary care system as embodied by the PCMH. Aligning payment incentives within the ACO will be critical to achieving this integration and enhancing the care coordination role of primary care in these settings.

Trajectories of care and outcomes of Veterans receiving home-based primary care.

BACKGROUND: Veterans Affairs (VA) home-based primary care (HBPC) provides comprehensive longitudinal care to patients with complex, chronic disabling disease. While enrollment is associated with lower hospitalization rates and costs, detailed trajectories have not been well described. METHODS: We performed a longitudinal descriptive study of patients newly enrolled in VA HBPC in fiscal year (FY) 2015. We extracted demographics, comorbidities, functional status, and social supports from VA and Medicare data and examined patterns of care and clinical outcomes, including hospital, nursing home (NH), hospice use and mortality from FY2015-2017. We present results using descriptive statistics, alluvial plots, and heat maps. RESULTS: We identified 10,571 HBPC enrollees in FY2015; mean age was 77.7. HBPC patients commonly had chronic medical conditions with high self-management burden (e.g., diabetes 48.2%) and disabling conditions such as dementia (39.3%). Over half had ≥2 deficits in activities of daily living, 46% had caregivers with functional limitations or no caregiver, and 25% resided in a socially deprived area. Patients experienced variable care trajectories. Mean time enrolled in HBPC was 331 days, 8.3% of patients were discharged after 3 months, and 22.8% stayed enrolled for over 2 years. Institutional health care use declined in the 6 months after initial enrollment: (e.g., hospital: 41%-25%, NH: 34%-11%). At 2 years, 36% of patients had died; among decedents, 58% received hospice and 72% died in a non-institutional setting. In the last 180 days of life, 84% of time was spent at home, and once enrolled in hospice, 97% of time was spent outside of institutional care. CONCLUSIONS: HBPC patients experience highly variable care trajectories but on average have reductions in acute care use and spend a majority of time in non-institutional settings. These data allow for a nuanced understanding of HBPC, providing a platform for monitoring, evaluating, and improving program function.