Medical Group Structural Integration May Not Ensure That Care Is Integrated, From The Patient's Perspective.

Structural integration is increasing among medical groups, but whether these changes yield care that is more integrated remains unclear. We explored the relationships between structural integration characteristics of 144 medical groups and perceptions of integrated care among their patients. Patients' perceptions were measured by a validated national survey of 3,067 Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions across six domains that reflect knowledge and support of, and communication with, the patient. Medical groups' structural characteristics were taken from the National Study of Physician Organizations and included practice size, specialty mix, technological capabilities, and care management processes. Patients' survey responses were most favorable for the domain of test result communication and least favorable for the domain of provider support for medication and home health management. Medical groups' characteristics were not consistently associated with patients' perceptions of integrated care. However, compared to patients of primary care groups, patients of multispecialty groups had strong favorable perceptions of medical group staff knowledge of patients' medical histories. Opportunities exist to improve patient care, but structural integration of medical groups might not be sufficient for delivering care that patients perceive as integrated.

Do physician organizations located in lower socioeconomic status areas score lower on pay-for-performance measures?

BACKGROUND: Physician organizations (POs)--independent practice associations and medical groups--located in lower socioeconomic status (SES) areas may score poorly in pay-for-performance (P4P) programs. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between PO location and P4P performance. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Integrated Healthcare Association's (IHA's) P4P Program, the largest non-governmental, multi-payer program for POs in the U.S. PARTICIPANTS: 160 POs participating in 2009. MAIN MEASURES: We measured PO SES using established methods that involved geo-coding 11,718 practice sites within 160 POs to their respective census tracts and weighting tract-specific SES according to the number of primary care physicians at each site. P4P performance was defined by IHA's program and was a composite mainly representing clinical quality, but also including measures of patient experience, information technology and registry use. KEY RESULTS: The area-based PO SES measure ranged from -11 to +11 (mean 0, SD 5), and the IHA P4P performance score ranged from 23 to 86 (mean 69, SD 15). In bivariate analysis, there was a significant positive relationship between PO SES and P4P performance (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, a one standard deviation increase in PO SES was associated with a 44% increase (relative risk 1.44, 95%CI, 1.22-1.71) in the likelihood of a PO being ranked in the top two quintiles of performance (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physician organizations' performance scores in a major P4P program vary by the SES of the areas in which their practice sites are located. P4P programs that do not account for this are likely to pay higher bonuses to POs in higher SES areas, thus increasing the resource gap between these POs and POs in lower SES areas, which may increase disparities in the care they provide.

Designing payment for Collaborative Care for Depression in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To design a bundled case rate for Collaborative Care for Depression (CCD) that aligns incentives with evidence-based depression care in primary care. DATA SOURCES: A clinical information system used by all care managers in a randomized controlled trial of CCD for older primary care patients. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an empirical investigation of factors accounting for variation in CCD resource use over time and across patients. CCD resource use at the patient-episode and patient-month levels was measured by number of care manager contacts and direct patient contact time and analyzed with count data (Poisson or negative binomial) models. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Episode-level resource use varies substantially with patient's time in the program. Monthly use declines sharply in the first 6 months regardless of treatment response or remission status, but it remains stable afterwards. An adjusted episode or monthly case rate design better matches payment with variation in resource use compared with a fixed design. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings lend support to an episode payment adjusted by number of months receiving CCD and a monthly payment adjusted by the ordinal month. Nonpayment tools including program certification and performance evaluation and reward systems are needed to fully align incentives.

Relationship between quality improvement processes and clinical performance.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between performance on clinical process measures and intermediate outcomes and the use of chronic care management processes (CMPs), electronic medical record (EMR) capabilities, and participation in external quality improvement (QI) initiatives. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of linked 2006 clinical performance scores from the Integrated Healthcare Association's pay-for-performance program and survey data from the 2nd National Study of Physician Organizations among 108 California physician organizations (POs). METHODS: Controlling for differences in PO size, organization type (medical group or independent practice association), and Medicaid revenue, we used ordinary least squares regression analysis to examine the association between the use of CMPs, EMR capabilities, and external QI initiatives and performance on the following 3 clinical composite measures: diabetes management, processes of care, and intermediate outcomes (diabetes and cardiovascular). RESULTS: Greater use of CMPs was significantly associated with clinical performance: among POs using more than 5 CMPs, we observed a 3.2-point higher diabetes management score on a performance scale with scores ranging from 0 to 100 (P <.001), while for each 1.0-point increase on the CMP index, we observed a 1.0-point gain in intermediate outcomes (P <.001). Participation in external QI initiatives was positively associated with improved delivery of clinical processes of care: a 1.0-point increase on the QI index translated into a 1.4-point gain in processes-of-care performance (P = .02). No relationship was observed between EMR capabilities and performance. CONCLUSION: Greater investments in CMPs and QI interventions may help POs raise clinical performance and achieve success under performance-based accountability schemes.

How the center for Medicare and Medicaid innovation should test accountable care organizations.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act establishes a national voluntary program for accountable care organizations (ACOs) by January 2012 under the auspices of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The act also creates a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation in the CMS. We propose that the CMS allow flexibility and tiers in ACOs based on their specific circumstances, such as the degree to which they are or are not fully integrated systems. Further, we propose that the CMS assume responsibility for ACO provisions and develop an ordered system for learning how to create and sustain ACOs. Key steps would include setting specific performance goals, developing skills and tools that facilitate change, establishing measurement and accountability mechanisms, and supporting leadership development.

Higher health care quality and bigger savings found at large multispecialty medical groups.

The belief that integrated delivery systems offer better care at lower cost has contributed to growing interest in accountable care organizations. These provider-led delivery systems would accept responsibility for their primary care populations and would have financial incentives for improving care and reducing costs. We investigated this belief by comparing the costs and quality of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries in twenty-two health care markets by physicians who did and did not work within large multispecialty group practices affiliated with the Council of Accountable Physician Practices. In most markets, and after adjustment for patient factors, group physicians affiliated with the council provided higher-quality care at a 3.6 percent lower annual cost ($272 per patient).