The Impact of Primary Care Practice Structural Capabilities on Nurse Practitioner Burnout, Job Satisfaction, and Intent to Leave.

BACKGROUND: Lack of structure for care delivery (ie, structural capabilities) has been linked to lower quality of care and negative patient outcomes. However, little research examines the relationship between practice structural capabilities and nurse practitioner (NP) job outcomes. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the association between structural capabilities and primary care NP job outcomes (ie, burnout, job dissatisfaction, and intent to leave). RESEARCH DESIGN: Secondary analysis of 2018-2019 cross-sectional data. SUBJECTS: A total of 1110 NPs across 1002 primary care practices in 6 states. MEASURES: We estimated linear probability models to assess the association between structural capabilities and NP job outcomes, controlling for NP work environment, demographics, and practice features. RESULTS: The average structural capabilities score (measured on a scale of 0-1) across practices was 0.6 (higher score indicates more structural capabilities). After controlling for potential confounders, we found that a 10-percentage point increase in the structural capabilities score was associated with a 3-percentage point decrease in burnout ( P <0.001), a 2-percentage point decrease in job dissatisfaction ( P <0.001), and a 3-percentage point decrease in intent to leave ( P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care NPs report lower burnout, job dissatisfaction, and intent to leave when working in practices with greater structural capabilities for care delivery. These findings suggest that efforts to improve structural capabilities not only facilitate effective care delivery and benefit patients but they also support NPs and strengthen their workforce participation. Practice leaders should further invest in structural capabilities to improve primary care provider job outcomes.

Impact of an Episode-Based Payment Initiative by Commercial Payers in Arkansas on Procedure Volume: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Episode-based payment (EBP) is gaining traction among payers as an alternative to fee-for-service reimbursement. However, there is concern that EBP could influence the number of episodes. OBJECTIVE: To examine how procedure volume changed after the introduction of EBP in 2013 and 2014 under the Arkansas Health Care Payment Improvement Initiative. DESIGN: Using 2011-2016 commercial claims data, we estimate a difference-in-differences model to assess the impact of EBP on the probability of a beneficiary having an episode for four procedures that were reimbursed under EBP in Arkansas: total joint replacement, cholecystectomy, colonoscopy, and tonsillectomy. PARTICIPANTS: Commercially insured beneficiaries in Arkansas serve as our treatment group, while commercially insured beneficiaries in neighboring states serve as our comparison group. INTERVENTIONS: Statewide implementation of EBP for various clinical conditions by two of Arkansas' largest commercial insurers. MAIN MEASURES: For a given procedure type, the primary outcomes are the annual rate of procedures (number of procedures per 1000 beneficiaries) and the probability of a beneficiary undergoing that procedure in a given quarter. KEY RESULTS: The relationship between EBP and procedure volume varies across procedures. After EBP was implemented, the probability of undergoing colonoscopy increased by 17.2% (point estimate, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.18 to 4.08; p < 0.001; Arkansas pre-period mean, 15.29). The probability of undergoing total joint replacement increased by 9.9% (point estimate, 0.091; 95% CI, - 0.011 to 0.19; p = 0.08; Arkansas pre-period mean, 0.91), though this effect is not significant. There is no discernable impact on cholecystectomy or tonsillectomy volume. CONCLUSIONS: We do not find clear evidence of deleterious volume expansion. However, because the impact of EBP on procedure volume may vary by procedure, payers planning to implement EBP models should be aware of this possibility.

Prices for physician services in Medicare Advantage versus traditional Medicare.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the prices paid to physicians by employer-sponsored Medicare Advantage (MA) plans with those paid by traditional Medicare (TM) and to determine whether the relationship between MA and TM prices is affected by the generosity of MA benchmarks. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive analysis of medical claims data from the 2014-2015 MarketScan Medicare Claims Database. METHODS: We focus on claims for low-complexity office visits with an established patient (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code 99213) and electrocardiograms (CPT code 93000). For a given service, we identify the prices paid by MA plans and by TM in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA), which is our definition of a market. We then construct an MA-to-TM price ratio for each MSA and report the median price ratio. In a subanalysis, we disaggregate the result for office visits by MA benchmark generosity. RESULTS: For both services, the estimated median price ratio is close to 1.00. We also find that even as MA benchmarks (relative to local fee-for-service spending) increase, the median price ratio for office visits remains close to 1.00. CONCLUSIONS: After analyzing claims for common physician services, we find that employer-sponsored MA plans pay prices that are similar to TM rates. This holds even as the generosity of MA plan payment changes. Similarity between MA and TM prices appears to be stable over time, despite recent policy changes. Our findings emphasize the important role that TM plays in the MA market and that TM payment changes could have a spillover effect on MA prices and spending.