Implementation of Medical Homes in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: From 2011 through 2014, the Federally Qualified Health Center Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration provided care management fees and technical assistance to a nationwide sample of 503 federally qualified health centers to help them achieve the highest (level 3) medical-home recognition by the National Committee for Quality Assurance, a designation that requires the implementation of processes to improve access, continuity, and coordination. METHODS: We examined the achievement of medical-home recognition and used Medicare claims and beneficiary surveys to measure utilization of services, quality of care, patients' experiences, and Medicare expenditures in demonstration sites versus comparison sites. Using difference-in-differences analyses, we compared changes in outcomes in the two groups of sites during a 3-year period. RESULTS: Level 3 medical-home recognition was awarded to 70% of demonstration sites and to 11% of comparison sites. Although the number of visits to federally qualified health centers decreased in the two groups, smaller reductions among demonstration sites than among comparison sites led to a relative increase of 83 visits per 1000 beneficiaries per year at demonstration sites (P<0.001). Similar trends explained the higher performance of demonstration sites with respect to annual eye examinations and nephropathy tests (P<0.001 for both comparisons); there were no significant differences with respect to three other process measures. Demonstration sites had larger increases than comparison sites in emergency department visits (30.3 more per 1000 beneficiaries per year, P<0.001), inpatient admissions (5.7 more per 1000 beneficiaries per year, P=0.02), and Medicare Part B expenditures ($37 more per beneficiary per year, P=0.02). Demonstration-site participation was not associated with relative improvements in most measures of patients' experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Demonstration sites had higher rates of medical-home recognition and smaller decreases in the number of patients' visits to federally qualified health centers than did comparison sites, findings that may reflect better access to primary care relative to comparison sites. Demonstration sites had larger increases in emergency department visits, inpatient admissions, and Medicare Part B expenditures. (Funded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.).

Physician-reported barriers to referring cancer patients to specialists: prevalence, factors, and association with career satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Quality care for patients with cancer often requires access to specialty providers, but little is known about barriers to referring cancer patients for specialized care. Referral barriers may also lessen physician career satisfaction. The study was aimed at determining what factors are associated with these barriers and whether greater barriers are associated with low career satisfaction. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined 1562 primary care physicians (PCPs) and 2144 specialists responding to the multiregional Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium physician survey. The prevalence of physician-reported barriers to referring cancer patients for more specialized care (restricted provider networks, preauthorization requirements, patient inability to pay, lack of surgical subspecialists, and excessive patient travel time) was assessed. The 5 items were averaged to calculate a barrier score. A multivariate linear regression was used to determine physician and practice setting characteristics associated with the barrier score, and a multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the association of the barrier score with physician career satisfaction. RESULTS: Three in 5 physicians reported always, usually, or sometimes encountering any barrier to cancer patient specialty referrals. In adjusted analyses of PCPs and specialists, international medical graduates, physicians practicing in solo or government-owned practices, and physicians with <90% of their patients in managed care plans had higher barrier scores than others (P < .05). High barrier scores were associated with lower physician career satisfaction among PCPs and specialists (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Many physicians experience barriers to specialty referral for cancer patients. Uniform systems for providing and tracking timely referrals may enhance care and promote physician career satisfaction.

Is Self-Referral Associated with Higher Quality Care?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which patients self-refer to cancer specialists and whether self-referral is associated with better experiences and quality of care. DATA SOURCES: Data from surveys and medical record abstraction collected through the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study of patients with lung and colorectal cancer diagnosed from 2003 through 2005 in five geographically defined regions and five integrated health care delivery systems. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression models used to assess factors associated with self-referral and propensity score-weighted doubly robust models to test the association between self-referral and experiences/quality of care. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Among 5,882 patients, 9.7 percent of lung cancer patients and 14.9 percent of colorectal cancer patients self-referred to at least one cancer specialist. Black patients were less likely to self-refer than white patients (odds ratio: 0.48, 95 percent confidence interval: 0.35, 0.64); patients with high incomes (vs. low) and with a college degree (vs. non-high school graduates) were significantly more likely to self-refer. Self-referral was associated with lower ratings of overall physician communication for patients with lung cancer but, conversely, higher odds of curative surgery among patients with stage I/II lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: A small but significant proportion of patients self-referred to their cancer specialists; rates varied by patient race and socioeconomic status. To the extent that self-referral is associated with quality, it may reinforce disparities in care.

Medicare Imaging Demonstration Final Evaluation: Report to Congress.

Increasing use of advanced medical imaging is often cited as a key driver of cost growth in medical spending. In 2011, the Medicare Imaging Demonstration from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services began testing whether exposing ordering clinicians to appropriateness guidelines for advanced imaging would reduce ordering inappropriate images. The evaluation examined trends in advanced diagnostic imaging utilization starting January 1, 2009-more than two years before the beginning of the demonstration-to November 30, 2013-two months after the close of the demonstration. Small changes in ordering patterns were noted, but decision support systems were unable to assign appropriateness ratings to many orders, thus limiting the potential effectiveness of decision support. Many opportunities to refine decision support systems have been identified.

Medicare calibration of the clinically detailed risk information system for cost.

The clinically detailed risk information system for cost (CD-RISC) contains definitions for several hundred severity-adjusted conditions that can be used to predict future health care costs. We develop a prospective Medicare CD-RISC model using a 5-percent sample of Medicare beneficiaries and data that contain 1996 diagnostic information and 1997 annualized costs. The CD-RISC model has a hierarchical structure that implies that only the most expensive condition-severity variable within a body system affects payments. This minimizes incentives to game the system by entering multiple related codes for the same condition. The R2 for the CD-RISC model is 11 percent.

Quality measures for symptoms and advance care planning in cancer: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Measuring quality of care for symptom management and ascertaining patient goals offers an important step toward improving palliative cancer management. This study was designed to identify systematically the quality measures and the evidence to support their use in pain, dyspnea, depression, and advance care planning (ACP), and to identify research gaps. METHODS: English-language documents were selected from MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, PsycINFO (1995 to 2005); Internet-based searches; and contact with measure developers. We used terms for each domain to select studies throughout the cancer care continuum. We included measures that expressed a normative relationship to quality, specified the target population, and specified the indicated care. Dual data review and abstraction was performed by palliative care researchers describing populations, testing, and attributes for each measure. RESULTS: A total of 4,599 of 5,182 titles were excluded at abstract review. Of 537 remaining articles, 19 contained measures for ACP, six contained measures for depression, five contained measures for dyspnea, and 20 contained measures for pain. We identified 10 relevant measure sets that included 36 fully specified or fielded measures and 14 additional measures (16 for pain, five for dyspnea, four for depression, and 25 for ACP). Most measures were unpublished, and few had been tested in a cancer population. We were unable to describe the specifications of all measures fully and did not search for measures for pain and depression that were not cancer specific. CONCLUSION: Measures are available for assessing quality and guiding improvement in palliative cancer care. Existing measures are weighted toward ACP, and more nonpain symptom measures are needed. Additional testing is needed before the measures are used for accountability, and basic research is required to address measurement when self-report is impaired.