Incorporating health IT into primary care transformation.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the role of health information technology (IT) vendors and health IT functionality in supporting advanced primary care. STUDY DESIGN: We synthesized multiple rounds of surveys and interviews (2017-2022) from a mixed-methods evaluation of Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+), a multipayer model developed by CMS. CPC+ was the first federal advanced primary care reform effort that formalized health IT vendors' roles in supporting health IT implementation and specified detailed health IT requirements for practices. METHODS: We conducted content analysis to identify cross-cutting themes related to health IT for both practices and vendors, comparing similarities and differences across participants and (when possible) over time. RESULTS: Vendors and practices reported advances in registries and dashboards for improved information management within the practice as well as strengthened relationships between vendors and practices that supported health IT implementation. However, CPC+ practices noted several gaps or challenges using existing functionalities, and both vendors and practices reported broader challenges for more transformative health IT change, particularly the lack of interoperable health information exchange needed to support care management and care coordination. Key factors constraining vendors' investment in further advances included long product development schedules, making it difficult to respond to rapidly evolving model requirements. Vendors also shared that CPC+ practices represented a small fraction of their client base, so investing in developing new functionality was not strategic unless it was more broadly relevant outside CPC+. CONCLUSIONS: Continued collaboration among health IT vendors, practices, policy makers, and payers could support continued technological improvements, particularly related to information exchange and communication. Aligning requirements more closely with other federal and private models could also help mitigate the risk for vendors.

Association Between Extending CareFirst's Medical Home Program to Medicare Patients and Quality of Care, Utilization, and Spending.

Importance: CareFirst, the largest commercial insurer in the mid-Atlantic Region of the United States, runs a medical home program focusing on financial incentives for primary care practices and care coordination for high-risk patients. From 2013 to 2015, CareFirst extended the program to Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries in participating practices. If the model extension improved quality while reducing spending, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services could expand the program to Medicare beneficiaries broadly. Objective: To test whether extending CareFirst's program to Medicare FFS patients improves care processes and reduces hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and spending. Design, Setting, and Participants: This difference-in-differences analysis compared outcomes for roughly 35 000 Medicare FFS patients attributed to 52 intervention practices (grouped by CareFirst into 14 "medical panels") to outcomes for 69 000 Medicare patients attributed to 42 matched comparison panels during a 1-year baseline period and 2.5-year intervention at Maryland primary care practices. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalizations (all-cause and ambulatory-care sensitive), emergency department visits, Medicare Part A and B spending, and 3 quality-of-care process measures: ambulatory care within 14 days of a hospital stay, cholesterol testing for those with ischemic vascular disease, and a composite measure for those with diabetes. Interventions: CareFirst hired nurses who worked with patients' usual primary care practitioners to coordinate care for 3656 high-risk Medicare patients. CareFirst paid panels rewards for meeting cost and quality targets for their Medicare patients and advised panels on how to meet these targets based on analyses of claims data. Results: On average, each of the 14 intervention panels had 9.3 primary care practitioners and was attributed 2202 Medicare FFS patients in the baseline period. The panels' attributed Medicare patients were, on average, 73.8 years old, 59.2% female, and 85.1% white. The extension of CareFirst's program to Medicare patients was not statistically associated with improvements in any outcomes, either for the full Medicare population or for a high-risk subgroup in which impacts were expected to be largest. For the full population, the difference-in-differences estimates were 1.4 hospitalizations per 1000 patients per quarter (P = .54; 90% CI, -2.1 to 5.0), -2.5 outpatient ED visits per 1000 patients per quarter (P = .26; 90% CI, -6.2 to 1.1), and -$1 per patient per month in Medicare Part A and B spending (P = .98; 90% CI, -$40 to $39). For hospitalizations and Medicare spending, the 90% CIs did not span CareFirst's expected impacts. Hospitalizations for the intervention group declined by 10% from baseline year to the final 18 months of the intervention, but this was matched by similar declines in the comparison group. Conclusion and Relevance: The extension of CareFirst's program to Medicare did not measurably improve quality-of-care processes or reduce service use or spending for Medicare patients. Further program refinement and testing would be needed to support scaling the program more broadly to Medicare patients.

The ARRA investment in CER: a description of the midstream evaluation and how the funds were allocated and CER priorities addressed.

AIM: To describe the evaluation design of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 comparative effectiveness research (CER) investment, how funds were allocated and how CER priorities were addressed. MATERIALS & METHODS: Primary and secondary data included information from redacted project proposals, an investigator survey and federal project officers, investigators and expert panel discussions. RESULTS: More than 420 projects (US$1.1 billion) were awarded. Those generating new or synthesizing existing CER made up the plurality (194, or US$524 million). Data infrastructure projects were the second-largest area (28%, US$302 million). More than three-fourths addressed at least one priority population, condition category or intervention category. CONCLUSION: These investments expanded the nation's CER activities and its future capacity to conduct CER.

Workforce development for comparative effectiveness research: training programs funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

AIM: We conducted a midstream assessment of the comparative effectiveness research (CER) training programs funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) by examining program characteristics, planned curriculum development activities and core competencies. MATERIALS & METHODS: We examined all 43 training projects funded by the US$46 million ARRA CER investment, collecting data from key informant discussions and a technical expert panel. RESULTS: The majority of projects leveraged institutional resources to provide an individualized combination of didactic and experiential learning supported by strong mentorship. Core competencies included skills in statistical modeling, evidence synthesis (systematic reviews and meta-analysis) and general research design skills. CONCLUSION: ARRA-supported CER training programs enhanced workforce capacity by developing curricula and preparing CER researchers to apply emerging methods and utilize new CER infrastructure.

HIV Infection and AIDS in the Deep South.

We examine epidemiological and demographic data documenting the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the Deep South region of the United States. These data document substantial increases in AIDS cases in the Deep South from 2000 to 2003. In contrast, other US regions are experiencing stable rates or small increases in new AIDS cases. Furthermore, the AIDS epidemic in the Deep South is more concentrated than in other regions among African Americans, women, and rural residents. The Deep South also has some of the highest levels of poverty and uninsured individuals, factors that complicate the prevention and treatment of HIV infection. Further research is needed to determine the cause of the disproportionate rise in AIDS incidence and to develop effective means of preventing HIV infection and providing care of those infected in this region.