Reducing Acute Hospitalizations at High-Performing CPC+ Primary Care Practice Sites: Strategies, Activities, and Facilitators.

PURPOSE: Despite evidence suggesting that high-quality primary care can prevent unnecessary hospitalizations, many primary care practices face challenges in achieving this goal, and there is little guidance identifying effective strategies for reducing hospitalization rates. We aimed to understand how practices in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) program substantially reduced their acute hospitalization rate (AHR) over 2 years. METHODS: We used Bayesian analyses to identify the CPC+ practice sites having the highest probability of achieving a substantial reduction in the adjusted Medicare AHR between 2016 and 2018 (referred to here as AHR high performers). We then conducted telephone interviews with 64 respondents at 14 AHR high-performer sites and undertook within- and cross-case comparative analysis. RESULTS: The 14 AHR high performers experienced a 6% average decrease (range, 4% to 11%) in their Medicare AHR over the 2-year period. They credited various care delivery activities aligned with 3 strategies for reducing AHR: (1) improving and promoting prompt access to primary care, (2) identifying patients at high risk for hospitalization and addressing their needs with enhanced care management, and (3) expanding the breadth and depth of services offered at the practice site. They also identified facilitators of these strategies: enhanced payments through CPC+, prior primary care practice transformation experience, use of data to identify high-value activities for patient subgroups, teamwork, and organizational support for innovation. CONCLUSIONS: The AHR high performers observed that strengthening the local primary care infrastructure through practice-driven, targeted changes in access, care management, and comprehensiveness of care can meaningfully reduce acute hospitalizations. Other primary care practices taking on the challenging work of reducing hospitalizations can learn from CPC+ practices and may consider similar strategies, selecting activities that fit their context, personnel, patient population, and available resources.

Geographic Variation In The Consolidation Of Physicians Into Health Systems, 2016-18.

Physician consolidation into health systems increased in nearly all metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) from 2016 to 2018. Of the 382 US MSAs, 113 had more than half of their physicians in health systems in 2018. Consolidation of physicians was most notable in the Midwest and Northeast and in small-to-midsize MSAs.

Health system integration with physician specialties varies across markets and system types.

OBJECTIVE: To examine system integration with physician specialties across markets and the association between local system characteristics and their patterns of physician integration. DATA SOURCES: Data come from the AHRQ Compendium of US Health Systems and IQVIA OneKey database. STUDY DESIGN: We examined the change from 2016 to 2018 in the percentage of physicians in systems, focusing on primary care and the 10 most numerous nonhospital-based specialties across the 382 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in the US. We also categorized systems by ownership, mission, and payment program participation and examined how those characteristics were related to their patterns of physician integration in 2018. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We examined local healthcare markets (MSAs) and the hospitals and physicians that are part of integrated systems that operate in these markets. We characterized markets by hospital and insurer concentration and systems by type of ownership and by whether they have an academic medical center (AMC), a 340B hospital, or accountable care organization. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Between 2016 and 2018, system participation increased for primary care and the 10 other physician specialties we examined. In 2018, physicians in specialties associated with lucrative hospital services were the most commonly integrated with systems including hematology-oncology (57%), cardiology (55%), and general surgery (44%); however, rates varied substantially across markets. For most specialties, high market concentration by insurers and hospital-systems was associated with lower rates of physician integration. In addition, systems with AMCs and publicly owned systems more commonly affiliated with specialties unrelated to the physicians' potential contribution to hospital revenue, and investor-owned systems demonstrated more limited physician integration. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in physician integration across markets and system characteristics reflects physician and systems' motivations. These integration strategies are associated with the financial interests of systems and other strategic goals (eg, medical education, and serving low-income populations).

Consolidation Of Providers Into Health Systems Increased Substantially, 2016-18.

Provider consolidation into vertically integrated health systems increased from 2016 to 2018. More than half of US physicians and 72 percent of hospitals were affiliated with one of 637 health systems in 2018. For-profit and church-operated systems had the largest increases in system size, driven in part by a large number of system mergers and acquisitions.

Can vertically integrated health systems provide greater value: The case of hospitals under the comprehensive care for joint replacement model?

OBJECTIVE: We aim to assess whether system providers perform better than nonsystem providers under an alternative payment model that incentivizes high-quality, cost-efficient care. We posit that the payment environment and the incentives it provides can affect the relative performance of vertically integrated health systems. To examine this potential influence, we compare system and nonsystem hospitals participating in Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model. DATA SOURCES: We used hospital cost and quality data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services linked to data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Compendium of US Health Systems and hospital characteristics from secondary sources. The data include 706 hospitals in 67 metropolitan areas. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated regressions that compared system and nonsystem hospitals' 2017 cost and quality performance providing lower joint replacements among hospitals required to participate in CJR. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Among CJR hospitals, system hospitals that provided comprehensive services in their local market had 5.8 percent ($1612) lower episode costs (P = .01) than nonsystem hospitals. System hospitals that did not provide such services had 3.5 percent ($967) lower episode costs (P = .14). Quality differences between system hospitals and nonsystem hospitals were mostly small and statistically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: When operating under alternative payment model incentives, vertical integration may enable hospitals to lower costs with similar quality scores.

Characteristics of Academic-Affiliated Health Systems.

PURPOSE: Changing market forces increasingly are leading academic medical centers (AMCs) to form or join health systems. But it is unclear how this shift is affecting the tripartite academic mission of education, research, and high-quality patient care. To explore this topic, the authors identified and characterized the types of health systems that owned or managed AMCs in the United States in 2016. METHOD: The authors identified AMCs as any general acute care hospitals that had a resident-to-bed ratio of at least 0.25 and that were affiliated with at least one MD- or DO-granting medical school. Using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 2016 Compendium of U.S. Health Systems, the authors also identified academic-affiliated health systems (AHSs) as those health systems that owned or managed at least one AMC. They compared AMCs and other general acute care hospitals, AHSs and non-AHSs, and AHSs by type of medical school relationship, using health system size, hospital characteristics, undergraduate and graduate medical education characteristics, services provided, and ownership. RESULTS: Health systems owned or managed nearly all AMCs (361, 95.8%). Of the 626 health systems, 230 (36.7%) met the definition of an AHS. Compared with other health systems, AHSs included more hospitals, provided more services, and had a lower ratio of primary care doctors to specialists. Most AHSs (136, 59.1%) had a single, shared medical school relationship, whereas 38 (16.5%) had an exclusive medical school relationship and 56 (24.3%) had multiple medical school relationships. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that several distinct types of relationships between AHSs and medical schools exist. The traditional vision of a medical school having an exclusive relationship with a single AHS is no longer prominent.

Landscape of Health Systems in the United States.

Despite the prevalence of vertical integration, data and research focused on identifying and describing health systems are sparse. Until recently, we lacked an enumeration of health systems and an understanding of how systems vary by key structural attributes. To fill this gap, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed the Compendium of U.S. Health Systems, a data resource to support research on comparative health system performance. In this article, we describe the methods used to create the Compendium and present a picture of vertical integration in the United States. We identified 626 health systems in 2016, which accounted for 70% of nonfederal general acute care hospitals. These systems varied by key structural attributes, including size, ownership, and geographic presence. The Compendium can be used to study the characteristics of the U.S. health care system and address policy issues related to provider organizations.

A systematic review of vertical integration and quality of care, efficiency, and patient-centered outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Small independent practices are increasingly giving way to more complex affiliations between provider organizations and hospital systems. There are several ways in which vertically integrated health systems could improve quality and lower the costs of care. But there are also concerns that integrated systems may increase the price and costs of care without commensurate improvements in quality and outcomes. PURPOSE: Despite a growing body of research on vertically integrated health systems, no systematic review that we know of compares vertically integrated health systems (defined as shared ownership or joint management of hospitals and physician practices) to nonintegrated hospitals or physician practices. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature published from January 1996 to November 2016. We considered articles for review if they compared the performance of a vertically integrated health system and examined an outcome related to quality of care, efficiency, or patient-centered outcomes. RESULTS: Database searches generated 7,559 articles, with 29 articles included in this review. Vertical integration was associated with better quality, often measured as optimal care for specific conditions, but showed either no differences or lower efficiency as measured by utilization, spending, and prices. Few studies evaluated a patient-centered outcome; among those, most examined mortality and did not identify any effects. Across domains, most studies were observational and did not address the issue of selection bias. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Recent evidence suggests the trend toward vertical integration will likely continue as providers respond to changing payment models and market factors. A growing body of research on comparative health system performance suggests that integration of physician practices with hospitals might not be enough to achieve higher-value care. More information is needed to identify the health system attributes that contribute to improved outcomes, as well as which policy levers can minimize anticompetitive effects and maximize the benefits of these affiliations.

Enhancing the primary care team to provide redesigned care: the roles of practice facilitators and care managers.

Efforts to redesign primary care require multiple supports. Two potential members of the primary care team-practice facilitator and care manager-can play important but distinct roles in redesigning and improving care delivery. Facilitators, also known as quality improvement coaches, assist practices with coordinating their quality improvement activities and help build capacity for those activities-reflecting a systems-level approach to improving quality, safety, and implementation of evidence-based practices. Care managers provide direct patient care by coordinating care and helping patients navigate the system, improving access for patients, and communicating across the care team. These complementary roles aim to help primary care practices deliver coordinated, accessible, comprehensive, and patient-centered care.