How CPC+ supported patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons for alternative payment models.

BACKGROUND: A growing literature documents how primary care practices adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic. We examine a topic that has received less attention-how participants in an advanced alternative payment model perceive the model influenced their ability to meet patients' care needs during the pandemic. METHODS: Analysis of closed- and open-ended questions from a 2021 survey of 2496 practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model (92% response rate) and a 2021 survey of 993 randomly selected primary care physicians from these practices (55% response rate). Both surveys asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed that they or their practice was "better positioned to meet patients' care needs during the coronavirus pandemic" because of participation in CPC+. Both also included an open-ended question about CPC+'s effects. RESULTS: Half of practices and one-third of physicians agreed or strongly agreed that participating in CPC+ better positioned them to meet patients' care needs during the pandemic. One in 10 practices and 2 in 10 physicians, disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 4 in 10 practices and slightly more than half of physicians neither agreed nor disagreed (or, for physicians, didn't know). The most commonly identified CPC+ activities that facilitated meeting patient care needs related to practices' work on care management (e.g., risk stratification), access (e.g., telehealth), payment outside of fee-for-service (FFS), and staffing (e.g., supporting care managers). CONCLUSIONS: Most CPC+ practices and physicians were positive or neutral about participating in CPC+ in the context of COVID-19, indicating more benefit than risk to payment alternatives to FFS.

Small Independent Primary Care Practices Serving Socially Vulnerable Urban Populations.

PURPOSE: This mixed methods study sought to describe the extent to which family physicians in urban communities serve socially vulnerable patients and to better understand their practices, their challenges, and the structural supports that could facilitate their patient care. METHODS: We conducted a quantitative analysis of questionnaire data from 100% of US physicians recertifying for family medicine from 2017 to 2020. We conducted qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with 22 physician owners of urban, small, independent practices who reported that the majority of their patients were socially vulnerable. RESULTS: In 2020, in urban areas across the United States, 19.3% of family physicians served in independent practices with 1 to 5 clinicians, down from 22.6% in 2017. Nearly one-half of these physicians reported that >10% of their patients were socially vulnerable. Interviews with 22 physicians who reported that the majority of their patients were socially vulnerable revealed 5 themes: (1) substantial time spent addressing access issues and social determinants of health, (2) minimal support from health care entities, such as independent practice associations and health plans, and insufficient connection to community-based organizations, (3) myriad financial challenges, (4) serious concerns about the future, and (5) deep personal commitment to serving socially vulnerable patients in independent practice. CONCLUSIONS: Small independent practices serving vulnerable patients in urban communities are surviving because deeply committed physicians are making personal sacrifices. Health equity-focused policies could decrease the burden on these physicians and bolster independent practices so that socially vulnerable patients continue to have options when seeking primary care.