Treating individuals with suicidal ideation in primary care: Patient-level characteristics associated with follow-up in the Collaborative Care Model.

INTRODUCTION: The Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) is an evidence-based approach which embeds behavioral health providers (BHPs) into primary care. Whether patients with suicidal ideation (SI) are willing to engage in CoCM is unclear. METHODS: Using Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) administrative data from primary care practices within an urban academic health system, we identified patients with and without SI who were referred to a CoCM BHP. We compared engagement, defined as attendance at ≥1 CoCM visit, across groups. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2022, 7391 primary care patients were referred to a CoCM BHP. Eight hundred and ninety-two of these patients reported SI on the PHQ-9 (754 on "several days" during the previous 2 weeks and 138 on "more than half or most days"). Across groups, most patients engaged in CoCM. Patients reporting SI on several days engaged at a lower rate (61.4%) than those reporting SI on more than half or most days (65.9%). Both SI groups engaged at a lower rate than the 6499 patients who did not report SI (67.5%). CONCLUSION: Most patients referred to a CoCM BHP engaged in ≥1 visit. Rates were lower for patients with SI, with the lowest rate among those reporting SI on several days.

Impact of the collaborative care model on medical spending.

OBJECTIVES: The collaborative care model integrates mental health care into primary care. In 2017, CMS created new billing codes to reimburse collaborative care. We measured the impact of a program supported by these codes on medical spending. STUDY DESIGN: Quasi-experimental. METHODS: We identified a commercially insured and managed Medicare sample of 825 patients who received collaborative care services in 8 primary care practices. We used propensity score matching to match treated patients to potential controls, resulting in 569 patients per group. We performed a difference-in-differences regression analysis to evaluate the impact of collaborative care on total medical spending, including medical, psychiatric, and pharmaceutical claims. RESULTS: Collaborative care patients' mean total medical cost began to fall after a patient's third month in the program and fell below the mean cost of control patients at month 7. Difference-in-differences regressions indicate a nonsignificant savings in total medical cost of $29.35 per member per month for patients in collaborative care compared with matched controls (95% CI, -$226.52 to $167.82). Treated members incurred $34.11 (95% CI, $31.95-$36.27) higher primary care costs that were directly attributed to collaborative care, $19.91 (95% CI, $4.84-$34.98) higher costs for other mental or behavioral health care, and a nonsignificant reduction of $91.34 (95% CI, -$319.32 to $136.63) in inpatient costs. CONCLUSIONS: Modest spending on collaborative care services to address the behavioral health needs of patients did not increase overall health care costs. This is the first economic study of a collaborative care program supported by the new billing codes.

Older Adult and Family Caregiver Perspectives on Engagement in Primary Care.

The purpose of the current in-depth qualitative study was to explore the experiences of older adults and family caregivers in primary care. Twenty patients and caregivers from six Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) practices' Patient and Family Advisory Councils within a large academic health system participated in telephone interviews from December 2018 to May 2019. Participants were mostly women (60%), with an average age of 71 years and nine chronic conditions. Transcripts were coded using conventional content analysis. Two key themes emerged related to person-centered care (PCC): Engagement in Health Care and Patient-Provider Relationship. Engagement in health care was defined by participants as: being proactive, centering on patient goals in treatment discussions, adherence, and self-triaging. Approximately all participants discussed the importance of the relationship and interactions with their provider as influencing their engagement. The identified themes offer recommendations for further improvement of primary PCC. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 48(11), 7-13.].

A pilot study of participatory and rapid implementation approaches to increase depression screening in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Most individuals with depression go unidentified and untreated. In 2016 the US Preventive Services Task Force released guidelines recommending universal screening in primary care to identify patients with depression and to link them to treatment. Feasible, acceptable, and effective strategies to implement these guidelines are needed. METHODS: This three-phased study employed rapid participatory methods to design and test strategies to increase depression screening at Penn Medicine, a large health system with 90 primary care practices. First, researchers solicited ideas and barriers from stakeholders to increase screening using an innovation tournament-a crowdsourcing method that invites stakeholders to submit ideas to address a workplace challenge. Second, a panel of stakeholders and scientists deliberated over and ranked the tournament ideas. An instant runoff election was held to select the winning idea. Third, the research team piloted the winning idea in a primary care practice using rapid prototyping, an approach that quickly refines and iterates strategy designs. RESULTS: The innovation tournament yielded 31 ideas and 32 barriers from diverse stakeholders (12 primary care physicians, 10 medical assistants, 4 nurse practitioners, 2 practice managers, and 4 patient support assistants). A panel of 6 stakeholders and scientists deliberated on the ideas and voted for patient self-report (i.e., through tablet computers, text message, or an online patient portal) as the winning idea. The research team rapid prototyped tablets in one primary care practice with one physician over 5 five-hour shifts to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of the strategy. Most patients, the physician, and medical assistants found the tablets acceptable and feasible. However, patient support assistants struggled to incorporate them in their workflow and expressed concerns about scaling up the process. Depression screening rates were higher using tablets compared to usual care; follow-up was comparable between tablets and usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid participatory methods engaged and amplified the voices of diverse stakeholders in primary care. These methods helped design an acceptable and feasible implementation strategy that showed promise for increasing depression screening in a primary care setting. The next step is to evaluate the strategy in a randomized controlled trial across primary care practices.

Addressing Common Challenges in the Implementation of Collaborative Care for Mental Health: The Penn Integrated Care Program.

PURPOSE: We developed and implemented a new model of collaborative care that includes a triage and referral management system. We present initial implementation metrics using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. METHODS: Primary care clinicians in 8 practices referred patients with any unmet mental health needs to the Penn Integrated Care program. Assessments were conducted using validated measures. Patients were primarily triaged to collaborative care (26%) or specialty mental health care with active referral management (70%). We conducted 50 qualitative interviews to understand the implementation process and inform program refinement. Our primary outcomes were reach and implementation metrics, including referral and encounter rates derived from the electronic health record. RESULTS: In 12 months, 6,124 unique patients were referred. Assessed patients reported symptoms consistent with a range of conditions from mild to moderate depression and anxiety to serious mental illnesses including psychosis and acute suicidal ideation. Among patients enrolled in collaborative care, treatment entailed a mean of 7.2 (SD 5.1) encounters over 78.1 (SD 51.3) days. Remission of symptoms was achieved by 32.6% of patients with depression and 39.5% of patients with anxiety. Stakeholders viewed the program favorably and had concrete suggestions to ensure sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: The Penn Integrated Care program demonstrated broad reach. Implementation was consistent with collaborative care as delivered in seminal studies of the model. Our results provide insight into a model for launching and implementing collaborative care to meet the needs of a diverse group of patients with the full range of mental health conditions seen in primary care.

Improving Payment for Collaborative Mental Health Care in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence supporting implementation of the Collaborative Care Model within primary care. Fee-for-service payment codes, published by Current Procedural Terminology in 2018, have made collaborative care separately reimbursable for the first time. These codes (ie, 99492-99494) reimburse for time spent per month by any member of the care team engaged in Collaborative Care, including behavioral care managers, primary care providers, and consulting psychiatrists. Time-based billing for these codes presents challenges for providers delivering Collaborative Care services. OBJECTIVES: Based on experience from multiple health care organizations, we reflect on these challenges and provide suggestions for implementation and future refinement of the codes. CONCLUSIONS: Further refinements to the codes are encouraged, including moving from a calendar month to a 30-day reimbursement cycle. In addition, we recommend payers adopt the new code proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to account for smaller increments of time.

A delicate balance: Accountability for very high-cost patients in new payment models.

Designing alternative payment models (APMs) to encourage providers to manage the needs of very complex patients while limiting providers' financial risk is a major challenge. Most APMs limit providers' financial risk for complex patients through an annual per-patient expenditure cap, above which medical expenses are excluded from financial performance calculations. We consider three strategies to better strengthen the balance between motivation and risk mitigation. First, risk adjustment could be improved. Second, expenditure caps can be tailored to very high-cost patients. Third, payers could allow providers to determine their own risk preferences through alternative reinsurance policies.

Saving without compromising: Teaching trainees to safely provide high value care.

Hospitals are increasingly shifting toward value-based reimbursement and focusing on cost consciousness and patient experience. These concepts are crucial to high-quality, affordable healthcare. However, physicians are not well-trained in factoring cost and patient experience into clinical decisions. The addition of these ideas may create the opportunity for patient harm by depriving patients of necessary care. We discuss ways for physicians to mitigate this risk by engaging in online high value care curricula, using a "5-Question High Value Care Time Out," getting mentorship from master clinicians and using clinical decision support tools.

Home Health Care: Nurse-Physician Communication, Patient Severity, and Hospital Readmission.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether communication failures between home health care nurses and physicians during an episode of home care after hospital discharge are associated with hospital readmission, stratified by patients at high and low risk of readmission. DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING: We linked Visiting Nurse Services of New York electronic medical records for patients with congestive heart failure in 2008 and 2009 to hospitalization claims data for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. STUDY DESIGN: Linear regression models and a propensity score matching approach were used to assess the relationship between communication failure and 30-day readmission, separately for patients with high-risk and low-risk readmission probabilities. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Natural language processing was applied to free-text data in electronic medical records to identify failures in communication between home health nurses and physicians. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Communication failure was associated with a statistically significant 9.7 percentage point increase in the probability of a patient readmission (32.6 percent of the mean) among high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: Poor communication between home health nurses and physicians is associated with an increased risk of hospital readmission among high-risk patients. Efforts to reduce readmissions among this population should consider focusing attention on this factor.

Association Between Hospital Participation in a Medicare Bundled Payment Initiative and Payments and Quality Outcomes for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Episodes.

IMPORTANCE: Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) is a voluntary initiative of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to test the effect of holding an entity accountable for all services provided during an episode of care on episode payments and quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether BPCI was associated with a greater reduction in Medicare payments without loss of quality of care for lower extremity joint (primarily hip and knee) replacement episodes initiated in BPCI-participating hospitals that are accountable for total episode payments (for the hospitalization and Medicare-covered services during the 90 days after discharge). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A difference-in-differences approach estimated the differential change in outcomes for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who had a lower extremity joint replacement at a BPCI-participating hospital between the baseline (October 2011 through September 2012) and intervention (October 2013 through June 2015) periods and beneficiaries with the same surgical procedure at matched comparison hospitals. EXPOSURE: Lower extremity joint replacement at a BPCI-participating hospital. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Standardized Medicare-allowed payments (Medicare payments), utilization, and quality (unplanned readmissions, emergency department visits, and mortality) during hospitalization and the 90-day postdischarge period. RESULTS: There were 29 441 lower extremity joint replacement episodes in the baseline period and 31 700 in the intervention period (mean [SD] age, 74.1 [8.89] years; 65.2% women) at 176 BPCI-participating hospitals, compared with 29 440 episodes in the baseline period (768 hospitals) and 31 696 episodes in the intervention period (841 hospitals) (mean [SD] age, 74.1 [8.92] years; 64.9% women) at matched comparison hospitals. The BPCI mean Medicare episode payments were $30 551 (95% CI, $30 201 to $30 901) in the baseline period and declined by $3286 to $27 265 (95% CI, $26 838 to $27 692) in the intervention period. The comparison mean Medicare episode payments were $30 057 (95% CI, $29 765 to $30 350) in the baseline period and declined by $2119 to $27 938 (95% CI, $27 639 to $28 237). The mean Medicare episode payments declined by an estimated $1166 more (95% CI, -$1634 to -$699; P < .001) for BPCI episodes than for comparison episodes, primarily due to reduced use of institutional postacute care. There were no statistical differences in the claims-based quality measures, which included 30-day unplanned readmissions (-0.1%; 95% CI, -0.6% to 0.4%), 90-day unplanned readmissions (-0.4%; 95% CI, -1.1% to 0.3%), 30-day emergency department visits (-0.1%; 95% CI, -0.7% to 0.5%), 90-day emergency department visits (0.2%; 95% CI, -0.6% to 1.0%), 30-day postdischarge mortality (-0.1%; 95% CI, -0.3% to 0.2%), and 90-day postdischarge mortality (-0.0%; 95% CI, -0.3% to 0.3%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the first 21 months of the BPCI initiative, Medicare payments declined more for lower extremity joint replacement episodes provided in BPCI-participating hospitals than for those provided in comparison hospitals, without a significant change in quality outcomes. Further studies are needed to assess longer-term follow-up as well as patterns for other types of clinical care.

Two-Year Costs and Quality in the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The 4-year, multipayer Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative was started in October 2012 to determine whether several forms of support would produce changes in care delivery that would improve the quality and reduce the costs of care at 497 primary care practices in seven regions across the United States. Support included the provision of care-management fees, the opportunity to earn shared savings, and the provision of data feedback and learning support. METHODS: We tracked changes in the delivery of care by practices participating in the initiative and used difference-in-differences regressions to compare changes over the first 2 years of the initiative in Medicare expenditures, health care utilization, claims-based measures of quality, and patient experience for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to initiative practices and a group of matched comparison practices. RESULTS: During the first 2 years, initiative practices received a median of $115,000 per clinician in care-management fees. The practices reported improvements in approaches to the delivery of primary care in areas such as management of the care of high-risk patients and enhanced access to care. Changes in average monthly Medicare expenditures per beneficiary did not differ significantly between initiative and comparison practices when care-management fees were not taken into account (-$11; 95% confidence interval [CI], -$23 to $1; P=0.07; negative values indicate less growth in spending at initiative practices) or when these fees were taken into account ($7; 95% CI, -$5 to $19; P=0.27). The only significant differences in other measures were a 3% reduction in primary care visits for initiative practices relative to comparison practices (P<0.001) and changes in two of the six domains of patient experience--discussion of decisions regarding medication with patients and the provision of support for patients taking care of their own health--both of which showed a small improvement in initiative practices relative to comparison practices (P=0.006 and P<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Midway through this 4-year intervention, practices participating in the initiative have reported progress in transforming the delivery of primary care. However, at this point these practices have not yet shown savings in expenditures for Medicare Parts A and B after accounting for care-management fees, nor have they shown an appreciable improvement in the quality of care or patient experience. (Funded by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320591.).

Large Independent Primary Care Medical Groups.

PURPOSE: In the turbulent US health care environment, many primary care physicians seek hospital employment. Large physician-owned primary care groups are an alternative, but few physicians or policy makers realize that such groups exist. We wanted to describe these groups, their advantages, and their challenges. METHODS: We identified 21 groups and studied 5 that varied in size and location. We conducted interviews with group leaders, surveyed randomly selected group physicians, and interviewed external observers-leaders of a health plan, hospital, and specialty medical group that shared patients with the group. We triangulated responses from group leaders, group physicians, and external observers to identify key themes. RESULTS: The groups' physicians work in small practices, with the group providing economies of scale necessary to develop laboratory and imaging services, health information technology, and quality improvement infrastructure. The groups differ in their size and the extent to which they engage in value-based contracting, though all are moving to increase the amount of financial risk they take for their quality and cost performance. Unlike hospital-employed and multispecialty groups, independent primary care groups can aim to reduce health care costs without conflicting incentives to fill hospital beds and keep specialist incomes high. Each group was positively regarded by external observers. The groups are under pressure, however, to sell to organizations that can provide capital for additional infrastructure to engage in value-based contracting, as well as provide substantial income to physicians from the sale. CONCLUSIONS: Large, independent primary care groups have the potential to make primary care attractive to physicians and to improve patient care by combining human scale advantages of physician autonomy and the small practice setting with resources that are important to succeed in value-based contracting.