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.

Hospital outpatient department billing is a poor indicator of primary care practice integration with hospital systems.

OBJECTIVE: To test the reliability of Medicare claims in measuring vertical integration. We assess the accuracy of a commonly used measure of integration, primary care physician (PCP) practices billing Medicare as a hospital outpatient department (HOPD) in claims. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Medicare fee-for-service claims, IQVIA, and CPC+ practice surveys for this study. STUDY DESIGN: We compare measures of integration from Medicare claims to self-reported indicators of integration from IQVIA and a survey of CPC+ participating practice sites. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We measure integration by using site-of-service billing in the 100% sample of Medicare Carrier claims from 2017-2020. In the IQVIA SK&A (2017-2018), OneKey (2019-2020), and practice survey data (2017-2019), we use self-reported responses to measure integration. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We find that currently most PCP practices sites that report themselves as being integrated with a health system do not bill as an HOPD. In 2017, 11% of CPC+ practices were identified as being vertically integrated in claims, while the equivalent numbers in SK&A and surveys were 52% and 54% integration, respectively. A t-test found that both datasets significantly differed from claims (Survey: 41.3%-45.1%; SK&A: 45.3%-51.1%); this gap persists in 2018-2019. CONCLUSION: Measuring physician-hospital vertical integration accurately is integral to determining consolidation. The overwhelming majority of PCP practice sites not billing as an HOPD may reflect Medicare regulatory changes that have reduced the financial incentives for doing so. These findings have implications for researchers that study the growth in PCP-hospital integration in health care markets.

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.

Assessment of structured data elements for social risk factors.

OBJECTIVES: Computable social risk factor phenotypes derived from routinely collected structured electronic health record (EHR) or health information exchange (HIE) data may represent a feasible and robust approach to measuring social factors. This study convened an expert panel to identify and assess the quality of individual EHR and HIE structured data elements that could be used as components in future computable social risk factor phenotypes. STUDY DESIGN: Technical expert panel. METHODS: A 2-round Delphi technique included 17 experts with an in-depth knowledge of available EHR and/or HIE data. The first-round identification sessions followed a nominal group approach to generate candidate data elements that may relate to socioeconomics, cultural context, social relationships, and community context. In the second-round survey, panelists rated each data element according to overall data quality and likelihood of systematic differences in quality across populations (ie, bias). RESULTS: Panelists identified a total of 89 structured data elements. About half of the data elements (n = 45) were related to socioeconomic characteristics. The panelists identified a diverse set of data elements. Elements used in reimbursement-related processes were generally rated as higher quality. Panelists noted that several data elements may be subject to implicit bias or reflect biased systems of care, which may limit their utility in measuring social factors. CONCLUSIONS: Routinely collected structured data within EHR and HIE systems may reflect patient social risk factors. Identifying and assessing available data elements serves as a foundational step toward developing future computable social factor phenotypes.

Measuring time clinicians spend using EHRs in the inpatient setting: a national, mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand hospitals' use of EHR audit-log-based measures to address burden associated with inpatient EHR use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using mixed methods, we analyzed 2018 American Hospital Association Information Technology Supplement Survey data (n = 2864 hospitals; 64% response rate) to characterize measures used and provided by EHR vendors to track clinician time spent documenting. We interviewed staff from the top 3 EHR vendors that provided these measures. Multivariable analyses identified variation in use of the measures among hospitals with these 3 vendors. RESULTS: 53% of hospitals reported using EHR data to track clinician time documenting, compared to 68% of the hospitals using the EHR from the top 3 vendors. Among hospitals with EHRs from these vendors, usage was significantly lower among rural hospitals and independent hospitals (P < .05). Two of these vendors provided measures of time spent doing specific tasks while the third measured an aggregate of auditable activities. Vendors varied in the underlying data used to create measures, measure specification, and data displays. DISCUSSION: Tools to track clinicians' documentation time are becoming more available. The measures provided differ across vendors and disparities in use exist across hospitals. Increasing the specificity of standards underlying the data would support a common set of core measures making these measures more widely available. CONCLUSION: Although half of US hospitals use measures of time spent in the EHR derived from EHR generated data, work remains to make such measures and analyses more broadly available to all hospitals and to increase its utility for national burden measurement.

Metrics for assessing physician activity using electronic health record log data.

Electronic health record (EHR) log data have shown promise in measuring physician time spent on clinical activities, contributing to deeper understanding and further optimization of the clinical environment. In this article, we propose 7 core measures of EHR use that reflect multiple dimensions of practice efficiency: total EHR time, work outside of work, time on documentation, time on prescriptions, inbox time, teamwork for orders, and an aspirational measure for the amount of undivided attention patients receive from their physicians during an encounter, undivided attention. We also illustrate sample use cases for these measures for multiple stakeholders. Finally, standardization of EHR log data measure specifications, as outlined here, will foster cross-study synthesis and comparative research.

Variation in Physicians' Electronic Health Record Documentation and Potential Patient Harm from That Variation.

BACKGROUND: Physician-to-physician variation in electronic health record (EHR) documentation not driven by patients' clinical status could be harmful. OBJECTIVE: Measure variation in completion of common clinical documentation domains. Identify perceived causes and effects of variation and strategies to mitigate negative effects. DESIGN: Sequential, explanatory, mixed methods using log data from a commercial EHR vendor and semi-structured interviews with outpatient primary care practices. PARTICIPANTS: Quantitative: 170,332 encounters led by 809 physicians in 237 practices. Qualitative: 40 interviewees in 10 practices. MAIN MEASURES: Interquartile range (IQR) of the proportion of encounters in which a physician completed documentation, for each documentation category. Multilevel linear regression measured the proportion of variation at the physician level. KEY RESULTS: Five clinical documentation categories had substantial and statistically significant (p < 0.001) variation at the physician level after accounting for state, organization, and practice levels: (1) discussing results (IQR = 50.8%, proportion of variation explained by physician level = 78.1%); (2) assessment and diagnosis (IQR = 60.4%, physician-level variation = 76.0%); (3) problem list (IQR = 73.1%, physician-level variation = 70.1%); (4) review of systems (IQR = 62.3%, physician-level variation = 67.7%); and (5) social history (IQR = 53.3%, physician-level variation = 62.2%). Drivers of variation from interviews included user preferences and EHR designs with multiple places to record similar information. Variation was perceived to create documentation inefficiencies and risk patient harm due to missed or misinterpreted information. Mitigation strategies included targeted user training during EHR implementation and practice meetings focused on documentation standardization. CONCLUSIONS: Physician-to-physician variation in EHR documentation impedes effective and safe use of EHRs, but there are potential strategies to mitigate negative consequences.

Practice strategies to improve primary care for chronic disease patients under a pay-for-value program.

BACKGROUND: Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness is critical to advancing healthcare quality and value. Yet, little is known about what strategies are successful in helping primary care practices deliver high-quality care for this population under value-based payment models. METHODS: Double-blind interviews in 14 primary care practices in the state of Michigan, stratified based on whether they did (n = 7) or did not (n = 7) demonstrate improvement in primary care outcomes for patients with at least one reported chronic disease between 2010 and 2013. All practices participate in a statewide pay-for-performance program run by a large commercial payer. Using an implementation science framework to identify leverage points for effecting organizational change, we sought to identify, describe and compare strategies among improving and non-improving practices across three domains: (1) organizational learning opportunities, (2) approaches to motivating staff, and (3) acquisition and use of resources. RESULTS: We identified 10 strategies; 6 were "differentiating" - that is, more prevalent among improving practices. These differentiating strategies included: (1) participation in learning collaboratives, (2) accessing payer tools to monitor quality performance, (3) framing pay-for-performance as a practice transformation opportunity, (4) reinvesting earned incentive money in equitable, practice-centric improvement, (5) employing a care manager, and (6) using available technical support from local hospitals and provider organizations to support performance improvement. Implementation of these strategies varied based on organizational context and relative strengths. CONCLUSIONS: Practices that succeeded in improving care for chronic disease patients pursued a mix of strategies that helped meet immediate care delivery needs while also creating new adaptive structures and processes to better respond to changing pressures and demands. These findings help inform payers and primary care practices seeking evidence-based strategies to foster a stronger delivery system for patients with significant healthcare needs.

Variation in Laboratory Test Naming Conventions in EHRs Within and Between Hospitals: A Nationwide Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records provide clinically rich data for research and quality improvement work. However, the data are often unstructured text, may be inconsistently recorded and extracted into centralized databases, making them difficult to use for research. OBJECTIVES: We sought to quantify the variation in how key laboratory measures are recorded in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) across hospitals and over time. We included 6 laboratory tests commonly drawn within the first 24 hours of hospital admission (albumin, bilirubin, creatinine, hemoglobin, sodium, white blood cell count) from fiscal years 2005-2015. RESULTS: We assessed laboratory test capture for 5,454,411 acute hospital admissions at 121 sites across the VA. The mapping of standardized laboratory nomenclature (Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes, LOINCs) to test results in CDW varied within hospital by laboratory test. The relationship between LOINCs and laboratory test names improved over time; by FY2015, 109 (95.6%) hospitals had >90% of the 6 laboratory tests mapped to an appropriate LOINC. All fields used to classify test results are provided in an Appendix (Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/MLR/B635). CONCLUSIONS: The use of electronic health record data for research requires assessing data consistency and quality. Using laboratory test results requires the use of both unstructured text fields and the identification of appropriate LOINCs. When using data from multiple facilities, the results should be carefully examined by facility and over time to maximize the capture of data fields.

Outcomes For High-Needs Patients: Practices With A Higher Proportion Of These Patients Have An Edge.

High-value primary care for high-needs patients-those with multiple physical, mental, or behavioral health conditions-is critical to improving health system performance. However, little is known about what types of physician practices perform best for high-needs patients. We examined two scale-related characteristics that could predict how well physician practices delivered care to this population: the proportion of patients in the practice that were high-needs and practice size (number of physicians). Using four years of data on commercially insured, high-needs patients in Michigan primary care practices, we found lower spending and utilization among practices with a higher proportion of high-needs patients (more than 10 percent of the practice's panel) compared to practices with smaller proportions. Small practices (those with one or two physicians) had lower overall spending, but not less utilization, compared to large practices. However, practices with a substantial proportion of high-needs patients, as well as small practices, performed slightly worse on a composite measure of process quality than their associated reference group. Practices that treat a high proportion of high-needs patients might have structural advantages or have developed specialized approaches to serve this population. If so, this raises questions about how best to make use of this knowledge to foster high-value care for high-needs patients.

Sustained participation in a pay-for-value program: impact on high-need patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether multi-year engagement by primary care practices in a pay-for-value program was associated with improved care for high-need patients. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study of 17,443 patients with 2 or more conditions who were assigned to primary care providers (PCPs) within 1582 practices that did and did not continuously participate in Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan's pay-for-value program (the Physician Group Incentive Program [PGIP]) between 2010 and 2013. METHODS: We used generalized linear mixed models, with patient-level random effects, to assess the relationship between whether practices continuously participated in PGIP and those practices' cost, use, and quality outcomes (derived from claims data) over a 4-year period. For most outcomes, models estimated the odds of any cost and utilization, as well as the amount of cost and utilization contingent on having any. RESULTS: High-need patients whose PCPs continuously participated in PGIP had lower odds of 30- and 90-day readmissions (odds ratio [OR], 0.65 and 0.63, respectively; P <.01 for both) over time compared with patients with PCPs who did not continuously participate. They also appeared to have lower odds of any emergency department visits (OR, 0.88; P <.01) and receive higher overall quality (1.6% higher; P <.01), as well as medication management-specific quality (3.0% higher; P <.01). We observed no differences in overall medical-surgical cost. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous PCP participation in a pay-for-value program was associated with lower use and improved quality over time, but not lower costs, for high-need patients. National policy efforts to engage PCPs in pay-for-value reimbursement is therefore likely to achieve some intended outcomes but may not be sufficient to deliver care that is of substantially higher value.

Leveraging Diverse Data Sources to Identify and Describe U.S. Health Care Delivery Systems.

Health care delivery systems are a growing presence in the U.S., yet research is hindered by the lack of universally agreed-upon criteria to denote formal systems. A clearer understanding of how to leverage real-world data sources to empirically identify systems is a necessary first step to such policy-relevant research. We draw from our experience in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Comparative Health System Performance (CHSP) initiative to assess available data sources to identify and describe systems, including system members (for example, hospitals and physicians) and relationships among the members (for example, hospital ownership of physician groups). We highlight five national data sources that either explicitly track system membership or detail system relationships: (1) American Hospital Association annual survey of hospitals; (2) Healthcare Relational Services Databases; (3) SK&A Healthcare Databases; (4) Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System; and (5) Internal Revenue Service 990 forms. Each data source has strengths and limitations for identifying and describing systems due to their varied content, linkages across data sources, and data collection methods. In addition, although no single national data source provides a complete picture of U.S. systems and their members, the CHSP initiative will create an early model of how such data can be combined to compensate for their individual limitations. Identifying systems in a way that can be repeated over time and linked to a host of other data sources will support analysis of how different types of organizations deliver health care and, ultimately, comparison of their performance.

Meaningful use care coordination criteria: Perceived barriers and benefits among primary care providers.

BACKGROUND: Stage 2 and proposed Stage 3 meaningful use criteria ask providers to support patient care coordination by electronically generating, exchanging, and reconciling key information during patient care transitions. METHODS: A stratified random sample of primary care practices in Michigan (n = 328) that had already met Stage 1 meaningful use criteria was surveyed, in order to identify the anticipated barriers to meeting these criteria as well as the expected impact on patient care coordination from doing so. RESULTS: The top three barriers, as identified by >65% of the primary care providers surveyed, were difficulty sending and receiving patient information electronically, a lack of provider and practice staff time, and the complex workflow changes required. Despite these barriers, primary care providers expressed strong agreement that meeting the proposed Stage 3 care coordination criteria would improve their patients' treatment and ensure they know about their patients' visits to other providers. CONCLUSION: The survey results suggest the need to enhance policy approaches and organizational strategies to address the key barriers identified by providers and practices in order to realize important care coordination benefits.

Michigan's fee-for-value physician incentive program reduces spending and improves quality in primary care.

As policy makers and others seek to reduce health care cost growth while improving health care quality, one approach gaining momentum is fee-for-value reimbursement. This payment strategy maintains the traditional fee-for-service arrangement but includes quality and spending incentives. We examined Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan's Physician Group Incentive Program, which uses a fee-for-value approach focused on primary care physicians. We analyzed the program's impact on quality and spending from 2008 to 2011 for over three million beneficiaries in over 11,000 physician practices. Participation in the incentive program was associated with approximately 1.1 percent lower total spending for adults (5.1 percent lower for children) and the same or improved performance on eleven of fourteen quality measures over time. Our findings contribute to the growing body of evidence about the potential effectiveness of models that align payment with cost and quality performance, and they demonstrate that it is possible to transform reimbursement within a fee-for-service framework to encourage and incentivize physicians to provide high-quality care, while also reducing costs.

Improving EHR Capabilities to Facilitate Stage 3 Meaningful Use Care Coordination Criteria.

Primary care practices have been limited in their ability to leverage electronic health records (EHRs) and health information exchange (HIE) to improve care coordination, but will soon be incentivized to do so under proposed Stage 3 meaningful use criteria. We use mixed methods to understand how primary care practices manage, share and reconcile electronic patient information across care settings, and identify innovations in EHR design to support enhanced care coordination. Opportunities identified by practices focused on availability and usability of features that facilitate (1) generation of customized summary of care records, (2) team-based care approaches, and (3) management of the increased volume of electronic information generated and exchanged during care transitions. More broadly, vendors and policymakers need to continue to work together to improve interoperability as the key to effective care coordination. If these EHR innovations were widespread, the value of meeting the proposed Stage 3 care coordination criteria would be substantially enhanced.

The Impact of HIT on Cost and Quality in Patient-Centered Medical Home Practices.

While health IT is thought to play a critical role in supporting new models of care delivery, we know little about the extent to which HIT improves cost and quality outcomes. We studied a large patient-centered medical home (PCMH) program to assess which types of HIT led to improvements in composite performance outcomes: PMPM cost, chronic disease management, medication management, and preventive care. At baseline, registries were associated with lower PMPM spending (-$19.37; p<0.05). Over time, practices that newly adopted EHRs had smaller gains in chronic disease management adherence relative to non-adopters (diff-in-diff: -1.55%; p<0.05). We failed to find a relationship between other types of HIT - ePrescribing and PHRs/Portals - and our composite outcomes. The lack of consistent relationship between HIT adoption and improved performance suggest that these tools may not yet support the clinical activities and approaches to patient engagement that enable PCMHs to deliver higher-quality, lower-cost care.

Benchmarking health IT among OECD countries: better data for better policy.

OBJECTIVE: To develop benchmark measures of health information and communication technology (ICT) use to facilitate cross-country comparisons and learning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The effort is led by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Approaches to definition and measurement within four ICT domains were compared across seven OECD countries in order to identify functionalities in each domain. These informed a set of functionality-based benchmark measures, which were refined in collaboration with representatives from more than 20 OECD and non-OECD countries. We report on progress to date and remaining work to enable countries to begin to collect benchmark data. RESULTS: The four benchmarking domains include provider-centric electronic record, patient-centric electronic record, health information exchange, and tele-health. There was broad agreement on functionalities in the provider-centric electronic record domain (eg, entry of core patient data, decision support), and less agreement in the other three domains in which country representatives worked to select benchmark functionalities. DISCUSSION: Many countries are working to implement ICTs to improve healthcare system performance. Although many countries are looking to others as potential models, the lack of consistent terminology and approach has made cross-national comparisons and learning difficult. CONCLUSIONS: As countries develop and implement strategies to increase the use of ICTs to promote health goals, there is a historic opportunity to enable cross-country learning. To facilitate this learning and reduce the chances that individual countries flounder, a common understanding of health ICT adoption and use is needed. The OECD-led benchmarking process is a crucial step towards achieving this.

Engaging primary care physicians in quality improvement: lessons from a payer-provider partnership.

A health insurer in Michigan, through its Physician Group Incentive Program, engaged providers across the state in a collection of financially incentivized initiatives to transform primary care and improve quality. We investigated physicians' and other program stakeholders' perceptions of the program through semistructured interviews with more than 80 individuals. We found that activities across five areas contributed to successful provider engagement: (1) developing a vision of improving primary care, (2) deliberately fostering practice-practice partnerships, (3) using existing infrastructure, (4) leveraging resources and market share, and (5) managing program trade-offs. Our research highlights effective strategies for engaging primary care physicians in program design and implementation processes and creating learning communities to support quality improvement and practice change.

Implementing the IT infrastructure for health reform: adoption of health IT among patient-centered medical home practices.

While health IT is thought to be critical to the success of new models of care delivery, we know little about the extent to which those pursuing these models are relying on HIT. We studied a large patient-centered medical home (PCMH) demonstration project, a new model of care delivery that has received substantial policy attention, in order to assess which types of HIT were most widely used, and how adoption rates changed over time as PCMH practices matured. We found that clinically-focused HIT tools were both widely adopted, and increasingly adopted, in PCMH practices compared to non-PCMH practices. In contrast, HIT that supports patient-engagement, patient portals and personal health records, was neither in widespread use nor more likely to be adopted over time by PCMH practices compared to other practices. This suggests that these tools may not yet support the types of patient engagement and interactions that PCMH practices seek.

The policy context of patient centered medical homes: perspectives of primary care providers.

BACKGROUND: Interest in the patient centered medical home (PCMH) model has increased significantly in recent years. Despite this attention, information is limited regarding the influence of policy context on implementation of the PCMH model. Using comparative, qualitative data, we identify several key policy impediments to PCMH implementation, and propose practical guidelines for addressing these issues. RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured in-person interviews with representatives of physician organizations and primary care practices pursuing PCMH. PARTICIPANTS: Practitioners and staff at 16 physician practices in Michigan, as well as key leaders of physician organizations. KEY RESULTS: We identified five primary policy issues cited by physicians and physician organization leaders as most impactful on their efforts to adopt PCMH: misalignment of current reimbursement schemes, administrative burden, conflicting criteria for PCMH designation, workforce policy issues, and uncertainty of health care reform. These policies were largely seen as barriers to their ability to implement PCMH. CONCLUSIONS: Providers' motivation to embrace PCMH, and their level of confidence regarding the results of such change, are greatly influenced by their perception of the external environment and the control they believe they have over this environment. Having policies in place that shape the path to PCMH in a manner that makes it as easy as possible for providers to accomplish the desired changes could well make the difference in whether successful transformation is achieved.