Sickle Cell Disease in an Older Adult Population: A Retrospective Review of Health Care Resource Utilization.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) has a history of health inequity, as patients with SCD are primarily Black and often marginalized from the health care system. Although recent health care and treatment advancements have prolonged life expectancy, it may be insufficient to support the complex needs of the growing population of older adults with SCD. This retrospective study used a cohort (N = 812) of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries 45 years and older (ages: 45-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75-89) with SCD to identify associations of SCD-related complications and comorbidities with emergency department (ED) visits, potentially avoidable ED visits, all-cause hospitalization, and potentially avoidable hospitalizations, 2018-2020. The 75-89 age group had lower odds of an ED visit (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.32-1.00), 65-74 age group had lower odds of an ED visit (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.31-0.78) and hospitalization (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31-0.79), compared with the 45-54 age group. Acute chest syndrome was associated with increased odds of an ED visit (OR 2.02; 95% CI 1.10-3.71), avoidable ED visit (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.14-3.06), and hospitalization (OR 3.61; 95% CI 2.06-6.31). Pain was associated with increased odds of an ED visit (OR 2.64; 95% CI 1.85-3.76), an avoidable ED visit (OR 3.08; 95% CI 1.90-4.98), hospitalization (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.02-2.24), and avoidable hospitalization (OR 6.42; 95% CI 1.74-23.74). Older adults with SCD have been living with SCD for decades, often while managing pain crises and complications associated increased incidence of an ED visit and hospitalization. The characteristics and needs of this population must continue to be examined to increase preventative care and reduce costly emergent health care resource utilization.

Effects of Primary Care-Led, Integrated Palliative Care for Medicare Patients in a Value-Based Model.

CONTEXT: Faced with a projected shortage of specialized palliative care physicians, scalable palliative solutions are required to better meet the aging population's needs. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a multi-site, primary care-led, integrated palliative care model improves clinical, utilization, and economic outcomes. METHODS: Propensity score-matched comparison group formed from participants who were Medicare beneficiaries, died January 1, 2021-January 31, 2023, were patients of eight primary care practices that partner with agilon health, and enrolled in palliative care for at least seven days. Each practice operates in a value-based model, where primary care providers (PCPs) take on full-risk for the cost and quality of patient outcomes. Each program includes symptom management, defining goals of care/advance directives, PCP care coordination, and assistance with care transitions if patients enroll in hospice. RESULTS: Final sample included 1778 decedents, with 889 in both enrolled and matched cohorts, average age 83. Palliative care is associated with improved patient outcomes from palliative care enrollment until death, including 5.4 more days at home (p < 0.001), 0.4 fewer hospitalizations (p < 0.001), 17% fewer deaths in a hospital (p < 0.001), and $10,393 lower overall healthcare costs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A primary care-led, integrated approach of delivering palliative care within a full-risk model can be an effective care delivery mechanism to meet the healthcare needs of an aging population by impacting patient outcomes and reducing avoidable utilization and cost at the end of life. These findings demonstrate that PCPs in a scaled, full-risk model can simultaneously improve care for patients while reducing costs to the healthcare system.

Burden Of Health-Related Social Needs Among Dual- And Non-Dual-Eligible Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries.

Little information exists to inform stakeholders' efforts to screen for, address, and risk-adjust for the health-related social needs (HRSNs) of Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees, particularly those not dually Medicaid-Medicare eligible and those younger than age sixty-five. HRSNs can include food insecurity, housing instability, transportation issues, and other factors. We examined the prevalence of HRSNs in 2019 among 61,779 enrollees in a large, national MA plan. Although HRSNs were more common among dual-eligible beneficiaries, with 80 percent reporting at least one (average, 2.2 per beneficiary), 48 percent of non-dual-eligible beneficiaries reported one or more, indicating that dual eligibility alone would have inadequately captured HRSN risk. HRSN burden was unequally distributed across multiple beneficiary characteristics, notably with beneficiaries younger than age sixty-five more likely than those ages sixty-five and older to report having an HRSN. We also found that some HRSNs were more strongly associated with hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and physician visits than others. These findings suggest the importance of considering the HRSNs of dual- and non-dual-eligible beneficiaries, as well as those of beneficiaries of all ages, when exploring how to address HRSNs in the MA population.

Primary Care Practice Transformation Introduces Different Staff Roles.

PURPOSE: Practices in the 4-year Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative changed staffing patterns during 2012-2016 to improve care delivery. We sought to characterize these changes and to compare practice patterns with those in similar non-CPC practices in 2016. METHODS: We conducted an online survey among selected US primary care practices. We statistically tested 2012-2016 changes in practice-reported staff composition among 461 CPC practices using 2-tailed t tests. Using logistic regression analysis, we compared differences in staff types between the CPC practices and 358 comparison practices that participated in the survey in 2016. RESULTS: In 2012, most CPC practices reported having physicians (100%), administrative staff (99%), and medical assistants (90%). By 2016, 84% reported having care managers/care coordinators (up from 24% in 2012), and 29% reported having behavioral health professionals, clinical psychologists, or social workers (up from 19% in 2014). There were also smaller increases (of less than 10 percentage points) in the share of practices having pharmacists, nutritionists, registered nurses, quality improvement specialists, and health educators. Larger and system-affiliated practices were more likely to report having care managers/care coordinators and behavioral health professionals. In 2016, relative to comparison practices, CPC practices were more likely to report having various staff types-notably, care managers/care coordinators (84% of CPC vs 36% of comparison practices), behavioral health professionals (29% vs 12%), and pharmacists (18% vs 4%). CONCLUSIONS: During the CPC initiative, CPC practices added different staff types to a fairly traditional staffing model of physicians with medical assistants. They most commonly added care managers/care coordinators and behavioral health staff to support the CPC model and, at the end of CPC, were more likely to have these staff members than comparison practices.

The Effects of a Primary Care Transformation Initiative on Primary Care Physician Burnout and Workplace Experience.

BACKGROUND: Physician burnout is associated with deleterious effects for physicians and their patients and might be exacerbated by practice transformation. OBJECTIVE: Assess the effect of the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative on primary care physician experience. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study conducted with about 500 CPC and 900 matched comparison practices. Mail surveys of primary care physicians, selected using cross-sectional stratified random selection 11 months into CPC, and a longitudinal design with sample replacement 44 months into CPC. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians in study practices. INTERVENTION: A multipayer primary care transformation initiative (October 2012-December 2016) that required care delivery changes and provided enhanced payment, data feedback, and learning support. MAIN MEASURES: Burnout, control over work, job satisfaction, likelihood of leaving current practice within 2 years. KEY RESULTS: More than 1000 physicians responded (over 630 of these in CPC practices) in each round (response rates 70-81%, depending on round and research group). Physician experience outcomes were similar for physicians in CPC and comparison practices. About one third of physician respondents in CPC and comparison practices reported high levels of burnout in each round (32 and 29% in 2013 [P = 0.59], and 34 and 36% in 2016 [P = 0.63]). Physicians in CPC and comparison practices reported some to moderate control over work, with an average score from 0.50 to 0.55 out of 1 in 2013 and 2016 (CPC-comparison differences of - 0.04 in 2013 [95% CI - 0.08-0.00, P = 0.07], and - 0.03 in 2016 [95% CI - 0.03-0.02, P = 0.19]). In 2016, roughly three quarters of CPC and comparison physicians were satisfied with their current job (77 and 74%, P = 0.77) and about 15% planned to leave their practice within 2 years (14 and 15%, P = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Despite requiring substantial practice transformation, CPC did not affect physician experience. Research should track effects of other transformation initiatives on physicians and test new ways to address burnout. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02320591.

Patient experience during a large primary care practice transformation initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how the multipayer Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative that transformed primary care delivery affected patient experience of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. The study examines whether patient experience changed during the 4-year initiative, whether ratings of CPC practices changed relative to ratings of comparison practices, and areas in which practices still have an opportunity to improve patient experience. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study using 2 cross-sectional samples of more than 25,000 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to 490 CPC practices and more than 8000 beneficiaries attributed to 736 comparison practices. METHODS: We analyzed patient experience 8 to 12 months and 45 to 48 months after CPC began, measured using 5 domains of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group survey with Patient-Centered Medical Home items, version 2.0. A regression-adjusted analysis compared differences in the proportion of beneficiaries giving the best responses (and, as a sensitivity test, mean responses) to survey questions over time and between CPC and comparison practices. RESULTS: Patient ratings of care over time were generally comparable for CPC and comparison practices. CPC had favorable effects on measures of follow-up care after hospitalizations and emergency department visits. CONCLUSIONS: Practice transformation did not alter patient experience. The lack of favorable findings raises questions about how future efforts in primary care can succeed in improving patient experience.

Development and Validation of the Modified Patient-Centered Medical Home Assessment for the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the modified Patient-Centered Medical Home Assessment (M-PCMH-A) survey module developed to track primary care practices' care delivery approaches over time, assess whether its underlying factor structure is reliable, and produce factor scores that provide a more reliable summary measure of the practice's care delivery than would a simple average of question responses. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Survey data collected from diverse practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative in 2012 (n = 497) and 2014 (n = 493) and matched comparison practices in 2014 (n = 423). STUDY DESIGN: Confirmatory factor analysis. DATA COLLECTION: Thirty-eight questions organized in six domains: Access and Continuity of Care, Planned Care for Chronic Conditions and Preventive Care, Risk-Stratified Care Management, Patient and Caregiver Engagement, Coordination of Care across the Medical Neighborhood, and Continuous Data-Driven Improvement. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Confirmatory factor analysis suggested using seven factors (splitting one domain into two), reassigning two questions to different domain factors, and removing one question, resulting in high reliability, construct validity, and stability in all but one factor. The seven factors together formed a single higher-order factor summary measure. Factor scores guard against potential biases from equal weighting. CONCLUSIONS: The M-PCMH-A can validly and reliably track primary care delivery across practices and over time using factors representing seven key components of care as well as an overall score. Researchers should calculate factor loadings for their specific data if possible, but average scores may be suitable if they cannot use factor analysis due to resource or sample constraints.

Patient experience midway through a large primary care practice transformation initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how the multipayer Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative that transforms primary care delivery affects the patient experience of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. The study examines how experience changed between the first and second years of CPC, how ratings of CPC practices have changed relative to ratings of comparison practices, and areas in which practices still have opportunities to improve patient experience. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study using 2 serial cross-sectional samples of more than 25,000 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to 496 CPC practices and nearly 9000 beneficiaries attributed to 792 comparison practices. METHODS: We analyzed patient experience 8 to 12 months and 21 to 24 months after CPC began, measured using 6 domains of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group 12-Month Survey with Patient-Centered Medical Home supplemental items. We compared changes over time in patients giving the best responses between CPC and comparison practices using a regression-adjusted difference-in-differences analysis. RESULTS: Patient ratings of care over time were generally comparable for CPC and comparison practices, with slightly more favorable differences-generally of small magnitude-for CPC practices than expected by chance. There were small, statistically significant, favorable effects for 2 of 6 composite measures measured using both the proportion giving the best responses and mean responses: getting timely appointments, care, and information; providers support patients in taking care of their own health; and providers discuss medication decisions. There was an additional small favorable effect on the proportion of patients giving the best response in getting timely appointments, care, and information; there was no effect on the mean. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 2 years of CPC, CPC practices showed slightly better year-to-year patient experience ratings for selected items, indicating that transformation did not negatively affect patient experience and improved some aspects slightly. Patient ratings for the 2 groups were generally comparable, and both faced substantial room for improvement.

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.).

Staffing patterns of primary care practices in the comprehensive primary care initiative.

PURPOSE: Despite growing calls for team-based care, the current staff composition of primary care practices is unknown. We describe staffing patterns for primary care practices in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative. METHODS: We undertook a descriptive analysis of CPC initiative practices' baseline staffing using data from initial applications and a practice survey. CMS selected 502 primary care practices (from 987 applicants) in 7 regions based on their health information technology, number of patients covered by participating payers, and other factors; 496 practices were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Consistent with the national distribution, most of the CPC initiative practices included in this study were small: 44% reported 2 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) physicians; 27% reported more than 4. Nearly all reported administrative staff (98%) and medical assistants (89%). Fifty-three percent reported having nurse practitioners or physician assistants; 47%, licensed practical or vocational nurses; 36%, registered nurses; and 24%, care managers/coordinators-all of these positions are more common in larger practices. Other clinical staff were reported infrequently regardless of practice size. Compared with other CPC initiative practices, designated patient-centered medical homes were more likely to have care managers/coordinators but otherwise had similar staff types. Larger practices had fewer FTE staff per physician. CONCLUSIONS: At baseline, most CPC initiative practices used traditional staffing models and did not report having dedicated staff who may be integral to new primary care models, such as care coordinators, health educators, behavioral health specialists, and pharmacists. Without such staff and payment for their services, practices are unlikely to deliver comprehensive, coordinated, and accessible care to patients at a sustainable cost.

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.