Association of the Range of Outpatient Services Provided by Primary Care Physicians with Subsequent Health Care Costs and Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Broader primary care practice range of services (ROS), defined as the diversity of professional services delivered, is associated with lower utilization. ROS provided by individual primary care physicians (PCPs) varies considerably with unclear implications for patients. OBJECTIVES: Create a PCP-ROS measure covering six categories of outpatient services, including expanded codes for mental health counseling services and point of care ultrasound (POCUS) technology in physician offices. Determine whether PCP-ROS is associated with total Medicare expenditures, inpatient admissions, acute hospital utilization (AHU), and emergency department (ED) visits. Examine physician and practice characteristics associated with PCP-ROS. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: 4,569,711 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries and 27,008 PCPs observed during the evaluation of the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC +) initiative. MEASUREMENTS: PCP-ROS, hospitalizations, AHU (includes observation stays as well as inpatient admissions), ED visits, and total Medicare expenditures. RESULTS: Physicians varied substantially in the range of services provided. Broader PCP-ROS was significantly, independently associated with 1 - 3% lower Medicare expenditures (p ≤ 0.01), inpatient admissions (p ≤ 0.027), AHU (p ≤ 0.025), and ED visit rates (p ≤ 0.000). PCP-ROS score was associated with improved patient outcomes, independent of physician provision of procedures (such as laceration repair or skin excisions). Physicians in practice sites affiliated with a hospital or health system had narrower PCP-ROS than independent physicians by 0.3 to 0.4 (p < 0.001). Internal medicine specialty was associated with narrower PCP-ROS than family medicine by 0.3 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients cared for by primary care physicians who provide a broader range of services subsequently experience lower acute care utilization and expenditures than do those cared for by physicians with narrower ROS. Practice leaders and professional associations should consider how best to ensure that primary care physicians efficiently and effectively provide the office-based professional services most needed by their patients.

Medicare beneficiaries with more comprehensive primary care physicians report better primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether primary care physician (PCP) comprehensiveness is associated with Medicare beneficiaries' overall rating of care from their PCP and staff. DATA SOURCES: We linked Medicare claims with survey data from Medicare beneficiaries attributed to Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) physicians and practices. STUDY DESIGN: We performed regression analyses of the associations between two claims-based measures of PCP comprehensiveness in 2017 and beneficiaries' rating of care from their PCP and practice staff in 2018. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The analytic sample included 6228 beneficiaries cared for by 3898 PCPs. Regressions controlled for beneficiary, physician, practice, and market characteristics. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Beneficiaries with more comprehensive PCPs rated care from their PCP and practice staff higher than did those with less comprehensive PCPs. For each comprehensiveness measure, beneficiaries whose PCP was in the 75th percentile were more likely than beneficiaries whose PCP was in the 25th percentile to rate their care highly (2 percentage point difference, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with more comprehensive PCPs rate overall care from their PCPs and staff higher than those with less comprehensive PCPs.

Predicting Fragmented Care: Beneficiary, Physician, Practice, and Market Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Understanding what drives fragmented ambulatory care (care spread across multiple providers without a dominant provider) can inform the design of future interventions to reduce unnecessary fragmentation. OBJECTIVES: To identify the characteristics of beneficiaries, primary care physicians, primary care practice sites, and geographic markets that predict highly fragmented ambulatory care in the United States. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of Medicare claims data for beneficiaries attributed to primary care physicians and practices in 2018. We used hierarchical linear models with random intercepts and an extensive list of explanatory variables to predict the likelihood of high fragmentation. SUBJECTS: A total of 3,540,310 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries met the inclusion criteria, attributed to 26,344 primary care physicians in 9300 practice sites, and 788 geographic markets. MEASURES: We defined high care fragmentation as a reversed Bice-Boxerman Index score above 0.85. RESULTS: Explanatory variables explained only 6% of the variation in highly fragmented care. Unobserved differences between primary care physicians, between practice sites, and between markets together accounted for 4%. Instead, 90% of the variation in high fragmentation was unobserved residual variance. We identified the characteristics of beneficiaries (age, reason for original Medicare entitlement, and dually eligible for Medicaid insurance), physicians (comprehensiveness of care), and practices (size, being part of a system/hospital) that had small associations with high fragmentation. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in fragmentation was not explained by observed beneficiary, primary care provider, practice site, or market characteristics. Instead, the aggregate behavior of diverse health care providers beyond primary care, along with unmeasured patient preferences and behaviors, seem to be important predictors.

Assessing patient, physician, and practice characteristics predicting the use of low-value services.

OBJECTIVE: To examine characteristics of beneficiaries, physicians, and their practice sites associated with greater use of low-value services (LVS) using LVS measures that reflect current care practices. DATA SOURCES: This study was conducted in the context of a large, nationwide primary care redesign initiative (Comprehensive Primary Care Plus), using Medicare claims data in 2018. STUDY DESIGN: We examined beneficiary-level total counts of LVS based on the existing 31 claims-based measures updated by excluding three services provided with diminishing frequency to Medicare beneficiaries and by replacing these with more recently identified LVS. We estimated hierarchical linear models with an extensive list of beneficiary, physician, and practice site characteristics to examine the contribution of characteristics at each level in predicting greater use of LVS. We also examined the proportion of variation in LVS use attributable to the set of characteristics at each level. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The study included 5,074,642 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to 32,406 primary care physicians in 11,009 primary care practice sites. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Patients with disabilities, end-stage renal disease, and those in regions with higher poverty rates receive 10 (standard error [SE] = 3.0), 80 (SE = 14.0), and 10 (SE = 1.0) more LVS per 1000 beneficiaries across all 31 measures combined than patients without such attributes, respectively. Greater physician comprehensiveness and an increase in the number of primary care practitioners at a practice were associated with 40 (SE = 20.0) and 20 (SE = 6.0) fewer LVS per 1000 beneficiaries, respectively. Yet, the explanatory variables we examined only account for 11 percent of the variation in LVS use, with most of the variation (87 percent) being due to unobserved differences at the beneficiary level. CONCLUSIONS: Unexplained residual variation, from underlying patient preferences and behavior of non-primary care providers, could be important determinants of LVS use.

Communication Gaps Persist Between Primary Care and Specialist Physicians.

A survey conducted with data from 2008 found that physicians often do not communicate with each other at the time of referral or after consultation. Communication between physicians might have improved since then, with the dissemination of electronic health records (EHRs), but this is not known. We used 2019 survey data to measure primary care physicians' perceptions of communication at the time of referral and after consultation. We found that large gaps in communication persist. The similarity between these survey results suggests that despite the dissemination of EHRs, physicians still do not consistently communicate with each other about the patients they share.

Primary care redesign and care fragmentation among Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: To determine associations between a large-scale primary care redesign-the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) Initiative-and the extent of continuity or fragmentation of ambulatory care for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during the first 3 years of CPC+. STUDY DESIGN: We used a difference-in-differences framework with a comparison group of practices that were similar to CPC+ practices at baseline (eg, practice size, demographics, Medicare spending). Regressions controlled for clustering, baseline patient characteristics, and practice fixed effects. Our study covered January 2016 through December 2019 and included 1,085,707 beneficiaries attributed to 2883 CPC+ practices and 2,274,068 beneficiaries attributed to 6912 comparison practices. METHODS: We focused on beneficiaries with highly fragmented care at baseline because they may have changed the most in response to CPC+. Key outcome measures were the numbers of ambulatory visits and unique practitioners, reported by specialty category; the percentage of visits with the usual provider of care (measuring continuity); and the reversed Bice-Boxerman Index (rBBI; measuring fragmentation). RESULTS: Medicare beneficiaries with high fragmentation (rBBI ≥ 0.85) at baseline (40% of the sample) had a mean of 13 ambulatory visits across 7 practitioners; the most frequent provider of care accounted for only 28% of visits. By contrast, the remaining beneficiaries had a mean of 10 visits across 4 practitioners, with the most frequent provider accounting for 54% of visits. There were no differences in continuity or fragmentation of care for CPC+ vs comparison beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: We find no evidence that CPC+ increased continuity or decreased fragmentation of care.

Long-Term Effects of the Comprehensive Primary Care Model on Health Care Spending and Utilization.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services launched the 4-year Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative (CPC Classic) in 2012 and its 5-year successor, CPC Plus (CPC+), in 2017 to test whether improving primary care delivery in five areas-and providing practices with financial and technical support-reduced spending and improved quality. This is the first study to examine long-term effects of a primary care practice transformation model. OBJECTIVE: To test whether long-term primary care transformation-the 4-year CPC Classic and the first 2 years of its successor, CPC+-reduced hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and spending over 6 years. DESIGN: We used a difference-in-differences analysis to compare outcomes for beneficiaries attributed to CPC Classic practices with outcomes for beneficiaries attributed to comparison practices during the year before and 6 years after CPC Classic began. PARTICIPANTS: The study involved 565,674 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to 502 CPC Classic practices and 1,165,284 beneficiaries attributed to 908 comparison practices, with similar beneficiary-, practice-, and market-level characteristics as the CPC Classic practices. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions required primary care practices to improve 5 care areas and supported their transformation with substantially enhanced payment, data feedback, and learning support and, for CPC+, added health information technology support. MAIN MEASURES: Hospitalizations (all-cause), ED visits (outpatient and total), and Medicare Part A and B expenditures. KEY RESULTS: Relative to comparison practices, beneficiaries in intervention practices experienced slower growth in hospitalizations-3.1% less in year 5 and 3.5% less in year 6 (P < 0.01) and roughly 2% (P < 0.1) slower growth each year in total ED visits during years 3 through 6. Medicare Part A and B expenditures (excluding care management fees) did not change appreciably. CONCLUSIONS: The emergence of favorable effects on hospitalizations in years 5 and 6 suggests primary care transformation takes time to translate into lower hospitalizations. Longer tests of models are needed.

MIRROR-TCM: Multisite Replication of a Randomized Controlled Trial - Transitional Care Model.

In the U.S., older adults hospitalized with acute episodes of chronic conditions often are rehospitalized within 30 days of discharge. Numerous studies reveal that poor management of the complex needs of this population remains the norm. METHODS: This prospective, intent-to-treat, randomized controlled trial (RCT) will assess the effects of replicating the rigorously studied Transitional Care Model (TCM) in four U.S. healthcare systems. The TCM is an advanced practice registered nurse led, team-based, care management intervention that supports older adults throughout vulnerable care episodes that span hospital to home. This RCT will compare health and economic outcomes demonstrated by at-risk older adults hospitalized with heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or pneumonia randomized to receive usual discharge planning (control group, N = 800) to those observed by a similar group of older adults randomized to receive the TCM protocol (N = 800). The primary outcome is number of rehospitalizations at 12 months post-discharge, with secondary resource use outcomes measured at multiple intervals. Patient experience with care, health and quality of life outcomes will be assessed at 90 days post-discharge. DISCUSSION: Based on health and economic benefits demonstrated in multiple NIH funded RCTs, the study team hypothesizes that the intervention group, both within and across participating health systems, will have decreased acute care resource use and costs at 12 months and better ratings of the care experience and health and quality of life through 90 days post-discharge compared to the control group. The impact of COVID-19 on implementation of this study also is discussed.

Practice-site-level measures of primary care comprehensiveness and their associations with patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To develop two practice-site-level measures of comprehensiveness and examine their associations with patient outcomes, and how their performance differs from physician-level measures. DATA SOURCES: Medicare fee-for-service claims. STUDY DESIGN: We calculated practice-site-level comprehensiveness measures (new problem management and involvement in patient conditions) across 5286 primary care physicians (PCPs) at 1339 practices in the Comprehensive Primary Care initiative evaluation in 2013. We assessed their associations with practices' attributed beneficiaries' 2014 total Medicare expenditures, hospitalization rates, ED visit rates. We also examined variation in PCPs' comprehensiveness across PCPs within practices versus between primary care practices. Finally, we compared associations of practice-site and PCP-level measures with outcomes. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The measures had good variation across primary care practices, strong validity, and high reliability. Receiving primary care from a practice at the 75th versus 25th percentile on the involvement in patient conditions measure was associated with $21.93 (2.8%) lower total Medicare expenditures per beneficiary per month (P < .01). Receiving primary care from a practice at the 75th versus 25th percentile on the new problem management measure was associated with $14.77 (1.9%) lower total Medicare expenditures per beneficiary per month (P < .05); 8.84 (3.0%) fewer hospitalizations (P < .001), and 21.27 (3.1%) fewer ED visits per thousand beneficiaries per year (P < .01). PCP comprehensiveness varied more within than between practices. CONCLUSIONS: More comprehensive primary care practices had lower Medicare FFS expenditures, hospitalization, and ED visit rates. Both PCP and practice-site level comprehensiveness measures had strong construct and predictive validity; PCP-level measures were more precise.

New approaches to measuring the comprehensiveness of primary care physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To develop claims-based measures of comprehensiveness of primary care physicians (PCPs) and summarize their associations with health care utilization and cost. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: A total of 5359 PCPs caring for over 1 million Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from 1404 practices. STUDY DESIGN: We developed Medicare claims-based measures of physician comprehensiveness (involvement in patient conditions and new problem management) and used a previously developed range of services measure. We analyzed the association of PCPs' comprehensiveness in 2013 with their beneficiaries' emergency department, hospitalizations rates, and ambulatory care-sensitive condition (ACSC) admissions (each per 1000 beneficiaries per year), and Medicare expenditures (per beneficiary per month) in 2014, adjusting for beneficiary, physician, practice, and market characteristics, and clustering. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Each measure varied across PCPs and had low correlation with the other measures-as intended, they capture different aspects of comprehensiveness. For patients whose PCPs' comprehensiveness score was at the 75th vs 25th percentile (more vs less comprehensive), patients had lower service use (P < 0.05) in one or more measures: involvement with patient conditions: total Medicare expenditures, -$17.4 (-2.2 percent); hospitalizations, -5.5 (-1.9 percent); emergency department (ED) visits, -16.3 (-2.4 percent); new problem management: total Medicare expenditures, -$13.3 (-1.7 percent); hospitalizations, -7.0 (-2.4 percent); ED visits, -19.7 (-2.9 percent); range of services: ED visits, -17.1 (-2.5 percent). There were no significant associations between the comprehensiveness measures and ACSC admission rates. CONCLUSIONS: These measures demonstrate strong content and predictive validity and reliability. Medicare beneficiaries of PCPs providing more comprehensive care had lower hospitalization rates, ED visits, and total Medicare expenditures.

The Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative: Effects On Spending, Quality, Patients, And Physicians.

The Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative (CPC), a health care delivery model developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), tested whether multipayer support of 502 primary care practices across the country would improve primary care delivery, improve care quality, or reduce spending. We evaluated the initiative's effects on care delivery and outcomes for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries attributed to initiative practices, relative to those attributed to matched comparison practices. CPC practices reported improvements in primary care delivery, including care management for high-risk patients, enhanced access, and improved coordination of care transitions. The initiative slowed growth in emergency department visits by 2 percent in CPC practices, relative to comparison practices. However, it did not reduce Medicare spending enough to cover care management fees or appreciably improve physician or beneficiary experience or practice performance on a limited set of Medicare claims-based quality measures. As CMS and other payers increasingly use alternative payment models that reward quality and value, CPC provides important lessons about supporting practices in transforming care.

Uses and Limitations of Claims-based Performance Feedback Reports: Lessons From the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Performance feedback is central to data-driven models of quality improvement, but the use of claims-based data for feedback has received little attention. PURPOSE: To examine the challenges, uses, and limitations of quarterly Medicare claims-based performance feedback reports generated for practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative from 2012 to 2015. METHODS: Mixed methods study of nearly 500 CPC practices in seven regions, combining pilot testing; systematic monitoring; surveys; in-depth interviews; user feedback; and input from data feedback team. RESULTS: Designing reports required addressing issues about timing, data completeness and reliability, variations in patient risk across practices, and use of benchmarks and metrics understandable to users. Practices' ability to use reports constructively depended on their experience, analytic resources, expectations, and perceptions about the role of primary care in improving reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Generating claims-based feedback reports that support practices' quality improvement efforts requires a significant investment of analytic expertise, time, resources, continuous improvement, and technical assistance. IMPLICATIONS: Claims-based performance feedback can provide insight into patterns of patients' care across provider settings and opportunities for improvement, but practices need data from other sources to manage patients in real time or assess the short-term effects of specific changes in care delivery.

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.).

Durable medical equipment and home health among the largest contributors to area variations in use of Medicare services.

Most analyses of geographic variation in Medicare spending have focused on total spending. However, focusing on the volume and intensity of specific categories of services delivered to patients could help identify ways to lower costs without having a negative impact on care. We investigated how utilization in thirteen medical service categories in Medicare Parts A and B (for hospital and physician insurance, respectively) varied across sixty communities nationwide. We found considerable geographic variation in the use of some service categories, although not all. We also found that local communities used very different combinations of types of services to produce medical care, that some service categories were substituted for others, and that the mix of service categories differed even among sites with high or low total medical utilization levels. Home health and durable medical equipment were major drivers of total geographic service use variation because of their variation across sites. They may therefore be appropriate targets for policy interventions directed at increasing efficiency.

Paying more for primary care: can it help bend the Medicare cost curve?

The health reform law boosted Medicare fees for primary care ambulatory visits by 10 percent for five years starting in 2011. Using a simulation model with real-world parameters, we evaluate the effects of a permanent 10 percent increase in these fees. Our analysis shows the fee increase would increase primary care visits by 8.8 percent, and raise the overall cost of primary care visits by 17 percent. However, these increases would yield more than a sixfold annual return in lower Medicare costs for other services­mostly inpatient and postacute care­once the full effects on treatment patterns are realized. The net result would be a drop in Medicare costs of nearly 2 percent. These findings suggest that, under reasonable assumptions, promoting primary care can help bend the Medicare cost curve.

Employer-sponsored insurance, health care cost growth, and the economic performance of U.S. Industries.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of growth in health care costs that outpaces gross domestic product (GDP) growth ("excess" growth in health care costs) on employment, gross output, and value added to GDP of U.S. industries. STUDY SETTING: We analyzed data from 38 U.S. industries for the period 1987-2005. All data are publicly available from various government agencies. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated bivariate and multivariate regressions. To develop the regression models, we assumed that rapid growth in health care costs has a larger effect on economic performance for industries where large percentages of workers receive employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI). We used the estimated regression coefficients to simulate economic outcomes under alternative scenarios of health care cost inflation. RESULTS: Faster growth in health care costs had greater adverse effects on economic outcomes for industries with larger percentages of workers who had ESI. We found that a 10 percent increase in excess growth in health care costs would have resulted in 120,803 fewer jobs, US$28,022 million in lost gross output, and US$14,082 million in lost value added in 2005. These declines represent 0.17 to 0.18 percent of employment, gross output, and value added in 2005. CONCLUSION: Excess growth in health care costs is adversely affecting the economic performance of U.S. industries.