Adding a Seat at the Table: A Case Study of the Provider's Perspective on Integrating Community Health Workers at Provider Practices in California.

Blue Shield of California's Community Health Advocate Program was created to support whole person-health needs by helping individuals of all socio-economic statuses navigate and access community resources, social services, and medical systems. Blue Shield's Health Reimagined team is partnering with medical providers, community resources centers, and community partners to provide intensive person-centered and technology-enabled care to patients, ensuring social needs are met while promoting health equity. A key aspect of the Health Reimagined initiative embeds Community Health Advocates (CHAs) within physician practices serving patients using a payor-agnostic approach, by which Blue Shield aims to increase access to social services and community resources, improve health outcomes, reduce medical costs, and improve overall patient experience. The purpose of this case study is to understand the provider's perspective of embedding a CHA into the care team and the resulting impact on the practice and patients. Blue Shield also sought to identify best practices and barriers of a CHA program within primary and specialty care practices. As part of an ongoing two-year mixed-methods impact evaluation (2019-2021), 10 semi-structured interviews were conducted with a total of 18 providers and office staff at five primary care and specialty practices where CHAs have been embedded. We also conducted two focus groups with the same five CHAs at different points in time. Several themes emerged from the provider, office staff, and CHA interviews. Provider practices found great value in adding a CHA to their care team as the CHA brings flexibility and continuity to patient care. They also found that having access to a CHA with shared life experiences of the communities they served is a key component to the program's success. Providers and staff reported a new understanding of the social determinants of health that impacts a patient's wellbeing with the embedding of a CHA in the care team. Overall, practitioners expressed high satisfaction with the CHA program. During the COVID-19 pandemic, CHAs have been critically important in care, as social needs have increased, and resources have shifted. The CHA program is constantly adapting to address challenges faced by all stakeholders and applying new knowledge to ensure best practices are implemented within the CHA program.

Characteristics of Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiatives that Generated Savings for Medicare: a Qualitative Multi-Case Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Through the Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice (MAPCP) Demonstration, Medicare, Medicaid, and private payers offered supplemental payments to 849 primary care practices that became patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) in eight states; practices also received technical assistance and data reports. Average Medicare payments were capped at $10 per beneficiary per month in each state. OBJECTIVE: Since there was variation in the eight participating states' demonstration designs, experiences, and outcomes, we conducted a qualitative multi-case analysis to identify the key factors that differentiated states that were estimated to have generated net savings for Medicare from states that did not. PARTICIPANTS: States' MAPCP Demonstration initiatives were comprehensively profiled in case studies based on secondary document review, three rounds of annual interviews with state staff, payers, practices, and other stakeholders, and other data sources. APPROACH: Case study findings were summarized in a case-ordered predictor-outcome matrix, which identified the presence or absence of key demonstration design features and experiences and arrayed states based on the amount of net savings or losses they generated for Medicare. We then used this matrix to identify initiative features that were present in at least three of the four states that generated net savings and absent from at least three of the four states that did not generate savings. RESULTS: A majority of the states that generated net savings: required practices to be recognized PCMHs to enter the demonstration, did not allow late entrants into the demonstration, used a consistent demonstration payment model across participating payers, and offered practices opportunities to earn performance bonuses. Practices in states that generated net savings also tended to report receiving the demonstration payments and bonuses they expected to receive, without any issues. CONCLUSIONS: Designers of future PCMH initiatives may increase their likelihood of generating net savings by incorporating the demonstration features we identified.

Perspectives on Implementing Quality Improvement Collaboratives Effectively: Qualitative Findings from the CHIPRA Quality Demonstration Grant Program.

BACKGROUND: The most frequently pursued intervention in the $100 million, 18-state Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA) quality demonstration (2010-2015) was quality improvement collaboratives, which 12 states offered to more than 300 primary care practices. A study was conducted to identify which aspects of these collaboratives were viewed by organizers and participants as working well and which were not. METHODS: Some 223 interviews were conducted in these states near the end of their collaboratives. Interview notes were coded and analyzed to identify trends. RESULTS: Aspects of collaboratives that interviewees valued were aimed at attracting participation, maintaining engagement, or facilitating learning. To attract participants, interviewees recommended offering maintenance-of-certification credits, aligning content with existing financial incentives, hiring a knowledgeable collaborative organizer of the same medical specialty as participants, and having national experts speak at meetings. Positively viewed approaches for maintaining engagement included meeting one-on-one with practices to articulate participation expectations in advance, tying disbursal of stipends to meeting participation expectations, and soliciting feedback and making mid-course adjustments. To facilitate learning, interviewees liked learning from other practices, interactive exercises, practical handouts, and meeting face-to-face with new referral partners. CONCLUSION: Prior studies have tended to focus on strategies to maintain engagement. The interviewees valued these features but also valued aspects of collaboratives that attracted participants in the first place and facilitated learning after participants were actively engaged. The findings suggest that a wider array of features may be important when developing or evaluating collaboratives. Collaborative organizers may benefit from incorporating the recommended collaborative features into their own collaboratives.