Reducing Acute Hospitalizations at High-Performing CPC+ Primary Care Practice Sites: Strategies, Activities, and Facilitators.

PURPOSE: Despite evidence suggesting that high-quality primary care can prevent unnecessary hospitalizations, many primary care practices face challenges in achieving this goal, and there is little guidance identifying effective strategies for reducing hospitalization rates. We aimed to understand how practices in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) program substantially reduced their acute hospitalization rate (AHR) over 2 years. METHODS: We used Bayesian analyses to identify the CPC+ practice sites having the highest probability of achieving a substantial reduction in the adjusted Medicare AHR between 2016 and 2018 (referred to here as AHR high performers). We then conducted telephone interviews with 64 respondents at 14 AHR high-performer sites and undertook within- and cross-case comparative analysis. RESULTS: The 14 AHR high performers experienced a 6% average decrease (range, 4% to 11%) in their Medicare AHR over the 2-year period. They credited various care delivery activities aligned with 3 strategies for reducing AHR: (1) improving and promoting prompt access to primary care, (2) identifying patients at high risk for hospitalization and addressing their needs with enhanced care management, and (3) expanding the breadth and depth of services offered at the practice site. They also identified facilitators of these strategies: enhanced payments through CPC+, prior primary care practice transformation experience, use of data to identify high-value activities for patient subgroups, teamwork, and organizational support for innovation. CONCLUSIONS: The AHR high performers observed that strengthening the local primary care infrastructure through practice-driven, targeted changes in access, care management, and comprehensiveness of care can meaningfully reduce acute hospitalizations. Other primary care practices taking on the challenging work of reducing hospitalizations can learn from CPC+ practices and may consider similar strategies, selecting activities that fit their context, personnel, patient population, and available resources.

Local public hospitals: changing with the times.

Over the last 15 years, public hospitals have pursued multiple strategies to help maintain financial viability without abandoning their mission to care for low-income people, according to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) site visits to 12 nationally representative metropolitan communities. Local public hospitals serve as core safety net providers in five of these communities--Boston, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Miami and Phoenix--weathering increased demand for care from growing numbers of uninsured and Medicaid patients and fluctuations in public funding over the past 15 years. Generally, these public hospitals have adopted six key strategies to respond to growing capacity and financial pressures: establishing independent governance structures; securing predictable local funding sources; shoring up Medicaid revenues; increasing attention to revenue collection; attracting privately insured patients; and expanding access to community-based primary care. These strategies demonstrate how public hospitals often benefit from functioning somewhat independently from local government, while at the same time, relying heavily on policy decisions and funding from local, state and federal governments. While public hospitals appear poised for changes under national health reform, they will need to adapt to changing payment sources and reduced federal subsidies and compete for newly insured people. Moreover, public hospitals in states that do not expand Medicaid eligibility to most low-income people as envisioned under health reform will likely face significant demand from uninsured patients with less federal Medicaid funding.

Safety-net providers in some US communities have increasingly embraced coordinated care models.

Safety-net organizations, which provide health services to uninsured and low-income people, increasingly are looking for ways to coordinate services among providers to improve access to and quality of care and to reduce costs. In this analysis, a part of the Community Tracking Study, we examined trends in safety-net coordination activities from 2000 to 2010 within twelve communities in the United States and found a notable increase in such activities. Six of the twelve communities had made formal efforts to link uninsured people to medical homes and coordinate care with specialists in 2010, compared to only two communities in 2000. We also identified key attributes of safety-net coordinated care systems, such as reliance on a medical home for meeting patients' primary care needs, and lingering challenges to safety-net integration, such as competition among hospitals and community health centers for Medicaid patients.

Improving health care access for low-income people: lessons from ascension health's community collaboratives.

Communities across the nation are struggling with how to improve access to health care for low-income people. We examined seven communities where Ascension Health collaborated with other safety-net providers and organizations to achieve better health care results for patients. Following a five-step model, each community established infrastructure to track the use of services, expand service capacity, coordinate care, and encourage the cost-effective use of providers. These efforts have achieved notable gains, such as in Austin, Texas, where an estimated $5.50 was returned for every dollar spent on asthma care. Challenges remain, including provider competition, inadequate participation by clinicians, difficulties demonstrating impact, and lack of sustainable funding. Lessons gleaned from these community collaborations can be valuable as the nation implements health reform, and safety-net health care systems home in on remaining access issues.

Key findings from HSC's 2010 site visits: health care markets weather economic downturn, brace for health reform.

Lingering fallout--loss of jobs and employer coverage--from the great recession slowed demand for health care services but did little to slow aggressive competition by dominant hospital systems for well-insured patients, according to key findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) 2010 site visits to 12 nationally representative metropolitan communities. Hospitals with significant market clout continued to command high payment rate increases from private insurers, and tighter hospital-physician alignment heightened concerns about growing provider market power. High and rising premiums led to increasing employer adoption of consumer-driven health plans and continued increases in patient cost sharing, but the broader movement to educate and engage consumers in care decisions did not keep pace. State and local budget deficits led to some funding cuts for safety net providers, but an influx of federal stimulus funds increased support to community health centers and shored up Medicaid programs, allowing many people who lost private insurance because of job losses to remain covered. Hospitals, physicians and insurers generally viewed health reform coverage expansions favorably, but all worried about protecting revenues as reform requirements phase in.

A long and winding road: federally qualified health centers, community variation and prospects under reform.

Community health centers have evolved from fringe providers to mainstays of many local health care systems. Those designated as federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), in particular, have largely established themselves as key providers of comprehensive, efficient, high-quality primary care services to low-income people, especially Medicaid and uninsured patients. The Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC's) site visits to 12 nationally representative metropolitan communities since 1996 document substantial growth in FQHC capacity, based on growing numbers of Medicaid enrollees and uninsured people, increased federal support, and improved managerial acumen. At the same time, FQHC development has varied considerably across communities because of several important factors, including local health system characteristics and financial and political support at federal, state and local levels. Some communities--Boston; Syracuse, N.Y.; Miami; and Seattle--have relatively extensive FQHC capacity for their Medicaid and uninsured populations, while other communities--Lansing, Mich.; northern New Jersey; Indianapolis; and Greenville, S.C.--fall in the middle. FQHC growth in Phoenix; Little Rock, Ark.; Cleveland; and Orange County, Calif.; has lagged in comparison. Today, FQHCs seem poised to play a key role in federal health care reform, including coverage expansions and the emphasis on primary care and medical homes.

The economic recession: early impacts on health care safety net providers.

While the recession increased demands on the health care safety net as Americans lost jobs and health insurance, the impact on safety net providers has been mixed and less severe--at least initially--than expected in some cases, according to a new study of five metropolitan communities by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). Even before the recession, many safety net providers reported treating more uninsured patients and facing tighter state and local funding. Federal expansion grants for community health centers during the past decade, however, have increased capacity at many health centers. And, programs to help direct people to primary care providers may have helped stem the expected surge in emergency department use by the uninsured during the downturn. Federal stimulus funding--the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--has assisted hospitals and health centers in weathering the economic storm, helping to offset reductions in state, local and private funding. And, the economic downturn has generated some potential benefits, including lower rents and broader employee applicant pools. While safety net providers have adopted strategies to stay financially viable, many believe they have not yet felt the full impact of the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

Suburban poverty and the health care safety net.

Although suburban poverty has increased in the past decade, the availability of health care services for low-income and uninsured people in the suburbs has not kept pace. According to a new study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) of five communities--Boston, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Miami and Seattle--low-income people living in suburban areas face significant challenges accessing care because of inadequate transportation, language barriers and lack of awareness of health care options. Low-income people often rely on suburban hospital emergency departments (EDs) and urban safety net hospitals and health centers. Some urban providers are feeling the strain of caring for increasing numbers of patients from both the city and the suburbs. Both urban and suburban providers are attempting to redirect patients to more appropriate care near where they live by expanding primary care capacity, improving access to specialists, reducing transportation challenges, and generating revenues to support safety net services. Efforts to improve safety net services in suburban areas are hampered by greater geographic dispersion of the suburban poor and jurisdictional issues in funding safety net services. To improve the suburban safety net, policy makers may want to consider flexible and targeted approaches to providing care, regional collaboration to share resources, and geographic pockets of need when allocating resources for community health centers and other safety net services and facilities.

More nonelderly Americans face problems affording prescription drugs.

More children and working-age Americans are going without prescription drugs because of cost concerns, according to a new national study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). In 2007, one in seven Americans under age 65 reported not filling a prescription in the previous year because they couldn't afford the medication, up from one in 10 in 2003. Rising prescription drug costs and less generous drug coverage likely contributed to the growth in nonelderly Americans--from 10.3 percent in 2003 to 13.9 percent in 2007--who went without a prescribed medication. The most vulnerable people--those with low incomes, chronic conditions and the uninsured--continue to face the greatest unmet prescription drug needs. Uninsured, working-age Americans saw the biggest jump in unmet prescription drug needs between 2003 and 2007, with the proportion rising from 26 percent to almost 35 percent. At the same time, a growing proportion of working-age Americans with employer-sponsored insurance reported going without prescription medications. The number of Americans who cannot afford prescription medications is likely to grow as the economy continues to decline and the ranks of the uninsured grow.

Access to prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries.

Despite the introduction of a Medicare outpatient prescription drug benefit in January 2006, roughly the same proportion of elderly Medicare beneficiaries in 2003 and 2007--about 8 percent--skipped filling at least one prescription drug because of cost concerns, according to a new national study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). However, over the same period, more working-age adults went without a prescribed drug because of cost, suggesting the new Medicare drug benefit may have prevented a similar deterioration in access for the elderly. But, the proportion of seniors dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid who went without a prescribed medicine almost doubled between 2003 and 2007--from 10.8 percent to 21.3 percent. And, the new Medicare drug benefit did little to close large, longstanding prescription drug access gaps between elderly white and African-American beneficiaries, healthier and sicker beneficiaries, and lower-income and higher-income beneficiaries. For example, three times as many elderly African-American beneficiaries (17.6%) went without a prescribed medication in 2007 as white beneficiaries (6.2%). In addition, Medicare beneficiaries under age 65--typically eligible because of permanent disability or severe kidney disease--had more than three times the prescription drug access problems (27.5%) as elderly beneficiaries in 2007.

Massachusetts health reform: high costs and expanding expectations may weaken employer support.

Passage of health reform legislation in Massachusetts required significant bipartisan compromise and buy in among key stakeholders, including employers. However, findings from a recent follow-up study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) suggest two important developments may threaten employer support as the reform plays out. First, improved access to the non-group--or individual--insurance market, the availability of state-subsidized coverage, and the costs of increased employee take up of employer-sponsored coverage and rising premiums potentially weaken employers' motivation and ability to provide coverage. Second, employer frustration appears to be growing as the state increases employer responsibilities. While the number of uninsured people has declined significantly, the high cost of the reform has prompted the state to seek additional financial support from stakeholders, including employers. Improving access to health care coverage has been a clear emphasis of the reform, but little has been done to address escalating health care costs. Yet, both must be addressed, otherwise long-term viability of Massachusetts' coverage initiative is questionable.

Falling behind: Americans' access to medical care deteriorates, 2003-2007.

The number and proportion of Americans reporting going without or delaying needed medical care increased sharply between 2003 and 2007, according to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) nationally representative 2007 Health Tracking Household Survey. One in five Americans--59 million people--reported not getting or delaying needed medical care in 2007, up from one in seven--36 million people--in 2003. While access deteriorated for both insured and uninsured people, insured people experienced a larger relative increase in access problems compared with uninsured people. Moreover, access declined more for people in fair or poor health than for healthier people. In addition, unmet medical needs increased for low-income children, reversing earlier trends and widening the access gap with higher-income children. People reporting access problems increasingly cited cost as an obstacle to needed care, along with rising rates of health plan and health system barriers.

Community efforts to expand dental services for low-income people.

Poor oral health among low-income people is gaining attention as a significant health care problem. Key barriers to dental services include low rates of dental insurance coverage, limited dental benefits available through public insurance programs, and a lack of dentists willing to serve low-income patients, according to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) 2007 site visits to 12 nationally representative metropolitan communities. Communities are attempting to provide more dental services to low-income residents. Along with state efforts to increase dentists' participation in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), hospitals, community health centers, health departments, dental schools and others are working to expand dental services, with some focusing on basic preventive services and others pursuing more comprehensive dental care. Many community efforts rely on increasing the number of dental professionals available to treat low-income people. Without additional involvement from the dental community and state and federal policy makers, however, many low-income people likely will continue to lack access to dental care and suffer the consequences.

Developing health system surge capacity: community efforts in jeopardy.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, communities have responded to the federal call to enhance health care surge capacity--the space, supplies, staffing and management structure to care for many injured or ill people during a terrorist attack, natural disaster or infectious disease pandemic. Communities with varied experience handling emergencies are building broad surge capacity, including transportation, communication, hospital care and handling mass fatalities, according to a new study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). Communities rely on federal funding to help coordinate and plan across agencies and providers, conduct training and drills, recruit volunteers, and purchase equipment and stockpile supplies. The current federal focus on pandemic influenza has helped prepare for all types of emergencies, although at times communities struggle with fragmented and restrictive funding requirements. Despite progress, communities face an inherent tension in developing surge capacity. The need for surge capacity has increased at the same time that daily health care capacity has become strained, largely because of workforce shortages, reimbursement pressures and growing numbers of uninsured people. Payers do not subsidize hospitals to keep beds empty for an emergency, nor is it practical for trained staff to sit idle until a disaster hits. To compensate, communities are trying to develop surge capacity in a manner that supports day-to-day activities and stretches existing resources in an emergency. Many of these efforts--including integrating outpatient providers, expanding staff roles and adapting standards of care during a large-scale emergency--require greater coordination, guidance and policy support. As time passes since 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, federal funding for surge capacity has waned, and communities are concerned about losing surge capacity they have built.

Safety net hospital emergency departments: creating safety valves for non-urgent care.

Hospital emergency departments (EDs) are caring for more patients, including those with non-urgent needs that could be treated in alternative, more cost-effective settings, such as a clinic or physician's office. According to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's 2007 site visits to 12 nationally representative metropolitan communities, many emergency departments at safety net hospitals--the public and not-for-profit hospitals that serve large proportions of low-income, uninsured and Medicaid patients--are attempting to meet patients' non-urgent needs more efficiently. Safety net EDs are working to redirect non-urgent patients to their hospitals' outpatient clinics or to community health centers and clinics, with varied results. Efforts to develop additional primary, specialty and dental care in community settings, along with promoting the use of these providers, could stem the use of emergency departments for non-urgent care, while increasing access to care, enhancing quality and containing costs.

The role of nurses in hospital quality improvement.

As the nation's hospitals face increasing demands to participate in a wide range of quality improvement activities, the role and influence of nurses in these efforts is also increasing, according to a new study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). Hospital organizational cultures set the stage for quality improvement and nurses' roles in those activities. Hospitals with supportive leadership, a philosophy of quality as everyone's responsibility, individual accountability, physician and nurse champions, and effective feedback reportedly offer greater promise for successful staff engagement in improvement activities. Yet hospitals confront challenges with regard to nursing involvement, including: scarcity of nursing resources; difficulty engaging nurses at all levels--from bedside to management; growing demands to participate in more, often duplicative, quality improvement activities; the burdensome nature of data collection and reporting; and shortcomings of traditional nursing education in preparing nurses for their evolving role in today's contemporary hospital setting. Because nurses are the key caregivers in hospitals, they can significantly influence the quality of care provided and, ultimately, treatment and patient outcomes. Consequently, hospitals' pursuit of high-quality patient care is dependent, at least in part, on their ability to engage and use nursing resources effectively, which will likely become more challenging as these resources become increasingly limited.

Relief, restoration and reform: economic upturn yields modest and uneven health returns.

The sensitivity of state budgets to economic cycles contributes to fluctuations in health coverage, eligibility, benefits and provider payment levels in public programs, as well as support for safety net hospitals and community health centers (CHCs). The aftershocks of the 2001 recession on state budgets were felt well into 2004. More recently, the economic recovery allowed many states to restore cuts and, in some cases, expand health services for low-income people, according to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) 2007 site visits to 12 nationally representative metropolitan communities. Along with bolstering support of safety net providers and raising Medicaid payments for private physicians, some states advanced even more ambitious health reform proposals. Yet across communities, safety net systems face mounting challenges of caring for more uninsured patients, and these pressures will likely increase given the current economic downturn.

Community health centers tackle rising demands and expectations.

As key providers of preventive and primary care for underserved people, including the uninsured, community health centers (CHCs) are the backbone of the U.S. health care safety net. Despite significant federal funding increases, community health centers are struggling to meet rising demand for care, particularly for specialty medical, dental and mental health services, according to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) 2007 site visits to 12 nationally representative metropolitan communities. Health centers are responding to these pressures by expanding capacity and adding services but confront staffing, resource and other constraints. At the same time, CHCs are facing other demands, including increased quality reporting expectations, addressing racial and ethnic disparities, developing electronic medical records, and preparing for public health emergencies.

Hospital emergency on-call coverage: is there a doctor in the house?

The nation's community hospitals face increasing problems obtaining emergency on-call coverage from specialist physicians, according to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) 2007 site visits to 12 nationally representative metropolitan communities. The diminished willingness of specialist physicians to provide on-call coverage is occurring as hospital emergency departments confront an ever-increasing demand for services. Factors influencing physician reluctance to provide on-call coverage include decreased dependence on hospital admitting privileges as more services shift to non-hospital settings; payment for emergency care, especially for uninsured patients; and medical liability concerns. Hospital strategies to secure on-call coverage include enforcing hospital medical staff bylaws that require physicians to take call, contracting with physicians to provide coverage, paying physicians stipends, and employing physicians. Nonetheless, many hospitals continue to struggle with inadequate on-call coverage, which threatens patients' timely access to high-quality emergency care and may raise health care costs.