Value-Based Purchasing Design And Effect: A Systematic Review And Analysis.

During the past two decades in the United States, all major payer types-commercial, Medicare, Medicaid, and multipayer coalitions-have introduced value-based purchasing (VBP) contracts to reward providers for improving health care quality while reducing spending. This systematic review qualitatively characterized the financial and nonfinancial features of VBP programs and examined how such features combine to create a level of program intensity that relates to desired quality and spending outcomes. Higher-intensity VBP programs are more frequently associated with desired quality processes, utilization measures, and spending reductions than lower-intensity programs. Thus, although there may be reasons for payers and providers to opt for lower-intensity programs (for example, to increase voluntary participation), these choices apparently have consequences for spending and quality outcomes.

Impact of the Cincinnati Aligning Forces for Quality Multi-Payer Patient Centered Medical Home Pilot on Health Care Quality, Utilization, and Costs.

To evaluate the potential for a patient-centered medical home initiative to reduce utilization and cost while improving quality, we examined a natural experiment involving 11 primary care practices in Cincinnati, Ohio, that participated in the Aligning Forces for Quality Multi-Payer Patient Centered Medical Home pilot. Our research design involved difference-in-difference analyses, comparing changes in utilization, costs, and quality between patients attributed to pilot practices compared with those attributed to a matched comparison cohort after 2 years of active engagement by the practices. The Cincinnati pilot was associated with a reduction of ambulatory care-sensitive emergency department visits of approximately 0.7 per 1,000 member months or approximately 22.6% (p = .01). While there was a reduction in total costs of care of $7,679 per 1,000 member months, the difference did not reach statistical significance. After 2 years of the pilot, lipid testing in diabetics had increased by 2.7 percentage points (a 3.3% improvement; p < .0001). Patient-centered medical homes have the potential to improve the quality of care and reduce emergency department use but expectations for cost control in a relatively short time horizon and absent other changes may be unrealistic.

A Difference-in-Difference Analysis of Changes in Quality, Utilization and Cost Following the Colorado Multi-Payer Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot.

BACKGROUND: Research on the effects of patient-centered medical homes on quality and cost of care is mixed, so further study is needed to understand how and in what contexts they are effective. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate effects of a multi-payer pilot promoting patient-centered medical home implementation in 15 small and medium-sized primary care groups in Colorado. DESIGN: We conducted difference-in-difference analyses, comparing changes in utilization, costs, and quality between patients attributed to pilot and non-pilot practices. PARTICIPANTS: Approximately 98,000 patients attributed to 15 pilot and 66 comparison practices 2 years before and 3 years after the pilot launch. MAIN MEASURES: Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) derived measures of diabetes care, cancer screening, utilization, and costs to payers. KEY RESULTS: At the end of two years, we found a statistically significant reduction in emergency department use by 1.4 visits per 1000 member months, or approximately 7.9 % (p = 0.02). At the end of three years, pilot practices sustained this difference with 1.6 fewer emergency department visits per 1000 member months, or a 9.3 % reduction from baseline (p = 0.01). Emergency department costs were lower in the pilot practices after two (13.9 % reduction, p < 0.001) and three years (11.8 % reduction, p = 0.001). After three years, compared to control practices, primary care visits in the pilot practices decreased significantly (1.5 % reduction, p = 0.02). The pilot was associated with increased cervical cancer screening after two (12.5 % increase, p < 0.001) and three years (9.0 % increase, p < 0.001), but lower rates of HbA1c testing in patients with diabetes (0.7 % reduction at three years, p = 0.03) and colon cancer screening (21.1 % and 18.1 % at two and three years, respectively, p < 0.001). For patients with two or more comorbidities, similar patterns of association were found, except that there was also a reduction in ambulatory care sensitive inpatient admissions (10.3 %; p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that a multi-payer, patient-centered medical home initiative that provides financial and technical support to participating practices can produce sustained reductions in utilization with mixed results on process measures of quality.

Impact of the Rochester Medical Home Initiative on Primary Care Practices, Quality, Utilization, and Costs.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) may improve the quality of primary care while reducing costs and utilization. Early evidence on the effectiveness of PCMH has been mixed. OBJECTIVES: We analyze the impact of a PCMH intervention in Rochester NY on costs, utilization, and quality of care. RESEARCH DESIGN: A propensity score-matched difference-in-differences analysis of the effect of the PCMH intervention relative to a comparison group of practices. Qualitative interviews with PCMH practice managers on their experiences and challenges with PCMH practice transformation. SUBJECTS: Seven pilot practices and 61 comparison practices (average of 36,531 and 30,192 attributed member months per practice, respectively). Interviews with practice leaders at all pilot sites. MEASURES: Individual HEDIS quality measures of preventive care, diabetes care, and care for coronary artery disease. Utilization measures of hospital use, office visits, imaging and laboratory tests, and prescription drug use. Cost measures are inpatient, prescription drug, and total spending. RESULTS: After 3 years, PCMH practices reported decreased ambulatory care sensitive emergency room visits and use of imaging tests, and increased primary care visits and laboratory tests. Utilization of prescription drugs increased but drug spending decreased. PCMH practices reported increased rates of breast cancer screening and low-density lipid screening for diabetes patients, and decreased rates of any prevention quality indicator. CONCLUSIONS: The PCMH model leads to significant changes in patient care, with reductions in some services and increases in others. This study joins a growing body of work that finds no effect of PCMH transformation on total health care spending.

Effect of a multipayer patient-centered medical home on health care utilization and quality: the Rhode Island chronic care sustainability initiative pilot program.

IMPORTANCE: The patient-centered medical home is advocated to reduce health care costs and improve the quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of the pilot program of a multipayer patient-centered medical home on health care utilization and quality. DESIGN: An interrupted time series design with propensity score-matched comparison practices, including multipayer claims data from 2 years before (October 1, 2006-September 30, 2008) and 2 years after (October 1, 2008-September 30, 2010) the launch of the pilot program. Uptake of the intervention was measured with audit data from the National Committee for Quality Assurance patient-centered medical home recognition process. SETTING Five independent primary care practices and 3 private insurers in the Rhode Island Chronic Care Sustainability Initiative. PARTICIPANTS: Patients in 5 pilot and 34 comparison practices. INTERVENTIONS: Financial support, care managers, and technical assistance for quality improvement and practice transformation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and 6 process measures of quality of care (3 for diabetes mellitus and 3 for colon, breast, and cervical cancer screening). RESULTS: The mean National Committee for Quality Assurance recognition scores of the pilot practices increased from 42 to 90 points of a possible 100 points. The pilot and comparison practices had statistically indistinguishable baseline patient characteristics and practice patterns, except for higher numbers of attributed member months per year in the pilot practices (31,130 per practice vs 14,779, P = .01) and lower rates of cervical cancer screening in the comparison practices. Although estimates of the emergency department visits and inpatient admissions of patients in the pilot practices trended toward lower utilization, the only significant difference was a lower rate of ambulatory care sensitive emergency department visits in the pilot practices. The Chronic Care Sustainability Initiative pilot program was associated with a reduction in ambulatory care-sensitive emergency department visits of approximately 0.8 per 1000 member months or approximately 11.6% compared with the baseline rate of 6.9 for emergency department visits per 1000 member months (P = .002). No significant improvements were found in any of the quality measures. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: After 2 years, a pilot program of a patient-centered medical home was associated with substantial improvements in medical home recognition scores and a significant reduction in ambulatory care sensitive emergency department visits. Although not achieving significance, there were downward trends in emergency department visits and inpatient admissions.

Impact of a pay for performance program to improve diabetes care in the safety net.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a "piece-rate" pay for performance (P4P) program aimed at improving diabetes care processes, outcomes and related healthcare utilization for patients enrolled in a not-for-profit Medicaid-focused managed care plan. METHODS: To evaluate Hudson Health Plan's P4P program in New York (2003-2007), we conducted: (1) a case-comparison difference-in-difference study using plan-level administrative data; (2) a patient-level claims data analysis; and (3) a cross-sectional survey. RESULTS: The case-comparison study found that diabetes care processes (e.g., HbA1c, lipid, and dilated eye exam rates) and outcomes (e.g., LDL-C<100mg/dL) did not improve significantly over the study period. Claims analysis showed that younger adults had significantly increased odds (OR 3.50-3.56, p<0.001) of using emergency and hospital-based services and similarly decreased odds of receiving recommended care process (OR 0.22-0.36, p<0.01-0.001). Survey study indicated that practices lack fundamental quality improvement infrastructures and training. CONCLUSIONS: Recent health legislation mandates the use of P4P incentives in government programs that disproportionately care for patients with lower socioeconomic or minority backgrounds (e.g., Medicaid, Veterans Health Administration, and Tricare). More research is needed in order to understand how to tailor P4P programs for vulnerable care settings.

How report cards on physicians, physician groups, and hospitals can have greater impact on consumer choices.

Public report cards with quality and cost information on physicians, physician groups, and hospital providers have proliferated in recent years. However, many of these report cards are difficult for consumers to interpret and have had little impact on the provider choices consumers are making. To gain a more focused understanding of why these reports cards have not been more successful and what improvements could be made, we interviewed experts and surveyed registrants at the March 2011 AHRQ National Summit on Public Reporting for Consumers in Health Care. We found broad agreement that public reporting has been disconnected from consumer decisions about providers because of weaknesses in report card content, design, and accessibility. Policy makers have an opportunity to change the landscape of public reporting by taking advantage of advances in measurement, data collection, and information technology to deliver a more consumer-centered report card. Overcoming the constraint of limited public funding, and achieving the acceptance of providers, is critical to realizing future success.