Associations between structural capabilities of primary care practices and performance on selected quality measures.

BACKGROUND: Recent proposals to reform primary care have encouraged physician practices to adopt such structural capabilities as performance feedback and electronic health records. Whether practices with these capabilities have higher performance on measures of primary care quality is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To measure associations between structural capabilities of primary care practices and performance on commonly used quality measures. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: 412 primary care practices. MEASUREMENTS: During 2007, 1 physician from each participating primary care practice (median size, 4 physicians) was surveyed about structural capabilities of the practice (responses representing 308 practices were obtained). Data on practice structural capabilities were linked to multipayer performance data on 13 Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) process measures in 4 clinical areas: screening, diabetes, depression, and overuse. RESULTS: Frequently used multifunctional electronic health records were associated with higher performance on 5 HEDIS measures (3 in screening and 2 in diabetes), with statistically significant differences in performance ranging from 3.1 to 7.6 percentage points. Frequent meetings to discuss quality were associated with higher performance on 3 measures of diabetes care (differences ranging from 2.3 to 3.1 percentage points). Physician awareness of patient experience ratings was associated with higher performance on screening for breast cancer and cervical cancer (1.9 and 2.2 percentage points, respectively). No other structural capabilities were associated with performance on more than 1 measure. No capabilities were associated with performance on depression care or overuse. LIMITATION: Structural capabilities of primary care practices were assessed by physician survey. CONCLUSION: Among the investigated structural capabilities of primary care practices, electronic health records were associated with higher performance across multiple HEDIS measures. Overall, the modest magnitude and limited number of associations between structural capabilities and clinical performance suggest the importance of continuing to measure the processes and outcomes of care for patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Commonwealth Fund.

Readiness for the Patient-Centered Medical Home: structural capabilities of Massachusetts primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH), a popular model for primary care reorganization, includes several structural capabilities intended to enhance quality of care. The extent to which different types of primary care practices have adopted these capabilities has not been previously studied. OBJECTIVE: To measure the prevalence of recommended structural capabilities among primary care practices and to determine whether prevalence varies among practices of different size (number of physicians) and administrative affiliation with networks of practices. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS: One physician chosen at random from each of 412 primary care practices in Massachusetts was surveyed about practice capabilities during 2007. Practice size and network affiliation were obtained from an existing database. MEASUREMENTS: Presence of 13 structural capabilities representing 4 domains relevant to quality: patient assistance and reminders, culture of quality, enhanced access, and electronic health records (EHRs). MAIN RESULTS: Three hundred eight (75%) physicians responded, representing practices with a median size of 4 physicians (range 2-74). Among these practices, 64% were affiliated with 1 of 9 networks. The prevalence of surveyed capabilities ranged from 24% to 88%. Larger practice size was associated with higher prevalence for 9 of the 13 capabilities spanning all 4 domains (P < 0.05). Network affiliation was associated with higher prevalence of 5 capabilities (P < 0.05) in 3 domains. Associations were not substantively altered by statistical adjustment for other practice characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Larger and network-affiliated primary care practices are more likely than smaller, non-affiliated practices to have adopted several recommended capabilities. In order to achieve PCMH designation, smaller non-affiliated practices may require the greatest investments.

Does affiliation of physician groups with one another produce higher quality primary care?

PURPOSE: Recent reports have emphasized the importance of delivery systems in improving health care quality. However, few prior studies have assessed differences in primary care quality between physician groups that differ in size and organizational configuration. We examined whether larger physician group size and affiliation with networks of multiple groups are associated with higher quality of care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional observational analysis of 132 physician groups (including 4,358 physicians) who delivered primary care services in Massachusetts in 2002. We compared physician groups on performance scores for 12 Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures reflecting processes of adult primary care. RESULTS: Network-affiliated physician groups had higher performance scores than non-affiliated groups for 10 of the 12 HEDIS measures (p < 0.05). There was no consistent relationship between group size and performance scores. Multivariable models including group size, network affiliation, and health plan showed that network-affiliated groups had higher performance scores than non-affiliated groups on 8 of the 12 HEDIS measures (p < 0.05), and larger group size was not associated with higher performance scores. Adjusted differences in the performance scores of network-affiliated and non-affiliated groups ranged from 2% to 15%. For 4 HEDIS measures related to diabetes care, performance score differences between network-affiliated and non-affiliated groups were most apparent among the smallest groups. CONCLUSIONS: Physician group affiliation with networks of multiple groups was associated with higher quality, and for measures of diabetes care the quality advantage of network-affiliation was most evident among smaller physician groups.

Immunization status among children newly enrolled in a health plan: a new frontier for quality measurement?

BACKGROUND: The National Scientific Panel on Immunization Measurement Standards recently recommended that the assessment population for the childhood immunization measure of the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set include 24-month-olds with > or = 6 months of continuous enrollment in a health plan. The current inclusion criterion is > or = 12 months of continuous enrollment. The new recommendation would expand the assessment population to include children with more recent enrollment. OBJECTIVES: To compare the immunization status of children enrolled in a large health plan between ages 12 and 17 months vs earlier in life and to describe the proportion of children enrolled between ages 12 and 17 months that could be fully immunized by 24 months. METHODS: All children enrolled in a group-model HMO who turned 24 months old during a 12-month study were identified for a retrospective cohort study. A computerized immunization database was used to identify all vaccines administered to each child, and summary measures were created to describe immunization status at selected times. The full-text medical records of children who seemed to have no immunizations in the computerized database were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 3448 children in the study population, 3130 (91%) enrolled between birth and 11 months of age and 161 (5%) enrolled between 12 and 17 months of age. Whereas 87% of children who enrolled between birth and 11 months of age were fully immunized at age 24 months, only 57% of those enrolled between 12 and 17 months of age were fully immunized at 24 months of age (risk difference, 30%; 95% confidence interval, 24%-36%; P < .001). Of the 161 children enrolled between 12 and 17 months of age, 68% had received all of the immunizations in the primary series. Only 6% of these 161 children would have been impossible or difficult to fully immunize by age 24 months using accelerated catch-up vaccination schedules. CONCLUSIONS: Children who enrolled in an HMO between 12 and 17 months of age were less likely than those who enrolled earlier in life to be fully immunized by age 24 months, but it would be feasible to bring almost all of them up to date by that age. Including such children in immunization measures, either together with earlier-enrolled children or as a separate stratum, would expand the scope of the quality of care under evaluation.

Medical home capabilities of primary care practices that serve sociodemographically vulnerable neighborhoods.

BACKGROUND: Under current medical home proposals, primary care practices using specific structural capabilities will receive enhanced payments. Some practices disproportionately serve sociodemographically vulnerable neighborhoods. If these practices lack medical home capabilities, their ineligibility for enhanced payments could worsen disparities in care. METHODS: Via survey, 308 Massachusetts primary care practices reported their use of 13 structural capabilities commonly included in medical home proposals. Using geocoded US Census data, we constructed racial/ethnic minority and economic disadvantage indices to describe the neighborhood served by each practice. We compared the structural capabilities of "disproportionate-share" practices (those in the most sociodemographically vulnerable quintile on each index) and others. RESULTS: Racial/ethnic disproportionate-share practices were more likely than others to have staff assisting patient self-management (69% vs 55%; P = .003), on-site language interpreters (54% vs 26%; P < .001), multilingual clinicians (80% vs 51%; P < .001), and multifunctional electronic health records (48% vs 29%; P = .01). Similarly, economic disproportionate-share practices were more likely than others to have physician awareness of patient experience ratings (73% vs 65%; P = .03), on-site language interpreters (56% vs 25%; P < .001), multilingual clinicians (78% vs 51%; P < .001), and multifunctional electronic health records (40% vs 31%; P = .03). Disproportionate-share practices were larger than others. After adjustment for practice size, only language capabilities continued to have statistically significant relationships with disproportionate-share status. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to expectations, primary care practices serving sociodemographically vulnerable neighborhoods were more likely than other practices to have structural capabilities commonly included in medical home proposals. Payments tied to these capabilities may aid practices serving vulnerable populations.

The impact of pay-for-performance on health care quality in Massachusetts, 2001-2003.

Pay-for-performance (P4P) has become one of the dominant approaches to improving quality of care, yet few studies have evaluated its effectiveness. We evaluated the impact on quality of all P4P programs introduced into physician group contracts during 2001-2003 by the five major commercial health plans operating in Massachusetts. Overall, P4P contracts were not associated with greater improvement in quality compared to a rising secular trend. Future research is required to determine whether changes to the magnitude, structure, or alignment of P4P incentives can lead to improved quality.

The response of physician groups to P4P incentives.

OBJECTIVES: Despite substantial enthusiasm among insurers and federal policy makers for pay-for-performance incentives, little is known about the current scope of these incentives or their influence on the delivery of care. To assess the scope and magnitude of pay-for-performance (P4P) incentives among physician groups and to examine whether such incentives are associated with quality improvement initiatives. STUDY DESIGN: Structured telephone survey of leaders of physician groups delivering primary care in Massachusetts. ASSESSED METHODS: Prevalence of P4P incentives among physician groups tied to specific measures of quality or utilization and prevalence of physician group quality improvement initiatives. RESULTS: Most group leaders (89%) reported P4P incentives in at least 1 commercial health plan contract. Incentives were tied to performance on Health Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality measures (89% of all groups), utilization measures (66%), use of information technology (52%), and patient satisfaction (37%). Among the groups with P4P and knowledge of all revenue streams, the incentives accounted for 2.2% (range, 0.3%-8.8%) of revenue. P4P incentives tied to HEDIS quality measures were positively associated with groups' quality improvement initiatives (odds ratio, 1.6; P = .02). Thirty-six percent of group leaders with P4P incentives reported that they were very important or moderately important to the group's financial success. CONCLUSIONS: P4P incentives are now common among physician groups in Massachusetts, and these incentives most commonly reward higher clinical quality or lower utilization of care. Although the scope and magnitude of incentives are still modest for many groups, we found an association between P4P incentives and the use of quality improvement initiatives.

Assessment partnerships between managed care and public health: the Massachusetts experience.

This article explores factors that facilitate or impede data sharing and linkage collaborations between state public health agencies and managed care organizations (MCOs). The exploration is based upon a review of both recent literature and the four years' experience of the Massachusetts Health Assessment Partnership (MHAP). MHAP has undertaken six collaborative data sharing and linkage projects that have involved diverse topics and methods. This article summarizes both exogenous and endogenous factors that have affected MHAP as a successful collaboration and indicates those factors that might be replicated in future collaborations between public health agencies and MCOs in other locations.