Currently Viewing:
The American Journal of Managed Care December 2014
Quality of End-of-Life Care for Cancer Patients: Does Home Hospice Care Matter?
Netta Bentur, PhD; Shirli Resnizky, MA; Ran Balicer, MD; and Tsofia Eilat-Tsanani, MD
Out-of-Plan Pharmacy Use: Insights Into Patient Behavior
Thomas Delate, PhD; Alexander P. Block, PharmD; Deanna Kurz, BA; and Sarah J. Billups, PharmD
Paying for Telemedicine
Robert S. Rudin, PhD; David Auerbach, PhD; Mikhail Zaydman, BS; and Ateev Mehrotra, MD
Validating Electronic Cancer Quality Measures at Veterans Health Administration
Jeremy B. Shelton, MD, MSHS; Ted A. Skolarus, MD, MPH; Diana Ordin, MD, MPH; Jennifer Malin, MD, PhD; AnnaLiza Antonio, MS; Joan Ryoo, MD, MSHS; and Christopher S. Saigal, MD
Did They Come to the Dance? Insurer Participation in Exchanges
Jean M. Abraham, PhD; Roger Feldman, PhD; and Kosali Simon, PhD
ACO Contracting With Private and Public Payers: A Baseline Comparative Analysis
Valerie A. Lewis, PhD; Carrie H. Colla, PhD; William L. Schpero, MPH; Stephen M. Shortell, PhD, MPH, MBA; and Elliott S. Fisher, MD, MPH
Reference-Based Pricing: An Evidence-Based Solution for Lab Services Shopping
L. Doug Melton, PhD, MPH; Kent Bradley, MD, MPH, MBA; Patricia Lin Fu, MPH; Raegan Armata, BS, MBA; and James B. Parr, BA
Addressing Cost Barriers to Medications: A Survey of Patients Requesting Financial Assistance
David Grande, MD, MPA; Margaret Lowenstein, MD, MPhil; Madeleine Tardif, BA; and Carolyn Cannuscio, ScD
Preconsultation Exchange in the United States: Use, Awareness, and Attitudes
Justin L. Sewell, MD, MPH; Katherine S. Telischak, MSc; Lukejohn W. Day, MD; Neil Kirschner, PhD; and Arlene Weissman, PhD
Medicare Star Excludes Diabetes Patients With Poor CVD Risk Factor Control
Julie Schmittdiel, PhD; Marsha Raebel, PharmD; Wendy Dyer, MS; John Steiner, MD, MPH; Glenn Goodrich, MS; Andy Karter, PhD; and Gregory Nichols, PhD
Currently Reading
There's More Than One Way to Build a Medical Home
Manasi A. Tirodkar, PhD, MS; Suzanne Morton, MPH, MBA; Thomas Whiting, MPA; Patrick Monahan, MD; Elexis McBee, DO; Robert Saunders, PhD; and Sarah Hudson Scholle, DrPH, MPH
Predicting Nursing Home Placement Among Home- and Community-Based Services Program Participants
Melissa A. Greiner, MS; Laura G. Qualls, MS; Isao Iwata, MD, PhD, EdM; Heidi K. White, MD; Sheila L. Molony, PhD, APRN, GNP-BC; M. Terry Sullivan, RN, MSW, MSN; Bonnie Burke, MS; Kevin A. Schulman, MD; and Soko Setoguchi, MD, DrPH

There's More Than One Way to Build a Medical Home

Manasi A. Tirodkar, PhD, MS; Suzanne Morton, MPH, MBA; Thomas Whiting, MPA; Patrick Monahan, MD; Elexis McBee, DO; Robert Saunders, PhD; and Sarah Hudson Scholle, DrPH, MPH
Even among practices reaching the highest level of PCMH achievement, there are variations in the implementation of key medical home capabilities.
ABSTRACT
Objectives
The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is a critical aspect of delivery system reform. The purpose of this study was to examine variations in achievement of PCMH requirements across different types of practices.

Study Design
We used data on the points awarded, by standard and element, to 2369 practices recognized by September 2013 under the National Committee for Quality Assurance PCMH program, 2011 version.

Methods
We tested for differences across practice types in the percentage of practices achieving full credit for 27 element scores using likelihood ratio χ2 tests with an adjustment for multiple comparisons.

Results
Of the practices, 45% were affiliated with health systems, 22.6% were community health centers, and 5.3% were military treatment facilities. The remaining practices were physician-owned, 10% with at least 5 clinicians and 17.3% with less than 5. Even among Level 3 practices, there were significant differences across the practice types in the percentage of practices achieving full credit for 19 of 27 elements. Different types of practices demonstrated strengths in different medical home capabilities.

Conclusions
Even among practices with the highest level of PCMH achievement, there are variations in key medical home capabilities. While research is needed to identify PCMH components having the greatest impact on outcomes, this research shows that the NCQA model is flexible enough to adapt to the strengths and needs of practices and the patients they serve. Efforts to support widespread dissemination of the PCMH model and practice transformation should recognize and build on these variations.

Am J Manag Care. 2014;20(12):e582-e589
  • Among practices with the highest level of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) achievement, there are variations in the implementation of key medical home capabilities by type of practice. These variations are consistent with the organization of and supports available to the practices and likely reflect different priorities and needs of the populations served.
  • By providing data on diverse practices across the country, this report suggests how different types of practices might approach PCMH implementation.
  • Efforts to support widespread dissemination of the PCMH should support practices in tailoring the PCMH to their strengths and to the needs of the patients they serve.
The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) has gained tremendous momentum in both the public and private sectors as a fast growing model of primary care redesign.1-3 More than 90 commercial insurance plans, multiple employers, 26 state Medicaid programs, and federal agencies including the Department of Defense and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) have sponsored projects to support adoption of the PCMH. To date, thousands of small and large clinical practices have adopted the PCMH model.4

Multiple studies in larger health systems have highlighted positive findings from PCMH implementation, particularly in the area of patient experience, quality improvement, and reductions in cost and utilization associated with hospitalization and emergency department use.2,3 However, some studies highlight aspects of the PCMH model which have not had significant impact on patient experiences5 and cost savings.5,6 A systematic review in 2012 concluded that PCMH implementation has a weak association with improvement of clinical staff experiences and improved care processes, and that there is insufficient evidence to determine the impact of PCMH implementation on clinical outcomes.7

One of the major reasons evidence in the literature is mixed regarding specific outcomes of PCMH domains is that there is not a single, unifying definition of a “medical home.”8,9 Despite the widespread endorsement of the Joint Principles,10 there is still strong variation in implementation of the components that are usually included: an identified primary care clinician for continuity; team-based care utilizing all members of the team functioning at the top of their scope of practice; patient-centered orientation toward the whole person; care that is coordinated across all elements of the healthcare system and the patient’s community; enhanced access to care that uses alternative methods of communication; and a systems-based approach to quality and safety.7 Thus, as PCMH is being integrated in many healthcare systems and settings, exact approaches to implementation vary broadly.11,12 However, practices likely to have more resources, such as those owned by a hospital, health system, or health plan, have been shown to be significantly more likely to use more medical home processes.13 Analysis of the first 500 National Center for Quality Assurance (NCQA)-recognized practices showed that practices affiliated with larger organizations achieved higher levels of PCMH recognition compared with unaffiliated small practices.14

With more than 6000 practices including nearly 30,000 clinicians—about 10% of the 295,000 primary care clinicians practicing in the United States4,15,16—NCQA’s database of recognized practices allows a unique view of the implementation of the PCMH across diverse practices. Because NCQA recognition standards allow practices flexibility to adapt recognition to their setting while maintaining key requirements, we used this data set to characterize how different types of practices have achieved the capabilities of the medical home. Our specific research questions were: 1) How does the level of PCMH recognition vary across different types of practices? and 2) How does achievement of specific PCMH requirements vary across different types of practices?

METHODS

This analysis focuses on primary care practices that were recognized under NCQA’s 2011 PCMH recognition program as of September 13, 2013. The PCMH 2011 program evaluates processes in 6 domains called standards: 1) enhance access and continuity; 2) identify and manage patient populations; 3) plan and manage care; 4) patient selfmanagement and support; 5) track and coordinate care; and 6) measure and improve performance.17 Within these 6 standards are 27 elements, each with an assigned number of points. Of the 27 elements, there are 6 “must pass” elements, which are considered essential to the PCMH, and practices must achieve at least 50% of the points for each of these elements to gain recognition. Three levels of PCMH recognition are possible based on the total number of points achieved out of 100 possible: Level 1 = 35-59 points; Level 2 = 60-84 points; Level 3 = 85-100 points.

To obtain recognition, practices complete a Web-based data collection tool and submit documentation to support their responses. Trained reviewers assess the documentation, and 5% of applications undergo audit (on-site or by e-mail or telephone). All applications undergo 3 rounds of internal review. Practices that were recognized under the previous version of NCQA’s program at Level 2 or 3 are allowed to use a streamlined process for renewal requiring less documentation support. Because information on both the standards and the scoring is freely available, practices should be able to determine whether they meet standards (assuming they provide adequate documentation) before undergoing review. Few practices submit and fail to achieve recognition (although 86 applications, 3.5% of those submitted, failed to achieve recognition during the time period of this work). Still, the number of points awarded to practices is usually lower than the self assessment; this may be due to poor documentation, lack of understanding of the requirements, or generalizing about the extent of their own activities.

NCQA defines a “practice” as 1 or more clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, and/or physician assistants) who practice together at a single geographic location. Nonclinician staff must follow the same procedures and protocols for all clinicians at the site.

Self-reported information on practice characteristics is collected during the application process. We categorized practices into 5 groups: federally qualified health centers or community health centers (hereafter referred to as “community health centers”); practices owned by hospitals, health plans, or health systems (hereafter referred to as “health system practices”); military treatment facilities (which provide health services to active duty and retired military personnel and their dependents); small physicianowned practices (with fewer than 5 clinicians); and large physician-owned practices (with 5 or more clinicians). We also used data on the most recent level achieved in the PCMH 2011 program and whether the practice was recognized under NCQA’s prior PCMH program.

We present a descriptive analysis of the practice characteristics overall and by the 5 practice type groupings. We used separate χ2 tests to determine whether these practice characteristics were associated with being PCMH Level 3 and with the practice type. We calculated the percentage of practices achieving 100% of the points available for each of the 27 elements within the 6 standards. Among PCMH Level 3 practices, we then conducted a likelihood ratio χ2 test to determine if there were significant differences in the proportion of practices receiving full credit according to the practice type, using a Bonferroni-adjusted P value of .0019 because of 27 comparisons.

RESULTS

As of September 13, 2013, 2369 practices had achieved NCQA’s PCMH 2011 recognition (Table 1). Of these, 45% were affiliated with health systems, 22.6% were community health centers, and 5.3% were military treatment facilities. The remaining practices were physician-owned—10% with at least 5 clinicians and 17.3% with fewer than 5 clinicians. The majority of practices (75.5%) had both adult and pediatric specialties, though this differed by practice type with nearly all community health centers serving both adults and children. Large physician-owned practices were more likely to have a pediatric-only specialty and small physician-owned practices more likely to have an adult-only primary care specialty (21.5%). Of these 2369 practices, 21% had previously received recognition under NCQA’s Physician Practice Connections–Patient-Centered Medical Home 2008 program; this was more common among physician-owned practices, where 33.5% (small practices) to 46% (large practices) had achieved recognition.

Overall, 71.1% of practices achieved Level 3, the highest level of recognition (Table 2). Practices with an adult-only primary care specialty were more likely to have achieved PCMH level 3 (80.9%) than adult and pediatric specialty practices (69.6%) and pediatric-only practices (69.3%). Practices that had participated in the PCMH 2008 recognition program were also more likely to be PCMH Level 3 (85.5%) than those who had not participated (67.3%). Military practices were more likely to be Level 3 (88.8%), and community health centers were the least likely to be Level 3 (60.6%).

Even among Level 3 practices, there were significant differences across the practice types in the percentage of practices achieving 100% of element points for 19 of 27 elements based on the likelihood ratio χ2 test across categories (Table 3). Military practices had the highest proportion of practices with full credit for 9 of the 19 elements, including the majority of elements in track and coordinate care (Standard 5) and measure and improve performance (Standard 6).

Different types of practices demonstrated strengths in different medical home capabilities. For example, most large physician-owned practices received full credit for having structured data on patient demographics and clinical data (88.1% and 97.6%, respectively, on Elements 2A and 2B) but military clinics did not. The vast majority of military clinics (89.2%) and community health centers (86.4%) got full credit for using a team to provide services (Element 1G) compared with only 62% of small and large physician-owned practices. Community health centers were significantly more likely to get full credit for after-hours access (64.2% vs 47.7% to 51.2% for other types of practices on Element 1B), but the centers were the least likely to get full credit for electronic access (28.7% vs 55% to 72% for other types of practices on Element 1C).

While military clinics were least likely to have full credit for maintaining structured data on patient demographics and key clinical factors (Elements 2A and 2B), they had the highest proportion of practices (82%) gaining full credit for using data for population management (Element 2D). Compared with other types of practices, at least 20% more military clinics received full credit for care coordination tasks such as medication management (100% vs 78.2% of large physician-owned practices, Element 3D), referrals to community resources (72.1% vs 47.3% of health-system practices, Element 4B), and coordinating transitions of care (98.2% vs 77.2% for small physician-owned practices, Element 5C).

More community health centers received full credit for measuring performance (72.2%, Element 6A); they also performed better on getting patient feedback (13.3%, Element 6B), as did small physician-owned practices. Small and large physician-owned practices tended to lag behind other types of practices in implementing continuous quality improvement (Element 6C) and performance reporting (Element 6E)

.

DISCUSSION

 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2019 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up