Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Benefits of implementing the primary care patient  centered medical 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Benefits of implementing the primary care patient centered medical 2012


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Benefits of Implementing the Primary Care Patient- Centered Medical Home:A Review of COST & QUALITY RESULTS, 2012 Prepared by: Marci Nielsen, PhD, MPH Barbara Langner, PhD Carla Zema, PhD Tara Hacker, MPH Paul Grundy, MD, MPH | Funding provided by Millbank Memorial Fund |
  • 2. Benefits of Implementing the PrimaryCare Patient-Centered Medical Home: A Review of COST & QUALITY RESULTS, 2012 Prepared by: Marci Nielsen, PhD, MPH; Barbara Langner, PhD; Carla Zema, PhD; Tara Hacker, MPH; and Paul Grundy, MD, MPH Letter from executive director, president and board chair 1 Executive Summary 2 Section One 6 Summary of PCMH: Newly-reported and updated results since the 2010 report Section Two 14 PCMH definition and selected results by PCMH feature Section Three 31 Conclusions and future directions Endnotes 33 Appendices: A. Details of selected PCMH pilots (Source: Rosenthal and Abrams, 40 reprinted with permission from Medical Home News, Sept. 2010) B. Evaluation descriptions of selected PCMH pilots (Source: Rosenthal and 41 Abrams, reprinted with permission from Medical Home News, Sept. 2010)© 2 0 1 2 PAT I E N T- CENTERED PRIM A RY CA RE C O LLABORAT IVE
  • 3. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 1Dear Colleagues,On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court ruled to uphold the vast majority of the federal healthreform law passed in 2010. The Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative believes this ruling recognizesa fundamental value about health care delivery: A health care system built upon a strong primary care foun-dation, supported by the patient-centered medical home (PCMH), is critical to achieving the Institute forHealthcare Improvement’s Triple Aim of better health, better care and lower costs.(1)Efforts to transform primary care at the practice level—as with the PCMH—have gained tremendousmomentum and broad support from both the private and public sectors. The number of primary care clini-cians who have redesigned their practices has grown, and millions of American families are benefiting throughaccess to better coordinated care, which leads to improved outcomes. More and more practices and healthsystems are creating partnerships to develop medical homes with the patients and families they serve. Majorinsurers are driving primary care transformation through payments for patient-centered services nationwideas a means to increase access to care, control costs, improve patient satisfaction and make Americans healthier.A mounting body of evidence demonstrates the patient-centered medical home is an effective means ofdelivering patient-centered health care to children and adults.It is becoming increasingly imperative to collect and review relevant data about patients and patientpopulations in order to continue the transformation that moves the U.S. health care system toward team-based, coordinated and accessible care through the patient-centered medical home.As this report demonstrates, the public and private sectors have both demonstrated their commitment toadvance these team-based, patient-centered transformation efforts. We fully expect the primary care deliverysystem to embrace full implementation of the medical home. With the historic Supreme Court rulingbehind us, it is now full speed ahead—as we seek to continue supporting these efforts.We would like to extend our thanks to the Milbank Memorial Fund for its generous sponsorship of thisreport and for Carmen Hooker Odom and Mark Benton’s thoughtful input and ideas. We also thank theCollaborative’s Board of Directors, especially Douglas Henley, MD, FAAFP, executive vice president andchief executive officer, American Academy of Family Physicians, and Beverley H. Johnson, president andCEO, Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care, who offered helpful insights and input. Additionalcomments and improvements were provided by the PCPCC’s Executive Committee; Tracey Moorheadand Jeanette May of the Care Continuum Alliance; Melinda Abrams of The Commonwealth Fund andKatherine H. Capps of Health2 Resources. Their assistance helped make this report possible and anyomissions or errors are ours alone. Every member of the Collaborative staff assisted in the development ofthis report and we appreciate their enthusiasm and commitment to all that they bring to the PCPCC.Sincerely, Paul GrundyMarci Nielsen, PhD, MPH Paul Grundy, MD, MPH, FACOEM David Nace, MDPCPCC Executive Director PCPCC President PCPCC Chair Global Director of IBM Healthcare Vice President and Medical Director Transformation of Clinical Development IBM Corporation McKesson Corporation
  • 4. 2 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012Executive SummaryF ounded in 2006, the Patient-Centered of care, and reduces expensive, unnecessary hospital Primary Care Collaborative (PCPCC or and emergency department utilization. The results Collaborative) is a large coalition of more meet the goals of the Institute for Healthcare than 1,000 organizations and individuals— Improvement’s Triple Aim for better health out-comprised of employers, physicians and other health comes, better care, and lower costs.(2) The momen-professionals, consumer and patient/family advocacy tum for transforming the U.S. health system is reach-groups, patient quality organizations, health plans, ing the tipping point, and the PCMH and primaryhospitals and unions—who have joined together care are central to this goal. The current fragmentedto advance an effective and efficient health system health system that pays for volume over value isbuilt on a strong foundation of primary care and the riddled with inefficiencies, has highly variable healthpatient-centered medical home (PCMH). The Col- outcomes, is not financially sustainable, and is nolaborative serves as a broad-based national advocacy longer acceptable.organization for the primary care patient-centeredmedical home, providing timely information and This paper, in reviewing data from PCMH initiativesnetworking opportunities to support transformation nationwide, has a two-fold goal. First, it provides aof the U.S. health system. summary of new and updated results from PCMH initiatives from the past two years, including costThis report updates our earlier reviews of the cost and quality outcomes data. The results provideand quality data from 2009 and 2010, and the substantial empirical support for the PCMH andfindings are clear, consistent, and compelling: Data the health care professionals, health plans, employersdemonstrates that the PCMH improves health out- and policymakers who are adopting it, as well ascomes, enhances the patient and provider experience the patients and their families receiving this care. Second, it defines the features of a PCMH and provides data to demonstrate how each feature of a PCMH contributes to lower costs, improved care and better health outcomes. Introduction. The patient-centered medical home is not limited to a single place or location: It is best described as a model of primary care that is patient- centered, comprehensive, team-based, coordinated, accessible and focused on quality and safety.(3) It is supported by robust health information technol- ogy (health IT), provider payment reform focused on patient outcomes and health system efficiencies, and team-based education and training of the health professions workforce.(4) Growing support for the PCMH has arisen across the vast majority of the U.S.
  • 5. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 3health care delivery system to include more than Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield in New Jersey,90 commercial insurance plans, multiple employers, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota (13)42 state Medicaid programs, numerous federal agen- and many others. More than 4 million Bluecies, the Department of Defense, hundreds of safety Cross Blue Shield members in 39 states arenet clinics, and thousands of small and large clinical currently participating in some version of apractices nationwide. (5) PCMH initiative. (14)Private sector support. Major health plans and • Integrated health plans, such as Kaiser Perman-industry partners are embracing the PCMH model ente which serves more than 8.8 million people,with enthusiasm by creating insurance plans and have also long been committed to offeringdeveloping tools and resources contributing to comprehensive primary care services and havethe implementation of medical homes. embraced the PCMH model of care delivery. • WellPoint, a private health insurer covering Federal support. Federal health reform has made 34 million Americans with a network of advancing primary care and the PCMH a top health 100,000 primary care doctors, publicly an- policy priority. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) nounced in January 2012 its decision to invest builds on the efforts of numerous states, health in the medical home across its entire network.(6) plans, medical practices, federally qualified health centers and multi-stakeholder initiatives that have • Aetna, another large private health plan insuring spearheaded medical home care delivery. Because more than 18 million Americans with a network the PCMH is foundational to Accountable Care of 55,000 primary care doctors, also recently an- Organizations (ACOs)(15)—with ACOs often nounced a PCMH rollout in Connecticut and described as the “medical neighborhood”—the New Jersey, with expectations to begin expand- PCMH is likely to gain even greater prominence ing the program nationally in 2012.(7) as ACOs continue to develop in the marketplace. Delivery system reform and the potential for shared • Humana, serving 11.8 million medical members savings available through programs championed by and 2.2 million Medicare Advantage beneficia- the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation ries, now offers medical home services in ten (e.g., the Comprehensive Primary Care initiative, the states providing enhanced care for more than Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration and 70,000 Medicare Advantage and more than the Advance Payment ACO Model) hold the prom- 35,000 commercial health insurance members.(8) ise to further expand access to PCMHs for patients, specifically for elderly, chronically ill and low income • UnitedHealthcare, insuring 34 million populations across the country. The Department of Americans, announced in February 2012 Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs and the an expansion of its value-based payment model, federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) are which supports PCMH, and is estimated to implementing versions of the PCMH and experienc- impact between 50 to 70 percent of their ing impressive results, described in this report. (16) customers.(9) State and local support. Many of these federal • Numerous Blue Cross Blue Shield plans have efforts build from PCMH initiatives that began with demonstrated leadership in driving PCMH state and local communities taking the lead. (17) efforts in their local communities, to in- clude Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan,(10) As of May 2012, the vast majority of states are CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield (Virginia, making efforts to advance the medical home in Maryland and the District of Columbia), (11, 12) their Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance
  • 6. 4 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012Program (CHIP).(18) This work has been supported palliative care providers. Many of these healthby the National Academy for State Health Policy, professional organizations are members of thewhich has a major initiative focused on supporting Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative.(24)state PCMH activity. (19) Recently announced bythe Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation, Patient and family engagement. Increasingly,the Comprehensive Primary Care initiative PCMH and other health reform initiatives are(CPC)(20) adds to the PCMH momentum by conveying the expectation for authentic patientfostering collaboration between public and and family engagement. This engagement occursprivate health care payers along with health care at multiple levels:consumers in order to strengthen primary carein seven selected marketplaces across the U.S. • At the clinical encounter—patient and family engagement in direct care, care planning, andInternational outcomes. Across the globe, re- decision-making;search from a recent large study of 11 industrializedcountries demonstrates that adults with complex • At the practice or organizational level—patientcare needs who had a medical home reported bet- and family engagement in quality improvementter coordinated care, fewer medical errors and test and health care redesign;duplication, better relationships with their doctorsand greater satisfaction with care.(21) When com- • At the community level—bringing togetherparing care delivered in a medical home (to care not community resources with health caredelivered in a medical home) within each country organizations, patients, and families; andsurveyed, researchers found a difference of between18 to 39 percentage points on questions such as • At the policy level—engaging policymakerswhether their doctor spends enough time with locally, regionally, and nationally.them, encourages them to ask questions, explainsthings clearly and engages patients in managing Patient and family engagement is an important con-their chronic conditions.(22) sideration within the work of the CMS Innovation Center, National Priorities Partnership, and policyBroad health care professions support. organizations such as the Robert Wood JohnsonKey to the PCMH is strong support among pri- Foundation, the California Healthcare Foundation,mary care physician and other health professional Maine Health Access Foundation and the Coloradoorganizations. In February 2007, four primary Health Foundation. These agencies and foundationscare physician societies—the American Academy are supporting the development of meaningfulof Family Physicians, American Academy of partnerships with patients and families in thePediatrics, American College of Physicians and the redesign of primary care.American Osteopathic Association—developedthe Joint Principles (23) for the Patient-Centered Based on the results to date and current marketMedical Home, which have been highly influential factors that will continue to affect health carein advancing this model of care delivery. Since that delivery, we identify three broad conclusionstime, 18 more physician membership organizations about PCMH outcomes:have endorsed the Joint Principles. Multiple otherhealth professionals have embraced the PCMH • As medical home implementationwith its emphasis on team-based care, including increases, the Triple Aim outcomes ofnurse practitioners, physician assistants, psycholo- better health, better care and lower costsgists, social workers, nutritionists, pharmacists, are being achieved. The number of medi-physical, occupational, and speech therapists and cal home providers has grown to the tens of
  • 7. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 5 thousands, serving millions of Americans. • Investment in the medical home offers Momentum for the model is rapidly increasing both short- and long-term savings for with public and private sector investment. The patients, employers, health plans and concept of the PCMH is evolving to include policymakers. In the current economic the medical neighborhood, especially with the environment, controlling the rising cost of growth of ACOs. As the PCMH expands, the health care is paramount. Although imple- need to continue cataloging the outcomes of menting the many features of a PCMH takes the PCMH is vital for ongoing engagement time, the long-term cost savings of the PCMH from employers, purchasers, policymakers, are impressive, as demonstrated by mature patients and their families. As the information PCMH initiatives such as the Geisinger in this report illustrates, a mounting body of Health System.(27) By providing high qual- data demonstrates that the PCMH is an effec- ity health care to Americans that results in tive means of delivering primary care to achieve fewer unnecessary emergency room visits and the Triple Aim outcomes (25) and transform the inpatient hospital admissions, as well as better U.S. health system. care coordination, this report demonstrates that PCMHs can achieve cost-savings in the• Medical home expansion has reached short-term as well. Continued focus on health the tipping point with broad private and information technology diffusion, primary public sector support. There is far-reaching care payment reform, education and train- interest across the health care industry in the ing for a robust primary care workforce, and PCMH delivery model. Major insurers are improving patient experience are critical to the driving PCMH efforts nationwide as a means PCMH’s long-term success. In addition, effec- to control costs, improve patient satisfaction tive collaboration with patients and families in and make Americans healthier. Federal health all aspects of primary care redesign and evalu- reform has prompted expansion of the PCMH ation will be essential. Efforts to measure the in Medicare, Medicaid and federally qualified effectiveness of the PCMH are ongoing (28) health centers, in addition to leveraging inno- and continue to be a high priority for entities vations from commercial insurers. The Office such as the Agency for Healthcare Research of Personnel Management, the U.S. military and Quality (AHRQ) and the Milbank and the Department of Veterans Affairs are all Memorial Fund, which funded this report. In committed to expanding primary care through addition to supporting a number of PCMH medical homes. In addition to these federal pilots nationwide, The Commonwealth Fund’s efforts, ongoing and successful initiatives at the Patient-Centered Medical Home Evaluators’ state level continue to expand. The majority of Collaborative has recently recommended core state Medicaid programs are initiating or ex- measures for PCMH evaluation that include panding their PCMH programs.(26) We believe both cost and quality care measures to ensure the combined result of these public and private standardized metrics for effective care. (29) initiatives propels the PCMH to the tipping point for the care delivery system to embrace full implementation of the PCMH. Conse- quently, more patients than ever will receive care from PCMHs.
  • 8. 6 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012Section OneSummary of PCMH: Newly-reported and updatedresults since the 2010 reportR oughly 30 percent, or approximately $700 This section of the paper provides a summary of billion, of the $2.5 trillion in annual health numerous PCMH results published since the last care spending in the U.S. is estimated to be PCPCC 2010 Outcomes Update, primarily focused unnecessary. (30) The marketplace recog- on cost and quality.(33) It highlights outcomes fromnizes the potential for return on investment in the peer-reviewed research as well as industry-reportedmedical home, in the form of both quality and cost outcomes. Although the initiatives described belowimprovements. Success of previous PCMH demon- differ from one another in scope and implementa-strations across the U.S. has prompted investments tion, each incorporates features of a PCMH in orderin publicly and privately funded PCMH programs, to improve health outcomes, improve health carewith anticipation of future savings and better patient delivery and/or lower overall health care For example, WellPoint predicts that its new These features are described in greater detail inPCMH program could reduce its projected medical section two of the report.costs in 2015 by up to 20 percent based on analysisof its current medical home pilot projects.(31) The initiatives that follow also use different methodsUnitedHealthcare estimates that its new efforts of analysis to determine cost savings or quality im-will save twice as much as they cost.(32) provement. Some come from academic peer-reviewed journals, while others are industry generated. It is im- portant to note that academic research versus industry analysis often serves distinct purposes. Academia’s goal is to build a body of knowledge over time that is generalizable and of suitable quality for publication, a generally slow and deliberate process. In contrast, industry uses actuarial analysis and other statistical tools consistent with proprietary business practices that generally moves more quickly—with a focus on the financial bottom line. Other methods to evaluate the PCMH, such as rapid-cycle innovation, are being used with success.(34) It is important to acknowledge that regardless of approach, thorough and thoughtful analysis of the PCMH and the outcomes it produces will lead to improvement of health care delivery for patients and their families. Ongoing evaluation is es- sential as the model evolves.(35) Uniform methods to evaluate the PCMH are being developed by a team of more than 75 researchers under the leadership of The Commonwealth Fund, with the objective of support- ing improvements in policy and practice.(36)
  • 9. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 7 Results of Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiatives, by State or AgencyInitiative Health Care Cost & Acute Health Outcomes & Years of Data Report Type Care Service Outcomes Quality of Care Results Review • 14% fewer emergency • 77% of diabetic patients 2009–2011 Agency department (ED) and had improved glycemic Congressional urgent care visits control at Hill Air Force Base testimonyAir Force (2011) (37) • Hill Air Force Base (Utah) saved $300,000 annually through improved diabetes care management • 50% reduction in urgent 10-year span IndustryAlaska: care and ER utilization (years not report via publicAlaska Native • 53% reduction in hospital specified) presentationMedical Center admissions(2012) (39) • 65% reduction in specialist utilization • 15% fewer hospital 2010 BCBS industry readmissions report • 15% fewer inpatientCalifornia: hospital staysBCBS of California • 50% fewer inpatientACO Pilot (2012) (40) stays of 20 days or more • Overall health care cost savings of $15.5 million • $215 lower per member • Increased provider 2007–-2009 Peer-reviewed per year for children participation in CHIP article:Colorado: program from 20% to 96% Health AffairsColorado Medicaid • Increased well-care visitsand SCHIP (41) for children from 54% in 2007 to 73% in 2009 • 40% lower inpatient • 250% increase in primary 2003–2011 Institute forFlorida: hospital days care visits HealthcareCapital Health Plan, • 37% lower ED visits Improvement(Tallahassee, Fla.) • 18% lower health care report2012 (42) claims costsIdaho: • $1 million reduction in Years not BCBS industryBCBS of Idaho single year medical claims provided reportHealth Service • ROI of 4:1 for disease(2011)(40) management programs • 4.2% average reduction in 2011 BCBS industry expected patient’s overall reportMaryland: health care costs among 60%CareFirst BCBS of practices participating for(2011) (43) six or more months • Nearly $40 million savings in 2011 (continued)
  • 10. 8 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012Initiative Health Care Cost & Acute Health Outcomes & Years of Data Report Type Care Service Outcomes Quality of Care Results Review • 13.5% fewer ED visits • 60% better access to care BCBS industry among children in PCMH for participating practices report, factsheet (vs. 9% non-PCMH) that provide 24/7 access • 10% fewer ED visits (as compared to 25% in Michigan: among adults in PCMH non-participating sites)(40) BCBS of Michigan (vs. 6.5% non-PCMH) (44) 2008–2011 (Physician Group • 7.5% lower use of Incentive Program) high-tech radiology (45) (2011) • 17% lower ambulatory-care sensitive inpatient admissions • 6% lower 30-day readmission rates(40) • 39% lower ER visits Improved quality of services: 2004–2009 Industry report • 24% fewer hospital • Reduced appointment admissions wait time by 350% from • 40% lower readmission 26 days to 1 day rates • 129% increase in optimal • 30% lower length of stay diabetes care • 20% lower inpatient costs • 48% increase in optimalMinnesota: due to outpatient case heart disease care.HealthPartners (46) management program for Changed provider behavior(Bloomington, Minn.) behavioral health • 10% decrease in diagnostic • Overall costs decreased imaging scans in first year to 92% of state average in 2008(47) • Reduced outpatient costs of $1,282 for patients using 11 or more medications (48)Nebraska: • 10% fewer hospitalizations 2011 BCBS industryBCBS of Nebraska (49) • 27% fewer emergency visits report(2012) • 10% lower per member Better diabetes care: 2011 BCBS industry per month (PMPM) costs • 8% improvement in report, press • 26% fewer ED visits HbA1c levels release • 25% fewer hospital • 31% increase in ability New Jersey: readmissions to effectively self-manage BCBS of New Jersey • 21% fewer inpatient blood sugar (Horizon BCBSNJ) admissions Better prevention: 2012 (50, 51) • 5% increase in use of • 24% increase in generic prescriptions LDL screening • 6% increase in breast and cervical cancer screening • 24% lower hospital 2008–2010 Industry report, New York: admissions press release Capital District • 9% lower overall medical Physicians’ Health cost increases resulting in Plan (Albany, N.Y.) (52) savings of $32 PMPM New York: • Cost savings of 11% 2010 Press release Priority Community overall in first 9 months of Healthcare Center approximately $150,000 Medicaid Program • Reduced hospital spending (Chemung County, by 27% and ER spending N.Y.) 2011(53) by 35%
  • 11. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 9Initiative Health Care Cost & Acute Health Outcomes & Years of Data Report Type Care Service Outcomes Quality of Care Results ReviewNorth Carolina: • 52% fewer visits to 2011 BCBS industryBlue Quality specialists report, pressPhysician’s Program • 70% fewer visits release(BCBSNC) 2011(54) to the ER • 23% lower ED utilization Improvements in asthma 2003–2010 Peer reviewed and costs care: journals: Health • 25% lower outpatient • 21% increase in asthma Affairs; Annals of care costs staging Family Medicine;North Carolina: • 11% lower pharmacy costs • 112% increase in influenza agency reportCommunity Care Estimated cost savings of: inoculationsof North Carolina • $60 million in 2003(Medicaid)(55) • $161 million in 2006 • $103 million in 2007 • $204 million in 2008 • $295 million in 2009 • $382 million 2010 (56) • 6% lower hospital Better diabetes care: 2005–2006 BCBS industry admissions • 6.7% improvement in report • 24% fewer ED visits BP control • 30% lower ED use among • 10.3% improvement in patients with chronic disease cholesterol control • 18% lower inpatient • 64.3% improvement in hospital admission rates optimal diabetes care.North Dakota: compared to general N.D. Better coronary arteryBCBS of North population disease management:Dakota­— • 8.6% improvement inMediQHome Quality BP controlProgram 2012(51) • 9.4% improvement in cholesterol control • 53.8% improvement in optimal diabetes control Better care for hypertension • 8% improvement in blood pressure controlOhio: • 34% decrease in ER visits • 22% decrease in patients 2008–2010 Industry reportHumana Queen City with uncontrolled bloodPhysicians (2012) (57) pressure • Reduced per capita Improved access over one 2008–2010 Industry report member costs by year period: $29 per year • Reduction from 1,670 toOklahoma: 13 patient inquiries relatedOklahoma Medicaid to same-day/next-day(2011)(58) appointment availability • 8% increase in patients “always getting treatment quickly.” (continued)
  • 12. 10 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012Initiative Health Care Cost & Acute Health Outcomes & Years of Data Report Type Care Service Outcomes Quality of Care Results Review Lower hospital 2010 Press release admission rates:Oregon: • 231.5 per 1000 beneficiari-Bend Memorial es (compared to state/Clinic & Clear One national averages of 257 andMedicare Advantage 351 per 1000, respectively).(PacificSource Lower ER visit ratesMedicare • 242 per 1000 beneficiariesAdvantage) 2012 (59) (compared to state/national averages of 490 and 530 per 1000, respectively).Oregon: • 9% lower PMPM costs (60) Better disease management 2007–2009 CommonwealthCareOregon • Reduced PMPM costs among diabetics in one clinic: Fund, pressMedicaid and by $89)(61) • 65% had controlled HbA1c releaseDual Eligibles levels vs. 45% pre-PCMH(62)(Portland, Ore.) • Reduced hospital length Improved quality of care: 2005–2010 Congressional of stay by half a day • 74% for preventive care testimony, • 25% lower hospital • 22% for coronary artery PCPCC admissions care Outcomes • 50% lower readmissions • 34.5% for diabetes care Report, peerPennsylvania: following discharge reviewed journal:Geisinger Health • 18% reduced inpatient American JournalSystem Proven- admissions of Managed CareHealth Navigator • 7% lower cumulative totalPCMH model spending(65) (from 2005(Danville, Penn.),(63, 64) to 2008)2010, 2012 Longer exposure to medical homes resulted in lower health care costs: • 7.1% lower cumulative cost savings (from 2006 to 2010) with an ROI of 1.7 • 13% fewer hospitalizations Improved patient outcomes 2009 Press interview by 2009 for diabetics: • Medical costs nearly • Increases in eye examsPennsylvania: 4% lower from 50% to 90%UPMC(68) • 20% long-term improve-(Pittsburgh, PA) ment in control of blood2011 sugar • 37% long-term improve- ment of cholesterol control Better diabetes care: 2008–2011 BCBS industry • Increased diabetes reportPennsylvania: screenings from 40% to 92%Independence Blue • 49% improvement inCross—Pennsylvania HbA1c levelsChronic Care • 25% increase in bloodInitiative (Southeast pressure controlPennsylvania) • 27% increase in2012(51) cholesterol control • 56% increase in patients with self-management goals
  • 13. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 11Initiative Health Care Cost & Acute Health Outcomes & Years of Data Report Type Care Service Outcomes Quality of Care Results Review • 0% 30-day hospital 2011 Industry report,Pennsylvania: readmission rate for PCMH press releasePinnacleHealth patients vs. 10-20% for(2012) (69) non-PCMH patients • 17-33% lower health care Improved quality of care 2008–2011 BCBS industry costs among PCMH patients measures: reportRhode Island: • 44% for family &BCBS of Rhode children’s healthIsland (2012) (51) • 35% for women’s care • 24% for internal medicineSouth Carolina: • 14.7% lower inpatient 2008–2011 BCBS industryBCBS of South hospital days reportCarolina (Palmetto • 25.9% fewer ED visitsPrimary Care • 6.5% lower total PMPMPhysicians) 2012 (51) medical and pharmacy costs Increased screening rates: 2009–2012 BCBS industry • 3% for diabetes exams report • 7% for diabetes retinal examsTennessee: • 14% for diabetesBCBS of Tennessee nephropathy exams(2012) (51) • 4% for lipid exams Increased prescription rates: • 6% for coronary artery disease medications • 23% lower readmission 2009 BCBS industryTexas: rates reportBCBS of Texas • $1.2 million estimated(2012) (40) health care cost savings (continued)
  • 14. 12 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012Initiative Health Care Cost & Acute Health Outcomes & Years of Data Report Type Care Service Outcomes Quality of Care Results Review Improved disease 2000–2008 Peer review management: journal: • Increased control of HbA1C Journal of levels from 81% to 93% of Ambulatory Care diabetes patients Management • Increased LDL levels under control, from 51% to 95%, for heart disease patients • Increased control of BP levels from 67% to 90% Improved preventive care • Increased screening rates for mammography from 19% to 40% • Increased screening rates for colon cancer from 11%Texas: to 50%WellMed Inc.(70) • Improved diabetes HbA1c(San Antonio, Tex.) testing from 55% to 71% • LDL screenings for all patients increased from 47% to 70% • LDL screenings for diabetic patients increased from 53% to 78% • LDL screenings for ischemic heart disease patients increased from 53 to 76%. • BP screening rates for all patients increased from 38 to 76% • BP screenings for high BP patients increased from 46 to 88%. • 27% reduction in projected 2010–2012 Industry reportVermont: cost avoidance across its as part of publicVermont Blueprint commercial insurer presentationfor Health (2012) (71) population • 21% decreased inpatient 2008–2010 Industry report utilizationVermont: • 22% lower PMPMVermont Medicaid (72) inpatient costs • 31% lower ED use • 36% lower PMPM ED costs • 8% lower urgent care visits 2007–2009; 2011 Press interview • 4% lower acute admissionVeterans Health rates by 4%(73)Administration • 27% lower hospitalizationsand VA Midwest and ED visits among chronicHealthcare Network disease patients(VISN 23) 2012 • $593 per chronic disease patient cost savings (74)
  • 15. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 13Initiative Health Care Cost & Acute Health Outcomes & Years of Data Report Type Care Service Outcomes Quality of Care Results ReviewWashington: • 20% lower health care costs • 14.8% improved patient- 2007–2009 BCBS industryRegence Blue reported physical function reportShield (Intensive and mental functionOutpatient Care • 65% reduced patientProgram with reported missed workdaysBoeing) 2012(40) • 29% fewer ED visits Improved medication • 2006–2007 The Common- • 11% fewer hospitalizations management: • 2008 (57) wealth Fund, for ambulatory care-sensitive • 18% reduction in use peer reviewed conditions of high-risk medications journal: American • Net cost savings trend of among elderly Journal of $17 PMPM (78) • 36% increase in use of Managed Care, • $4 million in transcription cholesterol-lowering drugs PCPCC cost savings through the • 65% increase in use of Outcomes Report use of EHRs generic statin drugWashington: • $2.5 million in cost savings Improved quality of care:Group Health through medical records • Composite measuresof Washington management increased by 3.7% to(Seattle, WA) (75, 76, 77) • $3.4 million in cost savings 4.4% Improved provider2009, 2010 through medication use satisfaction: management program • Less emotional exhaustion • 40% cost reduction through reported by staff (10% PCMH use of generic statin drug vs. 30% controls) Improved patient experiences in one clinic: • 83% of patient calls resolved on the first call compared to 0% pre-PCMH (79)
  • 16. 14 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012Section TwoPCMH Definition and Selected Results byPCMH FeatureT his section of the report defines the health practitioners or behavioral health special- features of a PCMH and provides ists; social workers; care coordinators; pharmacists; specific examples from peer-reviewed palliative care providers; physical, occupational and research and self-reported data to speech therapists; community health workers; anddemonstrate how each feature contributes to others offering support services in the community.better health, improved care and/or lower cost Whereas some PCMHs provide most care in a singlewithin the PCMH model. location, others include virtual teams of profession- als who work together, depending upon the specificA. What is Comprehensive Team-Based Care? needs of the patient. Beyond the primary care setting, the PCMH also coordinates the care of Comprehensive Team-Based Care: patients in the medical neighborhood and across health care settings and transitions—including The primary care medical home is specialty care and inpatient hospital services— accountable for meeting the large majority which is vital for patients with chronic illnesses. of each patient’s physical and mental health The PCMH team includes the patients and their care needs, including prevention and families as well, as their input is a key component wellness, acute care and chronic care. of realizing the medical home. Providing comprehensive care requires a team of care providers. This team might include physicians, advanced practice nurses, physician assistants, nurses, pharmacists, nutritionists, social workers, educators and care coordinators. Although some medical home practices may bring together large and diverse teams of care providers to meet the needs of their patients, many others, including smaller practices, will build virtual teams linking themselves and their patients to providers and services in their communities. (AHRQ, 2012)A key feature of the PCMH is team-based caredelivery focused on the needs of the patient and,when appropriate, the family. Depending on thepractice, the team includes primary care physicians;nurse practitioners; physician assistants; mental
  • 17. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 15Examples of comprehensive team-based care and 23.9 percent ( Johnsbury service area) torelevant key outcomes include: 15.3 percent (Burlington service area); ◊ Lower ED utilization (visits per 1,000) Vermont Blueprint for Health ranging from 33.8 percent ( Johnsbury) to 18.9 percent (Burlington) to 2.8 percentPCMH feature highlighted: Community health (Barre);teams, including nurse coordinators, behavioralhealth providers and social workers ◊ In the Burlington service area, the subset of patients that received support from theThis statewide project currently serves more than Community Health Team experienced350,000 Vermonters. In a single year (2011), the even lower rates of inpatient hospitalizationnumber of physician practices in this initiative more (25.1 percent) and ED utilizationthan tripled (from 24 to 78 practices); expansion (22.1 percent);continues with all interested practices anticipatedto participate by October 2013.(80) The Vermont ◊ Patients with chronic diseases who had beenBlueprint for Health (“Blueprint”) provides ad- seen only once a year by their primary carevanced primary care to patients, with selected pilot providers were now being seen up to foursites offering additional support services provided by times a year; anda community health team. The community healthteam differs by locality, but often includes nurse ◊ Persons referred for mental health servicescoordinators, behavioral health providers and social were more likely to obtain services becauseworkers. The Blueprint also links health care provid- the community care team included aers through centralized data systems, offers payment behavioral specialist.reforms through multiple insurers, coordinates withspecialized services (medical and otherwise) andfocuses on continuous evaluation to fuel improve- Senior Care Options program, affiliatedment.(81) In 2010, the Vermont Child Health with the Community Care AllianceImprovement Program at the University of Vermontconducted evaluations of the three Blueprint pilots PCMH feature highlighted: Community–basedand reported impressive early results to the Vermont team care including nurse practitioners and geriatricDepartment of Public Health on health care costs social workersand health outcomes, which were included in theBlueprint’s Annual Report.(82) Individuals who are elderly and have very low income qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid andKey Outcomes:(83) are referred to as being “dually eligible.” These indi- viduals benefit from care offered through a medical • When comparing care before and after the home because of their multiple chronic medical con- Advanced Primary Care pilot began in July ditions and significant need for care coordination 2008i, all three pilot communities found:(84) and social support. In addition, those who are dual eligibles are of interest to state and federal policy- ◊ Lower inpatient hospitalization rates makers who regulate the financing and management (admission rate per 1,000) ranging from of their often high-cost health care needs.(85) 39.7 percent (Barre service area) to Senior Care Options is a partnership between i data reported July 2006 to January 2010 MassHealth and Medicare and part of the
  • 18. 16 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012Community Care Alliance in Boston. The program The Improving Mood/Promotingprovides a complete package of health care and Access to Collaborative Treatmentsocial services for dual eligibles through a team of (IMPACT) Studyhealth care professionals, including physicians, nursepractitioners, geriatric social workers and communi- PCMH feature highlighted: Team-basedty-based staff. The goal of the Senior Care Options interdisciplinary primary care and behavioral healthprogram is to keep patients healthy and allow themto remain in their homes for as long as possible. Depression causes an immense burden of sufferingBy comparing costs before and after the Senior Care on both individuals and on society with a yearlyOptions program began, researchers were able to estimated cost in the U.S. (due to lost productivitydemonstrate that the team-based approach improved and increased medical expenses) of $83 billion.(88)the quality of care for chronically ill patients and The Improving Mood/Promoting Access to Collab-reduced their use of hospitals and nursing homes, orative Treatment (IMPACT) study is one of largestthus reducing overall health care costs.(86) treatment trials for adult depression in the U.S. Span- ning two years, data from the study reported hereKey Outcomes:(87) included 18 primary care clinics from eight health care organizations in four states, including two • Improvement in the quality of health care for Veterans Administration clinics. Researchers used patients included: a randomized control study design to determine whether patients who received care in a primary care ◊ Influenza immunization rates increased from practice that included a depression care manager 65 to 77 percent from 2005 to 2011; (as part of the care team) differed from care provided in a regular primary care setting. Involving more than ◊ Mammography screening rates increased 1,800 older patients with a mental health diagnosis, among women ages 65 to 69 years by this study found that using a depression care man- 75 to 79 percent from 2005 to 2011; ager in a primary care practice as part of a care team improved the symptoms of depression in patients. ◊ Colorectal cancer screening rates increased from 30 to 51 percent from 2005 to 2011; Key Outcomes:(89) ◊ Eye exams, including glaucoma testing, • At 12 months, 45 percent of the IMPACT increased from 69 to 73 percent between patients had a 50 percent or greater reduction 2008 and 2010; in depression symptoms (compared to 19 percent in the control group). ◊ Hospital readmission rates (30-day) decreased from 20.2% in 2009 to • IMPACT was more effective than usual care 18.1% in 2010; and in all of the eight different health care organiza- tions that were studied, regardless of whether ◊ Average length-of-stay in the hospital the patients had other medical conditions or decreased from 5.21 days in 2009 to anxiety disorders. 5 days in 2011. • IMPACT was equally effective across ethnic and racial backgrounds, with African American, Latino and white patients experiencing similar outcomes.
  • 19. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 17Citywide Care Management System, B. What is a Patient-Centered Orientation?Camden, N.J. A Patient-Centered Orientation:PCMH feature highlighted: Coordinating care withcommunity services and supports The primary care medical home provides primary health care that is relationship-The Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers based with an orientation toward the whole(CCHP) developed the Citywide Care Manage- person. Partnering with patients and theirment System (CCMS) at the urging of a young families requires understanding andphysician who was frustrated with a lack of rational respecting each patient’s unique needs,health care and social services for the very high cost culture, values and preferences. The medi-“super-utilizers” of EDs and hospitals.(90) In 2005, cal home practice actively supports patientsCamden, N.J. was determined by the U.S. Census to in learning to manage and organize theirbe the poorest city in the country, with 50 percent own care at the level the patient chooses.of residents visiting a local ED or hospital in a single Recognizing that patients and families areyear.(91) More than 90 percent of the costs of care— core members of the care team, medicalmore than $460 million in 2008—was spent on just home practices ensure that they are fully20 percent of the patients. The most expensive pa- informed partners in establishing caretient had medical expenses of $3.5 million in a single plans. (AHRQ, 2012)year.(92) Jeff Brenner, MD, created the CCMS andengages a dedicated team who provide a wide varietyof health and social services to their patients. The As its name implies, a focus on the needs and prefer-team includes a family physician, a nurse practitio- ences of the patient is a key feature of the PCMH.ner, a community health worker and a social worker In contrast to a focus on a specific disease or organwho are linked through their Camden Health Infor- system, the PCMH centers on the whole person. Thismation Exchange to area hospitals. Armed with data includes physical health, but also behavioral health,to identify those who are most in need of assistance, oral health and long-term care supports. A patientthe CCMS has been successful in improving health and family-centered orientation embraces patientoutcomes and reducing use of acute care services preferences and culture, recognizes and assists withand is working with other communities to achieve health literacy, provides tools and resources for self-similar outcomes. managing chronic conditions, and is founded on trust and respect between the patient and the clinician inKey Outcomes: (93) order to develop a true partnership.(94) The Institute of Medicine defined patient-centeredness as one of • A self-reported analysis of outcomes pre- and the six key characteristics of quality care.(95) Various post-implementation of the CCMS found that organizations such as the Institute for Patient- and patients had fewer emergency visits and hospi- Family-Centered Care (96) highlight the importance talizations, resulting in a 56 percent reduction of collaboration and effective communication with in overall spending. patients and families, as well as the encouragement and support of the active participation of patients and • The first “super-utilizers” in the program had a family members in clinical care, primary care rede- 40 percent reduction in ED visits. sign, research, policy and program development. Several components of patient-centeredness have been evaluated in the peer-reviewed literature, and demonstrate the importance of this orientation.
  • 20. 18 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012 National Partnership for Women Agency for Healthcare Research and & Families (97) Quality (AHRQ)PCMH feature highlighted: Patient/consumer PCMH feature highlighted: Defining patientpreferences and communication engagementAlthough there is widespread support for the AHRQ is the federal agency tasked with improv-concept of patient-centeredness, consumers’ ing the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness ofpriorities are too often perceived as peripheral in health care for all Americans.(102) To provide decisionthe U.S. health care system. The National Partner- makers and researchers with access to evidence-basedship for Women & Families (NPWF) launched the resources about the medical home and its potentialCampaign for Better Care aimed at ensuring that to transform primary care, AHRQ has developed aconsumers receive comprehensive, coordinated Patient-Centered Medical Home Resource Centercare ( Through website ( Several resourcesthe campaign, NPWF has developed a number are available aimed at describing patient-centered-of initiatives to advocate for the needs and wishes ness. In a white paper commissioned by AHRQ,(104)of patients and their families, including a project researchers recommend that patient engagementaimed at better understanding consumer views of take place at three levels: the individual; the institu-the patient-centered medical home.(98) Through a tion; and in the development of policy and research.series of community, state and national meetings,targeted focus groups and surveys, the organization Key Findings:(105)identified the key attributes of patient-centeredcare most important to consumers. • From the individual care perspective, primary care practices can better engage their patients,Key Findings: families and caregivers by: • Consumers were most supportive of whole ◊ Communicating with them about how the person care; comprehensive communication PCMH works, defining the roles of patients and coordination between patients and and their care delivery team; clinicians; patient support and empowerment; and ready access to care.(99) ◊ Supporting patients in self-care, which includes the development of goals, care • Consumers support these attributes of patient- plans and reduction of risk factors; centered care, although many were unclear about the meaning of the term “patient- ◊ Partnering with patients in informal and centered medical home.” (100) Other researchers formal decision making (including the use of have found that patients are unclear about tools such as shared decision-making); and what the term “patient-centered medical home” means, and confuse it with a nursing home ◊ Giving patients access to their own medical or other physical location. They recommend records to improve patient safety. educational and communication initiatives to explain the medical home to consumers with • From an institutional or organizational examples that have meaning to them. The perspective, primary care practices can researchers suggest that such efforts can help engage patients and their families in quality support and improve the PCMH as patients improvement efforts by: become better informed and involved. (101)
  • 21. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 19 ◊ Soliciting regular feedback through patient care and increased family satisfaction when surveys; children with special health care needs received primary care through a medical home. One of ◊ Gathering additional patient and family the longest-running national studies measuring perspectives through the formation of children’s access to medical homes is the National patient/family advisory councils; and Survey of Children’s Health, a telephone survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control ◊ Including patients and their families in and Prevention’s National Center for Health quality improvement efforts. Statistics.(107) This survey continues to demonstrate positive associations between access to a medical • From a policy and research perspective, home, increased likelihood to receive preventive decision makers and researchers can care and fewer unmet health care needs.(108) engage patients and their families by: Key Outcomes: (109) ◊ Ensuring that the design and study of medical homes represents patient perspectives; • In this large national survey in 2007, children without a medical home were: ◊ Requiring that practices include patient engagement in order to qualify as an ◊ Almost four times as likely to have an unmet accredited medical home; health care need as were children with a medical home; and ◊ Using payment strategies to support patient and family engagement; ◊ Three times as likely to have unmet dental needs as were children with a medical home. ◊ Providing practices with technical assistance and shared resources for patient engagement; • Although most children had one of the five and features of a medical home, just over half (56.9 percent) had a fully implemented medical ◊ Establishing requirements to ensure that home (all five features) as defined by the study. health IT promotes patient engagement. • Children whose health was reported as fair or poor were only half as likely to have a medicalHealth Resources and Services home as those whose health was rated to beAdministration (HRSA) Maternal excellent or very good.and Child Health Bureau • Hispanic children were more than three timesPCMH feature highlighted: Support for family- more likely to lack a medical home than werecentered care and the PCMH white children; African American children were more than twice as likely to lack a medicalPioneered in concept by the American Academy home than were white children.of Pediatrics, family-centered care has been acentral tenet of the medical home for more than • Children in poverty were three and half times20 years.(106) Many of the earliest studies on the more likely than non-poor children to lack amedical home were conducted in pediatric practic- medical with the support of federal funding from HRSAMCHB. These studies looked at improvements in
  • 22. 20 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012Minnesota Department of Health U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesPCMH feature highlighted: Support for familypartnership in care planning PCMH feature highlighted: Health literacy and improved patient-provider communicationThe Medical Home Initiative for Children withSpecial Health Care Needs was first implemented Health literacy is the capacity to understand basicin 2004 by the Minnesota Department of Health health information and make appropriate health(MDH). The project’s aim is to support a commu- decisions. It ties directly to the PCMH since thenity-based system offering services to children with care delivery team is focused on improving com-special health care needs. Data from the project show munication that enhances care coordination andthat all of its providers agree that the emphasis on engages the patient and family. Researchers arecare coordination has improved their patients’ health increasingly tying health literacy to a long list ofand well-being. Analysis of MDH claims data of 500 health outcomes.(111) According to one large study,children from nine of these practices also indicates only 12 percent of U.S. adults have proficient healthincreased patient health and well-being. Three years literacy, with more than a third of U.S. adultsafter implementation, several cost savings and quality having difficulty with common health tasks suchimprovements were realized. as following directions on a prescription drug label or adhering to a childhood immunization scheduleKey Outcomes: (110) using a standard chart.(112) Major PCMH accredit- ing bodies (such as NCQA, URAC, and the Joint • ED visits and inpatient admissions decreased; Commission) have acknowledged the central role that health literacy plays within their accreditation • Dental and well-child visits increased; standards. There are several federal initiatives aimed at improving health literacy built on research that • All providers surveyed felt that care plans are has demonstrated improved health outcomes and important for families to communicate with lower costs when health literacy is improved. other providers; Key Outcomes: • All providers surveyed felt that care plans should be written in partnership with the • Improved health literacy has the capacity to family; and reduce ethnic and racial disparities in the clinical and community setting. • Parents, even those not involved directly in the medical home team, noticed improvements at • In a randomized control trial, simplified their clinics that benefited children with special hospital discharge instructions given to patients health care needs. in order to help them transition from the hospi- tal to their homes led to a 30 percent reduction in hospitalization readmission rates. (113) • Health literacy researchers found that non- print broadcast media (such as radio and televi- sion) were “as important” or “more important” than print materials for all levels of literacy (four categories: below basic, basic, intermedi- ate, proficient). For those with the lowest level
  • 23. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 21 of health literacy, print materials were the least CareMore Medical Group likely to be used.(114) PCMH feature highlighted: Coordinating care • Information from health professionals is one of through care transitions and good communication(118) the most important sources of information on health topics for all health literacy levels.(115) CareMore Medical Group in California, a Medicare Advantage plan, has a central focus on coordinatingC. What is Care that is Coordinated? care for patients and meeting their individual needs. CareMore patients are over the age of 65, and many Care that is Coordinated: have multiple health care needs. The CareMore Medical Group promotes a comprehensive physical The primary care medical home coordinates exam for each patient, and assigns patients to work care across all elements of the broader health with a nurse practitioner who leads the care team. care system, including specialty care, hospi- Patients engage in chronic disease management and tals, home health care, and community care coordination that is supported through health services and supports. Such coordination IT and remote monitoring to track patients’ status. is particularly critical during transitions CareMore also refers its members to several com- between sites of care, such as when patients munity-based services to supplement their medical are being discharged from the hospital. care, including transportation and fitness programs, Medical home practices also excel at build- home and respite care, and caregiver assistance. This ing clear and open communication among includes providing assistance with transportation to patients and families, the medical home physician and other health-related appointments, and members of the broader care team. offering home care visits to patients, and even (AHRQ, 2012) providing talking pill boxes that remind patients to take their prescriptions. In an effort to support patients with transitions from hospital care toThe current model of health care delivery is frag- outpatient treatment, CareMore has created anmented and difficult for patients and their families “extensivist” physician function. The founder ofto navigate. Improved care coordination is proving CareMore, Sheldon Zinberg, MD, underscores theto be an essential role of the primary care provider, importance of clear, effective communication andespecially for those patients with multiple ongoing involving patients in their own care in order tohealth care needs that cannot be met by a single cli- build their trust and program buy-in.(119)nician or organization.(116) According to the Instituteof Medicine, lack of care coordination can be unsafe, Key Outcomes:and even fatal, when abnormal test results are notcommunicated correctly, prescriptions from multiple • According to self-reported data, CareMore’sdoctors conflict with each other, or primary care innovations have resulted in lower patientphysicians do not receive hospital discharge plans hospitalization rates (24 percent below thefor their patients.(117) Moreover, uncoordinated care Medicare average), hospital stays that areadds to the cost of care due to duplicated services, 38 percent shorter and an amputation ratepreventable hospital readmissions and overuse of among diabetics that is 60 percent lowermore intensive procedures. than average (no date reported).(120) • CareMore reports an impressive 97 percent patient satisfaction rate.(121)
  • 24. 22 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012 • In a peer-reviewed study, CareMore was • Reduced hospital admissions (from 1.46 to 1.2 found to have a 15 percent reduction in health inpatient admissions per member per year) for care costs compared with regional averages, the heart failure program (2008-2009); as well as superior diabetes control and lower re-hospitalization rates compared with • Reduced hospital admissions (from 0.41 to national averages.(122) 0.32 inpatient admissions per member per year) for the respiratory program (2008-2009); andBronx Community Accountable • Reduced readmission rate (from 21.5 percentHealthcare Network to 14 percent) for hospital follow-up program (2008-2009).PCMH feature highlighted: Coordinating careacross primary and specialty services within an ACO Institute of Medicine: Living Well withThe Bronx Community Accountable Healthcare Chronic Illness: A Call for Public HealthNetwork (BAHN) is part of the Montefiore Medical Action (metaanalysis)Center and a growing collaboration of pharmacies,hospitals, physicians, ancillary services, care man- PCMH feature highlighted: Coordinating careagement services, health plans and insurers, home with patients and families through chronic diseasecare, public health agencies, long-term care facilities self-management (CDSM)and mental health services, built on a foundation ofprimary care and a PCMH model. State-of-the-art Managing patients’ chronic illness is a criticalprimary and specialty care is provided through a feature of the PCMH. Individuals who suffer fromnetwork of nearly 100 locations across the region, chronic illnesses often experience significant chal-including the largest school health program in the lenges to their quality of life, as often do their familynation and a home health program.(123) Clinical members and caretakers. Chronic diseases accountinformation between these health care organizations for 70 percent of all U.S. deaths and represent moreis exchanged through the Bronx Regional Health than 75 percent of the $2 trillion spent annually onInformation Organization (Bronx RHIO). Aggre- health.(126) Researchers have examined ways to bettergating data from various sources, the ACO facilitates manage chronic illness, including chronic diseasecare management and coordination between special- management, education and support for caregiversty services by supporting patient use of online tools, (most of whom are unpaid), and support for sharedempowering patients to manage their own health decision making between the individual and the cli-information, and also ensures that patients are aware nician.(127) CDSM programs vary significantly; someof who has access to their personal information.(124) programs manage a specific condition (like diabetes),The Bronx Community Accountable Healthcare while others focus on risk factors for chronic diseaseNetwork was also recently selected to participate such as smoking, weight loss or stress. However, allas a Pioneer ACO and has demonstrated are focused on the ability of the patient and fam-impressive results. ily to better manage care between health care visits. Although some chronic disease management pro-Key Outcomes:(125) grams are offered directly to patients/consumers by their employer, health plan, or through a community • Reduced hospital admissions by 28 percent and agency, those that are connected to the primary reduced ER utilization by 25 percent for the care provider can be more effective in improving diabetes program (between 2008-2009); health behaviors.(128)
  • 25. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 23Key Outcomes:(129) physicians that referred their patients to a popula- tion health management program. The program • Numerous randomized controlled trials and targeted various risk factors based on the patient’s a thorough meta-analytical review of the needs (blood pressure, body mass index, choles- scientific data finds that chronic disease self- terol, HbA1c and smoking status).(133) This study management leads to better quality of life and found that patients were more likely to participate more autonomy for patients, as well reducing in population health management when they were the use and cost of health care services.(130) referred by their primary care physician. • In a large 24-year review of the scientific data Key Outcomes: (134) commissioned by the Institute of Medicine, researchers identified 15 comprehensive care • At the end of six months, physicians referred models that resulted in improvements in almost half of their eligible members to quality of life and autonomy for persons population health management (80 of 187 who were chronically ill:(131) eligible members). ◊ Nine of these models were based on either • Of those referred, slightly more than half interdisciplinary primary care teams or enrolled in the population health management community-based health-related services program (43 patients). that enhance traditional primary care. • During the six-month study period, individu- ◊ The nine models came from 106 different als who had been referred by their primary care studies—66 percent of which were found practice had a ten-fold improvement in risk to lower the use of health care services, and factor management compared to the prior six 33 percent of which lowered health care costs. month period (nine versus 96 distinct risk factor improvements).Population Health Management through D. What Does Superb Access to Care Mean?Enhanced Coordination Superb Access to Care:PCMH feature highlighted: Coordinatedpopulation health management “The primary care medical home delivers accessible services with shorter waiting timesPopulation health management programs typically for urgent needs, enhanced in-person hours,work directly with persons at high risk for chronic around-the-clock telephone or electronicillness to promote healthy behaviors or assist in access to a member of the care team, andmanaging their conditions, often without their alternative methods of communication suchphysicians’ knowledge or input. Reported by the as email and telephone care. The medicalCare Continuum Alliance, researchers tested home practice is responsive to patients’whether individuals referred to population health preferences regarding access.” (AHRQ, 2012)management programs by their primary carepractice increase their participation in diseasemanagement.(132) The study involved more than 500 Access to timely care matters a great deal to patientspatients who were at high risk for coronary artery and their families. Numerous features of a PCMHdisease (CAD), diabetes and/or hypertension and can improve access to care, including shorter wait-provided a modest “pay-for-outcomes” incentive to ing times for patients with urgent needs; extended
  • 26. 24 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012primary care practice office hours; appointment • Emergency room visits decreased by a rangescheduling options to include group visits for health of 7.3 percent in Intermountain Health Care tocoaching and education; 24-hour access to a care 29 percent in Group Health Cooperative; andteam member either by telephone or electronicmeans; and availability of multiple methods for com- • Reduction in acute care services resulted in amunication based on patient preferences. The goal range of savings of $71 in Group Health Coop-of a PCMH is to offer a range of options to meet the erative to $640 in Intermountain Health Care.needs and preferences of a cross-section of patientsand their families.(135) Best Primary Care Practices:The peer-reviewed literature summarized below “American Medical Home Runs”reveals promising features that various PCMH pilotsand demonstration projects have included in order PCMH feature highlighted: Access to 24/7to improve access to care for patients. services as a key PCMH feature Researchers wanted to understand how high-Improving Care by Improving performing primary care practices were achiev-Communication ing their “medical home runs.”(139) In 2009, they conducted evaluations of primary care offices andPCMH feature highlighted: Expanded access physician groups by reviewing validated quality andoutside traditional business hours in the PCMH cost measures. They identified medical home runs as those primary care practices whose overall healthIn a study of seven medical home projects in both care costs were at least 15 to 20 percent lower thanurban and rural settings (Colorado Medical Homes other practices (risk adjusted) while maintainingfor Children, Community Care of North Carolina, high quality scores (based on publically releasedGeisinger Health System, Group Health Coopera- or payer-collected quality measures).(140) Based ontive, Intermountain Health Care, North Dakota these criteria, four practice sites were selected forMeritCare/Blue Cross collaborative, Vermont site visits and in-depth interviews: Urban MedicalBlueprint for Health), researchers analyzed key cost Group, Leon Medical Centers, CareMore Medicalsavings features of the PCMH.(136) They determined Group and Redlands Family Practice. One of thethat expanded access to health providers was one “common pivotal features” of the medical homeof the essential features found to produce financial run practices was “exceptional individualized caringsavings through reductions in ED use and prevent- for chronic illness,” defined in the key outcomesable hospitalizations. They suggest that the best care section below.(141) The two additional pivotaldelivery models expand opportunities for direct features outlined by the researchers were efficientcommunication between the patient and provider service provision and careful selection of outside traditional office hours.(137) Key Outcomes:Key Outcomes: (138) • The five aspects of exceptional individualized • Hospitalizations were reduced among PCMH care for individuals embraced by the medical programs by a range of 6 percent in North home run practices were: Dakota to 40 percent in North Carolina; ◊ Taking enough time during office visits to fully understand patients’ illness and self-manage- ment capacity and fine-tuning treatment plans;
  • 27. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 25 ◊ Between office visits, directly providing it was “much easier” or “somewhat easier” or mobilizing the help patients need to imple- to access services in a PCMH. For example, ment their self-management plan, with a 68.4 percent of families reported it was easier special emphasis on medication management; to get the same nurse to talk to, 60.9 percent of families said it was easier to communicate ◊ Responding promptly 24/7 when urgent help with their child’s doctor, 60.5 percent reported is needed between visits; it was easier to get referrals from the doctor, and 61.4 percent reported it was easier to get ◊ Linking patients with a small group of care- early medical care. fully selected specialists with whom the pri- mary care practice actively coordinates; and • Illness measures: The PCMH program resulted in a significant reduction in workdays ◊ Demonstrating personal concern to protect missed by parents as well as reduced hospital- patients from health crises. izations. Prior to the PCMH program, 26 percent of parents missed more than 20 days of work per year, while after theThe Pediatric Alliance for Coordinated program only 14 percent reported missingCare, Boston this amount of work. Hospitalizations were reduced from 57.7 percent prior toPCMH feature highlighted: Improving patient implementation of the PCMH programsatisfaction for patients and their families to 43.2 percent post-implementation.The Pediatric Alliance for Coordinated Careinstituted a small-scale demonstration medical First-Contact Access in Wisconsinhome project for 150 children with special health Primary Care Practicescare needs in six pediatric practices to providecomprehensive care and integrate health and other PCMH feature highlighted: First-contact accessservices. (143) Researchers collected data from physi- for patients and preventive servicescians and families at the beginning of the programand two years after the program began. Data from Using data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Studythe pediatric practices included the child’s diagno- survey (years 2003-2007), researchers(145) examinedsis, medical conditions, severity of the illness and the relationship between primary care officedependence on medical technology. Data from “first-contact access” features (such as wait times forthe families included the child’s health conditions, appointments, office hours, availability of telephoneschool absenteeism, health care satisfaction, services advice) and whether patients were more likely toprovided by the primary care provider and spe- receive recommended preventive services.(146) Thecialty care use. When the families were asked about study found that patients in primary care practicesimprovements offered through the medical home, with “excellent” or “very good” access in eight first-they pointed specifically to the positive experiences contact areas experienced an increase in the rateassociated with getting timely appointments and of cholesterol screenings, flu shots and prostatereferrals, and in having telephone calls answered. screenings in the prior year.Key Outcomes:(144) Key Outcomes:(147) • Access to care: Comparing care before and • Among patients with excellent or very good after the PCMH pilot began, families reported first-contact access, 68 percent reported
  • 28. 26 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012 first-contact access for making appointments Mature PCMHs demonstrate this systems-based for care by phone, 63 percent for ease of seeing approach to quality and safety, with improvements doctor of his/her choice, 59 percent for conve- in outcomes and lower health care costs as a result. nience of location of doctor’s office; and • Among participants who reported excellent Geisinger Health System or very good first-contact access, 90 percent in Pennsylvania reported having had a cholesterol test, 63 percent a flu shot, 78 percent a prostate PCMH feature highlighted: Engaging in exam and 83 percent a mammogram. performance measurement and improvementE. What is a Systems-Based Approach to Geisinger Health System’s PCMH, ProvenHealth Quality and Safety? Navigator, provides health care services focused on the needs of patients with chronic disease, many of Systems-Based Approach to Quality whom have multiple conditions and high health and Safety: care costs. Geisinger tracks short- and long-term metrics based on real-time data feedback from both “The primary care medical home their EHR system and from insurance claims data. demonstrates a commitment to quality Their quality outcomes program is centered on the and quality improvement by ongoing satisfaction of patients and physicians; best-practice engagement in activities such as using metrics for bundled chronic disease care (for diabe- evidence-based medicine and clinical tes, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, decision-support tools to guide shared and hypertension); and preventive services metrics decision making with patients and families, as defined by the Healthcare Effectiveness Data engaging in performance measurement and Information Set (HEDIS).(148) Analyzing this and improvement, measuring and respond- information, researchers suggest that one of the most ing to patient experiences and patient important ingredients in the ProvenHealth Naviga- satisfaction, and practicing population tor model has been the use real-time feedback of data health management. Sharing robust quality on the use of health services by the most complex and safety data and improvement activi- patients.(149) ties publicly is also an important marker of a system-level commitment to quality.” Key Outcomes: (AHRQ, 2012) • For ProvenHealth Navigator Medicare patients (those patients who receive care in a PCMH),PCMHs can help control or lower overall health researchers found a 28 percent reduction incare costs by embracing performance measurement admission to the hospital, and a 8.1 percentand engaging in quality improvement activities. reduction in admission to the ED (2009 data).This work is supported by use of evidence-basedpractice guidelines and clinical decision-support • For ProvenHealth Navigator commercially-tools, as well as patient satisfaction measurement. insured patients, Geisinger found a 37.9Quality improvement should address gaps in care percent reduction in admission to the hospital,delivery identified from all measurement sources. and a 34.4 percent reduction in admission toA high-functioning PCMH engages in population the ED (2009 data).health management and is transparent in sharingmeaningful quality and safety data publicly.
  • 29. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 27 • In a more recent study that looked specifi- • The generic prescribing rate for pharmaceuticals cally at cost savings between 2006 and 2010, rose from 38 percent in 2004 to 74 percent researchers found that the longer a patient in 2011.(154) was receiving care within Geisinger’s PCMH model, the greater the cost savings (7.1 percent • Since implementing the program, BCBS cumulative cost savings over five years, and Michigan’s program showed improved 4.3 percent cumulative cost savings under a quality outcomes; greater collaboration/ different analysis that included prescription improved relationships with clinicians; drug interaction effects).(150) improved patient experience; improved reputation in the community; membership shift to high performing physicians; andBlue Cross/Blue Shield (BCBS) Michigan increased physician investment in electronic systems and quality improvements. (155)PCMH feature highlighted: Interdisciplinaryprimary care including a focus on systems of care Group Health Cooperative in Seattle, Wash.The Michigan Blues’ PCMH program is a two-partinitiative developed with financial support from PCMH feature highlighted: Measuring andBCBS and the Physician Group Incentive Program, responding to patient experiences and patientmore than 5,700 Michigan primary care physicians satisfaction(pediatricians, internists and family practice doc-tors) who are implementing various PCMH features The Group Health Cooperative is a consumer-into their practices. To study this PCMH, research- governed, not-for-profit integrated health insuranceers examined seven domains of a PCMH: patients and care delivery system based in Seattle. Since 2006,having a documented care plan; creation and use of it has pioneered a medical home based on its elec-chronic disease registries; performance reporting tronic health record technology.(156) Collecting databy the clinician; care management for the patient; from the first two years of its medical home pilot,24-hour access to a clinician; presence of laboratory researchers examined the effects of the medical hometest tracking system and follow-up procedures; and on patients’ experiences, quality of care, burnout ofuse of electronic prescribing of medications.(151) The clinicians and total costs.(157) A large random sample16 practices studied were participating in both the of adults in the pilot plans was analyzed at baseline,BCBS Physician Group Incentive Program (PGIP) 21 months and 24 months using HEDIS metrics,and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Align- which measure health plan performance on impor-ing Forces for Quality (AF4Q). tant dimensions of care and service.(158) Researchers compared this group to a sample of similar adultsKey Outcomes: who did not receive their care in a PCMH. The study demonstrates the significant cost savings, qual- • Physician practices that used a team-based ity improvements and increased patient satisfaction approach to care coordination scored better associated with implementation of a PCMH. than those not using a team-based approach, according to the PCMH assessment tool.(152) Key Outcomes:(159) • Patients who received care from a PCMH had • Clinical quality HEDIS measures divided 11.4 percent lower ED visit rates for primary into four composites showed improvements care-related conditions.(153) of 20 to 30 percent in three out of four groups at 24 months.
  • 30. 28 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012 • Patients in the PCMH pilot reported better It provides care to 400,000 patients in the scores on various HEDIS measures at 12 and metropolitan area of Minneapolis and St Paul, 24 months after the pilot began, including: approximately 60 percent of which also have HealthPartners insurance. There are an additional ◊ 2.30 and 1.63 higher scores for quality of 35 percent who are covered by private or public doctor-patient interaction; insurance products, and 5 percent are uninsured. HPMG has a paperless EHR system in both ◊ 2.93 and 1.03 higher scores for shared primary and specialty care settings and tracks a decision-making; variety of quality and patient satisfaction measures. All are achieving Level III recognition as medical ◊ 3.32 and 3.06 higher scores for coordination homes by the National Committee for Quality of care; Assurance. AHRQ funded a study of the 21 primary care clinics comprising HPMG ◊ 3.71 and 2.84 higher scores for access to care; and found significant improvement in patient and consumer satisfaction.(160) ◊ 1.1 and 1.14 higher scores for helpfulness of office staff; Key Findings: ◊ 3.28 and 2.10 higher scores for patient • For patient satisfaction ratings, HPMG had activation and involvement; and yearly improvements on all seven patient satisfaction measures; three of which were ◊ 3.74 and 3.96 higher scores for goal setting found to be statistically significant: or tailoring ◊ Ability for patients to get an appointment • Compared to other Group Health clinics, when they wanted; patients in the medical home experienced 29 percent fewer ED visits and 6 percent ◊ Patients were treated with dignity and fewer hospitalizations. respect; and • Total savings were estimated at $10.30 PMPM ◊ Patients received timely test results. after 21 months of the pilot project, with a return on investment of $1.50 for every • Using a different consumer choice satisfaction $1 invested in implementing the PCMH. rating system, HPMG had four measures that were statistically significant:HealthPartners Medical Group, ◊ Consumers were more likely to be veryMinnesota satisfied with the clinic;PCMH feature highlighted: Patient satisfaction and ◊ Consumers would definitely recommendquality improvement the clinic;HealthPartners Medical Group (HPMG) is a ◊ Consumers were very satisfied with abilitymultispecialty group practice within an integrated to schedule a convenient appointment; andhealth system that includes a health plan, severalhospitals and a wide range of other health care ◊ Consumers were very satisfied with theservices, including 21 primary care practices. ability to see a physician of their choice.
  • 31. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 29 • For quality measures, care for diabetes, • Additional estimates for future statewide coronary artery disease, preventive services savings suggest that the CCNC medical and generic medication use improved management structure should be able to between 2 and 7 percent each year. produce cost savings of approximately 7 to 15 percent.(162)Community Care of North Carolina(CCNC) Renaissance Medical Management CompanyPCMH feature highlighted: Focus on populationhealth management in rural settings PCMH feature highlighted: Care Coordination though use of health IT and payment reformWith a focus on providing population health andquality improvement initiatives, CCNC is a state- Renaissance Medical Management Companybased, public–private partnership that manages (RMMC) is a primary care network or indepen-the health of Medicaid recipients by fostering the dent practice association (IPA) of 180 physiciansdevelopment of local, self-governing community who provide care to four counties in southeasternhealth networks. The state Medicaid program Pennsylvania. The network incorporates activesupports these networks and physicians through patient engagement, support for telephonic nursingseparate per-member, per-month payments, while for high-risk and chronically ill patients, andCCNC provides support through various resourc- various health IT tools including e-prescribing,es, including an information technology system EHRs, a coordinated care tool and a populationthat facilitates the exchange and management management tool. The network also includes aof clinical information. The focus on quality pay-for-performance program that includesimprovement varies across practices and may gain-sharing arrangement that rewards health careinclude management of diabetes, asthma, conges- providers for high value health care delivery. With ative heart failure, or emergency and pharmacy focus on improving outcomes for diabetes, RMMCservices utilization. Statewide audits are performed nurses engage patients with a diabetes-specificand the data is aggregated by practice for compari- education module and tracks patients electroni-son with national and regional benchmarks. An cally. As reported by the Care Continuum Allianceanalysis prepared for the North Carolina Division in 2010, RMMC reported sizable improvementsof Medical Assistance found significant cost savings in clinical outcomes, utilization measures and costsassociated with the Community Care program.(161) for patients.(163)Key Findings: Key Outcomes: (164) • In fiscal year 2007, the total statewide savings • Using HEDIS measures, clinical goal was approximately $103 million or about attainment exceeding the 90th percentile $8.73 PMPM. on reporting groups; • In fiscal year 2010, the total statewide savings • Total health care cost savings attributed to was approximately $382 million, or about improvements in diabetes care over a four $25.40 PMPM. year period:
  • 32. 30 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012 ◊ For diabetic patients in commercial plans, savings totaled $5.5 million ◊ For diabetic patients in Medicare plans, savings totaled $9.9 million ◊ RMMC reported a net savings of $214.53 in annual PMPM costs (as compared to control group) • Improvements in diabetes care over a four year period, comparing RMMC patients to patients receiving care in a control group: ◊ 46 percent of RRMC patients met their goals for blood sugar (HbA1c) as compared to the control group patients (at 33 percent), and ◊ 55 percent of RRMC patients met their goals for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) choles- terol compared to the control group patients (at 38 percent).
  • 33. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 31Section ThreeConclusions and Future DirectionsT he data are clear, consistent and • Medical home expansion has reached the compelling: The PCMH improves tipping point with broad private and public health outcomes, enhances the patient sector support. There is far-reaching interest experience of care and reduces expensive, across the health care industry in the PCMHunnecessary hospital and ED care. Based on the delivery model. Major insurers are drivingresults to date and current market factors that are PCMH efforts nationwide as a means tocertain to impact health care delivery, we believe control costs, improve patient experience andthe future of the PCMH is bright. The PCPCC improve the health of Americans. Federalwill continue to share the results of PCMHs health reform has prompted expansion of theacross the country to demonstrate that primary PCMH in Medicare, Medicaid and federallycare organized around patients and their families qualified health centers, in addition to leverag-is key to health system reform. ing innovations from commercial insurers. The Office of Personnel Management, theWe draw three broad conclusions about the U.S. military and the Department of VeteransPCMH, supported by the outcomes documented Affairs are all committed to expandingin this paper: primary care through medical homes. In addition to these federal efforts, ongoing and • As medical home implementation increases, successful initiatives at the state level continue the Triple Aim outcomes of better health, to expand. The majority of state Medicaid better care and lower costs are being programs are initiating or expanding their achieved. The number of medical home PCMH programs.(166) We believe the com- providers has grown to the tens of thousands, bined result of these public and private initia- serving millions of Americans. Momentum tives propel the PCMH to the tipping point for the model is rapidly increasing with public for the care delivery system to embrace full and private sector investment. The concept of implementation of the PCMH. Consequently, the PCMH is evolving to better connect and coordinate with the medical neighborhood, including ACOs and other integrated systems of care. As the PCMH expands, the need to continue cataloging the outcomes of the PCMH is vital for ongoing engagement from employers, purchasers, policymakers, patients and their families. As the information in this report illustrates, a mounting body of data demonstrates that the PCMH is an effective means of delivering primary care to achieve the Triple Aim outcomes(165) and transform the U.S. health system.
  • 34. 32 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012 more patients than ever will receive care in improvement, further research is needed from PCMHs. to better understand the most effective part- nership strategies, and to build commitment • Investment in the medical home offers both to these collaborative approaches. These short- and long-term savings for patients, partnerships were basic tenets in the original employers, health plans and policymakers. Joint Principles of the Patient-Centered In the current economic environment, Medical Home. controlling the rising cost of health care is paramount. Although implementing the many features of a PCMH takes time, the long-term cost savings of the PCMH are impressive, as demonstrated by mature PCMH initiatives such as the Geisinger Health System.(167) By providing high quality health care to Ameri- cans that results in fewer unnecessary ED visits and inpatient hospital admissions, this report demonstrates that PCMHs can achieve cost- savings in the short term as well. Continued focus on health IT diffusion, primary care pay- ment reform, improving patient experience, involving consumers in design and evaluation, and education and training for an appropriate primary care provider workforce are critical to the PCMH’s long-term success. Efforts to measure the effectiveness of the PCMH are ongoing(168) and continue to be a high priority for agencies such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, as well as for private organizations and philanthropies, such as the Milbank Memorial Fund which funded this report. In addition to supporting a number of PCMH pilots nationwide, The Com- monwealth Fund’s Patient-Centered Medical Home Evaluators’ Collaborative has recently recommended core measures for PCMH evaluation that include both cost and quality care measures to ensure standardized metrics for effective care.(169) • Successful partnerships with patients and families hold great promise for achieving and sustaining transformational change in primary care and across the continuum of care. While community-based primary care practices, health systems and payers are increasingly engaging patients and families
  • 35. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 33 Retrieved June 14, 2012 from The Washington Post:Endnotes science/carefirst-says-experimental-program-improves- primary-care-reduces-costs/2012/06/07/1. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (2012). The IHI g JQAAK3XMV_story.html?wpisrc=emailtoafriendTriple AIM. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from Institute forHealthcare Improvement. 12. Dentzer (2012, Feb). One payers attempt to spur primary care doctors to form medical homes. Health2. Ibid. Affairs 31: 341-349.3. ARHQ. (2012). Defining the PCMH. Retrieved 13. Blue Cross Blue Shield North Dakota. (2008, AugustJune 14, 2012, from 18). Facts about MediQHome. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from Facts: Blue Cross Blue Shield North Dakotadefining_the_pcmh_v2 Press Archives.4. Ibid. 14. BCBSA. (2012). Patient-Centered Medical Home5. Rosenthal, M., Abrams, M., & Britton, A. Snapshots. Chicago: BlueCross Blue Shield Association.(2010, May). Recommended Core Measures for 15. Berenson, R., Devers, K., & Burton, R. (2011,Evaluating the Patient-Centered Medical Home: August). Will the Patient-Centered Medical HomeCost, Utilization, and Clinical Quality. (D. Lober, Transform the Delivery of Health Care? TimelyEd.). Retrieved June 14, 2012, from The Commonwealth Analysis of Immediate Health Policy Issues.Fund: 16. Arvantes, J. (2012, February 29). U.S. MilitaryHome.aspx Focuses on Patient Care by Implementing PCMH Model. Medical Home Model Serves as Basis for6. Weaver, C., & Mathews, A. (2012, January 27). An Rx? Moving Care Forward in Armed Services. RetrievedPay More to Family Doctors. The Wall Street Journal. April 16, 2012, from AAFP News Now: http://www.7. Aetna. (2012, January 30). Aetna Aetna Launches Patient-Centered Medical Home practice-professional-issues/20120229militarypcmh.htmlProgram In Connecticut And New Jersey. Retrieved 17. Takach, M. (2011, July). Reinventing Medicaid:June 14, 2012, from Aetna: State Innovations to Qualify and Pay for Patient-news/newsReleases/2012/0130-Aetna-Launches- Centered Medical Homes Show Promising Results.National-Patient-Centered-Medical-Home-Program. Health Affairs, 30(7), 1325-1334.html 18. Kaye, N., Buxmaum, J., & Takach, M. (2011).8. James, M. (2012, May 15). Identifying Opportunities Building Medical Homes: Lessons from Eight Statesfor Health Care Delivery System Reform: Lessons with Emerging Programs. National Academy for Statefrom the Front Line. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from Health Policy. Washington DC: The CommonwealthUSA Senate: Fund.doc/James1.pdf 19. National Academy for State Health Policy. (2012).9. UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc. (2012). Shifting from Medical Home & Patient-Centered Care. RetrievedFee-for-Service to V alue-Based Contracting Model. from National Academy for State Health Policy: http://Retrieved June 28, 2012, from http://consultant.uhc. 20. Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation. (2012,10. BCBS of Michigan. (2011, December 14). Patient- June 6). Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative.Centered Medical Home Fact Sheet. Retrieved April Retrieved June 14, 2012, from Center for Medicare &12, 2012, from BCBS Blue Care Network of Michigan: Medicaid Innovation: initiatives/Comprehensive-Primary-Care-Initiative/sheet.pdf index.html11. Sun, L. (2012, June 7). CareFirst says experimental 21. Shoen, C. O., Squires, D., Doty, M., Pierson, R., &program improves primary care, reduces costs. Applebaum, S. (2011). Survey of Patients with Complex
  • 36. 34 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012Care Needs in 11 Countries Finds That Care is Often Case For Rapid-Cycle Innovations. Health Affairs,Poorly Coordinate. Health Affairs. 2047-2053.22. Ibid. 35. Crabtree, B., Chase, S., & Wise, C. (2011). Evaluation of Patient Centered Medical Home Practice23. PCPCC. (2007, February). The Joint Principles. Transformation Initiatives. Medical Care, 10-16.Retrieved June 14, 2012, from 36. Rosenthal, Abrams and Britton: Recommended Care Measures.24. Ibid. 37. Green, C. B. (2011, May 11). FY 2012 Medical25. Institute for Healthcare Improvement: The IHI Triple Programs. Statement of Lieutenant General (Dr.) CharlesAIM. B. Green. Testimony Before the House Appropriations26. Takach, Reinventing Medicaid. Committee, Subcommittee on Defense. United States Air Force.27. Maeng, D.D., Graham, J., Graf, T.R., Liberman, J.N.,Dermes, N.B., Tomcavage, J., Steele, G.D. (2012, March). 38. Arvantes, J.: U.S. Military Focuses on Patient Care byReducing Long-Term Cost by Transforming Primary Implementing PCMH Model.Care: Evidence from Geisinger’s Medical Home Model.The American Journal of Managed Care, 18(3), 39. Asinof, R. (2012, May 28). A new model of health149-155. care. Retrieved June 14, 2012 from Providence Business News: AHRQ. (2012). PCMH Evidence and care,67796Evaluation. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from 40. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. (2012) Buildinghome/1483/pcmh_evidence___evaluation_v2 Tomorrow’s Healthcare System.29. Rosenthal, Abrams and Britton: Recommended 41. Takach: Reinventing Medicaid.Care Measures. 42. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (2012).30. Reid, R. J., Fishman, P. A., Yu, O., Ross, T. R., Tufano, Report from Tallahassee Memorial HealthCare onJ. T., Soman, M. P., & Larson, E. B. (2009). A patient- Enhancing Continuity of Care. Retrieved April 12,centered medical home demonstration: a prospective, 2012, from IHI Knowledge Center:, before and after evaluation. knowledge/Pages/ImprovementStories/ReportfromAmerican Journal of Managed Care, TallahasseeMemorialHospitalonEnhancing15(9), e71-e87 ContinuityofCare.aspx31. Wellpoint. (2012, June 6). Wellpoint Press Releases. 43. Sun, L.: CareFirst says experimental programRetrieved June 14, 2012, from improves primary care.phoenix.zhtml?c=130104&p= 44. Sammer, J. (2011, December 1). Medical homesirol-newsArticle&ID=1703173&highlight= move from pilots to real-world implementation.32. UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc.: Shifting from Retrieved April 30, 2012, from Managed HealthcareFee-for-Service to Value-Based Contracting Model. Executive: http://managedhealthcareexecutive.modern- Grumbach, D., Grundy, P. (2010). Outcomes of move-to-real-world-implementation/ArticleStandard/Implementing Patient Centered Medical Home Article/detail/750641Interventions: A Review of the Evidence fromProspective Evaluation Studies in the United States. 45. BCBS of Michigan: Patient-Centered Medical HomeRetrieved from Patient-Centered Primary Care Fact Sheet.Collaborative July 10, 2012: 46. HealthPartners. (2009). HealthPartners BestCare:evidence_outcomes_in_pcmh.pdf How to Deliver $2 Trillion in Medicare Cost34. Steele, G., Haynes, J. A., Davis, D. E., Tomcavage, Savings, and Improve Care in the Process.J., Stewart, W. F., Graf, T. R., Shikles, J. (2010). How Retrieved April 16, 2012, from HealthPartners:Geisinger’s Advanced Medical Home Model Argues The
  • 37. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 3547. Grumbach, K., Bodenheimer, T., & Grundy, P. (2009, 55. Steiner, B. D., Denham, A. C., Ashkin, E., Newton,August). The Outcomes of Implementing Patient- W. P., Wroth, T., & Dobson, L. A. (2008, July/August).Centered Medical Home Interventions: A Review Community Care of North Carolina: Improving Care of the Evidence on Quality, Access and Cost from Through Community Health Networks. Annals ofRecent Prospective Evaluation Studies. Retrieved Family Medicine, 6(4), 361-367.April 16, 2012, from Patient Centered Primary Care 56. Mahoney, P. (2011, December 21). Our Results:Collaborative: Making headway on cost and quality. Retrieved Aprilet-al_Evidence-of-Quality_percent20101609_0.pdf 30, 2012, from Community Care of North Carolina:48. Flottemesch, T., Fontaine, P., Asche, S., Solberg, L. Relationship of Clinic Medical Home Scores 57. Carey, M.A. (2012, May 17). Senate Panel Looks atto Health Care Costs. Journal of Ambulatory Care Innovative Health Care Strategies. Retrieved June 14,Management. 34(1): 78-79. 2012 from Kaiser Health News: http://capsules.kaiser-49. Reutter, H. (2012, April 2). Medical Home: Health at Same or Reduced Cost? Retrieved at-some-innovative-health-care-strategies/April 16, 2012, from Lexington Clipper-Herald: http:// 58. Takach, Reinventing 59. Bend Memorial Clinic. (2012, January 4). Bend Memorial Clinic Reduces Hospital Admissions and50. Horizon Healthcare Innovations. (2012, April 10). Emergency Visits. Retrieved April 30, 2012, from BendEarly Results Show Patient-Centered Medical Memorial Clinic: http://www.bendmemorialclinic.Homes Drive Quality and Cost Improvements. com/aboutus/bmc_in_the_news/newsblog/12-01-04/Retrieved April 16, 2012, from News & Media: http:// room_visits_through_Medical_Home_Pilot.aspxpress-releases/20120410-early-results-show-patient-cen-tered-medical-homes-drive-quality-a 60. Klein, S., & McCarthy, D. (2010, July).CareOregon: Transforming the Role of aMedicaid Health Plan51. BCBSA: Patient-Centered Medical Home Snapshots. from Payer to Partner. Retrieved April 16, 2012,52. CDPHP. (2011, March 22). CDPHP Medical from The Commonwealth Fund: http://www.Home Pilot Results in Substantial Quality Improve- and Cost Savings. Pilot Practices Cost Growth Case percent20Study/2010/Jul/Triple percent20Aimper-Reduced to 2/3 That of Other Regional Providers. cent20v2/1423_McCarthy_CareOregon_triple_aim_Retrieved April 12, 2012, from Vocus/PRWEB: http:// 61. Ibid.pilot/prweb8224444.htm 62. Miller, J. (2009, May 1). Unlocking Primary Care:53. Chemung County Government. (2011, April 18). CareOregon’s Medical Home Model. Retrieved AprilMedicaid Medical Home Realizing Positive Results 12, 2012, from Managed Healthcare Executive: http://in First Year. Retrieved April 16, 2012, from Chemung News: mhe/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=595822asp?pageid=105&nid=650 63. Steele, G. D. (2009). Reforming the Healthcare54. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. (2012, Delivery System. Committee on Finance: UnitedJune 4). Blue Cross and Blue Shield Companies’ Patient- States Senate (pp. 1-7). Washington, D.C.: GeisingerCentered Medical Home Programs Are Improving Health SystemThe Practice and Delivery of Primary Care in Com- 64. Grumbach, et al: The Outcomes of Implementingmunities Nationwide. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from Patient-Centered Medical Home Interventions:PRNewswire: A Review of the Evidence on Quality, Access and Costblue-cross-and-blue-shield-companies-patient-centered- from Recent Prospective Evaluation Studies.medical-home-programs-are-improving-the-practice-and-delivery-of-primary-care-in-communities-nation- 65. Gilfillan, R., Tomcavage, J., Rosenthal, M., Davis, D.,wide-2012-06-04 Graham, J., & Roy, J. e. (2010). Value and the Medical
  • 38. 36 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012Home: Effects of Transformed Primary Care. American 20Study/2009/Jul/1283_McCarthy_Group percen-Journal of Managed Care, 16(8), 607-614. t20Health_case_study_72_rev.pdf66. Maeng, et al.: Reducing Long-Term Costs. 77. Reid, R. J., et al.: A patient-centered medical home demonstration.67. Geisinger Health System. (2009). Advanced Modelsof Primary Care. White Roundtable. Washington, 78. Grumbach, K., Bodenheimer, T., & Grundy, P. (2009,D.C.: Geisinger Health System. August). The Outcomes of Implementing Patient-Centered Medical Home Interventions: A Review of the Evidence on68. Mamula, K. B. (2011, May 20). UPMC expands Quality, Access and Cost from Recent Prospective Evalu-medical home model. Retrieved April 30, 2012, from ation Studies. Retrieved April 16, 2012, from PatientPittsburgh Business Times: Centered Primary Care Collaborative: http://www.pittsburgh/print-edition/2011/05/20/upmc-expands- percent20101609_0.pdf69. Pinnacle Health Hospitals. (2012, June 1). Pinnacle- 79. Meyer, H. (2010, May/June). Group Health’s MoveHealth Expands Patient-Centered Medical Home Model. to the Medical Home: For Doctors, it’s Often a HardRetrieved June 14, 2012 from PinnacleHealth News: Journey. Health Affairs, 29(5), 844-51. 80. Department of Vermont Health Accesss. (2012).Expands-Patient-Centered-Medical-Ho.aspx Vermont Blueprint for Health 2011. State of Vermont.70. Phillis, R. L., Bronnikov, S., Petterson, S., Cifuentes, 81. Ibid.M., Teevan, B., Dodoo, M., West, D. R. (2010, Jan-Mar). Case Study of a Primary Care-Based Accountable 82. Ibid.Care System Approach to Medical Home Transforma- 83. Bielaszka-DuVernay, C. (2011, March). Vermont’stion. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, Blueprint for Medical Homes, Community Health34(1), 67-77. Teams, and Better Health at Lower Cost. Health71. Asinof, R. (2012, May 28). A new model of health Affairs, 30(3), Retrieved June 14, 2012 from Providence Business 84. Department of Vermont Health Access: VermontNews: Blueprint for,67796 85. Coughlin, T., Waidman, T., & Phadera, L. (2012).72. Takach, Mary. (2011, July 7). Reinventing Among Dual Eligibles, Identifying The Highest-CostMedicaid: State Innovations to Qualify and Pay for Individuals Could Help In Crafting More Targeted AndPatient-Centered Medical Homes Show Promising Effective Responses. Health Affairs.Results. Health Affairs, 30(7):1325-34. 86. AHRQ. (2012, March 28). Plan-Funded Team73. Arvantes, J.: U.S. Military Focuses on Patient Care by Coordinates Enhanced Primary Care and SupportImplementing PCMH Model. Services to At-Risk Seniors, Reducing Hospitaliza-74. Grumbach and Grundy: Outcomes of Implementing tions and Emergency Department Visits. RetrievedPatient Centered Medical Home Interventions: June 14, 2012, from ARHQ Health InnovationsA Review of the Evidence from Prospective Evaluation Exchange: in the United States. aspx?id=224375. Reid, R. J., et al.: A patient-centered medical home 87. Ibid.demonstration. 88. Greenber, P. E., Kessler, R., Birnbaum, H. G., Leong,76. McCarthy, D., Mueller, K., & Tillmann, I. (2009, S. A., Lowe, S. W., & Berglund, P. A. (2003). The Eco- nomic burden of depression in the United States: HowJuly). Group Health Cooperative: Reinventing did it change between 1990 and 200? Journal of ClinalPrimary Care by Connecting Patients with a Medi- Psychiatry, Home. Retrieved April 16, 2012, from The Com-monwealth Fund: http://www.commonwealthfund. 89. Unutzer, J., Ya-Fen, C., Hafer, E., Knaster, J., Shields,org/~/media/Files/Publications/Case percent A., Powers, D., & Veith, R. (2011). Quality Improve-
  • 39. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 37ment With Pay-for-Performance Incentives in Integrated Outcomes of Enrollees With Diabetes. Medical Care,Behavioral Health Care. American Journal of Public 217-223Health, e41-345. 105. Ibid.90. Gawande, A. (2011, January 24). The Hot Spotters. 106. American Association of Pediatrics. (2011, July 1).The New Yorker. AAP Agenda for Children—Strategic Plan.91. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2011). A coali- Retrieved July 14, 2012, from creates a citywide care management system: about-the-aap/aap-facts/AAP-Agenda-for-Children-Increasing and improving access to prmary and Strategic-Plan/Pages/AAP-Agenda-for-Children-special care for Camden’s most vulnerable residents. Strategic-Plan.aspxProgram Results Report, Camden. 107. Bramlett, M., & Blumberg, S. (2007). Family92. Brenner, J (2012). Building Patient Centered Medi- Structure And Children’s Physical And Mental Homes in America’s Poorest City­ Camden, NJ. — Health Affairs, 549-558.PCPCC Annual Stakeholders Meeting. April 23-24. 108. Strickland, B., Jones, J., Ghandour, R., Kogan, M.,93. Ibid. and Newacheck, P. The Medical Home: health care access94. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2011). and impact for children and youth in the United States. Pediatrics 2011; 127;60495. Institute of Medicine. (2011, July 5). Crossing theQuality Chasm: The IOM Health Care Quality 109. Ibid.Initiative. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from http://www. 110. Allen, D., Coulter, M., Declercq, E., Daley, E., Farel, percent20Announcements/ A., Fuddy, LJ., Grason, H., Kavanagh, L., Koertvelyessy,Crossing-the-Quality-Chasm-The-IOM-Health-Care- A.M., Onufer, C., and Ramiah, K. (2008). ImplementingQuality-Initiative.aspx the Medical Home Model in Minnesota: A Case Study.96. Betchel, C., & Ness, D. (2010). If You Build It, Will 111. Koh, H., Berick, D., Clancy, C., Baur, C., Harris, B.,They Come? Designing Truly Patient-Centered Health & Zerhusen, E. (2012). New Federal Policy InitiativesCare. Health Affairs, 914-920. To Boost Health Literacy Can Help The Nation Move97. Ibid. Beyond The Cycle Of Costly ‘Crisis Care’. Health Affairs, 434-443.98. Ibid. 112. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:99. Ibid. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.100. Ibid. (2008). America’s Health Literacy: Why We need Accesible Health Information. Washington, DC: U.S.101. Rittenhouse, D., & Shortell, S. (2009). The Patient- Printing Office.Centered Medical Home: Will it stand the test ofHealthcare Reform. The Journal of the American 113. Koh, et al.: America’s Health Literacy.Medical Association, 2038-2040. 114. U.S. Department of Health and Human102. AHRQ. (2012). Home Page Agency for Health- Services: Health Research and Quality. Retrieved June 14, 2012, 115. Ibid.from 116. Harman: Healthcare efficiency.103. AHRQ. (2011, September 20). What is thePCMH? Retrieved June 14, 2012 from Agency for 117. Meyers D, Peikes D, Genevro J, Peterson Greg,Health Research and Quality: Taylor EF, Tim Lake T, Smith K, Grumbach K. The Rolesportal/ of Patient-Centered Medical Homes and Accountablewhat_is_pcmh_ Care Organizations in Coordinating Patient Care. AHRQ Publication No. 11-M005-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for104. Harman, J., Scholle, S. H., Ng, J., Paulson, G., Healthcare Research and Quality. December 2010.Mardon, R., Haffer, S., Biereman, A. (2010).Association of Health Plans’ Healthcare Effectiveness 118. Institute of Medicine: Crossing theData and Information Set (HEDIS) Performance With Quality Chasm.
  • 40. 38 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012119. Main, T. & Slywotzky (2011, Nov). The Quiet A Review of the Evidence from Prospective Evaluationhealthcare revolution. The Atlantic. Studies in the United States.120. Ibid. 137. Ibid.121. Ibid. 138. Ibd.122. Korda, H., & Eldrige, G. (2011). ACOs, PCMHs, 139. Milstein, A., & Gilbertson, E. (2009). Americanand Health Care Reform. Policy, Politics, and Nursing Medical Home Runs. Health Affairs, 1317-1326.Practice, 100-103. 140. Ibid.123. Montefiore Medical Center. (2011, December 9).Montefiore’s Bronx Accountable Healthcare Net- 141. to Participate as Medicare Pioneer Accountable 142. Ibid.Care Organization. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from 143. Palfrey, J., Sofis, L., Davidson, E., Liu, J., Freeman, L.,montefiores-bronx-accountable-healthcare- & Ganz, M. (2004). The Pediatric Alliance for Coor- dinated Care: Evaluation of a Medical Home Model.124. Care Continuum Alliance. (2010). 2010 Annual Pediatrics, 1507-1516.Report. A New Vision for Quality and V alue inHealth Care. Retrieved July 12, 2012, from: http:// 144. 145. Pandhi, N., DeVoe, J. E., Schumacher, J. R., Bartels,Annual_Report_Web.pdf C., Thorpe, C. T., Thorpe, J. M., & Smith, a. M. (2012).125. Rosenthal, Abrams and Britton: Recommended Number of First-Contact Access Components RequiredCare Measures. to Improve Preventive Service Receipt in Primary Care Homes. Journal Of General Internal Medicine,126. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2012). Kaiser Fast 677-684.Facts. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from 146. Ibid.127. Institute of Medicine. (2012). Living Well withChronic Illness: A Call for Public Health Action. 147. Ibid.Issue Brief. 148. Steele, et al.: Geisinger’s PCMH Argues for128. Giovannetti, E., Wolff, J., Qian-Li, X., Weiss, C., Innovations.Bruce, L., Boult, C., Boyd, C. (2012). Difficulty Assistingwith Health Care Tasks Among Caregivers of Multimor- 149. Older Adults. Journal of General Internal 150. Maeng, et al.: Reducing Long term Costs.Medicine, 37-44. 151. Williams, A., Wise, C., Lovera, D., McCabe-Sellers,129. Ibid. B., Bogle, M., & Kaput, J. (2011). A Community-Based130. Ibid. Participatory Research/Translational Biomedical Research Strategy for Personalizing Nutrition, Medicine,131. Ibid. and Healthcare. General, Applied and Systems132. Care Continuum Alliance. (2012). Targeted Toxicology.Chronic Disease Care in the Advanced Medical 152. Ibid.Home. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from 153. Anonymous. (2011). Michigan PCMHs Show0035.asp Positive Results. Medical Economics, 18.133. Ibid. 154. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association: Building Tomorrow’s Healthcare System.134. Ibid. 155. Ibid.135. AHRQ: What is the PCMH? 156. Reid, et al. 2009: A PCMH Demonstration136. Grumbach and Grundy: Outcomes of Implement-ing Patient Centered Medical Home Interventions: 157. Ibid.
  • 41. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 39158. NCQA. (2012). HEDIS & QualityMeasurment. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from NCQA: Reid, et al. 2009: A PCMH Demonstration.160. Fontaine, P., Flottemesch, T., Solberg, L., & Asche,S. (2011). Is Consistent Primary Care Within a Patient-Centered Medical Home Related to Utilization Patternsand Costs? The Journal of Abulatory Care Manag-ment, 10-19.161. Eperly, T. (2011). The Patient-Centred MedicalHome in the USA. Journal of Evaluation in ClinicalPractice, 373-375.162. Ibid.163. Goldblum, K., & Duncan, I. (2010). ManagedDiabetes Care in a Private Practice Setting: Interpretationof Risk Scores Over Time. The Forum 2010. Washing-ton, DC: Care Continuum Aliance.164. Ibid.165. Institute for Healthcare Improvement: The IHITriple AIM.166. Takach: Reinventing Medicaid.167. Maeng, D.D., et al.: Reducing long term cost.168. AHRQ 2012: PCMH Evidence and Evaluation.169. Rosenthal, Abrams and Britton: RecommendedCare Measures.
  • 42. Appendix A: Details of selected PCMH pilots (Source: Rosenthal and Abrams, Medical Home News) Emblem Health New Chronic Care Safety-net New Orleans Colorado Cincinnati Mid-Hudson Primary Pennsylvania York Sustainability Medical Home PCASG PCMH Pilot AF4Q Valley Care Global Chronic Care Initiative RI Initiative PCMH Pilot Fee Model Initiative Geographic NY RI CO, ID, MA, LA CO OH NY NY, MA PA area OR, PA Number of … Practices 33 5 65 93 15 11 15 (70 sites) 5 12640 | Benefits of Implementing the PCMH: A Review of Cost & Quality Results, 2012 Physicians 87 28 492 336 45 41 ~1,000 37 ~540 (282 PCPs) Patients 15,024 25,000 554,570 292,000 20,000 30,000 ~600,000 62,500 ~800,000 Payers 1 4 0 1 6 3 6 0/1 12 Medicaid is No Yes No No Yes No No* No Yes participating Safety-net Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes clinics included Payment model FFS, and P4P. PMPM care Not applicable Base payment PMPM care PMPM care Bonus for Risk- Two PMPM care management dependent on manage- manage- medical home adjusted, management fee and FFS. number of eligible ment fee, ment fee, implementati- comprehen- fee models, a providers, bi- FFS, and FFS, and on and sive annual shared-savings annual grant award P4P. P4P. separate primary care model, and a for improved annual P4P fee. one-time grant access and P4P. bonus. model Distinguishing Bonus incorporates Participating Largest Part of the health Multi-state Multi-state Assesses High- Most extensive characteristics performance on patient payers cover national care recovery effort project with project with incremental performing multi-payer experience surveys. more than safety-net in the wake of OH AF4Q CO-PCHM effects of practices medical home Randomized control trial. two-thirds initiative. Hurricane Katrina. PCMH pilot. pilot. EHRs and participa- pilot in the External consultant of state The Fund’s Includes only medical ting. Unique nation with four provides care coordinati- enrollees. demonstration safety-net clinics. home. payment distinct payment on and practice redesign. project. model. models. *Medicaid is not a participating payer per se, but Medicaid managed care patients are included Abbreviations Key: AF4Q—Aligning Forces for Quality PCMH—Patient-centered medical home EHR—Electronic health record PCP—Primary care physician FFS—Fee-for-service PMPM—Per-member per-month PCASG—Primary Care Access and Stabilization Grant P4P—Pay for performance
  • 43. Appendix B: Evaluation descriptions of selected PCMH pilots (Source: Rosenthal and Abrams, Medical Home News)Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative | 41 Emblem Health Chronic Care Safety-net New Orleans Colorado Cincinnati Mid-Hudson Primary Care Pennsylvania New York Sustainability Medical Home PCASG PCMH Pilot AF4Q PCMH Valley Global Fee Chronic Care Initiative RI Initiative Pilot Model Initiative Research Randomized Pre-/post- Pre-/post-a Pre-/post- Pre-/post- Pre-/post- Pre-/post- Pre-/post- Pre-/post- design controlled trial analysis with nalysis with and analysis; no analysis with analysis with analysis with analysis with analysis with controls without controls controls controls controls controls controls controls Time frame of 01/07-31/10 10/08-10/10* 02/08-10/13 08/08-12/10 05/09-05/11* 09/09-09/11 11/09-11/11 01/08-12/10* 05/08-09/12 pilot to be evaluated Domains examined Clinical quality x x x x x x x x Health care x x x x ** x x x x costs and utilization Patient x x x x x x x x x experience Physician/staff X x x x x x x x x experience Practice cost x x Process/ x x x x x x qualitative Structural x x x x x x x x x (NCQA or other metrics) Impact on x x disparities * These pilots are planning to run an additional year; it is possible that the evaluations will be extended to capture an additional year of information as well. **Examining the number of primary care visits only.
  • 44. ©2012 Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative