No abstract

Objective To measure the extent to which the provision of mammograms was impacted by the COVID‐19 pandemic and surrounding guidelines. Data Sources De‐identified summary data derived from medical claims and eligibility files were provided by Independence Blue Cross for women receiving mammograms. Study Design We used a difference‐in‐differences approach to characterize the change in mammograms performed over time and a queueing formula to estimate the time to clear the queue of missed mammograms. Data Collection We used data from the first 30 weeks of each year from 2018 to 2020. Principal Findings Over the 20 weeks following March 11, 2020, the volume of screening mammograms and diagnostic mammograms fell by 58% and 38% of expected levels, on average. Lowest volumes were observed in week 15 (April 8 to 14), when screening and diagnostic mammograms fell by 99% and 74%, respectively. Volumes began to rebound in week 19 (May), with diagnostic mammograms reaching levels to similar to previous years’ and screening mammograms remaining 14% below expectations. We estimate it will take a minimum of 22 weeks to clear the queue of missed mammograms in our study sample. Conclusions The provision of mammograms has been significantly disrupted due to the COVID‐19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: There is emerging consensus that enhanced inter-professional teamwork is necessary for the effective and efficient delivery of primary care, but there is less practical information specific to primary care available to guide practices on how to better work as teams. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe how primary care practices have overcome challenges to providing team-based primary care and the implications for care delivery and policy. APPROACH: Practices for this qualitative study were selected from those recognized as patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) via the most recent National Committee for Quality Assurance PCMH tool, which included a domain on practice teamwork. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-three respondents, ranging from physicians to front-desk staff, were interviewed from May through December of 2013. Practice respondents came from 27 primary care practices ranging in size, type, geography, and population served. KEY RESULTS: Practices emphasizing teamwork overcame common challenges through the incremental delegation of non-clinical tasks away from physicians. The roles of medical assistants and nurses are expanding to include template-guided information collection from patients prior to the physician office visit as well as many other tasks. The inclusion of staff input in care workflow redesign and the use of data to demonstrate how team care process changes improved patient care were helpful in gaining staff buy-in. Team "huddles" guided by pre-visit planning were reported to assist in role delegation, consistency of information collected from patients, and structured communication among team members. Nurse care managers were found to be important team members in working with patients and their physicians on care plan design and execution. Most practices had not participated in formal teamwork training, but respondents expressed a desire for training for key team members, particularly if they could access it on-site (e.g., via practice coaches or the Internet). CONCLUSIONS: Participants who adopted new forms of delegation and care processes using teamwork approaches, and who were supported with resources, system support, and data feedback, reported improved provider satisfaction and productivity. There appears to be a need for more on-site teamwork training.

System (MIPS) is a major Medicare value-based payment program aimed at improving quality and reducing costs. Little is known about how physicians' performance varies by social risk of their patients.OBJECTIVE To determine the relationship between patient social risk and physicians' scores in the first year of MIPS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSCross-sectional study of physicians participating in MIPS in 2017.EXPOSURES Physicians in the highest quintile of proportion of dually eligible patients served; physicians in the 3 middle quintiles; and physicians in the lowest quintile. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was the 2017 composite MIPS score (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate better performance). Payment rates were adjusted -4% to 4% based on scores. RESULTSThe final sample included 284 544 physicians (76.1% men, 60.1% with Ն20 years in practice, 11.9% in rural location, 26.8% hospital-based, and 24.6% in primary care). The mean composite MIPS score was 73.3. Physicians in the highest risk quintile cared for 52.0% of dually eligible patients; those in the 3 middle risk quintiles, 21.8%; and those in the lowest risk quintile, 6.6%. After adjusting for medical complexity, the mean MIPS score for physicians in the highest risk quintile (64.7) was lower relative to scores for physicians in the middle 3 (75.4) and lowest (75.9) risk quintiles (difference for highest vs middle 3, -10.7 [95% CI, -11.0 to -10.4]; highest vs lowest, -11.2 [95% CI, -11.6 to -10.8]; P < .001). This relationship was found across specialties except psychiatry. Compared with physicians in the lowest risk quintile, physicians in the highest risk quintile were more likely to work in rural areas (12.7% vs 6.4%; difference, 6.3 percentage points [95% CI, 6.0 to 6.7]; P < .001) but less likely to care for more than 1000 Medicare beneficiaries (9.4% vs 17.8%; difference, -8.3 percentage points [95% CI, -8.7 to -8.0]; P < .001) or to have more than 20 years in practice (56.7% vs 70.6%; difference, -13.9 percentage points [95% CI, -14.4 to -13.3]; P < .001). For physicians in the highest risk quintile, several characteristics were associated with higher MIPS scores, including practicing in a larger group (mean score, 82.4 for more than 50 physicians vs 46.1 for 1-5 physicians; difference, 36.2 [95% CI, 35.3 to 37.2]; P < .001) and reporting through an alternative payment model (mean score, 79.5 for alternative payment model vs 59.9 for reporting as individual; difference, 19.7 [95% CI, 18.9 to 20.4]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this cross-sectional analysis of physicians who participated in the first year of the Medicare MIPS program, physicians with the highest proportion of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid had significantly lower MIPS scores compared with other physicians. Further research is needed to understand the reasons underlying the differences in physician MIPS scores by levels of patient social risk.