BackgroundEnhanced primary care models have diffused slowly and shown uneven results. Because their structural features are costly and challenging for small practices to implement, they offer modest rewards for improved performance, and improvement takes time.ObjectiveTo test whether a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model that significantly rewarded cost savings and accommodated small primary care practices was associated with lower spending, fewer hospital admissions, and fewer emergency room visits.DesignWe compared medical care expenditures and utilization among adults who participated in the PCMH program to adults who did not participate. We computed difference-in-difference estimates using two-part multivariate generalized linear models for expenditures and negative binomial models for utilization. Control variables included patient demographics, county, chronic condition indicators, and illness severity.ParticipantsA total of 1,433,297 adults aged 18–64 years, residing in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and insured by CareFirst for at least 3 consecutive months between 2010 and 2013.InterventionCareFirst implemented enhanced fee-for-service payments to the practices, offered a large retrospective bonus if annual cost and quality targets were exceeded, and provided information and care coordination support.MeasuresOutcomes were quarterly claims expenditures per member for all covered services, inpatient care, emergency care, and prescription drugs, and quarterly inpatient admissions and emergency room visits.ResultsBy the third intervention year, annual adjusted total claims payments were $109 per participating member (95 % CI: −$192, −$27), or 2.8 % lower than before the program and compared to those who did not participate. Forty-two percent of the overall decline in spending was explained by lower inpatient care, emergency care, and prescription drug spending. Much of the reduction in inpatient and emergency spending was explained by lower utilization of services.ConclusionsA PCMH model that does not require practices to make infrastructure investments and that rewards cost savings can reduce spending and utilization.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3814-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield of Maryland implemented a voluntary patient-centered medical home (PCMH) program in 2011 that did not require formal certification to participate. This study assessed attitudes and awareness of PCMH programs among participating providers in Maryland and Northern Virginia.Methods: This qualitative study used information from 13 focus groups. In addition, 39 telephone interviews were conducted. An experienced facilitator moderated the focus groups. Written transcripts were analyzed using NVivo software.Results: Several cross-cutting themes emerged. First, the payment bump of 12% was a motivating factor to participate but did not have long-term effects on participation. Second, nurse care coordinators were perceived as the key element of the PCMH program. Third, providers had limited awareness of an external data portal. Finally, small practices were generally receptive to the externally supported program elements.Conclusions

BACKGROUND: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is an enhanced primary care model that aims to improve quality of care. Over the past several years, the PCMH model has been adopted by Medicare and private payers, which offer financial resources and technical assistance to participating practices. However, few studies have examined provider experiences and perspectives on the adoption of payer-based PCMH models in different practice settings. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this qualitative study was to analyze how providers experienced specific elements of a payer-based PCMH model and identify cross-cutting themes that can be applied to other payer-based PCMH initiatives. DESIGN: Observational qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 65 individuals (which includes 57 primary care physicians) participated in focus group sessions. Telephone interviews were conducted with an additional 14 physicians and 2 practice administrators. APPROACH: Interviews and focus groups were recorded after obtaining the informed consent of participants. Written transcripts from the recordings were then imported into NVivo 11 for subsequent coding and qualitative analysis of themes. KEY RESULTS: We found that nurse care coordinators (NCCs) were the single most valuable and visible program element. Individual care plans served as effective tools of communication between the NCC and physician on patient care management goals and issues. The online data portal was viewed as the least valuable element. With regard to cross-cutting themes, some providers expressed a strained relationship with CareFirst due to communication challenges, a lack of trust, and differing priorities in selecting patients for care plans. CONCLUSION: Nurse care coordinators and the targeted use of individualized care plans are essential components in a payer-based PCMH program. Improving communication and trust in data reports are critical for effective implementation. Future research should examine provider experiences in other payer-based PCMH programs to see how interactions with payers affect program implementation.

As financial, social, and quality-of-life challenges associated with chronic disease in the United States continue to proliferate, disease management (DM) has been identified as a viable and positive approach that serves all areas of impact. Using an "in-house" model, Physician Health Partners, LLC, designed, developed, and implemented a DM program for the frail and elderly population. Given the special needs of this population the typical DM intervention was modified to include elements of physician involvement. The Frail and Elderly Program, as the DM program is called, produced statistically significant improvements in functional, behavioral, and clinical status and health-related quality of life. This model can help result in program success with potential benefits for individuals, practices, communities, and all whose lives are touched, directly or indirectly, by chronic disease.

Despite their value, comprehensive diabetes care and screening for common cancers remain underutilized. We examined the association between participation in a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) program with strong financial incentives and receipt of preventive care in the first 5 years after program launch. Using multivariate regression analysis, we compared outcomes for adults under the care of participating primary care providers (PCPs) with adults under the care of nonparticipating PCPs. Outcomes were breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screenings, and elements of diabetes care. The analytic sample included 818,623 adults living in Maryland, Virginia, or the District of Columbia, and enrolled with CareFirst for at least 1 year during 2010–2015. By Year 5, enrollees in the intervention group were 7.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.8–13.0), 6.1 (95% CI: 1.4–10.7), 3.1 (95% CI: 2.1–4.0), and 7.6 (95% CI: 7.0–8.2) percentage points more likely to undergo HbA1c tests, nephropathy examinations, breast, and cervical cancer screenings, respectively. We found no significant change in the propensity to receive colorectal cancer screening or an eye examination. Our study shows that a PCMH program with strong financial incentives can raise the provision of preventive care but could require additional adjustment.