Background

Concerns exist about the ability of safety net health care organizations to participate in US health care reform. Primary care practices are key to several efforts, but little is known about how capabilities of primary care practices serving a high share of disadvantaged patients compare to other practices.

Objective

To assess capabilities around access to and quality of care among primary care practices serving a high share of Medicaid and uninsured patients compared to practices serving a low share of these patients.

Design

We analyzed data from the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (response rate 46.8%), conducted 2017-2018.

Participants

A total of 2190 medical practices with at least three adult primary care physicians.

Main measures

Our key exposures are payer mix and federally qualified health center (FQHC) designation. We classified practices as safety net if they reported a combined total of at least 25% of annual revenue from uninsured or Medicaid patients; we then further classified safety net practices into those that identified as an FQHC and those that did not.

Key results

FQHCs were more likely than other safety net practices and non-safety net practices to offer early or late appointments (79%, 55%, 62%; p=0.001) and weekend appointments (56%, 39%, 42%; p=0.03). FQHCs more often provided medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders (43%, 27%, 25%; p=0.004) and behavioral health services (82%, 50%, 36%; p<0.001). FQHCs were more likely to screen patients for social and financial needs. However, FQHCs and other safety net providers had more limited electronic health record (EHR) capabilities (61%, 71%, 80%; p<0.001).

Conclusion

FQHCs were more likely than other types of primary care practices (both safety net practices and other practices) to possess capabilities related to access and quality. However, safety net practices were less likely than non-safety net practices to possess health information technology capabilities.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) can help clinicians adjust treatments and deliver patient-centered care, but organizational adoption of PROs remains low. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the extent of PRO adoption among health systems and physician practices nationally and examines the organizational capabilities associated with more extensive PRO adoption. DESIGN: Two nationally representative surveys were analyzed in parallel to assess health system and physician practice capabilities associated with adoption of PROs of disability, pain, and depression. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 323 US health system and 2,190 physician practice respondents METHODS: Multivariable regression models separately estimated the association of health system and physician practice capabilities associated with system-level and practice-level adoption of PROs. MAIN MEASURES: Health system and physician practice adoption of PROs for depression, pain, and disability. KEY RESULTS: Pain (50.6%) and depression (43.8%) PROs were more commonly adopted by all hospitals and medical groups within health systems compared to disability PROs (26.5%). In adjusted analyses, systems with more advanced health IT functions were more likely to use disability (p<0.05) and depression (p<0.01) PROs than systems with less advanced health IT. Practice-level advanced health IT was positively associated with use of depression PRO (p<0.05), but not disability or pain PRO use. Practices with more chronic care management processes, broader medical and social risk screening, and more processes to support patient responsiveness were more likely to adopt each of the three PROs. Compared to independent physician practices, system-owned practices and community health centers were less likely to adopt PROs. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic care management programs, routine screening, and patient-centered care initiatives can enable PRO adoption at the practice level. Developing these practice-level capabilities may improve PRO adoption more than solely expanding health IT functions.

Addressing nonmedical needs-such as the need for housing-is critical to advancing population health, improving the quality of care, and lowering the costs of care. Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are well positioned to address these needs. We used qualitative interviews with ACO leaders and site visits to examine how these organizations addressed the nonmedical needs of their patients, and the extent to which they did so. We developed a typology of medical and social services integration among ACOs that disentangles service and organizational integration. We found that the nonmedical needs most commonly addressed by ACOs were the need for transportation and housing and food insecurity. ACOs identified nonmedical needs through processes that were part of the primary care visit or care transformation programs. Approaches to meeting patients' nonmedical needs were either individualized solutions (developed patient by patient) or targeted approaches (programs developed to address specific needs). As policy makers continue to provide incentives for health care organizations to meet a broader spectrum of patients' needs, these findings offer insights into how health care organizations such as ACOs integrate themselves with nonmedical organizations.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement strategies can equip patients with tools to navigate treatment decisions and improve patient-centered outcomes. Despite increased recognition about the importance of patient engagement, little is known about the extent of physician practice adoption of patient engagement strategies nationally. METHODS: We analyzed data collected from the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS) on physician practice adoption of patient engagement strategies. Stratified-cluster sampling was used to select physician practices operating under different organizational structures. Multivariable linear regression models estimated the association of practice ownership, health information technology functionality, use of screening activities, patient responsiveness, chronic care management processes, and the adoption of patient engagement strategies, including shared decision-making, motivational interviewing, and shared medical appointments. All regression models controlled for participation in payment reforms, practice size, Medicaid revenue percentage, and geographic region. RESULTS: We found modest and varied adoption of patient engagement strategies by practices of different ownership types, with health system-owned practices having the lowest adoption of ownership types. Practice capabilities, including chronic care management processes, routine screening of medical and social risks, and patient care dissemination strategies were associated with greater practice-level adoption of patient engagement strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This national study is the first to characterize the adoption of patient engagement strategies by US physician practices. We found modest adoption of shared decision-making and motivational interviewing, and low adoption of shared medical appointments. Risk-based payment reform has the potential to motivate greater practice-level patient engagement, but the extent to which it occurs may depend on internal practice capabilities.

Objectives

The adoption of advanced health information technology (HIT) capabilities, such as predictive analytic functions and patient access to records, remains variable among healthcare systems across the United States. This study is the first to identify characteristics that may drive this variability among health systems.

Study design

Responses from the 2017/2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems were used to assess the extent to which healthcare system organizational structure, electronic health record (EHR) standardization, and resource allocation practices were associated with use of 5 advanced HIT capabilities. Of 732 systems surveyed, 446 responded (60.9%), 425 (58.1%) met sample inclusion criteria, and 389 (53.1%) reported consistent EHR use.

Methods

Measures of adoption, resource allocation, and organizational structure were developed based on survey responses. Multivariate linear regression with control variables estimated the relationships.

Results

Adoption of advanced HIT capabilities is low and variable, with a mean of 2.4 capabilities adopted and only 8.4% of systems reporting widespread adoption of all 5 capabilities. In adjusted analyses, EHR standardization (β = 0.76; P = .001) was the strongest predictor of the number of advanced capabilities adopted, and ownership and management of medical groups (β = 0.32; P = .04) was also a significant predictor.

Conclusions

Health systems that standardize their EHRs and that own and manage hospitals and medical groups have higher rates of advanced HIT adoption and use. System leaders looking to increase the use of advanced HIT capabilities should consider ways to better standardize their EHRs across organizations.

Objective

To develop an exploratory taxonomy of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to describe and understand early ACO development and to provide a basis for technical assistance and future evaluation of performance.

Data sources/study setting

Data from the National Survey of Accountable Care Organizations, fielded between October 2012 and May 2013, of 173 Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial payer ACOs.

Study design

Drawing on resource dependence and institutional theory, we develop measures of eight attributes of ACOs such as size, scope of services offered, and the use of performance accountability mechanisms. Data are analyzed using a two-step cluster analysis approach that accounts for both continuous and categorical data.

Principal findings

We identified a reliable and internally valid three-cluster solution: larger, integrated systems that offer a broad scope of services and frequently include one or more postacute facilities; smaller, physician-led practices, centered in primary care, and that possess a relatively high degree of physician performance management; and moderately sized, joint hospital-physician and coalition-led groups that offer a moderately broad scope of services with some involvement of postacute facilities.

Conclusions

ACOs can be characterized into three distinct clusters. The taxonomy provides a framework for assessing performance, for targeting technical assistance, and for diagnosing potential antitrust violations.

Background

The accountable care organization (ACO) is a new type of health care organization incentivized to improve quality of care, improve population health, and reduce the cost of care. An ACO's success in meeting these objectives depends greatly upon its ability to improve patient care management. Numerous studies have found relational coordination to be positively associated with key measures of organizational performance in health care organizations, including quality and efficiency.

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is twofold: (a) identify the extent to which ACO leaders are aware of the dimensions of relational coordination, and (b) identify the ways these leaders believe the dimensions influenced care management practices in their organization.

Methodology/approach

We performed content analysis of interviews with managerial and clinical leaders from a diverse group of 11 ACOs to assess awareness of relational coordination and identify the ways that dimensions of relational coordination were perceived to influence development of care management practices.

Findings

ACO leaders mentioned four relational coordination dimensions: shared goals, frequency of communication, timeliness of communication, and problem solving communication. Three dimensions - shared knowledge of team members' tasks, mutual respect, and accuracy of communication - were not mentioned. Our analysis identified numerous ways leaders believed the four mentioned dimensions contributed to the development of care management, including contributions to standardization of care, patient engagement, coordination of care, and care planning.

Discussion

We propose two hypotheses for future research on relational coordination and care management.

Practice implications

If relational coordination is to have a beneficial influence on ACO performance, organizational leaders must become more aware of relational coordination and its various dimensions and become cognizant of relational coordination's influence on care management in their ACO. We suggest a number of means by which ACO leaders could become more aware of relational coordination and its potential effects.

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) and similar reforms aim to improve coordination between health care providers; however, due to the fragmented nature of the US health care system, successful coordination will hinge in large part on the ability of health care organizations to successfully partner across organizational boundaries. Little is known about new partnerships formed under the ACO model. We use mixed methods data from the National Survey of ACOs, Medicare ACO performance data and interviews with executive leaders across 31 ACOs to examine the prevalence, characteristics, and capabilities of partnership ACOs and why and how ACO partnerships form. We find that a striking percentage of ACOs - 81% - involve new partnerships between independent health care organizations. These "partnership ACOs" generally report lower capabilities on care management, care coordination, and health information technology. Additionally, under Medicare ACO programs partnership ACO achieved somewhat lower quality performance. Qualitative interviews revealed that providers are motivated to partner for resource complementarity, risk reduction, and legislative requirements, and are using a variety of formal and informal accountability mechanisms. Most partnership ACOs were formed out of existing, positive relationships, but a minority of ACOs formed out of previously competitive or conflictual relationships. Our findings suggests that the success of the ACO model will hinge in large part upon the success of new partnerships, with important implications for understanding ACO readiness and capabilities, the relatively small savings achieved to date by ACO programs, and the path to providers bearing more risk for population health management. In addition, ACO partnerships may provide an important window to monitor a potential wave of health care consolidation or, in contrast, a new model of independent providers successfully coordinating patient care.

Objective

To compare early and later adopters of the accountable care organization (ACO) model, using the taxonomy of larger, integrated system; smaller, physician-led; and hybrid ACOs.

Data sources

The National Survey of ACOs, Waves 1 and 2.

Study design

Cluster analysis using the two-step clustering approach, validated using discriminant analysis. Wave 2 data analyzed separately to assess differences from Wave 1 and then data pooled across waves.

Findings

Compared to early ACOs, later adopter ACOs included a greater breadth of provider group types and a greater proportion self-reported as integrated delivery systems. When data from the two time periods were combined, a three-cluster solution similar to the original cluster solution emerged. Of the 251 ACOs, 31.1 percent were larger, integrated system ACOs; 45.0 percent were smaller physician-led ACOs; and 23.9 percent were hybrid ACOs-compared to 40.1 percent, 34.0 percent, and 25.9 percent from Wave 1 clusters, respectively.

Conclusions

While there are some differences between ACOs formed prior to August 2012 and those formed in the following year, the three-cluster taxonomy appears to best describe the types of ACOs in existence as of July 2013. The updated taxonomy can be used by researchers, policy makers, and health care organizations to support evaluation and continued development of ACOs.

Policy Points One of the most important possibilities of value-based payment is its potential to spur innovation in upstream prevention, such as attention to social needs that lead to poor health. Screening patients for social risks such as housing instability and food insecurity represents an early step physician practices can take to address social needs. At present, adoption of social risk screening by physician practices is linked with having high innovation capacity and focusing on low-income populations, but not exposure to value-based payment. Expanding social risk screening by physician practices may require standardization and technical assistance for practices that have less innovative capacity.

Context

One of the most important possibilities of value-based payment is its potential to spur innovation in upstream prevention, such as attention to social needs that lead to poor health. However, there is uncertainty about the conditions under which value-based payment will encourage health care providers to innovate to address upstream social risks.

Methods

We used the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS), a nationally representative survey of physician practices (n = 2,178), to ascertain (1) the number of social risks for which practices systematically screen patients; (2) the extent of practices' participation in value-based payment models; and (3) measures of practices' capacity for innovation. We used multivariate regression models to examine predictors of social risk screening.

Findings

On average, physician practices systematically screened for 2.4 out of 7 (34%) social risks assessed by the survey. In the fully adjusted model, implementing social risk screening was not associated with the practices' overall exposure to value-based payment. Being in the top quartile on any of three innovation capacity scales, however, was associated with screening for 0.95 to 1.00 additional social risk (p < 0.001 for all three results) relative to the bottom quartile. In subanalysis examining specific payment models, participating in a Medicaid accountable care organization was associated with screening for 0.37 more social risks (p = 0.015). Expecting more exposure to accountable care in the future was associated with greater social risk screening, but the effect size was small compared with practices' capacity for innovation.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that implementation of social risk screening-an initial step in enhancing awareness of social needs in health care-is not associated with overall exposure to value-based payment for physician practices. Expanding social risk screening by physician practices may require standardized approaches and implementation assistance to reduce the level of innovative capacity required.