Background

It remains unclear whether the racial-ethnic composition or the socioeconomic profiles of eligible primary care practices better explain practice participation in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) program.

Objective

To examine whether practices serving high proportions of Black or Latino Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries were less likely to participate in CPC+ in 2021 compared to practices serving lower proportions of these populations.

Design

2019 IQVIA OneKey data on practice characteristics was linked with 2018 CMS claims data and 2021 CMS CPC+ participation data. Medicare FFS beneficiaries were attributed to practices using CMS's primary care attribution method.

Participants

11,718 primary care practices and 7,264,812 attributed Medicare FFS beneficiaries across 18 eligible regions.

Methods

Multivariable logistic regression models examined whether eligible practices with relatively high shares of Black or Latino Medicare FFS beneficiaries were less likely to participate in CPC+ in 2021, controlling for the clinical and socioeconomic profiles of practices.

Main measures

Proportion of Medicare FFS beneficiaries attributed to each practice that are (1) Latino and (2) Black.

Key results

Of the eligible practices, 26.9% were CPC+ participants. In adjusted analyses, practices with relatively high shares of Black (adjusted odds ratio, aOR = 0.62, p < 0.05) and Latino (aOR = 0.32, p < 0.01) beneficiaries were less likely to participate in CPC+ compared to practices with lower shares of these beneficiary groups. State differences in CPC+ participation rates partially explained participation disparities for practices with relatively high shares of Black beneficiaries, but did not explain participation disparities for practices with relatively high shares of Latino beneficiaries.

Conclusions

The racial-ethnic composition of eligible primary care practices is more strongly associated with CPC+ participation than census tract-level poverty. Practice eligibility requirements for CMS-sponsored initiatives should be reconsidered so that Black and Latino beneficiaries are not left out of the benefits of practice transformation.

Patient-engagement strategies are being encouraged by payers and governments, but with limited evidence about whether practice adoption of these strategies impacts utilization and spending. We examine the association of physician practice adoption of patient-engagement strategies (low vs moderate vs high) with potentially preventable utilization and total spending for patients with type 2 diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease using US physician practice survey (n = 2086) and Medicare fee-for-service (n = 736 269) data. In adjusted analyses, there were no differences in potentially preventable utilization associated with practice adoption of patient-engagement strategies. Compared with patients attributed to practices with moderate adoption, patients attributed to practices with high adoption had higher total spending ($26 364 vs $25 991; P < .05) driven by spending for long-term services and supports, including home health agency, long-term care, skilled nursing facilities, and hospice payments. In contrast, patients attributed to practices with low adoption had higher total spending ($26 481 vs $25 991; P < .01) driven by spending for tests and acute care and clinical access spending. The results highlight that stakeholders that encourage the use of patient-engagement strategies should not necessarily expect reduced spending.

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.

Background

Despite the growing interest in transformational performance improvement among nearly all countries, international benchmarking has rarely been used. Cross-comparative research could allow an appreciation of the extent of Lean's use in healthcare and a better evaluation of possible cultural influences on Lean implementation. This study provides a comparative international benchmarking of Lean adoption, implementation, and outcomes of hospitals in the US and Italy.

Methods

The National Survey of Lean, developed in 2017 in the US and adapted in Italy in 2019 was used to compare the two healthcare systems along three dimensions: the maturity of adoption, the implementation approach, identifying both strategic and operational activities and tools, and the Lean performance, investigated through patients, employed, and affiliated staff, costs, and service provision areas. Descriptive statistics including T-tests were used to examine differences between the two countries on the study variables.

Results

Lean has been adopted less by Italian public hospitals (36%) than US public hospitals (53%). Each country averages 4 years of experience with Lean. Italian hospitals reported being at a higher maturity stage while the US implemented a more system-wide approach, developing Lean in more operational units. The daily management system, leadership commitment, education and training indexes were higher or the same in the US while in Italy, hospitals had a higher self-reported performance index.

Conclusion

This exploratory work is one of the first international benchmarking studies on Lean implementation in healthcare systems using a standardized survey with a common set of definitions and questions. The study identifies different forms of Lean implementation that can be adopted, both at strategic and operational levels, with related perceived outcomes. Despite the US public hospitals being more likely to report a higher number of units using Lean, a higher daily management system index and use of Lean tools, Italian hospitals report more achievements primarily due to Lean. Further research can build on these findings by examining the relationship between Lean adoption/implementation and independent, objective performance measures.

OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services State Innovation Models (SIM) initiative has invested more than $1 billion to test state-led delivery system and payment reforms that can affect diabetes care management. We examined whether SIM implementation between 2013 and 2017 was associated with diagnosed diabetes prevalence or with hospitalization or 30-day readmission rate among diagnosed adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The quasiexperimental design compared study outcomes before and after the SIM initiative in 12 SIM states versus five comparison states using difference-in-differences (DiD) regression models of 21,055,714 hospitalizations for adults age ≥18 years diagnosed with diabetes in 889 counties from 2010 to 2017 across the 17 states. For readmission analyses, comparative interrupted time series (CITS) models included 11,812,993 hospitalizations from a subset of nine states. RESULTS: Diagnosed diabetes prevalence changes were not significantly different between SIM states and comparison states. Hospitalization rates were inconsistent across models, with DiD estimates ranging from -5.34 to -0.37 and from -13.16 to 0.92, respectively. CITS results indicate that SIM states had greater increases in odds of 30-day readmission during SIM implementation compared with comparison states (round 1: adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.07; 95% CI 1.04, 1.11; P < 0.001; round 2: AOR 1.06; 95% CI 1.03, 1.10; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The SIM initiative was not sufficiently focused to have a population-level effect on diabetes detection or management. SIM states had greater increases in 30-day readmission for adults with diabetes than comparison states, highlighting potential unintended effects of engaging in the multipayer alignment efforts required of state-led delivery system and payment reforms.

Introduction

Decision aids for breast cancer screening are increasingly being used by physicians, but the association between physician practice decision-aid use and mammography rates remains uncertain. Using national data, this study examines the association between practice-level decision-aid use and mammography use among older women.

Methods

Physician practice responses to the 2017/2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (n=1,236) were linked to 2016 and 2017 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary data from eligible beneficiaries (n=439,684) aged 65-74 years. In 2021, multivariable generalized linear models estimated the association of practice decision-aid use for breast cancer screening and advanced health information technology functions with mammography use, controlling for practice and beneficiary characteristics.

Results

Overall, 60.1% of eligible beneficiaries had a screening mammogram, and 37.3% of physician practices routinely used decision aids for breast cancer screening. In adjusted analyses, advanced health information technology functions (OR=1.19, p=0.04) were associated with mammography use, but practice use of decision aids was not (OR=0.95, p=0.21). Beneficiary clinical and socioeconomic characteristics, including race, comorbidities, Medicare and Medicaid eligibility, and median household income were more strongly associated with mammography use than practice-level decision-aid use or advanced health information technology functions.

Conclusions

Health information technology‒enabled automation of mammography reminders and other advanced health information technology functions may support mammography, whereas breast cancer decision aids may reduce patients' propensities to be screened through the alignment of their preferences and screening decision. More resources may be needed for decision aids to be routinely implemented to improve solicitation of patient preferences and targeting of mammography services.

No research has considered a range of physician practice capabilities for managing patient care when examining practice-level influences on quality of care, utilization, and spending. Using data from the 2017 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems linked to 2017 Medicare fee-for-service claims data from attributed beneficiaries, we examined the association of practice-level capabilities with process measures of quality, utilization, and spending. In propensity score-weighted mixed-effects regression analyses, physician practice locations with "robust" capabilities had lower total spending compared to locations with "mixed" or "limited" capabilities. Quality and utilization, however, did not differ by practice-level capabilities. Physician practice locations with robust capabilities spend less on Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries but deliver quality of care that is comparable to the quality delivered in locations with low or mixed capabilities. Reforms beyond those targeting practice capabilities, including multipayer alignment and payment reform, may be needed to support larger performance advantages for practices with robust capabilities.

Objectives

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated telemedicine use nationally, but differences across health systems are understudied. We examine telemedicine use for adults with diabetes and/or hypertension across 10 health systems and analyze practice and patient characteristics associated with greater use.

Study design

Encounter-level data from the AMGA Optum Data Warehouse for March 13, 2020, to December 31, 2020, were analyzed, which included 3,016,761 clinical encounters from 764,521 adults with diabetes and/or hypertension attributed to 1 of 1207 practice sites with at least 50 system-attributed patients.

Methods

Linear spline regression estimated whether practice size and ownership were associated with telemedicine during the adoption (weeks 0-4), de-adoption (weeks 5-12), and maintenance (weeks 13-42) periods, controlling for patient socioeconomic and clinical characteristics.

Results

Telemedicine use peaked at 11% to 42% of weekly encounters after 4 weeks. In adjusted analyses, small practices had lower telemedicine use for adults with diabetes during the maintenance period compared with larger practices. Practice ownership was not associated with telemedicine use. Practices with higher proportions of Black patients continued to expand telemedicine use during the de-adoption and maintenance periods.

Conclusions

Practice ownership was not associated with telemedicine use during first months of the pandemic. Small practices de-adopted telemedicine to a greater degree than medium and large practices. Technical support for small practices, irrespective of their ownership, could enable telemedicine use for adults with diabetes and/or hypertension.