BACKGROUND: The patient centered medical home has received considerable attention as a potential way to improve primary care quality and limit cost growth. Little information exists that systematically compares PCMH pilot projects across the country. DESIGN: Cross-sectional key-informant interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Leaders from existing PCMH demonstration projects with external payment reform. MEASUREMENTS: We used a semi-structured interview tool with the following domains: project history, organization and participants, practice requirements and selection process, medical home recognition, payment structure, practice transformation, and evaluation design. RESULTS: A total of 26 demonstrations in 18 states were interviewed. Current demonstrations include over 14,000 physicians caring for nearly 5 million patients. A majority of demonstrations are single payer, and most utilize a three component payment model (traditional fee for service, per person per month fixed payments, and bonus performance payments). The median incremental revenue per physician per year was $22,834 (range $720 to $91,146). Two major practice transformation models were identified--consultative and implementation of the chronic care model. A majority of demonstrations did not have well-developed evaluation plans. CONCLUSION: Current PCMH demonstration projects with external payment reform include large numbers of patients and physicians as well as a wide spectrum of implementation models. Key questions exist around the adequacy of current payment mechanisms and evaluation plans as public and policy interest in the PCMH model grows.
BACKGROUND: The patient centered medical home has received considerable attention as a potential way to improve primary care quality and limit cost growth. Little information exists that systematically compares PCMH pilot projects across the country. DESIGN: Cross-sectional key-informant interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Leaders from existing PCMH demonstration projects with external payment reform. MEASUREMENTS: We used a semi-structured interview tool with the following domains: project history, organization and participants, practice requirements and selection process, medical home recognition, payment structure, practice transformation, and evaluation design. RESULTS: A total of 26 demonstrations in 18 states were interviewed. Current demonstrations include over 14,000 physicians caring for nearly 5 million patients. A majority of demonstrations are single payer, and most utilize a three component payment model (traditional fee for service, per person per month fixed payments, and bonus performance payments). The median incremental revenue per physician per year was $22,834 (range $720 to $91,146). Two major practice transformation models were identified--consultative and implementation of the chronic care model. A majority of demonstrations did not have well-developed evaluation plans. CONCLUSION: Current PCMH demonstration projects with external payment reform include large numbers of patients and physicians as well as a wide spectrum of implementation models. Key questions exist around the adequacy of current payment mechanisms and evaluation plans as public and policy interest in the PCMH model grows.
Authors: Mary C Hroscikoski; Leif I Solberg; Joann M Sperl-Hillen; Peter G Harper; Michael P McGrail; Benjamin F Crabtree Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2006 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Jack A Ginsburg; Robert B Doherty; J Fred Ralston; Naomi Senkeeto; Molly Cooke; Charles Cutler; David A Fleming; Brian P Freeman; Robert A Gluckman; Mark Liebow; Robert M McLean; Kenneth A Musana; Patrick M Nichols; Mark W Purtle; P Preston Reynolds; Kathleen M Weaver; David C Dale; Joel S Levine; Joseph W Stubbs Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-12-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Beat D Steiner; Amy C Denham; Evan Ashkin; Warren P Newton; Thomas Wroth; L Allen Dobson Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Roberto B Vargas; Carol M Mangione; Steven Asch; Joan Keesey; Mayde Rosen; Matthias Schonlau; Emmett B Keeler Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Bruce E Landon; LeRoi S Hicks; A James O'Malley; Tracy A Lieu; Thomas Keegan; Barbara J McNeil; Edward Guadagnoli Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rebecca S Lipner; Wayne H Bylsma; Gerald K Arnold; Gregory S Fortna; John Tooker; Christine K Cassel Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-01-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Robert A Berenson; Terry Hammons; David N Gans; Stephen Zuckerman; Katie Merrell; William S Underwood; Aimee F Williams Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2008 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Marshall H Chin; Melinda L Drum; Myriam Guillen; Ann Rimington; Jessica R Levie; Anne C Kirchhoff; Michael T Quinn; Cynthia T Schaefer Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lexie R Grove; William J Olesiuk; Alan R Ellis; Jesse C Lichstein; C Annette DuBard; Joel F Farley; Carlos T Jackson; Christopher A Beadles; Joseph P Morrissey; Marisa Elena Domino Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2017-03-07 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Anna D Sinaiko; Mary Beth Landrum; David J Meyers; Shehnaz Alidina; Daniel D Maeng; Mark W Friedberg; Lisa M Kern; Alison M Edwards; Signe Peterson Flieger; Patricia R Houck; Pamela Peele; Robert J Reid; Katharine McGraves-Lloyd; Karl Finison; Meredith B Rosenthal Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Robert S Nocon; Ravi Sharma; Jonathan M Birnberg; Quyen Ngo-Metzger; Sang Mee Lee; Marshall H Chin Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joseph S Zickafoose; Sarah J Clark; Joseph W Sakshaug; Lena M Chen; John M Hollingsworth Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Ron D Hays; Laura J Berman; Michael H Kanter; Mildred Hugh; Rachel R Oglesby; Chong Y Kim; Mike Cui; Julie Brown Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 3.393