OBJECTIVES: To compare quality, utilization, and cost outcomes for patients with selected chronic illnesses at a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) prototype site with outcomes for patients with the same chronic illnesses at 19 nonintervention control sites. STUDY DESIGN: Nonequivalent pretest-posttest control group design. METHODS: PCMH redesign results were investigated for patients with preexisting diabetes, hypertension, and/or coronary heart disease. Data from automated databases were collected for eligible enrollees in an integrated healthcare delivery system. Multivariable regression models tested for adjusted differences between PCMH patients and controls during the baseline and follow-up periods. Dependent measures under study included clinical processes and, outcomes, monthly healthcare utilization, and costs. RESULTS: Compared with controls over 2 years, patients at the PCMH prototype clinic had slightly better clinical outcome control in coronary heart disease (2.20 mg/dL lower mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; P <.001). PCMH patients changed their patterns of primary care utilization, as reflected by 86% more secure electronic message contacts (P <.001), 10% more telephone contacts (P = .003), and 6% fewer in-person primary care visits (P <.001). PCMH patients had 21% fewer ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations (P <.001) and 7% fewer total inpatient admissions (P = .002) than controls. During the 2-year redesign, we observed 17% lower inpatient costs (P <.001) and 7% lower total healthcare costs (P <.001) among patients at the PCMH prototype clinic. CONCLUSIONS: A clinic-level population-based PCMH redesign can decrease downstream utilization and reduce total healthcare costs in a subpopulation of patients with common chronic illnesses.
OBJECTIVES: To compare quality, utilization, and cost outcomes for patients with selected chronic illnesses at a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) prototype site with outcomes for patients with the same chronic illnesses at 19 nonintervention control sites. STUDY DESIGN: Nonequivalent pretest-posttest control group design. METHODS:PCMH redesign results were investigated for patients with preexisting diabetes, hypertension, and/or coronary heart disease. Data from automated databases were collected for eligible enrollees in an integrated healthcare delivery system. Multivariable regression models tested for adjusted differences between PCMHpatients and controls during the baseline and follow-up periods. Dependent measures under study included clinical processes and, outcomes, monthly healthcare utilization, and costs. RESULTS: Compared with controls over 2 years, patients at the PCMH prototype clinic had slightly better clinical outcome control in coronary heart disease (2.20 mg/dL lower mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; P <.001). PCMHpatients changed their patterns of primary care utilization, as reflected by 86% more secure electronic message contacts (P <.001), 10% more telephone contacts (P = .003), and 6% fewer in-person primary care visits (P <.001). PCMHpatients had 21% fewer ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations (P <.001) and 7% fewer total inpatient admissions (P = .002) than controls. During the 2-year redesign, we observed 17% lower inpatient costs (P <.001) and 7% lower total healthcare costs (P <.001) among patients at the PCMH prototype clinic. CONCLUSIONS: A clinic-level population-based PCMH redesign can decrease downstream utilization and reduce total healthcare costs in a subpopulation of patients with common chronic illnesses.
Authors: Leif I Solberg; Stephen E Asche; Patricia Fontaine; Thomas J Flottemesch; Louise H Anderson Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2011 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Benjamin F Crabtree; Paul A Nutting; William L Miller; Kurt C Stange; Elizabeth E Stewart; Carlos Roberto Jaén Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Paul A Fishman; Eric A Johnson; Kathryn Coleman; Eric B Larson; Clarissa Hsu; Tyler R Ross; David Liss; James Tufano; Robert J Reid Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2012-03-15
Authors: A K Rosen; S Loveland; J J Anderson; J A Rothendler; C S Hankin; C C Rakovski; M A Moskowitz; D R Berlowitz Journal: Med Care Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Richard J Gilfillan; Janet Tomcavage; Meredith B Rosenthal; Duane E Davis; Jove Graham; Jason A Roy; Steven B Pierdon; Frederick J Bloom; Thomas R Graf; Roy Goldman; Karena M Weikel; Bruce H Hamory; Ronald A Paulus; Glen D Steele Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Deborah Peikes; Aparajita Zutshi; Janice L Genevro; Michael L Parchman; David S Meyers Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: David T Liss; Robert J Reid; David Grembowski; Carolyn M Rutter; Tyler R Ross; Paul A Fishman Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Paul Crits-Christoph; Robert Gallop; Elizabeth Noll; Aileen Rothbard; Caroline K Diehl; Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons; Robert Gross; Karin V Rhodes Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Shin-Ping Tu; Vicki M Young; Letoynia J Coombs; Rebecca S Williams; Michelle C Kegler; Amanda T Kimura; Betsy C Risendal; Daniela B Friedman; Beth A Glenn; Debbie J Pfeiffer; Maria E Fernandez Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David T Liss; Paul A Fishman; Carolyn M Rutter; David Grembowski; Tyler R Ross; Robert J Reid Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Clark A Veet; Thomas R Radomski; Christopher D'Avella; Inmaculada Hernandez; Charles Wessel; Elizabeth C S Swart; William H Shrank; Natasha Parekh Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 5.128