Tara Kiran1,2,3, Alexander Kopp3, Richard H Glazier4,2,3,5,6. 1. Department of Family and Community Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada tara.kiran@utoronto.ca. 2. Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada. 3. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Canada. 4. Department of Family and Community Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 5. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 6. Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Health systems are transitioning patients to medical homes to improve health outcomes and reduce cost. We sought to understand the characteristics and quality of care for patients who did and did not participate in the voluntary transition to medical homes. METHODS: We used administrative data for diabetes monitoring and cancer screening to compare services received by patients attached to a medical home (n = 10,785,687) with services received by those seeing a fee-for-service physician (n = 1,321,800) in Ontario, Canada, on March 31, 2011. We used Poisson regression to examine associations in 2011 after adjustment for patient factors and also assessed changes in outcomes between 2001 and 2011. RESULTS: Patients attached to a fee-for-service physician were more likely to be immigrants and live in a low-income neighborhood and urban area. They were less likely to receive recommended testing for diabetes (25% vs 34%; adjusted relative risk [RR] = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.73-0.75) and less likely to receive screening for cervical (52% vs 66%; adjusted RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.79-0.79), breast (58% vs 73%; adjusted RR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.80-0.81), and colorectal cancer (44% vs 62%; adjusted RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.71-0.72) compared with patients attached to a medical home physician in 2011. These differences in quality of care preceded medical home reforms. CONCLUSION: Patients left behind from medical home reforms are more likely to be poor, urban, and new immigrants and receive lower quality care. Strategies are needed to reach out to these patients and their physicians to reduce gaps in care.
PURPOSE: Health systems are transitioning patients to medical homes to improve health outcomes and reduce cost. We sought to understand the characteristics and quality of care for patients who did and did not participate in the voluntary transition to medical homes. METHODS: We used administrative data for diabetes monitoring and cancer screening to compare services received by patients attached to a medical home (n = 10,785,687) with services received by those seeing a fee-for-service physician (n = 1,321,800) in Ontario, Canada, on March 31, 2011. We used Poisson regression to examine associations in 2011 after adjustment for patient factors and also assessed changes in outcomes between 2001 and 2011. RESULTS:Patients attached to a fee-for-service physician were more likely to be immigrants and live in a low-income neighborhood and urban area. They were less likely to receive recommended testing for diabetes (25% vs 34%; adjusted relative risk [RR] = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.73-0.75) and less likely to receive screening for cervical (52% vs 66%; adjusted RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.79-0.79), breast (58% vs 73%; adjusted RR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.80-0.81), and colorectal cancer (44% vs 62%; adjusted RR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.71-0.72) compared with patients attached to a medical home physician in 2011. These differences in quality of care preceded medical home reforms. CONCLUSION:Patients left behind from medical home reforms are more likely to be poor, urban, and new immigrants and receive lower quality care. Strategies are needed to reach out to these patients and their physicians to reduce gaps in care.
Authors: Karin M Nelson; Christian Helfrich; Haili Sun; Paul L Hebert; Chuan-Fen Liu; Emily Dolan; Leslie Taylor; Edwin Wong; Charles Maynard; Susan E Hernandez; William Sanders; Ian Randall; Idamay Curtis; Gordon Schectman; Richard Stark; Stephan D Fihn Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Robert J Reid; Paul A Fishman; Onchee Yu; Tyler R Ross; James T Tufano; Michael P Soman; Eric B Larson Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2009-09-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Lindsay Hedden; M Ruth Lavergne; Kimberlyn M McGrail; Michael R Law; Ivy L Bourgeault; Rita McCracken; Morris L Barer Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Elizabeth Lockhart; Gillian A Hawker; Noah M Ivers; Tara O'Brien; Geetha Mukerji; Pauline Pariser; Ian Stanaitis; Laura Pus; G Ross Baker Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Baiju R Shah; Morgan Slater; Eliot Frymire; Kristen Jacklin; Roseanne Sutherland; Shahriar Khan; Jennifer D Walker; Michael E Green Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2020-05-05
Authors: Tara Kiran; Michael E Green; Yvonne DeWit; Shahriar Khan; Sue Schultz; Alexander Kopp; Naira Yeritsyan; Haj Ali Wissam; Richard H Glazier Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2020-05-07