Issidoros Sarinopoulos1, Diane L Bechel-Marriott2, Jean M Malouin3, Shaohui Zhai1, Jason C Forney1, Clare L Tanner4,5. 1. Michigan Public Health Institute, Okemos, MI, USA. 2. Center for Healthcare Research and Transformation, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Michigan Public Health Institute, Okemos, MI, USA. ctanner@mphi.org. 5. Center for Data Management and Translational Research, Michigan Public Health Institute, 2501 Jolly Road, Suite 180, Okemos, MI, USA. ctanner@mphi.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The literature on patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) and patient experience is somewhat mixed. Government and private payers are promoting multi-payer PCMH initiatives to align requirements and resources and to enhance practice transformation outcomes. To this end, the multipayer Michigan Primary Care Transformation (MiPCT) demonstration project was carried out. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the PCMH is associated with a better patient experience, and whether a mature, multi-payer PCMH demonstration is associated with even further improvement in the patient experience. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional comparison of adults attributed to MiPCT PCMH, non-participating PCMH, and non-PCMH practices, statistically controlling for potential confounders, and conducted among both general and high-risk patient samples. PARTICIPANTS: Responses came from 3893 patients in the general population and 4605 in the high-risk population (response rates of 31.8% and 34.1%, respectively). MAIN MEASURES: The Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey, with PCMH supplemental questions, was administered in January and February 2015. KEY RESULTS: MiPCT general and high-risk patients reported a significantly better experience than non-PCMH patients in most domains. Adjusted mean differences were as follows: access (0.35**, 0.36***), communication (0.19*, 0.18*), and coordination (0.33**, 0.35***), respectively (on a 10-point scale, with significance indicated by: *= p<0.05, **= p<0.01, and ***= p<0.001). Adjusted mean differences in overall provider ratings were not significant. Global odds ratios were significant for the domains of self-management support (1.38**, 1.41***) and comprehensiveness (1.67***, 1.61***). Non-participating PCMH ratings fell between MiPCT and non-PCMH across all domains and populations, sometimes attaining statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: PCMH practices have more positive patient experiences across domains characteristic of advanced primary care. A mature multi-payer model has the strongest, most consistent association with a better patient experience, pointing to the need to provide consistent expectations, resources, and time for practice transformation. Our results held for a general population and a high-risk population which has much more contact with the healthcare system.
BACKGROUND: The literature on patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) and patient experience is somewhat mixed. Government and private payers are promoting multi-payer PCMH initiatives to align requirements and resources and to enhance practice transformation outcomes. To this end, the multipayer Michigan Primary Care Transformation (MiPCT) demonstration project was carried out. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the PCMH is associated with a better patient experience, and whether a mature, multi-payer PCMH demonstration is associated with even further improvement in the patient experience. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional comparison of adults attributed to MiPCT PCMH, non-participating PCMH, and non-PCMH practices, statistically controlling for potential confounders, and conducted among both general and high-risk patient samples. PARTICIPANTS: Responses came from 3893 patients in the general population and 4605 in the high-risk population (response rates of 31.8% and 34.1%, respectively). MAIN MEASURES: The Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey, with PCMH supplemental questions, was administered in January and February 2015. KEY RESULTS: MiPCT general and high-risk patients reported a significantly better experience than non-PCMH patients in most domains. Adjusted mean differences were as follows: access (0.35**, 0.36***), communication (0.19*, 0.18*), and coordination (0.33**, 0.35***), respectively (on a 10-point scale, with significance indicated by: *= p<0.05, **= p<0.01, and ***= p<0.001). Adjusted mean differences in overall provider ratings were not significant. Global odds ratios were significant for the domains of self-management support (1.38**, 1.41***) and comprehensiveness (1.67***, 1.61***). Non-participating PCMH ratings fell between MiPCT and non-PCMH across all domains and populations, sometimes attaining statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: PCMH practices have more positive patient experiences across domains characteristic of advanced primary care. A mature multi-payer model has the strongest, most consistent association with a better patient experience, pointing to the need to provide consistent expectations, resources, and time for practice transformation. Our results held for a general population and a high-risk population which has much more contact with the healthcare system.
Entities:
Keywords:
CAHPS; PCMH; multi-payer; patient experience; primary care
Authors: Carlos Roberto Jaén; Robert L Ferrer; William L Miller; Raymond F Palmer; Robert Wood; Marivel Davila; Elizabeth E Stewart; Benjamin F Crabtree; Paul A Nutting; Kurt C Stange Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2010 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Ann Annis Emeott; Amanda Markovitz; Margaret H Mason; Lisa Rajt; David A Share; Michael Paustian; Darline El Reda Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jeffrey A Alexander; Michael Paustian; Christopher G Wise; Lee A Green; Michael D Fetters; Margaret Mason; Darline K El Reda Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
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
Authors: Sarah Hudson Scholle; Oanh Vuong; Lin Ding; Stephanie Fry; Patricia Gallagher; Julie A Brown; Ron D Hays; Paul D Cleary Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.983
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: Mimaika Luluina Ginting; Chek Hooi Wong; Zoe Zon Be Lim; Robin Wai Munn Choo; Sheena Camilla Hirose Carlsen; Grace Sum; Hubertus Johannes Maria Vrijhoef Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 4.614