Ashok Reddy1,2,3, Laura Sessums4, Reshma Gupta4,5,6, Janel Jin4, Tim Day4, Bruce Finke4, Asaf Bitton4,7,8,9. 1. Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation, Baltimore, Maryland reddya@uw.edu. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 3. Center for Scholarship in Patient Care Quality and Safety, University of Washington Medicine, Seattle, Washington. 4. Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. VA/Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 6. Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 7. Department of Health Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Division of General Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 9. Ariadne Labs, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Risk-stratified care management is essential to improving population health in primary care settings, but evidence is limited on the type of risk stratification method and its association with care management services. METHODS: We describe risk stratification patterns and association with care management services for primary care practices in the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative. We undertook a qualitative approach to categorize risk stratification methods being used by CPC practices and tested whether these stratification methods were associated with delivery of care management services. RESULTS: CPC practices reported using 4 primary methods to stratify risk for their patient populations: a practice-developed algorithm (n = 215), the American Academy of Family Physicians' clinical algorithm (n = 155), payer claims and electronic health records (n = 62), and clinical intuition (n = 52). CPC practices using practice-developed algorithm identified the most number of high-risk patients per primary care physician (282 patients, P = .006). CPC practices using clinical intuition had the most high-risk patients in care management and a greater proportion of high-risk patients receiving care management per primary care physician (91 patients and 48%, P =.036 and P =.128, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: CPC practices used 4 primary methods to identify high-risk patients. Although practices that developed their own algorithm identified the greatest number of high-risk patients, practices that used clinical intuition connected the greatest proportion of patients to care management services.
PURPOSE: Risk-stratified care management is essential to improving population health in primary care settings, but evidence is limited on the type of risk stratification method and its association with care management services. METHODS: We describe risk stratification patterns and association with care management services for primary care practices in the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative. We undertook a qualitative approach to categorize risk stratification methods being used by CPC practices and tested whether these stratification methods were associated with delivery of care management services. RESULTS: CPC practices reported using 4 primary methods to stratify risk for their patient populations: a practice-developed algorithm (n = 215), the American Academy of Family Physicians' clinical algorithm (n = 155), payer claims and electronic health records (n = 62), and clinical intuition (n = 52). CPC practices using practice-developed algorithm identified the most number of high-risk patients per primary care physician (282 patients, P = .006). CPC practices using clinical intuition had the most high-risk patients in care management and a greater proportion of high-risk patients receiving care management per primary care physician (91 patients and 48%, P =.036 and P =.128, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: CPC practices used 4 primary methods to identify high-risk patients. Although practices that developed their own algorithm identified the greatest number of high-risk patients, practices that used clinical intuition connected the greatest proportion of patients to care management services.
Authors: Clemens S Hong; Steven J Atlas; Jeffrey M Ashburner; Yuchiao Chang; Wei He; Timothy G Ferris; Richard W Grant Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Deborah N Peikes; Robert J Reid; Timothy J Day; Derekh D F Cornwell; Stacy B Dale; Richard J Baron; Randall S Brown; Rachel J Shapiro Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2014 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Christine Vogeli; Jenna Spirt; Richard Brand; John Hsu; Namita Mohta; Clemens Hong; Eric Weil; Timothy G Ferris Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Donna M Zulman; Steven M Asch; Susana B Martins; Eve A Kerr; Brian B Hoffman; Mary K Goldstein Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Stacy B Dale; Arkadipta Ghosh; Deborah N Peikes; Timothy J Day; Frank B Yoon; Erin Fries Taylor; Kaylyn Swankoski; Ann S O'Malley; Patrick H Conway; Rahul Rajkumar; Matthew J Press; Laura Sessums; Randall Brown Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 91.245