David J Meyers1, Alyna T Chien2, Kevin H Nguyen1, Zhonghe Li3, Sara J Singer4, Meredith B Rosenthal3. 1. Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Abstract
Importance: Empirical study findings to date are mixed on the association between team-based primary care initiatives and health care use and costs for Medicaid and commercially insured patients, especially those with multiple chronic conditions. Objective: To evaluate the association of establishing team-based primary care with patient health care use and costs. Design, Setting, and Participants: We used difference-in-differences to compare preutilization and postutilization rates between intervention and comparison practices with inverse probability weighting to balance observable differences. We fit a linear model using generalized estimating equations to adjust for clustering at 18 academically affiliated primary care practices in the Boston, Massachusetts, area between 2011 and 2015. The study included 83 953 patients accounting for 138 113 patient-years across 18 intervention practices and 238 455 patients accounting for 401 573 patient-years across 76 comparison practices. Data were analyzed between April and August 2018. Exposures: Practices participated in a 4-year learning collaborative that created and supported team-based primary care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outpatient visits, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations, ambulatory care-sensitive emergency department visits, and total costs of care. Results: Of 322 408 participants, 176 259 (54.7%) were female; 64 030 (19.9%) were younger than 18 years and 258 378 (80.1%) were age 19 to 64 years. Intervention practices had fewer participants, with 2 or more chronic conditions (n = 51 155 [37.0%] vs n = 186 954 [46.6%]), more participants younger than 18 years (n = 337 931 [27.5%] vs n = 74 691 [18.6%]), higher Medicaid enrollment (n = 39 541 [28.6%] vs n = 81 417 [20.3%]), and similar sex distributions (75 023 women [54.4%] vs 220 097 women [54.8%]); however, after inverse probability weighting, observable patient characteristics were well balanced. Intervention practices had higher utilization in the preperiod. Patients in intervention practices experienced a 7.4% increase in annual outpatient visits relative to baseline (95% CI, 3.5%-11.3%; P < .001) after adjusting for patient age, sex, comorbidity, zip code level sociodemographic characteristics, clinician characteristics, and plan fixed effects. In a subsample of patients with 2 or more chronic conditions, there was a statistically significant 18.6% reduction in hospitalizations (95% CI, 1.5%-33.0%; P = .03), 25.2% reduction in emergency department visits (95% CI, 6.6%-44.0%; P = .007), and a 36.7% reduction in ambulatory care-sensitive emergency department visits (95% CI, 9.2%-64.0%; P = .009). Among patients with less than 2 comorbidities, there was an increase in outpatient visits (9.2%; 95% CI, 5.10%-13.10%; P < .001), hospitalizations (36.2%; 95% CI, 12.2-566.6; P = .003), and ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations (50.6%; 95% CI, 7.1%-329.2%; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: While establishing team-based care was not associated with differences in the full patient sample, there were substantial reductions in utilization among a subset of chronically ill patients. Team-based care practice transformation in primary care settings may be a valuable tool in improving the care of sicker patients, thereby reducing avoidable use; however, it may lead to greater use among healthier patients.
Importance: Empirical study findings to date are mixed on the association between team-based primary care initiatives and health care use and costs for Medicaid and commercially insured patients, especially those with multiple chronic conditions. Objective: To evaluate the association of establishing team-based primary care with patient health care use and costs. Design, Setting, and Participants: We used difference-in-differences to compare preutilization and postutilization rates between intervention and comparison practices with inverse probability weighting to balance observable differences. We fit a linear model using generalized estimating equations to adjust for clustering at 18 academically affiliated primary care practices in the Boston, Massachusetts, area between 2011 and 2015. The study included 83 953 patients accounting for 138 113 patient-years across 18 intervention practices and 238 455 patients accounting for 401 573 patient-years across 76 comparison practices. Data were analyzed between April and August 2018. Exposures: Practices participated in a 4-year learning collaborative that created and supported team-based primary care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outpatient visits, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations, ambulatory care-sensitive emergency department visits, and total costs of care. Results: Of 322 408 participants, 176 259 (54.7%) were female; 64 030 (19.9%) were younger than 18 years and 258 378 (80.1%) were age 19 to 64 years. Intervention practices had fewer participants, with 2 or more chronic conditions (n = 51 155 [37.0%] vs n = 186 954 [46.6%]), more participants younger than 18 years (n = 337 931 [27.5%] vs n = 74 691 [18.6%]), higher Medicaid enrollment (n = 39 541 [28.6%] vs n = 81 417 [20.3%]), and similar sex distributions (75 023 women [54.4%] vs 220 097 women [54.8%]); however, after inverse probability weighting, observable patient characteristics were well balanced. Intervention practices had higher utilization in the preperiod. Patients in intervention practices experienced a 7.4% increase in annual outpatient visits relative to baseline (95% CI, 3.5%-11.3%; P < .001) after adjusting for patient age, sex, comorbidity, zip code level sociodemographic characteristics, clinician characteristics, and plan fixed effects. In a subsample of patients with 2 or more chronic conditions, there was a statistically significant 18.6% reduction in hospitalizations (95% CI, 1.5%-33.0%; P = .03), 25.2% reduction in emergency department visits (95% CI, 6.6%-44.0%; P = .007), and a 36.7% reduction in ambulatory care-sensitive emergency department visits (95% CI, 9.2%-64.0%; P = .009). Among patients with less than 2 comorbidities, there was an increase in outpatient visits (9.2%; 95% CI, 5.10%-13.10%; P < .001), hospitalizations (36.2%; 95% CI, 12.2-566.6; P = .003), and ambulatory care-sensitive hospitalizations (50.6%; 95% CI, 7.1%-329.2%; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: While establishing team-based care was not associated with differences in the full patient sample, there were substantial reductions in utilization among a subset of chronically ill patients. Team-based care practice transformation in primary care settings may be a valuable tool in improving the care of sicker patients, thereby reducing avoidable use; however, it may lead to greater use among healthier patients.
Authors: Meredith B Rosenthal; Howard B Beckman; Deb Dauser Forrest; Elbert S Huang; Bruce E Landon; Sarah Lewis Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2010-06-02 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Alyna T Chien; Michael Anne Kyle; Antoinette S Peters; Kevin H Nguyen; Shalini A Tendulkar; Molly Ryan; Karen Hacker; Sara J Singer Journal: J Ambul Care Manage Date: 2018 Apr/Jun
Authors: Brenda Reiss-Brennan; Kimberly D Brunisholz; Carter Dredge; Pascal Briot; Kyle Grazier; Adam Wilcox; Lucy Savitz; Brent James Journal: JAMA Date: 2016 Aug 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Asaf Bitton; Andrew Ellner; Erika Pabo; Somava Stout; Jonathan R Sugarman; Cory Sevin; Kristen Goodell; Jill S Bassett; Russell S Phillips Journal: Acad Med Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Julia Raifman; Kristen Nocka; Omar Galárraga; Ira B Wilson; Christina Crowley; Jun Tao; Siena Napoleon; Theodore Marak; Philip A Chan Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: David J Meyers; Megan B Cole; Momotazur Rahman; Yoojin Lee; William Rogers; Roee Gutman; Ira B Wilson Journal: AIDS Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Alyna T Chien; JoAnna Leyenaar; Marisa Tomaino; Steven Woloshin; Lindsey Leininger; Erin R Barnett; Jennifer L McLaren; Ellen Meara Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2022 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Leah Tuzzio; Andrew L Berry; Kathy Gleason; Jennifer Barrow; Elizabeth A Bayliss; Marlaine Figueroa Gray; Thomas Delate; Zoe Bermet; Connie S Uratsu; Richard W Grant; James D Ralston Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 3.734