Clark A Veet1, Thomas R Radomski2, Christopher D'Avella3, Inmaculada Hernandez4, Charles Wessel5, Elizabeth C S Swart6, William H Shrank7, Natasha Parekh8. 1. Department of Medicine Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. veetca@upmc.edu. 2. Department of Medicine Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. Health Sciences Library System, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 6. UPMC Center for High-Value Healthcare, UPMC Insurance Services Division, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 7. Humana, Louisville, KY, USA. 8. The Queen's Health System, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As healthcare reimbursement shifts from being volume to value-focused, new delivery models aim to coordinate care and improve quality. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model is one such model that aims to deliver coordinated, accessible healthcare to improve outcomes and decrease costs. It is unclear how the types of delivery systems in which PCMHs operate differentially impact outcomes. We aim to describe economic, utilization, quality, clinical, and patient satisfaction outcomes resulting from PCMH interventions operating within integrated delivery and finance systems (IDFS), government systems including Veterans Administration, and non-integrated delivery systems. METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase from 2004 to 2017. Observational studies and clinical trials occurring within the USA that met PCMH criteria (as defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), addressed ambulatory adults, and reported utilization, economic, clinical, processes and quality of care, or patient satisfaction outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies were included. Twenty-four percent were within IDFS, 29% were within government systems, and 47% were within non-IDFS. IDFS studies reported decreased emergency department use, primary care use, and cost relative to other systems after PCMH implementation. Government systems reported increased primary care use relative to other systems after PCMH implementation. Clinical outcomes, processes and quality of care, and patient satisfaction were assessed heterogeneously or infrequently. DISCUSSION: Published articles assessing PCMH interventions generally report improved outcomes related to utilization and cost. IDFS and government systems exhibit different outcomes relative to non-integrated systems, demonstrating that different health systems and populations may be particularly sensitive to PCMH interventions. Both the definition of PCMH interventions and outcomes measured are heterogeneous, limiting the ability to perform direct comparisons or meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND: As healthcare reimbursement shifts from being volume to value-focused, new delivery models aim to coordinate care and improve quality. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model is one such model that aims to deliver coordinated, accessible healthcare to improve outcomes and decrease costs. It is unclear how the types of delivery systems in which PCMHs operate differentially impact outcomes. We aim to describe economic, utilization, quality, clinical, and patient satisfaction outcomes resulting from PCMH interventions operating within integrated delivery and finance systems (IDFS), government systems including Veterans Administration, and non-integrated delivery systems. METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase from 2004 to 2017. Observational studies and clinical trials occurring within the USA that met PCMH criteria (as defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), addressed ambulatory adults, and reported utilization, economic, clinical, processes and quality of care, or patient satisfaction outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies were included. Twenty-four percent were within IDFS, 29% were within government systems, and 47% were within non-IDFS. IDFS studies reported decreased emergency department use, primary care use, and cost relative to other systems after PCMH implementation. Government systems reported increased primary care use relative to other systems after PCMH implementation. Clinical outcomes, processes and quality of care, and patient satisfaction were assessed heterogeneously or infrequently. DISCUSSION: Published articles assessing PCMH interventions generally report improved outcomes related to utilization and cost. IDFS and government systems exhibit different outcomes relative to non-integrated systems, demonstrating that different health systems and populations may be particularly sensitive to PCMH interventions. Both the definition of PCMH interventions and outcomes measured are heterogeneous, limiting the ability to perform direct comparisons or meta-analysis.
Entities:
Keywords:
health system science; healthcare delivery models; patient-centered medical home
Authors: J Emilio Carrillo; Victor A Carrillo; Robert Guimento; Jaclyn Mucaria; Joan Leiman Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: David B Bekelman; Mary E Plomondon; Evan P Carey; Mark D Sullivan; Karin M Nelson; Brack Hattler; Connor F McBryde; Kenneth G Lehmann; Katherine Gianola; Paul A Heidenreich; John S Rumsfeld Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Michael K Magill; David Ehrenberger; Debra L Scammon; Julie Day; Tatiana Allen; Andreu J Reall; Rhonda W Sides; Jaewhan Kim Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Michael L Paustian; Jeffrey A Alexander; Darline K El Reda; Chris G Wise; Lee A Green; Michael D Fetters Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2013-07-05 Impact factor: 3.402
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: Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Laura Mae Baldwin; Leah Tuzzio; Sheryl Catz; Alison Cole; Sally W Vernon Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2016 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Leonie Heyworth; Asaf Bitton; Stuart R Lipsitz; Thad Schilling; Gordon D Schiff; David W Bates; Steven R Simon Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2014 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Jillian B Harvey; Jocelyn Vanderbrink; Yasmin Mahmud; Erin Kitt-Lewis; Laura Wolf; Bethany Shaw; M Susan Ridgely; Cheryl L Damberg; Dennis P Scanlon Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Brittany N Hand; Daniel Gilmore; Daniel L Coury; Amy R Darragh; Susan Moffatt-Bruce; Christopher Hanks; Jennifer H Garvin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Susan E Stockdale; Marian L Katz; Alicia A Bergman; Donna M Zulman; Angela Denietolis; Evelyn T Chang Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: James Rufus John; Hir Jani; Kath Peters; Kingsley Agho; W Kathy Tannous Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 3.390