An Update on the Evidence of the Impact of the Patient Centered Medical Home on Cost and Quality: Of Soup and Weather Vanes

In its work with a variety of payer and provider customers, the Population Health Blog has advised that primary care medical home planning is more "soup" than "soufflé," and that outcomes are more a matter of direction than preciseness.  Naturally, the MBA-types that populate and advise the C-suites and Boards of our health institutions never liked hearing that, preferring instead to impose their notions of cookbook orderliness on what they disdain as inefficient.

Bunk.

Anyone who has had an underinsured patient in crisis in their clinic at 4 in the afternoon knows what the PHB is talking about.

Which is why the trained professionals who actually take care of primary care patients will find a lot to agree with in the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative's report on the Patient Centered Medical Home's Impact on Cost and Quality. 

This is a summary of the 30 recent peer-reviewed, state, industry or federal publications examining medical homes' impact on cost, utilization or quality.  There are pages of tables that conveniently describe the initiatives, the payment methodology, their impact on cost/utilization (mostly good), and the impact on other outcomes (mostly good).  To the PCPCC's credit, the review is free of the trade association-style framing that can obscure neutral assessments of the data; it even includes an entire section dedicated to study limitations.  Good for them.

Two PHB Insights

   

Soup: While often portrayed as a caveat, one of the major insights of the report is that the PCMH is best thought of as a "model" of care defined by a set of "attributes" that include patient-centeredness, comprehensiveness, coordination of care, accessibility and quality/safety.  Do right by adapting those principles into a clinic and, to paraphrase Justice Stewart, you'll know it when you see it.  Turning to the "soup" analogy, if it's liquid, there's stock, the ingredients are softened and the flavors have been extracted into a broth, you've got something that will satisfy. 

Let a thousand medical home clinics bloom.

Direction: Another major point of the review is that outcomes vary considerably, and not just in terms of dollar impacts, but on various measures of utilization and outcomes.  The insight here is that the "directionality" of this model of care is "pointing" toward lower overall costs with better clinical outcomes.  Unfortunately for administrators and insurers everywhere, the answer to "how much" is that "it depends." 

Fortunately for patients, the wind is blowing in the right direction

There are some other interesting take-aways. 

As "alternative payment models" (reminding the PHB to also use acronym "APMs" whenever possible) expand, the funding for PCMHs is likely to grow. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (another acronym "MACRA") has fans in the PCMH community. 

$4.90 per patient per month is an average payment for medical home services, with dollar add-ons possible from various measures of performance, shared savings, care coordination, pre-payment and risk adjustment (see above on how "it depends"). 

Multi-payer collaboration convening commercial and government payers is more likely to have an impact on PCMH outcomes than single payer programs. Based on experience, this reminds the PHB of a similarity between the PHB spouse and Medicare: compromise is always possible so long as you do it her way.

Next Steps

The PHB couldn't have said it better.  Advocates for the PCMH need to continue to share their design and outcomes in the public square so that everyone can better understand its strengths as well as weaknesses and to make this soup even better.  As the report concludes

"Investment (ROI) or “total cost of care” research is needed that assesses the costs associated with PCMH transformation (or “upstream” spending) that results in “downstream” savings, through reduced ER visits or hospitalizations. This would demonstrate the extent to which spending on primary care results in long term ROI to the overall health system."

"As in past years, there was a dearth of studies that evaluated cost or utilization measures together with patient experience or provider satisfaction and health outcomes, essential elements of the Triple Aim. As we evaluate cost outcomes associated with the model, we must increasingly evaluate the model as a whole to ensure that cost savings and better patient care go hand in hand."

Soup and vane images are from Wikipedia

The Patient Centered Medical Home, Medicare's Comprehensive Primary Care Intiative and Cost Neutrality

Like this, but with snow

Oh my, he was really angry.

Back when the teenage Population Health Blog was living in New York, our family had a small garden tractor that was outfitted with a snowplow. After a particularly heavy snowfall, the PHB's father assigned the son the task of clearing the driveway. When the obliging PHB ran out of space to push the snow, its solution was to eschew use of a shovel and ram piles of snow outward by repeatedly backing up and accelerating forward in 4th gear. Teenage cries of "ramming speed!" seemed like a good idea at the time, but it really mangled the metal struts that held the plow to the front end of the tractor.

In economic terms, any savings the father achieved in outsourcing the snow removal was chewed up by hours of do-it-yourself blacksmithing that weekend. The driveway may have been cleared, but to the PHB father, the entire transaction ultimately ended up being a cost neutral bust.

Which brings CMS' Comprehensive Primary Care ("CPC") Initiative to mind. Thanks to the just-concluded Medical Home Summit, the PHB got to hear one of the authors of a CPC deep-dive analysis speak to the initiative's first-year findings.

 The entire report can be found here.

Very briefly, by October of 2012, CMS got Medicaid and 29 commercial health insurers to agree to ALL align and have everyone - including Medicare - to pay participating primary care sites a fee for Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) style care management.

 The rationale for this arrangement was to spare the clinics from having to offer the PCMH to only some of their patients. By imposing a "critical mass of payers" all patients had equal access to the same benefit.  That meant that practices wouldn't have to deal with the variations of different payer-dependent work flows and payment structures.

More than 500 practices (with an average of 4.4 providers) serving more than 2.5 million patients in 7 Medicare regions agreed to participate. In order to do that, the practices had to demonstrate that they had met meaningful-use criteria for their electronic health records (EHRs), had been officially recognized as a PCMH and had experience in quality improvement.

Once they were in the CPC, they were not only paid additional care management fees by CMS, but received quarterly feedback reports and technical assistance in achieving CMS mandated "milestones" (they can be found on page 84)  Over the course of the first year, practices received a median of $226,000 in care management fees.

At the end of one year, compared to propensity-matched non-CPC practices, CMS averaged $20 per beneficiary per month in care management fees.  They saved $14 per beneficiary per month in claims expense.  Compared to the non-participating sites, that $6 in additional cost did not achieve statistical significance.  Because the confidence intervals crossed $0, the conclusion was that CPC was cost neutral (the results can be found on page 120).  Some of the regions had statistically significant savings, while other regions had statistically significant losses.

The PHB's take:

Good thing the PHB father isn't in charge. 

This isn't the transformative PCMH break-through, and if CMS is looking to bend the cost curve, these one year results suggest Ms. Burwell et al are going to have to look elsewhere.

That being said, it's possible that years 2, 3 and 4 will show savings.  Even if that's true, the PHB wishes CMS and the health system "good luck" in being able to execute anything outside of fiscal year blocks of time.  We'll see.

The good news? The PHB suspects that the participating primary care sites ended up in the black.  They had already absorbed the costs of their EHRs and becoming PCMHs prior to the start of the initiative, so most of their $226,000 probably flowed right to their bottom lines.

As an aside, some of the $14 PBPM savings were attributed to a reduction in 30-day readmissions.  As the PHB understands it, CMS already has a methodology to claw that cost back from the health care system.  If that's true, the PCMH readmission savings are being double counted.

Image from Wikipedia

Health Policy Insights from the Medical Home Summit: Wellness, ACOs

The Opening Ceremony of
The Medical Home Summit

The Population Health Blog is back home after attending the intellectually rewarding Population Health Colloquium and Medical Home Summit.  It was great to reconnect with old colleagues and make new friends.

In no particular order, here are some PHB take-aways:

One representative from household-name health insurer spoke in a lofty plenary session on the merits of keeping patients healthy. While the PHB was inspired by the videos of device-wearing joggers, it all seemed eerily reminiscent of the wacky pharmaceutical company value-propositions from years ago. That's when these companies said that they weren't selling "pills" but "cures."  It remains to be seen if Humana's transition from pooling risk to promoting fitness will lead to a similarly unprofitable ending.

More than one smart policymaker expressed skepticism on-stage about the ability of Accountable Care Organizations to reduce costs or increase quality. Wow. The PHB suspects more ACO shoes are getting ready to drop inside the beltway. If that's correct, it seems the expert-class is not only reducing their exposure to the coming stinkbombs, but is retooling to get in on The Next Big Idea gravy train.

One compelling speaker suggested that truly "patient-centric" primary care medical homes should offer timely access, the ability to talk to the doctor by phone at any time and attentiveness to the social dimensions of their patients' needs while richly rewarding docs to provide high-value care to fewer patients.  When the PHB mused out loud that may be what precisely what Concierge/Direct Primary Care practices are doing, the reaction of the audience prompted momentary concern that it might get lynched. 

The looming repeal of the SGR was mentioned only in passing, suggesting that few believe that this latest legislative fix portends a renewed commitment to health care reform.  As the PHB understands it, the current proposal commits Medicare to a .5% increase in physician fees per year over the next five years. This reminds the PHB of a compromise it made when the Spouse countered that a loaded SUV was a better option than a loaded sedan.  We got the loaded SUV.

And the EHR wasn't mentioned at all, which kept the PHB from offering its novel twist on Ms. Clinton's Emailgate tempest. It's clear that the Secretary reasonably concluded that her State Department's email system was unable to meet her personal workflow electronic communication and documentation needs. Our nation's EHR-using physicians feel her pain and salute her for her approach to finding a workable solution. After the American Medical Association gives her a suitable award, they should ask her if they can expect that same commitment to innovative health information technology solutions when she wins the White House.

Image from Wikipedia
         

Health Care Cost Insights and Capitation for the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH)

The Population Health Blog finally caught up with the Oct 22/29 "Price, Cost and Competition" issue of JAMA. 

One of the more interesting articles was a Viewpoint editorial on the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH). After tut-tuting fee-for-service payment as antithetical to meaningful payment reform, the author admits what the PHB has been saying all along: a global payment that covers all the medical, coordinating as well as non-physician services of the PCMH is tantamount to old fashioned "capitation." As we learned in the 1990s, capitation's unintended consequences are a) signing up too many patients, b) limiting access to primary care and c) over-referring to specialists.  To counter that, the editorial's author suggests the PCMH movement seeks "accountability." 

We'll see about that.

In the meantime, some other interesting articles:

Are "for-profit" hospitals evil?  Not necessarily.....

237 hospitals that converted from not-for-profit to for-profit anytime between 2003 and 2010 were compared to 631 hospitals that had not converted.  Converting hospitals improved their financial margins (practically all were in the red and subsequently became break-even) vs. the comparison group, and did so without increased utilization, restricting access to care, higher death rates or declines in quality for their Medicare patients. Their path to profitability may have been lined by renegotiated commercial insurance contracts, cutting costs or moving non-performing assets off the balance sheet.

Can physician groups become monopolistic? In a word, yes.

Commercial insurance preferred provider organization (PPO) charges for ten types of physician office visits in ten different specialties across 50 states were correlated with a measure of local market dominance dubbed the "Hirschman-Herfindahl Index" (more on that here).  As the HHI index increased, payments also increased, suggesting that as much as additional $3 to $12 in fees for the same services were the result of monopolistic contracting.

Monopolies aside, if docs are in charge vs. the hospitals, can they reduce health care costs?  Also yes.

This study compared average "per-patient expenditures" of physician-owned versus hospital-owned integrated medical groups and independent practice associations in California from 2009 to 2012. Among the 158 groups, 118 were owned by docs; their expenditures were over a thousand dollars less compared to hospital owned groups.  Larger physician groups had higher expenditures than the smaller ones.  More on that in a future post.

Does price transparency help patients chose to spend less?

Over 500,000 insurance plan enrollees had special on-line access to prices for medical services prior to using them.  There were over 250,000 households and of these, approximately 7500 accessed the information. Compared to households that didn't check the information, the price-shoppers seemed to choose cheaper labs (a few dollars per test) and imaging options (about a hundred dollars per test).  In looking at the data, the DMCB suspects some may have also deferred testing by choosing to use them less frequently or not at all.

The Most Interesting Man In the World Teaches the PHB about the Medical Home

The Population Health Blog isn't sure why its Twitter account was targeted by the Dos Equis ads about the exploits of "the world's most interesting man." Tweets on how "His grandmother uses his family recipes!" and "Fish fight for his bait!" tempted the PHB succumb to Twitter followership.

Which naturally prompted the debonair PHB to ponder the exploits of the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH).

To wit:

The White House wants to throw the bus under the PCMH.

Health insurers like it when the PCMH loses money.

The PCMH sues malpractice attorneys.

Ezekiel Emanuel wants be enrolled in a PCMH after he turns 75.

Biker pediatricians have tattoos that say "PCMH."

When they encounter a PCMH, actuaries stop counting.

PCMH jargon about smart device apps has led to the creation of a PMCH jargon app.

"PCMH" is how "ACO" is successfully spelled.

The most interesting man in the world is enrolled in a PCMH

The PHB invites other exploits.

Stay healthy, my friends.

The Cost-Saving Elevator-Pitch for the Patient Centered Medical Home

Ready, set, elevator, go!

Over the last year, several colleagues have asked the Population Health Blog to compactly summarize the economic return for the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH).

Here's the PHB's elevator speech: 

The PCMH comes down to two distinct - and separate - propositions:

1. "Reduce avoidable costs" by only applying the team-based care management and coordination to persons with all three of the following: a) chronic illness who b) are at high risk for future claims and c) are amenable to change.*  All three must be present. This cohort typically represents a small, but "high return potential" fraction of a population.
 
The temptation is to blanket all patients with medical home resources, which increases program as well as claims costs and does little to bend the total cost curve.  The "disease management" industry learned about "care creep" the hard way.

2. "Increase value" by enhancing quality and/or the experience of care with a modest - and relatively affordable - increases in costs. The relative increase in quality/experience is greater than the corresponding increase in program and claims costs, and represents a good deal for the health care dollar.

The temptation is to believe that quality/experience improvements lead to lower costs.  Once again, the "disease management" industry learned about this the hard way. 

* By the way, if the elevator ride is long, the PHB recommends pointing out that 1) predictive modeling/risk stratification can find the high risk persons and that 2) "change" includes modifying patient behaviors.

Image from Wikipedia

The Patient Centered Medical Home PCMH Gets On Base with Increased Quality in the Real World

Getting to first base

Advocates for the Patient Centered Medical Home will probably like what they see in the lead research article in the June 3 Annals of Internal Medicine.

The Population Health Blog likes it too.  But first, let's look at the study itself.

The Taconic Independent Practice Association participated in a multi-commercial insurer medical home program.  For each patient enrolled in an NCQA Level 3 primary care home, the IPA was offered $2 to $10 per patient per month. 

Since not all of the 675 IPA practices created medical homes in the 2008-2010 time frame, researchers were able to compare the quality of care for the approximately 27,000 patients attributed to the medical homes versus the approximately 64,000 patients attributed to usual care settings.  While they were at it, they also evaluated the quality impact of having an electronic health record (all medical home practices had one, but not all users of electronic health records were medical homes) vs. having a paper record. Quality was determined by examining a subset of NCQA-based measures of recommended routine screening tests and care of persons with diabetes, asthma and (for children) pharyngitis.

While the impact of being in a medical home was not a home run, it definitely got on base.

Over the three years of the study, the medical home practices' measures diverged from the other two groups by an average of a 7% vs. paper and 6% vs. EHR.  While none of the practices hit 100%, and not all of the differences were statistically significant, if an EHR-based clinic was able to hit (for example) a "72%" quality measure, the medical home was"79%" (mammogram screening). 

As one more gauge of its impact, as time went on, the spread of the data grew over time as medical homes outpaced the usual care practices.

The authors correctly point out that the study was observational and that there could be hidden factors other than the presence or absence of a medical home that could be biasing the data.  While the authors did everything they could to statistically "neutralize" the impact of unequally distributed patient or practice factors, the study process is not perfect.

This was also in a commercial insurance setting.  We don't know if Medicare patients would gain the same benefit.

The PHB will also point out that the NCQA's one-size-fits-all measures are intermediate in nature and are imperfectly tied to long term outcomes.  They also fail to account for patient preferences.

On the other hand, the PHB likes this because it was a huge "real world" study involving hundreds of clinical practices taking care of tens of thousands of patients over three years. It helps the PHB put things in perspective by showing that the team-based care management of the medical home can have a discernible impact on quality.

Unfortunately, there is nothing on the cost of care. The PCMH is still struggling to prove that it "saves" money; the PHB says health care consumers will get what they pay for and - aside from a selected high-risk subpopulation - the medical home offers high value at a reasonable additional cost.  The commercial insurers got their money's worth from the Taconic IPA.

While the authors don't specifically call it out, there doesn't appear to have been a large impact by the EHR on the quality of care in the real world.  Compared to practices with paper records, the impact of the EHR seemed to be scant.