Medical homes: cost effects of utilization by chronically ill patients.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of primary care practices adopting the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model is analyzed by comparing per member per month (PMPM) costs and utilization among commercial HMO members with chronic illnesses in PCMH and non-PCHM practices in the Philadelphia area. Transforming primary care practices to conform to the PCMH model has shown early promise in reducing costs and improving outcomes, and chronically ill patients' frequent contact with the healthcare system and costly care make them ideal targets for such health system reforms. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The impact of the PCMH model on PMPM costs was analyzed using a generalized linear regression model to adjust for age, gender, and baseline cost. The impact of the PCMH model on utilization per 1000 rates was analyzed with the Poisson regression model, adjusting for baseline differences in age, gender, and risk score. RESULTS: After accounting for differences at baseline, PCMH practices achieved lower total, inpatient, and specialist PMPM costs, as well as lower relative utilization of hospital admissions and specialist visits. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that policy makers should maintain or expand incentives to adopt PCMH reforms and that targeting chronically ill patients may be the most effective way to leverage the benefits of PCMH adoption.

Medical homes and cost and utilization among high-risk patients.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the effects of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model on medical costs and utilization in the nonpediatric population, particularly among high-risk patients. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal case-control design, comparing per member per month (PMPM) cost and utilization per 1000 patients for members enrolled in PCMH and non-PCMH practices from 2009 to 2011. METHODS: Commercial health maintenance organization members in nonpediatric practices that adopted the PCMH model in 2009 were matched to patients in nonpediatric practices that did not adopt the model until 2011 or later. Propensity score matching was used to identify a pool of similar controls, and difference-in-differences regression analysis was used to compare PCMH and non-PCMH patients relative to baseline. Analysis was conducted using the complete pool of matched patients (N = 6940 cases and 6940 controls), then using the 10% of patients with the highest DxCG risk scores (N = 654 cases and 734 controls). RESULTS: There were no significant cost or utilization differences for the overall population. Total cost decreased significantly more for the PCMH group than for controls in the high-risk group in years 1 and 2 (reductions of $107 and $75 PMPM), driven by lower inpatient costs. The PCMH group experienced a significantly greater reduction in inpatient admissions in all 3 years (61, 48, and 94 hospitalizations per 1000). CONCLUSIONS: PCMH practices had significantly reduced costs and utilization for the highest risk patients, particularly with respect to inpatient care. As high-risk members represent a high-cost group, the most benefit can be gained by targeting these members.

Patient-centered medical home impact on health plan members with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare costs and utilization for patients with diabetes enrolled in patient-centered medical home (PCMH) practices and non-PCMH practices. DESIGN: Commercial Health Maintenance Organization members with diabetes who enrolled between 2008 and 2011 in 26 Pennsylvania-based PCMH practices that were recognized by the National Committee for Quality Assurance in 2009 were compared with similar patients in 97 non-PCMH primary care practices. A difference-in-differences longitudinal research design was used to analyze differences between both groups on per-member, per-month costs and utilization. The statistical models controlled for baseline practice and patient-level characteristics through 2-step propensity score matching. The regression analysis on program effect further controlled for within-practice variation. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted on patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, and a third analysis was limited to diabetic patients enrolled in practices within Philadelphia. RESULTS: Adoption of the PCMH reduced overall medical costs for diabetic patients by 21% in year 1. This reduction was driven largely by inpatient costs, which fell by 44%. Reductions in emergency department visits, outpatient costs, and specialist visits were also seen in subsequent years among patients enrolled in PCMH practices. Additional sensitivity analyses indicated that adoption of the PCMH model yielded similar results when analyzing patients with type 2 diabetes as well as for diabetic patients enrolled in PCMH practices located within the city of Philadelphia. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of care for patients with diabetes can be reduced by securing care at a PCMH practice. Immediate results were seen in reduction of inpatient costs, which indicate that these patients enrolled in PCMH practices were using less costly inpatient services.