Development and Psychometric Analysis of the Revised Patient Perceptions of Integrated Care Survey.

This article describes the development and psychometric testing of the Patient Perceptions of Integrated Care (PPIC 2.1) survey, which we administered to 12,364 Medicare beneficiaries who received treatment from 150 randomly selected physician organizations, receiving 3,067 responses (26%). Psychometric analyses, performed using two methods to adjust for respondent inherent optimism (as a measure of response tendency), supported a 6-factor, 22-item model with excellent fit. These factors were (1) Staff Knowledge about the Patient's Medical History, (2) Provider Support for the Patient's Self-Directed Care, (3) Test Result Communication, (4) Provider Knowledge of the Patient, (5) Provider Support for Medication Adherence and Home Health Management, and (6) Specialist Knowledge about the Patient's Medical History. Per Spearman-Brown prophesy calculations, reliability would exceed 0.7 for all factors at 33 or more responses per organization. The PPIC 2.1 survey can distinguish six dimensions of integrated patient care with high physician organization-level reliability at reasonable sample sizes.

Anesthesia Service Use and the Uptake of Screening Colonoscopies.

BACKGROUND: The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently defined "screening colonoscopy" to include separately furnished anesthesia services. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between anesthesia service use and the uptake of screening colonoscopies. STUDY DESIGN: We correlated metropolitan statistical area (MSA) level anesthesia service use rates, derived from the 2008, 2010, and 2012 Medicare and MarketScan claims data, with the presence of individual level guideline concordant screening colonoscopy using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data for the same years. MEASURES: Proportion of colonoscopies with anesthesia service was calculated at the MSA level. A guideline concordant screening colonoscopy was defined as a colonoscopy received within the past 10 years. RESULTS: The average MSA level anesthesia service use rate in colonoscopy significantly increased from 25.34% in 2008 to 44.25% in 2012; but only a moderate increase in the rate of guideline concordant colonoscopies was observed, from 57.36% in 2008 to 65.32% in 2012. After adjusting for patient characteristics, we found a nonsignificant negative association between anesthesia service use rate and colonoscopy screening rate, with an odds ratio of 0.90 for receiving a guideline concordant colonoscopy for each percentage point increase in anesthesia service use rate (P=0.27). The relationship between anesthesia service use and the overall colorectal cancer screening rate followed the same pattern and was also not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: No significant association between anesthesia service use and colonoscopy screening or colorectal cancer screening rates was found, suggesting that more evidence is needed to support the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule change.

Resources and Capabilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Provide Timely and Accessible Care to Veterans.

The Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 addressed the need for access to timely, high-quality health care for veterans. Section 201 of the legislation called for an independent assessment of various aspects of veterans' health care. The RAND Corporation was tasked with an assessment of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) current and projected health care capabilities and resources. An examination of data from a variety of sources, along with a survey of VA medical facility leaders, revealed the breadth and depth of VA resources and capabilities: fiscal resources, workforce and human resources, physical infrastructure, interorganizational relationships, and information resources. The assessment identified barriers to the effective use of these resources and capabilities. Analysis of data on access to VA care and the quality of that care showed that almost all veterans live within 40 miles of a VA health facility, but fewer have access to VA specialty care. Veterans usually receive care within 14 days of their desired appointment date, but wait times vary considerably across VA facilities. VA has long played a national leadership role in measuring the quality of health care. The assessment showed that VA health care quality was as good or better on most measures compared with other health systems, but quality performance lagged at some VA facilities. VA will require more resources and capabilities to meet a projected increase in veterans' demand for VA care over the next five years. Options for increasing capacity include accelerated hiring, full nurse practice authority, and expanded use of telehealth.

Quantitative Evaluation of the Impact of the Healthy Communities Initiative in Cincinnati.

Metropolitan Cincinnati residents have traditionally had among the highest health care costs in the United States, yet little evidence exists that residents are getting their money's worth, especially in terms of preventive and primary care. Recently, large employers, health plans, and health care providers in the Cincinnati area joined with community organizations in an effort to improve health care and population health, as well as reduce health care costs by focusing on five priority areas: coordinated primary care, health information exchange, quality improvement, public reporting and consumer engagement, and payment innovations. Spearheaded by General Electric (GE) Cincinnati, the resulting Healthy Communities Initiative in Cincinnati was implemented in 2009. In 2012, GE asked RAND Health Advisory Services to assess progress over the first three years of the initiative. Overall, the findings were largely inconclusive because of a concomitant marketwide shift to high-deductible health policies (which are known to have profound effects on care-seeking behavior) and the early stage of the intervention. However, there were some encouraging signs that better care coordination bears fruit, such as less illness-related work loss and fewer avoidable hospital admissions and readmissions. These early impacts suggest that the initiative may succeed in improving care, lowering cost, and improving health status if given sufficient time.

Effects of Health Care Payment Models on Physician Practice in the United States.

The project reported here, sponsored by the American Medical Association (AMA), aimed to describe the effects that alternative health care payment models (i.e., models other than fee-for-service payment) have on physicians and physician practices in the United States. These payment models included capitation, episode-based and bundled payment, shared savings, pay for performance, and retainer-based practice. Accountable care organizations and medical homes, which are two recently expanding practice and organizational models that frequently participate in one or more of these alternative payment models, were also included. Project findings are intended to help guide efforts by the AMA and other stakeholders to make improvements to current and future alternative payment programs and help physician practices succeed in these new payment models-i.e., to help practices simultaneously improve patient care, preserve or enhance physician professional satisfaction, satisfy multiple external stakeholders, and maintain economic viability as businesses. The article provides both findings and recommendations.

Specialty Payment Model Opportunities and Assessment: Gastroenterology and Cardiology Model Design Report.

Gastroenterology and cardiology services are common and costly among Medicare beneficiaries. Episode-based payment, which aims to create incentives for high-quality, low-cost care, has been identified as a promising alternative payment model. This article describes research related to the design of episode-based payment models for ambulatory gastroenterology and cardiology services for possible testing by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The authors analyzed Medicare claims data to describe the frequency and characteristics of gastroenterology and cardiology index procedures, the practices that delivered index procedures, and the patients that received index procedures. The results of these analyses can help inform CMS decisions about the definition of episodes in an episode-based payment model; payment adjustments for service setting, multiple procedures, or other factors; and eligibility for the payment model.

Specialty Payment Model Opportunities and Assessment: Oncology Model Design Report.

This article describes research related to the design of a payment model for specialty oncology services for possible testing by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Cancer is a common and costly condition. Episode-based payment, which aims to create incentives for high-quality, low-cost care, has been identified as a promising alternative payment model for oncology care. Episode-based payment systems can provide flexibility to health care providers to select among the most effective and efficient treatment alternatives, including activities that are not currently reimbursed under Medicare payment policies. However, the model design also needs to ensure that high-quality care is delivered and that beneficial treatments are not withheld from patients. CMS asked MITRE and RAND to conduct analyses to inform design decisions related to an episode-based oncology model for Medicare beneficiaries undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer. In particular, this study focuses on analyses of Medicare claims data related to the definition of the initiation of an episode of chemotherapy, patterns of spending during and surrounding episodes of chemotherapy, and attribution of episodes of chemotherapy to physician practices. We found that the time between the primary cancer diagnosis and chemotherapy initiation varied widely across patients, ranging from one day to over seven years, with a median of 2.4 months. The average level of total monthly payments varied considerably across cancers, with the highest spending peak of $9,972 for lymphoma, and peaks of $3,109 for breast cancer and $2,135 for prostate cancer.