Health insurance coverage and experiences of intimate partner violence and postpartum abuse screening among rural US residents who gave birth 2016-2020.

PURPOSE: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is elevated among rural residents and contributes to maternal morbidity and mortality. Postpartum health insurance expansion efforts could address multiple causes of maternal morbidity and mortality, including IPV. The objective of this study was to describe the relationship between perinatal health insurance, IPV, and postpartum abuse screening among rural US residents. METHODS: Using 2016-2020 data on rural residents from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, we assessed self-report of experiencing physical violence by an intimate partner and rates of abuse screening at postpartum visits. Health insurance at childbirth and postpartum was categorized as private, Medicaid, or uninsured. We also measured insurance transitions from childbirth to postpartum (continuous private, continuous Medicaid, Medicaid to private, and Medicaid to uninsured). FINDINGS: IPV rates varied by health insurance status at childbirth, with the highest rates among Medicaid beneficiaries (7.7%), compared to those who were uninsured (1.6%) or privately insured (1.6%). When measured by insurance transitions, the highest IPV rates were reported by those with continuous Medicaid coverage (8.6%), followed by those who transitioned from Medicaid at childbirth to private insurance (5.3%) or no insurance (5.9%) postpartum. Nearly half (48.1%) of rural residents lacked postpartum abuse screening, with the highest proportion among rural residents who were uninsured at childbirth (66.1%) or postpartum (52.1%). CONCLUSION: Rural residents who are insured by Medicaid before or after childbirth are at elevated risk for IPV. Medicaid policy efforts to improve maternal health should focus on improving detection and screening for IPV among rural residents.

Advancing equity in challenging times: A qualitative study of telehealth expansion and changing patient-provider relationships in primary care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: The patient-provider relationship is critical for achieving high-quality care and better health outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care practices rapidly transitioned to telehealth. While telehealth provided critical access to services for many, not all patients could optimally utilize it, raising concerns about its potential to exacerbate inequities in patient-provider relationships. We investigated technical and workforce-related barriers to accessing telehealth and the impacts on patient-provider relationships for vulnerable populations. Methods: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews from May 2021 to August 2021 with 31 individuals (medical directors, physicians, and medical assistants) working at 20 primary care practices in Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Texas. Thematic analysis to better understand how barriers to using telehealth complicated patient-provider relationships. Results: Interviewees shared challenges for providers and patients that had a negative effect on patient-provider relationships, particularly for vulnerable patients, including older adults, lower socio-economic status patients, and those with limited English proficiency. Providers faced logistical challenges and disruptions in team-based care, reducing care coordination. Patients experienced technological challenges that made accessing and engaging in telehealth difficult. Interviewees shared challenges for patient-provider relationships as commonly used telephone-only telehealth reduced channels for non-verbal communication. Conclusion: This study indicates that barriers to virtual interaction with patients compared to in-person care likely led to weaker personal relationships that may have longer-term effects on engagement with and trust in the healthcare system, particularly among vulnerable patient groups. Additional support and resources should be available to primary care providers to optimize telehealth utilization.

Rural/urban differences in rates and predictors of intimate partner violence and abuse screening among pregnant and postpartum United States residents.

OBJECTIVE: To describe rates and predictors of perinatal intimate partner violence (IPV) and rates and predictors of not being screened for abuse among rural and urban IPV victims who gave birth. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: This analysis utilized 2016-2020 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) data from 45 states and three jurisdictions. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective, cross-sectional study using multistate survey data. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: This analysis included 201,413 survey respondents who gave birth in 2016-2020 (n = 42,193 rural and 159,220 urban respondents). We used survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression models, stratified by rural/urban residence, to estimate adjusted predicted probabilities and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for two outcomes: (1) self-reported experiences of IPV (physical violence by a current or former intimate partner) and (2) not receiving abuse screening at health care visits before, during, or after pregnancy. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Rural residents had a higher prevalence of perinatal IPV (4.6%) than urban residents (3.2%). Rural respondents who were Medicaid beneficiaries, 18-35 years old, non-Hispanic white, Hispanic (English-speaking), or American Indian/Alaska Native had significantly higher predicted probabilities of experiencing perinatal IPV compared with their urban counterparts. Among respondents who experienced perinatal IPV, predicted probabilities of not receiving abuse screening were 21.3% for rural and 16.5% for urban residents. Predicted probabilities of not being screened for abuse were elevated for rural IPV victims who were Medicaid beneficiaries, 18-24 years old, or unmarried, compared to urban IPV victims with those same characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: IPV is more common among rural birthing people, and rural IPV victims are at higher risk of not being screened for abuse compared with their urban peers. IPV prevention and support interventions are needed in rural communities and should focus on universal abuse screening during health care visits and targeted support for those at greatest risk of perinatal IPV.

Screening for and Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence in the United States Before, During, and After Pregnancy, 2016-2019.

Objectives. To measure rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) screening during the perinatal period among people experiencing physical violence in the United States. Methods. We used 2016-2019 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System data (n = 158 338) to describe the incidence of physical IPV before or during pregnancy. We then assessed the prevalence of IPV screening before, during, or after pregnancy and predictors of receiving screening among those reporting violence. Results. Among the 3.5% (n = 6259) of respondents experiencing violence, 58.7%, 26.9%, and 48.3% were not screened before, during, or after pregnancy, respectively. Those reporting Medicaid or no insurance at birth, American Indian/Alaska Native people, and Spanish-speaking Hispanic people faced increased risk of not having a health care visit during which screening might occur. Among those attending a health care visit, privately insured people, rural residents, and non-Hispanic White respondents faced increased risk of not being screened. Conclusions. Among birthing people reporting physical IPV, nearly half were not screened for IPV before or after pregnancy. Public health efforts to improve maternal health must address both access to care and universal screening for IPV. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(3):297-305. https://doi.org/10.2105/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307195).

Disentangling the Role of Health Care Systems in Producing High-Quality Care.

This Viewpoint examines in-depth 5 features of health care systems that may influence quality of care: pooled resources, centralization, standardization, interprovider coordination, and cross-practice learning.

Changes in spending and quality after ACO contract participation for dually eligible beneficiaries with mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Fragmented care and misaligned payment across Medicare and Medicaid lower care quality for dually eligible beneficiaries with mental illness. Accountable care organizations aim to improve the quality and value of care. METHODS: Using Medicare fee-for-service Part A and B claims data from 2009 to 2017 and a difference-in-differences design, we compared the spending and utilization of dually eligible beneficiaries with mental illness that were and were not attributed to Medicare ACO providers before and after ACO contract entry. RESULTS: Dually eligible beneficiaries with mental illness (N = 5,157,533, 70% depression, 22% bipolar, 27% schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders) had average annual Medicare spending of $17,899. ACO contract participation was generally not associated with spending or utilization changes. However, ACO contract participation was associated with higher rates of follow-up visits after mental health hospitalization: 1.17 and 1.30 percentage points within 7 and 30 days of discharge, respectively (p < 0.001). ACO-attributed beneficiaries with schizophrenia, bipolar, or other psychotic disorders received more ambulatory visits (393.9 per 1000 person-years, p = 0.002), while ACO-attributed beneficiaries with depression experienced fewer emergency department visits (-29.5 per 1000 person-years, p = 0.003) after ACO participation. CONCLUSIONS: Dually eligible beneficiaries served by Medicare ACOs did not have lower spending, hospitalizations, or readmissions compared with other beneficiaries. However, ACO participation was associated with timely follow-up after mental health hospitalization, as well as more ambulatory care and fewer ED visits for certain diagnostic groups. IMPLICATIONS: ACOs that include dually eligible beneficiaries with mental illness should tailor their designs to address the distinct needs of this population.

A Decade of ACOs in Medicare: Have They Delivered on Their Promise?

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) were envisioned as a way to address both health care cost growth and uneven quality in US health care. They emerged in the early 2000s, with the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) establishing a Medicare ACO program. In the decade since their launch, ACOs have grown into one of Medicare's flagship payment reform programs, with millions of beneficiaries receiving care from hundreds of ACOs. While great expectations surrounded ACOs' introduction into Medicare, their impacts to date have been modest. ACOs have achieved some savings and improvements in measured quality, but disagreement persists over the meaning of those results: Do ACOs represent important, incremental steps forward on the path toward a more efficient, high-quality health care system? Or do their modest achievements signal a failure of large-scale progress despite the substantial investments of resources? ACOs have proven to be politically resilient, largely sidestepping the controversies and partisan polarization that have led to the demise of other ACA provisions. But the same features that have enabled ACOs to evade backlash have constrained their impacts and effectiveness. After a decade, ACOs' long-term influence on Medicare and the US health care system remains uncertain.

Cross-Sector Strategic Alliances Between Health Care Organizations and Community-Based Organizations: Marrying Theory and Practice.

While it has long been established that social factors, such as housing, transportation, and income, influence health and health care outcomes, over the last decade, attention to this topic has grown dramatically. Reforms that promote high-quality care as well as responsibility for total cost of care have shifted focus among health care providers toward upstream determinants of health care outcomes. As a result, there has been a proliferation of activity focused on integrating and aligning social and medical care, many of which depend critically on cross-sector alliances. Despite considerable activity in this area, cross-sector alliances in health care remain largely undertheorized. Both literatures stand to gain from more attention to carefully knitting together the theoretical and management literature on alliances with the empirical, health policy and health services literature on cross-sector alliances in health care. In this chapter, we lay out what exists in the current scientific literature as well as a framework for considering much needed work in this area. We organize the literature and our commentary around the lifecycle of alliances: alliance formation, including factors prompting alliance formation, partner selection, and alliance goals; alliance maturity, including the work of these cross-sector alliances, governance, finance and contracts, staffing structure, and rewards; and critical crossroads, including alliance timelines, definitions of success, and dissolution. We also lay out critical areas for future inquiry, including better theorizing on cross-sector alliances, developing typologies of these cross-sector health care alliances, and the role of policy in cross-sector alliances.

Association Between Organizational Quality and Out-of-Network Primary Care Among Accountable Care Organizations That Care for High vs Low Proportions of Patients of Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups.

Importance: Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) that disproportionately care for patients of racial and ethnic minority groups deliver lower quality care than those that do not, potentially owing to differences in out-of-network primary care among them. Objective: To examine how organizational quality is associated with out-of-network primary care among ACOs that care for high vs low proportions of patients of racial and ethnic minority groups. Design Setting and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted between March 2019 and October 2021 using claims data (2013 to 2016) from a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries. Among beneficiaries who were assigned to 1 of 528 Medicare ACOs, a distinction was made between those treated by organizations that cared for high (vs low) proportions of patients of racial and ethnic minority groups. For each ACO, the amount of out-of-network primary care that it delivered annually was determined. Multivariable models were fit to evaluate how the quality of care that beneficiaries received varied by the proportion of care provided to patients of racial and ethnic minority groups by the ACO and its amount of out-of-network primary care. Exposures: The degree of care provided to patients of racial and ethnic minority groups by the ACO and its amount of out-of-network primary care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The ACO quality assessed with 5 preventive care services and 4 utilization metrics. Results: Among 3 955 951 beneficiary-years (2 320 429 [58.7%] women; 71 218 [1.8%] Asian, 267 684 [6.8%] Black, 44 059 [1.1%] Hispanic, 4922 [0.1%] North American Native, and 3 468 987 [87.7%] White individuals and 56 157 [1.4%] of Other race and ethnicity), those assigned to ACOs serving many patients of racial and ethnic minority groups at the mean level of out-of-network primary care were less likely than those assigned to ACOs serving fewer patients of racial and ethnic minority groups to receive diabetic retinal examinations (predicted probability, 49.4% [95%CI, 49.0%-49.7%] vs 51.6% [95% CI, 51.5%-51.8%]), glycated hemoglobin testing (predicted probability, 58.5% [95% CI, 58.2%-58.5%] vs 60.4% [95% CI, 60.3%-60.6%]), or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol testing (predicted probability, 85.2% [95% CI, 85.0%-85.5%] vs 86.0% [95% CI, 85.9%-86.1%]). They were also more likely to experience all-cause 30-day readmissions (predicted probability, 16.4% [95% CI, 16.1%-16.7%] vs 15.7% [95% CI, 15.6%-15.8%]). However, as the level of out-of-network primary care decreased, these gaps closed substantially, such that beneficiaries at ACOs that served many and fewer patients of racial and ethnic minority groups in the lowest percentile of out-of-network primary care received care of comparable quality. Conclusions and Relevance: This large cohort study found that quality performance among ACOs serving many patients of racial and ethnic minority groups was negatively associated with their level of out-of-network primary care.

Adoption of Patient Engagement Strategies by Physician Practices in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement strategies can equip patients with tools to navigate treatment decisions and improve patient-centered outcomes. Despite increased recognition about the importance of patient engagement, little is known about the extent of physician practice adoption of patient engagement strategies nationally. METHODS: We analyzed data collected from the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS) on physician practice adoption of patient engagement strategies. Stratified-cluster sampling was used to select physician practices operating under different organizational structures. Multivariable linear regression models estimated the association of practice ownership, health information technology functionality, use of screening activities, patient responsiveness, chronic care management processes, and the adoption of patient engagement strategies, including shared decision-making, motivational interviewing, and shared medical appointments. All regression models controlled for participation in payment reforms, practice size, Medicaid revenue percentage, and geographic region. RESULTS: We found modest and varied adoption of patient engagement strategies by practices of different ownership types, with health system-owned practices having the lowest adoption of ownership types. Practice capabilities, including chronic care management processes, routine screening of medical and social risks, and patient care dissemination strategies were associated with greater practice-level adoption of patient engagement strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This national study is the first to characterize the adoption of patient engagement strategies by US physician practices. We found modest adoption of shared decision-making and motivational interviewing, and low adoption of shared medical appointments. Risk-based payment reform has the potential to motivate greater practice-level patient engagement, but the extent to which it occurs may depend on internal practice capabilities.

Using a mixed-effect model with a parameter-space of heterogenous dimension to evaluate whether accountable care organizations are associated with greater uniformity across constituent practices.

Accountable care organization (ACO) legislation was designed to improve patient outcomes by inducing greater coordination of care and adoption of best practices. Therefore, it is of interest to assess whether greater uniformity occurs among practices comprising an ACO post ACO formation. We develop a mixed-effect model with a difference-in-difference design to evaluate the effect of a patient receiving care from an ACO on patient outcomes and adapt this model to examine whether an ACO is associated with increased uniformity across its constituent practices. The task is complicated by the organizations within an ACO forming an additional layer in the multilevel model, due to medical practices and hospitals that form an ACOs being nested within the ACO, making the number of levels of the model variable and the dimension of the parameter space time-varying. We develop the model and a procedure for testing the hypothesis that ACO formation was associated with increased uniformity among its constituent practices. We apply our procedure to a cohort of medicare beneficiaries followed over 2009-2014. Although there is extensive heterogeneity of becoming an ACOs across practices, we find that the formation of an ACO appears to be associated with greater uniformity of patient outcomes among its constituent practices.

Adoption of Patient-Reported Outcomes by Health Systems and Physician Practices in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) can help clinicians adjust treatments and deliver patient-centered care, but organizational adoption of PROs remains low. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the extent of PRO adoption among health systems and physician practices nationally and examines the organizational capabilities associated with more extensive PRO adoption. DESIGN: Two nationally representative surveys were analyzed in parallel to assess health system and physician practice capabilities associated with adoption of PROs of disability, pain, and depression. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 323 US health system and 2,190 physician practice respondents METHODS: Multivariable regression models separately estimated the association of health system and physician practice capabilities associated with system-level and practice-level adoption of PROs. MAIN MEASURES: Health system and physician practice adoption of PROs for depression, pain, and disability. KEY RESULTS: Pain (50.6%) and depression (43.8%) PROs were more commonly adopted by all hospitals and medical groups within health systems compared to disability PROs (26.5%). In adjusted analyses, systems with more advanced health IT functions were more likely to use disability (p<0.05) and depression (p<0.01) PROs than systems with less advanced health IT. Practice-level advanced health IT was positively associated with use of depression PRO (p<0.05), but not disability or pain PRO use. Practices with more chronic care management processes, broader medical and social risk screening, and more processes to support patient responsiveness were more likely to adopt each of the three PROs. Compared to independent physician practices, system-owned practices and community health centers were less likely to adopt PROs. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic care management programs, routine screening, and patient-centered care initiatives can enable PRO adoption at the practice level. Developing these practice-level capabilities may improve PRO adoption more than solely expanding health IT functions.

Configuration and Delivery of Primary Care in Rural and Urban Settings.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns about the capacity of rural primary care due to potential workforce shortages and patients with disproportionately more clinical and socioeconomic risks. Little research examines the configuration and delivery of primary care along the spectrum of rurality. OBJECTIVE: Compare structure, capabilities, and payment reform participation of isolated, small town, micropolitan, and metropolitan physician practices, and the characteristics and utilization of their Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: Observational study of practices defined using IQVIA OneKey, 2017 Medicare claims, and, for a subset, the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (response rate=47%). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 27,716,967 beneficiaries with qualifying visits who were assigned to practices. MAIN MEASURES: We characterized practices' structure, capabilities, and payment reform participation and measured beneficiary utilization by rurality. KEY RESULTS: Rural practices were smaller, more primary care dominant, and system-owned, and had more beneficiaries per practice. Beneficiaries in rural practices were more likely to be from high-poverty areas and disabled. There were few differences in patterns of outpatient utilization and practices' care delivery capabilities. Isolated and micropolitan practices reported less engagement in quality-focused payment programs than metropolitan practices. Beneficiaries cared for in more rural settings received fewer recommended mammograms and had higher overall and condition-specific readmissions. Fewer beneficiaries with diabetes in rural practices had an eye exam. Most isolated rural beneficiaries traveled to more urban communities for care. CONCLUSIONS: While most isolated Medicare beneficiaries traveled to more urban practices for outpatient care, those receiving care in rural practices had similar outpatient and inpatient utilization to urban counterparts except for readmissions and quality metrics that rely on services outside of primary care. Rural practices reported similar care capabilities to urban practices, suggesting that despite differences in workforce and demographics, rural patterns of primary care delivery are comparable to urban.

Survey of Information Exchange and Advanced Use of Other Health Information Technology in Primary Care Settings: Capabilities In and Outside of the Safety Net.

BACKGROUND: Advanced use of health information technology (IT) functionalities can support more comprehensive, coordinated, and patient-centered primary care services. Safety net practices may benefit disproportionately from these investments, but it is unclear whether IT use in these settings has kept pace and what organizational factors are associated with varying use of these features. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to estimate advanced use of health IT use in safety net versus nonsafety net primary care practices. We explore domains of patient engagement, population health management (decision support and registries), and electronic information exchange. We examine organizational characteristics that may differentially predict advanced use of IT across these settings, with a focus on health system ownership and/or membership in an independent practice network as key factors that may indicate available incentives and resources to support these efforts. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conduct cross-sectional analysis of a national survey of physician practices (n=1776). We use logistic regression to predict advanced IT use in each of our domains based on safety net status and other organizational characteristics. We then use interaction models to assess whether ownership or network membership moderate the relationship between safety net status and advanced use of health IT. RESULTS: Health IT use was common across primary care practices, but advanced use of health IT functionalities ranged only from 30% to 50% use. Safety net settings have kept pace with adoption of features for patient engagement and population management, yet lag in information exchange capabilities compared with nonsafety net practices (odds ratio=0.52 for federally qualified health centers, P<0.001; odds ratio=0.66 for other safety net, P=0.03). However, when safety net practices are members of a health system or practice network, health IT capabilities are comparable to nonsafety net sites. CONCLUSIONS: All outpatient settings would benefit from improved electronic health record usability and implementation support that facilitates advanced use of health IT. Safety net practices, particularly those without other sources of centralized support, need targeted resources to maintain equitable access to information exchange capabilities.

FQHC Designation and Safety Net Patient Revenue Associated with Primary Care Practice Capabilities for Access and Quality.

BACKGROUND: Concerns exist about the ability of safety net health care organizations to participate in US health care reform. Primary care practices are key to several efforts, but little is known about how capabilities of primary care practices serving a high share of disadvantaged patients compare to other practices. OBJECTIVE: To assess capabilities around access to and quality of care among primary care practices serving a high share of Medicaid and uninsured patients compared to practices serving a low share of these patients. DESIGN: We analyzed data from the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (response rate 46.8%), conducted 2017-2018. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2190 medical practices with at least three adult primary care physicians. MAIN MEASURES: Our key exposures are payer mix and federally qualified health center (FQHC) designation. We classified practices as safety net if they reported a combined total of at least 25% of annual revenue from uninsured or Medicaid patients; we then further classified safety net practices into those that identified as an FQHC and those that did not. KEY RESULTS: FQHCs were more likely than other safety net practices and non-safety net practices to offer early or late appointments (79%, 55%, 62%; p=0.001) and weekend appointments (56%, 39%, 42%; p=0.03). FQHCs more often provided medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorders (43%, 27%, 25%; p=0.004) and behavioral health services (82%, 50%, 36%; p<0.001). FQHCs were more likely to screen patients for social and financial needs. However, FQHCs and other safety net providers had more limited electronic health record (EHR) capabilities (61%, 71%, 80%; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: FQHCs were more likely than other types of primary care practices (both safety net practices and other practices) to possess capabilities related to access and quality. However, safety net practices were less likely than non-safety net practices to possess health information technology capabilities.

Estimating Heterogeneous Effects of a Policy Intervention across Organizations when Organization Affiliation is Missing for the Control Group: Application to the Evaluation of Accountable Care Organizations.

First introduced in early 2000s, the accountable care organization (ACO) is designed to lower health care costs while improving quality of care and has become one of the most important coordinated care technologies in the United States. In this research, we use the Medicare fee-for-service claims data from 2009-2014 to estimate the heterogeneous effects of Medicare ACO programs on hospital admissions across hospital referral regions (HRRs) and provider groups. To conduct our analysis, a model for a difference-in-difference (DID) study is embellished in multiple ways to account for intricacies and complexity with the data not able to be accounted for using existing models. Of particular note, we propose a Gaussian mixture model to account for the inability to observe the practice group affiliation of physicians if the organization they worked for did not become an ACO, which is needed to ensure appropriate partitioning of variation across the different units. The results suggest that the ACO programs reduced the rate of readmission to hospital, that the ACO program may have reduced heterogeneity in readmission rates, and that the effect of joining an ACO varied considerably across medical groups.

Avoiding Medicaid: Characteristics Of Primary Care Practices With No Medicaid Revenue.

Primary care access for Medicaid patients is an ongoing area of concern. Most studies of providers' participation in Medicaid have focused on factors associated with the Medicaid program, such as reimbursement rates. Few studies have examined the characteristics of primary care practices associated with Medicaid participation. We used a nationally representative survey of primary care practices to compare practices with no, low, and high Medicaid revenue. Seventeen percent of practices received no Medicaid revenue; 38 percent and 45 percent were categorized as receiving low and high Medicaid revenue, respectively. Practices with no Medicaid revenue were more often small, independent, and located in urban areas with higher household income. These practices also have lower population health capabilities.

Critical issues in alliances between management partners and accountable care organizations.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread engagement of accountable care organizations (ACOs) with management partners, little empirical evidence on these alliances exists to inform policymakers or payers. Management partners may be providing a valuable service in facilitating the transition to population health management. Alternately, in some cases, partners may be receiving high fees relative to the value of services provided. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to use qualitative data to identify motivations for and critical issues in alliances between ACOs and management partners. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We used qualitative data collected from seven ACOs (193 semistructured interviews and observational data from 12 site visits) to characterize the alliances between management partners and providers in ACOs. RESULTS: We found that ACOs sought partners to provide financing, technical expertise, and risk bearing. Tensions in partnerships arose around resources (e.g., delivery on promised resources), control (e.g., who holds decision making authority), and values (e.g., commitment to safety net mission). Some partnerships persisted, whereas others dissolved. We found that there are two different underlying models of ACO-management partner alliances in our sample: (1) short-term partnerships aimed at organizational learning and (2) long-term partnerships based on complementarity. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate how ACO alliances with management partners have unfolded as a kind of natural experiment in value-based payment reform. We expect that there is wide variation in quality, expertise, and delivery by management partners. Now multiple years into many of these alliances, we may address their value, strengths, and weaknesses from the perspective of providers as well as policy makers and payers. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Accountable care organization providers must determine whether a management partner is the best solution to the challenges they face and, if so, which alliance model to pursue. Policymakers and payers should consider short- and long-term implications of ACO-management partner alliances, including considering changing the regulatory environment.

The Role of Value-Based Payment in Promoting Innovation to Address Social Risks: A Cross-Sectional Study of Social Risk Screening by US Physicians.

Policy Points One of the most important possibilities of value-based payment is its potential to spur innovation in upstream prevention, such as attention to social needs that lead to poor health. Screening patients for social risks such as housing instability and food insecurity represents an early step physician practices can take to address social needs. At present, adoption of social risk screening by physician practices is linked with having high innovation capacity and focusing on low-income populations, but not exposure to value-based payment. Expanding social risk screening by physician practices may require standardization and technical assistance for practices that have less innovative capacity. CONTEXT: One of the most important possibilities of value-based payment is its potential to spur innovation in upstream prevention, such as attention to social needs that lead to poor health. However, there is uncertainty about the conditions under which value-based payment will encourage health care providers to innovate to address upstream social risks. METHODS: We used the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS), a nationally representative survey of physician practices (n = 2,178), to ascertain (1) the number of social risks for which practices systematically screen patients; (2) the extent of practices' participation in value-based payment models; and (3) measures of practices' capacity for innovation. We used multivariate regression models to examine predictors of social risk screening. FINDINGS: On average, physician practices systematically screened for 2.4 out of 7 (34%) social risks assessed by the survey. In the fully adjusted model, implementing social risk screening was not associated with the practices' overall exposure to value-based payment. Being in the top quartile on any of three innovation capacity scales, however, was associated with screening for 0.95 to 1.00 additional social risk (p < 0.001 for all three results) relative to the bottom quartile. In subanalysis examining specific payment models, participating in a Medicaid accountable care organization was associated with screening for 0.37 more social risks (p = 0.015). Expecting more exposure to accountable care in the future was associated with greater social risk screening, but the effect size was small compared with practices' capacity for innovation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that implementation of social risk screening-an initial step in enhancing awareness of social needs in health care-is not associated with overall exposure to value-based payment for physician practices. Expanding social risk screening by physician practices may require standardized approaches and implementation assistance to reduce the level of innovative capacity required.

Organizational integration, practice capabilities, and outcomes in clinically complex medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between clinical integration and financial integration, quality-focused care delivery processes, and beneficiary utilization and outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Multiphysician practices in the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (response rate 47%) and 2017 Medicare claims data. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries attributed to physician practices, focusing on two domains of integration: clinical (coordination of patient services, use of protocols, individual clinician measures, access to information) and financial (financial management and planning across operating units). We examined the association between integration domains, the adoption of quality-focused care delivery processes, beneficiary utilization and health-related outcomes, and price-adjusted spending using linear regression adjusting for practice and beneficiary characteristics, weighting to account for sampling and nonresponse. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: 1 604 580 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 or older attributed to 2113 practices. Of these, 414 209 beneficiaries were considered clinically complex (frailty or 2 + chronic conditions). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Financial integration and clinical integration were weakly correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.19). Clinical integration was associated with significantly greater adoption of quality-focused care delivery processes, while financial integration was associated with lower adoption of these processes. Integration was not generally associated with reduced utilization or better beneficiary-level health-related outcomes, but both clinical integration and financial integration were associated with lower spending in both the complex and noncomplex cohorts: (clinical complex cohort: -$2518, [95% CI: -3324, -1712]; clinical noncomplex cohort: -$255 [95% CI: -413, -97]; financial complex cohort: -$997 [95% CI: -$1320, -$679]; and financial noncomplex cohort: -$143 [95% CI: -210, -$76]). CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of financial integration were not associated with improved care delivery or with better health-related beneficiary outcomes. Nonfinancial forms of integration deserve greater attention, as practices scoring high in clinical integration are more likely to adopt quality-focused care delivery processes and have greater associated reductions in spending in complex patients.