Insights From Implementation Of A Community-Based Model For Collaborative Public Good Investing.

Communities across the United States are looking for ways to reduce health inequities. Improving the social determinants of health (SDOH) is one fruitful pathway. In prior work we developed a financing model to incentivize and coordinate joint SDOH investments among local stakeholders, called the Collaborative Approach to Public Good Investments (CAPGI). A core thesis of our model is that at least some SDOH investments can be funded without reliance on philanthropic or government monies: Because they can produce value that flows to multiple organizations simultaneously, SDOH investments can be aligned with health organizations' self-interest. We describe our model's evolution in practice and synthesize insights drawn from our experiences providing technical assistance to three communities that have implemented CAPGI. Each community is unique, but we identified common themes related to governance processes and coalition dynamics that are relevant to any community trying to increase local, place-based investments in health.

The EvidenceNOW Practice Support Initiative: The Heart of Virginia Healthcare.

PURPOSE: HHS' Million Hearts campaign focused the delivery system on ABCS clinical quality measures (appropriate Aspirin use, Blood pressure control, Cholesterol control, and Smoking cessation counseling). AHRQ's Evidence Now project funded 7 collaboratives to test different ways to improve performance and outcomes on ABCS within small primary care practices. The Heart of Virginia Health care (HVH) collaborative designed 1 of the approaches in Evidence Now. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-four eligible practices were recruited to participate and randomized to 3 cohorts in a stepped wedge design, and 173, employing 16 different EHRs, remained for the duration of the initiative. The practice support curriculum was delivered by trained practice coaches to enhance overall practice function and improve performance on the ABCS metrics. The intervention consisted of a kickoff meeting, 3 months of intensive support, 9 months of ongoing support, and access to online learning materials and expert faculty. The mean practice contact time with coaches was 428 minutes, but the standard deviation was 426 minutes. RESULTS: Overall, the short HVH intervention had a small but statistically significant positive average effects on appropriate use of aspirin and other antithrombotics, small negative effects on blood pressure control, except for those practices which did not attend the kickoff, and small negative effects on smoking cessation counseling. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention phase was truncated due to difficulty in recruiting a sufficient number of practices. This undoubtedly contributed to the lack of substantial improvements in the ABCS. Other likely contributing factors were our inability to provide real time feedback on metrics and the frequency with which major practice disruptions occurred. Future efforts to improve primary care practice function should allow adequate time for both practice recruitment and external support.

Burnout among Primary Care Providers and Staff: Evaluating the Association with Practice Adaptive Reserve and Individual Behaviors.

BACKGROUND: Workplace burnout among healthcare professionals is a critical public health concern. Few studies have examined organizational and individual factors associated with burnout across healthcare professional groups. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between practice adaptive reserve (PAR) and individual behavioural response to change and burnout among healthcare professionals in primary care. DESIGN: This cross-sectional study used survey data from 154 primary care practices participating in the EvidenceNOW Heart of Virginia Healthcare initiative. PARTICIPANTS: We analysed data from 1279 healthcare professionals in Virginia. Our sample included physicians, advanced practice clinicians, clinical support staff and administrative staff. MAIN MEASURES: We used the PAR instrument to measure organizational capacity for change and the Change Diagnostic Index© (CDI) to measure individual behavioural response, which achieved a 76% response rate. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the effects of PAR and CDI on burnout. KEY RESULTS: As organizational capacity for change increased, burnout in healthcare professionals decreased by 51% (OR: 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33, 0.73). As healthcare professionals showed improved response toward change, burnout decreased by 84% (OR: 0.16; 95% CI, 0.11, 0.23). Analysis by healthcare professional type revealed a significant association between high organizational capacity for change, positive response to change and low burnout among administrative staff (OR: 2.92; 95% CI, 1.37, 6.24). Increased hours of work per week was associated with higher odds of burnout (OR: 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05, 1.10) across healthcare professional groups. CONCLUSION: As transformation efforts in primary care continue, it is critical to understand the influence of these initiatives on healthcare professionals' well-being. Efforts to reduce burnout among healthcare professionals are needed at both a system and organizational level. Building organizational capacity for change, supporting providers and staff during major change and consideration of individual workload may reduce levels of burnout.

Indicators of Workplace Burnout Among Physicians, Advanced Practice Clinicians, and Staff in Small to Medium-Sized Primary Care Practices.

BACKGROUND: The rising prevalence of burnout among physicians and other healthcare professionals has become a major concern in the United States. Identifying indicators of burnout could help reduce negative consequences such as turnover, loss of productivity, and adverse health behaviors. The goal of this study was to examine whether individual behaviors and attitudes towards major disruptive change has an effect on workplace burnout. METHODS: This study analyzed survey responses from 1273 healthcare professionals from 154 small to medium-sized primary care practices participating in the EvidenceNOW initiative in Virginia. Healthcare professionals' behaviors and attitudes, such as anxiety and withdrawal, were assessed to determine associations with workplace burnout. Results were examined by professional role. RESULTS: Workplace burnout was reported by 31.6% of the physicians, 17.2% of advanced practice clinicians, 18.9% of clinical support staff, and 17.5% of administrative staff. Regardless of burnout status, results show all healthcare professional groups had high levels of anxiety. Providers had significantly higher scores for anxiety than all other healthcare professionals. Providers who experienced higher levels of anxiety and withdrawal were more than three times as likely to report burnout compared to those who experienced low levels in these domains. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding individual behaviors and attitudes towards disruptive change may help practice leaders and policymakers develop strategies to reduce burnout among healthcare professionals. Programs should focus on strengthening the work environment of small to medium-sized practices to improve organizational capacity for change and address high levels of anxiety experienced by physicians, advanced practice clinicians and staff.

COVID-19 Crisis Creates Opportunities for Community-Centered Population Health: Community Health Workers at the Center.

Dealing with the COVID-19 coronavirus requires a coordinated transnational effort. We propose a 2-stage state-led effort that utilizes community health workers (CHWs). We spell out what is beginning to occur in states to control and suppress COVID-19. In the second stage, we suggest working with these CHWs as a key element in the next evolution of our health care system: community-centered population health.

Care Experiences of Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions in a Payer-Based Patient-Centered Medical Home.

Individuals with multiple chronic health conditions require additional support and medical services, incur higher health care costs, and often have a higher risk of hospitalization. The goal of this study was to examine care experiences of patients with multiple chronic conditions in the CareFirst patient-centered medical home (PCMH). The study used a repeated cross-sectional research design and included 1308 adult CareFirst plan members with multiple chronic conditions. Patient care experiences were collected using a structured telephone survey in 2015 and 2017. Composite scores and individual question responses for patient-provider communication, coordination of care, access to care, and self-management support were analyzed to determine differences between survey years. Overall, patients reported positive care experiences with communication, self-management support, and care coordination. Access to care indicators received lower composite scores. Between 2015 and 2017, patients reported higher ratings for appointment reminders, communicating test results, providers listening carefully, and care plan effectiveness. Patients who completed their CareFirst PCMH care plan had higher care experience scores than patients who did not. A key finding of this study is that care plan completion is associated with positive care experiences, indicating the importance of the care plan to this PCMH model. Lower scores on access to care measures suggest a need for improved pathways for patients to obtain care during nontraditional office hours. Payer-based PCMH models that include enhanced care coordination and additional provider payments to support these activities may be beneficial to patients with multiple chronic conditions.

A Qualitative Analysis of Implementing EvidenceNOW to Improve Cardiovascular Care.

PURPOSE: The Heart of Virginia Health care (HVH) was a regional cooperative under the EvidenceNOW initiative to assist primary care practices in implementing evidence-based cardiovascular care and building capacity for quality improvement. The HVH implementation team included individuals from multiple universities, quality improvement organizations, and consulting firms. The goal of this study was to understand HVH team member viewpoints on the challenges, strengths, and lessons learned in each phase of the project. METHODS: Qualitative methods were used to facilitate reflection on the implementation and dissemination of the EvidenceNOW initiative in Virginia. In-depth interviews were conducted at the end of the project with 22 HVH team members. A nonparticipant, multidisciplinary research team completed thematic analysis of interview transcripts. RESULTS: Positive attributes of the HVH initiative included diverse team member skills and areas of expertise, a well-received kick-off event, and a comprehensive set of practice improvement resources. Major challenges included recruiting primary care practices, varying types and capabilities of electronic health records, and working with practices at different transformation stages, with different objectives for participating and involvement in other government initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings provide insights for future dissemination research and implementation of evidence-based practices in primary care. Challenges experienced in project development can result in a domino effect that could change the project timeline, type of practices recruited for study participation, resource allocation, and planned activities for quality improvement. Effectiveness of external quality improvement support may depend on practice engagement, preexisting organizational structures and processes, availability of resources, and length and continuity of practice facilitation.

Provider Experiences with a Payer-Based PCMH Program.

BACKGROUND: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is an enhanced primary care model that aims to improve quality of care. Over the past several years, the PCMH model has been adopted by Medicare and private payers, which offer financial resources and technical assistance to participating practices. However, few studies have examined provider experiences and perspectives on the adoption of payer-based PCMH models in different practice settings. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this qualitative study was to analyze how providers experienced specific elements of a payer-based PCMH model and identify cross-cutting themes that can be applied to other payer-based PCMH initiatives. DESIGN: Observational qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 65 individuals (which includes 57 primary care physicians) participated in focus group sessions. Telephone interviews were conducted with an additional 14 physicians and 2 practice administrators. APPROACH: Interviews and focus groups were recorded after obtaining the informed consent of participants. Written transcripts from the recordings were then imported into NVivo 11 for subsequent coding and qualitative analysis of themes. KEY RESULTS: We found that nurse care coordinators (NCCs) were the single most valuable and visible program element. Individual care plans served as effective tools of communication between the NCC and physician on patient care management goals and issues. The online data portal was viewed as the least valuable element. With regard to cross-cutting themes, some providers expressed a strained relationship with CareFirst due to communication challenges, a lack of trust, and differing priorities in selecting patients for care plans. CONCLUSION: Nurse care coordinators and the targeted use of individualized care plans are essential components in a payer-based PCMH program. Improving communication and trust in data reports are critical for effective implementation. Future research should examine provider experiences in other payer-based PCMH programs to see how interactions with payers affect program implementation.

Quality of Care and Preventive Screening Use in the CareFirst Patient-Centered Medical Home Program.

Despite their value, comprehensive diabetes care and screening for common cancers remain underutilized. We examined the association between participation in a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) program with strong financial incentives and receipt of preventive care in the first 5 years after program launch. Using multivariate regression analysis, we compared outcomes for adults under the care of participating primary care providers (PCPs) with adults under the care of nonparticipating PCPs. Outcomes were breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screenings, and elements of diabetes care. The analytic sample included 818,623 adults living in Maryland, Virginia, or the District of Columbia, and enrolled with CareFirst for at least 1 year during 2010-2015. By Year 5, enrollees in the intervention group were 7.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.8-13.0), 6.1 (95% CI: 1.4-10.7), 3.1 (95% CI: 2.1-4.0), and 7.6 (95% CI: 7.0-8.2) percentage points more likely to undergo HbA1c tests, nephropathy examinations, breast, and cervical cancer screenings, respectively. We found no significant change in the propensity to receive colorectal cancer screening or an eye examination. Our study shows that a PCMH program with strong financial incentives can raise the provision of preventive care but could require additional adjustment.

Social Determinants As Public Goods: A New Approach To Financing Key Investments In Healthy Communities.

Good research evidence exists to suggest that social determinants of health, including access to housing, nutrition, and transportation, can influence health outcomes and health care use for vulnerable populations. Yet adequate, sustainable financing for interventions that improve social determinants of health has eluded most if not all US communities. This article argues that underinvestment in social determinants of health stems from the fact that such investments are in effect public goods, and thus benefits cannot be efficiently limited to those who pay for them-which makes it more difficult to capture return on investment. Drawing on lesser-known economic models and available data, we show how a properly governed, collaborative approach to financing could enable self-interested health stakeholders to earn a financial return on and sustain their social determinants investments.

Primary Care Practices' Abilities And Challenges In Using Electronic Health Record Data For Quality Improvement.

Federal value-based payment programs require primary care practices to conduct quality improvement activities, informed by the electronic reports on clinical quality measures that their electronic health records (EHRs) generate. To determine whether EHRs produce reports adequate to the task, we examined survey responses from 1,492 practices across twelve states, supplemented with qualitative data. Meaningful-use participation, which requires the use of a federally certified EHR, was associated with the ability to generate reports-but the reports did not necessarily support quality improvement initiatives. Practices reported numerous challenges in generating adequate reports, such as difficulty manipulating and aligning measurement time frames with quality improvement needs, lack of functionality for generating reports on electronic clinical quality measures at different levels, discordance between clinical guidelines and measures available in reports, questionable data quality, and vendors that were unreceptive to changing EHR configuration beyond federal requirements. The current state of EHR measurement functionality may be insufficient to support federal initiatives that tie payment to clinical quality measures.

Effect of Practice Ownership on Work Environment, Learning Culture, Psychological Safety, and Burnout.

PURPOSE: Physicians have joined larger groups and hospital systems in the face of multiple environmental challenges. We examine whether there are differences across practice ownership in self-reported work environment, a practice culture of learning, psychological safety, and burnout. METHODS: Using cross-sectional data from staff surveys of small and medium-size practices that participated in EvidenceNOW in Virginia, we tested for differences in work environment, culture of learning, psychological safety, and burnout by practice type. We conducted weighted multivariate linear regression of outcomes on ownership, controlling for practice size, specialty mix, payer mix, and whether the practice was located in a medically underserved area. We further analyzed clinician and staff responses separately. RESULTS: Participating were 104 hospital-owned and 61 independent practices and 24 federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). We analyzed 2,005 responses from practice clinicians and staff, a response rate of 49%. Working in a hospital-owned practice was associated with favorable ratings of work environment, psychological safety, and burnout compared with independent practices. When we examined separately the responses of clinicians vs staff, however, the association appears to be largely driven by staff. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital ownership was associated with positive perceptions of practice work environment and lower burnout for staff relative to independent ownership, whereas clinicians in FQHCs perceive a more negative, less joyful work environment and burnout. Our findings are suggestive that clinician and nonclinician staff perceive practice adaptive reserve differently, which may have implications for creating the energy for ongoing quality improvement work.

The CareFirst Patient-Centered Medical Home Program: Cost and Utilization Effects in Its First Three Years.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced primary care models have diffused slowly and shown uneven results. Because their structural features are costly and challenging for small practices to implement, they offer modest rewards for improved performance, and improvement takes time. OBJECTIVE: To test whether a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model that significantly rewarded cost savings and accommodated small primary care practices was associated with lower spending, fewer hospital admissions, and fewer emergency room visits. DESIGN: We compared medical care expenditures and utilization among adults who participated in the PCMH program to adults who did not participate. We computed difference-in-difference estimates using two-part multivariate generalized linear models for expenditures and negative binomial models for utilization. Control variables included patient demographics, county, chronic condition indicators, and illness severity. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,433,297 adults aged 18-64 years, residing in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and insured by CareFirst for at least 3 consecutive months between 2010 and 2013. INTERVENTION: CareFirst implemented enhanced fee-for-service payments to the practices, offered a large retrospective bonus if annual cost and quality targets were exceeded, and provided information and care coordination support. MEASURES: Outcomes were quarterly claims expenditures per member for all covered services, inpatient care, emergency care, and prescription drugs, and quarterly inpatient admissions and emergency room visits. RESULTS: By the third intervention year, annual adjusted total claims payments were $109 per participating member (95 % CI: -$192, -$27), or 2.8 % lower than before the program and compared to those who did not participate. Forty-two percent of the overall decline in spending was explained by lower inpatient care, emergency care, and prescription drug spending. Much of the reduction in inpatient and emergency spending was explained by lower utilization of services. CONCLUSIONS: A PCMH model that does not require practices to make infrastructure investments and that rewards cost savings can reduce spending and utilization.

Medical Home Implementation in Small Primary Care Practices: Provider Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield of Maryland implemented a voluntary patient-centered medical home (PCMH) program in 2011 that did not require formal certification to participate. This study assessed attitudes and awareness of PCMH programs among participating providers in Maryland and Northern Virginia. METHODS: This qualitative study used information from 13 focus groups. In addition, 39 telephone interviews were conducted. An experienced facilitator moderated the focus groups. Written transcripts were analyzed using NVivo software. RESULTS: Several cross-cutting themes emerged. First, the payment bump of 12% was a motivating factor to participate but did not have long-term effects on participation. Second, nurse care coordinators were perceived as the key element of the PCMH program. Third, providers had limited awareness of an external data portal. Finally, small practices were generally receptive to the externally supported program elements. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of PCMH program elements can be facilitated in small primary care practices even if third-party certification is not a requirement. Participating providers viewed having an external nurse care coordinator as the key element of the PCMH program. Small practices were receptive to external supports, but a lack of trust was viewed as a barrier to implementing a payer-based medical home program.