Health Care Spending, Utilization, and Quality 8 Years into Global Payment.

BACKGROUND: Population-based global payment gives health care providers a spending target for the care of a defined group of patients. We examined changes in spending, utilization, and quality through 8 years of the Alternative Quality Contract (AQC) of Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Massachusetts, a population-based payment model that includes financial rewards and penalties (two-sided risk). METHODS: Using a difference-in-differences method to analyze data from 2006 through 2016, we compared spending among enrollees whose physician organizations entered the AQC starting in 2009 with spending among privately insured enrollees in control states. We examined quantities of sentinel services using an analogous approach. We then compared process and outcome quality measures with averages in New England and the United States. RESULTS: During the 8-year post-intervention period from 2009 to 2016, the increase in the average annual medical spending on claims for the enrollees in organizations that entered the AQC in 2009 was $461 lower per enrollee than spending in the control states (P<0.001), an 11.7% relative savings on claims. Savings on claims were driven in the early years by lower prices and in the later years by lower utilization of services, including use of laboratory testing, certain imaging tests, and emergency department visits. Most quality measures of processes and outcomes improved more in the AQC cohorts than they did in New England and the nation in unadjusted analyses. Savings were generally larger among subpopulations that were enrolled longer. Enrollees of organizations that entered the AQC in 2010, 2011, and 2012 had medical claims savings of 11.9%, 6.9%, and 2.3%, respectively, by 2016. The savings for the 2012 cohort were statistically less precise than those for the other cohorts. In the later years of the initial AQC cohorts and across the years of the later-entry cohorts, the savings on claims exceeded incentive payments, which included quality bonuses and providers' share of the savings below spending targets. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 8 years after its introduction, the BCBS population-based payment model was associated with slower growth in medical spending on claims, resulting in savings that over time began to exceed incentive payments. Unadjusted measures of quality under this model were higher than or similar to average regional and national quality measures. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health.).

Changes in health care spending and quality 4 years into global payment.

BACKGROUND: Spending and quality under global budgets remain unknown beyond 2 years. We evaluated spending and quality measures during the first 4 years of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Alternative Quality Contract (AQC). METHODS: We compared spending and quality among enrollees whose physician organizations entered the AQC from 2009 through 2012 with those among persons in control states. We studied spending changes according to year, category of service, site of care, experience managing risk contracts, and price versus utilization. We evaluated process and outcome quality. RESULTS: In the 2009 AQC cohort, medical spending on claims grew an average of $62.21 per enrollee per quarter less than it did in the control cohort over the 4-year period (P<0.001). This amount is equivalent to a 6.8% savings when calculated as a proportion of the average post-AQC spending level in the 2009 AQC cohort. Analogously, the 2010, 2011, and 2012 cohorts had average savings of 8.8% (P<0.001), 9.1% (P<0.001), and 5.8% (P=0.04), respectively, by the end of 2012. Claims savings were concentrated in the outpatient-facility setting and in procedures, imaging, and tests, explained by both reduced prices and reduced utilization. Claims savings were exceeded by incentive payments to providers during the period from 2009 through 2011 but exceeded incentive payments in 2012, generating net savings. Improvements in quality among AQC cohorts generally exceeded those seen elsewhere in New England and nationally. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with similar populations in other states, Massachusetts AQC enrollees had lower spending growth and generally greater quality improvements after 4 years. Although other factors in Massachusetts may have contributed, particularly in the later part of the study period, global budget contracts with quality incentives may encourage changes in practice patterns that help reduce spending and improve quality. (Funded by the Commonwealth Fund and others.).

Two-year impact of the alternative quality contract on pediatric health care quality and spending.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the 2-year effect of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts' global budget arrangement, the Alternative Quality Contract (AQC), on pediatric quality and spending for children with special health care needs (CSHCN) and non-CSHCN. METHODS: Using a difference-in-differences approach, we compared quality and spending trends for 126,975 unique 0- to 21-year-olds receiving care from AQC groups with 415,331 propensity-matched patients receiving care from non-AQC groups; 23% of enrollees were CSHCN. We compared quality and spending pre (2006-2008) and post (2009-2010) AQC implementation, adjusting analyses for age, gender, health risk score, and secular trends. Pediatric outcome measures included 4 preventive and 2 acute care measures tied to pay-for-performance (P4P), 3 asthma and 2 attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder quality measures not tied to P4P, and average total annual medical spending. RESULTS: During the first 2 years of the AQC, pediatric care quality tied to P4P increased by +1.8% for CSHCN (P < .001) and +1.2% for non-CSHCN (P < .001) for AQC versus non-AQC groups; quality measures not tied to P4P showed no significant changes. Average total annual medical spending was ~5 times greater for CSHCN than non-CSHCN; there was no significant impact of the AQC on spending trends for children. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 2 years of the contract, the AQC had a small but significant positive effect on pediatric preventive care quality tied to P4P; this effect was greater for CSHCN than non-CSHCN. However, it did not significantly influence (positively or negatively) CSHCN measures not tied to P4P or affect per capita spending for either group.

The effect of bundled payment on emergency department use: alternative quality contract effects after year one.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to identify the effect of the Alternative Quality Contract (AQC), a global payment system implemented by Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Massachusetts in 2009, on emergency department (ED) presentations. METHODS: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts claims from 2006 through 2009 for 332,624 enrollees whose primary care physicians (PCPs) enrolled in the AQC, and 1,296,399 whose PCPs were not enrolled in the AQC, were evaluated. A pre-post, intervention-control, propensity-scored difference-in-difference approach was used to isolate the AQC effect on ED visits. The analysis adjusted for age, sex, health status, and secular trends to compare ED use between the treatment and control groups. RESULTS: Overall, secular trends showed that the number of ED visits decreased slightly for both treatment and control groups. The adjusted analysis of the AQC group showed decreases from 0.131 to 0.127 visits per member/quarter, and the control group decreased from 0.157 to 0.152 visits per member/quarter. The difference-in-difference analysis showed the AQC had no statistically significant effect on total ED use compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: In the first year of this AQC, we did not find evidence of change in aggregate ED use. Similar global budget programs may not alter ED use in the initial implementation period.

Standardized Clinical Assessment And Management Plans (SCAMPs) provide a better alternative to clinical practice guidelines.

Variability in medical practice in the United States leads to higher costs without achieving better patient outcomes. Clinical practice guidelines, which are intended to reduce variation and improve care, have several drawbacks that limit the extent of buy-in by clinicians. In contrast, standardized clinical assessment and management plans (SCAMPs) offer a clinician-designed approach to promoting care standardization that accommodates patients' individual differences, respects providers' clinical acumen, and keeps pace with the rapid growth of medical knowledge. Since early 2009 more than 12,000 patients have been enrolled in forty-nine SCAMPs in nine states and Washington, D.C. In one example, a SCAMP was credited with increasing clinicians' rate of compliance with a recommended specialist referral for children from 19.6 percent to 75 percent. In another example, SCAMPs were associated with an 11-51 percent decrease in total medical expenses for six conditions when compared with a historical cohort. Innovative tools such as SCAMPs should be carefully examined by policy makers searching for methods to promote the delivery of high-quality, cost-effective care.

Readiness for the Patient-Centered Medical Home: structural capabilities of Massachusetts primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH), a popular model for primary care reorganization, includes several structural capabilities intended to enhance quality of care. The extent to which different types of primary care practices have adopted these capabilities has not been previously studied. OBJECTIVE: To measure the prevalence of recommended structural capabilities among primary care practices and to determine whether prevalence varies among practices of different size (number of physicians) and administrative affiliation with networks of practices. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS: One physician chosen at random from each of 412 primary care practices in Massachusetts was surveyed about practice capabilities during 2007. Practice size and network affiliation were obtained from an existing database. MEASUREMENTS: Presence of 13 structural capabilities representing 4 domains relevant to quality: patient assistance and reminders, culture of quality, enhanced access, and electronic health records (EHRs). MAIN RESULTS: Three hundred eight (75%) physicians responded, representing practices with a median size of 4 physicians (range 2-74). Among these practices, 64% were affiliated with 1 of 9 networks. The prevalence of surveyed capabilities ranged from 24% to 88%. Larger practice size was associated with higher prevalence for 9 of the 13 capabilities spanning all 4 domains (P < 0.05). Network affiliation was associated with higher prevalence of 5 capabilities (P < 0.05) in 3 domains. Associations were not substantively altered by statistical adjustment for other practice characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Larger and network-affiliated primary care practices are more likely than smaller, non-affiliated practices to have adopted several recommended capabilities. In order to achieve PCMH designation, smaller non-affiliated practices may require the greatest investments.

Paying for enhanced service: comparing patients' experiences in a concierge and general medicine practice.

BACKGROUND: Concierge medical practice is a relatively new and somewhat controversial development in primary-care practice. These practices promise patients more personalized care and dedicated service, in exchange for an annual membership fee paid by patients. The experiences of patients using these practices remain largely undocumented. OBJECTIVE: To assess the experiences of patients in a concierge medicine practice compared with those in a general medicine practice. METHODS: Stratified random samples of patients empanelled to each of the four doctors who practice at both a general medicine and a concierge medicine practice separately situated at an academic medical center were drawn. Patients were eligible for the study if they had a visit with the physician between January and May 2006. The study questionnaire (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician and Group Survey, supplemented with items from the Ambulatory Care Experiences Survey) was administered by mail to 100 general medicine patients per physician (n = 400) and all eligible concierge medicine patients (n = 201). Patients who completed the survey and affirmed the study physician as their primary-care physician formed the analytic sample (n = 344) that was used to compare the experiences of concierge medicine and general medicine patients. Models controlled for respondent characteristics and accounted for patient clustering within physicians using physician fixed effects. RESULTS: Patients' experiences with organizational features of care, comprising care co-ordination (p < 0.01), access to care (p < 0.001) and interactions with office staff (p < 0.001), favored concierge medicine over general medicine practice. The quality of physician-patient interactions did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the patients of the concierge medicine practice were more likely to report that their physician spends sufficient time in clinical encounters than patients of the general medicine practice (p < 0.003). CONCLUSION: The results suggest patients of the concierge medicine practice experienced and reported enhanced service, greater access to care, and better care co-ordination than those of the general medicine practice. This suggests that further study to understand the etiology of these differences may be beneficial in enhancing patients' experience in traditional primary-care practices.

Evaluating the use of a modified CAHPS survey to support improvements in patient-centred care: lessons from a quality improvement collaborative.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of a modified Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey to support quality improvement in a collaborative focused on patient-centred care, assess subsequent changes in patient experiences, and identify factors that promoted or impeded data use. BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems are increasingly using surveys to assess patients' experiences of care but little is established about how to use these data in quality improvement. DESIGN: Process evaluation of a quality improvement collaborative. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The CAHPS team from Harvard Medical School and the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement organized a learning collaborative including eight medical groups in Minnesota. INTERVENTION: Samples of patients recently visiting each group completed a modified CAHPS survey before, after and continuously over a 12-month project. Teams were encouraged to set goals for improvement using baseline data and supported as they made interventions with bi-monthly collaborative meetings, an online tool reporting the monthly data, a resource manual called The CAHPS Improvement Guide, and conference calls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in patient experiences. Interviews with team leaders assessed the usefulness of the collaborative resources, lessons and barriers to using data. RESULTS: Seven teams set goals and six made interventions. Small improvements in patient experience were observed in some groups, but in others changes were mixed and not consistently related to the team actions. Two successful groups appeared to have strong quality improvement structures and had focussed on relatively simple interventions. Team leaders reported that frequent survey reports were a powerful stimulus to improvement, but that they needed more time and support to engage staff and clinicians in changing their behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Small measurable improvements in patient experience may be achieved over short projects. Sustaining more substantial change is likely to require organizational strategies, engaged leadership, cultural change, regular measurement and performance feedback and experience of interpreting and using survey data.

Can teaching agenda-setting skills to physicians improve clinical interaction quality? A controlled intervention.

BACKGROUND: Physicians and medical educators have repeatedly acknowledged the inadequacy of communication skills training in the medical school curriculum and opportunities to improve these skills in practice. This study of a controlled intervention evaluates the effect of teaching practicing physicians the skill of "agenda-setting" on patients' experiences with care. The agenda-setting intervention aimed to engage clinicians in the practice of initiating patient encounters by eliciting the full set of concerns from the patient's perspective and using that information to prioritize and negotiate which clinical issues should most appropriately be dealt with and which (if any) should be deferred to a subsequent visit. METHODS: Ten physicians from a large physician organization in California with baseline patient survey scores below the statewide 25th percentile participated in the agenda-setting intervention. Eleven physicians matched on baseline scores, geography, specialty, and practice size were selected as controls. Changes in survey summary scores from pre- and post-intervention surveys were compared between the two groups. Multilevel regression models that accounted for the clustering of patients within physicians and controlled for respondent characteristics were used to examine the effect of the intervention on survey scale scores. RESULTS: There was statistically significant improvement in intervention physicians' ability to "explain things in a way that was easy to understand" (p = 0.02) and marginally significant improvement in the overall quality of physician-patient interactions (p = 0.08) compared to control group physicians. Changes in patients' experiences with organizational access, care coordination, and office staff interactions did not differ by experimental group. CONCLUSION: A simple and modest behavioral training for practicing physicians has potential to positively affect physician-patient relationship interaction quality. It will be important to evaluate the effect of more extensive trainings, including those that work with physicians on a broader set of communication techniques.

Relation of patients' experiences with individual physicians to malpractice risk.

OBJECTIVE: Patient care experience survey data might be useful for managing individual physician malpractice risk, but available evidence is limited. This study assesses whether patients' experiences with individual physicians, as measured by a validated survey, are associated with patient complaints and malpractice lawsuits. DESIGN: Random samples of active patients in physicians' panels, with sample sizes adequate to provide highly reliable, stable information about patients' experiences with each physician (n = 19 202, average respondents per physician = 119) were used to assess the relation of patient survey measures to malpractice risk. SETTING: A large multi-specialty physician organization in eastern Massachusetts, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians providing care for at least 5 years in adult primary care and select high-risk specialty departments between January 1996 and December 2005 (n = 161). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient complaints (2001-05) and malpractice lawsuits (1996-2005). RESULTS: Compared to primary care physicians, high-risk specialists had a lower patient complaint rate (0.34 vs. 1.36 complaints per patient care full time equivalent; P < 0.001), but a higher lawsuit rate (0.09 vs. 0.05 lawsuits per patient care full time equivalent; P = 0.02). Irrespective of physician specialty, the quality of physician-patient interactions (IRR = 0.61; P < 0.001) and care coordination (IRR = 0.65; P < 0.001) were inversely associated with patient complaints. Patient survey measures were not associated with malpractice lawsuits. CONCLUSIONS: The results underscore the challenges organizations face when attempting to use patient survey data to manage individual physician medical malpractice risk. Because lawsuits are infrequent events, calibrating these validated patient survey measures to malpractice lawsuit risk will require large physician samples from diverse practices.