Partial and incremental PCMH practice transformation: implications for quality and costs.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations between partial and incremental implementation of the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) model and measures of cost and quality of care. DATA SOURCE: We combined validated, self-reported PCMH capabilities data with administrative claims data for a diverse statewide population of 2,432 primary care practices in Michigan. These data were supplemented with contextual data from the Area Resource File. STUDY DESIGN: We measured medical home capabilities in place as of June 2009 and change in medical home capabilities implemented between July 2009 and June 2010. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the mean effect of these PCMH measures on total medical costs and quality of care delivered in physician practices between July 2009 and June 2010, while controlling for potential practice, patient cohort, physician organization, and practice environment confounders. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Based on the observed relationships for partial implementation, full implementation of the PCMH model is associated with a 3.5 percent higher quality composite score, a 5.1 percent higher preventive composite score, and $26.37 lower per member per month medical costs for adults. Full PCMH implementation is also associated with a 12.2 percent higher preventive composite score, but no reductions in costs for pediatric populations. Incremental improvements in PCMH model implementation yielded similar positive effects on quality of care for both adult and pediatric populations but were not associated with cost savings for either population. CONCLUSIONS: Estimated effects of the PCMH model on quality and cost of care appear to improve with the degree of PCMH implementation achieved and with incremental improvements in implementation.

American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association preoperative assessment guidelines reduce resource utilization before aortic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Methods used for evaluation of cardiac risk before noncardiac surgery vary widely. We evaluated the effect over time on practice and resource utilization of implementing the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines on Preoperative Risk Assessment. METHODS: We compared 102 historical control patients who underwent elective abdominal aortic surgery (from January 1993 to December 1994) with 94 consecutive patients after guideline implementation (from July 1995 to December 1996) and 104 patients in a late after guideline implementation (from July 1, 1997, to September 30, 1998). Resource use (testing, revascularization, and costs) and outcomes (perioperative death and myocardial infarction) were examined. Patients with and without clinical markers of risk for perioperative cardiac complications were compared. RESULTS: The use of preoperative stress testing (88% to 47%; P <.00001), cardiac catheterization (24% to 11%; P <.05), and coronary revascularization (25% to 2%; P <.00001) decreased between control and postguideline groups, respectively. These changes persisted in the late postguideline group. Mean preoperative evaluation costs also fell ($1087 versus $171; P <.0001). Outcomes of death (4% versus 3% versus 2%) and myocardial infarction (7% versus 3% versus 5%) were not significantly different between control, postguideline, and late postguideline groups, respectively. Stress test rates were similar for patients at low risk versus high risk in the historical control group (84% versus 91%; P =.29) but lower for patients at low risk after guideline implementation (31% versus 61%; P =.003). CONCLUSION: Implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cardiac risk assessment guidelines appropriately reduced resource use and costs in patients who underwent elective aortic surgery without affecting outcomes. This effect was sustained 2 years after guideline implementation.