Financial hardship after cancer: revision of a conceptual model and development of patient-reported outcome measures.

Aim: This qualitative study refined a conceptual model of financial hardship and developed measures corresponding to model constructs. Methods: Eighteen women with breast cancer recruited through a comprehensive cancer center completed interviews. A qualitative framework analysis was conducted of the interviews. Results: Participants experienced varying levels of financial hardship. Protective factors included good health insurance, work accommodations and social support. Participants worried about cancer care costs and employment. Programs for alleviating financial hardship had high administrative burdens. Four preliminary financial hardship measures were developed: coping, impacts, depression and worry. Conclusion: Reducing administrative barriers to benefits could reduce financial hardship after cancer. More research is needed on the effects of out-of-network/formulary care and denials of coverage and to validate the measures.

Financial hardship is common after cancer diagnosis. This study interviewed women with breast cancer about financial hardship. Financial hardship included how participants coped with healthcare costs and reduced income. Worry and depression were also aspects of financial hardship. Administrative burdens led to financial hardship. Administrative burdens were actions patients had to take to access financial support. This study also created surveys to measure financial hardship in cancer.

This study revised a conceptual model of financial burden after cancer. Measures were developed for each financial burden dimension from the model. Reducing administrative hurdles for work accommodations and insurance could prevent burden.

Understanding Clinician Preferences for Treatment Attributes in Oncology: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Oncologists' and Urologists' Preferences for First-Line Treatment of Locally Advanced/Unresectable Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma in Five European Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Prior discrete choice experiments (DCE) in oncology found that, on average, clinicians rank survival as the most important treatment attribute. We investigate heterogeneity in clinician preferences within the context of first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma in Spain, France, Italy, Germany, and the UK. METHODS: The online DCE included 12 treatment choice tasks, each comparing two hypothetical therapy profiles defined by treatment attributes: grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), induction and maintenance administration schedules, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). We used a random parameters logit model to estimate attribute relative importance (RI) (0-100%) and generate preference shares for four treatment profiles. Results were stratified by country. Preference heterogeneity was evaluated by latent class analysis. RESULTS: In August and September 2022, 498 clinicians (343 oncologists and 155 urologists) completed the DCE. OS had the strongest influence on clinicians' preferences [RI = 62%; range, 51.6% (Germany) to 63.7% (Spain)] followed by frequency of grade 3/4 TRAEs (RI = 27%). Among treatment profiles, the chemotherapy plus immune checkpoint inhibitor maintenance therapy profile had the largest preference share [51%; range, 38% (Italy) to 56% (UK)]. Four latent classes of clinicians were identified (N = 469), with different treatment profile preferences: survival class (30.1%), trade-off class (22.4%), no strong preference class (40.9%), and aggressive treatment class (6.6%). OS was not the most important attribute for 30.0% of clinicians. CONCLUSION: While average sample results were consistent with those of prior DCEs, this study found heterogeneity in clinician preferences within and across countries, highlighting the diversity in clinician decision making in oncology.

Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Place of Death Among Medicaid and Commercially Insured Patients With Cancer in Washington State.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic-related disruptions in health care delivery might have affected end-of-life care in patients with cancer. We examined changes in place of death and hospice support for Medicaid and commercially insured patients during the pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We linked Washington State cancer registry records with claims from Medicaid and two commercial insurers for patients with solid tumor age 18-64 years. The study included 322 Medicaid and 162 commercial patients who died between March 2017 and June 2019 (pre-COVID-19), along with 90 Medicaid and 47 commercial patients who died between March and June 2020 (COVID-19). Place of death was categorized as hospital, hospice (home or nonhospital facility), and home without hospice. Place of death was compared using adjusted multinomial logistic regressions stratified by payer and time period (pre-COVID-19 v COVID-19). The clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with dying at home without hospice were examined, and adjusted marginal effects (ME) are reported. RESULTS: In the adjusted pre-COVID-19 analysis, Medicaid patients were more likely than commercially insured patients to die in hospital (48% v 36%; adjusted ME, 11%; P = .02). In the pre-COVID-19/COVID-19 analysis, Medicaid patients' place of death shifted from hospital (48% v 32%; ME, -16%; P < .01) to home without hospice (19.9% v 38.0%; ME, 16.5%; P < .01). However, there were no statistically significant changes pre-COVID-19/COVID-19 for commercial patients. As a result, during COVID-19, Medicaid patients were more likely than commercial patients to die at home without hospice (38% v 22%; ME, 16%; P = .04) as were male versus female patients (ME, 16%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: The pandemic might have disproportionately worsened the end-of-life experience for Medicaid enrollees with cancer. Attention should be paid to societal and health system factors that decrease access to care for Medicaid patients.

Real-world outcomes in patients with first-line and second-line therapy for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Background: Little is known about real-world outcomes for first-line and anti-PD-1 second-line treatment for advanced/metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Patients & methods: Retrospective data of advanced/metastatic ESCC patients treated between 2011 and 2021 were collected from Flatiron Health. Median duration of therapy (mDoT) and median overall survival (mOS) were evaluated for patients initiating first-line and anti-PD-1 second-line therapy. Results: Among patients receiving first-line therapy (n = 948), mDoT was 1.4 months and mOS was 16.0 months, with mOS of 16.0 and 18.0 months for the non-immunotherapy and immunotherapy cohorts, respectively. Among patients receiving anti-PD-1 second-line therapy (n = 60), mDoT was 5.7 months and mOS was 10.1 months. Conclusion: Patients with advanced/metastatic ESCC have short duration of therapy, and overall survival remains limited. This real-world study underscores the need for efficacious treatments for advanced/metastatic ESCC in the first- and second-line setting. Direct comparisons of emerging therapies in the real world are urgently needed.

Implementation science issues in understanding, collecting, and using cost estimates: a multi-stakeholder perspective.

Understanding the resources needed to achieve desired implementation and effectiveness outcomes is essential to implementing and sustaining evidence-based practices (EBPs). Despite this frequent observation, cost and economic measurement and reporting are rare, but becoming more frequent in implementation science, and when present is seldom reported from the perspective of multiple stakeholders (e.g., the organization, supervisory team), including those who will ultimately implement and sustain EBPs.Incorporating a multi-level framework is useful for understanding and integrating the perspectives and priorities of the diverse set of stakeholders involved in implementation. Stakeholders across levels, from patients to delivery staff to health systems, experience different economic impacts (costs, benefit, and value) related to EBP implementation and have different perspectives on these issues. Economic theory can aid in understanding multi-level perspectives and approaches to addressing potential conflict across perspectives.This paper provides examples of key cost components especially important to different types of stakeholders. It provides specific guidance and recommendations for cost assessment activities that address the concerns of various stakeholder groups, identifies areas of agreement and conflict in priorities, and outlines theoretically informed approaches to understanding conflicts among stakeholder groups and processes to address them. Involving stakeholders throughout the implementation process and presenting economic information in ways that are clear and meaningful to different stakeholder groups can aid in maximizing benefits within the context of limited resources. We posit that such approaches are vital to advancing economic evaluation in implementation science. Finally, we identify directions for future research and application.Considering a range of stakeholders is critical to informing economic evaluation that will support appropriate decisions about resource allocation across contexts to inform decisions about successful adoption, implementation, and sustainment. Not all perspectives need to be addressed in a given project but identifying and understanding perspectives of multiple groups of key stakeholders including patients and direct implementation staff not often explicitly considered in traditional economic evaluation are needed in implementation research.

Translating economic evaluations into financing strategies for implementing evidence-based practices.

BACKGROUND: Implementation researchers are increasingly using economic evaluation to explore the benefits produced by implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) in healthcare settings. However, the findings of typical economic evaluations (e.g., based on clinical trials) are rarely sufficient to inform decisions about how health service organizations and policymakers should finance investments in EBPs. This paper describes how economic evaluations can be translated into policy and practice through complementary research on financing strategies that support EBP implementation and sustainment. MAIN BODY: We provide an overview of EBP implementation financing, which outlines key financing and health service delivery system stakeholders and their points of decision-making. We then illustrate how economic evaluations have informed decisions about EBP implementation and sustainment with three case examples: (1) use of Pay-for-Success financing to implement multisystemic therapy in underserved areas of Colorado, USA, based in part on the strength of evidence from economic evaluations; (2) an alternative payment model to sustain evidence-based oncology care, developed by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services through simulations of economic impact; and (3) use of a recently developed fiscal mapping process to collaboratively match financing strategies and needs during a pragmatic clinical trial for a newly adapted family support intervention for opioid use disorder. CONCLUSIONS: EBP financing strategies can help overcome cost-related barriers to implementing and sustaining EBPs by translating economic evaluation results into policy and practice. We present a research agenda to advance understanding of financing strategies in five key areas raised by our case examples: (1) maximize the relevance of economic evaluations for real-world EBP implementation; (2) study ongoing changes in financing systems as part of economic evaluations; (3) identify the conditions under which a given financing strategy is most beneficial; (4) explore the use and impacts of financing strategies across pre-implementation, active implementation, and sustainment phases; and (5) advance research efforts through strong partnerships with stakeholder groups while attending to issues of power imbalance and transparency. Attention to these research areas will develop a robust body of scholarship around EBP financing strategies and, ultimately, enable greater public health impacts of EBPs.

A theoretical model of financial burden after cancer diagnosis.

Current models of financial burden after cancer do not adequately define types of financial burden, moderators or causes. We propose a new theoretical model to address these gaps. This model delineates the components of financial burden as material and psychological as well as healthcare-specific (affording treatment) versus general (affording necessities). Psychological financial burden is further divided into worry about future costs and rumination about past and current financial burden. The model hypothesizes costs and employment changes as causes, and moderators include precancer socioeconomic status and post-diagnosis factors. The model outlines outcomes affected by financial burden, including depression and mortality. Theoretically derived measures of financial burden, interventions and policy changes to address the causes of financial burden in cancer are needed.

The human resource costs of implementing autopend clinical decision support to improve health maintenance.

OBJECTIVES: Sutter Health developed a novel autopend, or automated laboratory test ordering, clinical decision support (CDS) tool to coordinate the patient and physician process of completing preventive services. This study estimated the costs of developing and implementing the autopend functionality within an existing electronic health maintenance (HM) reminder system. STUDY DESIGN: Human resource time was measured by triangulating in-depth key informant interviews with Microsoft Outlook Calendar metadata (meetings attended) for managers and hourly data from a time-based project management tool (Project Web App) for Epic programmers. Employee time spent was multiplied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics California state hourly wages. Sutter Health is an integrated health care delivery network with more than 12,000 physicians across 100 communities serving 3 million patients. METHODS: Activity-based costing methodology was used to divide the implementation into activities and the human resources required to complete them. RESULTS: Developing and implementing the autopend CDS took more than 3 years, involved 6 managers and 3 Epic programmers, and cost $201,500 (2013 US$) (2670 total hours), which excluded the costs of implementing the initial HM reminder system. Managers spent 90.5% of the total costs (86.6% of total hours) integrating autopend into the health system compared with 9.5% of the total costs (13.4% of total hours) spent programming the functionality. CONCLUSIONS: The autopend CDS might be similarly costly for other organizations to implement if their managers need to complete comparable activities. However, electronic health record vendors could include autopend as a standard package to reduce development costs and improve the uptake of this promising CDS tool.

Feasibility of Measuring Preferences for Chemotherapy Among Early-Stage Breast Cancer Survivors Using a Direct Rank Ordering Multicriteria Decision Analysis Versus a Time Trade-Off.

OBJECTIVES: Chemotherapy is increasingly a preference-based choice among women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a promising but underutilized method to facilitate shared decision making. We explored the feasibility of conducting an MCDA using direct rank ordering versus a time trade-off (TTO) to assess chemotherapy choice in a large population-based sample. METHODS: We surveyed 904 early-stage breast cancer survivors who were within 5 years of diagnosis and reported to the Western Washington State Cancer System and Kaiser Permanente Northern California registries. Direct rank ordering of 11 criteria and TTO surveys were conducted from September 2015 to July 2016; clinical data were obtained from registries or medical records. Multivariable regressions estimated post hoc associations between the MCDA, TTO, and self-reported chemotherapy receipt, considering covariates. RESULTS: Survivors ranged in age from 25 to 74 years and 73.9% had stage I tumors. The response rate for the rank ordering was 81.0%; TTO score was 94.2%. A one-standard deviation increase in the difference between the chemotherapy and no chemotherapy MCDA scores was associated with a 75.1% (95% confidence interval 43.9-109.7%; p < 0.001) increase in the adjusted odds of having received chemotherapy; no association was found between the TTO score and chemotherapy receipt. CONCLUSIONS: A rank-order-based MCDA was feasible and was associated with chemotherapy choice. Future research should consider developing and testing this MCDA for use in clinical encounters. Additional research is required to develop a TTO-based model and test its properties against a pragmatic MCDA to inform future shared decision-making tools.

Correction to: The Cost Effectiveness of Genetic Testing for CYP2C19 Variants to Guide Thienopyridine Treatment in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Unfortunately, the article's Supplementary File Link is not working and the ESM material.

Assessing Worry About Affording Healthcare in a General Population Sample.

This study adapted a measure on worry about affording healthcare. The financial costs of healthcare are increasingly being shifted to patients. Financial burden from healthcare costs can be material (such as bankruptcy) or psychological. Psychological distress can be either worry about affording future care or distress due to material consequences and, despite evidence from clinical psychology that differentiates these types of emotional symptoms, this distinction has largely been ignored for financial burden in healthcare. We adapted a worry about affording healthcare scale for use in the general population (n = 398) to facilitate comparisons between disease groups and across countries. Participants completed a survey through an online platform. The worry about affording healthcare measure showed good reliability and validity through associations with quality of life (QOL) and measures of other types of financial burden. Worry about affording healthcare was also associated with cost-related non-adherence to medical care. Future research on patient QOL should consider worry about affording healthcare.

The impact of gene expression profile testing on confidence in chemotherapy decisions and prognostic expectations.

PURPOSE: Little is known about whether gene expression profile (GEP) testing and specific recurrence scores (e.g., medium risk) improve women's confidence in their chemotherapy decision or perceived recurrence risk. We evaluate the relationship between these outcomes and GEP testing. METHODS: We surveyed women eligible for GEP testing (stage I or II, Gr1-2, ER+, HER2-) identified through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Registry of Washington or Kaiser Permanente Northern California from 2012 to 2016, approximately 0-4 years from diagnosis (N = 904, RR = 45.4%). Confidence in chemotherapy was measured as confident (Very, completely) versus Not Confident (Somewhat, A little, Not At All); perceived risk recurrence was recorded numerically (0-100%). Women reported their GEP test receipt (Yes, No, Unknown) and risk recurrence score (High, Intermediate, Low, Unknown). In our analytic sample (N = 833), we propensity score weighted the three test receipt cohorts and used propensity weighted multivariable regressions to examine associations between the outcomes and the three test receipt cohorts, with receipt stratified by score. RESULTS: 29.5% reported an unknown GEP test receipt; 86% being confident. Compared to no test receipt, an intermediate score (aOR 0.34; 95% CI 0.20-0.58), unknown score (aOR 0.09; 95% CI 0.05-0.18), and unknown test receipt (aOR 0.37; 95% CI 0.24-0.57) were less likely to report confidence. Most women greatly overestimated their recurrence risk regardless of their test receipt or score. CONCLUSIONS: GEP testing was not associated with greater confidence in chemotherapy decisions. Better communication about GEP testing and the implications for recurrence risk may improve women's decisional confidence.

Lessons From Reporting National Performance Measures in a Regional Setting: Washington State Community Cancer Care Report.

Regional public reporting of performance measures in oncology can facilitate local decision making across stakeholders, but small numbers of patients and clinics pose a challenge to creating statistically robust measures. In this article, we describe our development of the Community Cancer Care in Washington State: Quality and Cost Report, the first publicly available report showing clinic-level quality and cost measures at the regional level. We learned key lessons in how to adapt national performance reporting to our regional setting using a registry-linked multipayer claims database. In short, limited numbers of eligible patients for some nationally recognized metrics led us to group metrics and use a 3-year performance window. After completing clinic attribution and other requirements of metric construction, the final metrics included between 62.9% and 88.4% of the eligible patients. To link total costs to some quality measures, we had to define a treatment and surveillance episode of care. Risk adjustment was challenged by the ability to include a limited number of risk adjustors and their potential concentration in a few clinics. We used a different quality score than national performance reporting to account for variation in the range of risk-standardized rates. Current methodology does not permit us to determine whether clinically meaningful differences in quality or costs exist, which inhibits value comparisons. Stakeholder engagement was critical for providing methodologic feedback. In conclusion, we found that refining national metrics was necessary to facilitate public reporting in a regional setting. Further methodologic development can strengthen public reporting and future applications.

Nudging physicians and patients with autopend clinical decision support to improve diabetes management.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact on routine glycated hemoglobin (A1C) laboratory test completion of incorporating an autopend laboratory order functionality into clinical decision support, which (1) routed provider alerts to a separate electronic folder, (2) automatically populated preauthorization forms, and (3) linked the timing and content of electronic patient health maintenance topic (HMT) reminders to the provider authorization. STUDY DESIGN: Observational pre-post study from November 2011 (1 year before autopend) through June 2014 (1.5 years after). METHODS: The study included HMT reminders concerning an A1C test for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (N = 15,630 HMT reminders; 8792 patients) in a large multispecialty ambulatory healthcare system. A Cox proportional hazard model, adjusted for patient and provider demographics, estimated the likelihood of laboratory test completion based on 3 HMT reminder characteristics: preautopend versus postautopend period, read versus unread, and the patient's time to reading. RESULTS: In the postautopend period, the median time for patients to read reminders decreased (1 vs 3 days; P <.001) and the median time to complete laboratory tests decreased (40 vs 48 days; P <.001). Comparing preautopend HMT reminders with a similar time to reading, the likelihood of A1C laboratory test completion increased after autopend by between 21.1% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.211; P = .050), when time to reading was 57 days, and 33.9% (HR, 1.339; P = .003), when time to reading was 0 days. This result included 68% of the reminders. There was no statistical difference in A1C laboratory test completion for unread reminders in the preautopend versus postautopend period. CONCLUSIONS: Automated patient-centered decision support can improve guideline-concordant monitoring of A1C among patients with diabetes, particularly among patients who read reminders in a timely fashion.

Characterizing Potentially Preventable Cancer- and Chronic Disease-Related Emergency Department Use in the Year After Treatment Initiation: A Regional Study.

PURPOSE: As new quality metrics and interventions for potentially preventable emergency department (ED) visits are implemented, we sought to compare methods for evaluating the prevalence and costs of potentially preventable ED visits that were related to cancer and chronic disease among a commercially insured oncology population in the year after treatment initiation. METHODS: We linked SEER records in western Washington from 2011 to 2016 with claims from two commercial insurers. The study included patients who were diagnosed with a solid tumor and tracked ED utilization for 1 year after the start of chemotherapy or radiation. Cancer symptoms from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services metric and a patient-reported outcome intervention were labeled potentially preventable (PpCancer). Prevention Quality Indicators of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality were labeled potentially preventable-chronic disease (PpChronic). We reported the primary diagnosis, all diagnosis field coding (1 to 10), and 2016 adjusted reimbursements. RESULTS: Of 5,853 eligible patients, 27% had at least one ED visit, which yielded 2,400 total visits. Using primary diagnosis coding, 49.8% of ED visits had a PpCancer diagnosis, whereas 3.2% had a PpChronic diagnosis. Considering all diagnosis fields, 45.0%, 9.4%, and 18.5% included a PpCancer only, a PpChronic only, and both a PpCancer and a PpChronic diagnosis, respectively. The median reimbursement per visit was $735 (interquartile ratio, $194 to $1,549). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of potentially preventable ED visits was generally high, but varied depending on the diagnosis code fields and the group of codes considered. Future research is needed to understand the complex landscape of potentially preventable ED visits and measures to improve value in cancer care delivery.

Cost Estimates for Designing and Implementing a Novel Team Care Model for Chronically Ill Patients.

Little is known about the cost of implementing chronic care models. We estimate the human resource cost of implementing a novel team-based chronic care model "Champion," at a large multispecialty group practice. We used activity-based costing to calculate costs from development through rollout and stabilization in 1 clinic with 12 000 chronic care patients. Data analyzed included Microsoft Outlook meeting metadata, supporting documents, and 2014 employee wages. Implementation took more than 29 months, involved 168 employees, and cost the organization $2 304 787. Payers may need to consider a mixed-payment model to support the both implementation and maintenance costs of team-based chronic care.

Can Secure Patient-Provider Messaging Improve Diabetes Care?

OBJECTIVE: Internet-based secure messaging between patients and providers through a patient portal is now common in the practice of modern medicine. There is limited evidence on how messaging is associated with use and clinical quality measures among patients with type 2 diabetes. We examine whether messaging with physicians for medical advice is associated with fewer face-to-face visits and better diabetes management. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with diabetes who were enrolled in an online portal of an outpatient health care organization in 2011-2014 were studied (N = 37,762 patient-years). Messages from/to primary care physicians or diabetes-related specialists for medical advice were considered. We estimated the association of messaging with diabetes quality measures, adjusting for patient and provider characteristics and patient-level clustering. RESULTS: Most patients (72%) used messaging, and those who made frequent visits were also more likely to message. Given visit frequency, no (vs. any) messaging was negatively associated with the likelihood of meeting an HbA1c target of <8% (64 mmol/mol) (odds ratio [OR] 0.83 [95% CI 0.77, 0.90]). Among message users, additional messages (vs. 1) were associated with better outcome (two more messages: OR 1.17 [95% CI 1.06, 1.28]; three more messages: 1.38 [1.25, 1.53]; four more messages: 1.55 [1.43, 1.69]). The relationship was stronger for noninsulin users. Message frequency was also positively associated, but to a smaller extent, with process measures (e.g., eye examination). Physician-initiated messages had effects similar to those for patient-initiated messages. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with diabetes frequently used secure messaging for medical advice in addition to routine visits to care providers. Messaging was positively associated with better diabetes management in a large community outpatient practice.

Workflow standardization of a novel team care model to improve chronic care: a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Team-based chronic care models have not been widely adopted in community settings, partly due to their varying effectiveness in randomized control trials, implementation challenges, and concerns about physician acceptance. The Palo Alto Medical Foundation designed and implemented "Champion," a novel team-based model that includes new standard work (e.g. proactive patient outreach, pre-visit schedule grooming, depression screening, care planning, health coaching) to support patients' self-management of hypertension and diabetes. We investigated whether Champion improved clinical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental study comparing the Champion clinic-level intervention (n = 38 physicians) with a usual care clinic (n = 37 physicians) in Northern California. The primary outcomes, blood pressure and glycohemoglobin (A1c), were analyzed using a piecewise linear growth curve model for patients exposed to a Champion physician visit (n = 3156) or usual care visit (n = 8034) in the two years prior and one year post implementation. Secondary outcomes were provider experience, compared at baseline and 12 months in both the intervention and usual care clinics using multi-level ordered logistic modeling, and electronic health record based fidelity measures. RESULTS: Compared to usual care, in the first 6 months after a Champion physician visit, diabetes patients aged 18-75 experienced an additional -1.13 mm Hg (95% CI: -2.23 to -0.04) decline in diastolic blood pressure and -0.47 (95% CI: -0.61 to -0.33) decline in A1c. There were no additional improvements in blood pressure or A1c 6 to 12 months post physician visit. At 12 months, Champion physicians reported improved experience with managing chronic care patients in 6 of 7 survey items (p < 0.05), but compared to usual, this difference was only statistically significant for one item (p < 0.05). Fidelity to standard work was uneven; depression screening was the most commonly documented element (85% of patients), while care plans were the least (30.8% of patients). CONCLUSIONS: Champion standard work improved glycemic control over the first 6 months and physicians' experience with managing chronic care; changes in blood pressure were not clinically meaningful. Our results suggest the need to understand the relationship between the intervention, the contextual features of implementation, and fidelity to further improve chronic disease outcomes. This study was retrospectively registered with the ISRCTN Registry on March 15, 2017 (ISRCTN11341906).

Features of Patient-Centered Primary Care and the Use of Ambulatory Care.

This study explores the association between patients' use of ambulatory care resources and features of patient-centered primary care (PCPC), specifically clinic-level National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) recognition of PCPC, continuity of care, and care team communication. Data for this study were compiled from the electronic health records of a large multispecialty group practice in California, covering the period between 2009 and 2010 for 37,042 nonelderly patients under capitated managed care plans. Regression analysis of these data was performed using a generalized linear model, comparing measures of patient-level annual resource use (in total relative value units [tRVUs]) against measures of both clinic- and patient-level PCPC, and patient-level risk (eg, age, comorbidities). Patients linked to NCQA Recognition Level III versus Level II clinics used 4.8% (P < 0.001) fewer ambulatory care tRVUs. Patients with a 1 standard deviation increase in primary care continuity used 3.9% (P < 0.001) fewer ambulatory care tRVUs. Patients who switched primary care physicians used 17.4% (P < 0.001) more ambulatory care tRVUs. These results indicate that PCPC is associated with reductions in resource use related to both clinic- and patient-level features. The patient-level associations document within-clinic heterogeneity in PCPC. Based on these findings, practices can be encouraged to perform consistent with high NCQA recognition, promote primary care continuity, and be mindful of differences at an individual patient level.