Advancing Health Policy and Outcomes for People With Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities: A Community-Led Agenda.

Importance: At least 10 million people in the United States have an intellectual and/or developmental disability (IDD). People with IDD experience considerably higher rates of poor overall health, chronic conditions including diabetes, mental health challenges, maternal mortality, and preventable deaths. This Special Communication proposes national goals based on a community-led consensus model that advances priority health outcomes for people with IDD and their caregivers/partners and identifies critical policy opportunities and challenges in achieving these goals. A community-led consensus agenda offers a foundation for focusing research, improving data collection and quality measurement, enhancing coverage and payment for services, and investing in a prepared clinical workforce and infrastructure in ways that align with lived experiences and perspectives of community members. Observations: People with IDD prioritize holistic health outcomes and tailored supports and services, driven by personalized health goals, which shift over their life course. Caregivers/partners need support for their own well-being, and easy access to resources to optimize how they support loved ones with IDD. Development of an adequately prepared clinical workforce to serve people with IDD requires national and regional policy changes that incentivize and structure training and continuing education. Ensuring effective and high-value coverage, payment, and clinical decisions requires investments in new data repositories and data-sharing infrastructure, shared learning across public and private payers, and development of new technologies and tools to empower people with IDD to actively participate in their own health care. Conclusions and Relevance: Consensus health priorities identified in this project and centered on IDD community members' perspectives are generalizable to many other patient populations. Public and private payers and regulators setting standards for health information technology have an opportunity to promote clinical data collection that focuses on individuals' needs, quality measurement that emphasizes person-centered goals rather than primarily clinical guidelines, and direct involvement of community members in the design of payment policies. Clinical education leaders, accrediting bodies, and investors/entrepreneurs have an opportunity to innovate a better prepared health care workforce and shared data infrastructure to support value-based care programs.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Community Mental Health Use Among Autistic Adolescents and Young Adults.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this cohort study was to evaluate differences in rate of co-occurring mental health (MH) conditions among transition-age autistic youth (TAYA) who are Black, indigenous, and other people of color, and to identify enabling variables associated with any community MH visit in this population. METHODS: Medicare-Medicaid Linked Enrollees Analytic Data Source 2012 data were used for this study. TAYA 14-29 years old who received fee-for-service Medicare, Medicaid, or both were included. Predisposing, enabling, and need variables associated with both presence of MH conditions and any community MH visit were examined with general linear modeling. RESULTS: N = 122,250 TAYA were included. Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic TAYA were significantly less likely than White TAYA to have a diagnosis of substance-use, depressive, anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorders. These groups were also significantly less likely to have had a community MH visit in the past year after controlling for predisposing, enabling, and need variables. Enabling variables associated with greater use of at least one community MH visit included dual enrollment in both Medicare and Medicaid and 12+ months of enrollment in 1115 or 1915(C) Medicaid waivers. DISCUSSION: Service delivery factors are an important area of future research, particularly dual enrollment and coverage disparities for Black, indigenous, and other people of color TAYA. Examining coverage of managed care enrollees, including differences by state, may offer additional insights on how these factors impact care.

Beyond demonstrations: implementing a primary care hybrid payment model in Medicare.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's (NASEM's) 2021 report on primary care called for a hybrid payment approach-a mix of fee-for-service and population-based payment-with performance accountability to strike the proper balance for desired practice transformation and to support primary care's important and expanding role. The NASEM report also proposed substantial increases to primary care payment and reforms to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. This paper addresses pragmatic ways to implement these recommendations, describing and proposing solutions to the main implementation challenges. The urgent need for primary care payment reform calls for adopting a hybrid model within the Medicare fee schedule rather than engaging in another round of demonstrations, despite legal and practical obstacles to adoption. The paper explores reasons for adopting a roughly 50:50 blend of fee-for-service and population-based payment and addresses other design features, presenting reasons why spending accountability should rely on utilization measures under primary care control rather than performance on total cost of care, and proposes a fresh approach to quality, emphasizing that quality measures should be parsimonious, focused on important outcomes with demonstrated quality improvement.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Rates and Age of Diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder.

This cohort study uses electronic health record data to assess racial and ethnic disparities in prevalence or median age of diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in children.

Achieving better value in pediatric care: school systems as clinical and financial partners?

This article argues that value-based health systems may contract with school districts engaged in capitated special education to achieve better patient outcomes and lower costs for the pediatric population.

Government As Innovation Catalyst: Lessons From The Early Center For Medicare And Medicaid Innovation Models.

Congress established the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to design, test, and spread innovative payment and service delivery models that either reduce spending without reducing the quality of care or improve the quality of care without increasing spending. CMMI sought to leverage these models to foster market innovation and accelerate the transformation of payment and care delivery to achieve the Triple Aim of better health, better care, and lower cost. This article provides a perspective on the design and execution of CMMI's five initial models, the resulting outcomes and lessons, and how their core concepts evolved within and spread beyond CMMI. This experience yields three key insights that could inform future efforts by CMMI and public and private payers, including model designs and policy decisions. These insights center on the need for iterative testing and learning guided by market feedback, more realistic time frames to demonstrate impact on cost and quality, and greater integration of models.

Association of Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations vs traditional Medicare fee for service with spending, utilization, and patient experience.

IMPORTANCE: The Pioneer Accountable Care Organization (ACO) Model aims to drive health care organizations to reduce expenditures while improving quality for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether FFS beneficiaries aligned with Pioneer ACOs had smaller increases in spending and utilization than other FFS beneficiaries while retaining similar levels of care satisfaction in the first 2 years of the Pioneer ACO Model. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were FFS Medicare beneficiaries aligned with 32 ACOs (n = 675,712 in 2012; n = 806,258 in 2013) and a comparison group of alignment-eligible beneficiaries in the same markets (n = 13,203,694 in 2012; n = 12,134,154 in 2013). Analyses comprised difference-in-differences multivariable regression with Oaxaca-Blinder reweighting to model expenditure and utilization outcomes over a 2-year performance period (2012-2013) and 2-year baseline period (2010-2011) as well as adjusted analyses of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems (CAHPS) survey responses among random samples of beneficiaries in Pioneer ACOs (n = 13,097), FFS (n = 116,255), or Medicare Advantage (n = 203,736) for 2012 care. EXPOSURES: Beneficiary alignment with a Pioneer ACO in 2012 or 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Medicare spending, utilization, and CAHPS domain scores. RESULTS: Total spending for beneficiaries aligned with Pioneer ACOs in 2012 or 2013 increased from baseline to a lesser degree relative to comparison populations. Differential changes in spending were approximately -$35.62 (95% CI, -$40.12 to -$31.12) per-beneficiary-per-month (PBPM) in 2012 and -$11.18 (95% CI, -$15.84 to -$6.51) PBPM in 2013, which amounted to aggregate reductions in increases of approximately -$280 (95% CI, -$315 to -$244) million in 2012 and -$105 (95% CI, -$148 to -$61) million in 2013. Inpatient spending showed the largest differential change of any spending category (-$14.40 [95% CI, -$17.31 to -$11.49] PBPM in 2012; -$6.46 [95% CI, -$9.26 to -$3.66] PBPM in 2013). Changes in utilization of physician services, emergency department, and postacute care followed a similar pattern. Compared with other Medicare beneficiaries, ACO-aligned beneficiaries reported higher mean scores for timely care (77.2 [ACO] vs 71.2 [FFS] vs 72.7 [MA]) and for clinician communication (91.9 [ACO] vs 88.3 [FFS] vs 88.7 [MA]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the first 2 years of the Pioneer ACO Model, beneficiaries aligned with Pioneer ACOs, as compared with general Medicare FFS beneficiaries, exhibited smaller increases in total Medicare expenditures and differential reductions in utilization of different health services, with little difference in patient experience.

Care coordination agreements: barriers, facilitators, and lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: With growing pressure to improve the quality and coordination of care, physicians feel a need to streamline their relationships with other practitioners around shared care for patients. Some physicians have developed written agreements that articulate the respective responsibilities of 2 or more parties for coordination of patient care, ie, care coordination agreements (CCAs). OBJECTIVES: To describe how CCAs are formed and explore facilitators and barriers to adoption of effective CCAs, the extent to which CCAs may be replicable in different market contexts, and the implications for policies and programs that aim to improve the coordination of care. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study of primary care physicians participating in CCAs and representatives of their specialist, hospital, or community-based partners. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with participating providers and national thought leaders in care coordination were reviewed to develop key themes. RESULTS: Agreements that address referral and access processes were considered useful by all practices that had implemented them. Practices that implemented agreements including guidance on shared management of specific clinical conditions (comanagement) also found them useful. CCAs were most successful in settings where both parties to the agreement already had stable communication pathways (such as an electronic health record [EHR], designated staff) and strong working relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Policy changes (such as shifts in reimbursement to favor collaborative care or clarification of laws governing such collaborations) can help to support the development and implementation of CCAs, and can address factors that currently make some markets less supportive of coordination.

The relationship between physician compensation strategies and the intensity of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between primary care physicians' (PCPs) payment arrangements and the total costs and intensity of care for specific episodes of care for Medicare beneficiaries. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: We combined data from the 2004 to 2005 Community Tracking Study Physician Survey on PCP compensation methods with administrative data from the Medicare program for beneficiaries to whom these physicians provided services over the time period 2004-2006. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of physician survey data linked to Medicare claims. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The 2,211 PCP respondents included 937 internists and 1,274 family or general physicians who were linked to more than 250,000 Medicare enrollees. Most physicians (62 percent) had been in practice for 11 or more years and 87 percent were board certified. The total spending models show that for both employed physicians and owners, those in highly capitated practice environments had the lowest risk adjusted spending per beneficiary, whereas those receiving just productivity payments had the highest spending. These physicians also had lower intensity of care for episodes of care. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians in highly capitated practices had the lowest total costs and intensity of care, suggesting that these physicians develop an overall approach to care that also applies to their FFS patients.

Association between quality of care and the sociodemographic composition of physicians' patient panels: a repeat cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pay-for-performance programs could worsen health disparities if providers who care for disadvantaged patients face systematic barriers to providing high-quality care. Risk adjustment that includes sociodemographic factors could mitigate the financial incentive to avoid disadvantaged patients. OBJECTIVE: To test for associations between quality of care and the composition of a physician's patient panel. DESIGN: Repeat cross-sectional analysis PARTICIPANTS: Nationally representative sample of US primary care physicians responding to a panel telephone survey in 2000-2001 and 2004-2005 MAIN MEASURES: Quality of primary care as measured by provision of eight recommended preventive services (diabetic monitoring [hemoglobin A1c testing, eye examinations, cholesterol testing and urine protein analysis], cancer screening [screening colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy and mammography], and vaccinations against influenza and pneumococcus) documented in Medicare claims data and the association between quality and the sociodemographic composition of physicians' patient panels. KEY RESULTS: Across eight quality measures, physicians' quality of care was not consistently associated with the composition of their patient panel either in a single year or between time periods. For example, a substantial number (seven) of the eighteen significant associations seen between sociodemographic characteristics and the delivery of preventive services in the first time period were no longer seen in the second time period. Among sociodemographic characteristics, panel Medicaid eligibility was most consistently associated with differences in the delivery of preventive services between time points; among preventive services, the delivery of influenza vaccine was most likely to demonstrate disparities in both time points. CONCLUSIONS: In a Medicare pay-for-performance program, a better understanding of the effect of effect of patient panel composition on physicians' quality of care may be necessary before implementing routine statistical adjustment, since the association of quality and sociodemographic composition is small and inconsistent. In addition, we observed improvements between time periods among physicians with varying panel composition.

The roles of practice systems and individual effort in quality performance.

INTRODUCTION: Individual effort and practice systems contribute to quality performance, but the nature of their contributions remains unclear. METHODS: This study assessed the roles of individual attributes and behaviours versus practice attributes in quality performance by assessing general internists' perceptions of factors that drive their engagement in quality improvement (QI). The authors interviewed 20 physicians in two distinct categories from diverse practice settings who had the greatest discordance between their ranked scores on standardised measures of individual quality performance and practice 'systems' performance. RESULTS: Findings suggest that there are subtle but important differences between high-scoring physicians practising in low-scoring practice systems, and low-scoring physicians practising in high-scoring practice systems with regards to quality performance and improvement. Physicians with high individual and low systems scores contributed a greater individual effort in quality improvement (QI), exhibited greater internal drivers to change, and reported a greater number and broader list of QI activities than physicians with low individual scores and high systems scores. Physicians with high individual scores also tended to be more reflective. There was a lack of consensus between categories on the relative usefulness of different systems resources, including electronic information systems. Our findings also suggest that physicians practice in isolation and autonomously, and highly independent of each other, and perceive a tension between pursuing technical quality and patient satisfaction at the same time. Both categories were skeptical of performance measurement more generally. CONCLUSION: QI efforts may be more effective if they foster both specific individual attitudes and capabilities, as well as improve practice-level systems.

Primary care: current problems and proposed solutions.

In 2005, approximately 400,000 people provided primary medical care in the United States. About 300,000 were physicians, and another 100,000 were nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Yet primary care faces a growing crisis, in part because increasing numbers of U.S. medical graduates are avoiding careers in adult primary care. Sixty-five million Americans live in what are officially deemed primary care shortage areas, and adults throughout the United States face difficulty obtaining prompt access to primary care. A variety of strategies are being tried to improve primary care access, even without a large increase in the primary care workforce.

Good neighbors: how will the patient-centered medical home relate to the rest of the health-care delivery system?

Recent policy focus on models of the patient-centered medical home raises questions about how medical home practices will relate to the rest of the health-care delivery system. This paper presents a conceptual framework of how patients and clinicians might interact in a medical neighborhood; outlines key features of a neighborhood and incentives for medical neighbors to participate in care coordination; identifies the policy considerations in designing neighborhoods; and puts forth a research agenda to support the development and evaluation of medical neighborhoods.

Physician ownership of medical equipment.

This Data Bulletin presents findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) 2008 Health Tracking Physician Survey, a nationally rep­resentative mail survey of U.S. physicians providing at least 20 hours per week of direct patient care. The sample of physicians was drawn from the American Medical Association master file and included active, nonfederal, office- and hospital-based physicians. Residents and fellows were excluded, as well as radiologists, anesthesiologists and pathologists. The survey includes responses from more than 4,700 phy­sicians, and the response rate was 62 percent. Since this Data Bulletin examines the extent of physician practice ownership or leasing of medical equipment, the sample was limited to 2,750 physicians practic­ing in community-based, physician-owned practices, who represent 58 percent of all physicians surveyed. Physicians employed by hospitals, who practiced in hospital-based settings or who worked in hospital-owned practices were excluded.