Search

This article discusses development and testing of the Provider and Staff Perceptions of Integrated Care Survey, a 21-item questionnaire, informed by Singer and colleagues' seven-construct framework. Questionnaires were sent to 2,936 providers and staff at 100 federally qualified health centers and other safety net clinics in 10 Midwestern U.S. states; 332 were ineligible, leaving 2,604 potential participants. Following 4 mailings, 781 (30%) responded from 97 health centers. Item analyses, exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis were undertaken. Exploratory factor analysis suggests four latent factors: Teams and Care Continuity, Patient Centeredness, Coordination with External Providers, and Coordination with Community Resources. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed these factor groupings. For the total sample, Cronbach's alpha exceeded 0.7 for each latent factor. Descriptive responses to each of the 21 Provider and Staff Perceptions of Integrated Care questions appear to have potential in identifying areas that providers and staff recognize as care integration strengths, and areas that may warrant improvement.

Objective: To develop a short-form Safety Net Medical Home Scale (SNMHS) for assessing patient-centered medical home (PCMH) capability in safety net clinics., Data Sources/study Setting: National surveys of federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Interviews with FQHC directors., Study Design: We constructed three short-form SNMHS versions and examined correlations with full SNMHS and related primary care assessments. We tested usability with FQHC directors and reviewed scale development with an advisory group., Data Collection: Federally qualified health center surveys were administered in 2009 and 2013, by mail and online. Usability testing was conducted through telephone interviews with FQHC directors in 2013., Principal Findings: Six-, 12-, and 18-question short-form SNMHS versions had Pearson correlations with full scale of 0.84, 0.92, and 0.96, respectively. All versions showed a level of convergent validity with other primary care assessment scales comparable to the full SNMHS. User testers found short forms to be low-burden, though missing some PCMH concepts. Advisory group members expressed caution over missing concepts and appropriate use of short-form self-assessments., Conclusions: Short-form versions of SNMHS showed strong correlations with full scale and may be useful for brief assessment of safety net PCMH capability. Each short-form SNMHS version may be appropriate for different research, quality improvement, and assessment purposes., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Objective: To examine the relationship between medical home transformation and patient experience of chronic illness care., Study Setting: Thirteen safety net clinics located in five states enrolled in the Safety Net Medical Home Initiative., Study Design: Repeated cross-sectional surveys of randomly selected adult patients were completed at baseline (n = 303) and postintervention (n = 271)., Data Collection Methods: Questions from the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) (100-point scale) were used to capture patient experience of chronic illness care. Generalized estimating equation methods were used to (i) estimate how differential improvement in patient-centered medical home (PCMH) capability affected differences in modified PACIC scores between baseline and postintervention, and (ii) to examine cross-sectional associations between PCMH capability and modified PACIC scores for patients at completion of the intervention., Principal Findings: In adjusted analyses, high PCMH improvement (above median) was only marginally associated with a larger increase in total modified PACIC score (adjusted β = 7.7, 95 percent confidence interval [CI]: -1.1 to 16.5). At completion of the intervention, a 10-point higher PCMH capability score was associated with an 8.9-point higher total modified PACIC score (95 percent CI: 3.1-14.7) and higher scores in four of five subdomains (patient activation, delivery system design, contextual care, and follow-up/coordination)., Conclusions: We report that sustained, 5-year medical home transformation may be associated with modest improvement in patient experience of chronic illness care for vulnerable populations in safety net clinics., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

We examined associations between patient-centered medical home (PCMH) characteristics and quality of diabetes care in 15 safety net clinics in five states. Surveys among clinic directors assessed PCMH characteristics using the Safety Net Medical Home Scale. Chart audits among 864 patients assessed diabetes process and outcome measures. We modeled the odds of the patient receiving performance measures as a function of total PCMH score and of PCMH subscales and covariates. PCMH characteristics had mixed, inconsistent associations with the quality of diabetes care. The PCMH model may require refinement in design and implementation to improve diabetes care among vulnerable populations.

Objectives: To compare health care use and spending of Medicaid enrollees seen at federally qualified health centers versus non-health center settings in a context of significant growth., Methods: Using fee-for-service Medicaid claims from 13 states in 2009, we compared patients receiving the majority of their primary care in federally qualified health centers with propensity score-matched comparison groups receiving primary care in other settings., Results: We found that health center patients had lower use and spending than did non-health center patients across all services, with 22% fewer visits and 33% lower spending on specialty care and 25% fewer admissions and 27% lower spending on inpatient care. Total spending was 24% lower for health center patients., Conclusions: Our analysis of 2009 Medicaid claims, which includes the largest sample of states and more recent data than do previous multistate claims studies, demonstrates that the health center program has provided a cost-efficient setting for primary care for Medicaid enrollees.

Objective: To compare total annual costs for Medicare beneficiaries receiving primary care in federally funded health centers (HCs) to Medicare beneficiaries in physician offices and outpatient clinics., Data Sources/study Settings: Part A and B fee-for-service Medicare claims from 14 geographically diverse states. The sample was restricted to beneficiaries residing within primary care service areas (PCSAs) with at least one HC., Study Design: We modeled separately total annual costs, annual primary care costs, and annual nonprimary care costs as a function of patient characteristics and PCSA fixed effects., Data Collection: Data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services., Principal Findings: Total median annual costs (at $2,370) for HC Medicare patients were lower by 10 percent compared to patients in physician offices ($2,667) and by 30 percent compared to patients in outpatient clinics ($3,580). This was due to lower nonprimary care costs in HCs, despite higher primary care costs., Conclusions: HCs may offer lower total cost practice style to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers Medicare. Future research should examine whether these lower costs reflect better management by HC practitioners or more limited access to specialty care by HC patients., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

By expanding access to affordable insurance coverage for millions of Americans, the Affordable Care Act will likely increase demand for the services provided by federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), which provide an important source of care in low-income communities. A pair of Commonwealth Fund surveys asked health center leaders about their ability to function as medical homes. Survey findings show that between 2009 and 2013, the percentage of centers exhibiting medium or high levels of medical home capability almost doubled, from 32 percent to 62 percent. The greatest improvement was reported in patient tracking and care management. Despite this increased capability, health centers reported diminished ability to coordinate care with providers outside of the practice, particularly specialists. Ongoing federal funding and technical support for medical home transformation will be needed to ensure that FQHCs can fulfill their mission of providing high-quality, comprehensive care to low-income and minority populations.

Objectives: To evaluate the relationship between Patient-centered Medical Home (PCMH) model adoption in health centers (HCs) and clinical performance measures and to determine if adoption of PCMH characteristics is associated with better clinical performance., Research Design: Data came from the Health Resources and Services Administration's 2009 Uniform Data System and the 2009 Commonwealth Fund National Survey of Federally Qualified Health Centers. Clinical performance measures included 2 process measures (childhood immunization and cervical cancer screening) and 2 outcome measures (hypertension control and diabetes control). Total and subscale PCMH scores were regressed on the clinical performance measures, adjusting for patient, provider, financial, and institutional characteristics., Results: The findings showed different directional relationships, with some PCMH domains (care management, test/referral tracking, quality improvement, and external coordination) showing little or no effect on outcome measures of interest, 1 domain (access/communication) associated with improved outcomes, and 1 domain (patient tracking/registry) associated with worse outcomes., Conclusions: This study is among the first to examine the association between PCMH transformation and clinical performance in HCs, providing an understanding of the impact of PCMH adoption within safety-net settings. The mixed results highlight the importance of examining relationships between specific PCMH domains and specific clinical quality measures, in addition to analyzing overall PCMH scores which could yield distorted findings.

Background: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) has roots in pediatrics, yet we know little about the experience of pediatric patients in PCMH settings., Objective: To examine the association between clinic PCMH characteristics and pediatric patient experience as reported by parents., Research Design: We assessed the cross-sectional correlation between clinic PCMH characteristics and pediatric patient experience in 24 clinics randomly selected from the Safety Net Medical Home Initiative, a 5-state PCMH demonstration project. PCMH characteristics were measured with surveys of randomly selected providers and staff; surveys generated 0 (worst) to 100 (best) scores for 5 subscales, and a total score. Patient experience was measured through surveying parents of pediatric patients. Questions from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems-Clinician and Group instrument produced 4 patient experience measures: timeliness, physician communication, staff helpfulness, and overall rating. To investigate the relationship between PCMH characteristics and patient experience, we used generalized estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure., Results: We included 440 parents and 214 providers and staff in the analysis. Total PCMH score was not associated with parents' assessment of patient experience; however, PCMH subscales were associated with patient experience in different directions. In particular, quality improvement activities undertaken by clinics were strongly associated with positive ratings of patient experience, whereas patient care management activities were associated with more negative reports of patient experience., Conclusions: Future work should bolster features of the PCMH that work well for patients while investigating which PCMH features negatively impact patient experience, to yield a better patient experience overall.

Background: Integrated care focuses on care coordination and patient centeredness. Integrated care supports continuity of care over time, with care that is coordinated within and between settings and is responsive to patients' needs. Currently, little is known about care integration for rural patients., Objective: To examine challenges to care integration in rural safety net clinics and strategies to address these challenges., Research Design: Qualitative case study., Participants: Thirty-six providers and staff from 3 rural clinics in the Safety Net Medical Home Initiative., Methods: Interviews were analyzed using the framework method with themes organized within 3 constructs: Team Coordination and Empanelment, External Coordination and Partnerships, and Patient-centered and Community-centered Care., Results: Participants described challenges common to safety net clinics, including limited access to specialists for Medicaid and uninsured patients, difficulty communicating with external providers, and payment models with limited support for care integration activities. Rurality compounded these challenges. Respondents reported benefits of empanelment and team-based care, and leveraged local resources to support care for patients. Rural clinics diversified roles within teams, shared responsibility for patient care, and colocated providers, as strategies to support care integration., Conclusions: Care integration was supported by 2 fundamental changes to organize and deliver care to patients-(1) empanelment with a designated group of patients being cared for by a provider; and (2) a multidisciplinary team able to address rural issues. New funding and organizational initiatives of the Affordable Care Act may help to further improve care integration, although additional solutions may be necessary to address particular needs of rural communities., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Background: Few studies have evaluated whether the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) supports patient activation and none have evaluated whether support for patient activation differs among racial and ethnic groups or by health status. This is critical because activation is lower on average among minority patients and those in poorer health., Objective: To assess the association between clinic PCMH characteristics and patient perception of clinic support for patient activation, and whether that association varies by patients' self-reported race/ethnicity or health status., Participants: A total of 214 providers/staff and 735 patients in 24 safety net clinics across 5 states., Measures: Provider/staff surveys produced a 0-100 score for PCMH characteristics. Patient surveys used the patient activation subscale of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care to produce a 0-100 score for patient perception of clinic support for patient activation., Results: Across all patients, we did not find a statistically significant association between PCMH score and clinic support for patient activation. However, among the subgroup of minority patients in fair or poor health, a 10-point higher PCMH score was associated with a 14.5-point (CI, 4.4, 24.5) higher activation score., Conclusions: In a population of safety net patients, higher-rated PCMH characteristics were not associated with patients' perception of clinic support for activation among the full study population; however, we found a strong association between PCMH characteristics and clinic support for activation among minority patients in poor/fair health status. The PCMH may be promising for reducing disparities in patient activation for ill minority patients.