Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27473005›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2016

The CareFirst Patient-Centered Medical Home Program: Cost and Utilization Effects in Its First Three Years.

Alison Cuellar, Lorens A Helmchen, Gilbert Gimm, Jay Want, Sriteja Burla, Bradley J Kells, Iwona Kicinger, Len M Nichols

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Provider Experiences with a Payer-Based PCMH Program.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019
    Observational
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Alison CuellarDepartment of Health Administration and Policy, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA. aevanscu@gmu.edu.
Lorens A HelmchenDepartment of Health Policy and Management, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Gilbert GimmDepartment of Health Policy and Management, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Jay WantCenter for Improving Value in Health Care, Denver, CO, USA.
Sriteja BurlaCenter for Health Policy Research and Ethics, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.
Bradley J KellsCenter for Health Policy Research and Ethics, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.
Iwona KicingerCenter for Health Policy Research and Ethics, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.
Len M NicholsCenter for Health Policy Research and Ethics, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnhanced primary care models have diffused slowly and shown uneven results. Because their structural features are costly and challenging for small practices to implement, they offer modest rewards for improved performance, and improvement takes time.

objectiveTo test whether a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model that significantly rewarded cost savings and accommodated small primary care practices was associated with lower spending, fewer hospital admissions, and fewer emergency room visits.

designWe compared medical care expenditures and utilization among adults who participated in the PCMH program to adults who did not participate. We computed difference-in-difference estimates using two-part multivariate generalized linear models for expenditures and negative binomial models for utilization. Control variables included patient demographics, county, chronic condition indicators, and illness severity.

participantsA total of 1,433,297 adults aged 18-64 years, residing in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and insured by CareFirst for at least 3 consecutive months between 2010 and 2013.

interventionCareFirst implemented enhanced fee-for-service payments to the practices, offered a large retrospective bonus if annual cost and quality targets were exceeded, and provided information and care coordination support. MEASURES: Outcomes were quarterly claims expenditures per member for all covered services, inpatient care, emergency care, and prescription drugs, and quarterly inpatient admissions and emergency room visits.

resultsBy the third intervention year, annual adjusted total claims payments were $109 per participating member (95 % CI: -$192, -$27), or 2.8 % lower than before the program and compared to those who did not participate. Forty-two percent of the overall decline in spending was explained by lower inpatient care, emergency care, and prescription drug spending. Much of the reduction in inpatient and emergency spending was explained by lower utilization of services.

conclusionsA PCMH model that does not require practices to make infrastructure investments and that rewards cost savings can reduce spending and utilization.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareAdolescentAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisCost SavingsDistrict of ColumbiaFemaleHumansMaleMarylandMiddle AgedPatient-Centered CareTime FactorsVirginiaYoung Adultpatient-centered careprimary care redesignprogram evaluation

Identifiers

PMID27473005
PMCPMC5071295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.