Pascal Briot

Association of Integrated Team-Based Care With Health Care Quality, Utilization, and Cost

IMPORTANCE The value of integrated team delivery models is not firmly established. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association of receiving primary care in integrated team-based care (TBC) practices vs traditional practice management (TPM) practices (usual care) with patient outcomes, health care utilization, and costs. DESIGN A retrospective, longitudinal, cohort study to assess the association of integrating physical and mental health over time in TBC practices with patient outcomes and costs. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who received primary care at 113 unique Intermountain Healthcare Medical Group primary care practices from 2003 through 2005 and had yearly encounters with Intermountain Healthcare through 2013, including some patients who received care in both TBC and TPM practices. EXPOSURES Receipt of primary care in TBC practices compared with TPM practices for patients treated in internal medicine, family practice, and geriatrics practices. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Outcomes included 7 quality measures, 6 health care utilization measures, payments to the delivery system, and program investment costs. RESULTS During the study period (January 2010-December 2013), 113,452 unique patients (mean age, 56.1 years; women, 58.9%) accounted for 163,226 person-years of exposure in 27 TBC practices and 171,915 person-years in 75 TPM practices. Patients treated in TBC practices compared with those treated in TPM practices had higher rates of active depression screening (46.1% for TBC vs 24.1% for TPM; odds ratio [OR], 1.91 [95% CI, 1.75 to 2.08), adherence to a diabetes care bundle (24.6% for TBC vs 19.5% for TPM; OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.11 to 1.42]), and documentation of self-care plans (48.4% for TBC vs 8.7% for TPM; OR, 5.59 [95% CI, 4.27 to 7.33]), lower proportion of patients with controlled hypertension (<140/90 mm Hg) (85.0% for TBC vs 97.7% for TPM; OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.80 to 0.95]), and no significant differences in documentation of advanced directives (9.6% for TBC vs 9.9% for TPM; OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.03]). Per 100 person-years, rates of health care utilization were lower for TBC patients compared with TPM patients for emergency department visits (18.1 for TBC vs 23.5 for TPM; incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.74 to 0.80]), hospital admissions (9.5 for TBC vs 10.6 for TPM; IRR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.85 to 0.94]), ambulatory care sensitive visits and admissions (3.3 for TBC vs 4.3 for TPM; IRR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.85]), and primary care physician encounters (232.8 for TBC vs 250.4 for TPM; IRR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.92 to 0.94]), with no significant difference in visits to urgent care facilities (55.7 for TBC vs 56.2 for TPM; IRR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.02]) and visits to specialty care physicians (213.5 for TBC vs 217.9 for TPM; IRR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.97 to 0.99], P > .008). Payments to the delivery system were lower in the TBC group vs the TPM group (

Cost and Quality Impact of Intermountain's Mental Health Integration Program

3400.62 for TBC vs

Diabetes self-management education improves quality of care and clinical outcomes determined by a diabetes bundle measure

3515.71 for TPM; β, -

Evaluation of “Depression in Primary Care” Innovations

115.09 [95% CI, -

Impact of the healthcare payment system on patient access to oral anticancer drugs: an illustration from the French and United States contexts

199.64 to -

Excessive Drinking in Young Women: Reducing harm through quality improvement

30.54]) and were less than investment costs of the TBC program. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among adults enrolled in an integrated health care system, receipt of primary care at TBC practices compared with TPM practices was associated with higher rates of some measures of quality of care, lower rates for some measures of acute care utilization, and lower actual payments received by the delivery system.

Mental health integration: rethinking practitioner roles in the treatment of depression: the specialist, primary care physicians, and the practice nurse.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Most patients with mental health (MH) conditions, such as depression, receive care for their conditions from a primary care physician (PCP) in their health/medical home. Providing MH care, however, presents many challenges for the PCP, including (1) the difficulty of getting needed consultation from an MH specialist; (2) the time constraints of a busy PCP practice; (3) the complicated nature of recognizing depression, which may be described with only somatic complaints; (4) the barriers to reimbursement and compensation; and (5) associated medical and social comorbidities. Practice managers, emergency departments, and health plans are stretched to provide care for complex patients with unmet MH needs. At the same time, payment reform linked to accountable care organizations and/or episodic bundle payments, MH parity rules, and increasing MH costs to large employers and payers all highlight the critical need to identify high‐quality, efficient, integrated MH care delivery practices. Over the past ten years, Intermountain Healthcare has developed a team‐based approach—known as mental health integration (MHI)—for caring for these patients and their families. The team includes the PCPs and their staff, and they, in turn, are integrated with MH professionals, community resources, care management, and the patient and his or her family. The integration model goes far beyond co‐location in its team‐based approach; it is operationalized at the clinic, thereby improving both physician and staff satisfaction. Patients treated in MHI clinics also show improved satisfaction, lower costs, and better quality outcomes. The MHI program is financially sustainable in routinized clinics without subsidies. MHI is a successful approach to improving care for patients with MH conditions in primary care health homes.

Applying a European Key Component Framework to Compare andContrast Cross-Country Case Studies in Health and Wellness of aPopulation

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of diabetes self-management education (DSME) in improving processes and outcomes of diabetes care as measured by a five component diabetes bundle and HbA1c, in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods A retrospective analysis was performed for adult T2DM patients who received DSME training in 2011–2012 from an accredited American Diabetes Association center at Intermountain Healthcare (IH) and had an HbA1c measurement within the prior 3 months and 2–6 months after completing their first DSME visit. Control patients were selected from the same clinics as case-patients using random number generator to achieve a 1 to 4 ratio. Case and control patients were included if 1) pre-education HbA1c was between 6.0%–14.0%; 2) their main provider was a primary care physician; 3) they met the national Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set criteria for inclusion in the IH diabetes registry. The IH diabetes bundle includes retinal eye exam, nephropathy screening or prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme or angiotensin receptor blocker; blood pressure <140/90 mmHg, LDL <100 mg/dL, HbA1c <8.0%. Results DSME patients had a significant difference in achievement of the five element IH diabetes bundle and in HbA1c % compared to those without DSME. After adjusting for possible confounders in a multivariate logistic regression model, DSME patients had a 1.5 fold difference in improvement in their diabetes bundle and almost a 3 fold decline in HbA1c compared to the control group. Conclusion Standardized DSME taught within an IH American Diabetes Association center is strongly associated with a substantial improvement in patients meeting all five elements of a diabetes bundle and a decline in HbA1c beyond usual care. Given the low operating cost of the DSME program, these results strongly support the value adding benefit of this program in treating T2DM patients.

Prise en charge intégrée des maladies mentales : l’exemple d’Intermountain Healthcare (USA)

Key stakeholders and executive decision makers in healthcare system require clear and convincing data of the value of chronic illness care models for the primary care treatment of depression. Well-conceived and conducted evaluations provide this necessary information. This case study describes the experience of a large, nonprofit healthcare system’s experience with implementing and evaluating a quality improvement program for integrating depression management into primary care. The commentary that follows discusses specific evaluation questions that are relevant to each of the stakeholder groups involved in deciding whether or not to continue supporting such programs.

Computerization of Mental Health Integration complexity scores at Intermountain Healthcare.

BackgroundOral anticancer drugs (OADs) allow treating a growing range of cancers. Despite their convenience, their acceptance by healthcare professionals and patients may be affected by medical, economical and organizational factors. The way the healthcare payment system (HPS) reimburses OADs or finances hospital activities may impact patients’ access to such drugs. We discuss how the HPS in France and USA may generate disincentives to the use of OADs in certain circumstances.DiscussionFrench public and private hospitals are financed by National Health Insurance (NHI) according to the nature and volume of medical services provided annually. Patients receiving intravenous anticancer drugs (IADs) in a hospital setting generate services, while those receiving OADs shift a part of service provision from the hospital to the community. In 2013, two million outpatient IADs sessions were performed, representing a cost of €815 million to the NHI, but positive contribution margin of €86 million to hospitals. Substitution of IADs by OADs mechanically induces a shortfall in hospital income related to hospitalizations. Such economic constraints may partially contribute to making physicians reluctant to prescribe OADs. In the US healthcare system, coverage for OADs is less favorable than coverage for injectable anticancer drugs. In 2006, a Cancer Drug Coverage Parity Act was adopted by several states in order to provide patients with better coverage for OADs. Nonetheless, the complexity of reimbursement systems and multiple reimbursement channels from private insurance represent real economic barriers which may prevent patients with low income being treated with OADs. From an organizational perspective, in both countries the use of OADs generates additional activities related to physician consultations, therapeutic education and healthcare coordination between hospitals and community settings, which are not considered in the funding of hospitals activities so far.SummaryFunding of healthcare services is a critical factor influencing in part the choice of cancer treatments and this is expected to become increasingly important as economic constraints grow. Drug reimbursement systems and hospital financing changes, coupled with other accompanying measures, should contribute to improve equal and safe patient access to appropriate anticancer drugs and improve the management and care pathway of cancer patients.