Samuel T. Edwards

Comparative effectiveness of endovascular versus open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in the Medicare population

OBJECTIVE Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is increasingly used for emergent treatment of ruptured AAA (rAAA). We sought to compare the perioperative and long-term mortality, procedure-related complications, and rates of reintervention of EVAR vs open aortic repair of rAAA in Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS We examined perioperative and long-term mortality and complications after EVAR or open aortic repair performed for rAAA in all traditional Medicare beneficiaries discharged from a United States hospital from 2001 to 2008. Patients were matched by propensity score on baseline demographics, coexisting conditions, admission source, and hospital volume of rAAA repair. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of bias that might have resulted from unmeasured confounders. RESULTS Of 10,998 patients with repaired rAAA, 1126 underwent EVAR and 9872 underwent open repair. Propensity score matching yielded 1099 patient pairs. The average age was 78 years, and 72.4% were male. Perioperative mortality was 33.8% for EVAR and 47.7% for open repair (P < .001), and this difference persisted for >4 years. At 36 months, EVAR patients had higher rates of AAA-related reinterventions than open repair patients (endovascular reintervention, 10.9% vs 1.5%; P < .001), whereas open patients had more laparotomy-related complications (incisional hernia repair, 1.8% vs 6.2%; P < .001; all surgical complications, 4.4% vs 9.1%; P < .001). Use of EVAR for rAAA increased from 6% of cases in 2001 to 31% in 2008, whereas during the same interval, overall 30-day mortality for admission for rAAA, regardless of treatment, decreased from 55.8% to 50.9%. CONCLUSIONS EVAR for rAAA is associated with lower perioperative and long-term mortality in Medicare beneficiaries. Increasing adoption of EVAR for rAAA is associated with an overall decrease in mortality of patients hospitalized for rAAA during the last decade.

Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiatives Expanded In 2009–13: Providers, Patients, And Payment Incentives Increased

Patient-centered medical home initiatives are central to many efforts to reform the US health care delivery system. To better understand the extent and nature of these initiatives, in 2013 we performed a nationwide cross-sectional survey of initiatives that included payment reform incentives in their models, and we compared the results to those of a similar survey we conducted in 2009. We found that the number of initiatives featuring payment reform incentives had increased from 26 in 2009 to 114 in 2013. The number of patients covered by these initiatives had increased from nearly five million to almost twenty-one million. We also found that the proportion of time-limited initiatives--those with a planned end date--was 20 percent in 2013, a decrease from 77 percent in 2009. Finally, we found that the dominant payment model for patient-centered medical homes remained fee-for-service payments augmented by per member per month payments and pay-for-performance bonuses. However, those payments and bonuses were higher in 2013 than they were in 2009, and the use of shared-savings models was greater. The patient-centered medical home model is likely to continue both to become more common and to play an important role in delivery system reform.

Medicare's Chronic Care Management Payment — Payment Reform for Primary Care

In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will introduce a non–visit-based payment for chronic care management. The new policy reflects an investment in primary care that may contribute to the development of a value-oriented health system.

Structuring Payment to Medical Homes After the Affordable Care Act

ABSTRACTThe Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) is a leading model of primary care reform, a critical element of which is payment reform for primary care services. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the Accountable Care Organization (ACO) has emerged as a model of delivery system reform, and while there is theoretical alignment between the PCMH and ACOs, the discussion of physician payment within each model has remained distinct. Here we compare payment for medical homes with that for accountable care organizations, consider opportunities for integration, and discuss implications for policy makers and payers considering ACO models. The PCMH and ACO are complementary approaches to reformed care delivery: the PCMH ultimately requires strong integration with specialists and hospitals as seen under ACOs, and ACOs likely will require a high functioning primary care system as embodied by the PCMH. Aligning payment incentives within the ACO will be critical to achieving this integration and enhancing the care coordination role of primary care in these settings.

Home-Based Primary Care and the Risk of Ambulatory Care–Sensitive Condition Hospitalization Among Older Veterans With Diabetes Mellitus

IMPORTANCE Primary care services based at home have the potential to reduce the likelihood of hospitalization among older adults with multiple chronic diseases. OBJECTIVE To characterize the association between enrollment in Home-Based Primary Care (HBPC), a national home care program operated by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and hospitalizations owing to an ambulatory care-sensitive condition among older veterans with diabetes mellitus. DESIGN AND SETTING Retrospective cohort study. Patients admitted to VA and non-VA hospitals were followed up from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010. PARTICIPANTS Veterans 67 years or older who were fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, were diagnosed as having diabetes mellitus and at least 1 other chronic disease, and had at least 1 admission to a VA or non-VA hospital in 2005 or 2006. EXPOSURES Enrollment in HBPC, defined as a minimum of 2 HBPC encounters during the study period. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Admission to VA and non-VA hospitals owing to an ambulatory care-sensitive condition, as measured by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Qualitys Prevention Quality Indicators in VA medical records and Medicare claims. Outcomes were analyzed using distance from the veterans residence to a VA facility that provides HBPC as an instrumental variable. RESULTS Among 56 608 veterans, 1978 enrolled in HBPC. These patients were older (mean age, 79.1 vs 77.1 years) and had more chronic diseases (eg, 59.2% vs 53.5% had congestive heart failure). Multivariable predictors for HBPC enrollment included paralysis (odds ratio [OR], 2.11; 95% CI, 1.63-2.74), depression (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.70-2.34), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.17-1.58), and distance from the nearest HBPC-providing VA facility (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.50-0.70 for >10-30 vs <5 miles). After controlling for selection using an instrumental variable analysis, HBPC was associated with a significant reduction in the probability of experiencing a hospitalization owing to an ambulatory care-sensitive condition (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.89), with an absolute reduction in the probability of hospitalization of 5.8% in 1 year. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Home-Based Primary Care is associated with a decreased probability of ambulatory care-sensitive condition hospitalization among elderly veterans with diabetes mellitus. In accountable care models, HBPC may have an important role in the management of older adults with multiple chronic diseases.

Who is responsible for what tasks within primary care: Perceived task allocation among primary care providers and interdisciplinary team members.

BACKGROUND Unclear roles in interdisciplinary primary care teams can impede optimal team-based care. We assessed perceived task allocation among primary care providers (PCPs) and staff during implementation of a new patient-centered care model in Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care practices. METHODS We performed a cross-sectional survey of PCPs and primary care staff (registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical/vocational nurses (LPNs), and medical assistants/clerks (MAs)) in 23 primary care practices within one VA region. We asked subjects whether PCPs performed each of 14 common primary care tasks alone, or relied upon staff for help. Tasks included gathering preventive service history, disease screening, evaluating patients and making treatment decisions, intervening on lifestyle factors, educating patients about self-care activities and medications, refilling prescriptions, receiving and resolving patient messages, completing forms, tracking diagnostic data, referral tracking, and arranging home health care. We then performed multivariable regression to determine predictors of perceived PCP reliance on staff for each task. RESULTS 162 PCPs and 257 staff members responded, a 60% response rate. For 12/14 tasks, fewer than 50% of PCPs reported relying on staff for help. For all 14 tasks, over 85% of RNs reported they were relied upon. For 12/14 tasks, over 50% of LPNs reported they were relied on, while for 5/14 tasks a majority of MAs reported being relied upon. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants (NP/PAs) reported relying on staff less than physicians. CONCLUSIONS Early in the implementation of a team-based primary care model, most PCPs perceived they were solely responsible for most clinical tasks. RNs, and LPNs felt they were relied upon for most of the same tasks, while medical assistants/clerks reported being relied on for fewer tasks. Better understanding of optimal inter-professional team task allocation in primary care is needed.

Can Personalized Care Planning Improve Primary Care

Personalized care planning, a formal process in which clinicians and patients collaborate in the creation of longitudinal treatment plans, is a frequently mentioned tool to improve the quality and patient-centeredness of primary care for medically complex, high-needs individuals.1 A systematic review of personalized care planning interventions demonstrated small improvements in quality of care for persons with diabetes, hypertension, and asthma; improvements in selfefficacy and self-care; and some improvements in psychological and general health indicators; moreover, interventions were most effective when they were integrated into routine care.2 In 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) mandated the creation of patient-centered care plans to bill for chronic care management (CCM) services for Medicare patients with multiple chronic

Unstable Housing and Diabetes-Related Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalization: A Nationally Representative Study of Safety-Net Clinic Patients

OBJECTIVE Homelessness is associated with worse diabetes outcomes, but the relationship between other forms of unstable housing and diabetes is not well studied. We assessed whether unstable housing was associated with increased risk for diabetes-related emergency department use or hospitalization. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We used data from the 2014 Health Center Patient Survey (HCPS), a cross-sectional, nationally representative survey of patients who receive care at federally funded safety-net health centers. We included nonhomeless adults (aged ≥18 years) with self-reported diabetes. Unstable housing was defined as not having enough money to pay rent or mortgage, moving two or more times in the past 12 months, or staying at a place one does not own or rent. The primary outcome was self-report of diabetes-related emergency department visit or inpatient hospitalization in the last 12 months. We also examined use of housing assistance. RESULTS Of 1,087 participants, representing 3,277,165 adults with diabetes, 37% were unstably housed. Overall, 13.7% of participants reported a diabetes-related emergency department visit or hospitalization in the past year. In logistic regression analyses adjusted for multiple potential confounders, unstable housing was associated with greater odds of diabetes-related emergency department use or hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio 5.17 [95% CI 2.08–12.87]). Only 0.9% of unstably housed individuals reported receiving help with housing through their clinic. CONCLUSIONS Unstable housing is common and associated with increased risk of diabetes-related emergency department and inpatient use. Addressing unstable housing in clinical settings may help improve health care utilization for vulnerable individuals with diabetes.

How Can We Improve the Efficiency of Specialty Care

John N. Mafi, MD, MPH and Samuel T. Edwards, MD, MPH Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA; RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA; Section of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR, USA; Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA.

Preventing Hospitalization with Veterans Affairs Home-Based Primary Care: Which Individuals Benefit Most?

To examine how medical complexity modifies the relationship between enrollment in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) home‐based primary care (HBPC) and hospitalization for ambulatory care–sensitive conditions (ACSC) for veterans with diabetes mellitus and whether the effect of HBPC on hospitalizations varies according to clinical condition.