the milbank quarterly - american academy of family …...the milbank quarterly, vol. 90, no. 3, 2012...
TRANSCRIPT
Off the Hamster Wheel? QualitativeEvaluation of a Payment-LinkedPatient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH)Pilot
ASAF BITTON, 1,2 GREGORY R. S CHWARTZ, 1,2
EL IZABETH E. STEWART, 3 DANIEL E .HENDERSON, 4 CAROL A. KEOHANE, 1 DAVID W.BATES , 1,2,5 and GORDON D. SCHIFF 1,2
1Brigham and Women’s Hospital; 2Harvard Medical School; 3AmericanAcademy of Family Physicians, National Research Network; 4ColumbiaUniversity Medical Center; 5Harvard School of Public Health
Context: Many primary care practices are moving toward the patient-centeredmedical home (PCMH) model and increasingly are offering payment incentiveslinked to PCMH changes. Despite widespread acceptance of general PCMHconcepts, there is still a pressing need to examine carefully and critically whattransformation means for primary care practices and their patients and theexperience of undergoing such change in a practice.
Methods: We used a qualitative case study approach to explore the underlyingdynamics of change at five practices participating in PCMH transformationefforts linked to payment reform. The evaluation consisted of structured sitevisits, interviews, observations, and artifact reviews followed by a structuredreview of transcripts and documents for patterns, themes, and insights relatedto PCMH implementation.
Findings: We describe both the detailed components of each practice’s transfor-mation efforts and a grounded taxonomy of eight insights stemming from theexperiences of these medical homes. We identified specific contextual factorsrelated to wide variations in change tactics. We also observed widely varying
Address correspondence to: Asaf Bitton, Division of General Internal Medicine,Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 1620 Tremont St., 3rd Floor, Room 3-002P,Boston, MA 02120 (email: [email protected]).
The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 90, No. 3, 2012 (pp. 484–515)c© 2012 Milbank Memorial Fund. Published by Wiley Periodicals Inc.
484
THE
MILBANK QUARTERLYA MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF POPULATION HEALTH AND HEALTH POLICY
Payment-Linked Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot 485
approaches to catalyzing change using (or not) external consultants, specificchallenges regarding health information technology implementation, team andstaff role restructuring, compensation, and change fatigue, and several unex-pected potential confounders or alternative explanations for practice success.
Conclusions: Our evaluation affirms the value and necessity of qualitativemethods for understanding primary care practice transformation, and it shouldencourage ongoing and future pilots to include assessments of the PCMH changeprocess beyond clinical markers and claims data. The results raise insights intothe heterogeneity of medical home transformation, the central but complex roleof payment reform in creating a space for change, the ability of small practicesto achieve substantial change in a short time period, and the challenges ofsustaining it.
Keywords: patient-centered medical home, qualitative, primary care, pay-ment reform, evaluation.
Agreater understanding of ways to improve primarycare is one of our nation’s highest priorities for building a morehumane and cost-effective health system (ACP 2006; Crabtree
et al. 2011; Nutting et al. 2011; Rittenhouse, Shortell, and Fisher2009). Primary care physicians often speak of a desire to “get off thehamster wheel”—the phenomenon of having to see more patients forshorter visits and less pay (Berenson and Rich 2010). Several hundredexperiments currently under way are examining how primary care canbe transformed from traditional episodic physician encounters into whathas been termed the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH), a modelthat emphasizes more comprehensive care coordination, care teams, andpopulation health management (Bitton, Martin, and Landon 2010).
It is important that we closely examine what is actually occurringin these PCMH experiments. The quantitative data collected from themyriad PCMH projects, while critical, tell only part of the story (Crab-tree et al. 2011; Gilfillan et al. 2010; Reid et al. 2010). Without anon-the-ground look at how these changes affect staff, patients, and workflow, we will lose the opportunity to understand how practices are beingtransformed (Berwick 2007).
Our evaluation is part of a larger assessment of PCMH implementa-tion models tied to payment reform in five primary care practices in two
486 A. Bitton et al.
states in the northeastern United States. We sought to better understandthe experiences of these practices as they transformed into medical homesaided by payment reform. Of particular interest was how they respondedto a new reimbursement opportunity based on a new, comprehensive,risk-adjusted payment model (Goroll et al. 2007). This model, in whichthere is widespread interest, centers on fundamentally restructuring thereimbursement for comprehensive patient-centered primary care in aPCMH environment. It eliminates fee for service (FFS), instead payingthe practice a risk-adjusted base payment per patient per month tosupport all the efforts by physicians and the team, plus the healthinformation technology (HIT) necessary for PCMH. The base paymentfor the first year was based on historic FFS trends for the practice,multiplied by a risk-adjustment formula, with an additional one-timerevenue boost. Physicians were paid a base salary using this monthlypayment system, supplemented by a substantial (up to 25%) “bonus”for achievements in cost-effectiveness, efficiency, quality, and patients’experience. To better understand how the five practices approached thisnew PCMH payment and practice transformation model, we conducteda qualitative evaluation consisting of site visits, interviews, observations,and document reviews.
Methods
Study Design and Sample
This PCMH pilot project began in 2009 with a self-selected sample offive primary care practices, each composed of a single office with three toeight physicians. The pilot’s design was based on the new payment modeland a proposal under the auspices of the Massachusetts Coalition forPrimary Care Reform (MACPR) initiative to test fundamental primarycare payment reform in the context of PCMH practice change. Thetransformation of three practices in one state was affiliated with a regionalpayer, the insurer for a significant percentage of the patients. The othertwo practices were part of an integrated multispecialty group in anotherstate. The design, length, and details of the pilot had been determinedbefore the start of our analysis.
As part of a larger detailed evaluation, we designed our qualitativereview to assess how the practices were actually carrying out the PCMH
Payment-Linked Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot 487
transformation. Our core qualitative evaluation team was made up ofthree primary care physicians, a medical/public health student, and aregistered nurse, all with expertise in primary care redesign. Guided byan experienced qualitative researcher with an extensive background inPCMH data collection and analysis, we spent several months refiningour research questions and data collection methods (see table 1). We useda qualitative comparative case study approach to explore each practice’stransformation efforts and also to compare the practices linked to theregional payer with those practices in the multispecialty group. Weconducted the qualitative phase of the evaluation in 2010, after eachpilot site had been engaged in transformation activities for at leasttwelve to eighteen months.
Data Collection
We began collecting primary data in late 2010 and early 2011. TheBrigham and Women’s Hospital Institutional Review Board (IRB) re-viewed and approved the protocols for our primary data collection. Beforeour site visits, our team conducted semistructured interviews with theleadership of the five practices. Next, four or five clinical members ofthe evaluation team conducted a concentrated site visit at each practice.Each visit lasted four to six hours and followed a four-step process us-ing each team member’s notes to strive for data saturation (table 1). Aminimum of a dozen staff members were interviewed at each site (threeto six physicians or mid-level providers, two to five nurses, one to twopractice managers or administrators, and three to eight support staff).Verbal consent was obtained from each individual interviewed on-site.
Data Analysis
The evaluation team first transcribed notes individually and then col-lated and reviewed them collectively. We iteratively coded themes thatemerged from these notes over a series of weekly meetings, workingwith documentary and pictorial artifacts collected from the practice vis-its. Following the constant comparative method, we created groundedtheory insights (Glaser 1967). Using selective coding, we systemati-cally related the core category (transformational change) to emergingcategories and insights related to change (Strauss 1990), for exam-ple, the genesis, challenges, successes, sustainability, and underlying
488 A. Bitton et al.
TABLE 1Site Visit Methods
Format Purpose
Step 1 Large group meetingwith senior staff andproject leadership
Pose general questions to group toevoke overall issues, stories,time frame, and themes (60min)
Step 2a In-depth interviews withkey informantsa
Probe into change process to elicitgranular details, illustrativevignettes, and maximumcandor (60 min apiece)
Step 2b Semistructuredinterviews of frontlinestaffb
Confirm, revise, or disconfirmdata based on previousinterviews; generate new data;triangulate to allow multipleperspectives (30 min apiece)
Step 3 Direct observation ofpatients’ paths andwork flow
Confirm or disconfirm interviewdata with observation; conductobservation in multiple areas ofthe practice by four observers toallow triangulation (90 min)
Step 4 Review of practiceartifacts anddocumentsc
Generate insight into practiceself-perception, attributes, andimplementation (ongoing)
Domains of Inquiry Examples of In-Depth InterviewQuestions
• Basic model/plan for change: generalgoal and approaches
• Practice transformation features:specific changes, why they werechosen, time frames
• Team/cultural changes: roletransitions, reconfiguration of staffmodels
• Role of electronic health records,clinical decision support, and otherhealth information technologychanges
Think back to your perspective onthis project in the beginning,and think about it now. Whatis different?[Followed by probe] Tell memore about the feeling that thiswas your last option?
In thinking about the newpayment model for yourpractice . . . how did the notionof incentives change behavior?[Probe] Tell me about the
Continued
Payment-Linked Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot 489
TABLE 1—Continued
Domains of InquiryExamples of In-Depth Interview
Questions
• Population management versuspatient-by-patient care
• Patient flow and case managementchanges
• Overall experience andperspectives: successes, failures,challenges, unexpected lessons
• Expansion of model to otherpractices; feasibility ofsustainability
• Protocols and perceptions offinancial restructuring
reactions or behaviors of specificstaff at various levels.
Let’s think about how roles in thispractice may have changed overthe course of the project. [Probe]You say it now seems like you’redoing more work while others aredoing less. Tell me more aboutthat.
What has been your experience thusfar with team-based care? [Probe]You say you now see only thesicker patients while your nursepractitioner sees the healthierpatients. What is that like?
Notes: aPhysician leadership and other senior staff.bPhysicians, mid-level providers, nurses, care managers, medical assistants, and administrativestaff.cInternal practice transformation plans / performance metrics, QI goals, and care redesign protocolsand instruments.
organizational framework of the practice. Our overall goal was to gen-erate a series of grounded insights that would be generalizable to otherpractices undergoing transformation attempts and also be useful to pay-ers and policymakers guiding medical home and primary care reform.Whenever possible, we attribute quotations to practice sites, but be-cause of individual confidentiality agreements, we were not permittedto identify the particular person.
Results
Practice Descriptions and Changes Implemented
Table 2 describes the baseline practice characteristics and regional de-mographic information, and table 3 summarizes the genesis of practicechange and the specific strategies used to implement the PCMH andpayment reform models. The practices differ in the impetus of and
490 A. Bitton et al.
TAB
LE2
Bas
elin
eP
ract
ice
Cha
ract
eris
tics
Pra
ctic
eA
BC
DE
Pra
ctic
ew
ithi
na
Pra
ctic
ew
ithi
na
Pri
vate
Pra
ctic
ew
ithi
nP
riva
teP
ract
ice
wit
hin
Pri
vate
Pra
ctic
ew
ithi
nH
ighl
yIn
tegr
ated
Hig
hly
Inte
grat
edLa
rge,
Loos
ely
Larg
e,Lo
osel
ySm
all,
Mor
eC
lose
lyM
ulti
spec
ialt
yM
ulti
spec
ialt
yA
ffil
iate
dA
ffil
iate
dA
ffil
iate
dSi
x-G
roup
Pra
ctic
eSi
x-G
roup
Pra
ctic
eM
ulti
spec
ialt
yM
ulti
spec
ialt
yM
ulti
spec
ialt
yA
llia
nce
(Inc
ludi
ngA
llia
nce
(Inc
ludi
ngO
rgan
izat
iona
lStr
uctu
reG
roup
Gro
upG
roup
Pra
ctic
eE
)P
ract
ice
D)
Num
ber
ofph
ysic
ians
ingr
oup
180
180
7162
546
Num
ber
ofph
ysic
ians
inpr
acti
ce9
36
159
Num
ber
ofnu
rse
prac
titi
oner
s/ph
ysic
ian
assi
stan
ts
34
37
4
Pra
ctic
esi
telo
cati
on(s
)1
11
11
Rel
atio
nshi
pof
PC
MH
init
iati
veto
loca
lpay
erY
esY
esY
esN
oN
o
Leve
lofl
ocal
heal
thin
form
atio
nex
chan
geLo
wLo
wM
ediu
mH
igh
Hig
h
Ele
ctro
nic
heal
thre
cord
use
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ele
ctro
nic
pres
crib
ing
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reg
istr
yfu
ncti
onP
arti
alP
arti
alFu
llFu
llFu
llR
egio
nSu
burb
anar
eain
larg
eno
rthe
ast
stat
eSu
burb
anar
eain
larg
eno
rthe
ast
stat
eSu
burb
anar
eain
larg
eno
rthe
ast
stat
eSu
burb
anar
eain
smal
lno
rthe
ast
stat
eSu
burb
anar
eain
smal
lno
rthe
ast
stat
eLo
calt
own
popu
lati
on20
,463
8,18
838
,866
56,2
0314
,893
Med
ian
age
(are
a)37
.538
.836
.737
.437
.3P
erca
pita
inco
me
(199
9$)
24,3
5225
,271
29,6
1124
,624
23,2
16
Payment-Linked Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot 491
TAB
LE3
Cha
nge
Stra
tegi
esA
dopt
edby
Pra
ctic
esP
arti
cipa
ting
inP
aym
ent
Ref
orm
PC
MH
Aff
ilia
ted
wit
hR
egio
nalP
ayer
Inte
grat
edM
ulti
spec
ialt
yG
roup
Pra
ctic
eA
Pra
ctic
eB
Pra
ctic
eC
Pra
ctic
eD
Pra
ctic
eE
Gen
esis
Stra
tegi
cin
itia
tive
star
ted
in20
09by
larg
ere
gion
alpa
yer
tote
stpr
imar
yca
repa
ymen
tm
odel
refo
rmas
adr
iver
ofpr
acti
cetr
ansf
orm
atio
nto
med
ical
hom
es.P
ayer
sele
cted
thre
ehi
ghly
rega
rded
prac
tice
sth
atag
reed
topi
lot
the
init
iati
vean
dfu
ndam
enta
lly
chan
geph
ysic
ians
’com
pens
atio
nm
odel
.Pay
eral
soof
fere
dex
tern
alfa
cili
tati
onfo
rP
CM
Htr
ansf
orm
atio
n.
Init
iati
vest
arte
din
2009
asou
tgro
wth
oflo
ng-s
tand
ing
grou
pwid
eim
prov
emen
tef
fort
ata
larg
em
ulti
spec
ialt
ypr
acti
ce.
Pra
ctic
ele
ader
ship
inte
rest
edin
PC
MH
and
expe
rien
ced
inpr
acti
ceim
prov
emen
t,gi
ven
supp
ort
bym
ulti
spec
ialt
ypr
acti
cegr
oup’
sce
ntra
llea
ders
hip.
Pil
otch
osen
bygr
oup
lead
ersh
ipbe
caus
eof
expe
rien
cew
ith
prac
tice
impr
ovem
ent.
Exe
cuti
vete
am–l
edin
itia
tive
star
ted
in20
09to
impr
ove
valu
ean
dm
ove
away
from
fee-
for-
serv
ice
(FFS
)pa
ymen
tm
odel
.The
ysa
wth
epr
acti
ceas
ate
stin
ggr
ound
for
deve
lopi
ngst
rate
gyto
even
tual
lyro
llou
tP
CM
Hto
enti
rem
ulti
spec
ialt
ygr
oup
prac
tice
.
Pra
ctic
ele
ader
ship
rati
onal
efo
rch
ange
Phy
sici
ans
disc
oura
ged
bym
isal
ignm
ent
ofFF
S(f
ee-f
or-s
ervi
ce)
ince
ntiv
esw
ith
desi
red
prim
ary
care
outc
omes
;wan
ted
toim
prov
equ
alit
y.H
isto
ryin
prac
tice
ofin
nova
tion
and
ofna
tion
alfa
mil
ym
edic
ine
lead
ersh
ip.
Phy
sici
ans
inte
rest
edin
impr
ovin
gth
ecu
ltur
eof
prim
ary
care
;w
ante
dto
beco
me
prem
ier
loca
lpra
ctic
ean
dre
form
paym
ent
mod
el.
Als
oha
dpr
acti
cele
ader
sho
ldin
gle
ader
ship
role
sw
ith
spon
sori
ngpa
yer.
Pra
ctic
ele
ader
ship
reco
gniz
edan
earl
yop
port
unit
yfo
rth
epr
acti
ceto
bere
cogn
ized
and
paid
diff
eren
tly
thro
ugh
ane
wm
odel
.A
lso
had
prac
tice
lead
ers
hold
ing
lead
ersh
ipro
les
wit
hsp
onso
ring
paye
r.
Mul
tisp
ecia
lty
grou
p’s
cent
ral
lead
ersh
ipsa
wpr
acti
ceas
idea
ltes
tsi
tefo
rm
edic
alho
me
mod
el.
Pra
ctic
ele
ader
ship
view
edm
edic
alho
me
mod
elas
aca
taly
stfo
rfu
rthe
ror
gani
zati
onal
qual
ity
impr
ovem
ent.
Gro
upop
ened
new
geog
raph
icsi
te.P
ract
ice
lead
ers
saw
oppo
rtun
ity
tofo
rman
inno
vati
vepr
acti
ceat
the
spea
rpo
int
ofch
ange
for
the
enti
regr
oup.
Pra
ctic
ele
ader
sha
dro
les
inth
ece
ntra
llea
ders
hip
team
wit
hin
the
mul
tisp
ecia
lty
grou
p.
Con
tinu
ed
492 A. Bitton et al.
TAB
LE3—
Con
tinu
ed
Aff
ilia
ted
wit
hR
egio
nalP
ayer
Inte
grat
edM
ulti
spec
ialt
yG
roup
Pra
ctic
eA
Pra
ctic
eB
Pra
ctic
eC
Pra
ctic
eD
Pra
ctic
eE
Cha
nge
appr
oach
Tran
sfor
ME
D(M
edic
alH
ome
Con
sult
ing
Gro
up)
exte
rnal
faci
lita
tion
(pai
dfo
rby
spon
sori
ngre
gion
alpa
yer)
.
Tran
sfor
ME
Dex
tern
alfa
cili
tati
on(p
aid
for
bysp
onso
ring
regi
onal
paye
r).
Init
iall
yTr
ansf
orM
ED
but
prim
aril
yin
tern
ally
defi
ned
and
impl
emen
ted.
LEA
Nqu
alit
yim
prov
emen
tm
etho
dsfa
cili
tate
dby
“int
erna
l”co
nsul
tant
s(p
rovi
ded
and
paid
for
bym
ulti
spec
ialt
ygr
oup
orga
niza
tion
).
“Int
erna
l”m
odel
base
don
the
Inst
itut
efo
rH
ealt
hcar
eIm
prov
emen
tTr
iple
Aim
(IH
ITr
iple
Aim
Init
iati
ve20
07)a
ndLE
AN
met
hods
.Led
bypr
acti
cele
ader
sw
ith
man
agem
ent
expe
rtis
e.Te
amca
reef
fort
sC
reat
edm
ulti
disc
ipli
nary
team
sta
sked
wit
him
prov
ing
spec
ific
area
s(c
are
coor
dina
tion
,te
am-b
ased
care
,etc
.).E
xpan
ded
role
ofnu
rses
(RN
s)in
prov
idin
gca
reat
pati
ents
’vis
its
and
inch
roni
cdi
seas
em
anag
emen
tef
fort
s.P
arti
cula
ref
fort
mad
eto
impr
ove
tran
siti
ons
ofca
reth
roug
hbe
tter
foll
ow-u
paf
ter
hosp
ital
disc
harg
es.
Est
abli
shed
mul
tidi
scip
lina
ryim
prov
emen
tef
fort
sw
ithi
nth
ree
dist
inct
inte
rpro
fess
iona
lcar
ete
ams
atth
epr
acti
ce.
Ass
igne
dnu
rse
prac
titi
oner
s(N
Ps)
and
phys
icia
nas
sist
ants
(PA
s)th
eir
own
pane
lsof
pati
ents
,who
seca
reth
eysh
ared
wit
hM
Ds.
Focu
sed
onin
tegr
atin
ggu
idel
ine-
base
dca
rein
toda
ily
prac
tice
.E
xpan
ded
role
ofN
Ps,
espe
cial
lyin
freq
uent
dise
ase
man
agem
ent
foll
ow-u
pco
ntac
tsw
ith
pati
ents
,in
pers
on,a
ndby
tele
phon
e.
Ext
ensi
vely
up-t
rain
edan
din
crea
sed
use
ofm
edic
alas
sist
ants
(MA
s)in
1:1
“dya
dte
amle
t”m
odel
wit
hM
Ds.
Use
dR
Ns
and
NP
sto
run
chro
nic
dise
ase
prot
ocol
s.
Init
iate
dbi
wee
kly
prac
tice
mee
ting
s,w
ith
case
pres
enta
tion
sof
chal
leng
ing
pati
ents
’m
anag
emen
tis
sues
.H
ired
mor
eM
As
and
expa
nded
thei
rro
leto
part
icip
ate
in1:
1M
A:
MD
“dya
dte
amle
t”m
odel
.
Con
tinu
ed
Payment-Linked Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot 493
TAB
LE3—
Con
tinu
ed
Aff
ilia
ted
wit
hR
egio
nalP
ayer
Inte
grat
edM
ulti
spec
ialt
yG
roup
Pra
ctic
eA
Pra
ctic
eB
Pra
ctic
eC
Pra
ctic
eD
Pra
ctic
eE
Use
ofel
ectr
onic
heal
thre
cord
s(E
HR
s)U
sed
chro
nic
dise
ase
regi
stry
and
prom
oted
pati
ents
’use
ofem
ail
“por
tal”
for
pati
ents
toco
mm
unic
ate
wit
hpr
acti
ce.
Lim
itat
ion:
chan
ged
EH
Rve
ndor
sju
stbe
fore
tran
sfor
mat
ion,
com
plic
atin
gim
plem
enta
tion
and
impr
ovem
ent
effo
rts.
Lim
itat
ion:
noel
ectr
onic
heal
thin
form
atio
nex
chan
gew
ith
loca
lho
spit
als.
Use
dE
HR
toen
hanc
ew
ork
flow
thro
ugh
chro
nic
dise
ase
proc
ess
rem
inde
rs(e
.g.,
diab
etes
annu
aley
eex
ams)
and
shar
edno
tew
riti
ngby
MA
san
dR
Ns.
Lim
itat
ion:
Lack
ofel
ectr
onic
info
rmat
ion
exch
ange
wit
hlo
cal
hosp
ital
s.Li
mit
atio
n:C
umbe
rsom
ere
gist
ryfu
ncti
onal
ity.
Lim
itat
ions
:EH
Rpr
ovid
edon
lym
odes
tde
cisi
onsu
ppor
tfu
ncti
onal
ity.
Use
del
ectr
onic
info
rmat
ion
exch
ange
wit
hlo
calh
ospi
tals
tom
anag
etr
ansi
tion
sof
care
mor
eea
sily
.B
enef
ited
from
inte
grat
ion
wit
hm
ulti
spec
ialt
ygr
oup
that
kept
deta
iled
regi
stri
es,w
hich
mad
epa
tien
ts’
info
rmat
ion
avai
labl
eat
poin
tof
care
.Li
mit
atio
n:P
lann
edto
chan
geto
new
EH
Rin
2011
.
Had
anad
vanc
ed,
mul
tifu
ncti
onal
EH
R.
Dev
elop
edde
tail
eddr
ugti
trat
ion
prot
ocol
sfo
rdi
abet
esan
dhy
pert
ensi
on,t
obe
foll
owed
bynu
rses
and
man
aged
thro
ugh
EH
R.
Com
plex
dise
ase
regi
stry
allo
wed
iden
tifi
cati
onof
undi
agno
sed
HT
Nan
dea
rly
dete
ctio
nof
laps
esin
man
agem
ent,
asw
ell
asri
skst
rati
fica
tion
ofpa
tien
ts.
Lim
itat
ion:
EH
Rpr
ovid
edso
me
link
sto
loca
lhos
pita
ls,
thou
ghim
perf
ect.
Had
anad
vanc
edm
ulti
func
tion
alE
HR
syst
emth
atin
clud
eddi
seas
ere
gist
ryan
dot
her
stan
dard
feat
ures
.Li
mit
atio
n:Si
gnif
ican
t,th
ough
not
com
plet
e,in
form
atio
nex
chan
gew
ith
hosp
ital
s. Con
tinu
ed
494 A. Bitton et al.
TAB
LE3—
Con
tinu
ed
Aff
ilia
ted
wit
hR
egio
nalP
ayer
Inte
grat
edM
ulti
spec
ialt
yG
roup
Pra
ctic
eA
Pra
ctic
eB
Pra
ctic
eC
Pra
ctic
eD
Pra
ctic
eE
Pra
ctic
ewid
ech
ange
sIn
itia
ted
regu
lar
staf
fm
eeti
ngs.
Per
form
edpr
evis
itw
ork,
incl
udin
gpo
pula
ting
med
ical
reco
rdno
tes
wit
hpa
tien
ts’i
nfor
mat
ion
befo
revi
sit.
Eli
min
ated
phar
mac
euti
cal-
spon
sore
dlu
nche
sto
prom
ote
mor
eco
st-e
ffec
tive
gene
ric
pres
crib
ing.
Cha
nged
appo
intm
ent
sche
duli
ngte
mpl
ates
toin
crea
seac
cess
.E
mpo
wer
ednu
rses
totr
iage
pati
ents
,run
prot
ocol
sfo
rst
rep
phar
yngi
tis
and
urin
ary
trac
kin
fect
ions
,an
dm
anag
ean
tico
agul
atio
ncl
inic
.
Ret
rain
edst
aff;
none
wst
affh
ired
.M
oved
one
RN
from
fron
tlin
ete
leph
one
tria
gew
ork
todo
case
man
agem
ent.
Focu
sed
onpo
stdi
scha
rge
foll
ow-u
pfr
omth
eem
erge
ncy
depa
rtm
ent.
Impr
oved
pati
ents
’ac
cess
toca
reby
open
ing
anX
-ray
imag
ing
cent
eron
-sit
e,an
dal
low
edaf
ter-
hour
ste
leph
one
call
sto
avoi
dun
nece
ssar
yE
Dan
dsp
ecia
list
refe
rral
s.
Eli
min
ated
phar
mac
euti
cal-
spon
sore
dlu
nche
s.Im
prov
edco
ding
inpa
tien
ts’r
ecor
dsto
bett
erre
flec
tac
tual
dise
ase
seve
rity
.M
ade
min
imal
othe
rst
affi
ngch
ange
sor
new
hire
s.
Init
iate
dda
ily
team
hudd
les
(mee
ting
s),
wit
hfo
cus
onim
prov
ing
proc
esse
ssu
chas
tele
phon
eca
llre
spon
sera
tes.
Act
ivel
yso
lici
ted
sugg
esti
ons
from
all
team
mem
bers
.B
ette
rjo
bro
lede
scri
ptio
nsan
dta
skas
sign
men
t,w
ith
publ
icly
disp
laye
dde
adli
nes.
Em
phas
ized
proc
ess
rede
sign
.Inc
orpo
rate
das
sidu
ous
proc
ess
mea
sure
men
tan
dvi
sual
disp
lay
ofre
sult
son
wal
lsof
the
clin
icto
open
lytr
ack
team
prog
ress
.
Hir
edsi
gnif
ican
tnu
mbe
rof
new
med
ical
assi
stan
ts.
Incr
ease
dsc
ope
ofca
refo
rR
Ns
and
hire
dne
wnu
rse
prac
titi
oner
s.C
onve
ned
rapi
dim
prov
emen
tse
ssio
nson
pati
ent
flow
and
tele
phon
etr
iage
.
Con
tinu
ed
Payment-Linked Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot 495
TAB
LE3—
Con
tinu
ed
Aff
ilia
ted
wit
hR
egio
nalP
ayer
Inte
grat
edM
ulti
spec
ialt
yG
roup
Pra
ctic
eA
Pra
ctic
eB
Pra
ctic
eC
Pra
ctic
eD
Pra
ctic
eE
Poi
nt-o
f-ca
rech
ange
sfo
rpr
ovid
ers
Cre
ated
prel
imin
ary
“pop
ulat
ed”
note
sw
ith
info
rmat
ion
(suc
has
prob
lem
s,m
edic
atio
ns,
alle
rgie
s,et
c.)
befo
revi
sit,
toco
mpl
ete
note
squ
ickl
y.Fo
cuse
don
achi
evin
gch
roni
cdi
seas
em
anag
emen
tta
rget
sth
roug
hpa
yer-
prov
ided
chro
nic
dise
ase
perf
orm
ance
shee
ts.
Hel
dda
ily
“vir
tual
min
i-hu
ddle
s”(i
.e.,
brie
fmee
ting
sbe
fore
star
ting
the
clin
ical
sess
ion)
ofre
leva
ntca
rete
amm
embe
rsto
addr
ess
wor
k-fl
owis
sues
.St
ream
line
dw
ork
flow
byim
prov
ing
prev
isit
prep
arat
ion
and
post
visi
tpr
oces
ses
(e.g
.,by
popu
lati
ngpr
elim
inar
yno
tes
befo
revi
sit
and
prov
idin
gen
d-of
-vis
itha
ndou
tsaf
ter
visi
t).
Use
dch
roni
cdi
seas
ere
min
der
and
lab
valu
esh
eets
(pro
vide
dby
com
mer
cial
vend
or).
Ass
igne
dca
sem
anag
ers
for
diab
etes
care
.
Em
phas
ized
smoo
thin
gof
wor
kfl
owan
del
imin
atio
nof
tim
ew
aste
.D
evel
oped
high
lyin
tegr
ated
MA
-MD
“dya
dte
am-l
et”
that
enha
nced
MA
’spr
e-an
dpo
stvi
sit
role
sin
prep
arat
ion
for
and
foll
ow-u
paf
ter
pati
ent’s
visi
ts.
Hel
dda
ily
“hud
dles
”ar
ound
aw
hite
boar
din
the
hall
way
duri
ngpa
tien
t-ca
rese
ssio
n,to
coor
dina
tew
ork
flow
for
the
day.
Incr
ease
dw
ork
betw
een
visi
tsan
dte
leph
one
outr
each
topa
tien
ts.
Cre
ated
syst
ems
toal
ert
team
topa
tien
ts’n
eeds
earl
y,su
chas
undi
agno
sed
HT
N.
Phy
sici
ansc
hedu
les
shif
ted
toad
dres
spo
pula
tion
man
agem
ent.
Inst
itut
edM
A-M
D“d
yad
team
-let
”m
odel
prac
tice
wid
e,w
ith
shar
edof
fice
s.E
nsur
edth
atre
sult
sof
lab
test
sdr
awn
befo
repa
tien
t’svi
sit
wou
ldbe
avai
labl
eat
poin
tof
care
duri
ngvi
sit.
Ass
igne
dM
As
toco
ordi
nate
rem
inde
rsof
rout
ine
scre
enin
gan
dot
her
test
sor
foll
ow-u
pap
poin
tmen
ts.
Del
egat
edto
MA
sth
eta
skof
med
icat
ion
reco
ncil
iati
on(b
oth
befo
rean
daf
ter
clin
icvi
sits
),to
redu
ceco
nfus
ion
and
med
icat
ion
erro
rs.
Qua
lity
impr
ovem
ent
mea
sure
s
Focu
sed
on16
HE
DIS
mea
sure
s,as
wel
las
anti
biot
icov
erus
e,ge
neri
cpr
escr
ibin
g,an
dov
erus
eof
back
-pai
nim
agin
g.Fo
cuse
don
am
ulti
tude
ofpa
tien
t-fl
owan
dpr
acti
ce-p
roce
ssm
easu
res
(e.g
.,te
leph
one
resp
onse
tim
es,v
isit
wai
tti
mes
).Ta
rget
edD
Man
dH
TN
for
chro
nic
dise
ase
man
agem
ent
impr
ovem
ent.
Mon
itor
edco
stan
def
fici
ency
tren
ds.
Focu
sed
onH
TN
and
DM
com
posi
tesc
ores
.E
valu
ated
the
foll
owin
gm
etri
cs:
obes
ity
(BM
I)tr
acki
ng,s
mok
ing
cess
atio
nin
terv
enti
ons,
pati
ents
’en
roll
men
tin
pers
onal
heal
thre
cord
s,ov
eral
lcos
t,E
Rvi
sits
;ad
mis
sion
s,re
adm
issi
ons,
drug
cost
s.
Con
tinu
ed
496 A. Bitton et al.
TAB
LE3—
Con
tinu
ed
Aff
ilia
ted
wit
hR
egio
nalP
ayer
Inte
grat
edM
ulti
spec
ialt
yG
roup
Pra
ctic
eA
Pra
ctic
eB
Pra
ctic
eC
Pra
ctic
eD
Pra
ctic
eE
Spec
ific
sof
paym
ent
plan
toth
epr
acti
ce
Pro
vide
dpr
acti
cew
ith
risk
-adj
uste
dm
onth
lyca
pita
ted
rate
for
each
pati
ent
attr
ibut
edto
the
paye
r(t
houg
hfu
nds
coul
dbe
used
for
prac
tice
wid
etr
ansf
orm
atio
n).
Cos
tsfo
rte
stin
g,im
agin
g,ph
arm
acy,
hosp
ital
,and
spec
ialt
yca
reof
pati
ents
stil
lpai
dby
fee
for
serv
ice.
Pra
ctic
ere
ceiv
edbo
nuse
sfo
rqu
alit
yan
def
fici
ency
achi
evem
ents
met
atle
velo
fpra
ctic
e,as
sum
ing
ath
resh
old
leve
lofp
atie
nts’
expe
rien
ceis
achi
eved
.U
p-fr
ont
tran
sfor
mat
ion
supp
ort
avai
labl
eto
prac
tice
thro
ugh
the
com
preh
ensi
vepa
ymen
ts,a
long
wit
hre
venu
est
ream
not
depe
nden
ton
fee-
for-
serv
ice
visi
tbi
llin
g.
Mov
edaw
ayfr
omfe
e-fo
r-se
rvic
epa
ymen
tsth
roug
hes
tabl
ishi
nga
sala
ryfo
rph
ysic
ians
base
don
high
est
ofla
st4
quar
ters
’pro
duct
ivit
yta
rget
sac
hiev
ed,w
ith
qual
ity
and
effi
cien
cype
rfor
man
cebo
nus
paym
ents
of∼$
10,0
00to
30,0
00av
aila
ble.
Set
phys
icia
nsa
lari
esat
80%
ofpr
evio
uspr
oduc
tivi
tyle
velw
ith
20%
bonu
spa
idfo
rm
eeti
ngba
sic
prof
essi
onal
duti
esta
rget
s,w
ith
anad
diti
onal
20%
bonu
sav
aila
ble
for
qual
ity
and
effi
cien
cype
rfor
man
ce.
Als
opa
idan
addi
tion
albo
nus
of$2
50qu
arte
rly
toal
lpra
ctic
est
affb
ased
onQ
Ipr
oces
spe
rfor
man
cere
gard
ing
DM
,hy
pert
ensi
on,l
ipid
s,an
dad
oles
cent
wel
l-vi
sits
.
Not
es:
BM
I:bo
dym
ass
inde
xD
M:d
iabe
tes
mel
litu
sE
HR
:ele
ctro
nic
heal
thre
cord
ED
/R:e
mer
genc
yde
part
men
t/ro
omFT
E:f
ull-
tim
eeq
uiva
lent
HE
DIS
:Hea
lthc
are
Eff
ecti
vene
ssD
ata
and
Info
rmat
ion
Set
HT
N:h
yper
tens
ion
IHI:
Inst
itut
efo
rH
ealt
hcar
eIm
prov
emen
tLE
AN
:qua
lity
impr
ovem
ent
met
hodo
logy
MA
:med
ical
assi
stan
tN
P:n
urse
prac
titi
oner
QI:
qual
ity
impr
ovem
ent
PA:p
hysi
cian
assi
stan
tP
CM
H:p
atie
nt-c
ente
red
med
ical
hom
e
PH
R:p
erso
nalh
ealt
hre
cord
PM
PM
:per
mem
ber
per
mon
thR
N:r
egis
tere
dnu
rse
Tran
sfor
ME
D:c
onsu
ltin
gar
mof
the
Am
eric
anA
cade
my
ofFa
mil
yP
hysi
cian
s
Payment-Linked Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot 497
organizational structure for the transformation. A large regional in-surer sponsored the transformation of practices A, B, and C through anew payment model, and it also funded an external consultant to helpthem implement the changes. These practices were much less integratedthan practices D and E, which underwent transformation using internalfunding, in part based on their already high level of capitated contracts.As demonstration sites for a highly integrated multispecialty group,practices D and E used well-developed internal consultative and col-laborative resources to inform their transitions. Despite the short timeframe of twelve to eighteen months, all five practices made many andextensive changes. Table 3 illustrates the large variety of these differ-ent change processes and provides the context and background for eachpractice.
Grounded Taxonomy of Insights into MedicalHome Transformation
In this section we present some of the insights from these practices’ expe-riences in transforming to medical homes, which are based on interviews,observations, and analysis by our evaluation team. These insights werederived from eight key thematic areas that emerged from our field notesand discussions. While these overlap somewhat with recurring themesin PCMH design and literature, we chose as our starting point what weheard and saw rather than what others have written. We organized theseinsights and observations around representative quotations from our sitevisits, which we attribute to practice sites when possible.
The Context: Unique Circumstances Launched These PCMH Pilots. Be-cause the genesis and generalizability of these medical home experimentswere our main interest, we sought to understand their historical contextand the impetus that led to them. Most of the practice leaders told ushow they encountered what they dubbed “the Goroll model” (Gorollet al. 2007), which spoke to their concerns and needs. As one of thephysician leaders in practice A stated,
We were dying on the treadmill, trying to run faster and faster. Ifigured I could either become a dermatologist or buy a bowling alley.Then I saw the Goroll article, and we had him come out and we wereready to go; couldn’t believe how perfect it was, but what we didn’trealize was the depth of the change involved.
498 A. Bitton et al.
Meanwhile, and ironically, the coalition’s plans for a larger, multisitetest of the Goroll model encountered problems with its implementation.Mainly because of the multipayer nature of the U.S. health system,competing insurers who repeatedly voiced support for the medical homemodel and the needed financial reconfiguration were unable to agree withone another on the design of a multipayer pilot plan. As a result, plansfor a larger pilot floundered, as interested practices could not see a wayto build a medical home for just the few patients represented by any oneinsurer. Then a large regional payer and large integrated multispecialtygroup offered to invest in testing the model in five practices across twostates. As the large payer funding the transformation of practices A, B,and C observed,
Even though only 45 percent of the practices’ patients were ours, wefully bonused the providers [for 100 percent of the patients] and didnot prorate based on the number of our patients versus others.
Even though these two organizations supplied financial support tolaunch these ambitious medical home projects, according to intervieweesat the practices, the investment came with expectations that resultswould be demonstrated fairly rapidly. The special nature of the eventsleading to the pilot’s creation raises questions about how such projectscould be initiated and sustained in the future without more unified andsustained approaches to payment reform.
Wide Variations in Implemented Changes. In just these few practices,we observed significant variations in the changes implemented in thename of “medical home” transformation. As table 3 shows, the changesand approaches overlapped only occasionally. A person at site B describedhow:
We did not hire any new people specifically for this project. We lookedat what are doctor things, nursing things, clerk things, and tried tomake sure they were each just doing those types of things. . . .
Meanwhile, practice E reported that it had hired several new medicalassistants (MAs) in order to completely reconfigure the practice’s basicwork team structure based on a model of one physician to one MA.
Payment-Linked Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot 499
Furthermore, some practices concentrated on reengineering between-visit and population management activities (i.e., calling patients ondisease registry lists), while others concentrated on changing the workflow and content of clinical encounters. Although this dichotomy was notabsolute, the divergence was noteworthy. Yet both groups described thesecontrasting efforts as aiming toward converging ends. Some practicesworked obsessively to drive out waste and create efficiencies to freeup staff and resources for more chronic care and proactive populationmanagement. Others focused on outreach, seeking to avoid preventableclinical encounters, thereby allowing physicians to accept new patientsor spend additional time with more complex patients. About the payer-sponsored initiative, one physician remarked:
We thought good operations could create capacity, and we could thenreinvest this for the non–face-to-face aspects of care, to reinvest thisinto better chronic care. But it turned out that there was a limitlessamount of work, and we’re not sure if we really made a dent in theamount of work by the efficiencies that were created.
For others, such as those in practice D, the process reengineeringseemed to be beginning to show benefits by the time we visited, partic-ularly in areas such as streamlining telephone triage and using nurse-ledprotocols to adjust hypertension and diabetes medications. By measur-ing and fine-tuning these processes, this practice reported that it wasshowing efficiency gains, thus enabling it to free up staff time for betterbetween-visit wellness care.
We call every patient, arrange for reliable follow-up appointments,and reconcile medications over the phone. Patients are very happy tohear from us, and we are able to identify and fix medication errors,which we found in roughly one in ten patients.
Catalyzing Change: Varied Use and Value of Consultants. Each prac-tice that worked with consultants reported a different experience, eventhough most worked with the same consulting company, TransforMED,the Medical Home implementation consulting arm of the AmericanAcademy of Family Physicians (AAFP 2012). The LEAN method ofreengineering process improvement, first popularized by the ToyotaProduction Systems (Chalice 2007), was also cited as integral to thetransformation of sites D and E. In each practice, the consultants
500 A. Bitton et al.
were paid by the sponsoring regional payer or the overarching groupentity.
We could not have done this without the help of TransforMED.They had a huge hand in getting everyone around the table, teach-ing everyone to work through processes, start to finish. Their trainerwas the voice of reason with MDs; she really helped us in build-ing consensus. She taught us the language and kept us going.(Practice A)
TransforMED stimulated this tremendously. We now think of patientswhether or not they are physically here. This is a change for us. This,plus team building—that was another important change. They werelike a parent. We loved and needed them, even though at times wedidn’t think we were ready for their advice. (Practice B)
We disengaged from TransforMED. We’re not a one-size-fits-all, not acookie-cutter office. We did work with them for five to six months butconcluded we already know how to manage our own office. We did notneed their guidance, and they were wasting our time. TransforMEDworks with practices with major problems. We already have highsatisfaction and were doing well financially. (Practice C)
We invited a person from TransforMED in who spent three days withus, but [we] found it was not that helpful. He told us what we alreadyknew. Instead, and by perfect coincidental timing with this project,we discovered LEAN. LEAN approaches allow us to make changesin a more structured way. By involving everyone in looking at thecurrent state data, the mechanics of LEAN allowed us to build ourprimary care medical home. (Practice D)
We started our PCMH project using a LEAN initiative approachfrom the beginning. We had some help from one of their consultantgroups, but mostly we are not really relying on outside training andconsultants. This is because we already had a fair amount of localexpertise as well as organizational help from our central office whowere experienced with LEAN. (Practice E)
Each of the practices commented on the role of and need for externalfacilitation and support to implement PCMH. All but one of the prac-tices clearly recognized the need for a both well-formed and prespecifiedchange model, as well as a road map to make the changes.
We found that some (but not all) practices funded by the largepayer embraced using external consultants to drive internal change,whereas those in the multispecialty group were more interested
Payment-Linked Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot 501
in nurturing internally driven culture change. The two multispe-cialty group practices stated that the LEAN process was essential totransformation:
We could not have accomplished these changes without LEAN. Re-manufacturing primary care required us to use a variety of LEANconcepts and tools, such as load leveling, detailed standardization ofwork [e.g., a nine-page hypertension management protocol], visual-ization for transparency via tools such as huddle boards and cue cards,“just in time” processing, and one-week rapid improvement teaminitiatives. (Practice D)
Health Information Technology: Ubiquitous but Challenging. The roleand necessity of information technology (IT) and electronic healthrecords (EHR) are areas of intense interest, development, and contro-versy in transforming primary care (Bates and Bitton 2010; Schiff andBates 2010). In fact, IT systems and information interoperability toppedthe list of issues highlighted by staff during our site visits. We groupedour observations into four areas paralleling key IT functions and inter-ventions: (1) enhanced EHR use for reengineering clinical encounters,(2) interoperability challenges in information flow across care transi-tions, (3) population management and chronic disease outreach initia-tives, and (4) patient portals (online applications that allow patients tocommunicate with their health care providers). In each area, we docu-mented examples of both great satisfaction and great frustration.
Our MAs help start my notes before the visit. My notes are now doneby the time I hit the parking lot. [Notably, another MD in the samepractice described not being able to make this work for him.]
By pairing each of us with a MA and standardizing tasks done bythe MA before the physician enters the room [including updating theproblem list, medication reconciliation, immunizations, starting thenotes, reviewing/entering lab results, in addition to usual vital signrecording], we restructured each person’s responsibilities to get thebest flow.
This EMR has better messaging, templates, and smart phrases thanseveral of the others I have used. It’s a mature EMR, and as a matureEMR user, I am able to take advantage of it to finish my notes so Idon’t have to do them at home.
502 A. Bitton et al.
A majority of the practices already had mature EHR implementation(more than five years), and we found evidence of a continuous learningprocess to push the functionality in using templates and teamworkcollaboration (e.g., templates for the MA to update medications andfamily history). However, the majority of physicians we interviewed stillspent up to two hours at home in the evening completing or preparingnotes.
These physicians expressed their desire for PCMH transformation toease their charting burden, which was a major quality-of-life and practicesatisfaction issue in primary care.
Another recurring theme related to the practices’ efforts to ensure thetimely identification and collection of summaries from hospitalizations,emergency department visits, and rehabilitation hospital discharges. Atsite A, a large percentage of two nurses’ time was devoted to rounding uphospital discharge summaries, necessitated by the lack of interoperableinformation exchanges between various hospitals and the practice’s ITsystems. Even automated notification of the discharges, which practicesA, B, and C could have found in their insurer’s billing reports, failedto overcome this need for more manual efforts because the reports wereneither timely nor complete. Inpatient discharge summaries were par-ticularly challenging, with patients spread over a half dozen neighboringhospitals.
Notably, practice C, with arguably the least developed informationinfrastructure, had one of the most effective systems for obtaining re-ports, partly because of an interoperable health record connection withthe two main hospitals serving their inpatients. Practice C also relied onits affiliated group practice’s central office, whose IT specialists collatedbilling and clinical data, which was formatted into useful chronic diseaseperformance reports and fed back to the practice each day. By convert-ing a relative weakness to a strength (delegating various IT functionsto the central office), this practice provided an interesting model forovercoming its IT hurdles.
Although each practice had patient portals, their penetration variedonly from zero to 17 percent of their patients. These portals were clearlymore in the germinating than the fruit-bearing stage, even for thosepractices reporting fully functional portals:
Our portal, based on our commercial EMR, has been tremendouslyuseful and is a huge time saver. However, I find email is much quicker.
Payment-Linked Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot 503
I love being able to quickly communicate with patients via e-mail,as opposed to phone, which can really slow me down, as the patientwould end up saying “oh, by the way,” and raise many peripheralquestions that I would have to answer when I was calling to give theirlab test results. (Practice D)
While this statement raises further questions (what are all these unan-swered questions and who should, and how best to, address them), itdoes point to the issues in using information technology to improvework-flow efficiency and quality. Efforts to deploy IT in medical hometransformation are in their infancy and may be missing the mark inimportant and needed ways (Bates and Bitton 2010; Schiff and Bates2010). This concern is illustrated by a quotation from one of the moreIT-advanced of the three sites in the large payer-funded pilot:
We were paperless when our PCMH project started. But now it’sall paper, we’re drowning in paper. We are now collecting previsitinformation on paper forms; billing used to be paperless, and nowsuperbill is all on paper. We have boxes of paper piling up withbacklogs of un-entered data.
Finally, we note the summary conclusion of one physician in practiceD. Standing in marked contrast to depictions of physicians as resistersof new IT, he expressed the practice’s desire for more and better systems:
Our biggest frustration is with the technology; we find it can’t keepup with our ideas.
Teams and Teamwork: Reengineering Roles and Care. Although we werenot surprised that the issue of teams and teamwork was central to thesepractices’ self-conception of PCMH, we observed that the meanings anduses of these seemingly simple words varied widely. To some, the termPCMH referred to the small working unit (or “teamlet”) (Bodenheimerand Laing 2007), particularly in practices with teams consisting of oneMA paired with one physician. The word team was also frequently usedto refer to the overall practice that was forging a new culture embodyingcollective PCMH principles:
This conference room where you are sitting is ground zero. Our team,which is comprised of all members of the practice, gathers here every
504 A. Bitton et al.
two weeks to discuss and redesign our practice. Extraordinary thingshappen in these team meetings; last week my MA presented my threeworst controlled hypertensives; it was embarrassing, revealing, andamazing that we could have such a candid discussion. (Practice E)
A third use of the word team was in reference to performance improve-ment teams. Practice A, which was described by the sponsoring healthplan as the “poster child” of multidisciplinary teamwork, created a seriesof functional teams:
We put together a series of six teams: a care coordination team, acommunication team, a scheduling team, etc. These teams were verymultidisciplinary, and we designed them to especially include supportstaff to make sure they broke down rather than increased silos.
The two practices in the multispecialty group (D and E) createda different series of teams, using LEAN strategies to perform formal“rapid improvement events” (RIEs):
We have now completed four RIEs, where we take people off theirjob for an entire week to reengineer a specific work flow. We do thesequarterly, and so far we have (or are planning) RIEs for the referral pro-cess and their cost-effectiveness, scheduling template reconfiguration,no-shows.
While the positive energy and a number of important measur-able accomplishments were evident, we recorded other, more soberingcomments about change improvement teams in both the less integratedand more integrated practices:
By appointing all these functional teams early, we found it hardto get and keep them all going at once. This led to considerabledisappointment and frustration for those on teams that did not meetor do much for the first year. (nurse, site A)
The RIE related to scheduling and reconfiguring the schedules inthe computer was not successful; it was actually a big mess. Oneperson had all these good ideas, good in theory, but they just didn’twork out. We couldn’t quite get the templates to work, particularlyaround scheduling routine physicals; we kept getting way behind inour work. (physician, Site D)
Payment-Linked Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot 505
Finally, rather than teams, one practice in the large payer group(practice C) evidenced a more top-down, traditional approach to changeled by the practice’s lead physician and owner:
We didn’t change a thing in the way we organized things.
This practice was noteworthy for its more hierarchical leadership ap-proach and relative paucity of discrete teams, as well as its accomplish-ments. Remarkably, in early health plan data on efficiency and improve-ment, this practice stood out for its increased composite index efficiencyscore (whereas the two counterpart PCMH pilot practices showed littlechange, according to unpublished data collected by an insurer), raisingseveral intriguing questions. Could more top-down approaches be moreefficient and effective for short-term impacts? What effects would thishave (or not have) on fostering the teamwork relationships needed forlonger-term sustainability?
Compensation Reorganization: Centrality and Indifference. Compensa-tion reorganization was the central focus for both these five pilots andour interest in understanding how compensation change would affectthe PCMH transformation experience. Each group had an elaborate re-imbursement reconfiguration plan based largely on the Goroll model(Goroll et al. 2007) and other established pay-for-performance schemes.Two recurring observations were evident in all five sites. The first is thephysicians’ self-stated indifference to and ignorance of the schemes andtheir details across all sites:
They are studying this for economic reasons, but I am doing it forother reasons. Even though I am not making my bonuses or any moremoney, I am happier.
I have heard about reimbursement changes but don’t really knowanything about what it is about. We know there is pressure to dobetter, but we don’t really know much more about it than this.
Whether I am paid more money or not matters little to me here. Moremotivating than any bonus is [my] ability to provide more rational,high-quality care.
New compensation formulas? I never thought about it. Lifestyle ismore important than paycheck. I would rather have control overmy day.
506 A. Bitton et al.
While such statements may have been influenced by a social de-sirability bias (desire to sound less motivated by financial incentives),their consistency, sincerity, and depth were noteworthy. As one practiceleader pointed out, “Maybe these physicians would be feeling differ-ently if their incomes were declining.” However, there were a numberof examples of sticks (reimbursement hold-backs) in addition to thevarious carrots (base salary boosts, modest extra compensation for timespent on activities beyond face-to-face encounters) built into these pilotplans, suggesting that the real interest and focus was not just on theirincome.
We also noted some confusion between these new PCMH compensa-tion schemes and the shifting landscapes of fee-for-service and capitationreimbursements. A number of these practices historically were part ofstaff model HMO groups before shifting back to fee for service; for thesephysicians, the “hamster wheel” was synonymous with fee-for-servicemedicine. Others had a more nonspecific appreciation that reconfig-ured reimbursement could somehow make shifting away from exclusiveface-to-face encounters more financially viable:
We have long experience with capitation. The payment world that welive in permits us to take risks. It allows us to take a risk to decreasereliance on encounter visit–based revenue.
We welcomed the opportunity to get off the RVU [relative value unit]hamster wheel where we have to see more and more patients just tokeep up our productivity.
The hardest thing for us is that we have legs in two worlds, FFS [feefor service] and capitated. In the fee-for-service world, we don’t getpaid for these patients if we don’t bring them in the office.
The payer sponsoring transformations in practices A, B, and C wasclear that such jump-starting investments were required but also wasanxious to show a return to its board to justify the investment:
Our approach was different: we always were concerned with economicsand its critical role driving practice reform versus the more prevalentmodel that posits that practice reform would in turn drive the dollars.
Payment-Linked Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot 507
We have a fair amount of money on the table. For our board, thisis the centerpiece. They’re expecting real deliverables. We investedheavily in increasing the nursing and other staff to MD ratios.
What about the nonphysician staff? We explored the ways that anyfinancial rewards were structured to include, or exclude, them, as wellas to learn their overall reactions. The five practices used five differentapproaches, with several turning out differently than planned.
It wasn’t just the MDs that were compensated, but [it] was trickyto figure out how, and thus we never really formally structured thatpart. It does somehow trickle down to rest of the staff, but they don’tcount on it or expect it.
If we meet our four target goals across the organization, everyone willshare in the bonus.
At every level of staff, there was a level of bonusing. Each could get anextra 5 percent, but despite this, we couldn’t get anybody’s attention.It wasn’t motivating at all—not at all effective.
We wanted to include nurses in the bonus reward plan, but difficul-ties arose with the nurses’ union—and there was a big cultural battleamong the nurses. “That person doesn’t deserve to get more than Iam getting.” Although the union eventually came around, the nursesthemselves couldn’t reach a consensus, and the plan was never imple-mented. As one of the nursing professionals working hard to makeimprovements, I resent that it couldn’t be worked out so I could havegotten a bonus I feel I deserve.
Pace of Change; Effects on Staff. There was visible tension betweengoing too slow and pushing too hard and fast. We observed the self-awareness and honest acknowledgment of this balance to move fast butto try to avoid change fatigue. This was particularly evident in efforts topush staff to work more at the “top of their training” skill level:
We found we were going too slow and losing the staff’s interest.Many of the people were excited to get appointed to the teams, yet itwas hard to get all the teams mobilized early enough, and many gotdiscouraged because they did not seem to be involved.
We touched every point of the PCMH model. We now recognizethat we tried to do too much too fast. Change is energy consuming,and we were trying to do a lot of things at the same time. At one
508 A. Bitton et al.
point we witnessed twenty nurses and support staff driven to tears;our consultants said we had to stop for a while to catch our breath.
Change fatigue was a big challenge for us—it was like an up-and-down roller coaster.
We had to keep adjusting our pace along the way. But when [we]wavered in commitment, the nurses wouldn’t let us stop.
One change featured in both the PCMH literature and the observedpractice transformations involved using the skills and time of nurses andMAs to maximize what they and the practices could accomplish. Thiswent beyond merely relieving physicians of clinical and clerical tasks,although some changes did entail shifting work away from them. Totake on new tasks, they adjusted the quantity or quality of existing taskson nurses’ and MAs’ plates. Most often, the practices and relevant staffmade such adjustments effectively. But we also found examples in eachpractice in which this tension was not addressed to the staff’s satisfaction.A dramatic example—one we almost missed (revealed to one memberof our team only during the observation period and later confirmed byothers)—was from a nurse in a practice that had seemed to be a modelof collaboration and teamwork.
There has been major pushing back all along; the support staff feelstotally overloaded. RNs’ roles have undergone a 180-degree change.We were hired as phone triage nurses. Now we are doing morechronic disease management and face-to-face triage—jobs we findmore satisfying—but we still have to do much of the phone triage inaddition to these new roles. This is not sustainable for us.
We uncovered another change fatigue variant: staff tiring of practiceprocess transformation meetings that overrode more traditional contin-uing education, for which they still yearned. According to a physicianin practice D,
Now we only meet to discuss project activities, since there are somany of them. There is no time for medical speakers; there is no lifeof the mind any longer, just not enough time. We don’t even have thetime to talk with the specialists like we used to.
Payment-Linked Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot 509
Hidden from View: Findings Confounding Interpretation of the PCMHPilots. Our evaluation team observed a number of potentially con-founding events and factors, including major concurrent EHR shifts, theopening of new offices, wholesale changeovers of staff, new non-PCMHimprovement programs, changes in insurance coverage and plans, andcoinciding economic recession. These factors may make it more difficultto attribute changes in outcomes simply to the payment-linked PCMHtransformation.
For example, we learned from one practice’s billing staff that many pa-tients were refusing to come for tests and appointments because the area’slargest employer had recently shifted many employees to a health planwith an annual deductible of several thousand dollars. Meanwhile, thepilot data showing large decreases in the utilization of expensive drugsand imaging tests had been largely attributed to new, more cost-effectiveordering policies associated with PCMH-related staff education. In prac-tice E, we found that the practice site had been recently founded withboth self-selected and hand-picked staff, which roughly coincided withthe launching of the PCMH initiative. While we were impressed at thespecial commitment of these staff, this practice’s experience may be lessgeneralizable for more established practices engaged in transformation.
A final surprising finding was seeing a Medicare patient beingturned away at one practice after being told, “We no longer take newMedicare patients.” Efforts to analyze risk-adjusted chronic diseasemanagement processes and outcomes in elderly patients surely will beconfounded by such a policy, of which the research team was not previ-ously aware. These examples help illustrate the difficulty of interpretingisolated clinical and claims data without any knowledge of unintendedor concurrent changes that contextualize those data.
Discussion
We evaluated five practices participating in a coordinated PCMHdemonstration project linked to payment reform using observationalqualitative methods, and we found a rich variety of approaches, changes,successes, and frustrations. Our finding of complex (and, at times, con-tradictory) experiences affirms the need for qualitative evaluations to bet-ter understand where, whether, why, and how certain practices achievePCMH-related change. Our data suggest that such evaluations are also
510 A. Bitton et al.
needed to identify potential confounders, as well as to understand theexperiences of staff undergoing rapid change. Finally, our observationsallowed us to spotlight more implicit tensions and questions, issues thatmust continue to be raised and addressed if PCMH is to be a viablehealth reform strategy.
As Berwick emphasized, these “stories beneath” open important win-dows into the “mechanisms” and “context” vital to understanding qual-ity improvement efforts (Berwick 2007). Likewise, we believe our find-ings demonstrate that such stories are important to achieving the insightsand accountability needed to carefully evaluate groundbreaking pilots.
The first noteworthy finding of large variations in starting points,approaches, and interventions, while hardly unique to these PCMH pilotpractices, cannot be overemphasized (Nutting et al. 2011). Even witha well-defined model, external facilitation, and standardized PCMHcriteria, there were large differences among the practices in the samenetwork and even greater variations among the networks in our study.The varied application and mixed transformation successes observed inthese pilots cannot be fully captured by check boxes on a medical homescorecard.
A fundamental question raised by these wide variations is: What isa medical home? Is it a smorgasbord of different change tactics underthe general rubric of making primary care practices more patient cen-tered, proactive, efficient, and cost-effective? Such a broad frameworkmaximizes flexibility but presumes that any improvements in thesegeneral directions have value and ultimately will lead practices to morefully embody medical home principles and attributes. Or does PCMHtransformation require more standardized models that systematically en-sure that specific practice changes are made? Our observations suggestthat the five practices worked more in the smorgasbord mode and areunlikely to emerge from the PCMH transformation with similar fea-tures in place. To the extent that this is also true for other medical homeimplementations, it raises questions about comparing and interpretingfindings across the hundreds of projects currently under way. Nonethe-less, if the evaluations do show gains in patients’ experience, efficiency,and quality, this suggests that there may be many possible routes andmodels for improving primary care through the medical home model.Furthermore, it suggests that adaptive local variation and innovationwith the means to achieve this change are both permissible and perhapseven laudatory.
Payment-Linked Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot 511
At the very least, these variations can help inform a priori hypothesesfor larger quantitative analysis, pointing to areas where we might ex-pect and explain improvements (or the lack thereof) among these fivepractices. For example, practice A stood out for its focus on postdis-charge follow-up efforts, dedicating two nurses to ensure that everydischarged patient was called and given a follow-up appointment, anactivity we will be evaluating as we measure and compare readmissionrates.
A second important finding relates to staff perceptions and mech-anisms regarding the new financial payment formulas, which was ofparticular interest in these five pilot sites. Unlike earlier demonstra-tions, these five projects were explicitly based on practice change linkedto novel compensation reform, including an elaborate, risk-adjustedmethod for practice and practitioner reimbursement. To the extentthat PCPs are—as has now been well documented—spending largeportions of their day performing vital but un-reimbursed patient caremanagement activities, more rational and outcomes-aligned models forreimbursement are essential (Bodenheimer 2008). The “hamster wheel”metaphor was frequently invoked by the physicians in our study todescribe prepayment reform practice. But here, the reformed paymentmodel was less an individual motivator for change and more a wayof creating space to step back from fee-for-service volume imperativesand of freeing time for practicewide reengineering. Rather than mo-tivating individual change, payment reform appeared to be relatedto the practice’s quotient of “adaptive reserves” available for changes,echoing recent lessons learned about the primacy of payment reform(Miller et al. 2010).
Given our repeated finding that professional staff lacked a detailedknowledge of, and expressed indifference to, individual incentive for-mulas, policymakers and payers should concentrate more on ways inwhich reformed payment can provide additional support and space forpracticewide transformation and less on individual staff members’ finan-cial incentives. It also raises questions as to whether new primary caremodels without payment changes will be able to make transformationalchanges; and whether those reforms that are in place in many PCMHdemonstrations across the country will have sufficient support to buildmore effective and sustainable primary care (ACP 2006) or whether, asothers have argued, it will be too little too late (Hoff 2010). The creationof several large multipayer primary care transformation initiatives at the
512 A. Bitton et al.
state and federal levels linked to robust payment reform will directlytest and refine these concepts on a large scale, providing valuable lessonsover the coming few years.
A third lesson is that challenges in effectively using informationtechnology loomed large at each site. Computers and data were crit-ical factors and frustrations for both reengineering clinical encounterwork flow and carrying out proactive population management. Effortsto redeploy staff to support more efficient clinical documentation usingteamlets, as well as efforts to integrate and work with fragmented datafrom hospitalizations and emergency visits, were recurring observations.We saw repeated examples of how suboptimal IT work-flow designand the lack of interoperability frustrated staff’s transformation efforts.Creative work-arounds could often partially overcome these constraints,but rapid and systemic improvements were frustrated by the inabilityto quickly customize IT solutions. The next generation of EHRs andthe infrastructure for data exchange will need to better support spe-cific medical home needs in order for primary care transformation toflourish.
Finally, although space and the preservation of anonymity precludea more detailed description of the staff energies that we observed un-leashed, there were clearly noteworthy changes occurring. These in-cluded the nurse practitioner who created a brand new role of liaisonhospitalist for the outpatient practice (despite still spending most ofher time in the inpatient setting), the uniquely LEAN-knowledgeableleader of one practice, the more traditional physician practice owner whomade remarkable changes in his ordering practices, and the front-deskstaff who deftly improved bill-filing work flows (demonstrating whycompleted forms were difficult to find in the current system). Instead ofstereotypically beleaguered physicians and other staff simply trying toget though each day, complaining bitterly about dysfunction in primarycare, we witnessed a different dynamic and resulting set of activitiesaround the daily work of improvement. The challenge of weaving to-gether and sustaining these activities on a local practice level, in additionto an even greater challenge of coordinating efforts to overcome largersystem dysfunction, looms large. The viability, sustainability, and gen-eralizability of these internal transformations and the renewed joy inwork that we witnessed are contingent on external reforms that takeinto account the staff concerns that we identified (Miller et al. 2010;Nutting et al. 2009, 2011).
Payment-Linked Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot 513
Limitations and Strengths
Our qualitative inquiry was part of a larger evaluation plan with designaspects beyond our control, some of which may pose limitations to ourfindings. Although control practices will be included in the quantitativeevaluation, this qualitative evaluation plan did not have the resourcesto employ a sampling strategy that would have allowed us to comparethese atypical, highly motivated practices to control practices. Thus, wecould compare only the practices with one another and draw general-izations based on their experiences. Owing to individual confidentialityagreements, we also could not identify each attributed quotation.
Our evaluations relied heavily on the subjective staff impressions, withobvious biases and recall limitations. We also had no baseline qualitativedata, owing to the naturalistic timing of the demonstration projectand the evaluation plan that followed. Our retrospective interviewingstrategies attempted to reconstruct this chronology of change while on-site at the site visits, but we acknowledge the loss of longitudinal datacaptured in real time. Finally, a one-day site visit can hardly do justiceto the enormous complexities of any primary care practice, especiallyone undergoing significant change efforts. We tried to maximize ourlimited time by using several evaluation team members to conduct thevisits and following a four-step process of interviewing and observationsthat would enhance our efforts to triangulate the data.
We also made time for systematic group debriefings to “debug”and internally critique our varying insights and conclusion. The var-ied ages and professions among our team members (which included astudent and nurse) could have either helped elicit the trust necessary forhonest conversation with providers or inhibited other staff from candidlysharing experiences and concerns.
Conclusions
As the PCMH movement grows and gains experience, we must learnas much as possible (and in as many ways as possible) from the PCMHexperiments currently under way. Given the emerging consensus thatsuch delivery changes are needed, understanding how practices are im-plementing change may be as, or even more, important than simplydemonstrating improved short-term outcomes—the primary goal of theinitial wave of projects. Examining on-the-ground specifics of how five
514 A. Bitton et al.
pioneering pilots were implementing a model tied to payment reformprovided eight linked insights into defining and measuring medicalhome transformation, as well as the primacy of payment reform for cre-ating a space and structure for practices to work on rapidly reconfiguringthemselves.
References
AAFP (American Academy of Family Physicians). 2012. Trans-forMED: Transforming Medical Practices. Available at http://www.transformed.com/index.cfm (accessed June 5, 2012).
ACP (American College of Physicians). 2006. The Impending Collapse ofPrimary Care Medicine and Its Implications for the State of the Nation’sHealth Care. Washington, D.C.: American College of Physicians.
Bates, D.W., and A. Bitton. 2010. The Future of Health InformationTechnology in the Patient-Centered Medical Home. Health Affairs29(4):614–21.
Berenson, R.A., and E.C. Rich. 2010. US Approaches to PhysicianPayment: The Deconstruction of Primary Care. Journal of GeneralInternal Medicine 25(6):613–18.
Berwick, D.M. 2007. The Stories Beneath. Medical Care 45(12):1123–25.
Bitton, A., C. Martin, and B.E. Landon. 2010. A Nationwide Survey ofPatient Centered Medical Home Demonstration Projects. Journal ofGeneral Internal Medicine 25(6):584–92.
Bodenheimer, T. 2008. Coordinating Care—A Perilous Journeythrough the Health Care System. New England Journal of Medicine358(10):1064–71.
Bodenheimer, T., and B.Y. Laing. 2007. The Teamlet Model of PrimaryCare. Annals of Family Medicine 5(5):457–61.
Chalice, R. 2007. Improving Healthcare Using Toyota Lean Production Meth-ods: 46 Steps for Improvement. Milwaukee: Quality Press.
Crabtree, B.F., S.M. Chase, C.G. Wise, G.D. Schiff, L.A. Schmidt, J.R.Goyzueta, R.A. Malouin, S.M. Payne, M.T. Quinn, P.A. Nutting,W.L. Miller, and C.R. Jaen. 2011. Evaluation of Patient CenteredMedical Home Practice Transformation Initiatives. Medical Care49(1):10–16.
Gilfillan, R.J., J. Tomcavage, M.B. Rosenthal, D.E. Davis, J. Graham,J.A. Roy, S.B. Pierdon, F.J. Bloom Jr., T.R. Graf, R. Goldman,K.M. Weikel, B.H. Hamory, R.A. Paulus, and G.D. Steele Jr. 2010.Value and the Medical Home: Effects of Transformed Primary Care.American Journal of Managed Care 16(8):607–14.
Payment-Linked Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot 515
Glaser, B.S. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Quali-tative Research. New York: de Gruyter.
Goroll, A.H., R.A. Berenson, S.C. Schoenbaum, and L.B. Gardner. 2007.Fundamental Reform of Payment for Adult Primary Care: Compre-hensive Payment for Comprehensive Care. Journal of General InternalMedicine 22(3):410–15.
Hoff, T. 2010. The Shaky Foundation of the Patient-Centered MedicalHome. American Journal of Managed Care 16(6):e134–36.
IHI Triple Aim Initiative. 2007. Available at http://www.ihi.org/offerings/Initiatives/TripleAim/Pages/default.aspx (accessed June 5,2012).
Miller, W.L., B.F. Crabtree, P.A. Nutting, K.C. Stange, and C.R.Jaen. 2010. Primary Care Practice Development: A Relationship-Centered Approach. Annals of Family Medicine 8(suppl. 1):S68–79,S92.
Nutting, P.A., B.F. Crabtree, W.L. Miller, K.C. Stange, E. Stewart,and C. Jaen. 2011. Transforming Physician Practices to Patient-Centered Medical Homes: Lessons from the National DemonstrationProject. Health Affairs 30(3):439–45.
Nutting, P.A., W.L. Miller, B.F. Crabtree, C.R. Jaen, E.E. Stewart,and K.C. Stange. 2009. Initial Lessons from the First NationalDemonstration Project on Practice Transformation to a Patient-Centered Medical Home. Annals of Family Medicine 7(3):254–60.
Reid, R.J., K. Coleman, E.A. Johnson, P.A. Fishman, C. Hsu, M.P.Soman, C.E. Trescott, M. Erikson, and E.B. Larson. 2010. TheGroup Health Medical Home at Year Two: Cost Savings, HigherPatient Satisfaction, and Less Burnout for Providers. Health Affairs29(5):835.
Rittenhouse, D.R., S.M. Shortell, and E.S. Fisher. 2009. Primary Careand Accountable Care—Two Essential Elements of Delivery-SystemReform. New England Journal of Medicine 361(24):2301–3.
Schiff, G.D., and D.W. Bates. 2010. Can Electronic Clinical Docu-mentation Help Prevent Diagnostic Errors? New England Journal ofMedicine 362(12):1066–69.
Strauss, A.C. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Proce-dures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Acknowledgments: We want to acknowledge the staff of the remarkable prac-tices we visited, who generously and honestly shared their time, insights, andexperiences with us. We also thank Lydia Flier for her editorial assistance. Ourstudy was funded by the Commonwealth Fund. The funding source had no in-volvement in the design or conduct of the study, data management or analysis,or authorization for submission.