How CPC+ supported patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons for alternative payment models

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation Pub Date : 2024-04-10 DOI:10.1016/j.hjdsi.2024.100745
Genna Cohen , Nancy Duda , Katie Morrison-Lee , Kaylyn Swankoski , Gillian Giudice , Maya Palakal , Caroline Mack , Ann S. O'Malley
{"title":"How CPC+ supported patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons for alternative payment models","authors":"Genna Cohen ,&nbsp;Nancy Duda ,&nbsp;Katie Morrison-Lee ,&nbsp;Kaylyn Swankoski ,&nbsp;Gillian Giudice ,&nbsp;Maya Palakal ,&nbsp;Caroline Mack ,&nbsp;Ann S. O'Malley","doi":"10.1016/j.hjdsi.2024.100745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>A growing literature documents how primary care practices adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic. We examine a topic that has received less attention—how participants in an advanced alternative payment model perceive the model influenced their ability to meet patients’ care needs during the pandemic.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Analysis of closed- and open-ended questions from a 2021 survey of 2496 practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model (92% response rate) and a 2021 survey of 993 randomly selected primary care physicians from these practices (55% response rate). Both surveys asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed that they or their practice was “better positioned to meet patients' care needs during the coronavirus pandemic” because of participation in CPC+. Both also included an open-ended question about CPC+’s effects.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Half of practices and one-third of physicians agreed or strongly agreed that participating in CPC+ better positioned them to meet patients' care needs during the pandemic. One in 10 practices and 2 in 10 physicians, disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 4 in 10 practices and slightly more than half of physicians neither agreed nor disagreed (or, for physicians, didn't know). The most commonly identified CPC+ activities that facilitated meeting patient care needs related to practices' work on care management (e.g., risk stratification), access (e.g., telehealth), payment outside of fee-for-service (FFS), and staffing (e.g., supporting care managers).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Most CPC+ practices and physicians were positive or neutral about participating in CPC+ in the context of COVID-19, indicating more benefit than risk to payment alternatives to FFS.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":29963,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation","volume":"12 2","pages":"Article 100745"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213076424000125","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

A growing literature documents how primary care practices adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic. We examine a topic that has received less attention—how participants in an advanced alternative payment model perceive the model influenced their ability to meet patients’ care needs during the pandemic.

Methods

Analysis of closed- and open-ended questions from a 2021 survey of 2496 practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model (92% response rate) and a 2021 survey of 993 randomly selected primary care physicians from these practices (55% response rate). Both surveys asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed that they or their practice was “better positioned to meet patients' care needs during the coronavirus pandemic” because of participation in CPC+. Both also included an open-ended question about CPC+’s effects.

Results

Half of practices and one-third of physicians agreed or strongly agreed that participating in CPC+ better positioned them to meet patients' care needs during the pandemic. One in 10 practices and 2 in 10 physicians, disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 4 in 10 practices and slightly more than half of physicians neither agreed nor disagreed (or, for physicians, didn't know). The most commonly identified CPC+ activities that facilitated meeting patient care needs related to practices' work on care management (e.g., risk stratification), access (e.g., telehealth), payment outside of fee-for-service (FFS), and staffing (e.g., supporting care managers).

Conclusions

Most CPC+ practices and physicians were positive or neutral about participating in CPC+ in the context of COVID-19, indicating more benefit than risk to payment alternatives to FFS.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
CPC+ 如何在 COVID-19 大流行期间支持病人护理:替代支付模式的经验教训
背景越来越多的文献记录了初级医疗实践如何适应 COVID-19 大流行。我们研究了一个关注较少的话题--高级替代支付模式的参与者如何看待该模式影响了他们在大流行期间满足患者护理需求的能力。方法分析了 2021 年对 2496 家参与全面初级护理+(CPC+)模式的医疗机构进行的调查(回复率为 92%)和 2021 年对这些医疗机构中随机抽取的 993 名初级保健医生进行的调查(回复率为 55%)中的封闭式和开放式问题。这两项调查均询问受访者是否同意或不同意他们或他们的诊所因参与 CPC+ 而 "在冠状病毒大流行期间更好地满足患者的护理需求"。结果一半的医疗机构和三分之一的医生同意或非常同意参与 CPC+ 能使他们在大流行期间更好地满足患者的护理需求。十分之一的医疗机构和十分之二的医生不同意或非常不同意,而十分之四的医疗机构和略高于半数的医生既不同意也不反对(或医生不知道)。结论大多数 CPC+ 诊所和医生对在 COVID-19 的背景下参与 CPC+ 持积极或中立的态度,这表明 FFS 以外的支付方式利大于弊。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: HealthCare: The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation is a quarterly journal. The journal promotes cutting edge research on innovation in healthcare delivery, including improvements in systems, processes, management, and applied information technology. The journal welcomes submissions of original research articles, case studies capturing "policy to practice" or "implementation of best practices", commentaries, and critical reviews of relevant novel programs and products. The scope of the journal includes topics directly related to delivering healthcare, such as: ● Care redesign ● Applied health IT ● Payment innovation ● Managerial innovation ● Quality improvement (QI) research ● New training and education models ● Comparative delivery innovation
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to "Reading the crystal ball: Primary care implications while awaiting outcomes for multi-cancer early detection tests" [Healthcare 11 (2023) 100705]. The national ambulatory medical care survey (NAMCS) at fifty: Past and future Implementation and adaptation of clinical quality improvement opioid measures Association between patient-reported financial burden and catastrophic health expenditures in cancer survivors Outpatient remdesivir treatment program for hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019: Patient perceptions, process and economic impact
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1