Patient Centered Medical Homes
The basic idea behind a patient centered medical home (PCMH) is that the patient would have a provider-managed, team-based, data-driven ‘home’ where they would typically go for their care. This home would be a physical location such as a clinic, or any location that enables regular interaction with the health care system.
The PCMH would manage and coordinate all aspects of their primary care (public health, clinical, and social services), from check-ups and screenings to prescriptions and office visits, and then manage and coordinate specialist care whenever necessary.
The data from all these interactions would be the dashboard that helps providers determine whether the patient is improving. In addition - when patients with similar characteristics are taken as a group the data could assist providers and policymakers in planning for and responding to the health needs and outcomes of entire populations. For policymakers and payers there’s also the ultimate score-keeper - improving health and health care while saving the system money.
The question of the day is whether or not the model works. Recent evidence based on a review of claims data from 2006 to 2013 at one PCMH has yielded encouraging results. As reported in a recent issue of Health Affairs, researchers found that Geisinger Health System’s PCMH in Pennsylvania actually improved care while saving their system money, largely due to reduced acute inpatient care. Earlier interventions in the disease progression, and more effective team-based care along the way, reduced the need for more complex (and more costly) care downstream, thus reducing overall costs.
Researchers estimated that PCMH exposure led to a 7.9% decrease in total costs, of which acute inpatient care represented 64% (about $34 per member per month) of the savings. It helps that Geisinger is a fully integrated system that uses a ‘Navigator’ model. This navigator is a case manager that is “embedded” (or located) at the clinics to help coordinate each patient’s care.
Many have surmised that the PCMH model can help reduce health disparities and place the nation’s most vulnerable on the path toward health equity (simply put - the scenario within which everyone has a fair shot at being healthy, no matter their station in life). This discussion paper from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) is a case in point.
While it may be premature to declare victory on the health equity question, the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative recently reported the impact of PCMH on cost and quality. Again, the numbers are encouraging. In Maryland, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield’s PCMH reported $98 million in cost savings between 2010-2012, and a 9.3% increase in quality scores for PCMH panels from 2011-2012.
The challenge for the health equity community is to be able to measure the impact of PCMH across populations. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) intends to enable such measurement. Under the ACA, Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) - which operate as PCMH ‘neighborhoods’ for Medicare patients - will attempt to improve care among their populations while reducing costs. Savings are shared between the federal government and providers, and increases in cost are borne by the providers. The results thus far - both from a quality of care and financial performance standpoint - have been mixed.
We will continue to watch this space.