Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief (Plain Language Summaries)
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Multimedia
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • The Issue in Brief (Plain Language Summaries)
    • Call for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Media
    • Job Seekers
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • RSS
    • Email Alerts
    • Journal Club
  • Contact
    • Feedback
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
EditorialEditorials

Achieving PCMH Status May Not Be Meaningful for Small Practices

Kelley K. Glancey and James G. Kennedy
The Annals of Family Medicine January 2016, 14 (1) 4-5; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1887
Kelley K. Glancey
Byers Peak Family Medicine, Winter Park, Colorado
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James G. Kennedy
Byers Peak Family Medicine, Winter Park, Colorado
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: drk@byerspeakfm.com
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Published eLetters

If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.

Submit a Response to This Article
Compose eLetter

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Small is Beautiful
    Joseph E. Scherger
    Published on: 05 February 2016
  • MEASURED TO DEATH: WHEN WRONG MEASURES CAN KILL PRIMARY CARE TRANSFORMATION
    Carlos Roberto Jaen
    Published on: 28 January 2016
  • Monetizing US healthcare, value, and being nimble
    Robert W Morrow
    Published on: 19 January 2016
  • Hello Policy World! Are you listening?
    Larry A. Green
    Published on: 14 January 2016
  • Published on: (5 February 2016)
    Page navigation anchor for Small is Beautiful
    Small is Beautiful
    • Joseph E. Scherger, Vice President, Primary Care

    Small is Beautiful was written by E. F. Schumacher in 1973 about the positive economics and quality offered by small businesses. This certainly applies to small medical practices, especially those following the idealized micropractice format. Many of these practices use the direct primary care patient payment, but in rural areas this is often not feasible. Some insurance plans are discovering that small practices usin...

    Show More

    Small is Beautiful was written by E. F. Schumacher in 1973 about the positive economics and quality offered by small businesses. This certainly applies to small medical practices, especially those following the idealized micropractice format. Many of these practices use the direct primary care patient payment, but in rural areas this is often not feasible. Some insurance plans are discovering that small practices using time intensive innovative models actually lower health care costs, such as the partnership between Iora and Humana. Small personalized practices are part of the solution in primary care and hopefully more payors will realize this soon before many of these wonderful practices are lost.

    Competing interests: None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (28 January 2016)
    Page navigation anchor for MEASURED TO DEATH: WHEN WRONG MEASURES CAN KILL PRIMARY CARE TRANSFORMATION
    MEASURED TO DEATH: WHEN WRONG MEASURES CAN KILL PRIMARY CARE TRANSFORMATION
    • Carlos Roberto Jaen, Family Physician

    I am grateful to Drs. Glancey and Kennedy for their excellent commentary and saddened by what they report. Here are two family physicians that go out of their way to provide exemplary, transformational primary care. A true PCMH, they provide the fundamental tenets of primary care, a new way of organizing practice, development of internal capabilities; and related health system and reimbursement changes. [1] They comply...

    Show More

    I am grateful to Drs. Glancey and Kennedy for their excellent commentary and saddened by what they report. Here are two family physicians that go out of their way to provide exemplary, transformational primary care. A true PCMH, they provide the fundamental tenets of primary care, a new way of organizing practice, development of internal capabilities; and related health system and reimbursement changes. [1] They comply with demands of governmental programs such a meaningful use, have a focus on quality improvement and participate as a CPCI practice. Yet all these changes are threatened by what is the tyranny of what Berwick calls " era of complex incentives and excessive measurement". [2] A sentiment also decried by the recently released National Academy of Medicine (formerly IOM) report Vital Signs: Core Metrics for Health And Health Care Progress. [3]

    Their experience, investing significant amount of effort and time reporting the required measures and obtaining the desired outcomes produced reduced payments that may make the changes unsustainable financially. The reductions are in part due to measures, such as hospitalizations, which may be easy to collect but not representing the value of what they deliver in the context of their practice. Such is the paradox of primary care transformation in the current measurement climate. There is an urgent need to develop measures that truly represent the value that primary care brings to the patients and communities we serve. The effort that the American Board of Family Medicine has initiated with the development of a national registry for Family Medicine is a step in the right direction that may provide the opportunity to develop such measures. [4] Transformation is required to deliver the promise of advanced primary care but toxic measures must be eliminated for the improvement to be sustained. A limited set of measures that guide improvement in processes and outcomes and that are meaningful to patients, clinicians and communities are urgently needed.

    1. Stange, Kurt C., et al. "Defining and measuring the patient-centered medical home." Journal of general internal medicine 25.6 (2010): 601-612.
    2. Berwick's 9 steps to a new 'moral era' in medicine. (2015, December 30) Retrieved from http://cmg625.com/berwicks-9-steps-to-a-new-moral-era-in-medicine/
    3. Blumenthal, David, and J. Michael McGinnis. "Measuring Vital Signs: An IOM Report on Core Metrics for Health and Health Care Progress." JAMA 313.19 (2015): 1901-1902.
    4. Phillips, Robert L. "ABFM TO SIMPLIFY MOC FOR FAMILY PHYSICIANS AND MAKE IT MORE MEANINGFUL: A FAMILY MEDICINE REGISTRY."The Annals of Family Medicine 13.3 (2015): 288-290.

    Competing interests: None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (19 January 2016)
    Page navigation anchor for Monetizing US healthcare, value, and being nimble
    Monetizing US healthcare, value, and being nimble
    • Robert W Morrow, Independent Family Doc

    After the terrific analytics by our ABFM colleagues, the experiences of a cutting edge community practice, the observations by a national leader of health information tech, and a cry from the heart from a brilliant policy leader in our field, I wonder what I can add that will move this conversation forward.

    My own position is in a small independent practice with an outsize population in the Bronx for 35 years,...

    Show More

    After the terrific analytics by our ABFM colleagues, the experiences of a cutting edge community practice, the observations by a national leader of health information tech, and a cry from the heart from a brilliant policy leader in our field, I wonder what I can add that will move this conversation forward.

    My own position is in a small independent practice with an outsize population in the Bronx for 35 years, and as an independent researcher in implementation in continuing education in the health professions, as well as a voice on education policy for our installed base of health professionals. I view our task as bringing into alignment communities, public health officials, and healthcare providers, and building the continuing educational communities and collaboratives that will restore the abysmal health of the US public.

    That's why we learn, that's why we practice and teach, and that is why we engineer and implement the future, with our communities and our policy makers.

    My medical education in East Harlem occurred in the environment of not-for-profit health care--not great, but leading the world. As I completed my National Health Service Corps work, the Reagan revolution institutionalized for-profit health care--not so great, but with some momentum as the big investors looked to make profit on providing care. Health data's curve bent down.

    With the collapse of the original Clinton health plan, as my Bronx practice was comfortable but not enriching, investors pivoted to health care as a financial profit center, which is not how you and I see it, but rather as a way to make money on transactions--bonds, buying of systems, creations of amalgams of systems and insurers. The business school model is the monetization of all aspects of the system in order to maximize transaction profits, including the monopolization of services. One does not focus on product, but on selling the business or the bond. Which is why EHRs look like they look. And the world's health stats improved faster than the US's.

    The bottom line? One needs a good bottom line to attract capital to purchase the next hospital/clinic/group, so we see layoffs at institutions intent on borrowing to buy and expand, in order to command attributed lives. My payments took a nose dive.

    Where does the capital come from, with institutions presumably working with very narrow profit margins? We have not seen a good analysis of this, but more and more, this capital seems to flow from large insurance carriers working with financial institutions and funds to issue bonds that look very much like the collateral debt obligations of the last real estate crash in 2008, without much oversight and very little reportage. One of the last three national insurance carriers already has a strong grip on pharmacy benefits management, the relative value manual, and new narrow insurance panels that exclude many small practices, like mine.

    Of course, we have much published analytics [including some mentioned by Dr. Mostashari] demonstrating the null value for patient outcomes [let alone outcomes important to patients] of performance-based payments. Indeed, the sample sizes needed to show replicable change at the 10% level for most measures over time is quite large, usually well over 200 providers and thousands of patients with comparable conditions, and also hard to analyze with current systems, given temporal and other changes as well as the huge confidence limits of the data sets. Not to leave out the intrinsic uncertainties of massive data sets and administrative data.

    Value based payment implementation is based on math that would not ordinarily be publishable. Multiple ethical quandaries also prevail. Do you inform your patients that you will be paid more if they take their pills, which might be of marginal value?

    But the Buffalo stampede continues [forgive me, I do like the city and the beasts] to monopoly systems that support narrow insurance panels, leaving out the small independent practices like mine that have low ED and ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations [as much as the numbers have any validity], and high satisfaction and organic and trusting connections to communities, like mine.

    The NYCDOHMH has so far found [and this is a tough slog through data, but they are clever] that 40-60% of medicaid patients in NYC are seen by very small primary care practices, like mine, many of which are linguistically and culturally congruent with their communities.

    OK-the worst for last. These new systems are not only too big to fail, but are over-leveraged in many cases. Without the payments to cover their debt service, they will struggle. Are we as a country ready to bail them out?

    Competing interests: None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (14 January 2016)
    Page navigation anchor for Hello Policy World! Are you listening?
    Hello Policy World! Are you listening?
    • Larry A. Green, Family Physician

    Decision-makers and especially anyone who thinks they might become a patient better pay attention to this Clancey and Kennedy commentary. And they better not make the mistake of dismissing it as nostalgic, head-in-the-sand whining from out of touch small town docs.

    See this commentary for what it is: "a postcard from the edge" of a foundational system of small practices capable of ADAPTING to the unbelievably...

    Show More

    Decision-makers and especially anyone who thinks they might become a patient better pay attention to this Clancey and Kennedy commentary. And they better not make the mistake of dismissing it as nostalgic, head-in-the-sand whining from out of touch small town docs.

    See this commentary for what it is: "a postcard from the edge" of a foundational system of small practices capable of ADAPTING to the unbelievably large and rapid changes necessary in health care to keep taking care of the local folks. This practice and others like it don't need to be acquired, absorbed and constrained by a new bureaucracy; they need to be sustained with sufficient independence to know the local situation and take prioritized care of the local folks.

    These doctors are real, personal physicians--as good as it gets. Their practice exemplifies the new world of robust primary care physicians adapting to the information age AND what the local community needs. They have responded to the call to the triple and quadruple aims and their associated policies. They are the living adaptive solution every community requires--small and large, urban and rural-- modernized primary care able to integrate with behavioral health and public health to achieve the goals of personal and population health.

    They are screaming that they've done the right thing --and have been either not rewarded or punished for it, or both. If they were a patient in crisis, vital signs would be dropping and the health care system would rush to keep them alive. They point toward having to resuscitate themselves by just getting out of the dysfunctional status quo payment system.

    It is past urgent to stop wringing capital out of the frontline practices doing the primary care functions and start pouring cash into them. It is at the very least "unbecoming" for administrative leaders to ask for more changes before committing to payment changes that provide revenue in excess of the expenses of the "demanded" changes. And it borders on just plain ignorance to assume that acquisitions and consolidation and possibly extinction of the small clinical practice will just make everything better.

    This practice's experience and participation in redesigning health care, succintly summarized from a small rural town is a "bell-ringer"-- speaking truth to power, the power held by payers and informed people in an American style democracy.

    CMS, Anthem, United, etc--just increase the spend on primary care, now. How much? Double it, all the way to say 11-12% of the total spend on health care services. Then reassess and decide whether it was enough or too much. It won't destroy your business models or unleash a rash of fraud and abuse.

    Voters and Patients: better speak up and demand that the private and public sectors break through the current waste of polarized politics and spending without value--to do something specific to preserve your opportunities to get highly customized, proper care, organized close to home in partnership with your own doctor and the team you need. Everything you need, and not more. Just say you want policies that help Drs. Clancey and Kennedy and point them to this Annals of Family Medicine report.

    Competing interests: I have seen the care provided by this small rural practice.

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 14 (1)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 14 (1)
Vol. 14, Issue 1
January/February 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Achieving PCMH Status May Not Be Meaningful for Small Practices
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Achieving PCMH Status May Not Be Meaningful for Small Practices
Kelley K. Glancey, James G. Kennedy
The Annals of Family Medicine Jan 2016, 14 (1) 4-5; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1887

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Achieving PCMH Status May Not Be Meaningful for Small Practices
Kelley K. Glancey, James G. Kennedy
The Annals of Family Medicine Jan 2016, 14 (1) 4-5; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1887
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • Reference
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Can You Hear Me Now? Refining the PCMH Model and an Overlooked Disability Affecting Seniors
  • Rebuilding after COVID: Planning Systems of Care for the Future
  • Holding On and Letting Go: A Perspective from the Keystone IV Conference
  • In This Issue: Size Matters
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Recruiting, Educating, and Taking Primary Care to Rural Communities
  • Returning to a Patient-Centered Approach in the Management of Hypothyroidism
  • An Opportunity to Emphasize Equity, Social Determinants, and Prevention in Primary Care
Show more Editorials

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Past Issues in Brief
  • Multimedia
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Multimedia
  • Supplements
  • Online First
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Media
  • Job Seekers

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2023 Annals of Family Medicine