Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

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

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Participation in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Initiative

Pragya Singh, Sean Orzol, Deborah Peikes, Eunhae G. Oh and Stacy Dale
The Annals of Family Medicine July 2020, 18 (4) 309-317; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2544
Pragya Singh
Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, New Jersey
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: PSingh@mathematica-mpr.com
Sean Orzol
Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, New Jersey
MPH, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Deborah Peikes
Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, New Jersey
MPA, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eunhae G. Oh
Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, New Jersey
MPP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stacy Dale
Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, New Jersey
MPA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Practice Characteristics of CPC+ Applicants and Nonapplicants in CPC+ Regions, Before CPC+

    CharacteristicAll Practices (n = 16,883)aAmong All Practices in CPC+ Regions P Value
    Applicants (n = 4,346)bNonapplicants (n = 12,537)
    Practice size and ownership at baselinec
    Total no. of practitioners (any specialty), median (IQR)2.0 (1.0-4.0)3.0 (2.0-6.0)2.0 (1.0-3.0)<.001
    No. of primary care practitioners, median (IQR)2.0 (1.0-3.0)3.0 (2.0-5.0)1.0 (1.0-3.0)<.001
    Practice size
     Large (> 6 primary care practitioners), % (95% CI)12.0 (11.5-12.5)23.2 (22.0-24.5)8.1 (7.6-8.6)<.001
     Medium (3-5 primary care practitioners), % (95% CI)24.6 (23.9-25.2)36.2 (34.8-37.6)20.5 (19.8-21.2)<.001
     Small (1-2 primary care practitioners), % (95% CI)63.4 (62.7-64.2)40.5 (39.1-42.0)71.4 (70.6-72.2)<.001
    No. of attributed Medicare FFS beneficiaries at baseline, median (IQR)204 (82-412)410 (231-740)155 (55-311)<.001
    No. of attributed Medicare FFS beneficiaries at baseline per PCP, median (IQR)113 (48-194)144 (89-214)99 (32-183)<.001
    Owned by a health system or hospital, % (95% CI)d31.6 (30.9-32.3)50.9 (49.5-52.4)24.9 (24.2-25.7)<.001
    Owned or managed by a health system, % (95% CI)27.2 (26.5-27.8)46.4 (44.9-47.8)20.5 (19.8-21.2)<.001
    Owned by a hospital, % (95% CI)17.4 (16.8-18.0)25.4 (24.1-26.7)14.7 (14.0-15.3)<.001
    Practices with selected transformation experience
    PCMH recognition, % (95% CI)e23.8 (23.1-24.4)47.5 (46.0-49.0)15.5 (14.9-16.2)<.001
    Participant in a Medicare SSP ACO as of January 1 of the first intervention year, % (95% CI)31.0 (30.3-31.7)47.0 (45.6-48.5)25.4 (24.6-26.2)<.001
    Participant in CMMI’s TCPI, % (95% CI)7.6 (7.2-8.0)10.5 (9.6-11.4)6.6 (6.2-7.1)<.001
    Participant in CMMI’s MAPCP, % (95% CI)f2.5 (2.3-2.7)5.6 (4.9-6.3)1.4 (1.2-1.7)<.001
    Participant in CPC Classic, % (95% CI)g2.6 (2.3-2.8)9.9 (9.1-10.8)0 (0-0)<.001
    Primary care transformation experience (PCMH recognitione, MAPCPf, or CPC Classicg), % (95% CI)25.8 (25.2-26.5)53.6 (52.1-55.1)16.2 (15.6-16.8)<.001
    Primary care transformation experience or TCPI, % (95% CI)31.3 (30.6-32.0)59.4 (58.0-60.9)21.6 (20.8-22.3)<.001
    Primary care transformation experience or TCPI or SSP as of January 1 of the first intervention year, % (95% CI)50.5 (49.8-51.3)81.1 (79.9-82.3)39.9 (39.1-40.8)<.001
    Practices with ≥ 1 practitioner attesting to meaningful use of EHRs, % (95% CI)h57.7 (57.0-58.4)85.8 (84.7-86.8)48.0 (47.1-48.9)<.001
    Characteristics of practice county
    Household income in county in which practice is located ($), median (IQR)i51,475 (43,338-62,867)53,164 (45,698-64,916)50,453 (42,896-62,861)<.001
    Rural location, % (95% CI)j12.9 (12.4-13.4)8.6 (7.7-9.4)14.4 (13.8-15.0)<.001
    Suburban location, % (95% CI)j14.5 (14.0-15.0)14.8 (13.8-15.9)14.4 (13.8-15.0).469
    Urban location, % (95% CI)j72.6 (71.9-73.2)76.6 (75.3-77.9)71.2 (70.472.0)<.001
    • AAAHC = Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care; ACO = Accountable Care Organization; CMMI = Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation; CMS = Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; CPC = Comprehensive Primary Care; CPC+ = Comprehensive Primary Care Plus; EHR = electronic health record; FFS = fee for service; IQR = interquartile range; MAPCP = Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice; NCQA = National Committee for Quality Assurance; PCMH = patient-centered medical home; PCP = primary care practitioner; SSP = Shared Savings Program; TCPI = Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative; TJC = The Joint Commission; URAC = Utilization Review Accreditation Commission.

    • Note: Table presents the unweighted mean value for each characteristic. Primary care practices include all practices with ≥1 practitioner (defined as a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant) with a specialty of primary care (defined as family practice, general practice, geriatrics, or internal medicine). The 2018 starters represent 11% of all practices, 7% of applicants, and 5% of participants.

    • Sources: Mathematica’s analysis of data on practice size and ownership from SK&A data; data on the number and characteristics of attributed Medicare beneficiaries from Medicare Enrollment Database and claims data; data on PCMH recognition from NCQA, TJC, AAAHC, URAC, and state-specific data sources; data on Medicare SSP ACO participation from CMS Master Data Management data; data on participation in CMMI’s TCPI, CMMI’s MAPCP, and CPC Classic from CMS; data on meaningful use of EHRs from CMS Medicare EHR Incentive Program; county data from the Area Resource File.

    • ↵a Table includes 16,883 of the 19,809 primary care practices in the 2017 and 2018 regions because we excluded 2,926 practices (15%) that had no attributed Medicare FFS beneficiaries in the baseline year.

    • ↵b A total of 4,599 practices applied for CPC+. The number of applicants in this table (4,346) is fewer because some applicants could not be identified in the SK&A data, and some applicants had no attributed Medicare FFS beneficiaries at baseline.

    • ↵c The baseline year is 2016 for the 2017 starters and 2017 for the 2018 starters.

    • ↵d In the SK&A data, a practice can be owned (or managed) by a health system and owned by a hospital.

    • ↵e A practice was considered to have PCMH recognition if ≥1 of its primary care practitioners had recognition at some point in 2014-2017 for the 2017 starters and 2015-2018 for the 2018 starters from a state, the AAAHC, TJC, NCQA, or URAC.

    • ↵f We considered a practice to be a MAPCP participant if it participated in any year from 2011-2014, as determined by a file from CMS.

    • ↵g Participants include all those practices that stayed enrolled in CPC Classic for at least the first 5 months.

    • ↵h At least 1 practitioner attested to meaningful use under the Medicare EHR Incentive Program from 2011-2015 for 2017 starters and 2011-2016 for 2018 starters.

    • ↵i Reflects 2014 data for the 2017 starters and 2015 data for the 2018 starters.

    • ↵j The urbanicity of a practice’s county (rural, urban, suburban) is derived from the 2013 (latest year available) rural-urban continuum codes (https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/documentation/) available in the Area Resource Files for both 2017 and 2018 starters.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Characteristics of CPC+ Applicants and Nonapplicants in CPC+ Regions, Based on Medicare FFS Beneficiary Composition, Before CPC+

    CharacteristicAll Practices (n = 16,883)aAmong All Practices in CPC+ Regions P Value
    Applicants (n = 4,346)bNonapplicants (n = 12,537)
    Characteristics of Medicare FFS beneficiaries attributed to practice at baselinec
    Age
     0-49 y, % (95% CI)7.4 (7.2-7.5)6.0 (5.8-6.2)7.8 (7.6-8.0)<.001
     50-64 y, % (95% CI)15.2 (15.1-15.5)13.1 (12.9-13.4)16.0 (15.8-16.3)<.001
     65-74 y, % (95% CI)43.6 (43.4-43.8)45.3 (45.0-45.6)43.0 (42.8-43.3)<.001
     75-84 y, % (95% CI)22.8 (22.6-22.9)24.1 (23.9-24.3)22.3 (22.1-22.5)<.001
     ≥ 85 y, % (95% CI)11.0 (10.8-11.1)11.5 (11.3-11.7)10.8 (10.6-11.0)<.001
    Male, % (95% CI)42.4 (42.2-42.6)41.6 (41.4-41.9)42.7 (42.4-42.9)<.001
    Race
     Black, % (95% CI)12.0 (11.7-12.3)8.5 (8.1-9.0)13.2 (12.9-13.6)<.001
     White, % (95% CI)80.1 (79.7-80.5)84.3 (83.7-84.9)78.6 (78.2-79.1)<.001
     Other, % (95% CI)7.9 (7.6-8.1)7.2 (6.8-7.6)8.1 (7.8-8.4)<.001
    Dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, % (95% CI)d21.7 (21.4-22.0)17.0 (16.6-17.5)23.4 (23.0-23.8)<.001
    HCC score attributed in baseline year, mean (95% CI)e1.15 (1.15-1.16)1.12 (1.11-1.13)1.16 (1.16-1.17)<.001
    Chronic conditions as of baseline yearf
     Alzheimer disease and related dementia, % (95% CI)8.3 (8.1-8.4)7.7 (7.5-7.9)8.4 (8.3-8.6)<.001
     Cancer, % (95% CI)7.0 (7.0-7.1)7.6 (7.5-7.7)6.8 (6.7-6.9)<.001
     Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, % (95% CI)11.5 (11.4-11.7)10.8 (10.7-11.0)11.8 (11.6-12.0)<.001
     Chronic kidney disease, % (95% CI)16.9 (16.7-17.1)16.8 (16.6-17.1)16.9 (16.7-17.1).665
     Congestive heart failure, % (95% CI)12.7 (12.5-12.8)11.4 (11.2-11.6)13.1 (12.9-13.3)<.001
     Diabetes, % (95% CI)27.9 (27.7-28.1)26.3 (26.1-26.6)28.4 (28.2-28.7)<.001
    Medicare FFS expenditures and service use for Medicare FFS beneficiaries attributed to practice at baseline
    Medicare expenditures per beneficiary ($/mo), median (IQR)g,h878 (717-1,088)858 (744-1,004)888 (702-1,126)<.001
    Weighted Medicare expenditures per beneficiary ($/mo), median (IQR)g,h875 (765-1,020)855 (761-976)895 (771-1,067)<.001
    Acute care stays per 1,000 beneficiaries (annualized), median (IQR)289 (220-374)282 (233-346)292 (213-388).007
    ED visits per 1,000 beneficiaries (annualized), median (IQR)506 (368-721)481 (374-638)518 (364-762)<.001
    Primary care (ambulatory) visits per 1,000 beneficiaries (annualized), median (IQR)4,518 (3,724-5,517)4,471 (3,927-5,161)4,539 (3,623-5,683).592
    Percentage of discharges for which beneficiary had a 14-day follow-up visit after hospitalization, median (IQR)i67.6 (59.6-74.8)69.1 (63.0-74.4)66.7 (57.7-75.0)<.001
    • CMS = Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; CPC+ = Comprehensive Primary Care Plus; ED = emergency department; FFS = fee for service; HCC = hierarchical condition category; IQR = interquartile range.

    • Note: Primary care practices include all practices with ≥ 1 practitioner (defined as a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant) with a specialty of primary care (defined as family practice, general practice, geriatrics, or internal medicine). The 2018 starters represent 11% of all practices, 7% of applicants, and 5% of participants.

    • Sources: Mathematica’s analysis of data on the number, characteristics, and service use and spending of attributed Medicare beneficiaries based on Medicare Enrollment Database and claims data.

    • ↵a Table includes 16,883 of the 19,809 primary care practices in the 2017 and 2018 regions because we excluded 2,926 practices (15%) that had no attributed Medicare FFS beneficiaries in the baseline year.

    • ↵b A total of 4,599 practices applied for CPC+. The number of applicants in this table (4,346) is fewer because some applicants could not be identified in the SK&A data, and some applicants had no attributed Medicare FFS beneficiaries at baseline.

    • ↵c The baseline year is 2016 for the 2017 starters and 2017 for the 2018 starters.

    • ↵d Calculated as the percentage of beneficiaries attributed to a practice in the baseline year who were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid in the quarter before the start of the baseline year.

    • ↵e The HCC score is based on beneficiaries’ diagnoses in 2015 (for 2017 starters) or 2016 (for 2018 starters).

    • ↵f The lookback periods for the chronic conditions are 3 years before the baseline year for Alzheimer and related dementia, 1 year before the baseline year for cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 2 years before the baseline year for chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, and diabetes.

    • ↵g We deflated the 2017 (baseline) mean and median per beneficiary per month expenditures for the practices in the 2018 CPC+ regions by the 0.9% Medicare inflation rate (CMS Office of the Actuary, personal communication, May 6, 2019).

    • ↵h For the calculation of the weighted (mean/median) monthly Medicare expenditures per beneficiary, the practice-level expenditure variable (mean/median) is weighted by the number of beneficiaries attributed to the practice, so that practices with more attributed beneficiaries get a greater weight. The means and medians for all of the other characteristics in the table are unweighted, meaning that each practice is treated equally, regardless of its size.

    • ↵i This measure was calculated for beneficiaries attributed in the first quarter of the baseline year.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Practice Characteristics of CPC+ Participants and Nonparticipants Among CPC+ Applicants, Before CPC+

    CharacteristicApplicants (n = 4,346)aAmong Applicants P Value
    Participants (n = 3,051)b,cNonparticipants (n = 1,295)
    Practice size and ownership at baselined
    Total no. of practitioners (any specialty), median (IQR)3.0 (2.0-6.0)4.0 (2.0-6.0)3.0 (2.0-5.0)<.001
    No. of primary care practitioners, median (IQR)3.0 (2.0-5.0)3.0 (2.0-6.0)2.0 (1.0-4.0)<.001
    Practice size
     Large (> 6 primary care practitioners), % (95% CI)23.3 (22.0-24.5)26.6 (25.0-28.2)15.4 (13.4-17.3)<.001
     Medium (3-5 primary care practitioners), % (95% CI)36.2 (34.8-37.6)37.1 (35.4-38.9)34.1 (31.5-36.6).052
     Small (1-2 primary care practitioners), % (95% CI)40.5 (39.1-42.0)36.3 (34.5-38.0)50.6 (47.9-53.3)<.001
    No. of attributed Medicare FFS beneficiaries at baseline, median (IQR)410 (231-740)484 (288-837)253 (117-497)<.001
    No. of attributed Medicare FFS beneficiaries at baseline per PCP, median (IQR)144 (89-214)159 (107-232)107 (61-173)<.001
    Owned by a health system or hospital, % (95% CI)e50.9 (49.5-52.4)54.0 (52.2-55.8)43.7 (41.0-46.4)<.001
    Owned or managed by a health system, % (95% CI)46.4 (44.9-47.8)49.3 (47.5-51.0)39.5 (36.9-42.2)<.001
    Owned by a hospital, % (95% CI)25.4 (24.1-26.7)27.6 (26.0-29.2)20.2 (18.0-22.4)<.001
    Practices with selected transformation experience
    PCMH recognition, % (95% CI)f47.5 (46.0-49.0)52.6 (50.8-54.3)35.4 (32.8-38.1)<.001
    Participant in a Medicare SSP ACO as of January 1 of the first intervention year, % (95% CI)47.0 (45.6-48.5)46.2 (44.5-48.0)49.0 (46.2-51.7).104
    Participant in CMMI’s TCPI, % (95% CI)10.5 (9.6-11.4)10.8 (9.7-11.9)9.7 (8.1-11.3).276
    Participant in CMMI’s MAPCP, % (95% CI)g5.6 (4.9-6.3)6.9 (6.0-7.7)2.5 (1.7-3.4)<.001
    Participant in CPC Classic, % (95% CI)h9.9 (9.1-10.8)14.1 (12.8-15.3)0.2 (0-0.5)<.001
    Primary care transformation experience (PCMH recognitionf, MAPCPg, or CPC Classich), % (95% CI)53.6 (52.1-55.1)60.7 (59.0-62.4)36.8 (34.2-39.5)<.001
    Primary care transformation experience or TCPI, % (95% CI)59.4 (58.0-60.9)65.7 (64.1-67.4)44.5 (41.8-47.2)<.001
    Primary care transformation experience or TCPI or SSP as of January 1 of the first intervention year, % (95% CI)81.1 (79.9-82.3)84.6 (83.3-85.9)72.9 (70.5-75.3)<.001
    Practices with ≥ 1 practitioner attesting to meaningful use of EHRs, % (95% CI)i85.8 (84.7-86.8)90.4 (89.3-91.4)74.9 (72.5-77.3)<.001
    Characteristics of practice county
    Household income in county in which practice is located ($), median (IQR)j53,164 (45,698-64,916)54,089 (46,185-66,315)49,503 (44,015-61,170)<.001
    Rural location, % (95% CI)k8.6 (7.7-9.4)8.7 (7.7-9.7)8.3 (6.8-9.8).646
    Suburban location, % (95% CI)k14.8 (13.8-15.9)15.4 (14.2-16.7)13.4 (11.6-15.3).082
    Urban location, % (95% CI)k76.6 (75.3-77.9)75.9 (74.4-77.4)78.3 (76.1-80.5).08
    • AAAHC = Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care; ACO = Accountable Care Organization; CMMI = Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation; CMS = Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; CPC = Comprehensive Primary Care; CPC+ = Comprehensive Primary Care Plus; EHR = electronic health record; FFS = fee for service; IQR = interquartile range; MAPCP = Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice; NCQA = National Committee for Quality Assurance; PCMH = patient-centered medical home; PCP = primary care practitioner; SSP = Shared Savings Program; TCPI = Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative; TJC = The Joint Commission; URAC = Utilization Review Accreditation Commission.

    • Note: Table presents the unweighted mean value for each characteristic. Primary care practices include all practices with ≥1 practitioner (defined as a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant) with a specialty of primary care (defined as family practice, general practice, geriatrics, or internal medicine). The 2018 starters represent 11% of all practices, 7% of applicants, and 5% of participants.

    • Sources: Mathematica’s analysis of data on practice size and ownership from SK&A data; data on the number and characteristics of attributed Medicare beneficiaries from Medicare Enrollment Database and claims data; data on PCMH recognition from NCQA, TJC, AAAHC, URAC, and state-specific data sources; data on Medicare SSP ACO participation from CMS Master Data Management data; data on participation in CMMI’s TCPI, CMMI’s MAPCP, and CPC Classic from CMS; data on meaningful use of EHRs from CMS Medicare EHR Incentive Program; county data from the Area Resource File.

    • ↵a A total of 4,599 practices applied for CPC+. The number of applicants in this table (4,346) is fewer because some applicants could not be identified in the SK&A data, and some applicants had no attributed Medicare FFS beneficiaries at baseline.

    • ↵b The 2018 starters comprise approximately 5% of the participating CPC+ practices and 5% of attributed beneficiaries.

    • ↵c As of April 1 of the first intervention year.

    • ↵d The baseline year is 2016 for the 2017 starters and 2017 for the 2018 starters.

    • ↵e In the SK&A data, a practice can be owned (or managed) by a health system and owned by a hospital.

    • ↵f A practice was considered to have PCMH recognition if ≥ 1 of its primary care practitioners had recognition at some point in 2014-2017 for the 2017 starters and 2015-2018 for the 2018 starters from a state, the AAAHC, TJC, NCQA, or URAC.

    • ↵g We considered a practice to be a MAPCP participant if it participated in any year from 2011-2014 as determined by a file from CMS.

    • ↵h Participants include all those practices that remained enrolled in CPC Classic for at least the first 5 months.

    • ↵i At least 1 practitioner attested to meaningful use under the Medicare EHR Incentive Program from 2011-2015 for 2017 starters and 2011-2016 for 2018 starters.

    • ↵j Reflects 2014 data for the 2017 starters and 2015 data for the 2018 starters.

    • ↵k The urbanicity of a practice’s county (rural, urban, suburban) is derived from the 2013 (latest year available) rural-urban continuum codes (https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/documentation/) available in the Area Resource Files for both 2017 and 2018 starters.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Characteristics of CPC+ Participants and Nonparticipants Among CPC+ Applicants, Based on Medicare FFS Beneficiary Composition, Before CPC+

    CharacteristicApplicants (n = 4,346)aAmong Applicants P Value
    Participants (n = 3,051)b,cNonparticipants (n = 1,295)
    Characteristics of Medicare FFS beneficiaries attributed to practice at baselined
    Age
     0-49 y, % (95% CI)6.0 (5.8-6.2)5.2 (5.1-5.4)7.9 (7.5-8.4)< .001
     50-64 y, % (95% CI)13.1 (12.9-13.4)12.0 (11.7-12.2)15.9 (15.4-16.4)< .001
     65-74 y, % (95% CI)45.3 (45.0-45.6)46.1 (45.8-46.4)43.3 (42.7-44.0)< .001
     75-84 y, % (95% CI)24.1 (23.9-24.3)24.9 (24.7-25.1)22.2 (21.7-22.6)< .001
     ≥ 85 y, % (95% CI)11.5 (11.3-11.7)11.8 (11.6-12.0)10.7 (10.2-11.1)< .001
    Male, % (95% CI)41.6 (41.4-41.9)41.7 (41.4-41.9)41.5 (41.0-42.1).664
    Race
     Black, % (95% CI)8.5 (8.1-9.0)6.9 (6.5-7.4)12.3 (11.3-13.4)< .001
     White, % (95% CI)84.3 (83.7-84.9)85.8 (85.1-86.5)80.8 (79.6-82.0)< .001
     Other, % (95% CI)7.2 (6.8-7.6)7.3 (6.8-7.8)6.9 (6.2-7.6).383
    Dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, % (95% CI)e17.0 (16.6-17.5)14.9 (14.4-15.4)22.0 (21.0-23.0)< .001
    HCC score attributed in baseline year, mean (95% CI)f1.12 (1.11-1.13)1.10 (1.10-1.11)1.16 (1.14-1.18)< .001
    Chronic conditions as of baseline yearg
     Alzheimer disease and related dementia, % (95% CI)7.7 (7.5-7.9)7.4 (7.2-7.5)8.4 (8.0-8.9)< .001
     Cancer, % (95% CI)7.6 (7.5-7.7)7.9 (7.8-8.0)7.0 (6.8-7.1)< .001
     Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, % (95% CI)10.8 (10.7-11.0)10.3 (10.2-10.5)12.0 (11.6-12.4)< .001
     Chronic kidney disease, % (95% CI)16.8 (16.6-17.1)16.4 (16.2-16.6)17.9 (17.4-18.4)< .001
     Congestive heart failure, % (95% CI)11.4 (11.2-11.6)11.0 (10.8-11.1)12.4 (11.9-12.8)< .001
     Diabetes, % (95% CI)26.3 (26.1-26.6)25.7 (25.4-26.0)27.8 (27.2-28.4)< .001
    Medicare FFS expenditures and service use for Medicare FFS beneficiaries attributed to practice at baseline
    Medicare expenditures per beneficiary ($/mo), median (IQR)h,i858 (744-1,004)850 (745-981)874 (737-1,090)< .001
    Weighted Medicare expenditures per beneficiary ($/mo), median (IQR)h,i855 (761-976)849 (757-964)869 (768-1,020)< .001
    Acute care stays per 1,000 beneficiaries (annualized), median (IQR)282 (233-346)276 (231-331)302 (239-390)< .001
    ED visits per 1,000 beneficiaries (annualized), median (IQR)481 (374-638)465 (366-598)537 (397-753)< .001
    Primary care (ambulatory) visits per 1,000 beneficiaries (annualized), median (IQR)4,471 (3,927-5,161)4,443 (3,917-5,087)4,565 (3,957-5,503)< .001
    Percentage of discharges for which beneficiary had a 14-day follow-up visit after hospitalization, median (IQR)j69.1 (63.0-74.4)69.6 (64.0-74.5)67.8 (60.4-74.3)< .001
    • CMS = Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; CPC+ = Comprehensive Primary Care Plus; ED = emergency department; FFS = fee for service; HCC = hierarchical condition category; IQR = interquartile range.

    • Note: Primary care practices include all practices with ≥ 1 practitioner (defined as a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant) with a specialty of primary care (defined as family practice, general practice, geriatrics, or internal medicine). The 2018 starters represent 11% of all practices, 7% of applicants, and 5% of participants.

    • Sources: Mathematica’s analysis of data on the number, characteristics, and service use and spending of attributed Medicare beneficiaries based on Medicare Enrollment Database and claims data.

    • ↵a A total of 4,599 practices applied for CPC+. The number of applicants in this table (4,346) is fewer because some applicants could not be identified in the SK&A data, and some applicants had no attributed Medicare FFS beneficiaries at baseline.

    • ↵b The 2018 starters comprise approximately 5% of the participating CPC+ practices and 5% of attributed beneficiaries.

    • ↵c As of April 1 of the first intervention year.

    • ↵d The baseline year is 2016 for the 2017 starters and 2017 for the 2018 starters.

    • ↵e Calculated as the percentage of beneficiaries attributed to a practice in the baseline year who were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid in the quarter before the start of the baseline year.

    • ↵f The HCC score is based on beneficiaries’ diagnoses in 2015 (for 2017 starters) or 2016 (for 2018 starters).

    • ↵g The lookback periods for the chronic conditions are 3 years before the baseline year for Alzheimer and related dementia, 1 year before the baseline year for cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 2 years before the baseline year for chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, and diabetes.

    • ↵h We deflated the 2017 (baseline) mean and median per beneficiary per month expenditures for the practices in the 2018 CPC+ regions by the 0.9% Medicare inflation rate (CMS Office of the Actuary, personal communication, May 6, 2019).

    • ↵i For the calculation of the weighted (mean/median) monthly Medicare expenditures per beneficiary, the practice-level expenditure variable (mean/median) is weighted by the number of beneficiaries attributed to the practice, so that practices with more attributed beneficiaries get a greater weight. The means and medians for all of the other characteristics in the table are unweighted, meaning that each practice is treated equally, regardless of its size.

    • ↵j This measure was calculated for beneficiaries attributed in the first quarter of the baseline year.

Additional Files

  • Tables
  • Supplemental Appendix

    Supplemental Appendix

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental data: Appendix - PDF file
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 18 (4)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 18 (4)
Vol. 18, Issue 4
July/August 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • The Issue 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.
Participation in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Initiative
(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 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Participation in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Initiative
Pragya Singh, Sean Orzol, Deborah Peikes, Eunhae G. Oh, Stacy Dale
The Annals of Family Medicine Jul 2020, 18 (4) 309-317; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2544

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Participation in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus Initiative
Pragya Singh, Sean Orzol, Deborah Peikes, Eunhae G. Oh, Stacy Dale
The Annals of Family Medicine Jul 2020, 18 (4) 309-317; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2544
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Communication Gaps Persist Between Primary Care and Specialist Physicians
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Feasibility and Acceptability of the “About Me” Care Card as a Tool for Engaging Older Adults in Conversations About Cognitive Impairment
  • Treatment of Chlamydia and Gonorrhea in Primary Care and Its Patient-Level Variation: An American Family Cohort Study
  • Performance-Based Reimbursement, Illegitimate Tasks, Moral Distress, and Quality Care in Primary Care: A Mediation Model of Longitudinal Data
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Person groups:
    • Community / population health
  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other research types:
    • Health policy
    • Health services
    • Professional practice
  • Other topics:
    • Organizational / practice change

Keywords

  • primary care
  • transformation
  • Comprehensive Primary Care Plus
  • primary care issues: patient-centered care
  • participation patterns

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

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

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine