ACHIEVING A PATIENT-CENTERED MEDICAL HOME AS DETERMINED BY THE NCQA—AT WHAT COST, AND TO WHAT PURPOSE?

Anton J. Kuzel; Elaine M. Skoch

doi:10.1370/afm.956

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

Title *

Author Information

Contributors
First Name and Middle Initial * First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'. Last Name * Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'. Email Address * Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com Occupation * Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Affiliation * Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

Please describe the competing interests

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image? *

Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

Cost-Benefit Nervous Breakdown in the Medical Home
Richard D Iliff

Published on: 09 March 2009

Published on: (9 March 2009)
Page navigation anchor for Cost-Benefit Nervous Breakdown in the Medical Home
Cost-Benefit Nervous Breakdown in the Medical Home
Richard D Iliff, Topeka
The authors, in a back-of-the-napkin calculation, figure that access to care, electronic prescribing, and encouraging patient self-management are more than twice as cost-effective as the components devoted to tracking data.
They are too modest. I would put the cost-benefit ratio as 100-to-1. Maybe 1000-to-1.
I have a well-run private practice. Patients are seen the same day if necessary or desired--...
Show More

The authors, in a back-of-the-napkin calculation, figure that access to care, electronic prescribing, and encouraging patient self-management are more than twice as cost-effective as the components devoted to tracking data.
They are too modest. I would put the cost-benefit ratio as 100-to-1. Maybe 1000-to-1.
I have a well-run private practice. Patients are seen the same day if necessary or desired--always. Thorough executive-type physicals are scheduled next week, because it is a two-step process. In a recent audit of type 2 diabetics, my average A1c was 6.6; LDL-C was 91; BP was 123/75. Year after year, my cost-per-DRG runs 20% less than my family medicine peers.
The PCMH scoring system makes me want to weep. It is so larded with bureaucratic data collection, which in the average practice will never be acted upon or maybe even looked at, that I wonder if its inventors have ever practiced medicine.
And evidence-based? Where is the evidence for all this certitude?
You'll never see me wasting my time in pursuit of Medical Home certification, unless the process reorients toward measurable, research- based outcomes, rather that a checklist of inputs.
Confusion of means and ends is the root of the problem.
Competing interests: None declared
Show Less

Competing Interests: None declared.