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

Trends in Quality During Medical Home Transformation

Leif I. Solberg, Stephen E. Asche, Patricia Fontaine, Thomas J. Flottemesch and Louise H. Anderson
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2011, 9 (6) 515-521; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1296
Leif I. Solberg
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: leif.i.solberg@healthpartners.com
Stephen E. Asche
MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patricia Fontaine
MD, MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas J. Flottemesch
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Louise H. Anderson
PhD
  • 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

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
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Measuring the Patient-Centered Medical Home: A Home is More than a House
    James M Gill
    Published on: 22 February 2016
  • Re:The Affirmation Imperative
    Robert S. Watkins
    Published on: 08 December 2011
  • The Affirmation Imperative
    R. Douglas Iliff
    Published on: 06 December 2011
  • Re:The PCMH Actually is a Good Thing
    paul H Grundy
    Published on: 30 November 2011
  • Re:Article will do more harm than good
    Steve Wilkins
    Published on: 26 November 2011
  • Agree NCQA measure is limited. Doesn't invalidate study's conclusions
    Patricia L. Fontaine
    Published on: 26 November 2011
  • Encouraging but Inconclusive Findings
    Daniel D. Maeng
    Published on: 23 November 2011
  • Without Changes in Care, Should We Expect Changes in Outcomes?
    Katie Coleman
    Published on: 22 November 2011
  • The PCMH Actually is a Good Thing
    Leif I. Solberg
    Published on: 22 November 2011
  • Article will do more harm than good
    Paul Grundy, MD, MPH
    Published on: 15 November 2011
  • Two to three years for practice transformation adequate with right support and incentives
    Terry McGeeney, MD, MBA
    Published on: 15 November 2011
  • Assertion in article is a large overstatement and not accurate
    Roland Goertz, MD, MBA
    Published on: 15 November 2011
  • Published on: (22 February 2016)
    Page navigation anchor for Measuring the Patient-Centered Medical Home: A Home is More than a House
    Measuring the Patient-Centered Medical Home: A Home is More than a House
    • James M Gill, President

    The article by Leif Solberg and colleagues is very informative for health care providers and policy-makers, regarding how to best move forward with the concept of the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH). At first glance, the results may seem disappointing, since they seem to suggest that offices that have achieved the pinnacle of PCMH certification did not see much greater improvement in quality of care compared to othe...

    Show More

    The article by Leif Solberg and colleagues is very informative for health care providers and policy-makers, regarding how to best move forward with the concept of the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH). At first glance, the results may seem disappointing, since they seem to suggest that offices that have achieved the pinnacle of PCMH certification did not see much greater improvement in quality of care compared to other offices in the region. I agree with the concerns expressed in the comments of Paul Grundy, that the conclusions from this article could be misused by skeptics to slow or even derail the current momentum toward PCMH transformation across the country. However, I believe that this is unlikely if these providers and policy-makers look beyond the conclusions in the abstract.

    First, as recognized by the authors, there were actually significant improvements in quality measures, including preventive services (12 percent increase) and optimal care of coronary artery disease (13 percent increase) and diabetes (4.4 percent increase). While these increases were not significantly greater than increases seen in other offices in the region, this could be due to the unusual health care environment in that region as pointed out by Roland Goertz in his comments. So concluding that PCMH transformation did not improve quality of care would be inappropriate. Perhaps more important were the improvements in patient satisfaction, which were much greater in magnitude and were significantly greater than the comparison offices. Since the PCMH starts with being "patient-centered", these positive results cannot be underestimated.

    But I believe the most important lesson from the study is that the instrument used to measure PCMH-ness is a very imperfect instrument for that purpose. As pointed out in the comments of Terry McGeeney, the NCQA tool does not capture many of the most important features of the PCMH. First and foremost, the PCMH is about creating an atmosphere where the patient feels that their primary care office is truly their medical home. This includes comprehensive, continuous and longitudinal care by a physician-led team that inspires trust in their patients. So an optimal PCMH instrument should include measures of trust, communication and satisfaction as well as longitudinality and comprehensiveness. Unfortunately, the NCQA instrument does not do a good job with these measures of "medical home-ness". The NCQA instrument is much better as measuring structural features such as extended hours of availability, expanded modes of communication, creation of chronic disease registries and use of advanced information technology. While these structural features of the "medical house" may help to achieve a high level of medical homeness, they do not in themselves indicate the achievement of that medical home.

    As illustrated in the study by Solberg and colleagues, the NCQA PCMH instruments are becoming the de-facto standard for measuring PCMHs. While this may be necessary in order for payers to have a way to guide their reimbursement policies, it is important to recognize the limitations of this approach. One limitation is that offices will likely "study for the test" by focusing first on achieving what the NCQA instrument measures - so they can be reimbursed for their efforts. In the process of doing that, they will likely improve quality of care and patient satisfaction (as shown by the Solberg study). But achieving optimal medical homeness will require more than what the NCQA instrument measures. It will require building upon the NCQA's structural features of the "medical house", to create a trusted team of professionals that communicate effectively with patients using a shared decision-making approach - one that patients truly feel is their medical home. As demonstrated in many pilots across the country, this movement toward medical homes is not only positive for patient satisfaction; it also leads to improvements in quality and reductions in health care expenditures. So while the article by Solberg and colleagues can bring some valuable lessons about the PCMH movement, it should not be used to slow the momentum toward universal transformation of primary care offices into true medical homes.

    Competing interests: None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (8 December 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Re:The Affirmation Imperative
    Re:The Affirmation Imperative
    • Robert S. Watkins, Physician

    Thank you for your typically insightful comment, Dr. Iliff.

    Though its representatives, surprisingly, claim "no conflicting interests," the AAFP is in the business of selling the PCMH to physicians, hospitals, and insurers. When they made the decision to do so, they gave up any claim to objectivity regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their very problematic product.

    Competing interests:   None declar...

    Show More

    Thank you for your typically insightful comment, Dr. Iliff.

    Though its representatives, surprisingly, claim "no conflicting interests," the AAFP is in the business of selling the PCMH to physicians, hospitals, and insurers. When they made the decision to do so, they gave up any claim to objectivity regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their very problematic product.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (6 December 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for The Affirmation Imperative
    The Affirmation Imperative
    • R. Douglas Iliff, Family Physician

    A front page article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal reports that scientists at Bayer A.G. failed to replicate results of studies published in respected peer-reviewed journals 64% of the time; only 21% were fully replicated. The pharmaceutical researchers had every incentive to see positive results, but also a counterbalancing incentive to not waste corporate time and resources on wild-goose chases.

    This is...

    Show More

    A front page article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal reports that scientists at Bayer A.G. failed to replicate results of studies published in respected peer-reviewed journals 64% of the time; only 21% were fully replicated. The pharmaceutical researchers had every incentive to see positive results, but also a counterbalancing incentive to not waste corporate time and resources on wild-goose chases.

    This is further evidence of an long-acknowledged problem: that "positive" results are far more likely to be published, while "negative" results are flushed. In fact, this seems to be exactly the desires of some respondents to this article.

    Therefore I find it highly commendable that the Annals editors had the wisdom and courage to publish this article, as they did previous cautionary reviews of the initial TransforMed experience. Thanks for taking the heat, folks-- you're true scientists.

    On the other side we have the propagandists, with various self- interested motives for suppressing less than laudatory results. That's the problem. That's why we don't get the whole story, scientifically, and waste an enormous amount of money being whiplashed by conflicting practice recommendations.

    "Underpromising and overdelivering," as recommended by Dr. Solberg, should indeed be the desire of every researcher and editor.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (30 November 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Re:The PCMH Actually is a Good Thing
    Re:The PCMH Actually is a Good Thing
    • paul H Grundy, Director

    Dr Leif Solberg thank you for your comments and the heading "PCMH is a good thing" -- my concern is not what was said and not because the "data -based confirmation of improvement with medical home changes was not as dramatic as they would like to have seen" , rather but how it was said.

    The problem is that is frankly unlikely that policy-makers look beyond the conclusion in the abstract. Ask yourself would you...

    Show More

    Dr Leif Solberg thank you for your comments and the heading "PCMH is a good thing" -- my concern is not what was said and not because the "data -based confirmation of improvement with medical home changes was not as dramatic as they would like to have seen" , rather but how it was said.

    The problem is that is frankly unlikely that policy-makers look beyond the conclusion in the abstract. Ask yourself would your member Congressman look beyond the conclusions in the abstract. I do not think so. !! Rather and simply they will have only the headlines pointed out to them by someone who is not trying to help you Primary care but in fact has economic reason to harm. It is my concern that the way this is written as this article does in fact requires you to look past the headlines to reach the right conclusion about what the paper really has to say. When an abstract leaves one with a conclusion that is not what is in the body of the paper and structured in a way that it can and already has be use to say see "SEE we told you need to stick to disintegrated uncoordinated episodic care system" than quote your abstract - that worries me and it has already happened. I would guess that was not how you wanted your abstract used and certainly not what your paper is saying as I read it. We live in a world of sound bits and they matter.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (26 November 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Re:Article will do more harm than good
    Re:Article will do more harm than good
    • Steve Wilkins, Primcipal

    It would seem that accredited Medical Homes have done a good job building the infrastructure, e.g., EMR/Registries, care coordination and team care, necessary for PCMH 1.0. A critical missing element in PCMH 1.0 is a total lack of focus on patient-centered communications - a key driver of patient-centered outcomes. In other words, there is no evidence to suggest that physicians in accredited Patient-Centered Medical Homes...

    Show More

    It would seem that accredited Medical Homes have done a good job building the infrastructure, e.g., EMR/Registries, care coordination and team care, necessary for PCMH 1.0. A critical missing element in PCMH 1.0 is a total lack of focus on patient-centered communications - a key driver of patient-centered outcomes. In other words, there is no evidence to suggest that physicians in accredited Patient-Centered Medical Homes are any more inclined to use patient-centered communication techniques, i.e., Four Habit Mode, than any non-PCMH practice. Until we change the way physicians and patients relate and interact with one another, it is unreasonable to expect the kinds of "hoped for" changes expected from PCMH. PCMH 2.0 must focus more on such change.

    Competing interests:   Consultant and Solution Vendor

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (26 November 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Agree NCQA measure is limited. Doesn't invalidate study's conclusions
    Agree NCQA measure is limited. Doesn't invalidate study's conclusions
    • Patricia L. Fontaine, Senior Clinical Investigator
    • Other Contributors:

    Ms. Coleman, similar to others' comments, takes exception to our use of NCQA certification as our marker for being a Medical Home. During the years encompassed by this study (2005-2009), the PPC-PCMH was one of the few means by which practices that embraced the tenets of primary care transformation could achieve recognition. For practices not participating in a demonstration project such as the one AAFP sponsored with T...

    Show More

    Ms. Coleman, similar to others' comments, takes exception to our use of NCQA certification as our marker for being a Medical Home. During the years encompassed by this study (2005-2009), the PPC-PCMH was one of the few means by which practices that embraced the tenets of primary care transformation could achieve recognition. For practices not participating in a demonstration project such as the one AAFP sponsored with TransforMED, the NCQA application process provided a tangible structure to focus efforts for practice improvement, particularly in the areas of access, care coordination, and panel management through registries. Was it the ideal? No. The 2008 recognition standards were widely acknowledged to be lacking in dimensions of patient-centeredness and comprehensiveness.1 Indeed, the NCQA itself responded to such criticisms in developing the 2011 standards, which Dr. McGeeny allows are a "definite improvement."

    The more relevant question is how our choice of the NCQA marker reflects on our conclusions. Coleman seems to be arguing that the HPMG clinics were not really "transforming" during the study period and that's why larger improvements weren't seen. Dr. Solberg has already replied that data for the period prior to our analysis (2000-2005) showed the rate of improvement in HP clinics was similar then. Specifically, on the Consumer Choice patient survey, the improvements did not exceed 1-1.5% per year.

    It's also worth noting that in 2008 the Minnesota state legislature mandated the creation of Health Care Homes (HCHs), defined through a multi -stakeholder process that included patient advocacy groups, health plans, and medical professional societies, among others. The criteria for Minnesota HCH certification attempt to incorporate such patient-centered initiatives as care coordination and care plans with patient input at team meetings. Having represented Minnesota family physicians as president of the MAFP during key months of the process, I will be among the first to admit that it is in its infancy and that filling out yet another application, and even passing the required site visit, is no guarantee that fully meaningful PCMH "transformation" is in place within a particular practice. Nevertheless, the 21 HP medical practices were again within the group of early adopters to obtain Minnesota HCH certification in 2010. So a reasonable conclusion would be that even in the "advanced health care market" in our state, practices that are involved in ongoing efforts for continuous quality improvement and are in a position to incorporate innovative methods of care delivery exemplified by the PCMH, will continue to make measureable improvements according to the validated quality and satisfaction measures we studied.

    As authors we attempted to be candid about limitations to generalizability of our findings. However, the PCMH will likely be applied in health care markets of all sorts, in varying stages of development. We remain convinced of the validity of conclusions and appreciate the spirited discussion the work engendered.

    1. Malouin RA, Starfield S, Sepulveda MJ. Evaluating the tools used to assess the Medical Home. Managed Care,June 2009;44-48.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (23 November 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Encouraging but Inconclusive Findings
    Encouraging but Inconclusive Findings
    • Daniel D. Maeng, Research Investigator

    I have read this article by Solberg et al with great interest. While the concept of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) has gained much attention recently, there has been relatively little documented evidence that PCMH can fulfill its lofty promise of achieving the "triple aim." I suspect there are two reasons for this: First, many of the existing PCMH implementations are still in infancy and evolving, so there is relat...

    Show More

    I have read this article by Solberg et al with great interest. While the concept of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) has gained much attention recently, there has been relatively little documented evidence that PCMH can fulfill its lofty promise of achieving the "triple aim." I suspect there are two reasons for this: First, many of the existing PCMH implementations are still in infancy and evolving, so there is relatively little data to show their full effects. Second, implementations of PCMH are driven and shaped largely by the sponsoring organizations' unique needs and goals, rather than by any desire for scientifically rigorous research design. This is not necessarily a criticism but rather a reality that a researcher like myself must face in evaluating the effects of PCMH.

    This research by Solberg et al is unique in that the authors do have substantial data over many years, but their ability to make generalizable inferences is limited because of a lack of data from a plausible comparison group. The glaring weakness in their research design is of course the lack of Picker survey results from non-HPMG patients that could serve as a direct benchmark. I applaud the authors for attempting to address this problem in a different way, and I do think that the results they present are encouraging, albeit inconclusive, evidence in favor of PCMH.

    Geisinger Health System has implemented its version of PCMH (referred to as ProvenHealth Navigator?, or PHN) since November of 2006. My colleagues and I at Geisinger have recently published an article that shows that PHN is associated with improvements in certain patient outcomes (Maeng DD, Graf TR, Davis DE, Tomcavage J, Bloom FJ Jr. Can a Patient- Centered Medical Home Lead to Better Patient Outcomes? The Quality Implications of Geisinger's ProvenHealth Navigator. Am J Med Qual. 2011 Aug 18. [Epub ahead of print]). Currently, we are also analyzing our own data to show that PHN is associated with significant reductions in cost and improvements in patient satisfaction. Our findings from these studies should nicely complement existing knowledge about the effect of PCMH.

    For the two reasons I mentioned above, it is extremely difficult to conduct a single study that proves the effectiveness of PHN. However, as more evidence accumulates from additional future studies, I believe a strong case can be made in favor of PCMH as the way to reshape the healthcare system.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (22 November 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Without Changes in Care, Should We Expect Changes in Outcomes?
    Without Changes in Care, Should We Expect Changes in Outcomes?
    • Katie Coleman, Research Associate

    I agree with many of the previous comments and won't repeat their good points here. But I would ask this: On page 516, the authors say "except for implenting advanced access scheduling in 2000 and the EHR in 2002-2004, there have been no abrupt changes in approach to care worth noting..." Why then would we expect that there would be abrupt improvements in the HPMG sites as compared to their community peers? Said anot...

    Show More

    I agree with many of the previous comments and won't repeat their good points here. But I would ask this: On page 516, the authors say "except for implenting advanced access scheduling in 2000 and the EHR in 2002-2004, there have been no abrupt changes in approach to care worth noting..." Why then would we expect that there would be abrupt improvements in the HPMG sites as compared to their community peers? Said another way, if there was no transformation in care why would we expect transformation in patient satisfaction and health outcomes? The medical home movement must get beyond looking at the completion of an NCQA application as "transformation" and get real about making changes to the way care is delivered if we want to see improvements in patient experience, outcomes and cost.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (22 November 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for The PCMH Actually is a Good Thing
    The PCMH Actually is a Good Thing
    • Leif I. Solberg, Physician Researcher

    Seeing the reactions to our study of medical home transformation in Minnesota has been a pretty interesting experience. On the one hand, it is gratifying to get any reaction to a published research study, especially when that reaction comes from leaders like Paul Grundy, Roland Goertz, and Terry McGeeney. On the other hand, it is troubling that because our data-based confirmation of improvement with medical home chang...

    Show More

    Seeing the reactions to our study of medical home transformation in Minnesota has been a pretty interesting experience. On the one hand, it is gratifying to get any reaction to a published research study, especially when that reaction comes from leaders like Paul Grundy, Roland Goertz, and Terry McGeeney. On the other hand, it is troubling that because our data-based confirmation of improvement with medical home changes was not as dramatic as they would like to have seen, they felt the need to attack and dismiss those data and our conclusions. It is also troubling to be accused of harming the cause of medical homes, when I am one of the greatest boosters of the kind of changes represented by the PCMH. I just think underpromising and overdelivering is a better strategy in the long run than the opposite - the quickest route to damaging PCMH sustainability is to create lofty expectations that can't be achieved.

    I especially would have thought that Dr. McGeeney might have been more cautious than to say that "two to three years for transformation is generally adequate." There wasn't much I saw in the thorough evaluation of the TransforMED experience to support that expectation. After 26 months of assistance, the intervention clinics improved in their quality scores by just about the same amount as our experience (2.5-4%/year vs. our study's 2-7%/year) while there were no improvements in patient-rated outcomes while our group improved at 1-3%/year.

    Similarly, Dr. Goertz disagrees with our findings, citing changes in the BCBS of ND initiative that saw "tremendous improvements over a three- year period." However, the cited improvements in blood pressure and LDL control for diabetes were only 2%/year and the idea that one can compare emergency room visits and hospital admission rates in clinics that volunteered to participate in this initiative with those that didn't speaks for itself. He also says that the hardest work in our medical group had been done before the study began. Although there wasn't room in the article to provide data for the period prior to when we had comparable data between HPMG and other local groups, the rate of improvement was similar then.

    These important PCMH leaders seem to feel that anything but wild enthusiasm is harmful to primary care and its current redesign, and that "the data and evidence are conclusive." As a strong supporter of the PCMH who thought that the data in the article were overall helpful to the cause, and as a student of the research literature on the topic, I regretfully will have to disagree.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (15 November 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Article will do more harm than good
    Article will do more harm than good
    • Paul Grundy, MD, MPH, Global Director of Healthcare Transformation
    "Achieving medical home recognition was associated with improvements in quality and patient satisfaction for these clinics, but the rate of improvement is slow and does not always exceed levels in the surrounding community in Minnesota (which are also improving). Expectations for large and rapid change are probably unrealistic."

    As many of you know, I represent a very large employer that spends a staggering amount of money eac...

    Show More
    "Achieving medical home recognition was associated with improvements in quality and patient satisfaction for these clinics, but the rate of improvement is slow and does not always exceed levels in the surrounding community in Minnesota (which are also improving). Expectations for large and rapid change are probably unrealistic."

    As many of you know, I represent a very large employer that spends a staggering amount of money each year on health care for employees. During the past 20 years, we have seen a wide scale, rapid decline in quality compared to other developed nations. In the past year alone, three papers published in the journal Health Affairs show us that the United States continues to decline in value, while having the highest rate of increase in costs. I have no doubt that the problems lie within the current delivery system. That said, I welcome slow, incremental improvement over the status quo.

    I do not get the point of this paper. It seems to me the authors are comparing newly minted NCQA PCMHs to a community where many practices in the state have been migrating toward the Minnesota Patient-Centered Health Home (MPCHH) model for a long period of time. From my perspective, this article is saying that with transformation to NCQA PCMH, you get only small improvements, but when you transform to a MPCHH over many years, it is a success. It begs the question: why in North Dakota and nearby Michigan do we see large, rapid. and positive PCMH transformation? (Patient-Centered Medical Homes In Michigan Thomas Simmer Health Aff November 2011 30:2217; doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1102 http://pcpcc.net/files/102011summit/5.hanekom_pcpcc_10-21-2011.pdf)

    The number one finding of a recent Commonwealth Fund study is that the United States spends more on health care than other countries, but it doesn't get the most out of the health care system," said Karen Davis, president of The Commonwealth Fund. "The United States performs the most poorly on access to care and the financial burden that comes with chronic illness." The study also found that people who have a patient-centered medical home -- a primary care physician or practice that coordinates treatment across specialties -- felt better about their care and were less likely to report medical errors. http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2011/11/02/hlthaff.2011.0923

    I read Dr. Solberg's study three times and am still scratching my head trying to figure out why Annals of Family Medicine would publish it. I am sure Solberg's assertion that "expectations for large and rapid change are probably unrealistic" will probably be used against me as I continue my quest to purchase PCMH-level care for my employees and their families. I suspect, but hope I am wrong, that this article will do more harm than good toward getting primary care away from buying episodic, uncoordinated, inaccessible, and dis-integrated care.

    Nearly all primary health care stakeholders want to learn from successful PCMH initiatives. That is why it is so important that we in primary care unite and collaborate to make the PCMH model the strongest it can be - not tear it down. Nothing positive will come from "throwing the baby out with the bath water." We have enough key learnings at this point to successfully build upon the work done by our PCMH pioneers and take it to the next level. This is critical to the health of our patients and the health of our "health care system."

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (15 November 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Two to three years for practice transformation adequate with right support and incentives
    Two to three years for practice transformation adequate with right support and incentives
    • Terry McGeeney, MD, MBA, President and CEO
    The article by Dr. Solberg clearly demonstrates the challenges of documenting the value of the patient-centered medical home model of care. Even in a high quality, multi-specialty group such as HealthPartners Medical Group, which has historically been very supportive of primary care, there are significant challenges. Many of the evaluation challenges in this group, as well as any other practice environment, lie in defining and ide...
    Show More
    The article by Dr. Solberg clearly demonstrates the challenges of documenting the value of the patient-centered medical home model of care. Even in a high quality, multi-specialty group such as HealthPartners Medical Group, which has historically been very supportive of primary care, there are significant challenges. Many of the evaluation challenges in this group, as well as any other practice environment, lie in defining and identifying true PCMH practices.

    One key learning over time is that all of the attributes of the PCMH model of care are interdependent. There is no data to support that leveraging just some of the attributes of the PCMH leads to incremental improvement in efficiency or quality. In fact, the full value of the PCMH model may not be recognized until a practice is a complete PCMH, which current recognition tools cannot assess or validate. While the HPMG practices should be applauded for their 11 year journey of practice transformation, it is important to note that such a length of time is not required for practice transformation. The TransforMED experience of two to three years for transformation is generally adequate with the right support and incentives.

    NCQA recognition is often used, as it is in this article, to validate a practice as a PCMH. While the 2011 NCQA standards are a definite improvement, the 2008 standards were lacking to the point of creating more confusion than added value. 2008 NCQA standards were woefully inadequate in assessing patient engagement. Patient satisfaction surveys do not necessarily engage patients in their care. The 2008 standards also did very little to recognize care management and care coordination in a practice. Care continuity requirements in the standards could be met without following up on emergency room or hospital discharges. The same is true for consistent follow up on lab tests and referrals.

    The access-to-care criteria of the 2008 standards were more about triage than actual practice, including weekend and evening hours as well as same-day appointments. While population management is critical to the future of primary care and the PCMH model, passing only one "process" standard was required for recognition. Most everyone agrees that team care is essential in the PCMH, yet NCQA team requirements are minimal. Dr. Solberg noted in the article that nurse practitioners and physician assistants are part of the care team at HPMG, but NCQA recognition in no way equates to effective team care. Finally, the lack of recognition for full "comprehensive care" in the recognition standards for primary care practices is significant. This lapse is potentially amplified in a large multi-specialty group, as I witnessed during my many years of practice experience.

    Other attributes of the PCMH model that are important for its success and not generally valued by current recognition entities include: active efforts to engage the patient in every care opportunity; designated care managers in practices; functioning, self-populating, searchable data bases to be leveraged by care managers; payment incentives based on care efficiency and quality by the providers; patients' access to their data and care team via an EMR portal; and risk stratification of the patient population.

    I applaud Dr Solberg's efforts in this article to assess the impact of the PCMH model in a high-functioning multi-specialty group. The article does a great job of demonstrating the challenges posed during the PCMH evaluation process. Until there is a valid, reliable methodology to ensure that all of the interdependent attributes of the PCMH model are being leveraged consistently, we will continue to struggle with anecdotal experiences from projects and pilots. That is not to say that the PCMH model does not hold great promise for the health care system. Indeed, the health care system will most likely transform according to the attributes of the PCMH long before anyone figures out how to study it. The urgency and need is too great, and we know enough to forge ahead.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (15 November 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Assertion in article is a large overstatement and not accurate
    Assertion in article is a large overstatement and not accurate
    • Roland Goertz, MD, MBA, Board Chair
    I disagree with Dr. Solberg's final assertion that "expectations for large and rapid change are probably unrealistic." To make that generalization based on the analysis done in the article is a large overstatement and is not accurate, particularly since it is based only on one set of criteria that does not include all attributes of the model. There are numerous PCMH success stories nationwide that clearly demonstrate consistent im...
    Show More
    I disagree with Dr. Solberg's final assertion that "expectations for large and rapid change are probably unrealistic." To make that generalization based on the analysis done in the article is a large overstatement and is not accurate, particularly since it is based only on one set of criteria that does not include all attributes of the model. There are numerous PCMH success stories nationwide that clearly demonstrate consistent improvements in quality and efficiency within a much shorter time period than the practices in this study.

    For example, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota's statewide PCMH initiative, MediQHome, saw tremendous improvements in clinical outcomes and process measures over a three-year period. The initiative began in 2009, and covers 280,000 state residents. Seventy-two percent of all primary care physicians in North Dakota participate in the initiative. In just a three-year period, blood pressure control among the 30,298 MediQHome patients with type 2 diabetes rose from 74 to 79 percent. LDL cholesterol levels of less than 100 grew from 58 to 64 percent during that same time period. In just three short years, MediQHome patients registered a 64.3 percent increase among patients with diabetes who achieved optimal diabetes care. In addition, emergency room visits for MediQHome patients was 30 percent lower than for those not enrolled in a PCMH practice. The inpatient hospital admission rate for members belonging to a PCMH was 18 percent lower than for the general BCBSND population. This is only one example of what can happen when a large percentage of primary care physicians band together to provide a PCMH for their patients.

    Dr. Solberg's study methodology also raises some questions. The Minnesota practices that were studied are located in an atypically advanced health care market. The HealthPartners practices began laying the PCMH groundwork -- addressing quality, costs, patient experience, practice redesign, and use of health information technology -- nearly 10 years ago. This was before any PCMH recognition criteria even existed. The author points out, that, from 2000 to 2009, there were no abrupt changes in the approach to care beyond the addition of advanced access scheduling in 2000 and EHR implementation from 2002 to 2004. The hardest work had been done before the study began, and the performance measures remained virtually unchanged during the study period. In addition, the study group and control group were both very high performing to begin with. What type of differences in transformational success did Solberg expect to see? What was he trying to prove by comparing such similar, high-performing practices?

    As new and more robust PCMH pilot projects emerge, family physicians will assume a more critical role, something we have been advocating for years. The new CMS Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative --which combines fee-for-service and a per-patient-per-month care coordination fee averaging $20 -- requires all participating practices to be recognized as NCQA Level 3 PCMHs. This is due in part to the positive outcomes the PCMH model has realized over the past five years. The PCMH model is no longer in its infancy. It has evolved to become a driving force in current health system reform. Regardless of how the PCMH model challenges the current health delivery model, the data and evidence are conclusive that it will result in better care for America, and we as family physicians are ready to accept that opportunity.

    Competing interests:   None declared

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

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 9 (6)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 9 (6)
Vol. 9, Issue 6
November/December 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • 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.
Trends in Quality During Medical Home Transformation
(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.
7 + 9 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Trends in Quality During Medical Home Transformation
Leif I. Solberg, Stephen E. Asche, Patricia Fontaine, Thomas J. Flottemesch, Louise H. Anderson
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2011, 9 (6) 515-521; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1296

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Trends in Quality During Medical Home Transformation
Leif I. Solberg, Stephen E. Asche, Patricia Fontaine, Thomas J. Flottemesch, Louise H. Anderson
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2011, 9 (6) 515-521; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1296
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

  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The Transition of Primary Care Group Practices to Next Generation Models: Satisfaction of Staff, Clinicians, and Patients
  • Effects of New Funding Models for Patient-Centered Medical Homes on Primary Care Practice Finances and Services: Results of a Microsimulation Model
  • Longitudinal evaluation of physician payment reform and team-based care for chronic disease management and prevention
  • The Effect of Regular Primary Care Utilization on Long-Term Glycemic and Blood Pressure Control in Adults With Diabetes
  • Challenges of Medical Home Transformation Reported by 118 Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) Leaders
  • Medical Home Transformation: A Gradual Process and a Continuum of Attainment
  • Contrasting Trajectories of Change in Primary Care Clinics: Lessons From New Orleans Safety Net
  • In This Issue: Health Care Policy Affects the Lives of Real People
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Performance-Based Reimbursement, Illegitimate Tasks, Moral Distress, and Quality Care in Primary Care: A Mediation Model of Longitudinal Data
  • Adverse Outcomes Associated With Inhaled Corticosteroid Use in Individuals With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
  • Family-Based Interventions to Promote Weight Management in Adults: Results From a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in India
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
  • Other research types:
    • Professional practice
  • Other topics:
    • Quality improvement
    • Organizational / practice change
    • Patient-centered medical home
    • Patient perspectives

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