Explore the vast range of titles available.

A high prevalence of mental health diagnoses in adults alongside ongoing shortages of mental health specialists and expansion of the patient-centered medical home have increased the involvement of primary care clinicians in treating mental health concerns. Using nationally representative serial cross-sectional data from the 2006-18 National Ambulatory Medical care surveys regarding visits to outpatient primary care physicians by patients ages eighteen and older, we sought to characterize temporal trends in primary care visits addressing a mental health concern. Based on a sample of 109,898 visits representing 3,891,233,060 weighted visits, we found that the proportion of visits that addressed mental health concerns increased from 10.7 percent of visits in 2006-07 to 15.9 percent by 2016 and 2018. Black patients were 40 percent less likely than White patients to have a mental health concern addressed during a primary care visit, and Hispanic patients were 40 percent less likely than non-Hispanic patients to have a mental health concern addressed during a primary care visit. These findings emphasize the need for payment and billing approaches (that is, value-based care models and billing codes for integrated behavioral health) as well as organizational designs and supports (that is, colocated therapy or psychiatry providers, availability of e-consultation, and longer visits) that enable primary care physicians to adequately address mental health needs.

BackgroundMulticomponent, interdisciplinary intensive primary care programs target complex patients with the goal of preventing hospitalizations, but programs vary, and their effectiveness is not clear. In this study, we systematically reviewed the impact of intensive primary care programs on all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and emergency department use.MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Reviews of Effects from inception to March 2017. Additional studies were identified from reference lists, hand searching, and consultation with content experts. We included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies of multicomponent, interdisciplinary intensive primary care programs targeting complex patients at high risk of hospitalization or death, with a comparison to usual primary care. Two investigators identified studies and abstracted data using a predefined protocol. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.ResultsA total of 18 studies (379,745 participants) were included. Three major intensive primary care program types were identified: primary care replacement (home-based; three RCTs, one observational study, N = 367,681), primary care replacement (clinic-based; three RCTs, two observational studies, N = 9561), and primary care augmentation, in which an interdisciplinary team was added to existing primary care (five RCTs, three observational studies, N = 2503). Most studies showed no impact of intensive primary care on mortality or emergency department use, and the effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations varied. There were no adverse effects reported.DiscussionIntensive primary care interventions demonstrated varying effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations, and there was limited evidence that these interventions were associated with changes in mortality. While interventions could be grouped into categories, there was still substantial overlap between intervention approaches. Further work is needed to identify program features that may be associated with improved outcomes.

Patient-centered medical home initiatives are central to many efforts to reform the US health care delivery system. To better understand the extent and nature of these initiatives, in 2013 we performed a nationwide cross-sectional survey of initiatives that included payment reform incentives in their models, and we compared the results to those of a similar survey we conducted in 2009. We found that the number of initiatives featuring payment reform incentives had increased from 26 in 2009 to 114 in 2013. The number of patients covered by these initiatives had increased from nearly five million to almost twenty-one million. We also found that the proportion of time-limited initiatives-those with a planned end date-was 20 percent in 2013, a decrease from 77 percent in 2009. Finally, we found that the dominant payment model for patient-centered medical homes remained fee-for-service payments augmented by per member per month payments and pay-for-performance bonuses. However, those payments and bonuses were higher in 2013 than they were in 2009, and the use of shared-savings models was greater. The patient-centered medical home model is likely to continue both to become more common and to play an important role in delivery system reform.

Health-related social needs, such as food insecurity, housing instability, and lack of transportation, are associated with worse health outcomes, and are increasingly the focus of health-related social needs interventions within healthcare. Adoption of health-related social needs interventions is often justified by the potential to reduce healthcare costs. However, this can present a conundrum to clinicians. Physicians are often more accustomed to justifying clinical innovation based on improvements in health, in accord with the fundamental values of the medical profession, which include using our knowledge, skills, and the resources at our disposal to improve both individual and public health. In cases where health-related social needs interventions improve health but are not cost-saving, these two types of justifications can conflict. We provide a framework for considering these issues, and an agenda for scholarly work on this topic. Ultimately, if promoting patient and public health are key values for our profession, then understanding when to emphasize values-based care, rather than simply value-based care, is crucial to fulfilling our professional duty.

BackgroundHome-Based Primary Care (HBPC) has demonstrated success in decreasing risk of hospitalization and improving patient satisfaction through patient targeting and integrating long-term services and supports. Less is known about how HBPC teams approach social factors.ObjectiveDescribe HBPC providers’ knowledge of social complexity among HBPC patients and how this knowledge impacts care delivery.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsBetween 2018 and 2019, we conducted in-person semi-structured interviews with 14 HBPC providers representing nursing, medicine, physical therapy, pharmacy, and psychology, at an urban Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. We also conducted field observations of 6 HBPC team meetings and 2 home visits.ApproachWe employed an exploratory, content-driven approach to qualitative data analysis.ResultsFour thematic categories were identified: (1) HBPC patients are socially isolated and have multiple layers of medical and social complexity that compromise their ability to use clinic-based care; (2) providers having “eyes in the home” yields essential information not accessible in outpatient clinics; (3) HBPC fills gaps in instrumental support, many of which are not medical; and (4) addressing social complexity requires a flexible care design that HBPC provides.Conclusion and RelevanceHBPC providers emphasized the importance of having “eyes in the home” to observe and address the care needs of homebound Veterans who are older, socially isolated, and have functional limitations. Patient selection criteria and discharge recommendations for a resource-intensive program like VA HBPC should include considerations for the compounding effects of medical and social complexity. Additionally, staffing that provides resources for these effects should be integrated into HBPC programming.

Although much attention has been focused on individual-level drivers of burnout in primary care settings, examining the structural and cultural factors of practice environments with no burnout could identify solutions. In this cross-sectional analysis of survey data from 715 small-tomedium-size primary care practices in the United States participating in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's EvidenceNOW initiative, we found that zero-burnout practices had higher levels of psychological safety and adaptive reserve, a measure of practice capacity for learning and development. Compared with high-burnout practices, zero-burnout practices also reported using more quality improvement strategies, more commonly were solo and clinician owned, and less commonly had participated in accountable care organizations or other demonstration projects. Efforts to prevent burnout in primary care may benefit from focusing on enhancing organization and practice culture, including promoting leadership development and fostering practice agency.

BackgroundBurnout among primary care physicians, advanced practice clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants [APCs]), and staff is common and associated with negative consequences for patient care, but the association of burnout with characteristics of primary care practices is unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the association between physician-, APC- and staff-reported burnout and specific structural, organizational, and contextual characteristics of smaller primary care practices.DesignCross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from 9/22/2015–6/19/2017.SettingSample of smaller primary care practices in the USA participating in a national initiative focused on improving the delivery of cardiovascular preventive services.Participants10,284 physicians, APCs and staff from 1380 primary care practices.Main MeasureBurnout was assessed with a validated single-item measure.Key ResultsBurnout was reported by 20.4% of respondents overall. In a multivariable analysis, burnout was slightly more common among physicians and APCs (physician vs. non-clinical staff, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–1.49, APC vs. non-clinical staff, aOR = 1.34, 95% CI, 1.10–1.62). Other multivariable correlates of burnout included non-solo practice (2–5 physician/APCs vs. solo practice, aOR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.35–2.16), health system affiliation (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.42; 95%CI, 1.16–1.73), and Federally Qualified Health Center status (vs. physician/APC-owned practice, aOR = 1.36; 95%CI, 1.03–1.78). Neither the proportion of patients on Medicare or Medicaid, nor practice-level patient volume (patient visits per physician/APC per day) were significantly associated with burnout. In analyses stratified by professional category, practice size was not associated with burnout for APCs, and participation in an accountable care organization was associated with burnout for clinical and non-clinical staff.ConclusionsBurnout is prevalent among physicians, APCs, and staff in smaller primary care practices. Members of solo practices less commonly report burnout, while members of health system-owned practices and Federally Qualified Health Centers more commonly report burnout, suggesting that practice level autonomy may be a critical determinant of burnout.

In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will introduce a non–visit-based payment for chronic care management. The new policy reflects an investment in primary care that may contribute to the development of a value-oriented health system. Many efforts to reform U.S. health care delivery focus on creating a high-performing primary care system that improves value through increased emphasis on access, prevention, and care coordination. Reformers recognize that the fee-for-service system, which restricts payments for primary care to office-based visits, is poorly designed to support the core activities of primary care, which involve substantial time outside office visits for tasks such as care coordination, patient communication, medication refills, and care provided electronically or by telephone. 1 But this system is about to change. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will introduce a non–visit-based payment . . .

Health-related social needs, which include food insecurity, housing instability, and lack of transportation, are strongly associated with poor health outcomes, more health care use, and higher health care spending. Integrating human services that address health-related social needs into health care may address these issues. In this article we propose an innovative methodological approach (borrowed from developmental economics) called cash benchmarking, which can help determine when health care and human services integration is most useful. This is important because while integrating human services into health care offers potential benefits, it also comes with potential downsides-including the medicalization of social needs; deemphasis of upstream societal causes of health-related social needs, such as tax policy and labor conditions; and opportunity costs within the health care system, as resources are shifted to delivering social care. Ultimately, cash benchmarking can help stakeholders navigate closer to the promise, and away from the pitfalls, of health care and human services integration.