Table 2.
Net savings for Medicare? | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | |||||||
MI | VT | PA | NY | RI | NC | ME | MN | |
Factors associated with generating net savings* | ||||||||
No late entrants allowed after the demonstration start date | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||
Practices had to be recognized PCMHs when they entered the demonstration (no grace period to obtain PCMH recognition) | ● | ● | ● | ○ | ● | |||
All payers’ demonstration payment models incentivized consistent activities within a state | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||
Payers’ demonstration payment models included opportunities for practices to earn performance bonuses | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||
Demonstration participants received the demonstration payments and bonuses they expected to receive | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||||
Factors that may be necessary but not sufficient to generate net savings† | ||||||||
A precursor PCMH initiative offered payments to practices | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● |
Payers participated voluntarily in the MAPCP Demonstration | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||
Leaders of state government supported the demonstration | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |
Stakeholders and physicians supported the demonstration | ● | ● | ○ | ● | ● | ○ | ● | ● |
Complementary payment and care delivery reforms underway | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● |
Most practices met NCQA’s PCMH recognition standards (as opposed to another entity's PCMH recognition standards) | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ||
Care coordinators focused on high-risk patients | ● | ● | ● | ● | ○ | ● | ● | ● |
Factors not associated with net savings‡ | ||||||||
A large number of practices participated (> 100 practices) | ● | ● | ● | |||||
Practices were only required to recertify as PCMHs every 3 years (instead of more frequently—e.g., every 12–18 months) | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||
Practices were required to offer round-the-clock access to care | ● | ● | ● | |||||
Other organizations received demonstration payments to support/supplement practices’ activities (e.g., Physician Organizations in MI, Community Health Teams in VT)§ | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | |||
Technical assistance was viewed positively by practices | ○ | ● | ○ | ● | ○ | ● | ● | ● |
Technical assistance targeted to care coordinators was offered | ● | ● | ● | ○ | ● | ○ | ||
Care coordinators tended to be employed by practices (as opposed to a health system or outside entity) | ● | ○ | ● | ● | ○ | |||
Care coordinators tended to be nurses (as opposed to individuals with less clinical training) | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ○ | ||
Practices regularly received hospital discharge data or alerts | ● | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ |
● = factor is present in state; ○ = factor is partially present in state; empty cell = factor is not present in state; MAPCP = Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice; PCMH = patient-centered medical home
*These factors were present in ≥ 3 of the 4 states that generated net savings and absent from ≥ 3 of the 4 states that did not generate savings
† These factors were present in ≥ 3 of the 4 states that generated net savings and ≥ 3 of the 4 states that did not generate savings
‡ These factors did not meet either of the prior two criteria, suggesting that they may not have a relationship with net savings
§ The payment methodologies used in these five states are described in our online appendix