Premium
Chronic Care Improvement in Primary Care: Evaluation of an Integrated Pay‐for‐Performance and Practice‐Based Care Coordination Program among Elderly Patients with Diabetes
Author(s) -
Fagan Peter J.,
Schuster Alyson B.,
Boyd Cynthia,
Marsteller Jill A.,
Griswold Michael,
Murphy Shan M. E.,
Dunbar Linda,
Forrest Christopher B.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
health services research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.706
H-Index - 121
eISSN - 1475-6773
pISSN - 0017-9124
DOI - 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01166.x
Subject(s) - intervention (counseling) , medicine , quality management , disease management , family medicine , gerontology , diabetes mellitus , chronic care , quality (philosophy) , baseline (sea) , program evaluation , pay for performance , primary care , disease , nursing , health care , operations management , management system , philosophy , economic growth , endocrinology , pathology , epistemology , parkinson's disease , economics , public administration , oceanography , political science , geology
Objective. To examine the effects of an intervention comprising (1) a practice‐based care coordination program, (2) augmented by pay for performance (P4P) for meeting quality targets, and (3) complemented by a third‐party disease management on quality of care and resource use for older adults with diabetes. Data Sources/Study Setting. Claims files of a managed care organization (MCO) for 20,943 adults aged 65 and older with diabetes receiving care in Alabama, Tennessee, or Texas, from January 2004 to March 2007. Study Design. A quasi‐experimental, longitudinal study in which pre‐ and postdata from 1,587 patients in nine intervention primary care practices were evaluated against 19,356 patients in MCO comparison practices (>900). Five incentivized quality measures, two nonincentivized measures, and two resource‐use measures were investigated. We examined trends and changes in trends from baseline to follow‐up, contrasting intervention and comparison group member results. Principal Findings. Quality of care generally improved for both groups during the study period. Only slight differences were seen between the intervention and comparison group trends and changes in trends over time. Conclusions. This study did not generate evidence supporting a beneficial effect of an on‐site care coordination intervention augmented by P4P and complemented by third‐party disease management on diabetes quality or resource use.