{"title":"How CPC+ supported patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons for alternative payment models","authors":"Genna Cohen , Nancy Duda , Katie Morrison-Lee , Kaylyn Swankoski , Gillian Giudice , Maya Palakal , Caroline Mack , Ann S. O'Malley","doi":"10.1016/j.hjdsi.2024.100745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>A growing literature documents how primary care practices adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic. We examine a topic that has received less attention—how participants in an advanced alternative payment model perceive the model influenced their ability to meet patients’ care needs during the pandemic.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Analysis of closed- and open-ended questions from a 2021 survey of 2496 practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model (92% response rate) and a 2021 survey of 993 randomly selected primary care physicians from these practices (55% response rate). Both surveys asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed that they or their practice was “better positioned to meet patients' care needs during the coronavirus pandemic” because of participation in CPC+. Both also included an open-ended question about CPC+’s effects.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Half of practices and one-third of physicians agreed or strongly agreed that participating in CPC+ better positioned them to meet patients' care needs during the pandemic. One in 10 practices and 2 in 10 physicians, disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 4 in 10 practices and slightly more than half of physicians neither agreed nor disagreed (or, for physicians, didn't know). The most commonly identified CPC+ activities that facilitated meeting patient care needs related to practices' work on care management (e.g., risk stratification), access (e.g., telehealth), payment outside of fee-for-service (FFS), and staffing (e.g., supporting care managers).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Most CPC+ practices and physicians were positive or neutral about participating in CPC+ in the context of COVID-19, indicating more benefit than risk to payment alternatives to FFS.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":29963,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation","volume":"12 2","pages":"Article 100745"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213076424000125","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
A growing literature documents how primary care practices adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic. We examine a topic that has received less attention—how participants in an advanced alternative payment model perceive the model influenced their ability to meet patients’ care needs during the pandemic.
Methods
Analysis of closed- and open-ended questions from a 2021 survey of 2496 practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model (92% response rate) and a 2021 survey of 993 randomly selected primary care physicians from these practices (55% response rate). Both surveys asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed that they or their practice was “better positioned to meet patients' care needs during the coronavirus pandemic” because of participation in CPC+. Both also included an open-ended question about CPC+’s effects.
Results
Half of practices and one-third of physicians agreed or strongly agreed that participating in CPC+ better positioned them to meet patients' care needs during the pandemic. One in 10 practices and 2 in 10 physicians, disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 4 in 10 practices and slightly more than half of physicians neither agreed nor disagreed (or, for physicians, didn't know). The most commonly identified CPC+ activities that facilitated meeting patient care needs related to practices' work on care management (e.g., risk stratification), access (e.g., telehealth), payment outside of fee-for-service (FFS), and staffing (e.g., supporting care managers).
Conclusions
Most CPC+ practices and physicians were positive or neutral about participating in CPC+ in the context of COVID-19, indicating more benefit than risk to payment alternatives to FFS.
期刊介绍:
HealthCare: The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation is a quarterly journal. The journal promotes cutting edge research on innovation in healthcare delivery, including improvements in systems, processes, management, and applied information technology.
The journal welcomes submissions of original research articles, case studies capturing "policy to practice" or "implementation of best practices", commentaries, and critical reviews of relevant novel programs and products. The scope of the journal includes topics directly related to delivering healthcare, such as:
● Care redesign
● Applied health IT
● Payment innovation
● Managerial innovation
● Quality improvement (QI) research
● New training and education models
● Comparative delivery innovation