Search

Recent value-based payment reforms in the U.S. called for empirical data on how primary care practices of varying characteristics fund their integrated behavioral health services. To describe payment strategies used by U.S. primary care practices to fund behavioral health integration and compare strategies between practices with and without hospital affiliation.Baseline data were used and collected from 44 practices participating in a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial of behavioral health integration. Data included practice characteristics and payment strategies—fee-for-service payment, pay-for-performance incentives, grants, and graduate medical education funds. Descriptive and comparative analyses using Fisher's exact tests and independent T -tests were conducted. The sample had 26 (59.1%) hospital-affiliated (hospital/health system-owned, academic medical centers and hospital-affiliated practices) and 18 (40.9%) non-hospital-affiliated practices (community health centers/federally qualified health centers and privately-owned practices). Most practices (88.6%) received payments through fee-for-service; 63.6% received pay-for-performance incentives; 31.8% received grant funds. Collaborative Care Management billing (CPT) codes were used in six (13.6%) practices. Over half (53.8%) of hospital-affiliated practices funded their behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives only, as opposed to two-thirds (66.7%) of non-hospital-affiliated practices required additional support from grants and/or general medical education funds. Primary care practices support behavioral health integration through diverse payment strategies. More hospital-affiliated practices compared to non-hospital-affiliated practices funded integrated behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives. Practices without hospital affiliation relied on multiple funding streams including grants and/or general medical education funds, suggesting their approach to financial sustainment may be more precarious or challenging, compared to hospital-affiliated practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Screening rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) remain low, especially among certain populations. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) outreach initiated by U.S. health plans could reach underserved individuals, while solving CRC screening data and implementation challenges faced by health clinics. We report the models and motivations of two health insurance plans implementing a mailed FIT program for age-eligible U.S. Medicaid and Medicare populations. One health plan operates in a single state with ~220,000 enrollees; the other operates in multiple states with ~2 million enrollees. We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and observed leadership and clinic staff planning during program development and implementation. Interviews were transcribed and coded using a content analysis approach; coded interview reports and meeting minutes were iteratively reviewed and summarized for themes. Between June and September 2016, nine participants were identified, and all agreed to the interview. Interviews revealed that organizational context was important to both organizations and helped shape program design. Both organizations were hoping this program would address barriers to their prior CRC screening improvement efforts and saw CRC screening as a priority. Despite similar motivations to participate in a mailed FIT intervention, contextual features of the health plans led them to develop distinct implementation models: a collaborative model using some health clinic staffing versus a centralized model operationalizing outreach primarily at the health plan. Data are not yet available on the models' effectiveness. Our findings might help inform the design of programs to deliver mailed FIT outreach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk for adverse drug events related to medication dosing errors and prescriptions for relatively contraindicated medications, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).Objectives: To examine the scope of and variation in prescribing relatively contraindicated medications and medications above the recommended dose levels among patients with stage III/IV CKD in primary care practice.Methods: This is a cross-sectional descriptive study that used structured electronic health record data. The study participants were patients aged 18 years and older from three primary care clinics in a practice-based research network. Number/proportion of adult patients with stage III/IV CKD; proportion of these patients with at least one NSAID or other relatively contraindicated medication prescribed over 2 years.Results: Of the 7586 eligible adult patients, 4.9% had stage III/IV CKD; 46.6% of these 373 patients with stage III/IV CKD were prescribed at least one relatively contraindicated drug (acarbose, chlorpropamide, glyburide, nitrofurantoin or any NSAID) during the 2-year study period; and 34.0% of patients with stage III/IV CKD were prescribed NSAIDs.Conclusions: Primary care patients with stage III/IV CKD were frequently prescribed or had documented use of relatively contraindicated drugs and thus were at risk of adverse drug events. Given the significant number of individuals with CKD in the USA, research that examines rates of adverse events related to these prescriptions and that tests primary care-based interventions to decrease inappropriate prescribing of relatively contraindicated medications to these patients is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]