Search

ImportanceWork environments and practice structural features are associated with both burnout and the ability of practices to enhance quality of care.ObjectiveTo characterize factors associated with primary care practices successfully improving quality scores without increasing clinician and staff burnout.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study assessed small- to medium-sized primary care practices that participated in the EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health initiative using surveys that were administered at baseline (September 2015 to April 2017) and after the intervention (January 2017 to October 2018). Data were analyzed from February 2022 to January 2023.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome of being a quality and well-being positive deviant practice was defined as a practice with a stable or improved percentage of clinicians and staff reporting burnout over the study period and with practice-level improvement in all 3 cardiovascular quality measures: aspirin prescribing, blood pressure control, and smoking cessation counseling.ResultsOf 727 practices with complete burnout and aspirin prescribing, blood pressure control, and smoking cessation counseling data, 18.3% (n = 133) met the criteria to be considered quality and well-being positive deviant practices. In analyses adjusted for practice location, accountable care organization and demonstration project participation, and practice specialty composition, clinician-owned practices had greater odds of being a positive deviant practice (odds ratio, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.16-3.54) than practices owned by a hospital or health system.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study, clinician-owned practices were more likely to achieve improvements in cardiovascular quality outcomes without increasing staff member burnout than were practices owned by a hospital or health system. Given increasing health care consolidation, our findings suggest the value of studying cultural features of clinician-owned practices that may be associated with positive quality and experience outcomes.

This Viewpoint discusses the potential of the Primary Care Extension Program to ensure access to high-quality primary care in the US.

This Viewpoint discusses how the lack of a comprehensive national primary care approach creates gaps and confusion in federal policy and proposes solutions.

Importance Several state Medicaid reforms are under way, but the relative performance of different approaches is unclear. Objective To compare the performance of Oregon’s and Colorado’s Medicaid Accountable Care Organization (ACO) models. Design, Setting, and Participants Oregon initiated its Medicaid transformation in 2012, supported by a $1.9 billion investment from the federal government, moving most Medicaid enrollees into 16 Coordinated Care Organizations, which managed care within a global budget. Colorado initiated its Medicaid Accountable Care Collaborative in 2011, creating 7 Regional Care Collaborative Organizations that received funding to coordinate care with providers and connect Medicaid enrollees with community services. Data spanning July 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014 (18 months before intervention and 24 months after intervention, treating 2012 as a transition year) were analyzed for 452 371 Oregon and 330 511 Colorado Medicaid enrollees, assessing changes in outcomes using difference-in-differences analyses of regional focus, primary care homes, and care coordination. Oregon’s Coordinated Care Organization model was more comprehensive in its reform goals and in the imposition of downside financial risk. Exposures Regional focus, primary care homes, and care coordination in Medicaid ACOs. Main Outcomes and Measures Performance on claims-based measures of standardized expenditures and utilization for selected services, access, preventable hospitalizations, and appropriateness of care. Results In a total of 782 882 Medicaid enrollees, 45.0% were male, with mean (SD) age 16.74 (14.41) years. Standardized expenditures for selected services declined in both states during the 2010-2014 period, but these decreases were not significantly different between the 2 states. Oregon’s model was associated with reductions in emergency department visits (−6.28 per 1000 beneficiary-months; 95% CI, −10.51 to −2.05) and primary care visits (−15.09 visits per 1000 beneficiary-months; 95% CI, −26.57 to −3.61), improvements in acute preventable hospital admissions (−1.01 admissions per 1000 beneficiary-months; 95% CI, −1.61 to −0.42), 3 of 4 measures of access (well-child visits, ages 3-6 years, 2.69%; 95% CI, 1.20% to 4.19%; adolescent well-care visits, 6.77%; 95% CI, 5.22% to 8.32%; and adult access to preventive ambulatory care, 1.26%; 95% CI, 0.28% to 2.25%), and 1 of 4 measures of appropriateness of care (avoidance of head imaging for uncomplicated headache, 2.59%; 95% CI, 1.35% to 3.83%). Conclusions and Relevance Two years into implementation, Oregon’s and Colorado’s Medicaid ACO models exhibited similar performance on standardized expenditures for selected services. Oregon’s model, marked by a large federal investment and movement to global budgets, was associated with improvements in some measures of utilization, access, and quality, but Colorado’s model paralleled Oregon’s on several other metrics.