51. How CPC+ supported patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons for alternative payment models.
- Author
-
Cohen G, Duda N, Morrison Lee K, Swankoski K, Giudice G, Palakal M, Mack C, and O'Malley AS
- Subjects
- Humans, Primary Health Care organization & administration, Pandemics, Surveys and Questionnaires, SARS-CoV-2, Patient Care methods, Patient Care economics, United States, Reimbursement Mechanisms, Comprehensive Health Care organization & administration, Comprehensive Health Care economics, COVID-19 epidemiology, COVID-19 economics, COVID-19 therapy
- 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., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests. Genna Cohen reports financial support was provided by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Nancy Duda reports financial support was provided by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Katie Morrison Lee reports financial support was provided by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Kaylyn Swankoski reports financial support was provided by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Gillian Giudice reports financial support was provided by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Maya Palakal reports financial support was provided by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Caroline Mack reports financial support was provided by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Ann S. O'Malley reports financial support was provided by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF