Search

Two cases illustrate an approach that considers characteristics and needs of each situation separately. One case involved the establishment of a new baccalaureate program; the second involved the remodeling of a master's program, undertaken from outside the program, by committee. (MSE)

Background: The literature on patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) and patient experience is somewhat mixed. Government and private payers are promoting multi-payer PCMH initiatives to align requirements and resources and to enhance practice transformation outcomes. To this end, the multipayer Michigan Primary Care Transformation (MiPCT) demonstration project was carried out.Objective: To examine whether the PCMH is associated with a better patient experience, and whether a mature, multi-payer PCMH demonstration is associated with even further improvement in the patient experience.Design: This is a cross-sectional comparison of adults attributed to MiPCT PCMH, non-participating PCMH, and non-PCMH practices, statistically controlling for potential confounders, and conducted among both general and high-risk patient samples.Participants: Responses came from 3893 patients in the general population and 4605 in the high-risk population (response rates of 31.8% and 34.1%, respectively).Main Measures: The Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey, with PCMH supplemental questions, was administered in January and February 2015.Key Results: MiPCT general and high-risk patients reported a significantly better experience than non-PCMH patients in most domains. Adjusted mean differences were as follows: access (0.35**, 0.36***), communication (0.19*, 0.18*), and coordination (0.33**, 0.35***), respectively (on a 10-point scale, with significance indicated by: *= p<0.05, **= p<0.01, and ***= p<0.001). Adjusted mean differences in overall provider ratings were not significant. Global odds ratios were significant for the domains of self-management support (1.38**, 1.41***) and comprehensiveness (1.67***, 1.61***). Non-participating PCMH ratings fell between MiPCT and non-PCMH across all domains and populations, sometimes attaining statistical significance.Conclusions: PCMH practices have more positive patient experiences across domains characteristic of advanced primary care. A mature multi-payer model has the strongest, most consistent association with a better patient experience, pointing to the need to provide consistent expectations, resources, and time for practice transformation. Our results held for a general population and a high-risk population which has much more contact with the healthcare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper summarizes an actual study conducted for the State Planning Organization of Turkey with the objective of formulating a national R&D policy, the implementation of which will contribute to the realization of the national goals stated in the development plans of the country. The study consists of three complementary substudies: (i) a continuous simulation model for evaluating national technology policy, (ii) an industrial survey to determine the structure of technology employed in production units, (iii) a plan for R&D activities in the iron and steel industry. A "macro-to-micro and micro-to-macro" approach was used in conducting the study in order to base the concepts on the facts and to find the facts based on the concepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of Michigan Primary Care Transformation (MiPCT), a statewide multipayer patient-centered medical home (PCMH) demonstration in 2012-2015, on cost, utilization, and quality among Medicaid managed care beneficiaries., Study Design: Observational longitudinal study with comparison groups., Methods: Difference-in-differences (DID) analyses compared changes in outcomes among beneficiaries whose primary care providers participated in MiPCT, non-MiPCT PCMH, and non-PCMH practices. Net cost savings were derived., Results: The study included 173,179 MiPCT, 209,181 non-MiPCT PCMH, and 148,657 non-PCMH beneficiaries. Against 1 or both comparison groups relative to 2011, MiPCT adults had significant reductions in cost, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalization risk in 2015. Against both comparison groups, MiPCT high-risk adults showed significant cost reduction in 2014-2015, ED reduction in 2015, and reduced hospitalization risk in 2013-2015. For children, no significant relative change in cost occurred, but both ED and hospitalization risk were reduced in 2015. In 2013-2015, cumulative net cost savings were $15,569,526 (95% CI, $3,416,832-$27,722,219) (return on investment [ROI], $3.60) for adults and $23,998,180 (95% CI, $11,782,031-$36,214,347) (ROI, $10.69) for high-risk adults, and a cost increase of $16,517,948 (95% CI, $7,712,286-$25,323,609) (ROI, -$1.30) for children. Quality metrics were significantly higher in MiPCT in most years, although most DID estimates were not significant., Conclusions: Evidence of cost savings exists among MiPCT Medicaid managed care adults; it was driven by high-risk adults, who also had reduced hospitalization risk. For children, no cost reductions occurred, but hospital and ED utilization were reduced in 2015. MiPCT maintained equal or higher quality of care but did not show consistent improvement.