Impact of Healthcare Delivery System Type on Clinical, Utilization, and Cost Outcomes of Patient-Centered Medical Homes: a Systematic Review
- 6 January 2020
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Nature in Journal of General Internal Medicine
- Vol. 35 (4) , 1276-1284
Abstract
Background As healthcare reimbursement shifts from being volume to value-focused, new delivery models aim to coordinate care and improve quality. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model is one such model that aims to deliver coordinated, accessible healthcare to improve outcomes and decrease costs. It is unclear how the types of delivery systems in which PCMHs operate differentially impact outcomes. We aim to describe economic, utilization, quality, clinical, and patient satisfaction outcomes resulting from PCMH interventions operating within integrated delivery and finance systems (IDFS), government systems including Veterans Administration, and non-integrated delivery systems. Methods We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase from 2004 to 2017. Observational studies and clinical trials occurring within the USA that met PCMH criteria (as defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), addressed ambulatory adults, and reported utilization, economic, clinical, processes and quality of care, or patient satisfaction outcomes. Results Sixty-four studies were included. Twenty-four percent were within IDFS, 29% were within government systems, and 47% were within non-IDFS. IDFS studies reported decreased emergency department use, primary care use, and cost relative to other systems after PCMH implementation. Government systems reported increased primary care use relative to other systems after PCMH implementation. Clinical outcomes, processes and quality of care, and patient satisfaction were assessed heterogeneously or infrequently. Discussion Published articles assessing PCMH interventions generally report improved outcomes related to utilization and cost. IDFS and government systems exhibit different outcomes relative to non-integrated systems, demonstrating that different health systems and populations may be particularly sensitive to PCMH interventions. Both the definition of PCMH interventions and outcomes measured are heterogeneous, limiting the ability to perform direct comparisons or meta-analysis.Keywords
Funding Information
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (TL1 TR001858)
- National Institutes of Health (K12 TR0001856)
This publication has 64 references indexed in Scilit:
- Improving Patient Experience by Transforming Primary Care: Evidence from Geisinger's Patient-Centered Medical HomesPopulation Health Management, 2013
- Spreading a Medical Home Redesign: Effects on Emergency Department Use and Hospital AdmissionsThe Annals of Family Medicine, 2013
- Tribal implementation of a patient-centred medical home model in Alaska accompanied by decreased hospital useInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health, 2013
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsBMJ, 2011
- Building Care Systems to Improve Access for High-Risk and Vulnerable Veteran PopulationsJournal of General Internal Medicine, 2011
- A Regional Health Collaborative Formed By NewYork-Presbyterian Aims To Improve The Health Of A Largely Hispanic CommunityHealth Affairs, 2011
- Can a Patient-Centered Medical Home Lead to Better Patient Outcomes? The Quality Implications of Geisinger’s ProvenHealth NavigatorAmerican Journal of Medical Quality, 2011
- Why States Are So Miffed about Medicaid — Economics, Politics, and the “Woodwork Effect”New England Journal of Medicine, 2011
- Applying the Chronic Care Model to Homeless Veterans: Effect of a Population Approach to Primary Care on Utilization and Clinical OutcomesAmerican Journal of Public Health, 2010
- Impact of Patient-Centered Medical Home Assignment on Emergency Room Visits Among Uninsured Patients in a County Health SystemMedical Care Research and Review, 2010