Are We Moving Away from Achieving Value in Primary Care?

Achieving Value in Primary Care is an article worth reviewing in the current Annals of FM. It is a theoretical article with substantial review of the existing literature. Unlike many of the popular reports supportive of innovation, this one takes a realistic look.

Headings include:
  • Primary Care Medical Home Recognition May Not be a Valid Indicator of Model Adoption
  • The Existing PCMH Model May Not Result in Substantial Improvement in Outcomes
  • Cost Impact of PCMH is Difficult to Demonstrate
  • Demonstrating Value - The 2 initiatives showing the most substantial impact on quality and on cost or utilization—the Vermont Blueprint for Health and the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative (CPCI)—provide substantial resource support for PCMH transformation and care delivery.
  • Value Could Be Considered Health, Healing, Cure, Precondition Support, Experience of Care Divided by Cost - internals to patient not externals

Take Homes from Recent Articles About Primary Care and Quality





Quality is about patients, situations, and determinants with perhaps 10 - 20% of the outcome that could be addressed by clinical interventions if the interventions were very specific, efficient, and effective.

If we invest in primary care, we might actually improve cost and quality outcomes - but we are not doing so. The dominant focus remains cost cutting rather than investment in areas that might improve care. It is likely that numerous claims about PCMH and other innovations only distract further from improvement.

Quality focus areas such as PCMH cost $105,000 per physician per year – the opposite of investment in primary care - also from Annals of FM

Additional quality measures cost over 15 billion a year in just 4 specialties or $40,000 a year and 785 hours per physician per year (Casalino current Health Affairs). This is the opposite of investment in primary care, more care, and more care where needed. This appears to be the opposite of value in primary care and of valuing primary care physicians.

Much of what we see in the literature is vague about primary care, cost, and quality, despite numerous claims about quality improvement, cost savings, and “value.”

What we see as “value” in primary care is as yet unsettled, but this has not prevented payment design blowing past research and testing all the way to implementation. This could be considered unethical experimentation on the basis of lack of informed consent, application to vulnerable populations (access reductions and limitations of care where Medicaid and Medicare populations are concentrated), lack of beneficent intent (cost cutting focus, shrinkage of primary care capacity), failure of proper testing, failure of small scale testing to prevent adverse consequences.

What we have is a few people forcing their ideas and innovations upon substantial US populations without regard to their best interest or the best interests of those who attempt to provide care for them. The process is so flawed that this will not even result in the kind of data that can actually improve matters.

Time for Quality in Quality Studies

A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science

Pressures Mount for ACA Changes

The Real Kerfuffle - How much chaos can family physicians stand?

IOM Panel Calls for Training in Social Determinants (But Needs Such Training)

Is the IOM Waking Up?

Declines in Health Care Delivery Despite Increases in Health Spending - If We Keep Accelerating Non-Delivery Costs, We Can Continue to Remain Behind Health Care Demand



Primary care can be recovered and should be recovered.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Fine CMS You Have Gotten Us Into

Perhaps we are indeed back to the time of Another Fine Mess (Laurel and Hardy). In a mad rush to implement innovation and to save all possible costs, CMS is creating complications for people that it is most responsible to protect. As PBS and Ken Burns celebrate the legacy of The Roosevelts, it is tragic to see what has become of over a century of effort involving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and health care equity. The United States has one of the most complex health designs and clearly the various designers often know not what they are doing to others. More cartoons and comedians would find this a ripe area for material if not for the suffering involved. Health and Human Services has a huge role across Social Security and US health care. CMS or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has a dominant role to play in the design of health care in the United States.  CMS can be progressive or regressive. Interestingly CMS has chosen to appear to be progressive and in
Read more

The Essential True Reform Restores Primary Care and Much More

The list of distractions from True Reform are impressive. For decades True Reform has been specifically avoided as primary care worsens within practices and from outside. The demise is most specifically about the financial design. Unless there is a focus on True Reform, there is little hope for Basic Health Access. This may not make as much sense to those outside of family medicine. Family physicians not familiar with AAFP may also be clueless. If you think that you can fix primary care with more technology, more rearrangements, more types of health professional graduates, or more expansions of training - think again. None of these have any hope of working without financial design changes - major changes. The following are various concepts that dominate the discussions at AAFP and primary care meetings and media releases of associations and foundations and institutions. Members, staff, media releases, programs, and personnel have been reviewed.  There is little about Tru
Read more

Innovation Is the Problem Not the Solution for Worsening Health

Image
Innovation is good. Innovation worship is not good. Innovation application without scientific testing or clinical trials is unethical regarding clinical interventions and should be just as prohibited with regard to health policy. Clinical trials can harm hundreds or thousands. Innovative policies can harm millions. It takes a reasonable understanding of health care, health care outcomes, social determinants, and the investments that most improve social determinants to understand the consequences arising from the innovative nightmares past, present, and future. If you review the information sources with a critical eye, you too may find that the innovative policy designs have been disruptive to care, have hurt health care where health care is most needed, have reduced access to care, and have resulted in distortions in the literature. Indeed what is accepted and published in journals seriously lacks consideration of alternative hypothesis, lacks inclusion of many pages of limitatio
Read more