Literature Collection

As the State moves forward to further refine and implement its modernization plan, New Mexico seeks to try a different approach to slowing the rate of growth in the program while avoiding cuts. Our vision is to build a service delivery system that delivers the right amount of care at the right time in the right setting. Our vision is to educate our recipients to become more savvy health care consumers, promote more integrated care, properly case manage the most at-risk members, involve members in their own wellness and pay providers for outcomes, rather than process. New Mexico believes that the up-front investment in seeding medical and health homes and investing in health literacy will return a healthier population and a reduction in the spiraling rate of growth.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered medical homes are expected to reduce expenditures by increasing the use of primary care services, shifting care from inpatient to outpatient settings, and reducing avoidable utilization. Under the Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice (MAPCP) Demonstration, Medicare joined Medicaid and commercial payers in 8 states to support ongoing patient-centered medical home initiatives. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of the MAPCP Demonstration on health care utilization and expenditures for Medicare beneficiaries. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used difference-in-differences regression modeling to estimate changes in utilization and expenditures before and after the start of the MAPCP Demonstration, comparing beneficiaries engaged with MAPCP Demonstration practices to beneficiaries engaged with primary care practices that were not medical homes. Qualitative data collected during annual site visits provided contextual information on participating practices to inform interpretations of the demonstration outcomes. SUBJECTS: Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries attributed to MAPCP Demonstration practices or to comparison group practices. MEASURES: Medicare claims were used to measure total Medicare expenditures and utilization and expenditures for inpatient, emergency room, primary care, and specialist services. RESULTS: Despite the transformation of practices over the demonstration period, there was minimal evidence of a shift to more efficient utilization of health care services, and only 1 state saw a statistically significant reduction in total per-beneficiary expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Although the MAPCP Demonstration did not have strong, consistent impacts on utilization and expenditures, this evaluation provides insights that may be useful for the design of future health care transformation models.

BACKGROUND: Through the Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care Practice (MAPCP) Demonstration, Medicare, Medicaid, and private payers offered supplemental payments to 849 primary care practices that became patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) in eight states; practices also received technical assistance and data reports. Average Medicare payments were capped at $10 per beneficiary per month in each state. OBJECTIVE: Since there was variation in the eight participating states' demonstration designs, experiences, and outcomes, we conducted a qualitative multi-case analysis to identify the key factors that differentiated states that were estimated to have generated net savings for Medicare from states that did not. PARTICIPANTS: States' MAPCP Demonstration initiatives were comprehensively profiled in case studies based on secondary document review, three rounds of annual interviews with state staff, payers, practices, and other stakeholders, and other data sources. APPROACH: Case study findings were summarized in a case-ordered predictor-outcome matrix, which identified the presence or absence of key demonstration design features and experiences and arrayed states based on the amount of net savings or losses they generated for Medicare. We then used this matrix to identify initiative features that were present in at least three of the four states that generated net savings and absent from at least three of the four states that did not generate savings. RESULTS: A majority of the states that generated net savings: required practices to be recognized PCMHs to enter the demonstration, did not allow late entrants into the demonstration, used a consistent demonstration payment model across participating payers, and offered practices opportunities to earn performance bonuses. Practices in states that generated net savings also tended to report receiving the demonstration payments and bonuses they expected to receive, without any issues. CONCLUSIONS: Designers of future PCMH initiatives may increase their likelihood of generating net savings by incorporating the demonstration features we identified.