evaluating intensive outpatient primary care va experience
play

Evaluating Intensive Outpatient Primary Care: VA Experience Steven - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Evaluating Intensive Outpatient Primary Care: VA Experience Steven M. Asch MD MPH Director, Center for Innovation to Implementation Professor and Vice Chief, Stanford Division of Primary Care Same problem as everywhere: Concentration of


  1. Evaluating Intensive Outpatient Primary Care: VA Experience Steven M. Asch MD MPH Director, Center for Innovation to Implementation Professor and Vice Chief, Stanford Division of Primary Care

  2. Same problem as everywhere: Concentration of utilization and costs.. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Bottom 90% 50% Top 10% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent of Total VA Patients Total VA Health Care Costs Source: Analysis of 2010 HERC Average Cost data

  3. …But a different institutional context • Integrated system • Well developed Patient Centered Medical Home • Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT) • Geri PACT • Homeless PACT • Well developed programs for complex pts • Home Based Primary Care (HBPC) • Mental Health Intensive Case Management (MHICM)

  4. How do we layer IOPC on top of PACT? Intensive Management PACT (ImPACT) Other Programs PACT

  5. Core Elements of ImPACT in Palo Alto • Multidisciplinary Team: NP, MD, SW, Rec therapy • Comprehensive intake; goal-concordant care • Frequent in-person/phone contact • After-hours access • Chronic condition case management • Coordination of primary and specialty care • Rapid response to health status deterioration • Support during transitions from hospital to home • Access to social and community resources

  6. Patient selection and evaluation design • Proactive recruitment of patients at top 10% risk of future admission/cost • Randomized assignment to ImPACT team • Outcomes • Hospitalizations/ED use • Satisfaction • Patient activation • Costs • Qualitative interviews

  7. ImPACT patients’ satisfaction with VA improved 100% P P < 0.01 P P < 0.05 80% 60% 40% 20% Baseline Follow-Up 0% General Satisfaction Communication Satisfaction

  8. Monthly costs declined… From Zulman DM. JAMA Int Med. 2017.

  9. …but about the same as controls- one! Regression to the mean From Zulman DM. JAMA Int Med. 2017.

  10. We spread the model to test it further PACT Intensive Management (PIM) Sites Milwaukee Cleveland VAMC VAMC and San Francisco CBOC VAMC and 2 CBOCs Salisbury VAMC Atlanta CBOC

  11. Allowed more variation in program elements Site A Site B Site C Site D Site E Screened patients, triaged and assessed X X X X X for services Interdisciplinary care team X X X X X Social work X X X X X Mental health/addiction support X X X X Care coordination X X X X X Home visits X X X X X Assisted with medications X X X X X Health coaching X X X X X Replace PACT team X Medic support X

  12. Again randomized QI evaluation, tested similar outcomes High risk for hosp (CAN score) + hosp/ED visit <6 months PIM PACT N=1105 N=1102 Opt in N=691 Opt out of program N=414

  13. Better trust, access, and coordination… (in a non statistically significant sort of way) Got needed services Ease in getting care PIM Easily accessible provider PACT Respect from provider Have a trusted provider Help with coordination of care 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Strongly Agree

  14. Inpatient costs declined… 18,000 16,000 14,000 PIM Pre-Randomization 12,000 PIM Post-Randomization 10,000 8,000 PACT Pre-Randomization 6,000 PACT Post- 4,000 Randomization 2,000 Difference-in-Difference 0 -2,000 -2,277 -4,000 ^ Predicted means from regression models

  15. …But outpatient costs went up 25,000 20,000 PIM Pre-Randomization 15,000 PIM Post-Randomization PACT Pre-Randomization PACT Post-Randomization 10,000 Difference-in-Difference 5,000 2,638 0 * p<0.01 ^ Predicted means from regression models

  16. In depth qualitative interviews and provider surveys • Providers appreciated the help • Patients loved single point of contact • Patients felt supported at specialist visits • Better end of life planning • Transitions from hospital to home easier.

  17. Conclusions of 5 year effort thusfar • Layering intensive management on top of PCMH paid for itself* • Might have drawn nonVA care to VA – analyses underway • Patient and provider satisfaction improved modestly • Regression to the mean serious challenge to pre-post studies • We didn’t give up! Lessons: • Refined selection criteria • Standardized - more focus on mental health and social factors • Modified program undergoing further testing *Translation- did not save money

  18. Thank you… Donna Zulman Debra Hummel Marian Katz Evelyn Chang Elvira Jimenez Jean Yoon Mingming Wang Susan Stockdale Ava Wong Angel Park Gordon Schectman Brook Watts Lisa Rubenstein Jessica Eng Michael Ong Neha Pathak Parag Dalsania David Atkins Andrew Lanto Frances Wu Shoutzu Lin Carrie Patton Belinda Black Jeff Jackson

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend