Time for Toto to Pull the Curtain Away from Patient-Centered Medical Homes

Time for Toto to Pull the Curtain Away from Patient-Centered Medical Homes

23
SHARE

Patient-Centered Medical Homes in statewide populations have unstoppable momentum and major constituencies in support of them, so valid analysis of their outcomes is probably as futile as it will be unwelcome.  However, the math speaks for itself, at least in the mother of all statewide medical homes, North Carolina Medicaid’s Community Care Access Model.

I write this after having analyzed the actual data from this project’s outcomes report, rather than the stated conclusion of the report, a conclusion that continues to be cited in support of the many states considering or implementing medical home models for their Medicaid populations.

The conclusion makes North Carolina looks like a huge win for PCMH:   $300-million in reported savings.  However, readers should have (but largely didn’t) observe a number of curiosities about the data in support of that conclusion:

(1)    Every element of resource use declined.  People have to be getting their care from somewhere, but inpatient, ER, outpatient, physician, drug, and other expenses somehow all declined vs. trend.

(2)    The decline in physician practice expense is especially counterintuitive:  Why are the doctors so supportive if they are working harder but making less money?

(3)    Even though somehow savings were shown in physician expense, per capita doctor visits did indeed increase.   More concerning was that specialist visits –which are supposed to decline in a PCMH model – also increased.

(4)    Inpatient expense fell 47%.  This was achieved despite the fact that all the AHRQ’s “Ambulatory Care –Sensitive Conditions”  total to about 20% of admissions in most populations.

(5)    The evaluators (William M. Mercer) are on record as saying that “choice [emphasis mine] of trend has a large impact on estimates of financial savings.”  Perhaps it is possible that Mercer, having given themselves this latitude, “chose” a trend that would make the study look good.

Those observations merely suggest that the study was done wrong.    But one other “finding” invalidates the entire study:  the 54% reduction in spending on babies under one year of age, accounting for the majority of the entire $300-milllion in spending.   (Any nontrivial savings whatsoever in this category should have raised eyebrows since PCMH is mostly about managing chronically ill patients.)   The components of spending in that category include physician expense, which should rise since doctors get paid more to be more accessible, and drug expense, which should rise for the same reason.  This means that the entire 54% savings across the category must be concentrated in neonatal expense.   Since neonatal expense is about half of total spending in the age category, it would have to decline by a mathematically impossible 100%+ in order for the category to average a 54% reduction.

But perhaps the neonatal savings came close to 100%.  To determine that, let’s do something the investigators didn’t do:  Look at the actual data.  Neonatal admissions and days of care, by state, are freely available at   http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/HCUPnet.jsp.   It turns out that the percentage of neonatal admissions and days fell only 1%, from 27.5% in the baseline to 26.5% in the last year studied—a decline two orders of magnitude less than was required to make Mercer’s math work.  (The argument that neonatal utilization would have risen absent a PCMH program is also invalid – South Carolina enjoyed a relative decline in neonatal utilization as well over that same period, without a medical home.)

Therefore, without even needing to “challenge the data,” but rather just looking that the data that the consultants presented, as well as other public sources of data, one must conclude that the study is fatally flawed.

What do proponents of this study say in defense?   In a private conversation with one of the major proponents of a PCMH model (whose company benefits greatly from adoption of electronic health records), the response was that he “believed” the Mercer outcomes.  Math, however, is not a belief system.  It’s as proof system, and every assumption about the savings from widespread implementation of statewide medical homes in the Medicaid population has just been proven wrong.

Leave a Reply

23 Comments on "Time for Toto to Pull the Curtain Away from Patient-Centered Medical Homes"


Guest
Brad F
Apr 3, 2011

Al,

Please clarify:

Docs could be happier because of QOL and happiness quotient improved in this setting?

Did the primary care docs earn more, ie, did their salaries go up?

Specialists: How were they incentivized, and even with increased volume, payment structure might have changed, reducing overall costs? Additionally, with ? improved care coordination, other costs may have dropped beyond whats apparent through referrals.

AHRQ ambi-sensitive condtions not the final word. Did you look at what DRG admits actually decreased; what % of ambi sensitive patients were reduced, and at what savings. Need $$$ data.

What are other costs trends that could be used for comparison and by what magnitude do they differ from Mercer?

I could go on. Anyway, seeing as NC PCMH foray widely quoted, I would want to see a part II post where you substantiate your interesting findings. You have put some interesting stuff up for thought, but part I needs to ripen. Please post again or expand here.

Brad

Guest
Jonathan
Apr 3, 2011

Those are truly stunning numbers from North Carolina and they deserve close scrutiny. I would like to see a more even-handed treatment, though. It feels like there is an axe being ground in this piece.

It may turn out that some of the data is suspect (Inparticular, Al may have a good point about inpatient and neonatal savings), but that doesn’t throw everything into question. There are also some critical asides that are way too quick. Why should we necessarily be worried if physician payments went down for both primary care and specialties while visits went up. That could be a wonderful result, depending on the details. I would love to see a response to this post from someone who knows the data well.

Guest
Jonathan
Apr 3, 2011

Brad, didn’t see yours before I replied. Looks like we had the same reaction.

Guest
Janice Reverson, RN
Apr 3, 2011

When it comes to these surveys of the government, the conclusion is written first and the data massaged to support that conclusion.

Guest
Apr 3, 2011

LOL. In another context, it’s called “Creation Science.”

Guest
Gary Lampman
Apr 3, 2011

Die quickly and be Happy!

Guest
Apr 3, 2011

1) Every element of resource use declined. People have to be getting their care from somewhere, but inpatient, ER, outpatient, physician, drug, and other expenses somehow all declined vs. trend.

What’s the problem here? Can’t you believe that PMCH could possibly reduce expenses by reducing unnecessary care?

(2) The decline in physician practice expense is especially counterintuitive: Why are the doctors so supportive if they are working harder but making less money?

Why wouldn’t doctors be happy that their practice expenses are declining?

(3) Even though somehow savings were shown in physician expense, per capita doctor visits did indeed increase. More concerning was that specialist visits –which are supposed to decline in a PCMH model – also increased.

Perhaps these doctors are doing fewer high cost procedures and using the time to see more patients?

(4) Inpatient expense fell 47%. This was achieved despite the fact that all the AHRQ’s “Ambulatory Care –Sensitive Conditions” total to about 20% of admissions in most populations.

This sentence makes no sense. It needs more explanation.

(5) The evaluators (William M. Mercer) are on record as saying that “choice [emphasis mine] of trend has a large impact on estimates of financial savings.” Perhaps it is possible that Mercer, having given themselves this latitude, “chose” a trend that would make the study look good.

It appears that this study looks at the savings versus the “trend” which I assume is the expected increase without PMCH. You can quibble about their chosen trend but the fact that PMCH has been able to “bend the curve” is significant.

Also, you claim to have found data which “invalidates” the study. Just a brief look at this shows that your chosen data has different numerators, denominators and probably different time series so it’s not comparable.

You belief that PMCH cannot work is not sufficient. You need some real arguments and real data, not just a personal bias.

Guest
J. Stefan Walker, MD
Apr 3, 2011

Echo Jonathan’s points.

Guest
JCS MD
Apr 3, 2011

I always welcome the chance to get a little learnin’ about PCMH, disease management, case management, care coordination, cost and quality initiatives, and the like. I read the author’s post, did a preliminary data search, and re-read the author’s post.

Lessons learned: The author’s post certainly does not carry the weight of such an antagonistic title.

Whether it’s the structure, the conclusions without support, the lack of data source citation (excepting the neonatal comparison), or the lack of author disclosure/conflict of interest, this post surely has a lot of its own ‘curiosities’.

Before supporting or refuting the authors assertions, I’d certainly like to see:
1) source citation
2) logical support of claims. Idea (although not a million dollar one): start with ‘curiosity’ #1.
3) author disclosure/conflict of interest statement

My preliminary data search included:
http://www.communitycarenc.com/PDFDocs/Sheps%20Eval.pdf
http://www.communitycarenc.com/PDFDocs/Mercer%20SFY03.pdf
http://www.communitycarenc.com/PDFDocs/Mercer%20SFY04.pdf
http://www.communitycarenc.com/PDFDocs/Mercer%20SFY05_06.pdf
http://www.communitycarenc.com/PDFDocs/Mercer%20SFY07.pdf
http://www.communitycarenc.com/PDFDocs/Mercer%20SFY08.pdf

Guest
lynn
Apr 4, 2011

It may be simple, perhaps PCMH are avoiding the complexly ill and are managing care of a more “normal” population of pregnant women and children. Without knowing the nature of the NC Medicaid enrollees it’s hard to tell.

Guest
Apr 5, 2011

Al,

I understand that you do results benchmarking and ROI plausibility testing for Disease Management Vendors. Presumably it’s possible to do something similar for the larger patient centered medical home initiatives.

I’d love to see how findings from primary care-redesign initiatives like those at Geisinger, Group Health and BCBS of Michigan stack up against yours and vice versa!

Guest
Apr 5, 2011

thank you to many of you for keeping an open mind and drawing their own conclusiions from the data and, as one person pointed out, the incentives of the evaluators..

I will try to address the other comments but I don’t expect to change many minds. As Upton Sinclair once said, “It is impossible to prove something to someone whose salay depends on believing the opposite.”

(1) It isn’t the expenses incurred by physicians that are declining. it is the expense of paying physicians. In other words, according to Mercver they are making less now than they would have. that’s why it is surprising that they are supportive despite seeing more patients and (according to Mervcer) making less money.

(2) It is impossible to reduce inpatient by 47% when only 20% of admissions are sensitive to ambulatory care, period. Another study of NC — one done with integrity and competence instead of a self-promoting flair for the dramatic — showed that asthma (among the most ambulatory-care sensitive conditions) delcined by a believable 6%, that I independently confirmed in my FOIA. What set of DRGs declined more than 47% to offsett the small asthma decline? Answer — looking at the AHRQ data: none.

(3) I do have some FOIA info on MD visits that shows both PCP and specialist visits rising. I’ll send it to any health plan or state that would like to contact me.

(4) Steve, I have no problem with those PCMH results you’ve described in group health plans. Those settings lend themselves to PCMH success and I wish hem the best of luck.

(5) I noticed that none of the critics took on the neonate point, which is the smoking gun that invalidates the whole thing.

(6) The most valid criticism was the absolutely correct insight that I do indeed have “an axe to grind.” I will admit to being jealous that I only charged my clients $5000 to do this analysis correctly when Mercer (I am told) charged 100x that amount to NC taxpayers to do it wrong. I may not be able to learn much from them about analysis, but I can learn a ton from them about writing proposals….

Guest
Apr 5, 2011

I now have a better understanding of your assertion that it is impossible to reduce inpatient (expenses) by 47% when only 20% of admissions are sensitive to ambulatory care”. You don’t seem to be accounting for the fact that you are comparing inpatient expenses ($) to admissions (a patient count). Inpatient care is expensive compared to ambulatory care so even a small reduction in the number of admissions and severity of admitted patients can lead to large savings (even 47%). I also don’t understand your assertion that only 20% of admissions are sensitive to ambulatory care… could you explain? I would take the view that just about any hospital admission is a failure of ambulatory care.

Also, I did address your “neonate” point which is your “smoking gun to invalidate the entire study”. You still haven’t explained where you data comes from vs theirs and how yours is “better” and at the same time comparable.

Guest
Apr 5, 2011

The neonatal data link (to the federal governement’s data, not my data).is in the article.

Neonatal days and admissions declined only marginally — that’s what the data says. Mercer didn’t look at this database or else looked at it, realized they couldn’t refute it, and didn’t bring it up. Either way is substandard. (To be fair, there was a noticeable mix change between the ultra-preemies and the other preemies, so that perhaps the cost reduction exceeded the 1% utilization reduction, but remember, they need a 100% reduction to make their conclusion valid.)

The ACSC list also comes from AHRQ and is a list of the admissions that they feel can be avoided through better ambulatory care. Perhaps their list is too narrow but they put a lot of thought into it.

It is theoretically possible that “a small reduction in inpatient admissions” could generate a 47% reduction in expense, but that would require the leap of faith that the admissions that were avoided were the most expensive ones. even then you would need a sizable reduction.

Guest

Is the entire report available anywhere for me to read, or is its just for “internal use”?

Guest
Apr 5, 2011

This is my favorite comment so far…:)

My policy (so it doesn’t look like i am pitching a product) is if I blog on something, to give away the report to anyone except close competitors and (in this case) the state of NC, which having spent $500,000 can probably afford $500 more. So even close competitors can have it but they need to pay for it. It is at dismgmt.com.

This vignette is featured in Case Studies in Invalid Outcomes, which is available for the asking. I might also recommend (but you gotta pay for it) its theoretical companion volume, Outcomes Measurement for Dummies…and Smarties.

I might also recommend (also on dismgmt.com) Critical Outcomes Report Analysis (CORA) certification. CORA Certification will make you a pro at deconstructing outcomes reports. The 200 people who have passed it are listed on the website and any one of them may be called as a reference. Analytic job searches now often require or prefer it.

thanks for the opportunity for the 30-second shameless plug.