Patient-centered medical homes in community oncology practices: Changes in spending and care quality associated with the COME HOME experience

Teresa Waters, Cameron Kaplan, Ilana Yonas, Mary M. Price, Laura A. Stevens, Barbara L. McAneny

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE We examined whether the Community Oncology Medical Home (COME HOME) program, a medical home program implemented in seven community oncology practices, was associated with changes in spending and care quality. PATIENTS AND METHODS We compared outcomes from elderly fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 with breast, lung, colorectal, thyroid, or pancreatic cancer, lymphoma, or melanoma and served by COME HOME practices before and after program implementation versus similar beneficiaries served by other geographically proximate oncologists. Difference-in-differences analysis compared changes in outcomes for COME HOME patients versus concurrent controls. Propensity score matching and regression methods were adjusted for clinical and sociodemographic differences. Our primary outcome was 6-month medical spending per beneficiary. Secondary outcomes included 6-month out-of-pocket spending, inpatient and ambulatory care–sensitive hospitalizations, readmissions, length of stay, and emergency department and evaluation and management visits. RESULTS Before COME HOME, 6-month medical spending was $2,975 higher for the study group compared with controls (95% CI, $1,635 to $4,315; P, .001) and increasing at a similar rate. After intervention, this difference was reduced to $318 (95% CI, 2$1,105 to $1,741; P = .661), a significant change of 2$2,657 (95% CI, 2$4,631 to 2$683; P = .008) or 8.1% savings relative to 6-month average spending ($32,866). COME HOME was also associated with significantly reduced (10.2 %) emergency department visits per 1,000 patients per 6-month period (P = .024). There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes. CONCLUSION COME HOME was associated with reduced Medicare spending and improved emergency department use. The patient-centered medical home model holds promise for oncology practices, but improvements were not uniform.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)E56-E64
JournalJournal of Oncology Practice
Volume15
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Patient-Centered Care
Quality of Health Care
Hospital Emergency Service
Medicare
Fee-for-Service Plans
Propensity Score
Health Expenditures
Pancreatic Neoplasms
Thyroid Neoplasms
Inpatients
Colorectal Neoplasms
Melanoma
Lymphoma
Length of Stay
Hospitalization
Breast
Lung

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Oncology
  • Oncology(nursing)
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Patient-centered medical homes in community oncology practices : Changes in spending and care quality associated with the COME HOME experience. / Waters, Teresa; Kaplan, Cameron; Yonas, Ilana; Price, Mary M.; Stevens, Laura A.; McAneny, Barbara L.

In: Journal of Oncology Practice, Vol. 15, No. 1, 01.01.2019, p. E56-E64.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{72b4560f5f774dd89c96cf597b57c9c0,
title = "Patient-centered medical homes in community oncology practices: Changes in spending and care quality associated with the COME HOME experience",
abstract = "PURPOSE We examined whether the Community Oncology Medical Home (COME HOME) program, a medical home program implemented in seven community oncology practices, was associated with changes in spending and care quality. PATIENTS AND METHODS We compared outcomes from elderly fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 with breast, lung, colorectal, thyroid, or pancreatic cancer, lymphoma, or melanoma and served by COME HOME practices before and after program implementation versus similar beneficiaries served by other geographically proximate oncologists. Difference-in-differences analysis compared changes in outcomes for COME HOME patients versus concurrent controls. Propensity score matching and regression methods were adjusted for clinical and sociodemographic differences. Our primary outcome was 6-month medical spending per beneficiary. Secondary outcomes included 6-month out-of-pocket spending, inpatient and ambulatory care–sensitive hospitalizations, readmissions, length of stay, and emergency department and evaluation and management visits. RESULTS Before COME HOME, 6-month medical spending was $2,975 higher for the study group compared with controls (95{\%} CI, $1,635 to $4,315; P, .001) and increasing at a similar rate. After intervention, this difference was reduced to $318 (95{\%} CI, 2$1,105 to $1,741; P = .661), a significant change of 2$2,657 (95{\%} CI, 2$4,631 to 2$683; P = .008) or 8.1{\%} savings relative to 6-month average spending ($32,866). COME HOME was also associated with significantly reduced (10.2 {\%}) emergency department visits per 1,000 patients per 6-month period (P = .024). There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes. CONCLUSION COME HOME was associated with reduced Medicare spending and improved emergency department use. The patient-centered medical home model holds promise for oncology practices, but improvements were not uniform.",
author = "Teresa Waters and Cameron Kaplan and Ilana Yonas and Price, {Mary M.} and Stevens, {Laura A.} and McAneny, {Barbara L.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1200/JOP.18.00479",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "E56--E64",
journal = "Journal of Oncology Practice",
issn = "1554-7477",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient-centered medical homes in community oncology practices

T2 - Changes in spending and care quality associated with the COME HOME experience

AU - Waters, Teresa

AU - Kaplan, Cameron

AU - Yonas, Ilana

AU - Price, Mary M.

AU - Stevens, Laura A.

AU - McAneny, Barbara L.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - PURPOSE We examined whether the Community Oncology Medical Home (COME HOME) program, a medical home program implemented in seven community oncology practices, was associated with changes in spending and care quality. PATIENTS AND METHODS We compared outcomes from elderly fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 with breast, lung, colorectal, thyroid, or pancreatic cancer, lymphoma, or melanoma and served by COME HOME practices before and after program implementation versus similar beneficiaries served by other geographically proximate oncologists. Difference-in-differences analysis compared changes in outcomes for COME HOME patients versus concurrent controls. Propensity score matching and regression methods were adjusted for clinical and sociodemographic differences. Our primary outcome was 6-month medical spending per beneficiary. Secondary outcomes included 6-month out-of-pocket spending, inpatient and ambulatory care–sensitive hospitalizations, readmissions, length of stay, and emergency department and evaluation and management visits. RESULTS Before COME HOME, 6-month medical spending was $2,975 higher for the study group compared with controls (95% CI, $1,635 to $4,315; P, .001) and increasing at a similar rate. After intervention, this difference was reduced to $318 (95% CI, 2$1,105 to $1,741; P = .661), a significant change of 2$2,657 (95% CI, 2$4,631 to 2$683; P = .008) or 8.1% savings relative to 6-month average spending ($32,866). COME HOME was also associated with significantly reduced (10.2 %) emergency department visits per 1,000 patients per 6-month period (P = .024). There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes. CONCLUSION COME HOME was associated with reduced Medicare spending and improved emergency department use. The patient-centered medical home model holds promise for oncology practices, but improvements were not uniform.

AB - PURPOSE We examined whether the Community Oncology Medical Home (COME HOME) program, a medical home program implemented in seven community oncology practices, was associated with changes in spending and care quality. PATIENTS AND METHODS We compared outcomes from elderly fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 with breast, lung, colorectal, thyroid, or pancreatic cancer, lymphoma, or melanoma and served by COME HOME practices before and after program implementation versus similar beneficiaries served by other geographically proximate oncologists. Difference-in-differences analysis compared changes in outcomes for COME HOME patients versus concurrent controls. Propensity score matching and regression methods were adjusted for clinical and sociodemographic differences. Our primary outcome was 6-month medical spending per beneficiary. Secondary outcomes included 6-month out-of-pocket spending, inpatient and ambulatory care–sensitive hospitalizations, readmissions, length of stay, and emergency department and evaluation and management visits. RESULTS Before COME HOME, 6-month medical spending was $2,975 higher for the study group compared with controls (95% CI, $1,635 to $4,315; P, .001) and increasing at a similar rate. After intervention, this difference was reduced to $318 (95% CI, 2$1,105 to $1,741; P = .661), a significant change of 2$2,657 (95% CI, 2$4,631 to 2$683; P = .008) or 8.1% savings relative to 6-month average spending ($32,866). COME HOME was also associated with significantly reduced (10.2 %) emergency department visits per 1,000 patients per 6-month period (P = .024). There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes. CONCLUSION COME HOME was associated with reduced Medicare spending and improved emergency department use. The patient-centered medical home model holds promise for oncology practices, but improvements were not uniform.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059828052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059828052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JOP.18.00479

DO - 10.1200/JOP.18.00479

M3 - Article

C2 - 30523764

AN - SCOPUS:85059828052

VL - 15

SP - E56-E64

JO - Journal of Oncology Practice

JF - Journal of Oncology Practice

SN - 1554-7477

IS - 1

ER -