Cargando…

Did changing primary care delivery models change performance? A population based study using health administrative data

BACKGROUND: Primary care reform in Ontario, Canada started with the introduction of new enrollment models, the two largest of which are Family Health Networks (FHNs), a capitation-based model, and Family Health Groups (FHGs), a blended fee-for-service model. The purpose of this study was to evaluate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jaakkimainen, R Liisa, Barnsley, Jan, Klein-Geltink, Julie, Kopp, Alexander, Glazier, Richard H
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134421/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21639883
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-12-44
_version_ 1782207984320905216
author Jaakkimainen, R Liisa
Barnsley, Jan
Klein-Geltink, Julie
Kopp, Alexander
Glazier, Richard H
author_facet Jaakkimainen, R Liisa
Barnsley, Jan
Klein-Geltink, Julie
Kopp, Alexander
Glazier, Richard H
author_sort Jaakkimainen, R Liisa
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Primary care reform in Ontario, Canada started with the introduction of new enrollment models, the two largest of which are Family Health Networks (FHNs), a capitation-based model, and Family Health Groups (FHGs), a blended fee-for-service model. The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in performance between FHNs and FHGs and to compare performance before and after physicians joined these new primary care groups. METHODS: This study used Ontario administrative claims data to compare performance measures in FHGs and FHNs. The study population included physicians who belonged to a FHN or FHG for at least two years. Patients were included in the analyses if they enrolled with a physician in the two years after the physician joined a FHN or FHG, and also if they saw the physician in a two year period prior to the physician joining a FHN or FHG. Performance was derived from the administrative data, and included measures of preventive screening for cancer (breast, cervical, colorectal) and chronic disease management (diabetes, heart failure, asthma). RESULTS: Performance measures did not vary consistently between models. In some cases, performance approached current benchmarks (Pap smears, mammograms). In other cases it was improving in relation to previous measures (colorectal cancer screening). There were no changes in screening for cervical cancer or breast cancer after joining either a FHN or FHG. Colorectal cancer screening increased in both FHNs and FHGs. After enrolling in either a FHG or a FHN, prescribing performance measures for diabetes care improved. However, annual eye examinations decreased for younger people with diabetes after joining a FHG or FHN. There were no changes in performance measures for heart failure management or asthma care after enrolling in either a FHG or FHN. CONCLUSIONS: Some improvements in preventive screening and diabetes management which were seen amongst people after they enrolled may be attributed to incentive payments offered to physicians within FHGs and FHNs. However, these primary care delivery models need to be compared with other delivery models and fee for service practices in order to describe more specifically what aspects of model delivery and incentives affect care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3134421
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31344212011-07-13 Did changing primary care delivery models change performance? A population based study using health administrative data Jaakkimainen, R Liisa Barnsley, Jan Klein-Geltink, Julie Kopp, Alexander Glazier, Richard H BMC Fam Pract Research Article BACKGROUND: Primary care reform in Ontario, Canada started with the introduction of new enrollment models, the two largest of which are Family Health Networks (FHNs), a capitation-based model, and Family Health Groups (FHGs), a blended fee-for-service model. The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in performance between FHNs and FHGs and to compare performance before and after physicians joined these new primary care groups. METHODS: This study used Ontario administrative claims data to compare performance measures in FHGs and FHNs. The study population included physicians who belonged to a FHN or FHG for at least two years. Patients were included in the analyses if they enrolled with a physician in the two years after the physician joined a FHN or FHG, and also if they saw the physician in a two year period prior to the physician joining a FHN or FHG. Performance was derived from the administrative data, and included measures of preventive screening for cancer (breast, cervical, colorectal) and chronic disease management (diabetes, heart failure, asthma). RESULTS: Performance measures did not vary consistently between models. In some cases, performance approached current benchmarks (Pap smears, mammograms). In other cases it was improving in relation to previous measures (colorectal cancer screening). There were no changes in screening for cervical cancer or breast cancer after joining either a FHN or FHG. Colorectal cancer screening increased in both FHNs and FHGs. After enrolling in either a FHG or a FHN, prescribing performance measures for diabetes care improved. However, annual eye examinations decreased for younger people with diabetes after joining a FHG or FHN. There were no changes in performance measures for heart failure management or asthma care after enrolling in either a FHG or FHN. CONCLUSIONS: Some improvements in preventive screening and diabetes management which were seen amongst people after they enrolled may be attributed to incentive payments offered to physicians within FHGs and FHNs. However, these primary care delivery models need to be compared with other delivery models and fee for service practices in order to describe more specifically what aspects of model delivery and incentives affect care. BioMed Central 2011-06-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3134421/ /pubmed/21639883 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-12-44 Text en Copyright ©2011 Jaakkimainen et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Jaakkimainen, R Liisa
Barnsley, Jan
Klein-Geltink, Julie
Kopp, Alexander
Glazier, Richard H
Did changing primary care delivery models change performance? A population based study using health administrative data
title Did changing primary care delivery models change performance? A population based study using health administrative data
title_full Did changing primary care delivery models change performance? A population based study using health administrative data
title_fullStr Did changing primary care delivery models change performance? A population based study using health administrative data
title_full_unstemmed Did changing primary care delivery models change performance? A population based study using health administrative data
title_short Did changing primary care delivery models change performance? A population based study using health administrative data
title_sort did changing primary care delivery models change performance? a population based study using health administrative data
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134421/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21639883
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-12-44
work_keys_str_mv AT jaakkimainenrliisa didchangingprimarycaredeliverymodelschangeperformanceapopulationbasedstudyusinghealthadministrativedata
AT barnsleyjan didchangingprimarycaredeliverymodelschangeperformanceapopulationbasedstudyusinghealthadministrativedata
AT kleingeltinkjulie didchangingprimarycaredeliverymodelschangeperformanceapopulationbasedstudyusinghealthadministrativedata
AT koppalexander didchangingprimarycaredeliverymodelschangeperformanceapopulationbasedstudyusinghealthadministrativedata
AT glazierrichardh didchangingprimarycaredeliverymodelschangeperformanceapopulationbasedstudyusinghealthadministrativedata