1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Capitated versus fee-for-service reimbursement and quality of care for chronic disease: a US cross-sectional analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Upcoming alternative payment models Primary Care First (PCF) and Kidney Care Choices (KCC) incorporate capitated payments for chronic disease management. Prior research on the effect of capitated payments on chronic disease management has shown mixed results. We assessed the patient, physician, and practice characteristics of practices with capitation as the majority of revenue, and evaluated the association of capitated reimbursement with quality of chronic disease care.

          Methods

          We performed a cross-sectional analysis of visits in the United States’ National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) for patients with hypertension, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease (CKD). Our predictor was practice reimbursement type, classified as 1) majority capitation, 2) majority FFS, or 3) other reimbursement mix. Outcomes were quality indicators of hypertension control, diabetes control, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARB) use, and statin use.

          Results

          About 9% of visits were to practices with majority capitation revenue. Capitated practices, compared with FFS and other practices, had lower visit frequency (3.7 vs. 5.2 vs. 5.2, p = 0.006), were more likely to be located in the West Census Region (55% vs. 18% vs. 17%, p < 0.001), less likely to be solo practice (21% vs. 37% vs. 35%, p = 0.005), more likely to be owned by an insurance company, health plan or HMO (24% vs. 13% vs. 13%, p = 0.033), and more likely to have private insurance (43% vs. 25% vs. 19%, p = 0.004) and managed care payments (69% vs. 23% vs. 26%, p < 0.001) as the majority of revenue. The prevalence of controlled hypertension, controlled diabetes, ACEi/ARB use, and statin use was suboptimal across practice reimbursement types. Capitated reimbursement was not associated with differences in hypertension, diabetes, or CKD quality indicators, in multivariable models adjusting for patient, physician, and practice characteristics.

          Conclusions

          Practices with majority capitation revenue differed substantially from FFS and other practices in patient, physician, and practice characteristics, but were not associated with consistent quality differences. Our findings establish baseline estimates of chronic disease quality of care performance by practice reimbursement composition, informing chronic disease care delivery within upcoming payment models.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07313-3.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report.

          "The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure" provides a new guideline for hypertension prevention and management. The following are the key messages(1) In persons older than 50 years, systolic blood pressure (BP) of more than 140 mm Hg is a much more important cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor than diastolic BP; (2) The risk of CVD, beginning at 115/75 mm Hg, doubles with each increment of 20/10 mm Hg; individuals who are normotensive at 55 years of age have a 90% lifetime risk for developing hypertension; (3) Individuals with a systolic BP of 120 to 139 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of 80 to 89 mm Hg should be considered as prehypertensive and require health-promoting lifestyle modifications to prevent CVD; (4) Thiazide-type diuretics should be used in drug treatment for most patients with uncomplicated hypertension, either alone or combined with drugs from other classes. Certain high-risk conditions are compelling indications for the initial use of other antihypertensive drug classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers); (5) Most patients with hypertension will require 2 or more antihypertensive medications to achieve goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg, or <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease); (6) If BP is more than 20/10 mm Hg above goal BP, consideration should be given to initiating therapy with 2 agents, 1 of which usually should be a thiazide-type diuretic; and (7) The most effective therapy prescribed by the most careful clinician will control hypertension only if patients are motivated. Motivation improves when patients have positive experiences with and trust in the clinician. Empathy builds trust and is a potent motivator. Finally, in presenting these guidelines, the committee recognizes that the responsible physician's judgment remains paramount.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8).

              Hypertension is the most common condition seen in primary care and leads to myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, and death if not detected early and treated appropriately. Patients want to be assured that blood pressure (BP) treatment will reduce their disease burden, while clinicians want guidance on hypertension management using the best scientific evidence. This report takes a rigorous, evidence-based approach to recommend treatment thresholds, goals, and medications in the management of hypertension in adults. Evidence was drawn from randomized controlled trials, which represent the gold standard for determining efficacy and effectiveness. Evidence quality and recommendations were graded based on their effect on important outcomes. There is strong evidence to support treating hypertensive persons aged 60 years or older to a BP goal of less than 150/90 mm Hg and hypertensive persons 30 through 59 years of age to a diastolic goal of less than 90 mm Hg; however, there is insufficient evidence in hypertensive persons younger than 60 years for a systolic goal, or in those younger than 30 years for a diastolic goal, so the panel recommends a BP of less than 140/90 mm Hg for those groups based on expert opinion. The same thresholds and goals are recommended for hypertensive adults with diabetes or nondiabetic chronic kidney disease (CKD) as for the general hypertensive population younger than 60 years. There is moderate evidence to support initiating drug treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, calcium channel blocker, or thiazide-type diuretic in the nonblack hypertensive population, including those with diabetes. In the black hypertensive population, including those with diabetes, a calcium channel blocker or thiazide-type diuretic is recommended as initial therapy. There is moderate evidence to support initial or add-on antihypertensive therapy with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker in persons with CKD to improve kidney outcomes. Although this guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of high BP and should meet the clinical needs of most patients, these recommendations are not a substitute for clinical judgment, and decisions about care must carefully consider and incorporate the clinical characteristics and circumstances of each individual patient.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                lct4001@med.cornell.edu
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                4 January 2022
                4 January 2022
                2022
                : 22
                : 19
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.5386.8, ISNI 000000041936877X, Division of Healthcare Delivery Science & Innovation, Department of Population Health Sciences, , Weill Cornell Medicine, ; 402 East 67th Street, New York, NY 10065 USA
                [2 ]GRID grid.5386.8, ISNI 000000041936877X, Division of Nephrology & Hypertension, Department of Medicine, , Weill Cornell Medicine, ; New York, NY USA
                [3 ]GRID grid.410372.3, ISNI 0000 0004 0419 2775, Kidney Health Research Collaborative, Department of Medicine, , San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of California, ; San Francisco, CA USA
                [4 ]GRID grid.410372.3, ISNI 0000 0004 0419 2775, Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, , San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, ; San Francisco, CA USA
                [5 ]GRID grid.5386.8, ISNI 000000041936877X, Department of Medicine, , Weill Cornell Medicine, ; New York, NY USA
                [6 ]GRID grid.239915.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2285 8823, Division of Rheumatology, , Hospital for Special Surgery, ; New York, NY USA
                [7 ]GRID grid.410372.3, ISNI 0000 0004 0419 2775, Division of General Internal Medicine, , San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, ; San Francisco, CA USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6513-8460
                Article
                7313
                10.1186/s12913-021-07313-3
                8723903
                34980111
                09b14284-7314-418e-b16e-592f2c791a72
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 19 February 2021
                : 19 November 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000062, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases;
                Award ID: F32DK122627
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Health & Social care
                capitation,fee-for-service,physician reimbursement,health services research,chronic disease,hypertension,diabetes,chronic kidney disease

                Comments

                Comment on this article