This was successfully posted to your pofile.
This box will close automatically in a few seconds. Close this window
We don't have an e-mail address on file for you. To use AAFP Connection, you must have an e-mail address in our records. Click Here
Payment Reform Required to Support, Sustain PCMH, Expert Says
Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative, or PCPCC.
For their part, family physicians will have to "negotiate different mechanisms of payment if they want their medical home initiatives to get started and to be sustained," says Goroll. But any payment reform needs to correct existing imbalances and distortions in the current physician payment system, he notes. "(Payment) needs to be valued based, and it should encourage patient-centered coordinated care by all providers."
The issue of payment reform has taken on new importance with the recent enactment of health care reform legislation and an expanding emphasis on pay for performance and value. And Goroll is adamant that the current fee-for-service system cannot support the PCMH model. It does not provide sufficient resources to implement and sustain the model, and it encourages volume over value.
"Fee-for-service does not sustain primary care in the United States," says Goroll. "It is the reason why primary care in the United States has melted down. It is insufficient in and of itself to pay for high performance primary care that requires health care teams and health information technology."
Goroll acknowledges, however, that changing payment models is "very difficult."
"Even if we have a great new system that is simpler, fairer, more logical, there is a great sense out there that this is about money and it is the devil you know versus the devil you don't," he said.
One of the pitfalls of unadjusted capitation is that it encourages underutilization of services. One way to address this issue is to risk adjust the base payment so that resources are sufficient to meet the needs of the patient or practice panel. Another is to supplement the capitation payment with substantial rewards for achieving desired outcomes that include cost, quality and patient experience.
The Massachusetts Coalition for Primary Care, for example, uses a payment mechanism that applies a risk-adjusted comprehensive payment for each patient, along with a 25 percent risk-adjusted bonus for outcomes.
"Our approach is an alternative to fee-for-service among (physicians) who don't want to be under a volume-based system and who are willing to take responsibility for the comprehensive care of their primary care patients," says Goroll, chair of the coalition.
Goroll describes payment reform as one part of a two-part solution to improving and strengthening primary care in the United States. The other is practice transformation into the medical home model, allowing for enhanced, patient-centered performance.
Goroll acknowledges, however, that many PCMH pilot projects focus on patients with chronic conditions, which is a way of caring for patients with the greatest needs. "But if we ignore everybody else, we are just going to be generating a whole new group of people who will get to this unfortunate state," he notes.
The current pilot projects should be looked at as works in progress with the goal of eventually bringing all patients into the medical home, says Goroll, adding that the same type of logic applies to payment issues.
"We can't have multiple payment and delivery systems going on within a particular practice," says Goroll. "It breeds chaos and compromises the effort."
Despite the many challenges, however, Goroll is optimistic about the future of primary care.
"Once we change payment, especially as we move payment from the exclusive rewarding of volume, we will attract a whole new generation of our best medical students into primary care," he notes. "The emphasis will be on good patient care, not volume of service."