Association of integrated team-based care with health care quality, utilization, and cost

Brenda Reiss-Brennan, Kimberly D. Brunisholz, Carter Dredge, Pascal Briot, Kyle Grazier, Adam Wilcox, Lucy Savitz, Brent James

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

145 Scopus citations

Abstract

IMPORTANCE The value of integrated team delivery models is not firmly established. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association of receiving primary care in integrated team-based care (TBC) practices vs traditional practice management (TPM) practices (usual care) with patient outcomes, health care utilization, and costs. DESIGN A retrospective, longitudinal, cohort study to assess the association of integrating physical and mental health over time in TBC practices with patient outcomes and costs. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS Adult patients (aged≲18 years) who received primary care at 113 unique Intermountain Healthcare Medical Group primary care practices from 2003 through 2005 and had yearly encounters with Intermountain Healthcare through 2013, including some patients who received care in both TBC and TPM practices. EXPOSURES Receipt of primary care in TBC practices compared with TPM practices for patients treated in internal medicine, family practice, and geriatrics practices. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Outcomes included 7 quality measures, 6 health care utilization measures, payments to the delivery system, and program investment costs. RESULTS During the study period (January 2010-December 2013), 113 452 unique patients (mean age, 56.1 years;women, 58.9%) accounted for 163 226 person-years of exposure in 27 TBC practices and 171 915 person-years in 75 TPM practices. Patients treated in TBC practices compared with those treated in TPM practices had higher rates of active depression screening (46.1% for TBC vs 24.1%for TPM; odds ratio [OR], 1.91 [95%CI, 1.75 to 2.08), adherence to a diabetes care bundle (24.6%for TBC vs 19.5%for TPM; OR, 1.26 [95%CI, 1.11 to 1.42]), and documentation of self-care plans (48.4%for TBC vs 8.7%for TPM; OR, 5.59 [95%CI, 4.27 to 7.33]), lower proportion of patients with controlled hypertension (>140/90mmHg) (85.0%for TBC vs 97.7%for TPM; OR, 0.87 [95%CI, 0.80 to 0.95]), and no significant differences in documentation of advanced directives (9.6%for TBC vs 9.9%for TPM; OR, 0.97 [95%CI, 0.91 to 1.03]). Per 100 person-years, rates of health care utilizationwere lower for TBC patients compared with TPM patients for emergency department visits (18.1 for TBC vs 23.5 for TPM; incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.77 [95%CI, 0.74 to 0.80]), hospital admissions (9.5 for TBC vs 10.6 for TPM; IRR, 0.89 [95%CI, 0.85 to 0.94]), ambulatory care sensitive visits and admissions (3.3 for TBC vs 4.3 for TPM; IRR, 0.77 [95%CI, 0.70 to 0.85]), and primary care physician encounters (232.8 for TBC vs 250.4 for TPM; IRR, 0.93 [95%CI, 0.92 to 0.94]), with no significant difference in visits to urgent care facilities (55.7 for TBC vs 56.2 for TPM; IRR, 0.99 [95%CI, 0.97 to 1.02]) and visits to specialty care physicians (213.5 for TBC vs 217.9 for TPM; IRR, 0.98 [95%CI, 0.97 to 0.99], P < .008). Payments to the delivery systemwere lower in the TBC group vs the TPM group (3400.62 for TBC vs 3515.71 for TPM; β, -115.09 [95%CI, -199.64 to -30.54]) andwere less than investment costs of the TBC program. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among adults enrolled in an integrated health care system, receipt of primary care at TBC practices compared with TPM practices was associated with higher rates of some measures of quality of care, lower rates for some measures of acute care utilization, and lower actual payments received by the delivery system.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)826-834
Number of pages9
JournalJAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
Volume316
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 23 2016

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Association of integrated team-based care with health care quality, utilization, and cost'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this