Viewing offline content

Limited functionality available

Dismiss
Deloitte Middle East
  • Services

    What's New

    • Cloud transformation: Faster together

      All the way around, straight to results.

    • Deloitte Greenhouse

      Defy status quo, build momentum, stimulate ideas., achieve ambitious goals

    • Technology Fast 50 Program

      Nominations are now open for our 2022 ranking! Apply.

    • Audit & Assurance

      • Assurance
    • Consulting

      • Strategy, Analytics and M&A
      • Customer and Marketing
      • Business Operations
      • Human Capital
      • Enterprise Technology & Performance
    • Financial Advisory

      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Forensic
      • Real Estate
      • Turnaround & Restructuring
    • Risk Advisory

      • Strategic & Reputation Risk
      • Regulatory Risk
      • Financial Risk
      • Operational Risk
      • Cyber Risk
    • Tax

      • Global Business Tax Services
      • Indirect Tax
      • Global Employer Services
    • Deloitte Private

      • Family Enterprise
    • Legal

    • Sustainability

  • Industries

    What's New

    • Connect to infrastructure that builds better lives

      It’s time to revitalize, rebuild and reimagine the future.

    • Decarbonizing aviation: Cleared for take-off

      An industry perspective

    • Technology Fast 50 Program

      Nominations are now open for our 2022 ranking! Apply.

    • Consumer

      • Automotive
      • Consumer Products
      • Retail, Wholesale & Distribution
      • Transportation, Hospitality & Services
    • Energy, Resources & Industrials

      • Industrial Products & Construction
      • Mining & Metals
      • Energy & Chemicals
      • Power, Utilities & Renewables
    • Financial Services

      • Banking & Capital Markets
      • Insurance
      • Investment Management
      • Real Estate
    • Government & Public Services

      • Civil Government
      • Defense, Security & Justice
      • Health & Social Care
      • Transport
    • Life Sciences & Health Care

      • Health Care
      • Life Sciences
    • MENA Sovereign Wealth Funds

    • Technology, Media & Telecommunications

      • Technology
      • Telecommunications, Media & Entertainment
  • Insights

    Deloitte Insights

    What's New

    • Deloitte Insights Magazine

      Explore the latest issue now

    • Deloitte Insights app

      Go straight to smart with daily updates on your mobile device

    • Weekly economic update

      See what's happening this week and the impact on your business

    • Strategy

      • Business Strategy & Growth
      • Digital Transformation
      • Governance & Board
      • Innovation
      • Marketing & Sales
      • Private Enterprise
    • Economy & Society

      • Economy
      • Environmental, Social, & Governance
      • Health Equity
      • Trust
      • Mobility
    • Organization

      • Operations
      • Finance & Tax
      • Risk & Regulation
      • Supply Chain
      • Smart Manufacturing
    • People

      • Leadership
      • Talent & Work
      • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Technology

      • Data & Analytics
      • Emerging Technologies
      • Technology Management
    • Industries

      • Consumer
      • Energy, Resources, & Industrials
      • Financial Services
      • Government & Public Services
      • Life Sciences & Health Care
      • Technology, Media, & Telecommunications
    • Spotlight

      • Deloitte Insights Magazine
      • Press Room Podcasts
      • Weekly Economic Update
      • COVID-19
      • Resilience
      • Top 10 reading guide
  • Careers

    What's New

    • Millennial Survey 2022

      Gen Zs and millennials are striving for balance and advocating for change.

    • Candidate Profile

      After applying for a job in this country, you can access/update your candidate profile at any time.

    • Job Search

    • Students

    • Experienced Hires

    • Executives

    • Life at Deloitte

    • Alumni

    • Diversity and Inclusion

  • XE-EN Location: XE-English  
  • Contact us
  • XE-EN Location: XE-English  
  • Contact us
    • Dashboard
    • Saved items
    • Content feed
    • Profile/Interests
    • Account settings

Welcome back

Still not a member? Join My Deloitte

Medical home 2.0

by Paul Keckley, Michelle Hoffman, Howard R. Underwood
  • Save for later
  • Download
  • Share
    • Share on Facebook
    • Share on Twitter
    • Share on Linkedin
    • Share by email
Deloitte Insights
  • Strategy
    Strategy
    Strategy
    • Business Strategy & Growth
    • Digital Transformation
    • Governance & Board
    • Innovation
    • Marketing & Sales
    • Private Enterprise
  • Economy & Society
    Economy & Society
    Economy & Society
    • Economy
    • Environmental, Social, & Governance
    • Health Equity
    • Trust
    • Mobility
  • Organization
    Organization
    Organization
    • Operations
    • Finance & Tax
    • Risk & Regulation
    • Supply Chain
    • Smart Manufacturing
  • People
    People
    People
    • Leadership
    • Talent & Work
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
  • Technology
    Technology
    Technology
    • Data & Analytics
    • Emerging Technologies
    • Technology Management
  • Industries
    Industries
    Industries
    • Consumer
    • Energy, Resources, & Industrials
    • Financial Services
    • Government & Public Services
    • Life Sciences & Health Care
    • Tech, Media, & Telecom
  • Spotlight
    Spotlight
    Spotlight
    • Deloitte Insights Magazine
    • Press Room Podcasts
    • Weekly Economic Update
    • COVID-19
    • Resilience
    • Top 10 reading guide
    • XE-EN Location: XE-English  
    • Contact us
      • Dashboard
      • Saved items
      • Content feed
      • Profile/Interests
      • Account settings
    01 January 2012

    Medical home 2.0 The present, the future

    02 January 2012
    • Paul Keckley, Michelle Hoffman, Howard R. Underwood
    • Save for later
    • Download
    • Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on Linkedin
      • Share by email

    The goal of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is to deliver continuous, accessible, high-quality, patient-oriented primary care—coordinated by a primary care physician, supported by information technologies, and delivered by a multi-disciplinary team of allied health professionals. The Deloitte Center for Health Solutions’ second such report outlines the current state of the PCMH under new federal health reform legislation, reviews primary results from several pilots programs and discusses how PCMHs may evolve going forward.

    Introduction

    The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is a way of organizing primary care so that patients receive care that is coordinated by a primary care physician (PCP), supported by information technologies for self-care management, delivered by a multi-disciplinary team of allied health professionals, and adherent to evidence-based practice guidelines. The goal of the PCMH is to deliver continuous, accessible, high-quality, patient-oriented primary care.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced the medical home concept in 1967; more recently (2006), it was used in pilot programs for Medicare enrollees. PCMH’s potential to improve population-based outcomes and reduce long-term health care costs has its underpinning in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (PPACA), under which new pilot programs are funded.

    Our previous report1 examined medical home models, their savings potential, and the implications for policy makers and key industry stakeholders. In this report, we outline the current state of the PCMH under new federal health reform legislation, review primary results from several pilots programs, and discuss how PCMHs may evolve going forward.

    The medical home, pre- and post-reform

    The PCMH is an innovative model of primary care delivery that espouses the coordination of care as a necessary replacement for volume-based incentives that limit PCP effectiveness. It is widely touted by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), AAP, the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) and the American College of Physicians (ACP) as a means of reducing long-term health care costs associated with chronic diseases.2

    In 2007, these four societies released the Joint Principles of the Patient-Centered Medical Home, which are summarized in Figure 1.

    Figure 1: Summary of joint principles of the patient-centered medical home

    Principle Description
    Personal physician Patients are assigned to a personal physician who provides “first contact, continuous and comprehensive care”
    Physician-directed medical practice Personal physician leads all other health care providers in the patient’s care
    “Whole person” orientation Personal physician is responsible for all of the patient’s care, including acute, chronic, preventive and end-of-life care
    Integrated and coordinated care Care is coordinated across all facilities through health care technology
    Quality and safety Practice collaborates with patient and family to define a patient-centered care plan
    Practice uses evidence-based medicine and care pathways
    Practice performs continuous quality improvement by measuring and reporting performance metrics
    Patient feedback is incorporated into performance measurement
    Patients and families participate in practice quality improvement
    Information technology is a foundation of patient care, performance measurement, communication and patient education
    Practices are certified as patient-centered by non-governmental entities
    Physicians share in savings from reduced hospitalizations
    Physicians receive bonus payments for attaining predetermined quality metrics
    Enhanced access to care Patients can take advantage of open scheduling, expanded hours and new communication options with the physician practice
    Payments that recognize primary care added value Payments should reflect both physician and non-physician value and encompass payments for all services, including non-face-to-face visits and care management

    The “patient-centered medical home” is referenced 19 times in PPACA3 in the context of five major initiatives, which are detailed in Figure 2.4

    Figure 2: PCMH references in the PPACA

    PCMH Initiative Description
    Innovation Center The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation will be testing and evaluating models that include medical homes as a way of addressing defined populations with either: (1) poor clinical outcomes or (2) avoidable expenditures.
    Health Plan Performance Medical homes are identified as one performance indicator for health plans. Additionally, the state health insurance exchanges are designing incentives to encourage high-performance plans, including those with medical homes.
    Chronic Medicaid Enrollee Care Starting in 2011, the federal government will match state funds up to 90 percent for two years to those states that provide options for Medicaid enrollees with chronic conditions to receive their care under a medical home model.
    Community Care To encourage the establishment of medical homes in community health systems, PPACA is providing grants to community care teams that organize themselves under the medical home model.
    New Model for Training In conjunction with the Agency for Health Research & Quality (AHRQ), PPACA creates the Primary Care Extension Program, which provides primary care training and implementation of medical home quality improvement and processes.

    Pilot programs and preliminary results

    While trade and peer-reviewed literature references more than 100 planned or established PCMH pilot programs, results reporting (e.g., cost savings, population health improvements) is scarce. The referenced programs (a few of which are listed in Figure 3) vary widely in structural characteristics, scope of patient enrollment, disease mix, operating models, and sponsorship.

    Figure 3: Pilot medical home programs in the U.S.

    Program State Start # Physicians
    TransforMED National Demonstration Project: 36 family practices Multiple 2006 TBD
    Guided Care MD 2006 49
    Greater New Orleans Primary Care Access and Stabilization Grant LA 2007 324
    Louisiana Health Care Quality Forum Medical Home Initiative LA 2007 500
    Colorado Family Medicine Residency PCMH Project CO 2008 320
    Metcare of Florida/Humana Patient-Centered Medical Home FL 2008 17
    National Naval Medical Center Medical Home Program MD 2008 25
    Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan: Patient-Centered Medical Home Program MI 2008 8,147
    Priority Health PCMH Grant Program MI 2008 108
    CIGNA and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot NH 2008 253
    EmblemHealth Medical Home High Value Network Project NY 2008 159
    CDPHP Patient-centered Medical Home Pilot NY 2008 18
    Hudson Valley P4P-Medical Home Project NY 2008 500
    Queen City Physicians/Humana Patient-Centered Medical Home OH 2008 18
    TriHealth Physician Practices/Humana Patient-Centered Medical Home OH 2008 8
    OU School of Community Medicine: Patient-Centered Medical Home Project OH 2008 TBD
    Pennsylvania Chronic Care Initiative PA 2008 780
    Rhode Island Chronic Care Sustainability Initiative RI 2008 28
    Vermont Blueprint Integrated Pilot Program VT 2008 44
    Alabama Health Improvement Initiative–Medical Home Pilot AL 2009 70
    UnitedHealth Group PCMH Demonstration Program AZ 2009 25
    The Colorado Multi-Payer, Multi-State Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot CO 2009 51
    CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield Patient-Centered Medical Home Demonstration Program MD 2009 84
    Maine Patient-Centered Medical Home Pilot ME 2009 221
    I3 PCMH Academic Collaborative NC 2009 753
    NH Multi-Stakeholder Medical Home Pilot NH 2009 63
    NJ Academy of Family Physicians/Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of NJ NJ 2009 165
    Greater Cincinnati Aligning Forces for Quality Medical Home Pilot OH 2009 35
    I3 PCMH Academic Collaborative SC 2009 753
    Washington Patient-Centered Medical Home Collaborative WA 2009 755
    West Virginia Medical Home Pilot WV 2009 50
    CIGNA/Piedmont Physician Group Collaborative Accountable Patient-centered Medical Home GA 2010 93
    WellStar Health System/Humana Patient-Centered Medical Home GA 2010 12
    CIGNA/Eastern Maine Health Systems ME 2010 30
    NJ FQHC Medical Home Pilot NJ 2010 17
    Dfcic PCMH Pilot OR 2010 1
    Texas Medical Home Initiative TX 2010 30
    Medicare-Medicaid Advanced Primary Care Demonstration Initiative Up to 6 states 2011 TBD

    Academic research: Systematic review of results

    Of the few substantive, academically rigorous studies conducted on PCMHs, three of the more robust are summarized below:

    Study #1—Researchers at Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center identified 26 ongoing PCMH pilots,6 encompassing 14,494 physicians in 4,707 practices and five million patients. The team’s analysis spotlighted the highly variable structural, financial, and operational features of these PCMHs (Figure 4). In addition, the team observed that PCMHs employ one of two basic practice models: (1) a collaborative learning chronic care management model or (2) an external consultant-facilitated model.

    Figure 4: Variability of 26 ongoing PCMH pilots7

    Approach Characteristic Frequency*
    Transformation Model ConsultativeChronic care model-based learning collaborativeCombinationNone 35%23%15%27%
    Use of Facilitator InternalExternalNone 27%42%31%
    Focus of Improvement GeneralDisease-specific 46%54%
    Information Technology* EMRRegistryNeither are required nor encouraged 69%81%8%
    Payment Model* Single payorMulti-payors that have Safe HarborsUse FFS Payments-Typical FFS Payments-Enhanced FFS PaymentsUse some form of per-person, per-month payments (PPPM)Incorporate bonus payments (Either existing P4P programs or new programs) 69%44%100%96%4%96%77%

    Study #2—A 2010 study led by researchers at Harvard Medical School analyzed seven medical home programs (Figure 5) to assess the features of those deemed successful.8 Sponsors of these programs included prominent commercial health plans, integrated health systems, and government-sponsored programs: Colorado Medical Homes for Children, Community Care of North Carolina, Geisinger Health System, Group Health Cooperative, Intermountain Health Care, MeritCare Health System and Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, and Vermont’s Blueprint for Health. The selected programs were measured on improvements in the number of hospitalizations and savings per patient.

    Figure 5: Analysis of seven PCMH pilot programs9

    Pilot # of Patients Population Incentives Results (Hospital reduction %) Results (ER visit reduction %) Results (Total savings per patient)
    Colorado MedicalHomes for Children 10,781 Medicaid CHP+ Pay for Performance (P4P) 18% NA $169-530
    Community Care ofNorth Carolina > 1 million Medicaid Par member Per Month (PMPM)payment 40% 16% $516
    Geisinger(ProvenHealthNavigator) TBD Medicare Advantage P4P, PMPM payment; sharedsavings 15% NA NA
    Group HealthCooperative 9,200 All TBD 11% 29% $71
    Intermountain Health Care (Care Management Plus) 4,700 Chronic disease P4P 4.8-19.2% 0-7.3% $640
    MeritCare Health System and Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota 192 Diabetes PMPMpayment; sharedsavings 6% 24% $530
    Vermont BluePrintfor Health 60,000 All PMPMpayment 11% 12% $215

    Despite the sample’s heterogeneity, the research team concluded that four common features were salient to the seven programs’ success:10

    • Dedicated care managers
    • Expanded access to health practitioners
    • Data-driven analytic tools
    • New incentives

    Study #3—The National Demonstration Project (NDP) published its preliminary results in 2010 after examining medical home programs between 2006 and 2008. Designed by TransforMED, a subsidiary of the AAFP, the project was the first systematic test of PMCH effectiveness across 36 family practices in several states.11 The research team concluded that the PCMH model is potentially effective in reducing costs and improving health status but requires significant investment and operating competencies that might be problematic for traditional practitioners.12,13,14 Among the study’s major takeaways:

    • Change is hard. Both facilitated and self-directed practices implemented 70 percent of NDP PCMH model components; however, implementation was challenging and disruptive.
    • Some practices are better at changing than others. The study suggested that facilitation improved practices’ ability to change, termed “adaptive reserve.” Additionally, the practices’ “adaptive reserve” weakly correlated with their ability to put PCMH components in place.
    • Practices that received help had an easier time. Facilitation also increased the adoption of PCMH components.
    • IT implementation is easier than changing care delivery. While both the facilitated and self-directed groups easily implemented EMRs, practices struggled to implement e-visits, group visits, team-based care, wellness promotion, and population management.
      • Practices had to shift from physician-centered to patient-centered care—a difficult transition for physicians used to being responsible for the entire patient encounter.
      • Care pathways required front- and back-office coordination and significant training efforts.
    • Patients may not be quick to appreciate the change. On the whole, patients did not perceive the transformation to be beneficial, likely because of disruption in the practice and lack of communication about the benefits of a medical home—e.g., the accessibility of nurse practitioners as opposed to waiting for a doctor’s appointment.

    The quest for metrics

    The scarcity of academic and trade industry research on PCMHs is problematic. Similarly, the fact that half of the PCMH pilots to date identified metrics for calculating results a priori is troublesome.15 Fortunately, credible organizations are making strides to bridge the gap in the quest for valid and reliable PCMH metrics. For example, the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) issued scoring guidelines that are widely used by pilot programs.16 Its Physician Practice Connections—Patient-Centered Medical Home (PPC-PCMH), shown in Figure 6, provides nine “must pass” standards, scored on a scale of up to 100 points, with three levels of recognition.17

    Other notable measurement efforts include the Primary Care Assessment Survey,18 the Primary Care Assessment Tool,19 the Components of Primary Care Instrument,20 the Patient Enablement Instrument, the Consultation and Relational Empathy measure, the Consultation Quality Index, and the Medical Home Intelligence Quotient.21,22

    Implications

    The medical home model’s clinical and economic potential is promising; however, the precise features of an optimally successful program are somewhat elusive. Our findings:

    • With significant investment, the PCMH yields results. Pilot data suggest that patient outcomes improve and costs are lower with PCMH implementation, but start-up and maintenance costs are high. In particular, fixed costs for information technologies and a multi-disciplinary care team are substantial.
    • Physician adoption is a major challenge. Among the core competencies required of PCPs to effectively participate in medical home models are: (1) willingness to develop, update, and adhere to evidence-based clinical guidelines; (2) flexibility to incorporate feedback from care team members and patients; (3) willingness to use health information technologies (HITs) in diagnostics and treatment planning and routine patient interaction; and (4) willingness to take risk in contracting with payors (health plans/employers). Notably, these principles were espoused as the basis of the “future of medicine” by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and are now incorporated in clinicians’ medical training. However, established practitioners are prone to discount these principles in favor of an overly simplistic preference that they be paid more and not be exposed to risk.
    • HIT is the essential front-end investment. For patients to receive appropriate care and care teams to effectively manage and monitor patient behavior, a robust HIT investment, including electronic medical records, broadband transmission, personal health records, decision support and web-based services to facilitate access, are necessary. HIT represents a major investment; most practices will require assistance with its purchase and implementation.
    • One size does not fit all. The pilots and academic research suggest wide disparity in PCMH approaches and operating features. Also, existing data is not conclusive enough to define the features and incentives that work best for given patient populations. Conceivably, medical home 2.0 has the ability to serve consumer needs across the care continuum—preventive, chronic, acute, and long-term.
    • Access to an adequate supply of primary care service providers is an issue. PCPs account for 35 percent of the U.S. physician workforce, compared to 50 percent in most of the world’s developed health systems.23By 2025, the U.S. will face a 27 percent shortage of adult generalist physicians. Even with increased supply via the expansion of residency programs, demand for primary care services will exceed the supply of providers.24 Expanding the scope of practice for advanced practice nurses, mitigating frivolous liability claims, improving respect for the profession among medical peers, increasing e-visits, distance/telemedicine, group visits, and changes in clinical processes are essential to bolstering the practice of primary care medicine.
    • Incentives must be aligned and realistic.The Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative proposed a clinician payment model (used in a number of pilots), which includes three pragmatic incentive elements:
      • A monthly care coordination payment to support the medical home structure
      • A visit-based, fee-for-service component relying on the current fee-for-service system
      • A performance-based component that recognizes the achievement of quality and efficiency goals25
    Credible organizations are making strides to bridge the gap in the quest for valid and reliable PCMH metrics.

    These elements seem to form a reasonable foundation for payment transformation in primary care. However, one issue could impact the third element: the validity and reliability of metrics used to define “quality” and “efficiency” and the timeframe (in months or years, depending on the patient population) in which they’re captured. As these metrics evolve, the relationships between medical homes and specialty practices will necessarily need refinement; also, metrics will need to be developed that reward appropriate inclusion of specialty medicine in targeted patient populations.

    Figure 6: PPC-PCMH content and scoring correlated to seven “Joint Principles”26

    Core Principles of the Patient-Centered Medical Home Covered in the Tool
    PPC-PCMH Domain Physician- directed Practice Whole-person Orientation Care Coordinated or Integrated Quality and Safety Enhanced Access
    Access and Communication Setting and measuringaccess standards (9 pts)
    Patient Tracking and Registry Functions Clinical data systems, paper or electronic charting tools to organize clinical information (14 pts) Registries for population management and identification of main conditions in practice (7 pts)
    Care Management Use of non-physician staff to manage care (3 pts) Caremanagement (5 pts) Coordinating care and follow-up (5 pts) Implementingevidence-based guidelines for three conditions and generating preventive service reminders for clinicians (7 pts)
    Patient Self-management Support Supportingself-management (4 pts) Assessment of communication barriers (2 pts)
    Electronic Prescribing E-prescribing and cost and safety check functions (8 pts)
    Test Tracking Electronic systems to order, retrieve and track tests (13 pts)
    Referral tracking Automated system (4 pts)
    Performance Reporting and Improvement Performance measurement and reporting, quality improvement and seeking patient feedback (15 pts)
    Advanced Electronic Communications E-communicationwith DM orCM managers(1 pt) E-communication toidentify patients duefor care (2 pts) Interactive website thatfacilitatesaccess (1 pt)
    Total 3 pts 9 pts 20 pts 56 pts 12 pts

    Adapted from Landon BE, Gill JM, Antonelli RC, and Rich EC. “Prospects For Rebuilding Primary Care Using The Patient-Centered Medical Home,”
    Health Affairs, May 2010; 29(5): 827-834.

    Closing thought

    The medical home of the future will likely be a refinement of the assorted pilots and programs currently under way. We remain supportive and optimistic about its potential, as well as realistic that answers to its challenges will not be quickly available.

    Medical home 2.0 is an innovation whose time has come. The confluence of rising health costs, an aging and less healthy population, payment reforms shifting volume to performance, and increased access to clinical information technologies that enhance coordination and connectivity between care teams and consumers suggests that the medical home will likely be a permanent, near-term fixture on the U.S. health care landscape.

    Credits

    Written by: Paul Keckley, Michelle Hoffman, Howard R. Underwood

    Cover image by: Elizabeth Baddeley

    Endnotes
      1. The Medical Home: Disruptive Innovation for a New Primary Care Model, Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. Available at http://www.deloitte.com/us/medicalhome. View in article
      2. Joint Principles of the Patient-Centered Medical Home, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians and American Osteopathic Association, March 2007, http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/medical_home/approve_jp.pdf. Accessed June 2010. View in article
      3. Lowes, Robert. “Lack of Adequate Pay Reduces Effectiveness of Medical Home,” Medscape Medical News, June 7, 2010. View in article
      4. Bernstein J, Chollet D, Peikes D, and Peterson GG. “Medical Homes: Will They Improve Primary Care?” Issue Briefs, Mathematica, June 2010. View in article
      5. Pilots and Demonstrations, The Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative Website, http://www.pcpcc.net/pcpcc-pilot-projects. Accessed June 2010. View in article
      6. Bitton A, Martin C, Landon BE. “A Nationwide Survey of Patient-Centered Medical Home Demonstration Projects,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, June 2010; 25(6): 584-92. View in article
      7. Ibid. View in article
      8. Fields D, Leshen E, Patel K. “Driving Quality Gains and Cost Savings Through Adoption of Medical Homes,” Health Affairs, May 2010; 29(5): 819-27. View in article
      9. Ibid. View in article
      10. Fields D, Leshen E, Patel K. “Driving Quality Gains and Cost Savings Through Adoption of Medical Homes,” Health Affairs, May 2010; 29(5): 819-826 doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0009. View in article
      11. The Annals of Family Medicine, 2010 8: S2-8. View in article
      12. Nutting PA, Crabtree BF, Miller WL, Stewart EE, Stange KC, Jaén CR. “Journey to the Patient-Centered Medical Home: A Qualitative Analysis of the Experiences of Practices in the National Demonstration Project,” The Annals of Family Medicine, 2010; 8 (Suppl 1):s45–s56. View in article
      13. Nutting PA, Crabtree BF, Stewart EE, Miller WL, Palmer RF, Stange KC, Jaen CR. “Effect of Facilitation on Practice Outcomes in the National Demonstration Project Model of the Patient-Centered Medical Home,” The Annals of Family Medicine, 2010 8: S33-44. View in article
      14. Jaen CR, Ferrer RL, Miller WL, Palmer RF, Wood R, Davila M, Stewart EE, Crabtree, BF, Nutting PS Stange KC. “Patient Outcomes at 26 Months in the Patient-Centered Medical Home National Demonstration Project,” The Annals of Family Medicine, 2010 8: S57-67. View in article
      15. Bitton A, Martin C, Landon BE. “A Nationwide Survey of Patient-Centered Medical Home Demonstration Projects,” Journal of General Internal Medicine Med, June 2010; 25(6): 584-92. View in article
      16. Ibid. View in article
      17. www.ncqa.org. View in article
      18.  Safran DG, Kosinski M, Tarlov AR, Rogers WH, Taira DH, Lieberman N, et al. “The Primary Care Assessment Survey: Tests of Data Quality and Measurement Performance,”Medical Care, 1998; 36(5): 728–39. View in article
      19. Shi L, Starfield B, Xu J. “Validating the Adult Primary Care Assessment Tool,” The Journal of Family Practice, 2001; 50(2): 161W–75W. View in article
      20. Flocke SA. “Measuring Attributes of Primary Care: Development of a New Instrument.” The Journal of Family Practice, 1997; 45 (1): 64–74. View in article
      21. Landon BE, Gill JM, Antonelli, RC and Rich EC. “Prospects For Rebuilding Primary Care Using The Patient-Centered Medical Home,” Health Affairs, May 2010; 29(5): 827-834. View in article
      22. Ibid. View in article
      23. Bodenhemier T et al. “Confronting the Growing Burden of Chronic Disease: Can the U.S. Health Care Workforce Do the Job?” Health Affairs, 2009; 28(1): 64-74. View in article
      24. Scheffler R. “Recruiting the Docs We Need,” Modern Healthcare, 2009; 39(4): 24. View in article
      25. Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative. Reimbursement reform: Proposed Hybrid Blended Reimbursement Model [Internet]. Washington (DC): PCPCC; 2007 May [cited 2010 Apr 15]. Available at http://www.pcpcc.net/reimbursement-reform. View in article
      26. Landon BE, Gill JM, Antonelli RC and Rich EC. “Prospects For Rebuilding Primary Care Using the Patient-Centered Medical Home,” Health Affairs, May 2010; 29(5): 827-834 View in article
    Show moreShow less

    Topics in this article

    Health Care , Health Information Technology , Health Care Providers , Health Plans , Digital Health , Life Sciences & Health Care

    Deloitte Consulting

    Learn more
    Download Subscribe

    Related

    img Trending

    Interactive 3 days ago

    Share article highlights

    See something interesting? Simply select text and choose how to share it:

    Email a customized link that shows your highlighted text.
    Copy a customized link that shows your highlighted text.
    Copy your highlighted text.

    Medical home 2.0 has been saved

    Medical home 2.0 has been removed

    An Article Titled Medical home 2.0 already exists in Saved items

     
    Forgot password

    To stay logged in, change your functional cookie settings.

    OR

    Social login not available on Microsoft Edge browser at this time.

    Connect Accounts

    Connect your social accounts

    This is the first time you have logged in with a social network.

    You have previously logged in with a different account. To link your accounts, please re-authenticate.

    Log in with an existing social network:

    To connect with your existing account, please enter your password:

    OR

    Log in with an existing site account:

    To connect with your existing account, please enter your password:

    Forgot password

    Subscribe

    to receive more business insights, analysis, and perspectives from Deloitte Insights
    ✓ Link copied to clipboard
    • Contact us
    • Search Jobs
    • Submit RFP
    Follow Deloitte Insights:
    Global office directory Office locations
    XE-EN Location: XE-English  
    About Deloitte
    • Deloitte events
    • Our blog collections
    • Press releases
    • Press contacts
    • Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability
    • Report an ethics complaint
    Services
    • Audit & Assurance
    • Consulting
    • Financial Advisory
    • Risk Advisory
    • Tax
    • Deloitte Private
    • Legal
    • Sustainability
    Industries
    • Consumer
    • Energy, Resources & Industrials
    • Financial Services
    • Government & Public Services
    • Life Sciences & Health Care
    • MENA Sovereign Wealth Funds
    • Technology, Media & Telecommunications
    Careers
    • Job Search
    • Students
    • Experienced Hires
    • Executives
    • Life at Deloitte
    • Alumni
    • Diversity and Inclusion
    • About Deloitte
    • About Deloitte in the Middle East
    • Privacy
    • Terms of use
    • Cookies
    • Avature Privacy

    © 2023. See Terms of Use for more information.

    Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provide services to clients. Please see About Deloitte to learn more about our global network of member firms.