BACKGROUND:Evidence is evolving about the impact of patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) on important outcomes in primary care. Minnesota has developed its own PCMH certification process, envisioned as an all-payer initiative with an emphasis on patientcenteredness, which may add unique experiences and outcomes to the national discussion. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify the facilitators and barriers encountered by nine diverse primary care practices selected from the first 80 to achieve PCMH certification in Minnesota. DESIGN: This was a qualitative analysis of semistructured, in-person interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one administrative and clinical leaders, including clinic managers, physician champions, medical directors, nursing supervisors, and care coordinators participated in the study. KEY RESULTS: Six factors emerged as most important to the efforts to become PMCHs: leadership support, organizational culture, finances, quality improvement (QI) experience, information technology (IT) resources, and patient involvement. Facilitators included committed leadership at local and higher levels, prior experience and ongoing support for QI initiatives, and adequate financial and IT resources. Reimbursement was a significant barrier due to perceived inadequacy and inconsistent participation by health plans. The unsuitability of electronic medical records (EMRs) to PCMH documentation requirements likewise presented ongoing challenges. Many interviewees described patient input as helpful to their clinics' PCMHrelated changes and were enthusiastic about their "patient partners." The majority of interviewees felt that becoming a PCMH was right for patients and was personally worthwhile, even while acknowledging the tremendous effort involved and voicing skepticism about reimbursement over the short term. CONCLUSIONS: The experience of participants in Minnesota's state-wide initiative to legislate PCMH transformation provides a broad view of facilitators and barriers. Unique facilitators included a requirement for patient involvement, which pushed practices to create patient-centered innovations, and new reimbursement models based on quality indicators for a population.Among barriers were the costs to practices and patients, and EMRs that failed to accommodate PCMH requirements.

PURPOSEThe patient-centered medical home is often discussed as though there exist either traditional practices or medical homes, with marked differences between them. We analyzed data from an evaluation of certifi ed medical homes in Minnesota to study this topic. METHODSWe obtained publicly reported composite measures for quality of care outcomes pertaining to diabetes and vascular disease for all clinics in Minnesota from 2008 to 2010. The extent of and change in practice systems over that same time period for the fi rst 120 clinics serving adults certifi ed as health care homes (HCHs) was measured by the Physician Practice Connections Research Survey (PPC-RS), a self-report tool similar to the National Committee for Quality Assurance standards for patient-centered medical homes. Measures were compared between these clinics and 518 non-HCH clinics in the state.RESULTS Among the 102 clinics for which we had precertifi cation and postcertifi cation scores for both the PPC-RS and either diabetes or vascular disease measures, the mean increase in systems score over 3 years was an absolute 29.1% (SD = 16.7%) from a baseline score of 38.8% (SD = 16.5%, P ≤.001). The proportion of clinics in which all patients had optimal diabetes measures improved by an absolute 2.1% (SD = 5.5%, P ≤.001) and the proportion in which all had optimal cardiovascular disease measures by 4.4% (SD = 7.5%, P ≤.001), but all measures varied widely among clinics. Mean performance rates of HCH clinics were higher than those of non-HCH clinics, but there was extensive overlap, and neither group changed much over this time period. CONCLUSIONSThe extensive variation among HCH clinics, their overlap with non-HCH clinics, and the small change in performance over time suggest that medical homes are not similar, that change in outcomes is slow, and that there is a continuum of transformation.Ann Fam Med 2013;11:S108-S114. doi:10.1370/afm.1478. INTRODUCTIONT here has been controversy about the defi nition, measurement, and recognition of primary care clinics as patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs).1,2 It is not surprising that such a recent development, especially one with widely divergent high expectations from different perspectives, would be so ambiguous and full of unanswered questions about what a PCMH is, how it might be measured, what its effects are, and how a traditional primary care practice best becomes one.1-3 Although the PCMH recognition program of the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) was the fi rst and is still the largest program for identifying PCMHs, several other national programs and local demonstration projects have come up with their own operational defi nitions. 4 Advocates of medical homes often describe them as uniquely and markedly different from traditional practices, in both process and outcomes. 5 As a result, medical homes are often compared with non-medical homes. The research literature, on the other hand, is more cautious about S109MEDIC A L HO ME T R A NSF OR M AT ION this difference. For ex...

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of a price reduction on salad bar purchases in a corporate cafeteria. We reduced the price of salad bar purchases by 50% during March 2012 and analyzed sales data by month for February through June 2012. We also conducted an anonymous survey. Salad bar sales by weight more than tripled during the price reduction and returned to baseline afterward. Survey respondents reported that the high price of salad relative to other choices is a barrier to purchases. Policies that make the price of salads equal to other choices in cafeterias may significantly increase healthful food consumption.

There is limited information about how to transform primary care practices into medical homes. The research team surveyed leaders of the first 132 primary care practices in Minnesota to achieve medical home certification. These surveys measured priority for transformation, the presence of medical home practice systems, and the presence of various organizational factors and change strategies. Survey response rates were 98% for the Change Process Capability Questionnaire survey and 92% for the Physician Practice Connections survey. They showed that 80% to 100% of these certified clinics had 15 of the 18 organizational factors important for improving care processes and that 60% to 90% had successfully used 16 improvement strategies. Higher priority for this change (P = .001) and use of more strategies (P = .05) were predictive of greater change in systems. Clinics contemplating medical home transformation should consider the factors and strategies identified here and should be sure that such a change is indeed a high priority for them.

Health plans and accountable care organizations measure many indicators of patient health, with standard metrics that track factors such as patient experience and cost. They lack, however, a summary measure of the third leg of the Triple Aim, population health. In response, HealthPartners has developed summary measures that align with the recommendations of the For the Public’s Health series of reports from the Institute of Medicine. (The series comprises the following 3 reports: For the Public’s Health: Investing in a Healthier Future, For the Public’s Health: Revitalizing Law and Policy to Meet New Challenges, and For the Public’s Health: The Role of Measurement in Action and Accountability.) The summary measures comprise 3 components: current health, sustainability of health, and well-being. The measure of current health is disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) calculated from health care claims and death records. The sustainability of health measure comprises member reporting of 6 behaviors associated with health plus a clinical preventive services index that indicates adherence to evidence-based preventive care guidelines. Life satisfaction represents the summary measure of subjective well-being.HealthPartners will use the summary measures to identify and address conditions and factors that have the greatest impact on the health and well-being of its patients, members, and community. The method could easily be implemented by other institutions and organizations in the United States, helping to address a persistent need in population health measurement for improvement.