Author:
Rubio Karl,Fraze Taressa K.,Bibi Salma,Rodriguez Hector P.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
It remains unclear whether the racial-ethnic composition or the socioeconomic profiles of eligible primary care practices better explain practice participation in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) program.
Objective
To examine whether practices serving high proportions of Black or Latino Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries were less likely to participate in CPC+ in 2021 compared to practices serving lower proportions of these populations.
Design
2019 IQVIA OneKey data on practice characteristics was linked with 2018 CMS claims data and 2021 CMS CPC+ participation data. Medicare FFS beneficiaries were attributed to practices using CMS’s primary care attribution method.
Participants
11,718 primary care practices and 7,264,812 attributed Medicare FFS beneficiaries across 18 eligible regions.
Methods
Multivariable logistic regression models examined whether eligible practices with relatively high shares of Black or Latino Medicare FFS beneficiaries were less likely to participate in CPC+ in 2021, controlling for the clinical and socioeconomic profiles of practices.
Main Measures
Proportion of Medicare FFS beneficiaries attributed to each practice that are (1) Latino and (2) Black.
Key Results
Of the eligible practices, 26.9% were CPC+ participants. In adjusted analyses, practices with relatively high shares of Black (adjusted odds ratio, aOR = 0.62, p < 0.05) and Latino (aOR = 0.32, p < 0.01) beneficiaries were less likely to participate in CPC+ compared to practices with lower shares of these beneficiary groups. State differences in CPC+ participation rates partially explained participation disparities for practices with relatively high shares of Black beneficiaries, but did not explain participation disparities for practices with relatively high shares of Latino beneficiaries.
Conclusions
The racial-ethnic composition of eligible primary care practices is more strongly associated with CPC+ participation than census tract–level poverty. Practice eligibility requirements for CMS-sponsored initiatives should be reconsidered so that Black and Latino beneficiaries are not left out of the benefits of practice transformation.
Funder
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference23 articles.
1. Peikes D. Independent evaluation of Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+): first annual report. Mathematica Policy Research; 2019. https://www.mathematica.org/our-publications-and-findings/publications/independent-evaluation-of-comprehensive-primary-care-plus-cpc-first-annual-report.Accessed 21 Jan 2020.
2. Peikes D, Dale S, Ghosh A, et al. The Comprehensive Primary Care initiative: effects on spending, quality, patients, and physicians. Health Affairs. 2018;37(6):890-899. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1678.
3. Peikes, Deborah, N. Independent evaluation of Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+): third annual report. Mathmatica Policy Research; 2021. https://innovation.cms.gov/data-and-reports/2021/cpc-plus-third-anual-eval-report.Accessed 23 July 2022.
4. Fraze TK, Fisher ES, Tomaino MR, Peck KA, Meara E. Comparison of populations served in hospital service areas with and without Comprehensive Primary Care Plus medical homes. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(5):e182169. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.2169.
5. Singh P, Orzol S, Peikes D, Oh EG, Dale S. Participation in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus initiative. Ann Fam Med. 2020;18(4):309-317. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2544.