Defining and Measuring the Patient-Centered Medical Home
- First Online:
- 15k Downloads
The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is four things: 1) the fundamental tenets of primary care: first contact access, comprehensiveness, integration/coordination, and relationships involving sustained partnership; 2) new ways of organizing practice; 3) development of practices’ internal capabilities, and 4) related health care system and reimbursement changes. All of these are focused on improving the health of whole people, families, communities and populations, and on increasing the value of healthcare.
The value of the fundamental tenets of primary care is well established. This value includes higher health care quality, better whole-person and population health, lower cost and reduced inequalities compared to healthcare systems not based on primary care.
Measuring the PCMH involves the following:
Giving primacy to the core tenets of primary care
Assessing practice and system changes that are hypothesized to provide added value
Assessing development of practices’ core processes and adaptive reserve
Assessing integration with more functional healthcare system and community resources
Evaluating the potential for unintended negative consequences from valuing the more easily measured instrumental features of the PCMH over the fundamental relationship and whole system aspects
Recognizing that since a fundamental benefit of primary care is its adaptability to diverse people, populations and systems, functional PCMHs will look different in different settings.
KEY WORDSprimary care patient-centered medical home measurement quality improvement
The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is emerging as a centerpiece of efforts to reform healthcare in the US and to establish a primary care basis for improving the value of healthcare.1, 2, 3, 4 In contrast to currently beleaguered US primary care,5, 6, 7, 8, 9 what a PCMH looks like is not known outside of ongoing demonstration projects and a small number of practices that have sought to be recognized according to new standards set by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA).10, 11, 12, 13, 14 In contrast, the benefits of primary care for people and societies are well-established.15, 16, 17, 18, 19 Furthermore, the process and intended and unintended consequences20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 of transforming current practices into patient-centered medical homes are only beginning to be understood.26
Define the PCMH
Compare this definition with the joint statement of PCMH principles by 4 physician organizations
Propose principles for measuring the PCMH
Overview current options for measuring the PCMH, including standards set by the NCQA for PCMH recognition and existing measures of primary care
Propose relevant policy and research agendas
DEFINING THE PATIENT-CENTERED MEDICAL HOME
We define the PCMH as a team of people embedded in the community who seek to improve the health and healing of the people in that community. They work to optimize the fundamental attributes of primary care combined with evolving new ideas about organizing and developing practice and changing the larger health care and reimbursement systems. Unlike more narrowly focused ways of organizing the delivery of commodities of healthcare, the PCMH aims to personalize, prioritize and integrate care to improve the health of whole people, families, communities and populations.
The fundamental tenets of primary care: access, comprehensiveness, integration and relationship
New ways of organizing practice
Development of practices’ internal capabilities
Health care system and reimbursement changes
The PCMH concept links new approaches to health care organization1,27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 with the well-established primary care function for improving the health of people and populations.35 Below we overview each of these four aspects of the PCMH.
The Fundamental Attributes of Primary Care
Attributes of Primary Care
• Accessibility as the first contact with the health care system
• Accountability for addressing a large majority of personal health care needs (comprehensiveness)
• Coordination of care across settings, and integration of care of acute and (often co-morbid) chronic illnesses, mental health and prevention, guiding access to more narrowly focused care when needed
• Sustained partnership and personal relationships over time with patients known in the context of family and community
First contact access in the PCMH increasingly involves distance and asynchronous communication and self-care, in addition to face-to-face contact with practice members and partners.39, 40, 41 Comprehensiveness includes provision of services that account for the majority of patient needs, including mental health42, 43, 44 and care of often multimorbid45, 46, 47 chronic illnesses.48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 Coordination involves guiding access to more narrowly focused care when needed;38 integration of care involves optimizing and prioritizing delivery of needed services across acute and chronic illness, prevention, mental health and family care.54 The PCMH emphasizes functional linkages with community organizations and with other healthcare entities such as hospitals, specialists, other service providers, urgent care, etc.39,55, 56, 57 Sustained partnership involves developing relationships58 that are patient-centered59, 60, 61, 62 and grounded in local knowledge of the family and community.15
Health care systems with a primary care focus have better quality,63 lower cost,63, 64, 65 less inequality in health care and health,16,18,66, 67, 68, 69 and better population health16,65,70 when compared with systems based on other approaches to health care.
One of the critical and under-appreciated attributes of primary care is its flexibility in adapting to different sociopolitical climates, populations, communities, individual patients and available clinicians and practice workers.71 Indeed, in international comparisons, Meads has identified a typology of 6 different manifestations of primary care,72 all of which are manifested to some degree in different parts of the pluralistic US healthcare market.
Newer Aspects of the PCMH
New Ways of Organizing Practice
The PCMH moves beyond primary care as it is practiced now, to include new approaches to organizing practice to enhance its responsiveness to local patient needs. In various manifestations currently being tried,14,31,40,73, 74, 75 these include diverse instrumental elements such as same-day appointment, electronic visits, group visits, disease registries and management, greater patient engagement, care coordination, new collaborative relationships, team-based care, quality and safety initiatives, electronic prescribing and medical records. Many of these changes grow out of the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine for reforming health care,32,76 from learning collaboratives sponsored by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement77,78 and others.51,79,80
Development of Practices’ Internal Capability
Recent evidence shows that the large majority of primary care practices are not ready to become PCMHs.11,12,81, 82, 83 Experience from the first PCMH National Demonstration Project26 shows that even for highly motivated practices, the transformation to a PCMH represents a developmental process that necessitates practice work on internal capabilities.84 These capabilities consist of core structures and processes, adaptive reserve, and attentive connections to the local environment the relationship infrastructure, an aligned management model, and leadership development.85 In most practices the intense effort to incorporate multiple improvements and changes in core processes and relationships reveals deficits in the practice’s adaptive reserve that must be addressed as the transformation process proceeds. Thus, the transformation of primary care into PCMHs is best understood as a developmental process, with stops, starts, backslides, leaps and challenges.85 If the PCMH is to be sustainable and to evolve in an environment of continual change, primary care practices must enhance their robustness and resilience and foster connections in order to be locally responsive.85
Health Care System and Reimbursement Changes
Primary care does not operate in isolation, and one of its core functions is the effective and efficient integration of care both vertically (within disease categories) and horizontally (across the diverse needs of peoples, communities and populations).86,87 In light of the co-evolving nature of the PCMH and the healthcare system within which it functions, the need for reform of the medical “neighborhood” increasingly is recognized,55 in particular to help primary care to be more effective at integrating and prioritizing care.54,88
Primary care in the US in under-resourced compared to specialty care.70,89,90 Blended payment91,92 and other reimbursement reforms29,93, 94, 95, 96 have been proposed to redistribute resources toward the primary care function that provides the greatest value. Various minor reforms ranging from paying care management fees to reimbursing for specific components of the PCMH are included and are being evaluated in a number of the ongoing PCMH demonstrations and pilot projects.14,74 Involving patients in practice and healthcare system governance represents a particularly promising innovation.39,97,98
Joint Principles of the PCMH
Joint Principles of the PCMH
• Personal Physician: Each patient has an ongoing relationship with a personal physician trained to provide first contact, continuous and comprehensive care
• Physician Directed Medical Practice: The personal physician leads a team of individuals at the practice level who collectively take responsibility for the ongoing care of patients
• Whole Person Orientation: The personal physician is responsible for providing for the entire patient’s healthcare needs and taking responsibility for appropriately arranging care with other qualified professionals
• Care is Coordinated and/or Integrated: across all elements of the complex healthcare system (e.g. subspecialty care, hospitals, home health agencies, nursing homes) and the patient’s community (e.g. family, public and private community based services). Care is facilitated by registries, information technology, health information exchange and other means
• Quality and Safety: are hallmarks of medical home by incorporating a care planning process, evidence based medicine, accountability, performance measurement, mutual participation and decision making
• Enhanced Access: to care is available through systems such as open scheduling, expanded hours and new options for communication between patients, their personal physician, and practice staff
• Payment: appropriately recognizes the added value provided to patients who have a patient-centered medical home beyond the traditional fee-for-service encounter
Similar to our definition of the PCMH, the joint principles specifically include some of the fundamental tenets of primary care (access, coordination/integration), plus new ways of organizing practice (enhanced access, physician-directed team-oriented practice, focus on quality and safety), plus health care and reimbursement system changes (payment that recognizes added value). Other aspects of primary care are subsumed under other titles (such as relationship and comprehensiveness under personal physician and whole person orientation, which is similar to comprehensiveness).
The joint principles build on other operationalizations of the primary care and medical home concepts.1, 2, 3, 4,13,27,28,30,35,40,57,60,61,100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 They assume the well-established primary care function61 in the same way that the principles of primary care assume appropriate and adequate disease-specific quality of care and supportive systems and reimbursement.112
The principles are evolving in their on-the-ground operationalization in diverse contexts in hundreds of PCMH demonstrations ongoing around the US,14,113 as new collaborators are brought to the partnership114 and as ongoing evaluations bring forth new evidence of intended and unintended consequences.4,12,26,39,71,73,75,83, 84, 85,97,105,115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
MEASURING THE PCMH
The rationale and goals for measuring the PCMH are diverse, and include evaluation of baseline status or changes, guiding development and improvement through a change process, certifing of practices as PCMHs, guiding reimbursement or investment, and generating new knowledge.
The goal, as well as the setting and available resources, guide many of the decisions for measuring PCMH. For example, in evaluating the first National Demonstration Project of the PCMH,75,118,130 our goals were to provide a rigorous evaluation that generated transportable new knowledge about the process of practice change73,84,85,116 and the outcome for practices73,116 and patients.119 We also sought to provide ongoing feedback to implementers to guide their change process and to inform policy and practice.26,75,85,117,121 The diverse practice and system settings across the US provided challenges; measurement resources were limited but more substantial than available for individual practices or for most systems.
In this setting, we chose a multimethod approach118,131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138 to foster understanding of meaning and context while also testing a priori and emerging hypotheses—that is, we measured and analyzed both numbers and narratives. We attempted to measure the instrumental aspects of the PCMH as envisioned by the implementation group,40 and processes and outcomes from the perspectives of change facilitators, practice members, patients, and medical and financial records.
In other settings, goals and measurement are narrower. Many practices attempting to be recognized as PCMHs are only measuring NCQA criteria. Others attempting an iterative practice improvement process emphasize change processes and outcomes for the practice and patient.115 Systems deciding on investment in PCMH conversions tend to emphasize cost and utilization outcomes, but also sometimes measure quality and the experience of staff and patients.39,56,97
Emphasize the well-established tenets of primary care15,36, 37, 38 that have been shown to result in better quality63 and health,16,65,70 and lower cost,63, 64, 65 and inequality16,66,139, 140, 141, 142
Measure the changes in practice operations and the co-evolving healthcare and payment systems that are hypothesized to provide added value to the PCMH143
Measure the quality and function of relationships with patients, and healthcare system and community partners
Assess practices’ internal capabilities85 that are necessary for development as a PCMH
Avoid unintended negative consequences from emphasizing more easily measured instrumental aspects of the PCMH20, 21, 22,24,61,144,145 over the complexly interacting relationship aspects19,87,146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158 that are likely to provide much of its value 88,147,149,158
Consider which perspective and level (e.g. patient, family, practice, system, community, population) is most relevant for assessing each domain and the whole
Since the context for operationalizing the PCMH is still evolving based on what is being learned in many ongoing demonstrations,14 and since the healthcare system context is co-evolving, it is premature to recommend a single measurement standard (Good options from which to choose are outlined below and discussed in the online Appendix.)
Recognize that many of the costs of transformation to the PCMH occur at the level of the practice and the system. But like the benefits of primary care, the value of the PCMH is likely to accrue at the level of the patient’s lived experience outside of health care, and at the levels of the healthcare system, community, workforce and population.15,36 This is discussed in more detail in the paper by Rittenhouse et al159 in this issue
Current NCQA Criteria
The National Committee for Quality Assurance’s Physician Practice Connections®—Patient-Centered Medical Home™ tool160 is a practice self-report measure and has become the de facto standard used by many demonstrations to judge “medical homeness.” It is being used in most ongoing demonstrations.14 The NCQA PPC®-PCMH™is based on considerable prior work110,161, 162, 163, 164, 165 and attempts to emphasize measurement reliability and practicality.160 It assesses nine standards: access and communication, patient tracking and registries, care management, patient self-management support, electronic prescribing, test tracking, referral tracking, performance reporting and improvement, and advanced electronic communications.160 The three-level scoring implicitly acknowledges that, for most practices, meeting these reporting standards will be a staged process.
The PPC®-PCMH™ contains 166 items, of which 46% assess practice report of functions that require use of some type of electronic information technology, 14% assess care for three specific chronic diseases the practice identifies as important to their patient panel, 13% reflect systems for coordinating care, 9% assess accessibility, 5% relate to performance reporting, and 4% are about tools for organizing clinical data. Use of non-physician staff and collection of data on patient’s experience of care are each reflected in 2% of items, and 1% of items represent each domain of preventive service delivery, continuity of care and patient communication preferences.166
Criticisms of the NCQA’s measure4,26,124,166,167 relate to the balance of items compared to the valued domains of primary care, the degree to which the items are measured by the most appropriate perspective, the degree to which the items distinguish between high and low quality primary care, the lack of a patient perspective, and the opportunity costs and potential unintended consequences of the PCMH measurement and recognition process.
On June 15, 2009 the NCQA articulated a “Planned Evolution of PPC-PCMH Requirements.”168 This document states an interest in “understanding better how to assess patient-centeredness and experience as well as quality and cost outcomes,” and expresses an interest in assessing patient’s experience of the PCMH. It identifies a need for “standards designed to realize quality and cost gains achieved through better coordination and integration across settings.” The document also notes the need to capture “relationships to various types of community organizations,” and to “recognize the role of providers other than physicians.”
Other Measures of Primary Care Functions and PCMH Components
There are a number of measures that assess important aspects of primary care that can be a source of items for comprehensive measurement of the PCMH.15,36,84,116,118,119 Many of these domains are assessed from the patient point of view by the Primary Care Assessment Survey (PCAS)169 and the Ambulatory Care Experiences Survey (ACES)170 by Safran, the Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT)171,172 by Starfield, the Components of Primary Care Instrument (CPCI)173, 174, 175 by Flocke, and the Clinician-Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS)176 by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The PCAT and the CAHPS include versions for adults and children. The Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC)177 assesses system support relevant to the Chronic Care Model.51,178,179 The Medical Home Index (MHI) was developed specifically to assess six domains of the pediatric PCMH (organizational capacity, chronic condition management, care coordination, community outreach, data management and quality improvement).180 John Howie has created an important patient-level outcome measure of the effectiveness of care. The Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI) assesses the degree to which patients are better able to cope with life, understand and cope with their illness, and keep themselves healthy as a result of their healthcare.181, 182, 183 In addition to further work in developing a Consultation And Relational Empathy (CARE) measure,184 Howie’s group has taken the interesting step of adding both relationship aspects and time to the PEI to create the Consultation Quality Index (CQI), based on empirical evidence that time is an essential for enablement, relationship development and patient-centered care.185, 186, 187
These different measures and others provide a wealth of possibilities for bringing the patient perspective and the core feature of primary care into PCMH assessment and recognition. The patient perspective assesses different domains that quality measures often overlook.188 While the self-report aspect of the NCQA measure has inherent biases, reliably gathering the patient perspective requires attention to selection factors and sample size as well as measurement reliability and validity. More than a research standard, practical considerations and an ability to understand local adaption are vital if measures are to be widely applied to judge the PCMH qualifications of practices.
Measures of Each Domain
Measures of the PCMH and Primary Care
Current NCQA Measure Component (NCQA PPC®-PCMH)™ 160
Missing Elements in Current Conceptualizations or Measures
Example Sources for Additional Measures
Primary Care Functionsb
Sustained partnership & relationship
1. Access & Communication (Written standard for scheduling appointments with a personal clinician)
Physician-directed team practice
3. Care Management
Team function Adaptive reserve & capacity for change (PCC202)
Integration of the team204
Accountability for addressing a large majority of personal health care needs
Personalization of care based on knowing the person’s medical and personal history & values
>85% of problems managed in practice
Coordination / integration of care
Coordination / integration of care
3. Care Management
7. Referral Tracking
Quality & Safety
2. Patient Tracking & Registry
Person-level quality of care:
Disease-specific quality & safety:
3. Care Management
ACQA Starter Set219
4. Self-Management Support
Protection from overtreatment215
5. Electronic Prescribing
6. Test Tracking
Personalization of care
7. Referral Tracking
8. Performance Reporting & Improvement
9. Advanced Electronic Communications
Patient engagement in PCMH improvement
Accessibility as 1st contact with the healthcare system
1. Access & Communication
Defined population that represents community
9. Advanced Electronic Communications
Payment for added value
(In some pilot, practices are paid more for being recognized at higher levels)
Recognition of the value of a primary care PCMH at other levels of the system
Recognition of transition costs to PCMH93
Family & community (& system) context
8. Performance Reporting & Improvement
Seamless transitions between places and levels of care
Comparative details about these measures are discussed in the online Appendix for readers who may be choosing measures for particular circumstances. In addition, a forthcoming supplemental issue of Healthcare Policy compares the psychometrics and performance of measures of primary care constructs,190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198 and provides an excellent starting point for those seeking to measure critical aspects of primary care and the PCMH.
POLICY AND RESEARCH AGENDA RECOMMENDATIONS
The PCMH enhances the well-established benefits of the primary care function. This function cannot be realized outside of the context of continuous healing relationships between patients and clinicians. The PCMH also must be understood within the context of enabling relationships between primary care practice, other healthcare system components, payment systems and communities.
Longstanding underinvestment in the primary care infrastructure and relationships that are the foundation for the PCMH mean that substantial development is needed to enable the PCMH to serve as a fundamental underpinning for a high value health care system.
Investment is needed to enable functional relationships within the PCMH, between patients and their PCMH, and between the PCMH and its healthcare system and community partners.
Primary care and the PCMH must be valued for their long-term ability to increase the quality, integration, personalization, and equity of healthcare and their beneficial effect on the functional health of people and populations. Valuing primary care and the PCMH only for the possibility of short-term cost-saving benefits risks setting up the PCMH experiment and the healthcare system for failure.
Evaluation efforts should recognize that a long—perhaps 5–10 year—time horizon is needed to see the full health and economic effects of the PCMH.
The value of primary care accrues at the level of the patient and the population, whereas the costs are at the level of the practice and the enabling systems. Reimbursement and evaluation should recognize the importance of assessing these multi-level effects, and of engaging multiple perspectives.
New measures are needed that reflect the higher order primary care functions such as the integration, prioritization and personalization of care, and measures that assess the affect of the PCMH and primary care across multiple levels of health care, health and society.54
- As an intermediate step, consideration should be given to reducing reporting burden in over-represented areas of the NCQA PPC®-PCMH™ 160 measure, and adding the following domains:
Ongoing patient- and relationship-centered care (as assessed by the patient)
Patient enablement (ability to do valued functions as a result of the care)
Comprehensiveness of care
Integration of care across multiple co-morbid chronic illnesses, acute complaints, mental health, prevention and family care
Protection from over-treatment
Personalization of care
Patient engagement in practice improvement
Development of a system, community, family & population orientation to care organization
Degree to which information technology and systems enable the primary care functions and personalized, prioritized, integrated care
Practices’ adaptive reserve & capacity for change
An emerging PCMH research agenda includes answering the following small sample of large questions:
- What is the comparative effectiveness of different approaches to measuring and incentivizing transformation to PCMHs, including:
Enhanced reimbursement for primary care
Enhanced reimbursement for primary care and PCMH-enhancing infrastructure
What are the trade-offs in over-optimizing individual components of healthcare?
What is the added value of the PCMH beyond usual primary care in different settings and among different populations?
At what level do the costs and benefits of primary care and the PCMH accrue?
What is the time frame for PCMH implementation from different starting points? What resources are needed?
What processes and outcomes get worse before getting better during the transformation process?
How can the components of health care be integrated to optimize the health of individuals and populations, and the value of health care?
What does “productivity” mean when production is defined as optimizing health rather than producing healthcare?
What are the intended and unintended consequences of measuring and incentivizing different components of healthcare?
How can care be optimized across the domains of acute illness, multiple co-morbid chronic illnesses that are the norm among the elderly and primary care patients, prevention, mental health and family care?
What kinds of evidence are needed beyond disease-specific knowledge to optimize the care of whole people and the value of health care for populations and societies?
What is the optimal problem density, time allotment and support for different types of primary care encounters?
How might different reimbursement models combine with different practice and personal transformations to optimize care?
The PCMH, like primary care, is worthy of support, evaluation and evolution as a fundamental building block for a high-value health care system. In these efforts, it will be important to recognize the complex interactions of the PCMH at multiple levels, so that a narrow and short-term focus does not scuttle the potentially transformative nature of the PCMH before it has had a chance to make good upon its promise.
This work was presented on July 27–28, 2009 at the Washington, DC Conference: Patient-Centered Medical Home: Setting a Policy Agenda. The authors are grateful to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Commonwealth Fund, and the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation for sponsoring the PCMH Evaluator’s Collaborative. We also are grateful to the Commonwealth Fund and the American Academy of Family Physicians for sponsoring our independent evaluation of the National Demonstration Project. Dr. Stange’s time is supported in part by a Clinical Research Professorship from the American Cancer Society. Critiques by the editor and reviewers were very helpful in refining the message and presentation.
Conflicts of Interest
Drs. Crabtree, Jaén, Miller, Nutting and Stange are members of an independent evaluation team for the patient-centered medical home National Demonstration Project conducted by the TransforMed subsidiary of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Dr. Gill performs research consulting for GE Health Care. The authors were offered an honorarium for preparing this manuscript, but in recognition that the importance of environmental and social determinants of health199 in addition to the healthcare determinants highlighted in this paper, we asked the sponsors to donate the honorarium to: the Nature Conservancy (environment), the Rotary Foundation of Rotary International (education, poverty alleviation), and the Clinton Foundation (health security, economic empowerment, leadership development and citizen service, racial, ethnic and religious reconciliation).
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
- 1.Patient-Centered Medical Home Collaborative. The Patient-Centered Medical Home CollaborativeGoogle Scholar
- 10.National Committee for Quality Assurance. Physician Practice Connections®-Patient-Centered Medical HomeTM. http://www.ncqa.org/tabid/631/Default.aspx, accessed 2010.
- 14.Patient Centered Primary Care Collaborative. 2009 PCPP Pilot Guide: Proof in Practice. A compilation of patient centered medical home pilot and demonstration projects. Washington, D.C.: National Committee for Quality Assurance; 2009:90.Google Scholar
- 15.Donaldson MS, Yordy KD, Lohr KN, Vanselow NA, eds. Primary care America's health in a new era. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press; 1996.Google Scholar
- 26.Nutting PA, Miller WL, Crabtree BF, Jaén CR, Stewart EE, Stange KC. Initial lessons from the first national demonstration project on practice transformation to a patient-centered medical home. Ann Fam Med. 2009;254–60.Google Scholar
- 27.The medical home. Pediatrics. 2003;110(1 Pt 1):184-186.Google Scholar
- 30.American College of Physicians (ACP). The Advanced Medical Home: A Patient-Centered, Physician-Guided Model of Health Care; 2006.Google Scholar
- 31.Task Force 1 Writing Group, Green A, Graham R, et al. Task Force 1. Report of the task force on patient expectations, core values, reintegration, and the new model of family medicine. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(Suppl 1):S33–50.Google Scholar
- 32.Institute of Medicine: Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2001.Google Scholar
- 35.Robert Graham Center. The Patient Centered Medical Home: History, seven core features, evidence and transformational change. Washington, DC; 2007.Google Scholar
- 36.Starfield B. Primary care: balancing health needs, services, and technology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
- 37.McWhinney IR, Freeman T. Textbook of family medicine. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
- 40.TransforMED. The TransforMED Patient-Centered Model.Google Scholar
- 60.Berwick DM. What 'Patient-Centered' Should Mean: Confessions Of An Extremist. Health Aff (Millwood). May 19 2009.Google Scholar
- 63.Baicker K, Chandra A. Medicare spending, the physician workforce, and beneficiaries' quality of care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004;Suppl Web Exclusives:W184–97.Google Scholar
- 66.Starfield B. Primary care and equity in health: The importantce to effectiveness and equity of responsiveness to people's needs. Humanity and Society. 2009;(in press).Google Scholar
- 69.Beal AC, Doty MM, Hernandez SE, Shea KK, Davis K. Closing the Divide: How Medical Homes Promote Equity in Health Care: Results From The Commonwealth Fund 2006 Health Care Quality Survey. 2007;62.Google Scholar
- 70.Starfield B, Shi L, Grover A, Macinko J. The effects of specialist supply on populations' health: assessing the evidence. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;Suppl Web Exclusives:W5-97-W95-107.Google Scholar
- 72.Meads G. Primary care in the twenty-first century. Seattle: Radcliffe; 2006.Google Scholar
- 73.Stewart EE, Nutting PA, Crabtree BF, Stange KC, Miller WL, Jaén CR. Implementing the Patient-Centered Medical Home: observation and description of the National Demonstration Project. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8.Google Scholar
- 75.Stange KC, Miller WL, Nutting PA, Crabtree BF, Stewart EE, Jaén CR. Context for understanding the first National Demonstration Project and the Patient-Centered Medical Home. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8.Google Scholar
- 76.Institute of Medicine. Unequal treatment: Confronting racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2003.Google Scholar
- 78.Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Institute for Healthcare Improvement: Accelerating improvement worldwide. http://www.ihi.org/ihi. Accessed February 2, 1010.
- 80.TransforMED. TransforMED - Transforming Medical Practices. http://www.transformed.com/. Accessed February 2, 2010.
- 84.Nutting PA, Crabtree BF, Miller WL, Stewart EE, Stange KC, Jaén CR. The journey to the Patient-Centered Medical Home: a qualitative analysis of the experiences of practices in the National Demonstration Project. Ann Fam Med 2010;8 (supplement):(forthcoming).Google Scholar
- 85.Miller WL, Crabtree BF, Nutting PA, Stange KC, Jaén CR. Primary care practice development: A relationship-centered approach. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8 (supplement)(2):(forthcoming).Google Scholar
- 87.Thomas P, Meads G, Moustafa A, Nazareth I, Stange KC. Combined vertical and horizontal integration of health care - a goal of practice based commissioning. Quality Primary Care. 2008;16(6):425–32.Google Scholar
- 96.Berenson RA, Rich EC. How to buy a medical home: or Let a thousand options bloom? How about five? Patient-Centered Medical Home: Setting a Policy Agenda; 2009.Google Scholar
- 98.Foundation S. Southcentral Foundation. http://www.southcentralfoundation.com/ Accessed February 2, 2010.
- 99.American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American College of Physicians (ACP), American Osteopathic Association (AOA). Joint principles of the patient-centered medical home. www.medicalhomeinfo.org/Joint%20Statement.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2010.
- 100.Barr M, Ginsburg J. The advanced medical home: a patient-centered, physician-guided model of health care. January 22, 2006; 1-21. Available at: www.acponline.org/hpp/statehc06_5.pdf. Accessed Accessed February 2, 2010.
- 106.Medical home concept still fuzzy. Dis Manag Advis. 2008;14(2):5.Google Scholar
- 107.Kirschner N, Barr MS. Specialists/Subspecialists and the Patient-Centered Medical Home. Chest. 2009;8.Google Scholar
- 110.Pawlson LG, Bagley B, Barr M, Sevilla X, Torda P, Scholle S. Patient-Centered Medical Home: From Vision to Reality; 2007.Google Scholar
- 111.Practitioners AAoN. Nurse practitioners: Promoting access to coordinated primary care.Google Scholar
- 113.Sugarman J. Medical home digest. New York: Commonwealth Fund; 2009.Google Scholar
- 114.Patient-centered primary care collaborative. The patient-centered primary care collaborative.Google Scholar
- 116.Nutting PA, Crabtree BF, Stewart EE, et al. Implementing the National Demonstration Project model of the Patient-Centered Medical Home. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8 (supplement): (forthcoming).Google Scholar
- 117.Crabtree BF, Nutting PA, Miller WL, Stange KC, Stewart EE, Jaén CR. After the National Demonstration Project: implications and recommendations. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8 (supplement):(forthcoming).Google Scholar
- 118.Jaén CR, Crabtree BF, Palmer R, et al. Methods for evaluating practice change towards a Patient-Centered Medical Home. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8 (supplement):(forthcoming).Google Scholar
- 119.Jaén CR, Ferrer RL, Miller WL, et al. Patient outcomes at 26 months in the patient-centered medical home national demonstration project. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8 (supplement):(forthcoming).Google Scholar
- 121.Crabtree BF, Miller WL, McDaniel RR, Stange KC, Nutting PA, Jaén CR. A survivor’s guide for primary care physicians. J Fam Pract. 2009 Aug. 58(8):E1–E2.Google Scholar
- 125.Rittenhouse DR, Shortell SM, Fisher ES. Primary Care and Accountable Care -- Two Essential Elements of Delivery-System Reform. N Engl J Med. 2009.Google Scholar
- 130.TransforMED. National Demonstration Project www.transformed.com/ndp.cfm. Accessed February 2, 2010.
- 134.Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, eds. Handbook of mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2003.Google Scholar
- 135.Creswell JW. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2003.Google Scholar
- 143.Nutting PA, Crabtree BF, Miller WL, Stange KC, Jaén CR, Stewart EE. Primary care redesign: further lessons from the national demonstration project. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010:(in press)Google Scholar
- 146.Thomas P. Integrating primary health care: leading, managing, facilitating. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing; 2006.Google Scholar
- 148.Sturmberg JP. The foundations of primary care. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing; 2007.Google Scholar
- 151.McDaniel R, Driebe DJ. Complexity science and health care management. In: Blair JD, Myron DG, Savage GT, eds. Advances in health care management, vol. 2. Stamford: JAI Press; 2000:11–36.Google Scholar
- 156.Sweeney K. Complexity in primary care. Oxon: Radcliffe Publishing Ltd; 2006.Google Scholar
- 157.Kernick D. Complexity and Healthcare Organization: a view from the street. San Francisco: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2004.Google Scholar
- 159.Rittenhouse DR, Thom DH, Schmittdiel JA. Developing a policy-relevant research agenda for the PCMH: A focus on outcomes. Patient-Centered Medical Home: Setting a Policy Agenda. Washington, DC; 2009.Google Scholar
- 160.NCQA. Physician Practice Connections® - Patient-Centered Medical HomeTM; 2008.Google Scholar
- 165.Flopttemesch TJ, Scholle SH, O'Connor PJ, Solberg LI, Asche SE, Pawlson G. Association between practice systems and healthcare utilization for diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2009;(in press).Google Scholar
- 166.O'Malley AS, Peikes D, Ginsburg PB. Qualifying a Physician Practice as a Medical Home Policy Perspective: Insights into Health Policy Issues; No. 1 December, 2008.Google Scholar
- 167.Poplin C. No direction home: a primary care physician questions the medical home model. Health Affairs Blog; 2009.Google Scholar
- 168.NCQA. Planned Evolution of PPC-PCMH Requirements; 2009.Google Scholar
- 172.Shi L, Starfield B, Xu J. Validating the adult primary care assessment tool. J Fam Pract. 2001;50(2):161W–175W.Google Scholar
- 174.Flocke SA. Primary care instrument. J Fam Pract. 1998;46(1):12.Google Scholar
- 176.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) program: Surveys and Tools to Advance Patient-Centered CareGoogle Scholar
- 189.Starfield B. Primary care: concept, evaluation, and policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1992.Google Scholar
- 190.Lévesque J-F, Haggerty J, Burge F, et al. Canadian experts' views on the importance of attributes within different healthcare oganizational models. Healthcare Policy. 2010:special supplement, in press.Google Scholar
- 191.Lévesque J-F, Haggerty J, Beninguisse G, et al. Mapping the coverage of attributes in validated instruments that evaluate primary healthcare from the consumer perspective. Healthcare Policy. 2010:special supplement, in press.Google Scholar
- 192.Haggerty J, Bouharaoui F, Santor D. Differential item functioning in primary healthcare organizational evaluation instruments by French/English version, educational level and urban/rural location. Healthcare Policy. 2010:special supplement, in press.Google Scholar
- 193.Haggerty J, Santor D, Lawson B, Beaulieu C, Fournier M, Burge F. What patients tell us about primary healthcare evaluation instruments: response formats, bad questions and missing pieces. Healthcare Policy. 2010:special supplement, in press.Google Scholar
- 194.Haggerty J, Lévesque J-F, Santor D, et al. Measuring accessibility from the consumer perspective: comparison of primary healthcare evaluation instruments. Healthcare Policy. 2010:special supplement, in press.Google Scholar
- 195.Haggerty J, Beaulieu M-D, Pineault R, et al. Measuring comprehensiveness of care from the consumer perspective: comparison of primary healthcare evaluation instruments. Healthcare Policy. 2010:special supplement, in press.Google Scholar
- 196.Burge F, Haggerty J, Beaulieu M-D, Lévesque J-F, Beaulieu C, Santor D. Measuring relational continuity from the consumer perspective: comparison of primary healthcare evaluation instruments. Healthcare Policy. 2010:special supplement, in press.Google Scholar
- 197.Haggerty J, Burge F, Pineault R, et al. Measuring management continuity from the consumer perspective: comparison of primary healthcare evaluation instruments. Healthcare Policy. 2010:special supplement, in press.Google Scholar
- 198.Beaulieu M-D, Haggerty J, Beaulieu C, et al. Measuring interpersonal communication from the consumer perspective: comparison of primary healthcare evaluation instruments. Healthcare Policy. 2010:special supplement, in press.Google Scholar
- 199.World Health Organization. Commission on Social Determinants of Health - Final Report; 2008.Google Scholar
- 202.Bobiak SN, Zyzanski SJ, Ruhe MC, et al. Measuring practice capacity for change – A tool for guiding quality improvement in primary care settings. Quality Management in Health Care. 2009;in press.Google Scholar
- 216.ECHO™Development Team. Experience of Care and Health Outcomes Survey (ECHO™). http://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/echo/home.html. Accessed January 31, 2010.
- 217.Bright Futures Tools for Professionals. Cultural Competence Assessment—Primary Care.Google Scholar
- 219.The Ambulatory Care Quality Alliance Recommended Starter Set: Clinical Performance Measures for Ambulatory Care. May 2005; http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/aqastart.htm. Accessed February 2, 2010.
- 230.Epstein RM, Fiscella K, Lesser C, Stange KC. Defining and Achieving Patient-Centered Care: The Role of Clinicians, Patients and Healthcare Systems. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;(in press).Google Scholar
- 239.Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To err is human. Building a safer health system. Washington: National Academy Press; 2000.Google Scholar
- 250.Geyman J. The corporate transformation of health care: can the public interest still be served? New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2004.Google Scholar
- 251.Geyman JP. Health care in America: can our ailing system be healed? Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2002.Google Scholar
- 255.Rhyne R, Bogue R, Kukulka G, Fulmer H, eds. Community-oriented primary care: health care for the 21st century. Washington: American Public Health Association; 1998.Google Scholar
- 257.Stange KC, Woolf SH. Policy options to enable high-value preventive care: an analysis commissioned by the partnership for prevention. Washington: Partnership for Prevention; 2008.Google Scholar
- 261.Nutting P. Community-oriented primary care: From principle to practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1987. DHHS Publication No. HRS-A-PE 86-1 (Now available from the University of New Mexico Press)Google Scholar
- 262.Task Force on Community Preventive Services. The Community Guide: What Works to Promote Health: Community Guide Branch National Center for Health Marketing (NCHM) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2009.Google Scholar
- 263.Willis J. Friends in low places. Abingdon, Oxon: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2001.Google Scholar
- 264.Sox HC. Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physician charter. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136(3):243–6.Google Scholar
- 265.Willis J. The paradox of progress. Abingdon, Oxon: Radcliff Medical Press, Ltd; 2002.Google Scholar
- 269.Geyman J. Shredding the social contract: the privatization of medicare. Monroe: Common Courage Press; 2006.Google Scholar
- 270.Geyman J. The corrosion of medicine: can the profession reclaim its moral legacy? Monroe: Common Courage Press; 2008.Google Scholar
- 271.Brody H. Hooked: ethics, the medical profession, and the pharmaceutical industry. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 2007.Google Scholar
- 272.TransforMED. The TransforMED Model; 2009. http://www.transformed.com/transformed.cfm, Accessed February 2, 2010.