Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 619–624 | Cite as

How to Buy a Medical Home? Policy Options and Practical Questions



In this paper, we describe a range of payment options to support the PCMH, identifying their conceptual strengths and weaknesses. These include enhanced FFS payment for office visits to the PCMH; paying additional FFS for “new” PCMH services; variations of traditional FFS combined with new PCMH-oriented per patient per month capitation; and combined capitation payments for traditional primary care medical services as well as new medical home services. In discussing options for PCMH payment reform we consider issues in patient severity adjustment, performance payment, and the role of payments to community service organizations to collaborate with the PCMH. We also highlight some of the practical challenges that can complicate reimbursement reform for primary care and the PCMH. Through this discussion we identify key dimensions to provider payment reform relevant to promoting enhanced primary care through the patient centered medical home. These consist of paying for the basic medical home services, rewarding excellent performance of medical homes, incentivizing medical home connections to other community health care resources, and overcoming implementation challenges to medical home payments. Each of these overarching policy issues invokes a substantial subset of policy relevant research questions that collectively comprise a robust research agenda. We conclude that the conceptual strengths and weaknesses of available payment models for medical home functions invoke a complex array of options with varying levels of real-world feasibility. The different needs of patients and communities, and varying characteristics of practices must also be factors guiding PCMH payment reform. Indeed, it may be that different circumstances will require different payment approaches in various combinations.


primary care reimbursement health care delivery 


  1. 1.
    Britton A, Landon B. In: A Nationwide Survey of Patient Centered Medical Home Demonstration Projects. Presented July 27–28, 2009; Washington DC. Washington, DC: Society of General Internal Medicine; 2009Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hadley J, Reschovsky JD. Medicare fees and physicians′ medicare service volume: beneficiaries treated and services per beneficiary. Int J Health Care Finance Econ. 2006;6(2):131–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mitchell JM, Hadley J, Gaskin DJ. Physicians′ responses to medicare fee schedule reductions. Med Care. 2000;38(10):1029–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McGuire TG, Pauly MV. Physician response to fee changes with multiple payers. J Health Econ. 1991;10(4):385–410.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christensen S. Volume responses to exogenous changes in medicare′s payment policies. Health Serv Res. 1992;27(1):65–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rice T. Physician-induced demand for medical care: new evidence from the medicare program. Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res. 1984;5:129–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yip WC. Physician response to medicare fee reductions: Changes in the volume of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgeries in the medicare and private sectors. J Health Econ. 1998;17(6):675–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Codespote S, London W, Shatto J. Estimated volume-and-intensity response to a price change for physicians′ services. 1998 August 12 1998; Memorandum to Richard Foster, Chief Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baker DW, Wolf MS, Feinglass J, Thompson JA, Gazmararian JA, Huang J. Health literacy and mortality among elderly persons. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(14):1503–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baker DW, Wolf MS, Feinglass J, Thompson JA. Health literacy, cognitive abilities, and mortality among elderly persons. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(6):723–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kandula NR, Lauderdale DS, Baker DW. Differences in self-reported health among asians, latinos, and non-Hispanic whites: the role of language and nativity. Ann Epidemiol. 2007;17(3):191–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yeo G. Will the U.S. healthcare system meet the challenge of the ethnogeriatric imperative? J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(7):1278–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rich EC, Burke W, Heaton CJ, et al. Reconsidering the family history in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(3):273–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maxwell S, Zuckerman S, Berenson RA. Use of physicians′ services under medicare′s resource-based payments. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(12):1853–61. M.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    AAFP, AAP, ACP, AOA. Joint principles of a patient-centered medical home. 2007 March 5 2007;2009(September 11):1Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patient Centered Primary Care Collaborative. Integrating the patient centered medical home into a health reform proposal | patient centered primary care collaborative; 2009(9/12/2009):1.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Committee for Quality Assurance. NCQA > programs > recognition > PPC-patient-centered medical home. 2009;2009(9/12/2009).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Newhouse JP, Buntin MB, Chapman JD. Risk adjustment and medicare: taking a closer look. Health Aff (Millwood). 1997;16(5):26–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goodson JD, Bierman AS, Fein O, Rask K, Rich EC, Selker HP. The future of capitation: the physician role in managing change in practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(4):250–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davis K. The danish health system through an american lens. Health Policy. 2002;59(2):119–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goroll AH. Reforming physician payment. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(20):2087–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goroll AH, Berenson RA, Schoenbaum SC, Gardner LB. Fundamental reform of payment for adult primary care: comprehensive payment for comprehensive care. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(3):410–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Committee for Quality Assurance. NCQA > HEDIS & quality measurement. 2009;2009(9/12/2009).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schlackman N. Integration of quality assessment and physician incentives. Physician Exec. 1990;16(5):13–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaiser Commission of Medicaid and the Uninsured. Community care of north carolina: Putting health reform ideas into practice in medicaid-kaiser family foundation. 2009;2009(9/12/2009):7.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Berenson RA, Hammons T, Gans DN, et al. A house is not a home: keeping patients at the center of practice redesign. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(5):1219–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coburn K. Health quality partners′(HQP) model of community-based nurse care management. 2009;2009(September 12):19.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Casalino LP, Nicholson A, Gans DN, et al. What does it cost physician practices to interact with health insurance plans? Health Aff. 2009;28(4):w533–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Urban InstituteWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Mathematica Policy ResearchWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Creighton UniversityOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations