Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Impact of Case Mix Severity on Quality Improvement in a Patient-centered Medical Home (PCMH) in the Maryland Multi-Payor Program

Niharika Khanna, Fadia T. Shaya, Viktor V. Chirikov, David Sharp and Ben Steffen
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine January 2016, 29 (1) 116-125; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2016.01.150067
Niharika Khanna
From the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore (NK); the Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore (FTS, VVC); the Center for Health Information Technology and Innovative Care Delivery, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, MD (DS); and the Maryland Health Care Commission, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore (BS).
MBBS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fadia T. Shaya
From the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore (NK); the Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore (FTS, VVC); the Center for Health Information Technology and Innovative Care Delivery, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, MD (DS); and the Maryland Health Care Commission, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore (BS).
PhD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Viktor V. Chirikov
From the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore (NK); the Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore (FTS, VVC); the Center for Health Information Technology and Innovative Care Delivery, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, MD (DS); and the Maryland Health Care Commission, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore (BS).
MS, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Sharp
From the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore (NK); the Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore (FTS, VVC); the Center for Health Information Technology and Innovative Care Delivery, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, MD (DS); and the Maryland Health Care Commission, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore (BS).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ben Steffen
From the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore (NK); the Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore (FTS, VVC); the Center for Health Information Technology and Innovative Care Delivery, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, MD (DS); and the Maryland Health Care Commission, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore (BS).
MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 1.

    Average National Quality Forum quality care metrics (QM) scores reported over the period 2011 to 2013 for the chronic care (left), preventive care (middle), and mental health care domains (right), stratified by practices with high and low case mix. P values designate statistical significance of the average total change from 2011 to 2013.

  • Appendix Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Appendix Figure 1.

    Chronic care domain: average National Quality Forum (NQF) quality metrics (QM) scores reported for 2011 to 2013, stratified by practices with high and low case mixes. P values designate statistical significance of the mean total change from 2011 to 2013.

  • Appendix Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Appendix Figure 2.

    Preventive care domain (body mass index assessment, physical activity counseling, and nutrition counseling for children): average National Quality Forum (NQF) quality metrics (QM) scores reported over the years 2011 to 2013, stratified by practices with high and low case mixes. P values designate statistical significance of the average total change from 2011 to 2013.

  • Appendix Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Appendix Figure 3.

    Preventive care domain (children's vaccinations): average National Quality Forum (NQF) quality metrics (QM) scores reported over the years 2011 to 2013, stratified by practices with high and low case mixes. P values designate statistical significance of the average total change from 2011 to 2013.

  • Appendix Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Appendix Figure 4.

    Preventive care domain (remaining metrics): average National Quality Forum (NQF) quality metrics (QM) scores reported over the years 2011 to 2013, stratified by practices with high and low case mixes. P values designate statistical significance of the average total change from 2011 to 2013.

  • Appendix Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Appendix Figure 5.

    Health care domain: average quality metrics (QM) scores reported over the years 2011 to 2013, stratified by practices with high and low case mixes. P values designate statistical significance of the average total change from 2011 to 2013.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1. Description of National Quality Forum Quality Metric Measures Reported By Patient Centered Medical Homes Practices (n = 52)*
    Domain DesignationMeasure NumberMeasure Description†Type of Practice Reporting
    Chronic diseaseNQF 1Percentage of patients aged 5–40 years with asthma seen for at least 2 office visits and who were evaluated within 12 months for the frequency of asthma symptomsAdult/pediatric/mixed
    NQF 13Percentage of visits for patients >18 years old with hypertension seen for at least 2 office visits, with BP recordedAdult/mixed
    NQF 18‡Percentage of patients 18–85 years of age who had a diagnosis of hypertension and whose BP was adequately controlled during the yearsAdult/mixed
    NQF 36Percentage of patients who were identified as having persistent asthma, were appropriately prescribed medication, and of the ages:
    • N1D1: 4–10 years

    • N2D2: 11–49 years

    • N3D3: 4–49 years

    Adult/pediatric/mixed
    NQF 47Percentage of patients aged 5–40 years with mild, moderate, or severe persistent asthma who were prescribed inhaled corticosteroid or an acceptable alternativeAdult/pediatric/mixed
    NQF 59‡Percentage of patients 18–75 years of age with diabetes (type 1 or type 2) who had HbA1c >9.0%Adult/mixed
    NQF 61Percentage of patients 18–75 years of age with diabetes (type 1 or type 2) who had BP <140/90 mm HgAdult/mixed
    NQF 67Percentage of patients with coronary artery disease, ≥18 years old, who were prescribed an oral antiplatelet agentAdult/mixed
    NQF 75Percentage of patients with ischemic vascular disease, ≥18 years old, who:
    • N1D1: were tested for complete lipid profile

    • N2D1: have LDL <100 mg/dL

    Adult/mixed
    NQF 81Percentage of patients with heart failure, ≥18 years old, and prescribed an ACE inhibitor or ARB therapyAdult/mixed
    NQF 575‡Percentage of patients 18–75 years of age with diabetes (type 1 or type 2) who had HbA1c <8.0%Adult/mixed
    Preventive careNQF 24Percentage of patients aged 2–16 years of age who had outpatient visit with a PCP or OB/GYN and had evidence of:
    • N1D1: BMI percentile documentation

    • N2D1: nutrition counseling

    • N3D1: physical activity counseling

    • N1D2: BMI percentile documentation (age 2–10 years)

    • N2D2: nutrition counseling (age 2–10 years)

    • N3D2: physical activity counseling (age 2–10 years)

    • N1D3: BMI percentile documentation (age 11–16 years)

    • N2D3: nutrition counseling (age 11–16 years)

    • N3D3: physical activity counseling (age 11–16 years)

    Pediatric/mixed
    NQF 0028a‡The percentage of patients, who are ≥18 years of age, have been seen for at least 2 office visits, and who were queried about tobacco use within 24 monthsAdult/mixed
    NQF 0028b‡The percentage of patients, who are ≥18 years of age, have been seen for at least 2 office visits, and who received cessation interventionAdult/mixed
    NQF 34Percentage of adults 50–75 years of age who had appropriate screening for colorectal cancerAdult/mixed
    NQF 38The percentage of children 2 years of age who had the following vaccines and/or their combinations by their 2nd birthday:
    • N1D1: diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis (4× DTaP)

    • N2D1: polio (IPV)

    • N3D1: measles, mumps, rubella (MMR)

    • N4D1: H influenza type B (2× HIB)

    • N5D1: hepatitis B (3× HBV)

    • N6D1: chicken pox (VZV)

    • N7D1: pneumonococcal conjugate (4× PCV)

    • N8D1: hepatitis A (2× Hep A)

    • N9D1: rotavirus vaccines (2/3× RV)

    • N10D1: influenza vaccines (2)

    • N11D1: combination 1 (4× DTaP, 3× IPV, 1× MMR, 1× VZV, 3× HBV)

    • N12D1: combination 2 (4× DTaP, 3× IPV, 1× MMR, 1× VZV, 3× HBV, 4× PCV)

    Pediatric/mixed
    NQF 41Percentage of patients aged ≥50 years old who received influenza immunization during the flu season (September through February).Adult/mixed
    NQF 43Percentage of patients ≥65 years old who have ever received a pneumococcal vaccineAdult/mixed
    NQF 421Percentage of patients aged 18 to ≥65 years with a calculated BMI in past 6 months or during the current visit documented AND, if the most recent BMI is outside parameters, a follow-up plan is documentedAdult/mixed
    NQF 2Percentage of children 2–18 years of age who were diagnosed with pharyngitis, dispensed an antibiotic, and received a group A streptococcus (strep) test for the episode.Pediatric/mixed
    Mental healthNQF 105Percentage of patients ≥18 years old who were diagnosed with a new episode of major depression and dispensed antidepressant medication for:
    • N1D1: ≥84 days after diagnosis

    • N2D1: ≥180 days after diagnosis

    Adult/mixed
    • ↵* The 52 practices comprised 6 pediatric, 14 adult, and 32 mixed practices.

    • ↵† In the descriptions, the N represents the numerator and D, the denominator. In these measures the denominator typically consists of patient characteristics such as age and, occasionally, a diagnosed disease condition, whereas the numerator indicates access to a health care service (eg, screening, counseling, prescription of medication) or treatment success.

    • ↵‡ This National Quality Forum (NQF) quality metric was measured by practices under the Million Hearts initiative.

    • ACE, angiotensin-converting enzyme; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; BMI, body mass index; BP, blood pressure; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; OB/GYN, obstetrician/gynecologist; PCP, primary care physician.

    • View popup
    Table 2. Maryland Multi-Payor Patient Centered Medical Home Program Practice Characteristics, 2011 (n = 52)
    Practices
    No.%
    Practice type
        Adult1426.92
        Mixed3261.54
        Pediatric611.54
    Case mix
        High3261.54
        Low2038.46
    NCQA practice level
        Deemed level I4382.69
        Level III917.31
    Shared savings eligibility
        30% share1019.23
        40% share2242.31
        50% share2038.46
    Rural (federal designation)
        No4892.31
        Yes47.69
    Telemedicine (rural)
        No3261.54
        Yes2038.46
    Health information exchange
        No917.31
        Yes4382.69
    Practice size
        1 to 5 providers2344.23
        6 to 10 providers2242.31
        11 or more providers713.46
    Patient age, years (mean)
        0–1825.90
        19–4943.09
        ≥5033.59
    Medicaid patients (mean)27.65
    Male patients (mean)41.29
    Fixed transformation payment (mean)4.70
    Inpatient length of stay/1000 (median)225.5
    Emergency visits/1000 (median)220.0
    Readmission visits (30 day)/1000 (median)3.8
    • NCQA, National Committee for Quality Assurance.

    • View popup
    Table 3. Univariate Analysis of Effect of Practice Characteristics on Reported National Quality Forum Metrics Scores, Controlling for Measurement Year
    CharacteristicsChronic Care Domain (n = 52)Preventive Care Domain (n = 52)Mental Health Care Domain (n = 46)
    CoefficientP ValueCoefficientP ValueCoefficientP Value
    Case mix
        High (ACG ≥2.5)−0.007.84−0.007.830.039.61
        Low (ACG <2.5)ReferenceReferenceReference
    Practice type
        Pediatric0.10.160.07.31−0.07.35
        Mixed−0.05.190.03.52—
        AdultReferenceReferenceReference
    NCQA practice level
        Deemed level I0.03.46−0.06.150.21.03
        Level IIIReferenceReferenceReference
    Shared savings eligibility
        30% share−0.16<.0001−0.01.74−0.09.10
        40% share−0.12.001−0.03.39−0.08.33
        50% shareReferenceReferenceReference
    Rural (federal designation)
        Yes−0.05.06−0.10.02−0.07.31
        NoReferenceReferenceReference
    Rural (use of telemedicine)
        Yes0.04.26−0.02.620.08.22
        NoReferenceReferenceReference
    Health information exchange
        Yes0.03.490.02.700.09.42
        NoReferenceReferenceReference
    Practice size (no. providers)
        1–50.00.98−0.14.02−0.02.85
        6–100.01.82−0.06.300.01.94
        ≥11ReferenceReferenceReference
    Age ≥50 (mean %)
        High (top quartile: 0.444< and ≤0.722)0.08.06−0.01.860.20.04
        Medium (intermediate quartiles: 0.238< and ≤0.444)0.00.97−0.02.690.08.41
        Low (bottom quartile: ≤0.238)ReferenceReferenceReference
    Medicaid patients (mean %)
        High (top quartile: 0.422< and ≤0.938)−0.02.700.03.63−0.18.08
        Medium (intermediate quartiles: 0.08< and ≤0.422)−0.06.16−0.03.51−0.17.02
        Low (bottom quartile: ≤0.08)ReferenceReferenceReference
    Male patients (mean %)
        High (top quartile: 0.470< and ≤0.586)0.04.360.04.37−0.04.69
        Medium (intermediate quartiles: 0.3674< and ≤0.470)0.02.500.01.800.00.95
        Low (bottom quartile: ≤0.3674)ReferenceReferenceReference
    Fixed transformation payment (2011)
        High (>4.68)−0.03.460.06.15−0.21.03
        Low (≤4.68)ReferenceReferenceReference
    Inpatient length of stay (2011)
        High (top quartile: 280< and ≤622 per 1000)−0.05.230.02.620.00.97
        Medium (intermediate quartiles: 148< and ≤280 per 1000)−0.06.13−0.03.400.09.14
        Low (bottom quartile: ≤148 per 1000)ReferenceReferenceReference
    Emergency department visits (2011)
        High (top quartile: 302.5< and≤702)0.06.17−0.003.950.09.29
        Medium (intermediate quartiles: 190< and ≤302.5 per 1000)0.03.40−0.01.750.00.97
        Low (bottom quartile: ≤190 per 1000)ReferenceReferenceReference
    Readmission visits (2011)
        High (top quartile: ≤2.56 per 1000)−0.06.120.05.100.05.60
        Medium (Intermediate quartiles: 2.56< and ≤7.321 per 1000)−0.06.07−0.01.850.00.98
        Low (bottom quartile: 7.321< and ≤20.4 per 1000)ReferenceReferenceReference
    • ACG, adjusted clinical group; NCQA, National Committee for Quality Assurance. Bold values denote statistically significant values, at the 0.05 level.

    • View popup
    Table 4. Multivariate Fixed Effects Analysis of Determinants of Reported National Quality Forum Scores By Maryland Multi-Payor Patient Centered Medical Home Program Practices
    Chronic Care Domain (n = 52)Preventive Care Domain (n = 52)Mental Health Care Domain (n = 46)
    ChangeP ValueChangeP ValueChangeP Value
    Change from 2011–20120.14<.00010.15<.00010.34<.0001
    Change from 2012–20130.03.060.04.050.07.12
    Practice type
        Pediatric0.12.040.08.13——
        Mixed0.03.220.04.330.11.22
        AdultReferenceReferenceReference
    Shared savings eligibility
        30% or 40% (vs 50%)−0.11.01−0.06.15−0.04.48
    Patients aged ≥50 years (mean %)
        High (vs medium/low)0.07.02——0.19.04
    Practice size
        ≥6 providers (vs <6)——0.09.05——
    Rural (federal designation)−0.11.03−0.07.09−0.09.26
    Medicaid patients (2011) (%)
        High/medium (vs low)————−0.14.05
    Readmission visits per 1000 (2011)
        High (vs. medium/low)−0.03.240.06.03——
    • “High” designates the top quartile of variable distribution; “medium” designates the interquartile range (Q25–Q75) of the variable distribution; and “low” designates the bottom quartile of variable distribution. Bold values denote statistically significant values, at the 0.05 level.

      —, Variable is not included in the model.

    • View popup
    Appendix Table 1. Maryland Multi-Payor Patient Centered Medical Home Program Practice Characteristics By High and Low Case Mix
    High Case Mix (n = 32)Low Case Mix (n = 20)P Value
    No.%No.%
    Practice type
        Adult1237.5210.0
        Mixed1959.41365.0.01
        Pediatric13.1525.0
    Rural (federal designation)
        No3093.81890.0.63
        Yes26.3210.0
    Use of telemedicine
        No1959.41365.0.77
        Yes1340.6735.0
    NCQA Practice level
        Deemed level I2681.31785.0.73
        Level III618.8315.0
    Shared savings eligibility
        30% share618.8420.0.57
        40% share1237.61050.0
        50% share1443.8630.0
    Health information exchange
        No412.5525.0.28
        Yes2887.51575.0
    Practice size (no. providers)
        1–51546.9840.0.65
        6–101237.51050.0
        ≥11515.6210.0
    Medicaid patients (mean %)13.024.6.04
    Mean age, years (%)
        0–1817.140.0.01
        19–4945.739.0.20
        ≥5037.226.3.02
    • NCQA, National Committee for Quality Assurance.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 29 (1)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 29, Issue 1
January-February 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Impact of Case Mix Severity on Quality Improvement in a Patient-centered Medical Home (PCMH) in the Maryland Multi-Payor Program
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6 + 5 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Impact of Case Mix Severity on Quality Improvement in a Patient-centered Medical Home (PCMH) in the Maryland Multi-Payor Program
Niharika Khanna, Fadia T. Shaya, Viktor V. Chirikov, David Sharp, Ben Steffen
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jan 2016, 29 (1) 116-125; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2016.01.150067

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Impact of Case Mix Severity on Quality Improvement in a Patient-centered Medical Home (PCMH) in the Maryland Multi-Payor Program
Niharika Khanna, Fadia T. Shaya, Viktor V. Chirikov, David Sharp, Ben Steffen
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jan 2016, 29 (1) 116-125; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2016.01.150067
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Appendix
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Are We Learning More about Patient-centered Medical Homes (PCMHs), or Learning More about Primary Care?
  • Family Medicine Research That Provides Compelling, Urgent Data to Improve Patient Care
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Successful Implementation of Integrated Behavioral Health
  • Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Health with an Electronic Health Record
  • Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Medical Home
  • Patient-Centered Care
  • Practice-based Research
  • Quality of Health Care

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire