Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Special Collections
    • Abstracts In Press
  • 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
    • Archives
    • Special Collections
    • Abstracts In Press
  • 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 Alternative Payment Methodology on Primary Care Visits and Scheduling

John Heintzman, Erika Cottrell, Heather Angier, Jean O'Malley, Steffani Bailey, Lorie Jacob, Jennifer DeVoe, Maria Ukhanova, Erin Thayer and Miguel Marino
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine July 2019, 32 (4) 539-549; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2019.04.180368
John Heintzman
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (JH, HA, SB, JD, MU, ET, MM); OCHIN Inc., Portland (EC, LJ); OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland (JO).
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erika Cottrell
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (JH, HA, SB, JD, MU, ET, MM); OCHIN Inc., Portland (EC, LJ); OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland (JO).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Heather Angier
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (JH, HA, SB, JD, MU, ET, MM); OCHIN Inc., Portland (EC, LJ); OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland (JO).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jean O'Malley
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (JH, HA, SB, JD, MU, ET, MM); OCHIN Inc., Portland (EC, LJ); OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland (JO).
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steffani Bailey
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (JH, HA, SB, JD, MU, ET, MM); OCHIN Inc., Portland (EC, LJ); OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland (JO).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lorie Jacob
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (JH, HA, SB, JD, MU, ET, MM); OCHIN Inc., Portland (EC, LJ); OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland (JO).
ScM
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jennifer DeVoe
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (JH, HA, SB, JD, MU, ET, MM); OCHIN Inc., Portland (EC, LJ); OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland (JO).
MD, DPhil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maria Ukhanova
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (JH, HA, SB, JD, MU, ET, MM); OCHIN Inc., Portland (EC, LJ); OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland (JO).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erin Thayer
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (JH, HA, SB, JD, MU, ET, MM); OCHIN Inc., Portland (EC, LJ); OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland (JO).
BA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Miguel Marino
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR (JH, HA, SB, JD, MU, ET, MM); OCHIN Inc., Portland (EC, LJ); OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland (JO).
PhD
  • 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.

    Same day availability changes and relative rates in APM and non-APM comparison clinics before and after the APM and ACA implementations. APM: Alternative Payment Methodology; ACA, Affordable Care Act; RR, Relative Rates.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Comparison of Clinic Characteristics Between APM Clinics and Non-APM clinics, prior to APM implementation (July 1, 2012 to February 28, 2013)

    CharacteristicAPM Clinics (n = 8)Non-APM Clinics (n = 10)
    Mean (SD) panel size5,322.25 (2358.40)2,874.00 (777.57)
    % High Needs*39.35 (6.95)34.54 (6.13)
    Mean (SD) number of medical doctors/doctors of osteopathy per 1000 patients4.98 (3.49)4.97 (3.22)
    Mean (SD) number of advanced practice providers per 1000 patients3.35 (1.6)6.26 (4.33)
    % Rural0%10%
    Mean (SD) office visits/patient2.89 (2.95)2.85 (3.04)
    Mean (SD) non-provider encounters/patient5.55 (7.08)5.23 (6.54)
    Mean (SD) % Hispanic patients40.43 (26.05)21.25 (11.46)
    Mean (SD) % Spanish speaking patients31.83 (24.1)13.35 (8.95)
    Mean (SD) % patients with Medicaid46.89 (7.12)41.37 (13.52)
    Mean (SD) % Uninsured patients35.18 (10.29)35.92 (8.6)
    • APM, Alternative Payment Methodology; SD, standard deviation.

    • ↵* High needs patients are defined as patients who are between the age of 2 and 5 years, or those who are female and between the age of 18 and 44 years.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Total Visit Rates, New Patient Visit Rates, and Total Alternative Encounters Over Study Time Periods (Pre-APM, Pre-ACA; Post-APM, Pre-ACA; Post-APM Post-ACA)

    OutcomeEncounters/1000 Patients per Month*Relative Rates
    Pre-APMPost-APMPost-ACAPost-APM vs Pre-APMPost-ACA vs Post-APM
    Total encounters†
        APM clinics651.02672.82716.071.03 (0.98, 1.09)1.06 (0.98, 1.15)
        Non-APM comparison clinics435.10463.21480.331.07 (0.99, 1.13)1.04 (0.96, 1.12)
        APM vs Non-APM comparison relative rate0.97 (0.89, 1.05)1.03 (0.92, 1.15)
    New patient visits‡
        APM clinics6.525.477.300.84 (0.60, 1.16)1.34 (0.86, 2.08)
        Non-APM comparison clinics4.945.125.351.04 (0.80, 1.35)1.04 (0.72, 1.52)
        APM vs Non-APM comparison relative rate0.81 (0.53, 1.23)1.28 (0.71, 2.29)
    Alternative encounters‡
        APM clinics801.53872.66950.091.09 (1.04, 1.14)1.09 (0.99, 1.19)
        Non-APM comparison clinics657.28723.15769.751.10 (1.04, 1.17)1.06 (0.98, 1.16)
        APM vs Non-APM comparison relative rate0.99 (0.92, 1.07)1.02 (0.90, 1.16)
    • ACA, Affordable Care Act; APM, alternative payment methodology.

    • Total alternative encounters included hospice visits, home health visits, nurse visits, telemedicine, telephone and email consultations, lab- and imaging-only visits, and visits with a pharmacist.

    • ↵* Rates were determined from Poisson regression models of APM status × month, utilizing a robust sandwich estimator to account for correlations within clinics and were adjusted for percent Hispanic, percent Medicaid insurance and percent of panel in a high needs age group.

    • ↵† There was a positive trend in outcome within the pre-period in both APM and Comparison groups; differences in pre-period trend were not statistically significant.

    • ↵‡ There were no statistically significant trends in outcomes during the pre-period.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Scheduling Metrics: Appointment Availability, Overbooks, and No-Shows/Late Cancellations Over Study Time Periods (Pre-APM, Pre-ACA; Post-APM, Pre-ACA; Post-APM Post-ACA)

    OutcomePre-APMPost-APMPost-ACARelative Rates
    Post-APM vs Pre-APMPost-ACA vs Post-APM
    Proportion of appointment searches indicating same day availability*
        APM clinics0.250.330.271.33 (1.21,1.48)0.82 (0.71,0.94)
        Non-APM comparison clinics0.260.290.251.11 (0.97, 1.27)0.85 (0.70,1.03)
        APM vs Non-APM comparison relative ratio1.20 (1.02, 1.42)0.96 (0.76, 1.22)
    Mean days to 3rd next available appointment†
        APM clinics2.962.242.87−0.72 (−1.34, −0.11)0.63 (0.27, 0.99)
        Non-APM comparison clinics3.964.234.660.27 (−0.51, 1.05)0.43 (−1.07, 1.93)
        APM vs non-APM comparison difference in means−0.99 (−1.99, 0)0.21 (−1.33, 1.75)
    Overbooks per month/per 100 appointment slots
        APM clinics5.295.555.831.05 (0.81, 1.36)1.05 (0.8, 1.37)
        Non-APM comparison clinics5.966.595.901.11 (0.83, 1.47)0.90 (0.72, 1.12)
        APM vs non-APM comparison relative rate0.95 (0.65, 1.39)1.17 (0.83, 1.66)
    No-shows/late cancellation per month per 100 appointment slots*
        APM clinics7.046.696.570.95 (0.84, 1.07)0.98 (0.93, 1.04)
        Non-APM comparison clinics5.805.685.700.98 (0.87, 1.1)1.00 (0.95, 1.06)
        APM vs non-APM comparison relative rate0.97 (0.82, 1.15)0.98 (0.91, 1.06)
    • APM, Alternative Payment Methodology; ACA, Affordable Care Act.

    • ↵* Proportions were determined from logistic regression models of APM status × month, utilizing a robust sandwich estimator to account for correlations within clinics and were adjusted for percent Hispanic, percent Medicaid insurance and percent of panel in a high needs age group. There were no significant trends in proportion within the pre-period.

    • ↵† Rates were determined from Poisson regression models of APM status × month, utilizing a robust sandwich estimator to account for correlations within clinics and were adjusted for percent Hispanic, percent Medicaid insurance and percent of panel in a high needs age group. There were no significant trends in rates within the pre-period.

    • ‡ There was a positive trend in outcome within the pre-period in APM clinic and a downward trends within the pre-period in comparison clinics.

    • View popup
    Appendix Table 1.

    Total Visit Rates, New-Patient Visit Rates, and Total Alternative Encounters Over Study Time Periods (Pre-APM, Pre-ACA; Post-APM, Pre-ACA; Post-APM Post-ACA)

    OutcomeEncounters/1000 Patients Per Month*Relative Rates
    Pre-APMPost-APMPost-ACAPost-APM vs Pre-APMPost-ACA vs Post-APM
    Total encounters†
        APM clinics651.02 (550.57, 769.79)672.82 (544.77, 830.98)716.07 (565.29, 907.07)1.03 (0.98, 1.09)1.06 (0.98, 1.15)
        Non-APM comparison clinics435.10 (371.15, 510.07)463.21 (409.76, 523.62)480.33 (427.15, 540.12)1.07 (0.99, 1.13)1.04 (0.96, 1.12)
        APM vs non-APM comparison relative rate1.50 (1.17, 1.92)1.45 (1.11, 1.90)1.49 (1.12, 1.99)0.97 (0.89, 1.05)1.03 (0.92, 1.15)
    New patient visits‡
        APM clinics6.52 (4.68, 9.10)5.47 (3.94, 7.60)7.30 (5.75, 9.27)0.84 (0.60, 1.16)1.34 (0.86, 2.08)
        Non-APM comparison clinics4.94 (3.84, 6.36)5.12 (3.55, 7.40)5.35 (3.71, 7.72)1.04 (0.80, 1.35)1.04 (0.72, 1.52)
        APM vs non-APM comparison relative rate1.32 (0.87, 2.01)1.07 (0.64, 1.77)1.36 (0.88, 2.11)0.81 (0.53, 1.23)1.28 (0.71, 2.29)
    Alternative encounters‡
        APM clinics801.53 (707.54, 908.01)872.66 (748.41, 1017.53)950.09 (779.62,1157.82)1.09 (1.04, 1.14)1.09 (0.99, 1.19)
        Non-APM comparison clinics657.28 (585.48, 737.88)723.15 (642.99, 813.30)769.75 (662.70, 894.10)1.10 (1.04, 1.17)1.06 (0.98, 1.16)
        APM vs Non-APM comparison relative rate1.22 (1.02, 1.46)1.21 (0.98, 1.48)1.23 (0.96, 1.59)0.99 (0.92, 1.07)1.02 (0.90, 1.16)
    • ACA, Affordable Care Act; APM, Alternative Payment Methodology.

    • Total alternative encounters included hospice visits, home health visits, nurse visits, telemedicine, telephone and email consultations, lab and imaging only visits, and visits with a pharmacist.

    • ↵* Rates were determined from Poisson regression models of APM status*month, utilizing a robust sandwich estimator to account for correlations within clinics and were adjusted for percent Hispanic, percent Medicaid insurance and percent of panel in a high needs age group.

    • ↵† There was a positive trend in outcome within the pre-period in both APM and Comparison groups; differences in pre-period trend were not statistically significant.

    • ↵‡ There were no statistically significant trends in outcomes during the pre-period.

    • View popup
    Appendix Table 2.

    Scheduling Metrics: Appointment Availability, Overbooks, and No-Shows/Late Cancellations Over Study Time Periods (Pre-APM, Pre-ACA; Post-APM, Pre-ACA; Post-APM Post-ACA)

    OutcomePre-APMPost-APMPost-ACARelative Rates/Difference in Difference
    Post-APM vs Pre-APMPost-ACA vs Post-APM
    Proportion of appointment searches indicating same day availability*
        APM clinics0.25 (0.20, 0.31)0.33 (0.29,0.39)0.27 (0.24,0.31)1.33 (1.21,1.48)0.82 (0.71,0.94)
        Non-APM comparison clinics0.26 (0.23,0.30)0.29 (0.24,0.36)0.25 (0.22,0.29)1.11 (0.97, 1.27)0.85 (0.70,1.03)
        APM vs non-APM Comparison0.951.141.101.200.96
        Relative ratio(0.74,1.22)(0.88,1.49)(0.88,1.37)(1.02, 1.42)(0.76, 1.22)
    Mean days to 3rd next available appointment‡
        APM clinics2.96 (2.36, 3.55)2.24 (1.61, 2.86)2.87 (2.2, 3.53)−0.72 (−1.34, −0.11)0.63 (0.27, 0.99)
        Non-APM comparison clinics3.96 (2.86, 5.07)4.23 (3.05, 5.41)4.66 (3.12, 6.2)0.27 (−0.51, 1.05)0.43 (−1.07, 1.93)
        APM vs non-APM comparison difference in means−1.00 (−2.26, 0.25)−2.00 (−3.39, −0.61)−1.79 (−3.48, −0.1)− (−1.99, 0)0.21 (−1.33, 1.75)
    Overbooks per month/per 100 appointment slots
        APM clinics5.29 (4.43, 6.31)5.55 (4.41, 6.99)5.83 (4, 8.48)1.05 (0.81, 1.36)1.05 (0.8, 1.37)
        Non-APM comparison clinics5.96 (4.13, 8.59)6.59 (4.88, 8.89)5.90 (4.17, 8.35)1.11 (0.83, 1.47)0.90 (0.72, 1.12)
        APM vs non-APM comparison relative rate0.89 (0.6, 1.32)0.84 (0.57, 1.25)0.99 (0.58, 1.67)0.95 (0.65, 1.39)1.17 (0.83, 1.66)
    No-shows/late cancellation per month per 100 appointment slots*[1]
        APM clinics7.04 (6.41, 7.73)6.69 (6.27, 7.14)6.57 (6.19, 6.97)0.95 (0.84, 1.07)0.98 (0.93, 1.04)
        Non-APM comparison clinics5.80 (4.95, 6.8)5.68 (5.19, 6.23)5.70 (5.3, 6.13)0.98 (0.87, 1.1)1.00 (0.95, 1.06)
        APM vs non-APM comparison1.211.181.150.970.98
        Relative rate(1.03, 1.43)(1.06, 1.31)(1.06, 1.25)(0.82, 1.15)(0.91, 1.06)
    • ACA, Affordable Care Act; APM, Alternative Payment Methodology.

    • ↵* Proportions were determined from logistic regression models of APM status × month, utilizing a robust sandwich estimator to account for correlations within clinics and were adjusted for percent Hispanic, percent Medicaid insurance and percent of panel in a high-needs age group. There were no significant trends in proportion within the pre-period.

    • † Rates were determined from Poisson regression models of APM status × month, utilizing a robust sandwich estimator to account for correlations within clinics and were adjusted for percent Hispanic, percent Medicaid insurance and percent of panel in a high-needs age group. There were no significant trends in rates within the pre-period.

    • ↵‡ There was a positive trend in outcome within the pre-period in APM clinic and a downward trends within the pre-period in comparison clinics.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 32 (4)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 32, Issue 4
July-August 2019
  • 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 Alternative Payment Methodology on Primary Care Visits and Scheduling
(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.
12 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Impact of Alternative Payment Methodology on Primary Care Visits and Scheduling
John Heintzman, Erika Cottrell, Heather Angier, Jean O'Malley, Steffani Bailey, Lorie Jacob, Jennifer DeVoe, Maria Ukhanova, Erin Thayer, Miguel Marino
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jul 2019, 32 (4) 539-549; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2019.04.180368

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Impact of Alternative Payment Methodology on Primary Care Visits and Scheduling
John Heintzman, Erika Cottrell, Heather Angier, Jean O'Malley, Steffani Bailey, Lorie Jacob, Jennifer DeVoe, Maria Ukhanova, Erin Thayer, Miguel Marino
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jul 2019, 32 (4) 539-549; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2019.04.180368
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Documenting New Ways of Delivering Care Under Oregons Alternative Payment and Advanced Care Model
  • Re: Identifying Problematic Substance Use in a National Sample of Adolescents Using Frequency Questions
  • Implementing Practice Changes in Family Medicine to Enhance Care and Prevent Disease Progression
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Characterizing Cervical Cancer Screening in the US: Preparing for the Era of Self-Collection
  • Effect of Initiating HPV Vaccination Before Age 11 on HPV Vaccination Completion
  • How High-Performing Community Health Clinics Accomplish Social Risk Screening
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Appointments and Schedules
  • Health Insurance
  • Health Policy
  • Health Services
  • Health Care Systems
  • Medicaid
  • Medically Uninsured
  • No-Show Patients
  • Oregon
  • Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
  • Primary 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

© 2026 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire