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.