A longitudinal evaluation of physician payment reform and team-based care for chronic disease management and prevention

Background — We evaluated a large-scale transition of primary care physicians to blended capitation models and team-based care in Ontario, Canada, to understand the effect of each type of reform on the management and prevention of chronic disease.

Methods — We used population-based administrative data to assess monitoring of diabetes mellitus and screening for cervical, breast and colorectal cancer among patients belonging to team-based capitation, non-team-based capitation or enhanced fee-for-service medical homes as of Mar. 31, 2011 (n = 10 675 480). We used Poisson regression models to examine these associations for 2011. We then used a fitted nonlinear model to compare changes in outcomes between 2001 and 2011 by type of medical home.

Results — In 2011, patients in a team-based capitation setting were more likely than those in an enhanced fee-for-service setting to receive diabetes monitoring (39.7% v. 31.6%, adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18 to 1.25), mammography (76.6% v. 71.5%, adjusted RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.07) and colorectal cancer screening (63.0% v. 60.9%, adjusted RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.04). Over time, patients in medical homes with team-based capitation experienced the greatest improvement in diabetes monitoring (absolute difference in improvement 10.6% [95% CI 7.9% to 13.2%] compared with enhanced fee for service; 6.4% [95% CI 3.8% to 9.1%] compared with non-team-based capitation) and cervical cancer screening (absolute difference in improvement 7.0% [95% CI 5.5% to 8.5%] compared with enhanced fee for service; 5.3% [95% CI 3.8% to 6.8%] compared with non-teambased capitation). For breast and colorectal cancer screening, there were no significant differences in change over time between different types of medical homes.

Interpretation — The shift to capitation payment and the addition of team-based care in Ontario were associated with moderate improvements in processes related to diabetes care, but the effects on cancer screening were less clear.