• Michelle S Wong, Tana M Luger, Marian L Katz, Susan E Stockdale, Nate L Ewigman, Jeffrey L Jackson, Donna M Zulman, Steven M Asch, Michael K Ong, and Evelyn T Chang.
• Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation & Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Michelle.Wong6@va.gov.
• J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Nov 1; 36 (11): 3366-3372.

BackgroundQuantitative evaluations of the effectiveness of intensive primary care (IPC) programs for high-needs patients have yielded mixed results for improving healthcare utilization, cost, and mortality. However, IPC programs may provide other value.ObjectiveTo understand the perspectives of high-needs patients and primary care facility leaders on the effects of a Veterans Affairs (VA) IPC program on patients.DesignA total of 66 semi-structured telephone interviews with high-needs VA patients and primary care facility leaders were conducted as part of the IPC program evaluation.ParticipantsHigh-needs patients (n = 51) and primary care facility leaders (n = 15) at 5 VA pilot sites.ApproachWe used content analysis to examine interview transcripts for both a priori and emergent themes about perceived IPC program effects.Key ResultsPatients enrolled in VA IPCs reported improvements in their experience of VA care (e.g., patient-provider relationship, access to their team). Both patients and leaders reported improvements in patient motivation to engage with self-care and with their IPC team, and behaviors, especially diet, exercise, and medication management. Patients also perceived improvements in health and described receiving assistance with social needs. Despite this, patients and leaders also outlined patient health characteristics and contextual factors (e.g., chronic health conditions, housing insecurity) that may have limited the effectiveness of the program on healthcare cost and utilization.ConclusionsPatients and primary care facility leaders report benefits for high-needs patients from IPC interventions that translated into perceived improvements in healthcare, health behaviors, and physical and mental health status. Most program evaluations focus on cost and utilization, which may be less amenable to change given this cohort's numerous comorbid health conditions and complex social circumstances. Future IPC program evaluations should additionally examine IPC's effects on quality of care, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and patient health behaviors other than utilization (e.g., engagement, self-efficacy).© 2021. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.

12 keywords...

hide…