Investigating quality of care for diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure and chronic kidney disease in Ontario’s Family Health Group and Family Health Organization models
Abstract
Background and objectives: In Ontario, primary care reform was initiated in the early 2000s with an aim to improve the quality of primary care. Hence, the provincial government restructured family physicians’ remuneration package. Prior to the reform, most physicians received majority of their income through fee-for-service (FFS). In Ontario, Family Health Group (FHG) and Family Health Organization (FHO) are dominant post-reform primary care models that remunerate family physicians through blended FFS and blended capitation, respectively. In three studies, we compared physicians in FHGs and FHOs in terms of their care provision for persons with diabetes mellitus (1st study), congestive heart failure (CHF) (2nd study) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) (3rd study).
Methods: All data were obtained from the ICES (formerly known as the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences). For the first and second studies, we employed propensity score-based weights and fixed effects regressions on a balanced panel of physicians spanning 10 years; all analyses were conducted at the physician level. In these two studies, the comparison was between physicians in FHG who never switched to FHO or other models (i.e., non-switchers); switchers were physicians who switched from FHG to FHO. For the third study, we performed two cross-sectional analyses at the physician level; lack of data availability for patients with CKD over time deterred us from conducting longitudinal analyses as in the first two studies.
Results: We found that switching from FHG to FHO was associated with an improvement in some aspects of diabetes care. We found that CHF care—in terms of physicians’ follow-up of patients who are discharged—was not different between switchers and non-switchers. We found that some aspects of CKD care were better with physicians in FHG relative to their counterparts in FHO.
Conclusions: Compared to blended FFS, blended capitation payment is associated with a small but statistically significant improvement in some aspects of diabetes care. Our findings suggest that follow-up care for patients with CHF is similar in Ontario’s blended FFS and blended capitation models. Though we found that blended FFS is associated with greater adherence to some CKD process measures, future studies could employ longitudinal regressions to account for more confounding.