California Healthline Explains Why It is OK that a JAMA Study Found No Savings in Medical Homes

The patient-centered medical home model seems to make intuitive sense as a way to reduce waste in health care. Therefore, it came as a shock to many when the Journal of the American Medical Association published research showing that adopting this model actually didn’t make much of a difference in costs or outcomes.

California Healthline Contributing Editor Dan Diamond provides one of the best analysis out there of why the finding is actually not a bad thing. As new payment systems are deployed and tested, we should expect a great number of them to fail and from each failure, lessons will be learned.

In the case of the patient-centered medical home model, it may be that it has been too broadly applied. Healthy people use little if any health care services and a medical home model that helps them keep on top of needed preventative services would, if anything, increase costs by getting them to use services they otherwise might have forgotten to schedule. Future research on more targeted patient populations (e.g., patients with serious and poorly managed chronic illness) could validate the model.

However, in the meantime, a valuable lesson may have been learned.

Around the web

The tirzepatide shortage that first began in 2022 has been resolved. Drug companies distributing compounded versions of the popular drug now have two to three more months to distribute their remaining supply.

The 24 members of the House Task Force on AI—12 reps from each party—have posted a 253-page report detailing their bipartisan vision for encouraging innovation while minimizing risks. 

Merck sent Hansoh Pharma, a Chinese biopharmaceutical company, an upfront payment of $112 million to license a new investigational GLP-1 receptor agonist. There could be many more payments to come if certain milestones are met.