Importance: Little is known about the types of primary care practices that have chosen to participate in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) program or about how participation could affect disparities.
Objective: To describe practices that joined the CPC+ model and compare hospital service areas with and without CPC+ practices.
Design, setting, and participants: This comparative cross-sectional study identified 2647 CPC+ practices in round 1 (from January 1, 2017; round 1 is ongoing through 2021). Using IMS Health Care Organization Services data, ownership and characteristics of health systems and practices were extracted. Practices participating in the CPC+ program were compared with practices with similar proportions of primary care physicians (>85%) within the 14 regions designated as eligible to participate by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Within eligible regions, hospital service areas with (n = 434) and without (n = 322) 1 or more CPC+ practice were compared. Characteristics compared included area-level population demographics (from the US Census Bureau), health system characteristics (from the IMS Health Care Organization Services), and use of health services by Medicare fee-for-service enrollees (Dartmouth Atlas).
Main outcomes and measures: Area-level characteristics of all eligible CPC+ regions, areas without a CPC+ practice, and areas with 1 or more CPC+ practices.
Results: Of 756 eligible service areas, 322 had no CPC+ practices and 434 had at least 1 CPC+ practice. Of 2647 CPC+ practices, 579 (21.9%) had 1 physician and 1791 (67.7%) had 2 to 10 physicians. In areas without CPC+ practices, the population had a lower median income ($43 197 [interquartile range, $42 170-$44 224] vs $57 206 [interquartile range, $55 470-$58 941]), higher mean share of households living in poverty (17.8% [95% CI, 17.2%-18.4%] vs 14.4% [95% CI, 13.9%-15.0%]), higher mean educational attainment of high school or less (52.7% [95% CI, 51.7%-53.6%] vs 43.1% [95% CI, 42.1%-44.2%]), higher mean proportion of disabled residents (17.7% [95% CI, 17.3%-18.2%] vs 14.2% [13.8%-14.6%]), higher mean participation in Medicare (21.9% [95% CI, 21.3%-22.4%] vs 18.8% [95% CI, 18.3%-19.1%]) and Medicaid (22.2% [95% CI, 21.5%-22.9%]) vs 18.5% [95% CI, 17.8%-19.2%]), and higher mean proportion of uninsured residents (12.4% [95% CI, 11.9%-12.9%] vs 10.3% [95% CI, 9.9%-10.7%]) (P < .001 for all) compared with areas that had a CPC+ practice.
Conclusions and relevance: According to this study, although a diverse set of practices joined the CPC+ program, practices in areas characterized by patient populations with greater advantage were more likely to join, which may affect access to advanced primary care medical home models such as CPC+, by vulnerable populations.