The medical home model is often said to be the savior of primary care.
Right now many are at the pilot stage, with states trying to convince practices to convert. Family physician Doug Farrago recently received an e-mail enticing him to join, but the complexity seems stunning.
“The above is just an example of how the higher ups in our medical organizations are getting involved and don’t know what they are doing,” writes Dr. Farrago, adding, “it entails much more work by the doctor but that really doesn’t matter.”
Those who advocate for medical homes better make it easier for primary care physicians to adopt, and the benefits more explicit and tangible.
As it stands, it looks like a whole lot more bureaucracy for very little benefit.
Related posts:
- Poll: What are the obstacles to the patient centered medical home?
- How the patient-centered medical home can improve our health care system
- Support for the patient centered medical home in the House health reform bill
- Barriers to the medical home
- My take: Slow medicine, destroying the medical home, animosity, patient communication
- Encouraging news on the medical home
- What if you had a medical home . . .
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
For the last year it seems I’ve been working on turning our office into a medical home according to AAFP’s TransforMED and NCQA guidelines and it is an admninistrative mess. It is obvious that those who developed the criteria based them on large offices with considerable administrative staff in mind. For small practices they may meet much of the criteria to be a medical home, but lag behind in the documentation and paperwork that seems to be necessary.
Like most things the government tries to do they are with good intentions, but their ramifications are vast, highly inefficient, and create more problems the government feels it must fix.
This is ultimately a bad idea.
Comments on this entry are closed.