Invited Commentary
May 2014

Care Continuity and Care CoordinationWhat Counts?

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  • 2VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • 3Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  • 4Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  • 5Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  • 6Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Copyright 2014 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.

JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(5):749-750. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.14331

Improving care coordination has emerged as a key strategy of many payers and policymakers for enhancing the quality and lowering the costs of health care in the United States. Accountable care organizations and bundled payments aim to bridge the provider-based silos that fragment care. Patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) seek to coordinate the care of patients with chronic disease. And recent changes to Medicare physician payments provide explicit incentives to enhance transitional care, such as the transition from hospital to outpatient care. To determine if care coordination does indeed have positive effects on quality or cost, the first step is to decide how it can be measured.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview