2. OFFICERS
DIRECTORS
United Hospital Fund
J. Barclay Collins II
Chairman
Richard A. Berman
Jo Ivey Boufford, MD
Rev. John E. Carrington
Derrick D. Cephas
Philip Chapman
Dale C. Christensen, Jr.
J. Barclay Collins II
Richard Cotton
Michael R. Golding, MD
Josh N. Kuriloff
Patricia S. Levinson
David Levy, MD
Howard P. Milstein
Susana R. Morales, MD
Robert C. Osborne
Peter J. Powers
Mary H. Schachne
John C. Simons
Michael A. Stocker, MD, MPH
James R. Tallon, Jr.
Frederick W. Telling, PhD
Mary Beth C. Tully
The United Hospital Fund is a health services research
and philanthropic organization whose primary mission is to
shape positive change in health care for the people of New
York. We advance policies and support programs that promote
high-quality, patient-centered health care services that are
accessible to all. We undertake research and policy analysis
to improve the financing and delivery of care in hospitals,
health centers, nursing homes, and other care settings. We
raise funds and give grants to examine emerging issues and
stimulate innovative programs. And we work collaboratively
with civic, professional, and volunteer leaders to identify
and realize opportunities for change.
James R. Tallon, Jr.
President
Patricia S. Levinson
Frederick W. Telling, PhD
Vice Chairmen
Sheila M. Abrams
Treasurer
Sheila M. Abrams
David A. Gould
Sally J. Rogers
Senior Vice Presidents
Michael Birnbaum
Deborah E. Halper
Vice Presidents
Stephanie L. Davis
Corporate Secretary
HONORARY DIRECTORS
Howard Smith
Chairman Emeritus
Douglas T. Yates
Honorary Chairman
Herbert C. Bernard
John K. Castle
Timothy C. Forbes
Barbara P. Gimbel
Rosalie B. Greenberg
Allan Weissglass
3. Patient-Centered Medical
Homes in New York:
Updated Status and Trends
as of July 2013
Gregory Burke
D I R E C T O R , I N N O VA T I O N S T R A T E G I E S
UNITED HOSPITAL FUND
UNITED
HOSPITAL
FUND
4. Copyright 2013 by United Hospital Fund
ISBN 1-933881-38-0
Free electronic copies of this report are available at
the United Hospital Fund’s website, www.uhfnyc.org.
5. Introduction
This chartbook tracks the growth of patientcentered medical homes (PCMHs) in New York
State. It builds on analyses of National
Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) data
presented in two prior United Hospital Fund
reports: The Patient-Centered Medical Home:
Taking a Model to Scale in New York State (2011)
and The Evolution of Patient-Centered Medical
Homes in New York State: Current Status and
Trends as of September 2012 (2012).
Like those earlier reports, this update describes
trends in the number of providers in New York
State working in NCQA-recognized PCMHs,
provides insights into the adoption and spread of
the PCMH model over the past three years, and
identifies some issues for consideration by the
provider community, payers, and the New York
State Department of Health (NYSDOH) as the
medical home movement matures.
The following sections and the charts to which
the narrative refers describe changes in the
number of providers working at NCQArecognized PCMHs in New York from three
perspectives:
• Status of PCMH adoption in New York as of
July 2013 (Figures 1-13)
• Growth in PCMH adoption between July
2011 and July 2013 (Figures 14-22)
• Year-by-year trends for each region, by
practice type (Figures 23-34)
Highlights
New York State leads the nation in the adoption
of the medical home model, as measured by the
number of practices recognized by the NCQA as
patient-centered medical homes and the number
of PCMH providers—that is, providers working
in those practices.
Roughly half of all PCMH providers in the state
are in New York City and half are in non-NYC
regions. Those regions (and, within New York
City, the boroughs) vary markedly from each
other in terms of the penetration of the PCMH
model and the type of practice in which the
PCMH providers work.
After a period of rapid growth, the adoption of
the PCMH model in New York State has slowed.
Between 2011 and 2013, the number of PCMH
providers in New York grew by 44 percent, from
roughly 3,500 to nearly 5,000. Most of that
growth occurred between 2011 and 2012, much
of it in upstate regions. Between 2012 and 2013,
the number of PCMH providers in the state
grew by only 5 percent.
As of July 2013, 80 percent of the NCQArecognized PCMH providers in New York State
were recognized under NCQA’s 2008 standards.
To maintain NCQA recognition, those practices
will need to meet the NCQA’s more rigorous
2011 standards over the next few years.
A substantial portion of the cohort recognized
under NCQA’s 2008 standards, received
recognition as a Level 1 or Level 2 PCMH.
These practices (which include a large number
of small practices) may have more difficulty
retaining NCQA recognition.
Acknowledgments
This analysis would not have been possible
without the support of Kate Bliss from the
Office of Quality and Patient Safety in the New
York State Department of Health. Kate was of
enormous assistance in acquiring, scrubbing,
and formatting the NCQA data files for this set
of reports.
This report was supported in part by the Altman
Foundation, TD Charitable Foundation,
EmblemHealth, New York Community Trust,
and Excellus BlueCross BlueShield.
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
1
6. Methods
To produce this analysis, UHF received three
data files from the New York State Department
of Health (originally generated by the NCQA)
listing all providers working in NCQArecognized PCMHs as of three specific dates:
July 1, 2011; July 1, 2012; and July 1, 2013.
These files included all providers in New York
State working in practices recognized by the
NCQA as patient-centered medical homes,
along with basic demographics and descriptors,
enabling us to assign them to geographic regions
and practice type.
For consistency, we have maintained the
definitions of the metrics used in prior reports.
PCMH Providers: This includes all providers
listed as active in the NCQA reports: physicians
(MD and DO) and mid-level providers (e.g.,
nurse practitioner and physician’s assistant).1
NCQA Standards and Level of NCQA
Recognition: Practices have received three-year
NCQA recognition under either the 2008 or the
2011 standards, along with level of recognition
(Level 1, 2, or 3 PCMH).The original NCQA
PPC-PCMH Standards, published in 2008
(referred to in this report as the 2008 standards),
were used by the NCQA in its original
recognition process for all PCMHs. In 2011, the
NCQA published and began to use a revised set
of standards for PCMH recognition.
The 2011 standards include changes in the
number of “must-pass” elements, and in the
weighting and scoring of a number of measures
that determine the different levels of
recognition.
Providers applying for PCMH recognition after
January 1, 2011, were reviewed using the 2011
standards, as are those providers who were
recognized under the 2008 standards applying
for recertification.
New York State Regions: In these reports, we
have used a variant of New York State’s
insurance regions as a way of grouping and
analyzing PCMH Providers into seven regions:
• New York City (also analyzed at a borough
level, given its size and diversity)
• Long Island
• Hudson Valley
• Albany/Northeast New York
• Rochester Area
• Syracuse/Central New York
• Buffalo/Western New York
Practice Type: Providers who work within
different practice contexts (large group vs. solo
practice, for example) often have access to
different infrastructure and resources—e.g.,
electronic medical records and care managers—
and they face different challenges in achieving
and sustaining PCMH recognition. In order to
distinguish among these different settings
(which in some cases are also markers for
populations served) we use six different practice
types first established in the 2011 PCMH
report:
• Group Practice: Large and small groups,
with five or more physicians listed on the
NCQA roster
• Health Center: Federally qualified health
centers and state-licensed diagnostic and
treatment centers
• HHC: New York City’s Health and Hospitals
Corporation
• Hospital Clinic: On-site or communitybased clinics of hospitals
• Hospital/AMC Practice: Private practices
and faculty practice plans based in hospitals
and academic medical centers (AMCs)
• Practice: Small private practices, with fewer
than five physicians listed on the NCQA
roster
1 This report updates the PCMH data published in The Evolution of Patient-Centered Medical Homes in New York State: Current Status and
Trends as of September 2012. That report was based on data received from the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH),
which inadvertently included a number of providers and practices whose NCQA recognition had expired, resulting in an overcount of
providers working in NCQA-recognized PCMHs. In preparing this report we worked with NYSDOH staff to verify the “active” status
of all practices and providers as of July of all three years (2011, 2012, and 2013) and verified these figures with NCQA staff.
2
United Hospital Fund
7. Status of PCMH Adoption in New York State as of July 2013
Total PCMH Providers
New York State has led the nation in the
adoption of the medical home model. Based on a
recent review of NCQA data (which counts both
NCQA-recognized practices and providers
working in those practices), New York is home to
one-sixth of the total number of NCQArecognized PCMHs in the nation (Figures 1 and
2).
Examining only the number of PCMH providers
(physicians and mid-level practitioners) who are
working in practices that have achieved NCQA
recognition as PCMHs is a more accurate
measure of clinical capacity. As of July 2013,
NCQA data showed that there were 4,908
providers working in practices that had received
NCQA recognition as PCMHs in New York.
As shown in Figure 3, roughly half of the total
(2,533 PCMH providers, or 52 percent) were in
New York City, and half (2,375, or 48 percent)
were in other regions of the state.
Distribution by Region
The number of PCMH Providers in New York
State varied widely both by region of the state
and within New York City, as shown in Figures 4
and 5.
Distribution by Practice Type
The PCMH model is not evenly distributed
across different types of practices. Figure 6
depicts the distribution of providers working in
PCMH practices by practice type for the state as
a whole.
Statewide, large group practices and health
centers—organizations with the scale and
infrastructure to more readily support the
PCMH model—accounted for the largest
numbers of PCMH providers, followed by the
New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation, hospital clinics, and hospital/AMC
practices. Small practices (practices with fewer
than five providers), which have the least scale
and infrastructure, made up the smallest cohort.
There were marked differences between New
York City and the rest of the state in the
composition of PCMH providers by practice
type (Figures 7 and 8).
• Outside New York City, half of the PCMH
providers worked in large group practices.
• In New York City, group practices were a far
smaller proportion of the total (11 percent),
while hospital clinics (including HHC) and
hospital/AMC-based practices and faculty
practice plans were the dominant practice
type (78 percent, in aggregate).
The NYSDOH Hospital Medical Home program
will likely increase the number of providers in
hospital teaching clinics achieving NCQA
recognition under the 2011 standards over the
next year. There is presently no equivalent
program or initiative focused on providers
working in other practice types.
Distribution by practice site also varied
significantly among regions in the state (Figures
9 and 10).
Outside New York City, all regions showed a
substantial proportion of PCMH providers in
larger groups in 2013; Hudson Valley and Albany
had the largest cohort within health centers; and
Syracuse and Rochester had the largest
concentrations within hospital clinics and
hospital/AMC-affiliated practices, respectively.
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
3
8. Similar differences existed within New York City.
The HHC and health centers were consistently
strong across the four larger boroughs, but there
were differences among the boroughs in the
importance of groups, hospital clinics and small
practices. Manhattan had by far the largest
concentration of PCMH providers within
hospital/AMC practices, largely a function of the
adoption of the PCMH model by Manhattanbased medical school faculty practices.
maintain recognition, these practices will need
to reapply for NCQA recognition under NCQA’s
more rigorous 2011 standards.
Year and Level of
NCQA Recognition
As is shown in Figure 12, small practices face
the most substantial challenge: many were
recognized under the 2008 standards at Level 1
or Level 2. These practices represent over onethird (37 percent) of all small practices with
NCQA recognition as PCMHs (Figure 13).
As is shown in Figure 11, 3,905 (80 percent) of
the state’s 4,908 NCQA-recognized PCMH
providers worked in practices recognized at Level
1, 2, or 3 under NCQA’s 2008 standards. To
4
United Hospital Fund
Of the PCMH providers recognized under
NCQA’s 2008 standards, 588 (15 percent of the
2008 total) work in practices that were
recognized at Level 1 or 2, and they may have
greater difficulty meeting—or may be unwilling
to meet—NCQA’s 2011 standards, resulting in
some practices losing NCQA recognition.
9. Growth in PCMH Adoption, July 2011 to July 2013
Overall Growth
The number of providers working in NCQArecognized PCMHs grew by 44 percent over the
three-year period, increasing from a statewide
total of 3,399 in July 2011 to 4,908 in July 2013
(Figure 14). As shown in Figure 15, however,
that growth was not uniform; it was different in
New York City than in other parts of the state.
While New York City had 2,054 PCMH
providers in 2011, its growth between 2011 and
2012 was only 15 percent, and between 2012
and 2013 the rate of growth fell to 7 percent.
New York City accounted for 60 percent of the
state’s total PCMH providers in 2011 but
roughly 50 percent in 2012 and 2013.
Regions outside New York City had a different
trajectory. Non-NYC regions, which had 1,345
PCMH providers in 2011, grew to 2,298 in
2012, an increase of 71 percent. However,
between 2012 and 2013 this rate of growth
declined sharply, to only 3 percent.
Non-NYC regions’ share of the state’s total
PCMH providers grew from 40 percent in 2011
to roughly 50 percent in 2012, and remained at
that level in 2013.
Regional Differences in Growth
Outside New York City, the number of PCMH
providers grew substantially between 2011 and
2013 in all upstate regions, particularly in
Syracuse (Figure 16).
In New York City (Figure 17), there was less
impressive growth, roughly equivalent across the
boroughs, with the exception of Staten Island.
Growth in the number of PCMH providers
between 2011 and 2013 was evenly spread
across all practice types (Figure 18), with the
exception of the Health and Hospitals
Corporation, which had already achieved NCQA
recognition for essentially all of its primary care
clinics by 2011.
Looking at the growth in PCMH providers on a
year-by-year basis shows a somewhat different
picture. As is shown in Figure 19, there are
indications that, after rapid expansion in the
adoption of the PCMH model between 2011
and 2012 (when the number of PCMH
providers in the state grew by 37 percent), the
rate of growth in the PCMH model leveled off in
2013 to a rate of only 5 percent.
That decline in the rate of growth was statewide:
each of the non-NYC regions grew at roughly the
statewide average between 2012 and 2013
(Figure 20) and—with the exceptions of Queens
and Staten Island—in New York City (Figure
21). That phenomenon was evenly spread across
practice types as well (Figure 22).
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
5
10. Year-by-Year Trends for Each Region
Notwithstanding the modest rate of growth over
the past year, essentially every region in New
York showed a substantial increase in the
number of PCMH providers between 2011 and
2013.
As is shown in Figures 23-34, the regions varied
considerably from one another in numbers of
PCMH providers, the types of practices adopting
the PCMH model, and patterns of growth.
• In Albany/Northeast New York, where the
PCMH census was evenly spread among
practice types in 2011 (with groups the
largest cohort), there was marked growth in
groups and hospital clinics in 2012, which
held in 2013 (Figure 23).
• In Buffalo/Western New York, where the
PCMH census was dominated by groups in
2011, there was further growth in groups, as
well as in health centers and practices in
2012 and 2013 (Figure 24).
• In the Hudson Valley, which was dominated
by groups and health centers in 2011, there
was further growth in both types in 2012, and
in groups in 2013 (Figure 25).
• Long Island—which had the lowest PCMH
penetration of any region, largely composed
of groups—there was slight growth in 2012,
which leveled off in 2013 (Figure 26).
• In Rochester, where the PCMH census was
relatively evenly spread in 2011 among
Groups, Health Centers, Hospital Clinics,
and Hospital/AMC Practices, there was
substantial growth in 2012, driven in large
part by an increase in Hospital/AMC
practices (Figure 27).
• In 2011, Syracuse/Central New York had a
comparatively low PCMH penetration; it
increased considerably in 2012, driven by a
major increase in hospital clinics and groups
(Figure 28).
Within New York City, the boroughs were
6
United Hospital Fund
similarly diverse in the composition and growth
trajectories by practice type between 2012 and
2013.
• In 2011, New York City as a whole (Figure
29) had a PCMH profile that was quite
broadly based, with HHC, hospital clinics,
health centers, and hospital/AMC practices
all accounting for substantial proportions of
the total. In 2012 each showed overall
growth, with the largest absolute growth in
health centers, HHC, and practices.
• The Bronx, whose PCMH profile was more
institutionally based in 2011 (including
health centers, HHC, hospital clinics, and
hospital/AMC Practices), grew in both health
centers and HHC (Figure 30).
• Brooklyn, which in 2011 had the largest
proportion of its PCMHs in HHC (and fewer
in groups, health centers, hospital clinics,
and practices), showed growth in health
centers and hospital clinics (Figure 31).
• Manhattan (Figure 32), which in 2011 had a
relatively even spread of PCMHs across
health centers, HHC, and hospital clinics
(and the state’s largest cohort of
hospital/AMC practices), grew slightly in all
practice types. (Note: the number of PCMH
providers shown for hospital clinics in 2011
was overstated as a result of some duplicate
reporting; when corrected for that overcount,
the net growth in hospital clinics between
2011 and 2013 was in line with that of the
other boroughs.)
• Queens (Figure 33), which has a stronger
presence of groups and small practices than
the other boroughs, experienced most of its
growth between 2011 and 2013 in small
practices.
• Staten Island (Figure 34), which had the
smallest number of PCMHs of any borough,
was spread between groups and practices in
2011, both of which grew slightly in 2012
and 2013.
11. Conclusion
While New York State continues to lead the
nation in the adoption of the PCMH model of
care, and the medical home model is continuing
to grow in New York, that growth appears to be
leveling off. In addition, while the statewide
growth trajectory has been impressive, it masks
substantial variation in the adoption of the
PCMH model by practice type and region.
To date, the model’s greatest penetration has
been among larger practices that have the scale
and infrastructure required to operate as a
medical home. Considerable investment and
effort—and better alignment between payers and
providers—will be necessary to increase the
adoption of the medical home model among
smaller practices, which often lack the resources
to mount and sustain the PCMH model.
Similarly, the substantial variation across the
state in the distribution and spread of the
PCMH model reflects a series of region-specific
factors, including (and perhaps especially) the
underlying composition of the regions’ primary
care systems. This argues for the use of regionspecific approaches to stimulating and
supporting further growth in medical homes
across the state.
Further discussion of these issues is included in
an accompanying issue brief, Advancing PatientCentered Medical Homes in New York, available
on the United Hospital Fund’s website,
www.uhfnyc.org.
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
7
13. Figure 1. NCQA-Recognized PCMHs,
New York vs. Other States, 2013
Other States,
30,806
83%
NYS PCMH,
6,276
17%
Note: Includes both practices recognized as PCMH and providers working
in those practices. Data as of October 2013; all other figures in this report
show data current as of July 2013.
Source: National Committee for Quality Assurance. Available at
http://recognition.ncqa.org/index.aspx (accessed October 7, 2013).
1
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
9
14. Figure 2. PCMHs (Practices and Providers) in
New York, Other States, and the United States
State
California
Florida
Illinois
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Jersey
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
New York
Texas
Washington
Other States
U.S. Total
2008
Standards
218
515
686
711
556
421
2011
Standards Total in State
2,227
2,445
589
1,104
447
1,133
819
1,530
167
723
307
728
Pctg. of U.S.
Total
7%
3%
3%
4%
2%
2%
1,882
605
2,487
7%
1,761
4,859
1,221
594
7,630
21,054
828
1,417
447
364
7,811
16,028
2,589
6,276
1,668
958
15,441
37,082
7%
17%
4%
3%
42%
100%
Note: NCQA data include practices recognized as PCMHs and providers working in those
practices.
Source: NCQA Recognition Directory. Available at http://recognition.ncqa.org/index.aspx
(accessed October 7, 2013).
10
United Hospital Fund
P
1
15. Figure 3. New York State Providers in PCMHs,
July 2013
NYC, 2533,
52%
Non-NYC, 2375,
48%
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
1
11
16. Figure 4. Non-NYC Providers in PCMHs,
by Region, July 2013
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Albany/NE NY Buffalo Area Hudson Valley
L.I.
Rochester
Area
P
12
United Hospital Fund
Syracuse/Cent
NY
1
17. Figure 5. NYC Providers in PCMHs,
by Borough, July 2013
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Bronx
Kings
New York
Queens
Richmond
1
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
13
18. Figure 6. New York State Providers in PCMHs,
by Practice Type, July 2013
Practice, 472, 9%
Group, 1459,
30%
Hosp Px, 583,
12%
Hosp Clinic, 875,
18%
Health Ctr, 973,
20%
HHC, 546
11%
P
14
United Hospital Fund
1
19. Figure 7. Non-NYC Providers in PCMHs,
by Practice Type, July 2013
Hosp Px
194
8%
Practice
187
8%
Hosp Clinic
389
16%
Group
1,181
50%
Health Ctr
424
18%
18
U
d Hospital Fund
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
15
20. Figure 8. NYC Providers in PCMHs,
by Practice Type, July 2013
Practice
285
11%
Group
278
11%
Hosp/AMC Px
389
15%
Health Ctr
549
22%
Hosp Clinic
486
19%
HHC
546
22%
P
16
United Hospital Fund
1
21. Figure 9. Non-NYC Providers in PCMHs,
by Region and Practice Type, July 2013
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Albany/NE NY
Buffalo Area
Group
Health Ctr
Hudson Valley
HHC
L.I.
Hosp Clinic
Rochester Area Syracuse/Cent
NY
Hosp Px
Practice
2
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
17
22. Figure 10. NYC Providers in PCMHs,
by Borough and Practice Type, July 2013
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Bronx
Group
Kings
Health Ctr
New York
HHC
Hosp Clinic
Queens
Hosp Px
P
18
United Hospital Fund
Richmond
Practice
2
23. Figure 11. New York State Providers in PCMHs, by
NCQA Program and Level, July 2013
Level 1:
10 (0%)
Level 2: 57 (1%)
Level 3:
936 (19%)
Level 1:
405 (8%)
Level 3:
3,317 (68%)
Level 2:
183 (4%)
2
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
19
24. Figure 12. New York State Providers in Practices
Recognized Under NCQA’s 2008 Standards as
Level 1 and Level 2 PCMHs (N=588 Providers)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Level-1
Level-2
Group
64
30
Health Ctr
65
39
Hosp Clinic
70
81
Hosp Px
47
16
P
20
United Hospital Fund
Practice
159
17
2
25. Figure 13. Proportion of New York State Providers in
Practices Recognized Under NCQA’s 2008
Standards as Level 1 and Level 2 PCMHs, July 2013
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Group
2008 Levels 1 and 2
6%
Health
Ctr
11%
HHC
0%
Hosp
Clinic
17%
Hosp Px
Practice
11%
37%
2
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
21
27. Figure 14. Number of New York State Providers in
NCQA-Recognized PCMHs, 2011 and 2013
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
PCMH Providers in NYS
% Growth
2011
3,399
2013
4,908
44%
P
2
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
23
28. Figure 15. Growth in PCMH Providers, NYC vs. Rest
of State, 2011-2013
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2011
2012
2013
2
24
United Hospital Fund
NYC
2,054
2,366
2,533
Non-NYC
1,345
2,298
2,375
29. Figure 16. Changes in Non-NYC PCMH Providers by
Region, 2011-2013
600
2011
2013
500
400
300
200
100
0
Albany/NE NY
Buffalo Area
Hudson Valley
L.I.
Rochester Area Syracuse Central
NY
P
2
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
25
30. Figure 17. Changes in NYC PCMH Providers by
Borough, 2011-2013
1,200
2011
2013
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Bronx
3
26
United Hospital Fund
Brooklyn
Manhattan
Queens
Staten Island
31. Figure 18. Changes in New York State PCMH
Providers by Practice Type, 2011-2013
1,600
2011
2013
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Group
Health Ctr
HHC
Hosp Clinic
Hosp Px
P
Practice
3
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
27
32. Figure 19. Number of New York State Providers in
NCQA-Recognized PCMHs, 2011-2013
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
PCMH Providers in NYS
% Growth vs Prior Year
3
28
United Hospital Fund
2011
3,399
2012
4,664
37%
2013
4,908
5%
33. Figure 20. Changes in Non-NYC PCMH Providers by
Region, 2012-2013
500
2012
2013
400
300
200
100
0
Albany/NE NY
Buffalo Area
Hudson Valley
L.I.
Rochester Area
P
Syracuse
Central NY
3
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
29
34. Figure 21. Changes in NYC PCMH Providers
by Borough, 2012-2013
1200
2012
2013
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Bronx
3
30
United Hospital Fund
Brooklyn
Manhattan
Queens
Staten Island
35. Figure 22. Changes in New York State PCMH
Providers by Practice Type, 2012-2013
1,600
2012
1,400
2013
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Group
Health Ctr
HHC
Hosp Clinic
Hosp Px
P
Practice
3
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
31
37. Figure 23. Albany/Northeast New York
250
200
150
100
50
0
Group
Health Ctr
2011
Hosp Clinic
2012
Practice
2013
3
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
33
38. Figure 24. Buffalo Area
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Group
Health Ctr
Hosp Clinic
2011
2012
Hosp Px
2013
P
34
United Hospital Fund
Practice
3
39. Figure 25. Hudson Valley
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Group
Health Ctr
2011
Hosp Px
2012
Practice
2013
4
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
35
40. Figure 26. Long Island
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Group
Health Ctr
2011
Hosp Px
2012
Practice
2013
4
36
United Hospital Fund
41. Figure 27. Rochester Area
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Group
Health Ctr
Hosp Clinic
2011
2012
Hosp Px
Practice
2013
4
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
37
42. Figure 28. Syracuse/Central New York
250
200
150
100
50
0
Group
Health Ctr
Hosp Clinic
2011
38
2012
Hosp Px
Practice
2013
United Hospital Fund
P
4
43. Figure 29. New York City
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Group
Health Ctr
HHC
2011
Hosp Clinic
2012
Hosp Px
Practice
2013
Patient-Centered Medical Home Update, 2013
4
39
46. Figure 32. Manhattan
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Group
Health Ctr
HHC
2011
Hosp Clinic
2012
Hosp Px
Practice
2013
Note: The number of PCMH providers shown for hospital clinics in 2011 was overstated as a
result of some duplicate reporting; when corrected for that overcount, the net growth in hospital
clinics between 2011 and 2013 was in line with that of the other boroughs.
42
United Hospital Fund
P
4
48. Figure 34. Staten Island
16
12
8
4
0
Group
Practice
2011
44
2012
2013
United Hospital Fund
P
4
49. Shaping New York’s Health Care:
Information, Philanthropy, Policy.
1411 Broadway
12th Floor
New York, NY 10018
(212) 494-0700
http://www.uhfnyc.org
ISBN 1-933881-38-0
