<p>Multiple chronic conditions (MCC) affect approximately 130 million American adults, representing a critical health care challenge that standard, fragmented disease management has failed to adequately resolve. Evidence increasingly supports person-centered care planning (PCCP)—defined as a longitudinal care approach that places patient goals, values, and preferences at the center of treatment—as a necessary standard of practice. To address the gaps in current approaches and care models for management of MCC, this special collection presents four manuscripts emerging from a multi-faceted initiative to advance PCCP for those with or at risk for MCC, supported collectively by funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the John A. Hartford Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Together, these papers evaluate the current evidence base, operational challenges, on-the-ground clinician and patient experiences, and the evidence-based integration of symptom management into primary care.</p><p>The collection opens with foundational work by Totten, Dorr, Bierman, and colleagues, who conducted an environmental scan that informed the broader AHRQ initiative. Through a rigorous multi-component review of published and gray literature, the authors identified 40 PCCP models currently in use across diverse US health care settings. These models share a common commitment to whole-person care but differ substantially in how they achieve it—through making changes in the way care is provided. The authors characterized this change in care as focused on team roles and composition, technology, payment structures, clinical functions, and care focus. Approximately two-thirds of evaluated models demonstrated better or equivalent outcomes compared with usual care. The scan was complemented by qualitative interviews with 18 key informants who were able to provide rich contextual details on what works, how approaches can be improved, and what is impeding broadscale change. Barriers to adoption were consistent across settings: insufficient time, misaligned payment structures, and the cultural challenge of reorienting care delivery from disease management to patient-defined goals. Facilitators included flexible team structures, alignment with organizational mission, and leadership support. The environmental scan makes clear that a strong evidence base exists—what is lacking is the infrastructure, incentives, and implementation support to bring these models to scale.</p><p>The summary article by Davis, Coury, Nagykaldi, and colleagues presents findings from the PCCP for Persons with MCC Summit, a culminating event convened at AHRQ headquarters in Rockville, Maryland in March 2025. Drawing on 14 months of prior work, the Summit brought together 115 participants across sectors, including researchers, payers, health system leaders, community organizations, patients, and policymakers. Three broad takeaways emerged as essent
{"title":"Introduction to the Special Collection: Person-Centered Care Planning for Persons With Multiple Chronic Conditions","authors":"David A. Dorr, Ana R. Quiñones","doi":"10.1002/lrh2.70112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/lrh2.70112","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Multiple chronic conditions (MCC) affect approximately 130 million American adults, representing a critical health care challenge that standard, fragmented disease management has failed to adequately resolve. Evidence increasingly supports person-centered care planning (PCCP)—defined as a longitudinal care approach that places patient goals, values, and preferences at the center of treatment—as a necessary standard of practice. To address the gaps in current approaches and care models for management of MCC, this special collection presents four manuscripts emerging from a multi-faceted initiative to advance PCCP for those with or at risk for MCC, supported collectively by funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the John A. Hartford Foundation, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Together, these papers evaluate the current evidence base, operational challenges, on-the-ground clinician and patient experiences, and the evidence-based integration of symptom management into primary care.</p><p>The collection opens with foundational work by Totten, Dorr, Bierman, and colleagues, who conducted an environmental scan that informed the broader AHRQ initiative. Through a rigorous multi-component review of published and gray literature, the authors identified 40 PCCP models currently in use across diverse US health care settings. These models share a common commitment to whole-person care but differ substantially in how they achieve it—through making changes in the way care is provided. The authors characterized this change in care as focused on team roles and composition, technology, payment structures, clinical functions, and care focus. Approximately two-thirds of evaluated models demonstrated better or equivalent outcomes compared with usual care. The scan was complemented by qualitative interviews with 18 key informants who were able to provide rich contextual details on what works, how approaches can be improved, and what is impeding broadscale change. Barriers to adoption were consistent across settings: insufficient time, misaligned payment structures, and the cultural challenge of reorienting care delivery from disease management to patient-defined goals. Facilitators included flexible team structures, alignment with organizational mission, and leadership support. The environmental scan makes clear that a strong evidence base exists—what is lacking is the infrastructure, incentives, and implementation support to bring these models to scale.</p><p>The summary article by Davis, Coury, Nagykaldi, and colleagues presents findings from the PCCP for Persons with MCC Summit, a culminating event convened at AHRQ headquarters in Rockville, Maryland in March 2025. Drawing on 14 months of prior work, the Summit brought together 115 participants across sectors, including researchers, payers, health system leaders, community organizations, patients, and policymakers. Three broad takeaways emerged as essent","PeriodicalId":43916,"journal":{"name":"Learning Health Systems","volume":"10 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2026-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lrh2.70112","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148616461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}