Tuberculosis treatment requires medication and monitoring

Tuberculosis (TB) continues to be a problem in the United States, particularly among at-risk populations. The groups at highest risk for TB include people living with someone who has active disease, and those with a lowered immune response, such as HIV patients.

“Every medical center in our region has tuberculosis on its risk assessment list, that is, its list of potential issues to monitor on a continuing basis,” says Stephen Parodi, MD, chief of infectious disease for Kaiser Permanente, Northern California. “We make it a priority to ensure that patients at risk for infection with TB are screened for latent infections.”

The region includes 20 medical centers serving 3.1 million members. Dr. Parodi says the plan encourages screening for those who have been incarcerated or have a history of IV drug use and has educated primary care physicians and pediatricians to screen for TB.

“We saw a significant surge in TB cases when the HIV epidemic first hit; since then we’ve seen a leveling off,” he says. “In terms of epidemiology, it’s interesting to note that many cases we’re now seeing are in foreign-born individuals. We live in a global world, and we need to be aware that constant vigilance and aggressive, early recognition of latent and active disease will prevent further spread.”

Most people infected with tuberculosis don’t have any symptoms. When a patient is positive for latent TB, the clinician looks at the risk factors and determines (based on criteria from the Centers for Disease Control) whether the person is a candidate for preventive medicine.

“Preventive medicine is a lot easier than treating the active form of the disease,” Dr. Parodi says. “With latent disease we can treat with one drug, as opposed to active disease, where we typically have to use a minimum of four drugs initially.”

Patients who develop active TB experience symptoms such as weight loss, fever, night sweats, cough, chest pain and bloody sputum.

“Until susceptibility results are available, empiric initial treatment for active TB should include four drugs: isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide and ethambutol,” says Mark Abramowicz, MD, editor-in-chief of The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics, a non-profit newsletter that critically appraises drugs. “When susceptibility to isoniazid, rifampin and pyrazinamide has been documented, ethambutol can be omitted.”

DIRECT PATIENT OBSERVATION NEEDED

One of the greatest problems in TB treatment today is the emergence of drug-resistant strains of the bacteria.

“Poor adherence to TB therapy is the most common cause of treatment failure, and can lead to drug resistance,” says Dr. Abramowicz. “Medical Letter consultants recommend that most patients, including those with disease due to drug-susceptible strains, take drugs for active TB under direct observation.”

At Kaiser, patients with active TB are monitored closely, typically with a monthly office visit. Kaiser physicians sign the orders for directly observed therapy, which is provided by the county public health department.

“We provide medications, lab testing to monitor potential side effects, symptom assessments, and imaging, x-rays or CT scans as needed,” Dr. Parodi says. “Protocols differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in terms of exactly who gets directly observed therapy, but in our experience, most counties are aggressive. If there is an identified case of active, potentially contagious TB, that person is receiving directly observed therapy.”

Extensively drug-resistant TB is a form of the disease caused by strains that are resistant to all the most effective anti-TB drugs. The World Health Organization reports that 41 countries have cases of extensively drug-resistant TB, including the United States.

“Confirmed multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis should be treated with directly observed therapy in collaboration with a clinician familiar with management of these conditions,” says Dr. Abramowicz. “Regimens for these conditions must include at least four drugs to which the organism is susceptible; the duration of therapy usually should be 18 to 24 months.”

In recent years, researchers have made considerable progress toward developing new medications that could treat tuberculosis more effectively. Eleven new medications from seven different drug classes are currently in clinical trials for tuberculosis.

“The medications that are farthest along are antibiotics called fluoroquinolones, which have the potential to shorten the duration of therapy,” says Eric Nuermberger, MD, associate professor of medicine and international health at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, who is on the faculty of Hopkins’ Center for Tuberculosis Research. “Current medications require six to nine months; we hope fluoroquinolones will reduce that to four months. Four phase II studies of fluoroquinolones are currently underway, and we should have an answer in about two years.”

Fluoroquinolone drugs are already on the market in the United States for acute conditions such as community-acquired respiratory tract infections and urinary tract infections.

Of the medications that are being developed solely for tuberculosis, the one that’s furthest along is TMC207, developed by Tibotec.

According to a recent study in The New England Journal of Medicine, when researchers added TMC207 to a standard regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, a significantly higher proportion of patients had negative sputum cultures at two months.

Elaine Zablocki has been reporting on healthcare for more than 20 years. She is based in Oregon.

This article is based on information supplied by The Medical Letter (www.medicalletter.org), a non-profit organization that publishes newsletters offering critical appraisals of new drugs and comparative reviews of older drugs. The Medical Letter is independent of the pharmaceutical industry and supported entirely by subscription sales. Institutional site license inquiries can be sent to info@medicalletter.org [info@medicalletter.org]

Mortality, costs higher for women with cardiovascular disease

HEART DISEASE SHOULD top the list of women’s health concerns. Women disproportionately fear dying from breast cancer compared to heart disease, dutifully scheduling annual mammography, oblivious to their cardiovascular risks. There is little demand by women and the medical community for an urgent agenda or a “march for the cure” for heart disease in women.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the single most common cause of death in women and men. Despite widespread assumptions to the contrary, women have accounted for more than one-half of the almost 1 million deaths due to heart disease and stroke in the United States annually since 1984. Women, compared to men, especially those under the age of 50 years, experience higher rates of recurrent myocardial infarction, heart failure and mortality after a first myocardial infarction, and are more likely to be misdiagnosed or diagnosed late in the course of their illness.

Annual hospitalizations and mortality for heart failure and total CVD expenditures are greater for women than men. While mortality from cardiovascular diseases has significantly declined over the past three decades, women have not experienced the same reductions in death and disability as have men. This significant gender-related mortality gap persists due to a combination of low awareness, misconceptions by physicians and women, gender-based physiologic differences, and disparities in care.

While these data might initially appear discouraging, improving these measures represents a significant opportunity to improve women’s CVD outcomes as well reduce overall healthcare expenditures by providing optimal screening and preventive services, appropriate and accurate diagnostic tests and timely cardiac care.

LESS THERAPY FOR WOMEN

The underlying causes for these disparities are multifactorial and the solutions complex. Gender-based disparities in preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions are present on multiple levels. Women receive fewer cardiac diagnostic evaluations and less intensive therapy, from preventive interventions, to revascularization procedures to aspirin prescriptions. Even after a diagnosis of heart disease, gender-based differences in provision of care are present.

Women hospitalized with myocardial infarction are more likely than men to be managed by generalists, rather than referred for cardiology consultation, and are less likely to be transferred from community hospitals to centers for advanced care—practices associated with poorer short-term outcomes.

Additionally, societal and individual misconceptions about cardiovascular risk and what a heart patient “looks like,” along with inadequate gender-specific research data on cardiovascular disease and risk factors, contribute to lower awareness and poorer outcomes. While women’s symptoms can sometimes be challenging to address, both women and their physicians can be too quick to attribute potential manifestations of cardiac disease to menopause or aging. It is important to counteract the widely held belief that women do not develop heart disease except at advanced ages by raising physicians’ “index of suspicion” for cardiovascular disease in women.

There is also a growing body of literature documenting important biologic gender differences in CVD that may impact clinical care delivery. There are obvious differences due to the effects of gonadal hormones. However, differences in symptoms, accuracy of diagnostic tests, response to therapy, prevalence and relative risk of cardiovascular risk factors, as well as social and behavioral issues have all been identified. It is not always apparent whether or not these differences warrant a variation in established practice.

Many early cardiovascular clinical trials routinely exclude women or make no effort to enroll women in sufficient numbers to draw gender-based conclusions. With few exceptions, women currently make up only 20% to 30% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials. Even when women are included as research subjects, it is often difficult to determine their outcomes from published reports. Only a quarter of recent cardiovascular trial results published in major U.S. internal medicine and cardiology journals reported gender-specific outcomes.

The lack of relevant research in women has resulted in a substantial and persistent gender-based knowledge gap about everything from the symptoms of heart attack in women, to the risks and benefits of commonly used cardiovascular diagnostic tests and therapies. Better evidence from properly designed research studies can better serve women with CVD.

An important example is the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI)-funded multi-center Women’s Ischemic Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) study of approximately 900 women who underwent coronary angiography for chest pain symptoms and a multitude of other investigations designed to better characterize ischemic heart disease in women. We have already learned a great deal from numerous WISE publications that have underscored the value of gender-specific research and fundamentally changed the understanding of chest pain, CVD risk factors, vascular function, hormone interactions and atherosclerosis in women.

Cardiovascular clinical trial design must include women in adequate numbers to provide gender-specific data, and that data must be analyzed and reported by gender.

Systemic contributions to differences in cardiovascular care for women also include physician practice and referral patterns. In the United States, many women receive all or most of their medical care from specialists in obstetrics and gynecology during their reproductive years and continue those relationships well past menopause, or until a significant non-gynecologic illness occurs. Traditionally, there has been a greater focus on reproductive and breast health than on other health risks, and less awareness and self efficacy among these specialists about early cardiovascular risk identification and treatment.

RISK FACTORS ON THE RISE

The rise in risk factor prevalence in younger women, especially smoking, obesity and diabetes, has led to a growing number of individuals at high risk who do not look like typical heart patients. Reducing women’s future burden of CVD will depend heavily on improved preventive measures which currently fall short of recommendations. Simply taking what has been proven effective, and widely and appropriately applying it to women, can markedly improve care and outcomes.

Critical to this effort is continued education about women’s cardiovascular risks, symptoms and the use of appropriate diagnostic tests and therapies.

The most recent guideline, published in 2007 by the American Heart Assn. and endorsed by multiple professional and patient organizations, has simplified the risk assessment and decision-making process for easier implementation in daily practice.

The guidelines encourage clinicians and patients to focus on reducing long-term, rather than 10-year CVD risk. With few exceptions, those therapies that have been shown efficacious in men also prevent CVD in women and should be recommended to women at risk.

Sharonne Hayes, MD, FACC, is the director of the Mayo Clinic Women’s Heart Clinic and associate professor of medicine for the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine.

Paying now and chasing later the worst way to counteract fraud

AS SHOWN BY several significant industry studies, fraud and abuse take an enormous bite out of national healthcare. According to a Thomson Reuters’ October 2009 report, fraud costs $125 billion to $175 billion a year, accounting for nearly one-fifth of all healthcare dollars wasted—about 7% of healthcare spending overall. Other experts put the figure as high as 10%.

Preventing funds from leaving the organization, rather than retroactively prosecuting those who took it, is critical, according to James Quiggle, director of communications for the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, based in Washington, D.C.

“Once the money is out the door, it’s very difficult to recover,” he says. “And while an insurer is chasing money that’s already gone, new schemes spring up to take more. Health fraud is easy to get into and highly lucrative. An illiterate immigrant with minimal education could latch onto an organized gang’s scheme and be a multimillionaire a year later.”

On the bright side, efforts to prevent fraud and abuse typically provide an excellent return on investment. For every dollar a payer invests, there usually is a return of six or seven dollars, according to Louis Saccoccio, executive director of the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Assn. (NHCAA).

“Most importantly, all of the healthcare stakeholders need to share information about their fraud investigations,” he says. “Without the relevant information, technology can only do so much.”

Although everyone agrees the problem is rampant, the industry’s outlook on fraud frequently is different from that of the general public. While many in the general population focus on punishing the perpetrators, most health plans simply want to keep from paying out more money than they need to.

“The word ‘fraud’ generates a lot of excitement, because it’s easy to understand and generates a lot of interest from a public relations standpoint,” says Dean Farley, vice president with Eden Prairie, Minn.-based Ingenix Consulting.

In his role, Farley oversees the company’s prospective payment and payment accuracy consulting services. He says in many cases, the intent behind the transaction is difficult to determine, and ultimately irrelevant. From a payer’s perspective, the focus is on any type of incorrect payment or overpayment.

“The goal is to identify all types of overpayment and stop them before money leaves the organization,” he says. “And they’re less concerned with putting the bad guys in jail than they are ensuring that the bad guys don’t get the money in the first place.”

One of the greatest challenges payers have when battling fraud involves provider relations. The more aggressive a plan is when investigating suspicious claims, the more payments will be delayed.

Additionally, there are legal issues regarding prompt payment, at the state level and under ERISA. Many of the laws have exceptions for claims that a payer decides to investigate as potentially fraudulent. Still, unless the evidence is overwhelming, plans usually opt to simply pay it rather than risk worsening provider relations or legal issues.

PAYERS GIVE CHASE

Unfortunately, Quiggle says, paying now and chasing it later isn’t a very effective strategy.

“Once the money leaves the plan, it’s often gone for good,” he says. “These organized gangs are very smart in terms of covering their tracks, and steal with production-line precision and volume. They can steal tens of millions of dollars in a very short time and move much of the money overseas, making it virtually impossible to find. Even the money that stays here in the United States might have already been converted into a Ferrari or a villa by the time a health plan tracks it down.”

Anti-fraud technologies such as predictive analysis seek to identify potentially fraudulent behavior and can do it in near real-time, Quiggle says. Complex schemes that used to take investigators weeks or months of sifting through manila folders to discover, can be uncovered with predictive analysis overnight.

Because not every plan has the resources to invest in prevention, NHCAA has developed a fraud database, available to member companies and all government agencies.

“If someone is defrauding one payer, they’re almost certainly defrauding others, and government agencies as well,” Saccoccio says.

If Payer A (or a government agency) opened an investigation into potential fraud by a certain provider in a certain geographic area, they load the information into the system. Later, if Payer B has suspicions about that provider, they could see that Payer A already opened an investigation.

“The two could then compare notes and get a much better picture of what’s going on,” he says. “Much of the data we need to fight fraud already exists; we just need to share it and use it better.”

Quiggle says without collaboration, every insurance company is like the blind man touching an elephant: He can only get his arms around a small part of the problem and will never see the whole picture.

Overpayments that result from simple misunderstandings, however, might not be fraudulent, even though they cost billions of dollars each year. Part of the problem is the distance and time lapsed between the delivery of the service and the reimbursement for the service. The bill is the only real medium between the two, and payers have little insight into how providers create them.

“The bill is supposed to be a reflection of the medical record, but payers don’t have access to those unless they specifically ask for them,” Farley says. “If payers had more insight into what services are actually being delivered and the clinical condition of the patients when those services were delivered, overpayment would be a much smaller problem.”

And while health plans can’t communicate individually with every one of the thousands of providers in their network, they most certainly can communicate with them en masse. Transparency should be the first goal, Farley says.

“Health plans can use their Web portals to spell out, very clearly, exactly what their expectations are in terms of bill preparation,” Farley says. “They also need to make sure that their claims adjudication systems enforce those payment rules exactly as they are spelled out.”

Another step insurers can take is to design their processes to be similar to those of other health plans—or even the government. There’s a lot of talk about administrative simplification, but there isn’t much of it happening, Farley says.

“There’s no reason that a plan couldn’t align its methodologies with those of other payers, and there’s no reason they couldn’t use Medicare principles and Medicare billing requirements to drive their contracting,” he says. “Most providers are already familiar with those and it would help them understand what a payer’s requirements and expectations are.”

Farley also recommends that plans get serious about audits.

“You can’t check every claim, but you can convey to your network that you’re serious about identifying overpayments,” he says. “That delivers a message to the network, and prevention of overpayment is the number one goal.”

Michael T. McCue is a Virginia-based freelance writer.

Cost spiral slows, stays on upward path

Squeezed by the recession, U.S. health spending growth slowed from 6% in 2007 to 4.4% in 2008, the smallest increase in nearly half a century, according to a new federal report. Still, health costs hit $2.3 trillion, rising from 15.9% of Gross Domestic Product to 16.2% as economic output sagged.

Experts say the slowdown in total spending doesn’t necessarily signal any long-term flattening of the cost curve.

“History would say it’s not sustainable,” says Bob Campbell, the state government leader for Deloitte LLP. “As the economy turns, so do healthcare costs.”

PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SPENDING

Federal healthcare spending grew much faster than private or local government spending. Costs for various federal programs soared 10.4% in 2008, with Medicare increasing 8.6% compared with 7.1% the year before. Healthcare consumed 36% of federal revenue, compared with 28% in 2007.

In contrast, spending by private businesses grew only 1.2% in 2008, while state and local government spending grew 3.4%, compared with 6.6% the year before. Health Affairs, which published the report last month, said business costs for healthcare declined as private plan enrollment dropped by 1 million people—at least partly due to lost jobs.

State Medicaid spending growth declined, according to authors, partly because cash-strapped states cut payments to hospitals and other providers.

The report, compiled by researchers at the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) attributed the overall health cost slowdown to the economic recession. But the jump in federal spending was due to faster Medicare spending growth on hospitals, physicians, Part D drug benefits, and private Medicare Advantage plans, as well as a temporary new infusion of federal funds into state Medicaid programs.

Costs for Medicare Advantage plans soared 21.3% in 2008—to $108.2 billion—similar to the 22.1% growth in 2007. That was due to 13.6% enrollment growth in private Medicare plans, and to a 22.9% increase in Part D drug spending within those plans.

“The slowdown is good news but likely reflects the recession and to some extent anticipation by providers of the threat of controls from healthcare reform,” said Marilyn Moon, a health economist at the American Institutes for Research in Washington, D.C. “When people are feeling more secure, I expect we’ll see it go up again.”

By sector, U.S. spending on hospitals totaled $718.4 billion in 2008, with cost growth dropping to 4.5% from 5.9% the year before—the slowest rate of increase since 1998. Expenditures for physician and outpatient clinical services reached $496.2 billion, representing 5% growth, down from 5.8% and the slowest growth rate since 1996. But outpatient clinical costs rose faster than physician spending—6.6% versus 4.7%.

SLOW GROWTH ON DRUG SPENDING

Prescription drug prices grew 2.5% in 2008 compared with 1.4% the year before; that was still below the average annual growth of 4.1% from 1997 to 2007. Home health spending reached $64.7 billion in 2008, with growth declining to 9% from 11.8%.

Private health insurance premiums and benefits in 2008 grew 3.1% and 3.9%, respectively, the slowest rate since 1967. That was due to declines in enrollment and smaller spending growth for physician and outpatient services and prescription drugs, journal authors said. Consumer out-of-pocket spending growth slowed to 2.8%, from 6%, as people may have forgone medical care due to the poor economy and unemployment.

Moon says the new report shows that congressional health reformers are targeting the right areas for cost control—Medicare spending on hospitals and Medicare Advantage plans, which are among the fastest growing sectors.

Health Affairs authors cautioned that despite the overall spending slowdown, monitoring the drivers of cost growth will remain critical since the proportion of personal income and government revenue devoted to healthcare continues to rise and the nation faces an uncertain economic future.

Campbell warns that health reform could drive up costs as uninsured Americans obtain coverage and seek care. But Moon says reform will have highly uneven effects, with the drive toward ever-increasing prices possibly moderating when there are more paying patients.

“Those things are very hard to predict until it’s all out there in full bloom,” she says.

Medical homes in practice

Healthcare is notorious for trying out solutions that seem to work in theory, only to watch them collapse in practice. Like throwing spaghetti at the wall, players from all segments have experimented, looking for new ideas that might stick.

The most recent concept that is showing real sticking power is the patient-centered medical home.

Since 2006, more than 30 states have initiated projects to apply the medical-home concept to Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Programs. Reduced costs, better support for chronic care and improved population health are the impetus behind the local efforts, which comprehensively hold the potential to effect system change, piece by piece.

Although no two projects are identical, all reflect core principles of aligning reimbursement, supporting primary-care practices, measuring results and scaling the model beyond an initial pilot phase. Early results have shown promise, which is inspiring more payers and providers to adopt the model.

The general arrangement of a team of clinicians providing a home base of individualized, coordinated care and prevention emerged through the American Academy of Pediatrics in the 1960s for specific pediatric populations. It wasn’t until recent years—as the industry began to focus more on healthcare value—that the medical-home idea was identified as a potential formula for improvement of service delivery within broader primary care practice.

In 2007, four major physician groups defined a set of joint principles to describe a patient-centered medical home, which was soon followed by the creation of the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative (PCPCC), which represents employers, plans, providers and other organizations that endorse the principles. The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) is currently in the process of updating standards for its medical-home recognition program, which were initially released in January 2008.

Policymakers and the healthcare industry continue to assess the local projects, anxious to determine their financial worth and their promise for large-scale implementation.

MANAGED HEALTHCARE EXECUTIVE recently brought together a roundtable of executive thought leaders to discuss the issues related to patient-centered medical homes. The panel includes:

• Paul Grundy, MD, chairman of the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative and director of healthcare technology and strategic initiatives at IBM;
• Lori Heim, MD, president, American Academy of Family Physicians;
• Len Nichols, economist, New America Foundation;
• Jerry Salkowe, MD, vice president of clinical quality improvement, MVP Healthcare; and
• C. Edwin Webb, PharmD, associate executive director, American College of Clinical Pharmacy

MHE: What do you see as the long term potential of applying the medical-home model in the next five to 10 years?

Grundy: The early pilots’ results are—well, first of all, they’re early—but I think they’re quite impressive. The PCPCC presented data from 10 of those pilots to the White House a few months ago, and what we’re seeing is better integrated, coordinated care.

When you have comprehensive, accountable, accessible, integrated, coordinated care, that results in lower downstream costs. We’re seeing hospitalizations dropping by 20%. We’re seeing hospitalization readmissions dropping by 40%. We’re seeing emergency room utilization dropping by 12% when patients have access to more robust, integrated primary care—which is better upstream care. That bodes well for the future, in which we really need to look at value creation.

Salkowe: The enthusiasm is growing by leaps and bounds outside of the pilots, so physicians who have been either ignoring or sitting back and watching what the earlier doctors did aren’t sitting back and watching anymore. They’re getting very engaged and very interested in pursuing [NCQA recognition] and many of the features in medical homes now, even if they’re not an active part of an organized pilot.

Heim: I see the medical home being integral when you look forward to whether or not it’s an ACO [accountable care organization] or just more generally talking about value-based design. As hospitals and big health organizations begin to look at this, how they integrate with the small practice is going to be one of the biggest challenges.

If you look at the North Carolina Community Care project, that was community based. It showed incredible cost savings and increases in quality, but that was another way to virtually link a bunch of community based practices, which is going to be one of the models we’ll have to accept because large health organizations are not going to be in all communities. But yet, the hospitals and the communities are still going to have to figure out a way to control the costs. And the other critical component then is getting the IT linked up.

MHE: Some say medical homes will not solve the problem of fragmented care. Primary care will continued to be siloed apart from subspecialists. Do you foresee that?

Heim: If people are saying that medical homes will further fragment care, I don’t think they understand the model because it’s the opposite that’s true. The basic tenet of the medical home is the personal physician is the coordinator of the care, and there’s integration of the patient’s needs, not only when they walk into the office, but by taking advantage of knowing your population and doing population management, using IT and tools and a team approach to coordinate that care.

Without something like the ACOs and aligning incentives, we have a mismatch in terms of how much the subspecialists and the other members of the team are brought into integrating that care. I definitely would say it’s not going to go in the opposite direction.

Webb: I’m not sure we could fragment healthcare any worse than it is right now, particularly across professions and disciplines. One of the things that is exciting to the pharmacist community is the potential for the medical home model to integrate across professional care concerns—again, assuming that we can find mechanisms to realign payment incentives, also understanding it’s obviously not possible to have a pharmacist in every three- or four-person medical practice in the United States.

Community Care in North Carolina has done an excellent job of integrating pharmacists’ services as part of the team in a virtual environment across several small- and medium-size practices. The only way we can integrate health professionals into a team is with the medical home because the current payment methodology and our cottage-based industry of silos just isn’t doing the job anymore.

Grundy: From the standpoint of the patient, the patient wants to see the specialist or the person who focuses on a certain part of the body as part of their medical home team. When they need a hip replaced, they have more than a hip. They have a whole bunch of other parts that somehow interconnect, and there has to be medication management adjudication, for example. There have to be linkages and integration, and that’s not happening now at all.

There are places in the United States where it will cost $177,000 for the last six months of life and other places where it costs $17,000. When you look at the places where it costs us seven times as much, what you’ll find is seven specialists doing seven different things—none of it linked, none of it coordinated, none of it integrated, and some of it, by the way, toxic to what the other providers are doing.

I just happened to be in New Mexico at Presbyterian Hospital recently and in Dallas and Tulsa where they’re doing a fantastic job of actually integrating the specialists into the medical home, where everybody’s practicing at the top of their license. In Tulsa, the primary care docs will email the specialists and integrate and pay for an email consult, which the specialists love, and the primary care docs love, but most importantly, the patients love it because it keeps them from wasting half a day [at a medical appointment] when the primary care doc’s doing a good job.

I would agree that whoever asks that question doesn’t understand the model.

Salkowe: There is one aspect of this we need to be conscious of. There are individuals who have one major chronic illness, and 90% of their care is being provided by a specialist: a gastroenterologist, rheumatologists or an oncologist, for example. And health plans are expected to and allow such a specialist to function as a PCP, even though we know that the focus of that care is on specialty needs, and there may be gaps in preventive health needs or other unrelated health conditions. That’s an important reality.

Now, I think we all agree that in a well managed medical home, care that specialist is providing is enhanced because of the improved communication coordination with other physicians that invariably are involved, whether it’s preventive services or hypertension or something else. There is a bit of hesitancy on the part of some of the specialists because of the scenario and uncertainty of whether a PCP should be treating everything. What happens when I have a patient where I really need to be out in front in terms of making decisions?

Heim: There are certainly many patients that I have had over the years, when the oncologist is functioning as the patient-centered medical home. I have no problem with that. From the standpoint of being recognized as a patient-centered medical home, that’s different than a subspecialist who then begins to assume the majority of the care and becomes the director. The problem is that oftentimes they’re handling maybe 70% of what’s currently going on in that patient’s life. However much of the other stuff gets either ignored or sidelined.

So if a rheumatologist becomes the patient-centered medical home, then in order to make sure that they are truly functioning in the whole aspect of managing that patient, they need to fulfill some sort of recognition program. In order for this model to work, you have to realign the payment. That would not be a major barrier if the payment were going to switch from the patient’s PCP to a subspecialist as the designated patient-centered medical home and have the payment model then switch over to that of a patient-centered medical home. That’s not a problem so long as they are then willing to take on the requirement to manage or coordinate the entire care of the patient.

MHE: What is the best strategy for reimbursement in medical home models?

Salkowe: The model that most programs seem to circle around is one that preserves perhaps 60% of the compensation as traditional fee-for-service reimbursement with the other 40% divided between process measures, care management activities and outcomes. The numbers that I’m generally seeing are 30% for the care management piece and 10% for the outcomes piece, although from the early projects where the outcomes just haven’t been measured yet, it may focus solely on care management.

That seems to get us to the dollars that are needed for support, the additional resources the practices need, whether it’s trained staff or new systems, and also to include the extra remuneration that’s needed to really engage the primary care physicians and the work around this new model.

Nichols: I like the structure that Jerry just described, and it makes a whole lot of sense, especially in transition, which is what we’re going to be in probably for three to 10 years—with a fee-for-service base but with a lot of incentives packed around care management and outcomes. Those proportions may very well change over time and may be different in different parts of the country.

The most creative thing we can do in the pilots that we hope come out of healthcare reform is to work out different kinds of shared-savings models. What’s an average cost for a diabetic? You think about the number of diabetics and different comorbidities and you can work out an expected expenditure over the year, including, in my view, expected hospitalizations and utilizations of specialists.

Then instead of holding a primary care team or even a formal medical home at risk, you could have them share in the savings that they might achieve if they hit the targets to achieve savings. Then you really do align incentives. A 2.0 model might include some incentives back to the patient so they too can see a real monetary gain in participating, because after all, health is a participation sport. You want the patients very much engaged. It’s unambiguously true we have to find a way to leverage our rather short supply of primary care professionals, in particular as we think about expanding coverage and access to care in the next five years.

Heim: One of the concerns that I’ve had with shared savings is it being time-limited. If you look at the efficiencies you will gain over time, eventually those efficiencies are going to diminish. Have you thought about making sure that the shared savings don’t become the major component of the blended payment model?

For example, I was in the Air Force for 25 years and after I had a stable population and managed them, I had already found disease and managed it and achieved significant cost savings and decreasing utilization. But then we reached a steady state, relatively. Were you saying, Len, that would be something on top of a designated funding stream for the blended payments?

Nichols: Well, Lori, remember I used the word ‘transition,’ and you are talking about a steady state and a longrun. I would agree that the ideal would be we will get to a place where all patients, especially those with chronic illnesses, are managed optimally and there are no savings to be reached out of the system. I think we all know we are a very long way from there.

What I’m talking about is a mechanism that can enable us to turbo-charge the transition. Ultimately I think you’re right. You would want to go to a more blended payment at the end, but I don’t see how you get from here to there fast without a shared savings component.

It enables you to reach beyond the primary care team to enable the hospital and the specialist and the pharmacist and everybody else to participate. That has a greater potential for aligning interests quicker in a way that is much more likely to be transformative. And yes, once we’ve reached the level of efficiency you reached with your patients in the Air Force, it’ll be a different world. But we’re a long way from there.

Webb: The blended payment model approach that PCPCC has recommended has one other interprofessional political advantage, and that is it defuses some of the potential battles at the feeding trough of fee-for-service. If all members of the team are participating in a blended payment approach, that brings revenue into the medical home based on those performance parameters, then the physician-directed leadership of the practice can then pick and choose among the various members of the team who are needed to be involved in the care of a particular patient at a particular time. There’s not that kind of competition for the fee-for-service dollars among the providers blended into a payment model that rewards team performance rather than individual fee-for-service performance.

As a profession that’s been fighting for years and years to have its non-dispensing services recognized under Medicare Part B—pharmacists have been fighting that battle for 10 or 15 years—this may be a very good thing in terms of an approach that blends all of the qualities that have been mentioned already because that really is what will generate patient-centric care among all the team members.

Grundy: I think there’s another constituency that we need to include in the considerations around shared savings. There’s also the reality that our employers are not competitive in a world market, and in many ways that’s because of healthcare costs. We have large numbers of individuals who can’t afford insurance so some of the savings really needs to come back to those who are actually paying for the healthcare…which will allow them to be more competitive with other parts of the world where healthcare may be more heavily subsidized by the government.

Nichols: That’s right and trust me, they can get their share of the same things, too. I definitely would concur in the short run, the best thing we could do is incentivize clinicians to work together across the traditional silos. Then I’m pretty sure the employers and plans will figure out how to get their piece of that.

MHE: Are behavioral health professionals increasingly being included as part of the medical home?

Grundy: I was in Albuquerque at Presbyterian, and they had a very integrated behavioral health model and a very integrated pharmacy model. The combination was really magic. We were seeing medication-management education and behavior-management education that was enhancing care and amplifying and cadencing the message that the primary care provider was delivering—on ’steroids.’ I mean, it was really impressive.

I was in Dubuque, Iowa, with a primary care provider who was seeing an 84-year-old nun. The issue with her was medication management and care coordination. Once the relationship part of it was established with the primary care provider, it migrated over to a nurse care coordinator working with the pharmacist who was working with a behavioralist with a team approach to care for the next year. I saw that mapped out for the nun, and it had gone over well enough to the point that she really began to understand it and give feedback.

MHE: With all these easily accessible services, what about the potential for increased utilization?

Webb: Particularly with regard to the use of medications, the some of the evidence from the model in North Carolina does indicate that in some cases, the medication-use costs go up. But with a concomitant reduction in consumption of some of the other more expensive services, particularly emergency department business and things like that, the increased utilization of some things may well be a very good thing and what the patient may benefit from most. You have to look at utilization across the entire spectrum of service consumption rather than just in the silos.

Grundy: From the perspective of the buyer of care, we really do want to see increased utilization of appropriate medication, and we want our patients to be healthy and productive. For us, the cost of the care is just the tip of the iceberg. We also have the whole issue of productivity. So it’s really a matter of appropriate utilization addressing both under- and overutilization of services. It’s a win-win for the pharmaceutical companies because increased utilization means they sell more medication, also a win for us because we want our folks healthy and productive. The best way to do that is for them to take their medication and comply with wellness instructions and other things.

Heim: Look at some of the data that came out of the Kaiser Foundation surveying patients. Twelve percent of the patients said the doctor had to redo a test or procedure because they didn’t have the earlier test results. So those are the low hanging fruit. We can decrease unnecessary procedures just from that standpoint alone.

MHE: How do we measure the success of medical homes? How can we quantify whether they’re doing any good?

Grundy: The state of Vermont’s early studies indicate a 7% reduction in overall costs. That’s a real bending of the curve. That’s data, right? We’re seeing improved outcomes in terms of indicators of compliance with diabetic management and asthma management. I was just at a physician’s practice in Florida where he used to have on average of one patient a month hospitalized for asthma. In the past 19 months, he’s only had one asthma hospitalization, and that’s data, right? We’re beginning to see pretty robust data and would love comments from other folks on that.

Nichols: I think another aspect of measuring success has to do with the experience of care both from the patient and the physician perspective. For this to be sustainable, patients need to recognize that this is something different, and it’s something different that they really like. It may not be an easy sell for some patients who’ve just been accustomed to picking a specialist out of the yellow pages or calling a friend to see who to go to next.

From the provider’s side, there are two big issues around the experience. There’s a lot of work up front [in creating a medical-home model] so it’s important that physicians see this as being something very positive, something that they advocate to their colleagues. But perhaps even more importantly is one of the underlying driving factors, which is the critical state of primary care in this country and the need to convince more and more of the upcoming graduates from medical school to pursue primary care as a field. The more convincing stories there are about the positive experience that these models are bringing to practice, the more likely we’ll succeed from that perspective.

MHE: What cautions do you have for the industry regarding medical homes?

Heim: Coming from the TransforMED demonstration project that AAFP did, we learned you have to provide enough resources to pull this off. It has to be adequately financed, and the transformation process can be stressful. So provide strong leadership to enable that to occur. The other problem that we’ve seen is that many of the projects have too short a timeline. They’re looking for a quick return on investment in less than two years, and two years is probably the bare minimum.

Nichols: Payers have to have a realistic timeline, and I do think five years is a much better frame. It’s easy for a think-tank guy to say, but I just think that’s the reality. The clinicians will tell you the same thing because of the up-front investment.

I would also hasten to emphasize my favorite phrase from Ronald Reagan: ‘Trust but verify.’ The people who claim that these models don’t work are stuck in defending the status quo, fee-for-service, unaccountable model. They’re just afraid of change, that’s part of it, but they don’t want to move to a world in which they’re going to be held accountable and things are going to be measured.

Not every patient is going to go to some quantitative provider comparison on a Web site, but enough will as we evolve as a society. Look at the number of people using smart phones. And now we’re going to move to a world in which if you can’t show that your treatment modalities and your health plan are achieving outcomes as good as [top-rated] systems and medical homes and health plans, you’re going to be at a competitive disadvantage.

Just look at the companies that…are in many ways poised for the new world because they’ve invested in information systems and information management, and selected forward-thinking and better organized providers. The other plans are really going to have to step up and participate in that ‘trust but verify’ competition or risk very serious competitive problems.

Grundy: That is not an easy transition for the providers to make. We learned in working with MVP Healthcare and others that we need to help pay for the process of this transformation. We’re dealing with oftentimes small groups of providers that are trying to survive on either a -1% margin or a 1% margin. We need to instill a bit of hope in them. If we’re reaping the benefit of that, we as the buyers have to begin to pay for the process of this transformation.

Heim: What we hear most from people who are practicing in a patient-centered medical home is that they feel like they’re back to practicing medicine the way they were trained to. They’re back to taking care of their friends, their patients and their communities, and that is incredibly rewarding for them.

Salkowe: I think just one area that we need to be careful with is the enthusiasm around this topic and the eagerness to move forward.

There’s been a tendency to slip outside of the structured pilots and just throw money at the medical home by financially recognizing providers solely based on recognition rather than how well they’re coordinating and managing the care of their patients.

The practice transformation that’s required goes well beyond whatever any individual recognition can possibly measure. In the pilots, for the most part, there’s been a structure that’s enabled practices to learn from each other and to share and develop communitywide resources. It’s going to take some time for resources to be well enough established in a community that all physicians in the community might be able to readily become a part of this.

We just need to be careful that we don’t get ahead of that infrastructure development and make sure we’ve figured out how to do this right before it becomes a standard for everybody.

Heim: Jerry, are you talking about concern whether or not the NCQA recognition program now truly recognizes those things that are of value?

Salkowe: No. I think it does recognize those things that are of value. It’s necessary, but I don’t think it’s sufficient. Over time we’ll come up with additional measures that will help, but testing itself never really tells the whole story, particularly in something like this, which isn’t just about what an individual practice does. It’s really about what’s happening in a community and how that practice interfaces with the community. Unless you have the right infrastructure in place, a practice might pass the test and really still not be able to deliver on the promise.

Webb: One of the challenges that we face is being flexible enough to recognize that how you construct these teams virtually in small communities and small practices is going to take a lot more creativity. It’s a lot more difficult to do than in those settings where you have large physician groups or managed care organizations or hospital-based teams where that functionality has been existent for a long time.

Particularly from the pharmacy side, we’re looking to create models that integrate pharmacists into the team in a very creative and constructive way. For the small medical practices, the best way to do that remains to be defined… With IT and with virtual framework, it’s entirely possible to do this even if we can’t all be physically present in this mythical place called the medical home.

Squeeze out waste

Understandably, the painstaking scrutiny of healthcare costs has reached a fever pitch. While administration is a relatively small percentage of the overall costs in the system, the pressure is on payers to trim as much waste from their operations as possible.

Administrative costs—or any outlays that are not specifically tied to medical care—are a political hot button. Insurers defend what they spend on tasks such as case management and disease management as well as investments in technology as necessary spending that results in net savings and improved health. Some critics of the insurance industry characterize administrative costs as nothing more than profits and executive compensation and seek legislation to control how premium dollars are spent.

In fact, 15 states have implemented laws dictating minimum medical loss ratios (MLRs), ranging from 50% to 80%. In 2008, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have forced insurers to maintain an MLR of 85%.

According to America’s Health Insurance Plans, in a 2008 study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), 87 cents of every premium dollar goes to healthcare and medical services, and just 3 cents goes toward profits.

PASSING THE BLAME

Governments are taking some steps that could eventually result in lower healthcare costs, such as smoking bans in public places and removing soda and sugary snacks from school vending machines. On Jan. 1, 2010, California became the first state to ban the use of trans fats in restaurants and bakeries. New York City adopted a similar ban several years ago.

Nonetheless, it was inevitable that scrutiny would intensify on payers and their efforts to reduce costs and minimize wasted resources in the system, and now that it has, they’re possibly receiving more blame than is fair.

“When people look at waste in claims processing, for example, they assume [all of the money is being wasted] by insurers, when a lot of it is wasted by providers,” says Mark Merlis, a health policy consultant who has written several papers on the topic of healthcare waste. “But in fairness to providers, they have to comply with many different insurers’ administrative processes, so we should be doing as much as we can to promote uniform transactions.”

Merlis says the more uniformity that can be achieved among payers, the more money the system overall is going to save. Market complexity makes it difficult to identify who is “committing” the waste. Furthermore, cutting waste from one area might simply shift costs to another. For example, in an attempt to fight losses from fraud, payers could investigate more claims in detail, but that will delay payments to providers, damaging relations and potentially resulting in legal action under prompt payment laws.

TECHNOLOGY TO THE RESCUE

The siloed yet sprawling nature of the U.S. healthcare system—payers, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, government agencies and consumers—means that waste elimination isn’t as easy as making an individual organization operate more efficiently.

Some Americans, including some physicians, believe a shift to a single payer system would simplify healthcare administration, but the large majority is firmly opposed to such a change. As Merlis points out in his paper, “Simplifying Administration of Health Insurance” (January 2009), complexity is not just a byproduct of the insurance system—it is what insurers are selling.

“The value-added of the managed care industry consists of the very features that make insurance complicated: different coverage rules and formularies, authorization requirements and careful scrutiny of claims, and so on,” he writes. “The variations are what differentiate one plan from another, and competition and uniformity may be conflicting goals.”

Still, that doesn’t mean plans can’t improve their internal operations and their relationships with other healthcare stakeholders. There are also high hopes that technology can eliminate some waste in the system, and at least one project is proving that to be true.

In 2008, Blue Shield of California (BSC) created its Partnership in Operational Excellence and Transparency (POET) transactions-tracking tool to improve payment accuracy and dispute resolution, speed claims turnaround, and increase operational transparency. The program is available online for 90 of the hospitals Blue Shield of California contracts with across the state.

“POET has been enhancing our working relationships with network hospitals by providing opportunities for data-driven discussions that directly improve operational efficiencies,” says Juan Davila, the plan’s senior vice president for network management. “Using key claims performance indicators and transparent claims data, we work jointly with our facilities to target and prioritize impactful process improvements.”

Davila says the claims-processing related improvements have been impressive, and the benefits of improved relations with network providers are even more so.

“We wanted to show that we were really trying to get at the root of the problem,” he says. “We paid for the system up-front, and we were increasing our transparency to them, as opposed to trying to cover up our errors. We genuinely wanted to develop a more collaborative relationship with our network hospitals, and that’s changed the way we think of each other in a very positive way.”

The hospital association of Southern California recently approached BSC to help the association with another large-scale project.

“I have been in this business for 20 years and have never gotten a phone call like that before,” Davila says.

Within administrative functions, such as those BSC is addressing, it’s hard to know exactly what is waste. A 2008 study by PwC’s Health Research Institute, “The Price of Excess: Identifying Waste in Healthcare Spending,” points out that “inefficiency” and “waste” are not interchangeable terms; the former is merely one component of the latter.

Authors define waste as costs that could have been avoided without a negative impact on quality, which is similar to the definition used by the Institute of Medicine and the authors of another watershed study conducted by Thomson Reuters in October 2009: expenses that don’t add value.

WHERE TO FIND WASTE

The PwC research estimates that slightly more than half of all healthcare spending ($1.2 trillion of the annual $2.2 trillion spent) is wasteful and breaks it into three categories:

• Behavioral waste, which accounts for $303 billion to $493 billion each year;
• Clinical waste, accounting for $312 billion annually; and
• Operational waste, which consumes $126 billion to $315 billion.

The study further breaks the operational waste segment down into four subsets:

• Claims processing, which accounts for $21 billion to $210 billion in waste;
• Inefficient use of technology ($81 billion to $88 billion);
• Staff turnover ($21 billion); and
• Paper prescriptions ($4 billion).

The research by New York-based Thomson Reuters Healthcare Analytics (October 2009) is slightly less pessimistic, estimating that each year, between $600 billion and $850 billion of healthcare spending is wasted.

The study, “Where Can $700 Billion in Waste Be Cut Annually from the U.S. Healthcare System?” identifies six primary culprits:

• Unnecessary care (40% of waste), accounting for $250 billion to $325 billion;
• Fraud (19%), $125 billion to $175 billion;
• Administrative inefficiency (17%), $100 billion to $150 billion;
• Healthcare provider errors (12%), $75 billion to $100 billion;
• Preventable conditions (6%), $25 billion to $50 billion; and
• Lack of care coordination (6%), $25 billion to $50 billion.

Those figures are so staggering that the system can’t expect to “cut” its way out of them, according to Bob Kelley, Thomson Reuters’ vice president of healthcare analytics and author of the report.

“Simple external controls on cost and utilization will not work, and any effort to control costs by eliminating waste must be careful to consider possible unintended impact on access to appropriate and necessary care,” he says. “We should expect that any change to the system of care that improves its performance will require a realignment of the types and levels of professional and facility resources and the relationships among these resources.”

The best solutions will effect positive changes and recognize that the healthcare market dynamic is much different from other product or service markets. Most consumers believe that their access to all potentially useful services is a right.

“We need to shift the public’s perception and expectation [of quality] away from ‘more services is better’ to ‘the care that will most likely result in the outcomes that are best for me,’” he says. “Simultaneously, we must begin to reward physicians for providing this type of care, and recognize and pay for the required time and effort.”

CONSUMER BAD HABITS

Shifting public perception is critical, because for many Americans, “waste in healthcare” brings to mind images of bloated, lethargic mega-plans with outdated technologies and overpaid, fat-cat executives. Although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that fully half of the nation’s deaths each year are the result of bad and avoidable habits, most Americans, rather than look in the mirror, latch onto headlines about excessive health plan profits and executive bonuses.

When consumers learned that former UnitedHealth Group CEO William McGuire received more than $124 million in total compensation in 2005, it’s understandable that many of them reacted with indignation. While the public’s sensitivity to what they perceive as excessive income is at an all-time high, salaries and bonuses paid to health plan executives are a very small number in a very large sum, according to Dan Munro, principal with The DMM Group.

“If you added up all of the executive bonuses and salaries for the entire healthcare industry, it would just be a drop in the bucket compared to the other costs,” he says. “Healthcare is nothing at all like Wall Street, where firms are racing to pay back their Troubled Asset Relief Program funds because they want to go back to handing out those huge bonuses again.”

Merlis agrees, saying executive compensation “might look ugly when you see how much money certain people are being paid, but it’s really not a driver of healthcare expenses.”

It’s clear that politicians are doing what they can to foster greater use of technology in healthcare, particularly with federal funding included in the stimulus package to spur greater adoption of electronic medical records, which are not yet widely adopted.

“The government is trying to encourage the meaningful use of electronic health records,” Munro says. “For the first time, the government is mandating that EHR applications engage the consumer. If you tell most EHR vendors that you’re going to develop a patient-focused system, they’ll laugh at you. They have always been provider-focused, because that’s where the money is.”

An EHR system can cost millions of dollars, so small providers are less likely to adopt them simply because of the cost. The government has realized that use of health IT won’t progress if it doesn’t engage the consumer, Munro says.

THE OPPORTUNITIES ARE REAL

To further explore IT’s opportunities to improve healthcare, Kelley and Thomson Reuters are working on a follow-up whitepaper highlighting specific initiatives that have been successful in eliminating waste, or that show the potential to do so.

“There are certainly high expectations for the contributions of IT to both improved quality and reduced waste,” he says. “Many of these initiatives are either directly related to new or enhanced IT applications or require IT system support to enable new relationships between providers, or between providers and patients.”

Examples of the first type include electronic medical records, health information exchanges, and clinical registries. Examples of the second type include patient-centered medical homes and bundled or episode-based payment systems.

“I think that these opportunities are real, but changes in the systems of care and the relationships among providers and patients will be required if the great potential for these solutions is to be ultimately realized,” he says.

According to Davila, BSC’s POET program is improving efficiencies at the larger system level.

“Historically, when we would show up to renegotiate a contract, the hospital representative would say, ‘My people are telling me that you don’t pay your claims right, you don’t handle appeals well, and you owe us X million dollars. Before we recontract, I need you to fix that.’ The result, inevitably, was a lot of negative energy.”

To solve the problem, BSC worked with a third-party vendor to develop a system that enables participating hospitals to review 24 months of processed claims information and performance metrics on the POET Hospital Dashboard, an online performance analytics portal specifically designed for those hospitals.

Those facilities routinely receive quarterly claim summary reports that provide information on key indicators such as cycle time; submission type; denial volume and reasons for denial; appeal volume, outcomes, and reasons; and claim volume for patients with Bluecard, a national program that allows any Blue member to receive care from another Blue company when traveling or living outside of their usual service area.

“It’s all right there in black and white for everyone to see,” Davila says. “One national hospital system was upset because they thought we weren’t paying as quickly as we should, until POET revealed the problem: We were paying the claim in 12 days, but it was taking them 25 days to get the claim to us. The system showed them exactly where the process was broken so they could fix it.”

PHYSICIANS’ WEIGH THEIR COSTS

The need for such transparency is significant, according to research from the American Medical Assn. Its second annual National Insurer Report Card study attempts to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of the claims processing systems used by eight of the nation’s largest health insurers. Five of the eight plans showed improvements in the median amount of time necessary to respond to providers’ claims, but the report estimates that providers still divert as much as 14% of their revenue to ensure they are receiving accurate payments.

Physicians reported spending three hours weekly interacting with plans in 2006, according to a Web Exclusive produced by Health Affairs in May 2009. When time is converted to dollars, the cost to practices is estimated at $23 billion to $31 billion annually, or 6.9% of all U.S. expenditures for physician and clinical services. Further, 45.9% of physicians surveyed for the report said the cost of dealing with health plans had “increased a lot.”

The report goes on to note that administrative cost cannot be reduced to zero dollars and that interactions that cost money also can produce benefit, such as prior authorization, which can reduce inappropriate use.

Working with Distributors What You Need to Know

According to the Healthcare Distribution Management Association (HDMA), the U.S. healthcare system saves nearly $32 billion each year with distributor’s streamlined, aggregated ordering and efficient shipping logistics. SurgiStrategies spoke with ERI, a medical imaging equipment distributor to discuss some key components of what a distributor has to offer.

Q: describe the key roles of a distributor in the outpatient marketplace — how do they serve the niche between manufacturers and the end user?

Simply stated, a distributor must know what they are selling and the products’ appropriate applications. This permits a customer to receive accurate answers to presale questions allowing them to purchase with confidence. Furthermore, post sale support is just as critical. We often work with customers to properly integrate their new equipment and use it to its fullest potential. Given our extensive experience and our close working relationships with manufacturers, we can recommend best installation and operating practices to provide an optimal end-user experience.

Another important role for vendors is to serve as the flexible middleman between manufacturers and end-users. Given the manufacturers’ high overhead, they typically require significant minimum orders and demand very specific payment methods. Furthermore, manufacturers will often implement irregular production cycles, causing inventory surplus and shortages that are not readily apparent to the customer. This in turn may cause significant delays when ordering equipment and supplies. We anticipate these cycles and account for additional environmental factors. For example, we see a significant increase in gel-warmer sales as winter approaches and we adjust our inventory accordingly.

Q: can distributors bring value – added services that a direct – from – manufacturer approach can’t, and why?

In addition to providing purchasing advice and post-sale support, we also offer free equipment demonstrations and trials. This has been a very effective sales tool for our company and illustrates our confidence in our products and support. Customers are afforded the opportunity to put our equipment through their daily processes and workload. Relative to the manufacturers, our company is small by comparison but we believe that works to our advantage. Customers won’t become lost in the inherent bureaucracy of large companies, which allows for immediate and straight forward service. Customers frequently call in with a desperate need for equipment to be delivered the next morning. Our small stature allows us to quickly process and ship their order for overnight delivery.

Q: how are distributors addressing the perception that distributors are the expensive middleman in the healthcare supply chain, so to speak?

The first obvious solution to the “expensive middleman” perception is to not be expensive. We maintain low prices by controlling our overhead business expenses and make smart purchasing decisions from our manufacturers. The next step is to fighting this perception is to promote our value added services discussed above, i.e., equipment demonstrations, flexibility, and prompt customer service. Lastly, we believe we save our customers money by advising the right equipment for their needs and not pushing equipment that is disproportionate to their requirements.

Q: what advice can distributors offer to customers in terms of savvy purchasing practices?

Shop around for lower prices! This difficult economy has caused a strain on everyone’s budget and you may be pleasantly surprised to find that you can save a significant amount of money by searching the Internet for a better deal. Also, ask your distributors for bulk discounts or flat rate shipping options. You may be able to save money on shipping costs by combining regular orders. Do not be afraid to call and ask questions if it’s your first time ordering this particular piece of equipment. It also helps to be knowledgeable about the equipment’s intended application and any other equipment that it will be connected to. If you feel outside your comfort level, encourage the end user to ask these questions directly.

OR Technology: A Glimpse Into The Future

As we move into 2010, a new wave of technology awaits us. Highly-developed health information technology (HIT)-driven systems and equipment are becoming the standard in many operating rooms (ORs), whether they are in a single-specialty ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) or advanced surgical hospitals. It is important to stay up-to-date on these new technologies which not only reduce medical errors, but improve patient comfort and post discharge follow-up. The following case studies highlight this trend.

Enhancing Communication, Collaboration and Education: An Olympus Case Study

Three years after adopting integrated ENDOALPHA ORs, Penn State Hershey Medical Center is ready for more. As the only teaching hospital in central Pennsylvania, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center is one of the area’s largest healthcare providers. The hospital is equipped with 23 surgical suites and its department of surgery performs more than 19,000 procedures annually.

Staying Ahead of the Technology Curve

As industry trends move toward minimally invasive techniques, the hospital was quick to understand the benefits of integrated surgical suites as a way to stay competitive with the specialized technology demands of increasingly sophisticated procedures. “Several years ago, we realized we had a need for advanced, integrated technologies in our OR as we anticipated the convergence of laparoscopic and flexible endoscopic instrumentation,” says Randy Haluck, MD, professor of surgery and division chief for minimally invasive surgery and bariatrics. “We also recognized the need for a sophisticated system relative to data acquisition, storage, and transfer.”

Penn State Hershey began the process of integration in 2005, building three new Olympus ENDOALPHA surgical suites in 2006 and then converting two existing ORs to ENDOALPHAs the following year. The hospital anticipates completion of four more integrated ORs, for a total of 27 surgical rooms with one-third of them set up as state-of-the-art ENDOALPHAs this year.

Taking a Comprehensive Approach

True systems integration goes beyond the equipment and operating platform. It also takes into account the ergonomic design, workflow and technology optimization of each surgical suite. This means designing rooms with ceiling-mounted booms for holding imaging equipment and monitors off the floor, allowing for more efficient post-procedure clean-up and ergonomic positioning of monitors during the procedure. It means integrated equipment (scopes, imaging platforms, monitors, video and accessories) that work together and can be easily interchanged during a procedure. And it means a cohesive information management system for patient and procedural data, images, and audio that can be captured, stored, and retrieved from both inside and outside the sterile field. “We needed to have multiple surgical services using the same operating room, between general surgery, urology and minimally invasive GYN surgery,” says Gerald Harkins, MD, medical director for minimally invasive GYN surgery. “We’re all able to function in the ENDOALPHA laparoscopic suites, and it’s been a fantastic platform for that utilization.”

Experiencing the Installation Process

Olympus offers turnkey solutions, working with customers from start to finish on the design, construction and set-up of integrated operating and intervention rooms. “The flexibility of Olympus’ ENDOALPHA system means it can be easily customized to create a right-sized solution unique to each facility,” says David Alexander, Penn State Hershey’s Olympus integration consultant. “We were able to incorporate their legacy equipment along with their pre-existing video-conferencing system and streaming video package into their ENDOALPHA ORs to create one seamless solution. Hershey proved to be very knowledgeable, so it was a highly collaborative effort.”

Taking Centralized Control

The nerve center for each ENDOALPHA OR is a centralized control panel. With audio, video, data and images all controlled via a single touch screen, clinicians have the power to connect, communicate and collaborate with others outside the procedure room. Clinicians can also control surgical and room lighting, in-room observation cameras and all information and imaging systems without ever leaving the sterile field. To further enhance efficiency, the ENDOALPHA system provides preset capabilities so that monitors, lighting and all equipment can be custom-tailored to surgeon preferences and made available at the press of a button.

Communication, Collaboration, and Education

Penn State Hershey Medical Center’s custom-placed displays ensure all team members have the perfect view of live images. They regularly create video networks for sharing, collaboration and education from within and outside the hospital. “There’s no question that the Olympus system has dramatically changed how we teach in the OR,” says Peter Dillon, MD, chairman of Penn State Hershey’s surgery department and surgical director of perioperative services. “We’re now able to broadcast these procedures to first- and second-year medical students, exciting them about the wonders of surgery at a much earlier stage in their training. So it really has changed dramatically and in a very exciting fashion how we teach.” Haluck adds that it also gives the Penn State Hershey team a better way to collaborate with other physicians and share information with patients. “We can educate other physicians and record images for colleagues or bring them in when needed to confer and/or assist on a procedure. We are also able to show patients what their surgery was about and why they were having problems. That’s a great benefit to us, and certainly patients appreciate it as well.”

Interventional Radiology Breaks New Ground: A Skytron Case Study

Philips and Skytron have teamed up to help fully realize the promise of a hybrid angiography suite by implementing new cardiovascular solutions with the latest Allura Xper FD technology from Philips and state-of-the-art surgical lighting and boom technology from Skytron.

For more than a decade, Barry T. Katzen, MD, medical director of Baptist Cardiac and Vascular Institute (BCVI) in Miami, has pioneered the integration of surgical and interventional procedures. Katzen and his team continue to show that surgical procedures in an angiographic environment can be accomplished with the same degree of efficiency as in an OR.

“The specialties of interventional radiology and vascular surgery bring more to each other when we work together,” Katzen says. “Procedures that help drive this relationship include aneurysms of the thoracic aorta and abdominal aorta. Having an environment where we can use a surgical option allows us to think out of the box for individualized patient solutions.”

In 2008, Philips Healthcare and Skytron entered into a collaborative agreement to provide comprehensive, integrated solutions for the cardiovascular environment. Katzen seized the opportunity to refine the surroundings. Based on a well-coordinated plan from Philips and Skytron, a room at BCVI underwent a significant upgrade to enhance hybrid functionality.

“One of the great advantages of the new room design is it’s so spacious that we can all function effectively without being in each other’s way. Information can be transferred to the head of the bed — to the anesthesiologist — down to where we’re working very easily,” says James F. Benenati, MD, medical director of the peripheral vascular laboratory.

A Room That Works

BCVI’s surgical team appreciates the changes made. Katzen believes the upgrade has created a better environment for all involved. A recent experience demonstrated how the teams successfully combined surgical access with an interventional solution. A patient presented with critical narrowing of an artery to the brain and chest, and a narrowing of that same artery in the neck. “It was a very complex situation,” recalls Katzen, “but we combined our skills. The surgeons removed the plaque in the neck with an endarterectomy and we used that same access to go down and stent the chest.”

Installation With Minimal Impact

“We’re a busy lab and taking a room down for a period of time is always an inconvenience,” says Katzen. “The one thing everybody remarked upon was how fast this upgrade was accomplished.” In two and a half weeks, Philips and Skytron, working closely with the implementation team at BCVI, completed the staging and upgrade. The new room reflected the input of interventional radiologists, surgeons and anesthesiologists, with each group helping to define the clinical specifications to make it a multi-disciplinary environment.

OR Technology Update: A Steris Case Study

The epitome of surgical technology today is one OR in which surgeons can perform image-guided, catheter-based interventional procedures; minimally invasive endoscopic procedures; extremely precise robotic surgery; or full open surgery, depending on the case load or discoveries made in surgery. In this type of hybrid OR, integrated imaging, computerized patient information and live video routing technologies instantly display test results and critical real-time information on high-definition monitors in the sterile field. This allows surgeons and staff to ascertain the most timely and accurate diagnosis and treatment for the patient. It also helps them achieve the most flexible and effective uses of the room and optimize scheduling and utilization.

These are also the types of rooms in which medical leaders and pioneers train residents and other clinicians, develop new minimally invasive procedures, such as natural orifice trans-luminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and trans-catheter heart valve replacement and master new surgical devices.

These highly advanced rooms can incorporate advanced communications, connectivity, LED surgical lighting and high-definition visualization such as intra-operative fluoroscopy, intra-operative computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, image-guided navigation, 3D software extrapolations of the imaging, robotics and many other technologies. Each of these tools are important in today’s hybrid OR, but when integrated correctly they form a seamless whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

To accomplish this synergy, STERIS collaborates with leading manufacturers to design and install customized, integrated HD360°™ Hybrid ORs for healthcare facilities. STERIS project design managers configure STERIS’s open infrastructure Harmony® Lighting and Visualization systems, equipment management systems and advanced integration technologies with interoperative imaging, robotics, endoscopic and video technologies and more. The result is a suite that enables fully informed staff, highly efficient procedures, extremely flexible room use, successful surgeon recruitment, medical education, ongoing surgical innovation, leading edge robotic surgery, telemedicine, and new possibilities yet to be imagined.

OR Technology Update: A Berchtold Case Study

Problem

Before hybrid ORs existed, imaging and communications capabilities were not an option during cardiovascular and neurosurgery operations, resulting in patients getting diagnosed and treated in two different visits. Separate procedures and imaging consultation can be costlier for patients and surgeons, can result in additional stress, more down time and longer hospital stays for the patient, and are not conducive to emergencies that sometimes arise during surgery.

Solution

Combine minimally invasive and interventional surgical technologies with medical imaging and communications equipment in one operating room: the hybrid OR.

A growing trend involving endovascular procedures during cardiovascular and neurological surgeries requires equipment to accommodate open and closed procedures in the same room, even at the same time, although this is not necessarily planned from the start. The new hybrid OR model provides the surgeon flexibility in performing a variety of interventional, imaging and surgical services in one setting, eliminating the need to transfer the patient.

For example, two of the most popular hybrid ORs are for cardiovascular and neurosurgical procedures:

» Neurosurgical hybrid ORs can include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); computed tomography (CT) and angiography equipment within a neurosurgical operating room.

»Cardiovascular hybrid ORs often features: Fixed ceiling- or floor-mounted C-arms, ultrasound and endoscopy equipment, coupled with cardiac catheter laboratories.

Because a hybrid OR is specifically designed for endovascular procedures, careful planning from the beginning can help to ensure all rooms are equipped with necessary tools. Some tips to consider while creating a specially designed hybrid OR include:

»Identify factors that are important to the hospital team, such as, should all equipment hanging from the ceiling (surgical arms, flat panel arms, etc.) be able to cover the whole patient in all orientations?

»Think as far ahead as you possibly can to “future proof” the room, reducing the need to renovate the OR moving forward. For example, what is the most extreme type of procedure the team might do in the OR? Then outfit the room in preparation for the procedure.

»Involve the end user at the very start of the project to give a real world perspective for offering scenarios, as well as discussing needs and concerns. This can include nurses, surgical technicians and staff, as well as anesthesiologists.

»Consult with the vendor providing lights, booms and imaging equipment to accommodate all of their needs. For example, many imaging companies have different requirements for ceiling heights.

Hybrid therapies enable hospitals and clinicians to provide less invasive care that is safe and cost-effective for the patient. Careful planning can lead to an effective hybrid operating room design that offers the following benefits:

» Cost-effective operations for patients and surgeons, with better outcomes.

» Reduced stress, faster recovery and reduced hospital stays for the patient.

»Safer procedures, especially in the case of an emergency.

New Bair Paws® Gown Brings “Flex Appeal” to Patient Warming: An Arizant Case Study

The recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) adoption of the SCIP-Infection-10 normothermia quality measure has made it more important than ever to simplify the process of warming every surgical patient. Arizant Healthcare’s latest innovation in forced-air warming, the Bair Paws Flex gown, does just that by incorporating a surgical warming product — Bair Hugger blankets — into a comfortable patient gown that warms before, during and after surgery.

While clinical versatility is a key benefit of the Bair Paws Flex gown, so is the practical economic approach of standardizing multiple warming capabilities into one gown that can accommodate most perioperative warming needs. While helping to improve outcomes and boosting patient satisfaction, the Bair Paws Flex gown may save facilities money by supplanting multiple OR warming blankets and the warmed cotton blankets and gowns often used to comfort patients.

Just One Gown Warms From Start to Finish

Before surgery, patients appreciate the Flex gown for its controllable warmth; they can simply dial the temperature of the air flowing through the gown to a level that’s comfortable. The surgical warming products built into the gown are unknown to the patient because they are deployed only by surgical staff.

In the operating room, the same Bair Paws Flex gown offers clinicians the ease and convenience of having multiple patient warming options available during surgery. Seamlessly integrated into the gown are: a head drape, adhesive tape to isolate the surgical field, and deployable arm extensions to transition into a Bair Hugger upper body blanket with tie strips. A second insert in the lower portion of the gown may be used to prewarm before surgery and then warm again as a lower body blanket once in the OR. The gown’s design allows upper or lower body warming for any surgical positioning — supine, prone or lateral.

After the procedure is over, the upper body blanket arm extensions, head drape and surgical tape strip perforate off, returning the garment to a standard warming gown for post-operative use through the lower warming blanket insert.

The Bair Paws Flex gown is comfortable for patients, convenient for clinicians and warms from pre-op to the OR to PACU. Best of all, it’s also economical. One gown handles almost all your warming needs, including contributing to quality goals like SCIP-10 and improved patient satisfaction. It incorporates a highly effective surgical warming device directly into a soft, comfortable hospital gown that does something positive for patients and hospital staff. It’s not just a gown. The Bair Paws Flex gown is a patient warming and patient satisfaction tool. It’s the future of patient warming, and it’s available today.

Practicing Arthroscopic Surgery on Computers, Not People: A Toltech/Sensable Case Study

Learning diagnostic knee arthroscopy is not unlike learning to play the violin — both art forms require a mixture of cognitive and proprioceptive skills that can only be developed through rigorous practice. And while both require intensive mentoring, surgical apprenticeship is unique in its resulting increase in operating room time and potentially patient risk. Just as with a violin that makes no sound, little can be learned from surrogate surgical environments having no objective feedback, including costly and labor-intensive cadaver training. And little transference of either skill can be expected from computer based training lacking the feel of the instrument(s).

In late 2009 the University of Michigan Medical Center’s Orthopaedic Surgery department, led by James Carpenter, MD, became an early adopter of the Knee Arthroscopy Surgery Trainer (KAST) from Touch of Life Technologies (ToLTech). This simulator was co-developed with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA), and the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS). It provides both cognitive and haptically-enabled skills training for the proper and efficient techniques required for diagnostic arthroscopy of the knee as done on an outpatient basis — including training to competency, and a modality for complete evaluation of residents’ skills.

In the KAST simulator, trainees hold a customized stylus in each hand — emulating the probe and camera used in actual surgery — that are attached to PHANTOM® force-feedback haptic devices, made by SensAble Technologies. The haptic devices allow trainees to navigate in true 3D space while interacting with high-resolution models that are viewed on-screen, as if through an actual arthroscope. The force feedback devices are programmed to push back on the user’s hand to deliver the “feeling” of the soft tissue, cartilage, and ligaments involved in knee arthroscopy.

The “Virtual Mentor” in KAST guides, critiques, and scores the resident on each part of the procedure. In one module, trainees must perform three steps for examining the medial meniscus with a probe. The Mentor requires the trainee to score 100 percent on each step before attempting subsequent tasks, and finally a time-trial. A special “cheater view,” only available at the novice level, shows the outside image of the knee (seen in the right hand portion of the Mentor screen), to help residents understand where the tools they are using are located with respect to the anatomy. KAST switches seamlessly between a right and a left knee, forcing the trainee to be ambidextrous with respect to the camera and probe.

Haptically-enabled surgical simulation provides cognitive and skills-based training — freeing up the outpatient facility’s attending physicians to teach higher-level skills, and giving residents unlimited autonomous practice opportunities. It allows residents’ skills to be objectively measured and validated before they undertake procedures on patients. The University of Michigan Health System’s Orthopaedic Surgery department plans trials comparing beginning residents who have trained on KAST, against a control group. Separate validation studies led by the AAOS using KAST are underway nationwide during 2010.

New alliance launched to measure and improve long-term care

A group of health, consumer and aging advocates has formed a new alliance to focus on long-term services and supports in the United States. The Long-Term Quality Alliance (LTQA) aims to broaden efforts to improve quality of care to include community-based settings as well as nursing homes. It plans to do so by fostering “person-centered” quality measures for people who need long-term services and supports to enhance their quality of life, reduce unnecessary hospitalizations and utilizations, and decrease costs.

The LTQA Board is comprised of 29 representatives from organizations representing caregivers, consumers, quality improvement, nursing homes, accreditation, aging issues, foundations, the federal government, private payers, and academia (see the full list below). The group was formed to respond to the increasing demand for long-term care and the expanding field of providers who are delivering that care, including in home- and community-based settings such as assisted living facilities and adult day care.

“Within a decade, every Baby Boomer will be 50-plus — and trends indicate that nearly half of Americans who live to be 65 will enter a nursing home at some point,” says LTQA Board Member Mark Leenay, M.S., M.D., who is also senior vice president of Medical Management and Physician Services for Ovations and Chief Medical Officer for Evercare Hospice, United Health Group. “Yet a recent study published by AARP found that many in this generation believe they will never need long-term care. Given the obvious disconnect between people’s expectations and the realities of growing older, a prevailing strategy continues to be educating the aging population and their future caregivers about the importance of long-term planning — both from a personal financial and a quality of life perspective.”

The Alliance will focus initially on two important health care issues that have been identified as national health priorities: how to improve care coordination or transitions in care, and how to avoid unnecessary hospital admissions among frail and chronically ill people.

The group will hold its first formal meeting on January 28 at the Brookings Institution and will operate as a membership organization.

“In addition to educating people, we must continue to develop an individualized, person-centered approach to care,” says Leenay. “This integration of services has shown to lower hospital admission rates and reduce total hospital days and ER visits. Importantly, it also promotes independence, ensures continuity of care and empowers families to make informed decisions. This person-centered model is helping people live healthier lives and, over the long term, is critical to reducing health care costs. It is the future.”

LTQA board members include:

Mary D. Naylor, Ph.D., R.N., F.A.A.N. (Chair)
Director, NewCourtland Center for Transitions and Health at the University of Pennsylvania, School of Nursing

Brian J. Boon, Ph.D.
President and CEO, Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF)/Continuing Care Accreditation Commission (CCAC)

Amy Boutwell, M.D., M.P.P.
Director of Strategic Improvement Policy, Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI)

Bruce Allen Chernof, M.D., F.A.C.P.
President and CEO, The SCAN Foundation

Carolyn M. Clancy, M.D.
Director, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

Steven Dawson
President, Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute (PHI)

Judy Feder, Ph.D. 
Senior fellow, Center for American Progress

Marty Ford
Director of Legal Advocacy, The Arc and UCP Disability Policy Collaboration

J. Taylor Harden, Ph.D., R.N., G.F.S.A., F.A.A.N.
Chief of the office and assistant to the director for Special Populations at the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health

Maureen Hewitt
President and CEO, Total Community Options and Total Longterm Care

Gail Gibson Hunt
President and CEO, National Alliance for Caregiving

Gail Kass
President and CEO, New Courtland Elder Services

Mary Jane Koren, M.D., M.P.H. 
Assistant vice president for the Picker/Commonwealth Quality of Care for Frail Elder Care Program, The Commonwealth Fund

Robert G. Kramer
Founder and president, National Investment Center for the Seniors Housing & Care Industry (NIC)

Mark Leenay, M.S., M.D.
Senior vice president of Medical Management and Physician Services for Ovations; Chief Medical Officer for Evercare Hospice, United Health Group

Carol Levine
Director of the Families and Health Care Project, United Hospital Fund

Sandy Markwood CEO,
National Association of Area Agencies on Aging

Katie Maslow
Director for Policy Development, Alzheimer’s Association

Mark B. McClellan, M.D. Ph.D.
Director, Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform; Leonard D. Schaeffer Chair in Health Policy Studies, Brookings Institution

Paul McGann, M.D.
Deputy chief medical officer, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ex-officio

William L. (Larry) Minnix, Jr.
President and CEO, American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging (AAHSA)

L. Gregory Pawlson, M.D., M.P.H.
Executive vice president, National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA)

Carol Raphael
President and CEO, Visiting Nurse Service of New York

Susan C. Reinhard, R.N., Ph.D., F.A.A.N.
Senior vice president, AARP

Martha A. Roherty
Executive director, National Association of State Units on Aging

Alan G. Rosenbloom
President, Alliance for Quality Nursing Home Care

Jeanette C. Takamura, M.S.W., Ph.D.
Dean, Columbia University School of Social Work

Tom Valuck, M.D., J.D.
Senior vice president, Strategic Partnerships, National Quality Forum (NQF)

Bruce Yarwood
President and CEO, American Health Care Association (AHCA) & National Center for Assisted Living (NCAL)

American Diabetes Association revises diabetes guidelines

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) has revised clinical practice recommendations for diabetes diagnosis to promote hemoglobin A1c as a faster, easier diagnostic test that could help reduce the number of undiagnosed patients and better identify patients with prediabetes. The new recommendations are published in the January supplement of Diabetes Care.

“There are several revisions and updates included in the American Diabetes Association’s 2010 Clinical Practice Recommendations that will potentially impact how health plans care for the many individuals with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and those at risk for diabetes,” says Richard M. Bergenstal, MD, president, Medicine and Science, American Diabetes Association and Executive Director, International Diabetes Center. “A significant change is that the ADA now recommends the A1C test can be used to diagnose diabetes or identify those at high risk for developing diabetes. Patients can prevent complications and suffering, and health plans can minimize long costs if diabetes is detected and treated effectively early or if diabetes can be prevented.

The A1c test, which measures average blood glucose levels for a period of up to 3 months, was previously used only to evaluate diabetic control with time. An A1c level of approximately 5% indicates the absence of diabetes, and according to the revised evidence-based guidelines, an A1c score of 5.7% to 6.4% indicates prediabetes, and an A1c level of 6.5% or higher indicates the presence of diabetes.

Extensive revisions to the section “Diabetes Self-Management Education” are based on new evidence. The goals of diabetes self-management education are to improve adherence to the standard of care, to educate patients regarding appropriate glycemic targets, and to increase the percentage of patients achieving target A1c levels.

“The 2010 Standards or Medical Care present new data to emphasize how important it is to teach diabetes self-management so health plans need to be sure they have a recognized education program in place that facilitates patient centered team care,” Bergenstal says. “There is also new evidence reviewed that will give health plans information on effective strategies to improve diabetes care and develop treatment targets in the outpatient and inpatient setting. Educating patients and providers that good diabetes care means control of blood glucose (while avoiding hypoglycemia and excessive weight gain), as well as controlling blood pressure and cholesterol is critical to preventing complications. Effective and appropriate use of new technologies like insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring are also reviewed in light of new studies released in the last year and health plans should review this data to be able to effectively communicate with patients and providers.”

Next Page »