Clinical consequences drive the need for pharmacy integration

THE INTEGRATION OF pharmacy and medical data has gone a step further into the coordination of services. A whitepaper published in March 2009 by several pharmacy organizations attributes a new focus on collaboration to an uptick in clinical consequences and costs of medication misuse and non-adherence; a shift from acute to chronic care; the increasing role of pharmacists; and the growing number and complexity of medications.

“Coordinating pharmacy and medical benefits paints a total picture of compliance without a gap in data, and thus, impacts outcomes,” says Nita Stella, senior vice president, ActiveHealth Management, a care management company headquartered in New York City. “In addition, sharing information can increase medication safety and effectiveness by triggering alerts to flag drug-to-drug interactions, contraindicated drugs and non-compliance.”

Integration is an effective vehicle for identifying high-risk members and putting value-based benefit design into place. For example, an integrated system could identify high-risk members and lower copayments for those individuals or for an entire class of drugs, such as stains, to encourage compliance.

David Dross, leader of the managed pharmacy practice for Mercer Inc. in Houston, says that integration is easier if one vendor is managing both sides of the equation. While he believes that a carve-out pharmacy is willing to share its data, he says the medical vendor could be the “fly in the ointment” because there may be a fee attached to the provision of data.

The Clinical Pharmacy Cardiac Risk Service (CPCRS) at Kaiser Permanente Colorado combines KP HealthConnect, an electronic health record (EHR), with an electronic care registry, proactive patient outreach, wellness and medication management.

After high-risk patients for coronary artery disease are identified, they are referred to CPCRS. The program has served 21.000 patients since 1998.

“We are able to determine who has a cardiovascular event and deliver continuity of care cost-efficiently by integrating pharmacy and nursing teams with patients and their doctors and using technology and other tools to address problems,” says Jon Rasmussen, chief of clinical pharmacy, cardiovascular services. “Primary care physicians and cardiologists spend an inordinate amount of time with chronic care patients, so we’re looking for ways that pharmacists and nurses can relieve some of the burden. If these cardiac patients are managed consistently through collaboration, that frees up physicians to address acute issues.”

Results show the number of those meeting their LDL cholesterol goals increased from 26% to 73%, and screening for cholesterol rose from 55% to 97% during an average length of participation in the program of 2.3 years.

In addition, participants in the CPCRS program had an 88% reduced risk of dying from a cardiac-related cause when enrolled in the program within 90 days of a heart attack.

When members are close to release from the program, Kaiser Permanente rehabilitation nurses set up phone calls to discuss diet, exercise, depression, smoking cessation and medications. In a seamless process, Rasmussen says, after discharge, participants work closely with clinical pharmacists for long-term medication management.

Although the program has been successful by saving lives, reducing hospitalizations and recouping investment, it hasn’t been without its challenges. Among them have been getting clinicians to communicate via the EHR, developing multifunctional teams and making sure that “we target the right person with the right treatment at the right time,” he says.

THE FOUNDATION OF INTEGRATION

CIGNA is another insurer that relies on pharmacy to reduce medical costs through evidence-based medicine.

“Data sharing between the pharmacy benefit manager and the insurer is the foundation of integration,” says Claire Marie Burchill, vice president of strategy, product and marketing for CIGNA Pharmacy Management based in Bloomfield, Conn.

Many of CIGNA’s pharmacy programs demonstrate integration with the medical side with an emphasis on adherence. Although they are pharmacy-related, they have a large impact on medical cost reductions, such as emergency room visits and hospitalizations.

CIGNA’s Outcome Improvement Programs, which combine the use of prescriptions drugs, disease management and behavioral coaching, saw results in 2008:

• a 74% medication adherence rate led to 50% of those in the cholesterol program reaching their goals;
• a 78% decrease in LDL and the avoidance of 262 heart attacks annually saved $6.6 million;
• a 34% increase in use of drugs for treating asthma led to fewer emergency room visits and hospitalizations, cutting costs for participants by 50%;
• an adherence rate of 84% for diabetes drugs resulted in 13% fewer emergency room visits and 18% fewer hospitalizations; and
• a 35% increase in completion of depression treatment plans realized an 18% reduction in medical and behavioral healthcare costs.

Dovetailing with the program is CIGNA’s new CoachRx, an interactive Web site to enhance medication adherence with home delivery. A self-assessment helps members identify barriers to adherence and allows them to request daily reminders for self-care.

Those who need additional assistance can call toll-free for medication coaching sessions with a clinical pharmacist, who works with case managers. The coaching team will help find the most appropriate and cost-effective medications for a member, discuss possible side effects and reinforce the importance of taking prescribed medications as directed.

“In this way, we have used one intermediary to maximize health,” Burchill says.

To address high-cost drugs with the potential for side effects and infections, CIGNA offers TheraCare, a medication therapy management program targeting individuals using specialty injectable medications for 16 chronic conditions, such as multiple sclerosis.

“We still have a way to go in integrating pharmacy and medical benefits because the Rx benefit is administered in silos,” says Steve Mullenix, senior vice president of communications and industry relations for the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs (NCPDP). “Medicare Part D’s Medication Therapy Management Program is a step in the right direction, but we are still trying to buy drugs as inexpensively as possible without knowing the impact of the full picture. The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.”

For example, if a pharmacist dispenses a drug but it’s not refilled, that requires communication so that some action can be taken to encourage compliance.

Mullenix, whose organization focuses on developing consistent standards is concerned that without standardization, it will be difficult to create interoperability between proprietary systems.

“We are a proponent of a team approach to healthcare, including patients and pharmacists, who have become medication experts and need to be reimbursed for their guidance,” he says.

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.

Medica creates mobile app for comparing healthcare costs

Medica, Minnetonka, Minn., has launched a mobile application to help consumers compare cost information for a variety of medical procedures. The app, based on the site MainStreetMedica.com, is available for free at the iPhone App Store.

According to an analysis published by Manhattan Research in February, more than 10 million U.S. adults use mobile devices for health information. Many of those mobile browsers are using Apple’s iPhone. According to an AdMob Mobile Metrics report released in March, the iPhone accounts for half of all mobile Web traffic from smartphones in the U.S.

MainStreetMedica.com was launched several years ago to provide consumers with access to comparative pricing information about physicians and facilities. The site allows users to compare costs on common procedures at hundreds of clinics and facilities. The prices on the site are based on the health plan’s in-network contract rates with providers in its Medica Choice network.

Both the Main Street Medica mobile app and the Web site are available to all consumers, not just Medica members.

“With the launch of this mobile app, we are answering the call to make that information available to people when and where they want it.” says Rob Longendyke, Medica senior vice president of marketing and corporate communications.

Some users of the app apparently agree in online reviews.

BCBS Massachusetts contributed $1.6 billion to state economy

An economic impact analysis found that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts’ (BCBSMA) contributed nearly $1.6 billion to the Commonwealth’s economy.

Similarly, the Economic Impact Study, conducted by Tripp Umbach, found that BCBSMA contributed 5,856 jobs to the economy in positions that span the entire economic spectrum. The direct benefits reached across the commonwealth in 2008, including direct contributions of $5.2 million to more than 470 charitable organizations.

“BCBSMA felt it was important to conduct this study to track the company’s overall economic impact,” says Jay McQuaide, vice president of corporate communications for BCBSMA. “It is also important for members, customers and the community to have a better understanding of BCBSMA’s impact to the economic health and well-being of the region as a not-for-profit business.”

The impact is more than commercial, according to McQuaide. He says philanthropic efforts, tax dollars and investments in transformational initiatives make healthcare more affordable and accessible.

One of the most promising ways to slow the rise in healthcare costs is to improve quality, and the overuse, underuse and misuse of healthcare services.

“Research shows that approximately one-third of all healthcare spending is wasted on care that is medically unnecessary and potentially harmful,” he says. “By making investments in transformational initiatives that will help eliminate waste, duplication and inefficiency, the healthcare industry can work together to improve the quality and affordability of healthcare.

For example, the report singled out: $590 million in incentives to physicians and hospitals to improve quality and effectiveness; $60 million in community initiatives such as the Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative; and $9 million to collaborative efforts such as Healthcare Administrative Solutions Inc., a non-profit working to reduce administrative complexities.

Of note in the Economic Impact Study was that in addition to the $39 million BCBSMA paid in taxes to the federal government, the report found that despite BCBSMA’s not-for-profit status, the company contributed nearly $217 million in revenue to state government last year.

BCBSMA also created the Alternative Quality Contract, a provider contract model that combines two forms of payment: a global payment adjusted for health status, which increases annually in line with inflation; and performance incentives tied to measures of quality, effectiveness, and patient experience of care.

NCQA tracks plateau in quality yet increased reporting of measures

As if it weren’t bad enough news that healthcare costs continue to spiral upward, the benchmark quality report for 2009 from the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) reveals that quality has stalled somewhat. In fact, the report examined the link between the cost and quality of care and found little or no connection between the two.

“The State of Health Care Quality: 2009″ report examined quality data submitted by 979 health plans across the country that collectively cover 116 million Americans, a 9% increase over 2008’s sample.

“Hundreds of health plans have made the commitment to measure and report on the quality of care provided to their members. Those plans have made remarkable progress in improving care,” said Margaret E. O’Kane, president of NCQA. “But they can’t do this alone. It’s time for all plans and providers to step up to the plate and do the right thing for their members.”

The stagnation of quality came as a disappointing surprise after a decade of improvements and was seen in all areas of healthcare—private coverage, Medicaid and Medicare.

“The status quo is unacceptable,” O’Kane said during a press conference last month. “Overall, the [quality] gains are pretty small, particularly among the most vulnerable populations,” as plans serving Medicare and Medicaid patients failed to show noticeable improvement in many key quality measures for the third consecutive year.

Among the notable areas in which quality has stalled:

Only 46.4% of people taking anti-depressant drugs are monitored by their physicians;

34.1% of children prescribed medications for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are seeing a doctor for follow-up care;

Half of patients previously hospitalized for mental illness see a physician for a follow-up visit;

45.3% of people are receiving colon cancer screening at the appropriate age; and

Only 42.6% of patients with alcohol or drug dependency are get treatment for the condition.

Despite those disappointing results, there were several bright spots. Among them were a 12% increase in the provision of beta-blocker drugs to Medicare patients who had a heart attack within the previous six months; nearly across-the-board high-quality care for asthma patients; and substantial gains in smoking-cessation efforts in the Medicaid population.

“Sometimes, a plateau is just a place to get your bearings and figure out what your next strategy is going to be, and that’s the kind of plateau I think this is,” O’Kane says.

The need to get healthcare quality back on the path to improvement is dramatic, however. NCQA says that if all health plans were able to perform as well as the top 10% of plans did, the United States would realize fewer deaths and save at least $12 billion in medical costs and lost productivity every year. If every American were able to receive care that matched the quality of that provided by those plans in the top 10%, the number of lives saved would range between 165,000 and 272,000 annually.

Where those saved lives come from might depend on geography; the New England region had the highest-quality health plans, while the South Central region of the United States came in last.

“Every American deserves to have quality care, and a diabetic in Alabama shouldn’t get poorer care than a diabetic who lives in New Hampshire,” O’Kane says.

Plans still fighting policy nuances

As the great healthcare debate of 2009 culminates, members of Congress have to decide whether to adopt admittedly imperfect reform legislation or to admit failure and abandon the entire exercise.

The Obama administration and Democrats are determined to pass any bill that can be identified as health reform, while Republicans insist that such action will drive up spending even more and bankrupt the nation. Those who are pro-reform seem to outnumber those who are anti-, believing that some change is better than none and that policymakers have to take at least some steps toward reforming the nation’s dysfunctional health system.

INSURERS WOULD GAIN LIVES

The potential gain for insurers comes from subsidies and mandates that could extend coverage to some 40 million more enrollees. Insurers had agreed to high-profile market reforms early in the proposal process—guaranteed issue, community rating and an end to benefit caps—in return for an individual mandate that would add millions of young, healthy individuals to the pool.

Now, industry faces even stiffer market reforms coming from added limits on age rating as well as an individual coverage mandate with fines that are considered too weak to boost coverage to a critical enrollment level.

The penalty for failing to buy coverage is so small and premiums are projected to climb so high, that many of those in the young invincibles’ crowd will opt to pay the fine and skip insurance until they actually have a need for healthcare services.

In addition, a squeeze on subsidies to support the purchase of individual coverage is likely to keep health plans too costly for many middle-class Americans.

Insurers remain outspoken about the prospect of competing directly with a public option, which is still on the table. The BlueCross BlueShield Assn. (BCBS) complained that a government-run plan will use its “built-in advantages” to eventually “take over the market.” An important victory for insurers comes in the House bill, which requires the public plan to negotiate rates with providers, instead of giving it free rein to institute lower Medicare fees. Even so, BCBS still predicts that the program “would quickly resort to price-setting” based on Medicare or other government health program rates.

Senate leaders back a less robust public plan option with leeway for states to opt out if local officials feel a government-run plan will undermine a viable state insurance market. Each state would make that determination based on the number of uninsured and how many private insurers offer competing plans in the state.

A related Senate proposal calls for government seed money to launch networks of nonprofit cooperatives that would offer affordable coverage plans to individuals and small businesses. While some critics see these programs as a first step toward a government-run healthcare system, they’re more palatable for many policymakers.

TREND OUTLOOK

A main source of disappointment in reform legislation from both the House and Senate is that the bills do very little to bend the cost curve. While some individuals are likely to see premiums decline—namely those now obtaining coverage through the individual market and small employers—many more will be facing higher rates. Raising minimum benefit levels to a benchmark higher than the average policy today is likely to drive up premiums for consumers even more.

A number of provisions purport to curb spending by cutting fraud and waste, establishing electronic medical records, assessing the effectiveness of medical treatments and bolstering preventive care. These strategies might improve quality but most believe they won’t make any real dent in expenditures. The bills also support pilot programs to test bundled payment approaches and to promote quality care, but those won’t accomplish much without an authority for the implementation.

PICKING UP THE TAB

Moves to increase taxes on consumers and healthcare companies to pay for the large expansion of coverage might help Congress reduce the cost burden of reform legislation on the federal budget, but they do little to curb spending overall—and run the real risk of boosting outlays even more.

Serious cost control involves overhauling provider payment methods and, according to many reform supporters, changing the tax treatment of employer-provided benefits. Unfortunately, these policies would draw too much opposition to survive in today’s political arena.

Congressional leaders are looking to create a new commission to propose strategies for cutting healthcare costs, along with a federal health oversight board to implement reform measures. Such panels are regular Washington fixtures, but this route might provide enough cover for skittish lawmakers to vote for health reform with the hope that others will fill in many of the details later.

Online management comes of age for chronic conditions

ONLINE PATIENT SELF-MANAGEMENT provides a dynamic and economically feasible means for physicians to interact with patients. It can extend the practice of medicine to reach more patients, more frequently to improve their health outcomes.

Those with obesity, for example, are at increased risk for cardiometabolic disorders: type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease as well as premature death. The complications of type 2 diabetes alone add about $23 billion a year to the nation’s healthcare costs, with obesity-related illnesses resulting in more than $117 billion in annual healthcare expenditures.

Yet, the ability of the medical community to create significant and sustainable changes in patient lifestyle choices has been limited for a variety of reasons. Healthcare providers have been restricted by the availability of clinical personnel, the cost of providing the needed services in an exclusively one-on-one environment, and by the difficulties patients have in accessing information and support.

Managing large numbers of patients with varying levels of risk is the biggest challenge for managed care. There is a delicate balance of providing the right mix of services to improve outcomes based on each person’s needs and risks.

Today, chronic care is being dramatically altered by the confluence of several trends, such as patients wanting an active role in managing their own health and a collaborative relationship with their healthcare providers and their health plan; widespread, low-cost internet access; advanced Web 2.0 technologies; wireless health monitoring devices, such as accelerometers, blood glucose meters, scales, and blood pressure sensors; and plans’ integrating population-based risk assessments with disease management and wellness services.

Patient self-management supported by information technology is becoming an important factor in the way providers deliver healthcare. Clinicians can support patient behavior change in an economical, practical, and profitable manner. Health plans can offer a new paradigm of care delivery with improved services to its members that are an extension of the onsite clinical setting.

Creating and maintaining such multidimensional education and support systems requires a wide range of technologies. Using modern software development methodologies ensures requirements and solutions that will evolve through collaboration between these cross-functional teams. Additionally, healthcare organizations can contract for services, rather than buying programs and the computer hardware on which to run them, in what is usually referred to as a software-as-a-service (SaaS) model.

For example, the Virtual Lifestyle Management service (VLM) is an online program based on the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), a weight management approach developed by the University of Pittsburgh faculty under a federal research grant from the National Institutes of Health. Through Web-based technology, the VLM delivers the DPP research-proven lifestyle interventions aiming to enhance the efficiency and success of healthcare provider weight management programs.

The DPP was a multi-year study with 3,234 adults with pre-diabetes in 27 U.S.-based centers, in which an intensive behavior change intervention was used to increase patients’ physical activity, improve nutrition and decrease weight by 5% to 7%.

The DPP decreased the progression to diabetes by 58% (5% vs. 11% for the control) and by 71% for those individuals over 60 years of age. It was more effective than the diabetes drug tested (metformin). The intervention consisted of face-to-face, individual counseling sessions with a skilled coach at a per patient cost of about $3,540 over three years.

A recent 50 person year-long pilot study of the DPP, delivered online as the VLM service, demonstrated 38% of the participants lost at least 7% of their body weight.

To be successful, these programs must be:

• Grounded in behavior change theory and clinical expertise;
• Evidence based;
• Flexible in design and implementation;
• Able to allow choice of media and alternative learning pathways while providing continuous feedback and engagement; and
• Integrated with clinical practice, and technology including EMRs and biometric devices.

The industry is moving to a medical model in which patients are given the tools they want and need for self-management with the process remaining under medical guidance and oversight. A new means of interaction is necessary if the industry is to have a functionally useful role in patient self-management and behavior change. The one-on-one paradigm typically cannot deliver, in a cost-effective way, what is needed.

—Neal Kaufman, MD

Neal Kaufman, MD, MPH, founded DPS Health, and is co-founder of the UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities. He is a professor of pediatrics and public health at the UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health.

Political maneuvering misses the point on rising costs

The ongoing debate regarding national healthcare reform has focused, in no small part, on whether reform should include a public option to compete with the private sector. The proposals have potentially far-reaching, adverse consequences for private sector insurance companies, including a sharp increase in the cost of doing business, and they might have an effect on how insurers conduct their business going forward.

Proponents of a public option claim that it would lower individual insureds’ healthcare costs by creating a lower cost alternative to the private market. Private sector health plans, however, are concerned that those lower healthcare costs, if realized, will result not from increased efficiency or competition in the healthcare system but instead from simple cost shifting to the private sector.

IT’S NOT THE SAME

This issue is exacerbated, at least for the private sector, by related concerns that the public option will not compete on a level playing field with private health plans. For example, the public option might not be subject to premium and other state-imposed taxes, might not have costs associated with maintaining adequate capitalization, and might not be subject to the same costs associated with regulatory compliance.

At the same time, private sector companies must bear all of these costs, yet somehow compete in the marketplace with the public option exempted from the costs and from any need to return a profit.

Other aspects of the structure, while not immediately identifiable as having a potential to increase private-sector costs, could have a significant effect on the way the private sector conducts the business of insurance. For instance, policies currently being debated might drastically alter provisions in antitrust regulation.

Currently, the private sector health plans and the business of insurance are regulated on a state-by-state basis, with the insurance industry benefitting from an antitrust exemption via the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

All of that may change, however. For instance, as of presstime, President Obama had indicated that Congress should revisit the McCarran-Ferguson Act and, specifically, provisions in that act exempting insurance companies from antitrust exposure.

There have also been discussions that a federal charter should be drawn up under which the federal government, not the individual states, should regulate insurance.

Finally, one aspect of the healthcare debate that has received less national attention, but is of great interest to the private sector, is the extent to which states may enact their own healthcare reforms.

Some states, for instance, have recently entertained vigorous debates related to regulation of minimum payments to doctors and hospitals and reforms to the small group and individual markets. And with all this activity, there is very little attention to the factors driving healthcare costs and almost nothing to address that in the proposed legislation.

Most proposals involve a provision prohibiting exclusions for enrollees’ pre-existing conditions, which would essentially provide guaranteed issue insurance coverage. This too has the potential to increase costs.

This column is written for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.

Next Page »