Getting Skin in the Game

Orthopedic surgery can be a demanding specialty, and with its rewards comes its challenges and opportunities. No one knows this better than J.F. James Davidson, MD, who specializes in sports medicine, shoulder and knee surgery and who is part of Canyon Orthopaedic Surgeons and also practices at Gateway Surgery Center, both in the metropolitan Phoenix area. He discusses life inside and outside of the OR.

Q: Why was the specialty of orthopedics right for you?

A: I greatly respect physicians in other fields such as family practice, oncology and trauma surgery, to name just a few. Good physicians can solve a complicated medical puzzle and potentially save a sick person’s life. These physicians carry the burden of a weighty responsibility. One reason I chose orthopedics and specifically the area of sports medicine is because our patients usually have treatable problems and the capacity for relatively rapid improvement. They usually do not have life threatening conditions and are highly motivated to improve in order to maximize their quality of life. I remember rotating through cardiology and nephrology in medical school and learning the serious consequences of chronic disease. On the first day of the orthopedic clinic we examined a man with a fractured patella. The patient jovially answered our questions regarding how he managed to be kicked in the knee by a goat. In spite of the discomfort of the fracture the patient laughed at his unusual predicament. I though, now I have found the right specialty.

Q: The practice of medicine is becoming more challenging in terms of medical malpractice, tighter reimbursement, etc., so how do you cope with these modern challenges?

A: I have had some very good teachers and role models. Bill Brainard, MD, one of the founders of our group, Canyon Orthopaedics, taught by example the benefit of finding enjoyment in working with patients and colleagues, and in performing surgery. Our practice has the innate rewards of helping people, solving problems, interacting with others. My partners and I feel fortunate to do what we do. The negatives certainly can be a drain on the system, but we try to focus on the positive reasons that we come to work each day.

Q: Most physicians are never trained in business, and when they become medical entrepreneurs, they can be unprepared for the rigors of business. What has been the most valuable lesson you have learned about being a medical entrepreneur?

A: As I mentioned, I have had some very good teachers. Dave Ott, MD, was the driving force developing our successful orthopedic ASC, Gateway Surgery Center. He proved that bringing traditional competitors together for a common business goal can lead to a win for all. Prior to Gateway’s development, Canyon Orthopedics consulted with a national firm regarding the viability of creating a small ASC as an extension of our six-man group. The consultant determined that the project would be worthwhile, but with lower volume than ideal. Instead we became part of the 30-physician Gateway ASC. This has proven to be far more efficient and successful than the project we could have done on our own. Currently under construction is the Southwest Orthopedic and Spine Hospital, an orthopedic specialty hospital in Phoenix. For this project 37 orthopedists and spine specialists have partnered with Catholic Healthcare West and USPI to build what we are determined to be the highest quality orthopedic facility in the region. Finally, a number of currently independent orthopedic groups in greater Phoenix are now working on the merger of our established practices to form a single large orthopedic group. We are hopeful that this of relationship will benefit from similar synergy as Gateway Surgery Center.

Q: What clinical lessons have you learned from sports medicine that you carry over into your other practice, and vice versa?

A: A high school athlete with the goal of a college scholarship is driven to return to the playing field as quickly as possible. A few extra days off the field may mean missing a game and a chance to help his team win and shine for a college scout. The athlete wants aggressive treatment to get him back in the game as quickly as possible. In worker’s compensation cases, an injured worker may or may not have similar motivation to get back to work quickly. However, fast-tracking treatment leads to more rapid return to the job, and less time on sick leave. Similarly, the injured worker (and his employer) benefit from avoiding unnecessary operations, but meanwhile not delaying the inevitable procedure. If a surgery ultimately will be required then spending time on additional therapy is not advantageous. Making this determination requires experience and judgment. The same is true in the treatment of the athlete. On the other hand, many middle-aged athletes as well as injured workers have degenerative changes seen on an MRI. It is important to make clinical decisions as to what changes seen on scan are degenerative and incidental versus acute and painful. An over-read of an MRI can lead to a potentially avoidable surgery in both the athlete and laborer.

Q: What are the technological/clinical advancements in orthopedic surgery that get you most excited?

A: I’m excited by a number of new devices and procedures. I’m always on the look-out for methods leading to better or more reproducible results; easier or less invasive ways of doing procedures; and faster or less painful recoveries. Throughout the year the Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA), hosts cadaver training courses to teach new techniques and improved ways of performing standard techniques. I have been an assistant instructor at the AANA shoulder courses for years and always learn from the master faculty leading the discussion and training. Two areas of special interest are the use of preoperative MRI to determine the pattern of rotator cuff tears and method of repair; and the use of an MRI to preoperatively design cutting jigs to add to the precision of total knee replacement.

Q: What do you believe is the future for outpatient orthopedic surgery in terms of keeping up with the ever changing medical and economic environment?

A: Practicing-physician involvement in management and ownership is one key. No one has a greater interest in maintaining a top-flight center than the orthopedist taking care of the patients, doing the surgery, and watching the bottom line. As we discussed earlier, my partners and I are betting on “big is better.” We built Gateway without a corporate partner. Last year for a number of reasons we sold a portion of our center to AmSurg. We are hopeful that this association will lead to economies of scale in purchasing and a stronger position in contracting. Cooperation with our colleagues has led to success in business and has improved our practice of orthopedics as well. We consult one another, adopt best practices, and learn from each other’s successes and failures. Healthcare is changing rapidly and we will all need to stay nimble to adjust to these changes.

J.F. James Davidson, MD, graduated with honors from Yale University and received his MD degree from Columbia University. He then completed his orthopedic residency and sports medicine fellowship in Phoenix. He is board certified by the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery and is a fellow of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. He has also served as an officer in the American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine and the Arthroscopy Association of North America. Davidson has published scientific papers and spoken nationally on topics ranging from anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. He is the lead spring training physician for the Chicago White Sox as well as the team orthopedist for several local schools. His special interests include disorders of the shoulder and knee. Davidson has been with Canyon Orthopaedic Surgeons since 1994.

ORs of Tomorrow Can Yield Pay-offs Today

The operating room (OR) of the future is closer than many facilities think. While the level of sophistication in equipment and technology depends upon a facility’s budget and ability to retrofit to accommodate exciting new developments in OR modalities, facilities should be aware of the changing dynamics of OR design and planning.

The challenges of efficient and effective surgical planning are numerous, according to Charles Martin, AIA, and Lynne Shira, RN, BSN, both principals with the Seattle architecture firm NBBJ, who were part of the Designing High-Performance ORs, a day-long symposium presented by STERIS Corporation last October. Martin and Shira explain that owners/operators of medical facilities must find a way to juggle their increasing equipment needs, technology demands and compatibility issues. They see an upward trend among healthcare facilities in the overall demand for additional space to grow their surgical service lines, including new ORs, procedure rooms and the requisite spaces needed to support these new rooms. Today’s facilities require much greater flexibility in the infrastructure and its operational capacity to accommodate more integrated systems both in and out of the OR. Not only can this flexibility create an environment to better foster staff recruitment and retention, Martin and Shira say, but it can improve the patient experience.

The size of ORs has been increasing over time, with the OR of yesterday being about 400 to 500 square feet, with a total department space of about 2,000 square feet. The OR of today and tomorrow is now an average of 600 to 800 square feet, with a total departmental space between 3,200 and 4,500 square feet. The reason for this expansion can differ greatly from facility to facility, but many institutions are creating hybrid ORs that encompass and integrate surgical and interventional services, imaging and clinical services. This kind of OR can accommodate multiple care-delivery models and new technologies, as well as support clinical and administrative uses.

Fred Bentley, practice manager for syndicated research at the Advisory Board Co., says that ORs have been invaded by numerous “space-eating” technologies, such as PACS, C-arms, endoscopic towers, robotics and inter-operative MRIs. The space around the operating table has become increasingly cramped; an OR of 300 cubic feet frequently must accommodate about 115 cubic feet of surgical and anesthesia personnel and about 150 cubic feet of equipment, leaving just about 35 cubic feet of free space. It can be a struggle for facilities to balance comfort and efficiency, Bentley adds, that an OR of less than 400 square feet is now considered to be an anachronism because of its cramped, inflexible space; the 500-square-foot OR is now a tight fit; and an OR with more than 800 square feet is probably an over-indulgence and has the potential for too much dead space. The sweet spot, Bentley says, is an OR of about 600 to 650 square feet, which has enough space to accommodate equipment, but facilitates enough unimpeded circulation throughout the room. To cope with smaller ORs that cannot be immediately retrofitted, some facilities are opting to move some bulkier pieces of equipment out of the OR, such as a mobile C-arm that can stored in a corridor alcove or an adjacent equipment closet, or using utility booms to get equipment lifted off of the floor. Other facilities are opting for more streamlined integrated interventional suites that come turn-key from manufacturers such as STERIS.

A hybrid OR is quickly becoming a favorite option for some facilities wishing to make better use of their OR space. Neurological surgeon Jeffrey Yablon, MD, of the Lake Norman Regional Medical Center in Mooresville, N.C., defines a hybrid OR as “an actual operating room located within the surgical suite that accommodates uncompromised interventional, open and minimally invasive surgery within a given specialty.” Yablon says that a number of trends are driving the hybrid OR craze, especially recent technological advancements and specialists’ desire to expand their sphere of expertise amidst competing services. Another driver is the limited space with which many facilities must contend; Yablon says a hybrid OR can be used for several services or procedures and will provide maximum utilization of space. Yablon also cites increased competition for procedural services, with cardiothoracic moving into interventional cardiology, interventional radiology moving into vascular surgery and interventional cardiology moving into interventional radiology. Another factor is tighter reimbursement; Yablon says a hybrid OR’s flexibility will allow for this space to be fully used with a continual stream of reimbursement dollars. He adds that increased readiness and flexibility results in fewer complications and better outcomes, which ultimately achieves lower costs and higher profit margins.

Hybrid ORs are a win-win situation for surgeons, Yablon says, because they allow for improved patient care because of integrated technologies, and because they provide room flexibility and improved workflow. Nursing staff members like these ORs because they improve staff productivity, workflow and ergonomics, as well as improve room utilization and reduce scheduling challenges. And administrators like them because they help to retain surgeons and nurses as well as optimize capital monies. Yablon adds that hybrid ORs are not without their challenges – including costs, simultaneous competition for the room’s unique resources among surgeons and the need for continual future upgrades – but says the advantages frequently outweigh the challenges.

One healthcare system that has moved boldly into the OR of the future by embracing cutting-edge technology is the Carondelet Health Network in Tucson, Ariz., whose hybrid ORs boast the BrainSUITE iCT, a dual-room intraoperative large-bore, multi-slice CT with sliding-gantry from BrainLAB. Neurosurgeon Eric Sipos, MD, FACS, medical director of the Carondelet Neurological Institute, says the advantages of a two-room CT scanner system include the minimized disruption of the familiar surgical workflow with a maximized CT scanning range providing the widest range of patient positioning. The surgical table position for scanning can be stored prior to draping to avoid collisions with scanner, and once positioned for surgery, the patient is not moved, especially outside of the sterile air field; the anesthesia is fixed and constant throughout the surgical and imaging procedures. With a sliding gantry moving between two ORs, there might be the opportunity for cross-contamination, but Sipos emphasizes that the preservation of the sterile environment is achieved and the patient in the adjacent OR is not compromised in any way. Carl Colombi, technical consultant with the Integrated OR Solutions (iORS) Division of BrainLAB, says the BrainSUITE fully integrated intraoperative CT surgical operating room can facilitate surgical planning and navigation, as well as achieve data management and coordinated equipment integration.

While this level of technology might be reserved for the larger health systems, ASCs shouldn’t count themselves out of the technology game nor assume they cannot replicate a hybrid OR set-up. “Over the years, we have seen more and more surgical cases migrate to the outpatient environment, primarily due to the advances in anesthetic agents and minimally invasive technologies,” Shira says. “Our previous thinking that an outpatient surgery is for ‘minor’ surgical procedures simply doesn’t hold true any longer. The equipment and technology required for minimally invasive work demands a surgical footprint and boom configurations that are not unlike the inpatient environment. ASCs that want to plan for this technology in the future need to remember this as they are planning.” Shira continues, “Recognizing that ASCs are held to a different building standard than hospitals, there should still be planning for proper air exchanges, good surgical traffic patterns with non-restricted, semi-restricted and restricted zones understood with the design. And of course, there can be no compromise on safety protocols and cleaning protocols regardless of the location of the surgical environment.”

Martin and Shira emphasize that the numerous rapid advances in imaging technology are dictating some OR planning and design elements, and note that many imaging interventions are transitioning from diagnostic to therapeutic, thus blurring the boundaries between imaging and surgery. The goal of many facilities is to integrate these departments into a single service with common support in terms of supplies, equipment and staff. If designed correctly, this concept also can eliminate the all-too-common duplication of pre- and post-operative functions, as well as eliminate the duplication of space, equipment and supply storage. Martin and Shira add that integration of staff with similar skill sets can greatly improve operational efficiencies. The integration concept also can apply to universal procedure rooms that specialists can share, as well as universal prep and recovery areas that can accommodate varying patient volumes throughout the day, as well as minimize patient transfers and reduce the number of supply-distribution points.

While we have seen how the physicality of the OR is evolving for the future, it’s important to note that healthcare professionals are following suit. Bentley points to the trend of surgeons and interventionalists becoming one and the same in the future; in the past, these two groups have performed distinct classes of procedures, while in the present, some surgeons are learning select interventional techniques. In the OR of the future, it may be no surprise to see surgeons familiar with nearly all major interventional procedures and perform them frequently; there may also be the rise of the multi-purpose proceduralist. Bentley says these proceduralists can be co-located on the same floor of a facility, or they can even be housed in the same suite, functioning in what Bentley calls a “multi-purpose sandbox” to accommodate all kinds of disciplines.

No next-generation OR can be planned and executed without buy-in from all stakeholders during the project planning and management process, including surgeons and clinical personnel, administration, the architect, the engineer, the IT department and key vendors, according to collaborators Chris Kantorak, technical consulting manager with BrainLAB, Inc., Brian Hartman, project design manager with STERIS Corporation, and Paul Niehaus, project manager with Philips Healthcare. They say that advanced OR suites require space for technology, personnel and ancillary equipment, and that design input from all user groups must be obtained to ensure an optimal environment for all. More specifically in terms of roles among stakeholders, the architect is responsible for evaluating trends such as fixed-based imaging versus mobile imaging, and OR integration; providing for the expansion to a larger OR footprint ; and understanding the changes in sterility needs when going from an imaging suite to a flexible hybrid OR suite, for example. They must also design into the OR future flexibility, such as empty conduits for information/video routing, blank structural plates and positions to accommodate new equipment in the future. To this end, the equipment manufacturer can help plan for the support of new technologies as they are added. In turn, the vendor plays a key role by helping to maximize functionality and the placement of multiple technologies, offering design expertise with proper sequencing of design needs, and planning for both existing and future technologies or evolving clinical procedures.

Intrapreneurship

I was in a meeting recently and a discussion was proposed as to whom should be the owner of an idea originated inside a hospital. The employee, the institution, both?

It is clear to me that when a physician is hired to do research, the output of this research should belong to the hospital, and the hospital should acknowledge his/her contribution by giving away part of the benefits obtained from it. In this case, the new idea would probably have been unthinkable outside the premises of the hospital, without its infrastructure and assets, so it makes sense.

But what happens if an employee has an idea, let’s say, related to his/her field of experience but not necessarily linked to research? Let’s take this example, if an OR Nurse perceives a need and thinks about a solution to this need while in the operating room, let’s say a new medical device, should the idea belong to the hospital? Well, yes, the idea came to them because they were working at the hospital, but can the hospital claim any ownership over it?

Who is the owner of the idea, then? It may seem a futile discussion, but to me it represents the most important barrier to innovation in our healthcare systems, so it is far from trivial. Sometimes employees don’t engage in innovation because they perceive the ownership issue as unfair. If we want to foster innovation in healthcare, this question needs to have a clear answer. At the end of the day, it all goes down to how the hospital sees healthcare professionals: Do employees work for the hospital, or do they work at the hospital?

Are hospitals really willing to encourage innovation and intrapreneurship inside their premises? Are hospitals willing to create a culture of reward for those entrepreneurs? There is a lot to be gained here: if the hospital succeeds in fostering innovation, it can create a great environment to attract talent, lead, and generate economic value and social impact.

People do respond to incentives. That’s something I learned very early when dealing with innovators and entrepreneurs. Innovation should not trigger a war between the healthcare facility and the employee. It should always be a win-win scenario where both parties can create a lot of value if they cooperate. So, in my opinion this is not about claiming ownership, but about both parties acknowledging how far can they go and how better they will be if they work together, and share the ownership. That’s the answer that makes sense to me.

 

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.

No-shows at public hearing not making any friends

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick appears to be fighting the good fight, even though it’s making an awful lot of healthcare organizations rather uncomfortable. In October, Patrick and the state’s division of insurance began examining drivers of higher coverage costs for small business in order to find ways to make coverage more affordable. But that probe has now led to a broader, stickier investigation.

As you know, Massachusetts has an individual mandate, which has successfully pushed coverage above 90%, but the state continues to struggle with increased demand and associated additional costs. The state has a concentration of academic medical centers and some of the highest costs in the nation, dating back even before the mandate took effect.

As part of the state’s investigation, hospitals and health plans were invited to a series of public hearings to discuss rising costs at the system level. While the invitations weren’t summonses, they weren’t exactly friend requests either.

The Boston Globe slammed the many state hospitals that were invited and overtly failed to show up. In fact, even after a condemning news story identifying the first day’s no-shows by name, only eight hospitals out of the 70 that were invited ultimately showed up for the subsequent hearings.

LONG LIST OF QUESTIONS

I called up Lora Pellegrini, acting president and CEO of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, to find out what was going on. She says invitations were sent by the division of insurance in late December, and sample questions were provided in advance. Health plans received 60 questions to discuss at the hearings, such as how they arrive at prices for specific products.

“Our member health plans spent thousands of hours preparing for the hearings,” Pellegrini says.

The fact that the hospitals didn’t attend could be viewed as a refusal to cooperate or as a suspicious action among organizations that have something to hide—which is ironic since health plans are often accused, rightly or wrongly, of doing just that.

Here’s a situation where the health insurers were at the table, willing to be reasonably open with policymakers, and the providers were not. Criticizing hospitals and physicians who work passionately to save lives and reduce pain might be seen as distasteful, but they probably deserved it in this case. In their defense, many hospital executives claimed scheduling conflicts were the problem.

For high-level discussions—such as public hearings that the division of insurance and the governor invite you to—it would seem to be in the best interest of all the stakeholders to participate, even if their only motive is to show their faces. Perhaps the scrutiny often directed toward “greedy” insurers will start shifting onto providers.

PROVIDE POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Pellegrini says her association’s member plans operate on 2% margins, and 90% of their premium dollars are spent on medical services. Many are not-for-profit companies and all are as transparent as contracts will allow, she says.

She seemed a little frustrated by the hospitals’ lack of cooperation, and recommends that health plans in other states take the high road if faced with a similar situation.

“Try to provide solutions,” she says. “Operate your business in a way that you don’t have anything to hide.”

Julie Miller is editor-in-chief of MANAGED HEALTHCARE EXECUTIVE. She can be reached at julie.miller@advanstar.com [julie.miller@advanstar.com]

Julie Miller

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.

Fera Pharmaceuticals now shipping erythromycin ophthalmic ointment

Erythromycin ophthalmic ointment is now available after a previous market shortage, manufacturer Fera Pharmaceuticals (New York) said in a press release.

Last summer the company acquired erythromycin and six other ophthalmic ointments; during the transfer period, supplies of both erythromycin and bacitracin became very limited. Erythromycin is currently on a list of drug shortages on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Web site.

Last week, Fera announced the completion of bacitracin’s manufacturing transfer and has begun shipping again to pharmacies and wholesalers.

Fera anticipates the availability of the 3.5-gram tube size of erythromycin in cartons of 24, Hospital-Pak, as well as the single 3.5-gram tube package size over the next few weeks, the company said in the release.

According to the FDA’s Web site, Bausch & Lomb (Rochester, N.Y.), which also manufactures erythromycin, is currently releasing the product in the 50 x 1 gm packaging configuration. Bausch & Lomb is also distributing limited amounts of product in the 3.5-gram tube, the FDA reported.

Know Your APCs for ASCs

APCs for outpatient procedures performed in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) are part of an averaging and bundling system using CPT® procedure, HCPCS Level II and revenue codes submitted to Medicare on CMS=1500 forms, with UB-04 claim forms used by ASCs to file claims to most other payors. The APC system utilizes “packages” of CPT® and HCPCS Level II codes, based on clinical and facility resources and establishes payment rates for each APC grouping. This means the physical and human resources needed to provide the service and the geographic costs are bundled together using annually adjusted formulae, much as in hospital inpatient billing. Certain medications, services, and durable medical equipment are considered “pass through” and can be reported separately from an APC revenue code.

APCs are assigned based on the CPT® and HCPCS Level II codes reported by the provider for each service. Usually, more than one code will fall into an APC category. More than one CPT® and HCPCS Level II codes can be reported if needed.

But not all CPT® and HCPCS Level II codes qualify. They are all assigned a status indicator denoting the code’s relation to APCs — whether they qualify and how. The ASC must be careful to avoid reporting a code denoted as not reimbursable for ASC services unless a modifier and documentation support it. As a result, a limited group of modifiers are recommended as well. The status indicators can be found on CMS files including the CPT and HCPCS Level II codes, and most commercially published codebooks include them as icons.

Examples of the indicators include the following:

• A: Services furnished to a hospital outpatient that are paid under a fee schedule or payment system other than OPPS. This means fiscal intermediaries are reimbursing this code via a fee schedule not under APCs.
• C: Inpatient procedures. This is the kiss of death for an ASC claim’s success. This procedure is expected to be done in a hospital with the appropriate resources and an overnight stays.
• N: Items and services packaged into APC rates. This is paid under the APC OPPS and payment is packaged into payment for other services; there is no separate payment for this.

Restricted CPT® modifiers include:

• 50: Used when the exact same procedure is done on the exact body part of the opposite side. Also known as “bilateral”. Some insurance companies prefer the biller use the CPT® code twice instead. Ex: 10220-RT, 10200-LT. Check with carrier on which to use. Payment should be 150 percent.
• 51: Indicates multiple procedures were performed. The 51 appends to the second CPT® code and all CPT® codes thereafter. Medicare does not recognize modifier 51 for ASC services as this modifier is for use on physician claims only.
• 52: Indicates reduced services. Use when procedure is not completed as described in the official CPT® description.
• 73: Used when a procedure is discontinued before the anesthesia administration. Patient must be in the room where the procedure would have taken place. Payable at 50 percent of the Medicare allowable rate. Typically seen when patient’s blood pressure arises to a dangerous rate.
• 74: Used when a procedure is discontinued after the anesthesia administration. Patient must be in the room where the procedure would have taken place. Payable at 100 percent of rate. Typically seen when patient’s blood pressure arises to a dangerous rate.
• 78: Used when the patient has to return to the operating room during the global period for a procedure related to the first procedure, such as control of bleeding following a colonoscopy or sinus procedure.
• 79: Unrelated procedure or service by the same physician during the postoperative period. (Same day for an ASC setting.)

Rhonda Buckholtz, CPC, CPC-I, CGSC, COBGC, CPEDC, CENTC, is vice president of business and member development for the American Academy of Professional Coders (AAPC).

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.

Consumer experience provides worthwhile quality data

A FEW YEARS AGO, the idea that patients could anonymously post physician ratings on the internet had the medical community in an uproar. That’s beginning to change now as stakeholders recognize consumers’ growing interest in having more provider data in order to make smart decisions.

When physician rating sites gained traction, doctors protested that survey sample sizes were too small and that patients used the sites as a bully pulpit to drown out the voice of the satisfied masses. Not surprisingly, insurers were reticent to jump into the ratings business at first because of HIPAA concerns, the threat of lawsuits and fear of alienating plan-affiliated physicians.

The threats “made insurers a little shy about getting involved in the first generation of these rating sites,” says Jane Sarasohn-Kahn, a healthcare economist and management consultant with THINK-Health.

Times are changing, and a number of insurers have embraced consumer ratings of physicians, adding such services to their Web sites and making upgrades over the last few years.

In October 2006, Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield introduced an online rating tool for its members in Oregon, Idaho, Utah and Washington. So far 46,000 members have posted ratings. Ralph Prows, MD, senior medical director for Regence, admits his plan ruffled a few feathers when it added a nonrestrictive member comment tool online.

“It was controversial,” he says. “We went out to talk to providers, and there was great resistance. No one cares more about reputation than physicians. They felt quite vulnerable to the odd comment that someone might make.”

WellPoint jumped in the game in January 2008 when it partnered with the well-known restaurant- and travel-ratings brand Zagat. Plan members in WellPoint’s 10 largest markets currently have access to the service, which will be available to all 34 million WellPoint members by year’s end, according to Eric Fennel, WellPoint’s staff vice president of innovation. In addition, WellPoint has independently provided the service to Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina and hopes to market to other Blues in the future.

Last July Consumers’ Checkbook, a nonprofit consumer-generated ratings group, in collaboration with Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, CIGNA, and Blues plans in Tennessee and Kansas City, introduced a pilot in three major cities. The survey, based on one developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, rates hundreds of doctors and relies on feedback from 87,000 consumers. Robert Krughoff, president of Consumers’ Checkbook says his group’s rigorous survey methodology is a selling point with science-minded physicians.

Consumers’ Checkbook ratings apply scientific methodology and draw results from a large sample. The average physician rating is an aggregate of 45 patients’ responses.

A service created by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, called TheHealthScoop.com, takes a broader, system approach. TheHealthScoop eschews numerical ratings and invites all healthcare consumers—not just plan members—to share their healthcare experiences as part of a free-form dialogue. The site currently contains some 5,000 anecdotes from consumers in all 50 states.

ANECDOTES PROVIDE INSIGHT

Different though these systems are, they realize that consumers crave not only clinical and cost information, but insights into the healthcare experience. As the myriad approaches to ratings would indicate, finding the best way to gather, aggregate and provide that information can be a challenge.

As the ratings systems have become more common and more accepted, physician concerns have dissipated. For example, Regence’s policies promote moderation and provide doctors with recourse. The fact that nearly nine out of 10 physician ratings are favorable has undoubtedly swayed physicians into embracing the idea as well.

Eighty-four percent of WellPoint respondents have said they would recommend their provider, according to Fennel. But, when it comes to assessing the patient experience, some factors simply cannot be quantified.

“We’re not asking someone to assess the physician’s knowledge or skill, and that was certainly by design,” he says. “We’re asking people to assess the types of things the consumer is uniquely qualified to assess.”

 

In The New England Journal of Medicine (Jan. 7, 2010), Shaili Jain, MD, a Wisconsin psychiatrist, expresses a similar view after finding her name on an internet rating site. “We learn about what makes a good doctor from textbooks and medical journals, receive ethics and professionalism training, and find role-model physicians to emulate, but nearly all of this is education from a doctor’s perspective. We seldom get to hear what patients want or value,” she writes.

 

In offering online rating services to their members, plans not only enable consumers to find the providers that best fit their needs, they have the potential to engender plan loyalty and reduce churn, economist Sarasohn-Kahn says. Members who feel connected to a virtual community and feel an insurer is providing a value-added service in creating that community are less likely to switch plans, she says.

While that may be true for some plan members, most will never use these rating tools, says Arnold Milstein, MD, chief physician at Mercer Health and Benefits and medical director for the Pacific Business Group on Health.

“How many people read Consumer Reports or Zagat before making a purchasing decision?” he asks. “Probably no more than 10% or 15% of people tend to be so methodical.”

A 2007 survey by JupiterResearch found that while more than one-third of online health information seekers research what other consumers say about treatments, only 10% say they use the internet to find consumer recommendations and opinions about doctors.

But consumer usage isn’t necessarily a measure of the services’ value. Ratings have a tendency to generate a “word on the street” buzz, Dr. Milstein says.

“That’s what causes doctors and hospitals to pay attention, and that’s why they tend to shape up,” he says.

Consider hospitals’ experience with publicly reported data. A report released by Press Ganey Associates last fall found hospital inpatients’ experience has improved dramatically since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began requiring all hospitals to publicly report data from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey in April 2008.

Seven months after the start of HCAHPS reporting, Press Ganey data showed inpatient satisfaction scores had climbed more significantly than at any other point in the 24 years the company has been tracking satisfaction. What’s more, satisfied patients are more likely to recommend a facility and they’re less likely to file malpractice suits.

That’s a phenomenon Krughoff hopes his Consumers’ Checkbook ratings will fuel. Krughoff’s organization has been rating service providers for decades, but rating healthcare providers is a unique proposition, he says.

“In the case of physicians, the top scoring doctors can’t add more capacity,” he says. “The path to overall improvement in care has to be through individual doctors’ quality improvement.”

Shelly Reese is a freelance writer based in Cincinnati

Next Page »