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.

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.

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.

OR Technology: A Glimpse Into The Future

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

Enhancing Communication, Collaboration and Education: An Olympus Case Study

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

Staying Ahead of the Technology Curve

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

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

Taking a Comprehensive Approach

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

Experiencing the Installation Process

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

Taking Centralized Control

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

Communication, Collaboration, and Education

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

Interventional Radiology Breaks New Ground: A Skytron Case Study

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

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

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

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

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

A Room That Works

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

Installation With Minimal Impact

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

OR Technology Update: A Steris Case Study

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

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

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

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

OR Technology Update: A Berchtold Case Study

Problem

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

Solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just One Gown Warms From Start to Finish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New alliance launched to measure and improve long-term care

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

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

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

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

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

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

LTQA board members include:

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

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

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

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

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

Steven Dawson
President, Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute (PHI)

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

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

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

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

Gail Gibson Hunt
President and CEO, National Alliance for Caregiving

Gail Kass
President and CEO, New Courtland Elder Services

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

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

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

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

Sandy Markwood CEO,
National Association of Area Agencies on Aging

Katie Maslow
Director for Policy Development, Alzheimer’s Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The height of health IT

Even health insurance giant WellPoint—with more than 35 million members and arguably enough reach to change the system with sheer volume alone—is taking few chances on the future of healthcare delivery. Like most plans, it’s testing new programs with cautious optimism, while aiming for large-scale implementation.

Charles Kennedy, MD, WellPoint’s vice president for health information technology, has a vital role in the plan’s innovation because few initiatives these days can be accomplished without the backbone of health IT.

Specifically, WellPoint’s emerging Individual Health Record—a simultaneously patient-facing and physician-facing electronic record—is “almost an air traffic control system to manage disease,” according to Dr. Kennedy. It’s probably one of the most promising efforts to control costs among members with chronic conditions. Pulling claims and clinical data through complex algorithms to arrive at a functional health summary differentiates the Individual Health Record from the typical EMR system.

“If you’re a hospital or institution, you have a variety of clinical data sources that have information on the patients that you see,” he says. “If you haven’t deployed an interface engine or some way of pulling those various clinical data sources together, you’re late to the party, and you need to do that ASAP.”

With more than 20 years of experience comprised of clinical practice and health IT implementation, Dr. Kennedy began his career in internal medicine. When he was a resident at Highland General Hospital in Oakland, Calif., he noticed how the patients’ needs far outstripped the hospital’s resources, and that experience solidified his vision of where medical care and information should meet.

“We tried to treat each patient regardless of who they were or their ability to pay,” he says. “It had the unfortunate side effect that we never thought about cost. We only thought about what was right for a patient. But that created a system where people are actually being hurt because they can’t afford care. I began to realize that the very laudable and applaudable approach of not caring about cost—only the patient—is right, but that doesn’t mean you can become cost unconscious. Cost unconsciousness has its own set of bad outcomes. That’s what’s led me into thinking we need to be more efficient. We need health IT.”

Earlier this year, Dr. Kennedy was named by the Government Accountability Office as a member of the new Health Information Policy Committee, which was established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Serving a three-year term, he and other committee members are creating policy framework for the development and adoption of a nationwide health IT infrastructure, including standards for the exchange of patient information. The committee will also make recommendations for handing out the $38 billion in health IT funding earmarked in the reinvestment act.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE HEALTH INFORMATION POLICY COMMITTEE’S GOALS?

A:We’re trying to make sure the Obama health reform strategy becomes real. What people don’t realize is the number of things the industry and the government agree on. For instance, the government invested $1.1 billion in comparative effectiveness research.

The stimulus bill has $38 billion in it for health IT, and we’re trying to help the government develop policies to spend that money wisely. Our function is to say, ‘How do we take this incredible resource that Congress and the President have given us, and how do we turn it into an investment that creates healthcare value for the whole country?’ It’s a massive undertaking.

Our first objective was to ensure that the money from the stimulus package paid out over five years created value. We asked ourselves where we wanted to be five years from now, and then we worked backwards from there.

Deploying computers is not the goal. Having physicians and patients use computers to create better care at a lower cost is the goal. To do that, we have to set the bar high for the care system. Not only must you use the computer, you must use it in a meaningful way for better care. These are the ‘meaningful use’ criteria that we’ve published.

If we distribute a substantial number of computers, and physicians don’t use them, we won’t be successful. We didn’t want to focus on technical measures. We created the meaningful use criteria, and every single one is clinical.

We want physicians to achieve a clinical result, and we want information technology and the money in the stimulus package to be a contributor to that improved clinical result. For instance, one of the criteria is to avoid 1 million heart attacks and strokes by 2015. Another is to make cardiac disease no longer the leading cause of death in the United States. Those are stretch goals. That is not something simple and trivial.

It would have been much easier to say, ‘Our goal is to make sure 90% of physicians have computers.’ But we consciously didn’t do that because we recognize that health IT is a tool and that other changes need to happen.

HOW WILL THE INDUSTRY ACTUALLY ACHIEVE MEANINGFUL USE AND OTHER MILESTONES?

A:The law is actually quite specific in defining what a qualified system is, and we have a subcommittee that’s identifying the actual entity—such as the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology (CCHIT)—that will assess systems as to whether they qualify or not. The bigger challenge is data integration.

Everyone recognizes that healthcare is horribly fragmented, that there are silos of care. We know that there’s massive inefficiencies, and there are significant quality concerns because information is not shared as people move across silos.

The challenge with data integration is that we really haven’t figured out how to do it correctly. If you’re an integrated delivery system and you buy one EMR, that’s fine, and that works. But 70% of physicians practice in a community setting, solo and small group practice. You have this tremendous problem that all of these systems are different. They call things by different names, and they even capture different sets of data.

WELLPOINT HAS CREATED THE INDIVIDUAL HEALTH RECORD SYSTEM THAT USES ALGORITHMS. HOW WILL THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

A:Algorithms, also known as decision support, are going to be the key to getting value out of these systems. Let’s say the federal government funds a comparative-effectiveness study that identifies a new drug is great for certain people. In today’s world, we know it can take up to 17 years for that to be commonly found in a physician’s paper record. With this approach, you can create an algorithm as soon as physicians or specialty societies have decided on certain best practices. Now you’ve created an infrastructure to get that message to every doctor, but only when there’s an appropriate situation for that rule to be applied. That will take that 17 years down to 17 days. That’s a huge advance.

Let’s say we have noticed that there’s a lot of inappropriate use of PET scans. In today’s world, a doctor would have to call us for preauthorization every single time he orders a PET scan. In the future, the algorithms will be running, and they will only alert the doctor if there’s an issue with a PET scan. Today, they call 100% of the time, and we generally approve the scan more than 90% of the time. Algorithms will take hassles, administrative costs and bureaucratic burdens out of the system.

The right kind of health IT allows us to use new knowledge from our outcomes research subsidiary [HealthCore] and any gaps in a member’s care identified by our informatics company [Resolution Health] in much more effective ways. The right kind of health IT allows these advances to be applied real time at the point of care while the doctor is treating the patient or helping the patient at home.

IS WELLPOINT’S INDIVIDUAL HEALTH RECORD WORKING? HOW IS IT ANY BETTER THAN OTHER EMRS OR PHRS?

A:We’ve run a pilot in Dayton, Ohio. The idea was not just to create interoperability—don’t just allow System A to talk to System B. When you connect systems together, what you create is just a data dumpster. It’s like putting a jigsaw puzzle on a physician’s desk.

That information has to be organized to just the summarized information that the doctor needs…You don’t take all of the information out of these various systems, you only take the information necessary for the ongoing management of the patient.

Many EMR implementations have failed to show value. About 30% of the time, physicians will actually turn them off because they are incredibly time-intensive and will reduce a physician’s productivity. That will hit them in the pocketbook. We’ve looked for solutions that wouldn’t be so intensive from a physician’s data-entry perspective and would do more sorting of information and presentation of information.

Physicians are not data generators. They’re data consumers. Their orders create significant amounts of data, but the physicians themselves usually just scribble a relatively brief note. The problem with many EMRs is they will require physicians to become data-entry clerks.

In Dayton, Ohio, we have a very significant market share. We’re Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Ohio, and we also have a strong partnership with Kettering Hospital Network.

Kettering had already installed an application integration solution, so even though they had 120 different clinical sources, many of those clinical sources could be accessed through infrastructure they had already built. That made it easy for us to collect all of the clinical data out of their systems. We built feeds to the application from Anthem’s claims systems. We were able to get this application up and running in a little over three months, which is incredibly rapid. We made it available to the patient in the form of a PHR and to the doctor in the form of a CCHIT-certified EMR with e-prescribing.

When we looked at who was using the tool, we found that patients who had a higher illness burden actually made preferential use of the tool. For many of the tools we’ve deployed, the ‘worried well’ have been the type of people who used it, not the people with the chronic disease that we really need to reach.

We noticed the people who used the tool and had the higher illness burden, their cost increase year over year was actually less than the people who didn’t use the tool, even though those people who didn’t use the tool were healthier.

We built algorithms in the system that exactly correlated with various HEDIS measures and every time the doctor or the patient logged on, they could see their exact compliance. By giving the patients and the doctor the same information in a simple red light, yellow light, green light format with algorithms enabled us to see quality improvement scores of anywhere from 10% to almost 40%.

WHAT’S THE BUSINESS CASE FOR A HEALTH PLAN TO CREATE A SYSTEM LIKE THAT?

A: Our strategy is maximizing healthcare value, and healthcare information technology is really a tool to get you there. But it has to be the right kind of health information technology. It has to influence doctor’s decisions, and you have to present sufficient clinical data—not mountains of data but the key things the doctor needs to know so that you can influence his decision to do something that’s consistent with the evidence base, or to prescribe a drug that will cost the patient less but has the same likelihood of creating a good patient outcome.

If you look at why healthcare spending is out of control, it’s chronic disease, not health plan profits and not health plan administrative costs. We are seeing an explosion of chronic disease in this country, and chronic disease is managed largely by the patient at home. They’re managing their diabetes 99% of the time at their home, not in the physician’s office. If you don’t make your health IT solutions patient-centric and if they don’t address chronic disease, I don’t think that you’re going to get the kind of value that you want.

HOW ARE THE PHYSICIANS EMBRACING THE INDIVIDUAL HEALTH RECORD?

A:We have 300 physicians using the system now. We’re planning for a broader rollout to the greater Dayton area in 2010 to virtually all primary care physicians.

What we’re focusing on is chronic disease management, and there’s not huge debate about many of the things that need to be done to take care of these patients. That’s not the problem. The problem is actually getting it done. The physicians in general have been positive and are beginning to see how their lives could be easier.

We also added all of our pay-for-performance rules. We pay physicians more if they practice medicine consistent with the evidence base, and we took the existing measures and turned them into algorithms in the system. As long as the physician follows all the alerts, he can be sure that he’s going to maximize his pay for performance incentive. That’s convenient for the doctors because what they usually have to do is identify the patients who haven’t had certain interventions and then reach out and call them.

We’re just starting to incorporate our utilization management rules. If we can begin to move those algorithms to the point of care, then physicians might not have to call except for when there’s a real reason to discuss something, which might be 5% of the time.

DETERMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENTS IN ORDER TO BUILD THE ALGORITHMS IS AN EXPENSIVE PROCESS. HOW CAN IT BE DONE?

A:This is the beauty of health information technology…if you bring it together in a repository that’s reflective of the patient’s clinical condition and how they’re being managed, you can begin to do database-driven studies rather than very expensive prospective clinical trials where you’re enrolling patients and following them over time. You can begin to do database driven studies that are a fraction of the cost. No, they’re not the gold standard, which will always be a randomized perspective-controlled clinical trial, but there’s a lot of information we’re going to be able to glean out of database-driven studies that are more observational and more retrospective.

BE A VISIONARY. WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE POTENTIAL FOR HEALTH IT?

A: I hope that every time a patient needs information when they’re home or need to take care of their chronic disease or want to stay well, that they have that information at their fingertips, it’s actionable, and they don’t even have to think about it. If we can make it that easy—and there is a path to get there—we could actually fix the healthcare system.

Charles Kennedy, MD, has held strategic health IT positions with a variety of organizations. He also served as the medical director of a California health center in addition to other clinical service. He earned an MBA from Stanford University, an MD from the University of California at Los Angeles, and a bachelor’s degree in genetics from the University of California at Berkeley.
” Physicians are not data generators. They’re data consumers.”

Quality Models

Five years ago, Aetna and several large employers confronted Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle over how much it was charging for treatment of migraine, severe acid reflux and narrowed aortic valves, and other conditions. Virginia Mason, a not-for-profit hospital system that employs about 400 salaried physicians, took the message to heart.

Working with the employers and Aetna, doctors and staff began to re-engineer care protocols. For example, the system ensured back pain patients same-day access to a physical therapist and physical medicine physician and sharply reduced medically unnecessary MRI tests and physical therapy visits. From 2004 to 2007, the changes yielded a 50% reduction in lost employee work days due to back pain, almost $2 million in cost savings and high patient satisfaction scores.

Following the overhaul, however, Virginia Mason’s spine clinic was losing revenue because of fewer billed tests and services. To offset the loss, Aetna boosted reimbursement for appropriate physical therapy sessions. With the higher payments and the greater volume of patients it could handle under the more efficient system, Virginia Mason covered its costs—while payers achieved a significant net savings.

President Obama and health policy experts have specifically touted integrated delivery systems, such as Virginia Mason, Geisinger Health System, the Mayo Clinic and others, as national models for innovation. Dartmouth University researchers have found, for instance, that Mayo spends one-third to one-half less than other top hospitals to care for similar patients with equal or better results.

Geisinger has gotten so much attention from politicians that it reportedly hosted tours for more than 70 visiting payers and providers last month.

Leaders of integrated delivery systems say the model won’t work just anywhere. It’s challenging to build a culture of high quality and low costs through contractual relationships. Independent delivery markets don’t have the dynamic of salaried doctors and instead must manage the powerful fee-for-service forces.

Robert S. Mecklenburg, MD, medical director of the Center for Health Care Solutions at Virginia Mason, says his system’s experience shows how health plans and employers can benefit from collaborating with an integrated hospital-physician group. But, he adds, moving away from fee-for-service to payment models that reward better patient outcomes, higher patient satisfaction and lower costs is key.

“[Innovative providers] want to be paid for value,” he says. “That’s very important in straightening out U.S. healthcare.”

Mayo Clinic CEO Dr. Denis Cortese describes integrated systems as having high levels of physician engagement, teamwork, connectivity and greater use of industrial efficiency and quality controls. All this is hard to achieve in contracted networks.

At the same time, experts say, non-integrated systems haven’t felt the pressure—or been given the financial incentive—to change because payers have been slow to revamp payment methods to encourage coordinated delivery. The current fee-for-service model simply rewards greater volume of services.

So far, Dr. Mecklenburg says, no health plans have agreed to pay Virginia Mason based on actual patient outcomes, except on a temporary experimental basis. He believes the system should realize a positive margin when it meets its quality targets.

“You won’t get system reform without changing the reimbursement dynamics,” says Andrew Webber, president of the National Business Coalition on Health in Washington, D.C. “I’m sure the leaders of integrated delivery systems are frustrated with the current payment system.”

ALIGNMENT OF INCENTIVES

At the state level, Massachusetts, with its individual mandate, now is eyeing a shift from fee for service to bundled payments to control spiraling costs.

In line with that, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Massachusetts continues to leverage its Alternative Quality Contract with episode-based global payments, which pushes providers to work together on improving patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness, according to Jim Conway, senior vice president of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement in Cambridge.

The alternate contract sets specific outcome measures provider groups must achieve in managing patients with chronic conditions. For the first few years, provider groups won’t face financial penalties as long as they meet the process standards, but down the line, they’ll take a financial hit if they don’t meet the outcome targets.

“It took a while for the first hospital and physician group to sign up,” Conway says. “But now a lot of people are signing up because they see this as the direction the industry is going—away from fee for service to a system that takes care of overall global health.”

In other parts of the country, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minnesota also has started paying providers for care of the whole patient rather than for specific services, Conway says.

Self-insured employers are testing new reimbursement approaches as well.

Members of the Colorado Business Group on Health are paying providers additional reimbursement on top of fee-for-service payment to manage the care of diabetics and other patients with chronic conditions, according to Webber. They’re using a program developed by the Bridges to Excellence industry partnership. Similarly, the Employers Coalition on Health in Rockford, Ill., is experimenting with paying providers a bundled case rate for patients with chronic conditions, using the PROMETHEUS Payment System, of which Bridges to Excellence is the operational partner.

Webber says health plans and employers should offer financial incentives to patients to get their care from integrated systems, taking advantage of emerging value-based benefit designs.

“There will be opportunities to say to patients, ‘We’re willing to reduce your premium share if you’re willing to participate in more integrated, high-performance delivery systems,’” he says. “I think more and more consumers would be willing to join more closed-panel systems if they could reduce their premium share. Then we can reward high-performance providers in two ways: with payment differentials and with more patients.”

HOME TEAMS

Some health plans and employers around the country are working with provider organizations—and even small physician practices—to support the emerging patient-centered medical home model.

In the model, a primary care physician leads a team of allied health professionals to provide or facilitate each patient’s care needs, including self-care and prevention. The team uses data to proactively manage care for its entire patient population as well.

The Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania and Group Health Cooperative, a Seattle nonprofit health plan that employs salaried doctors, have reported that their medical home pilots have reduced emergency room use and preventable hospital admissions, improved outcomes for chronic care patients and boosted patient satisfaction. They’re expanding the model to all primary care sites, but it’s costly to properly staff, train and equip practices to become effective medical homes. The practices must be adequately reimbursed to cover the extra patient management services and the forgone fees for service.

Health plans and Medicare have moved slowly on implementing the model, waiting to see evidence of cost savings and quality improvement.

“The medical home is a very important element, and we need to reward primary care doctors, because this can move us toward more integration of care,” Webber says.

Beyond the medical home initiative, Geisinger Health System has taken another step in aligning payment. The not-for-profit system, which includes three hospitals, a multispecialty group practice with 700 doctors and a health plan, is beginning to re-engineer care protocols, starting with coronary artery bypass surgery. Its payment methodology for the re-engineered services, called ProvenCare, bundles comprehensive care for the procedure at a fixed price, instead of piecemeal services and costs. Essentially, by bundling services and paying a flat rate, some risk is shifted to the provider, so it’s in the provider’s interest to deliver the best care, not more care.

Geisinger and its doctors identified 40 factors that produce the best outcomes for bypass operations and built a checklist that ensures those best practices are performed every time. Since its redesign went live early in 2006, Geisinger reports markedly improved patient outcomes for bypass surgery, including a 44% reduction in the 30-day readmission rate, a 21% reduction in patients with any complications, and a 55% reduction in re-operations for bleeding.

Geisinger similarly has redesigned care for hip replacement, interventional cardiology procedures, cataract surgery, obesity surgery and perinatal care.

Duane Davis, MD, chief medical officer of Geisinger Health Plan says Geisinger has gotten a “marketing buzz” out of ProvenCare. Employers like the fact they pay once for the product, just like for other goods and services. But surprisingly, no other health plans have taken Geisinger up on its ProvenCare guarantee deal, except for Geisinger’s own plan. Dr. Davis says he isn’t sure why that’s the case.

“That’s stupid,” says Jeff Goldsmith, a veteran industry forecaster based in Charlottesville, Va. “If a provider group is organized well enough to give you a guarantee they won’t have to readmit, I would rush to sign a contract like that. Maybe some attitudes need to change.”

Goldsmith says that health plans and provider organizations are leery about working together on global payment contracts because of the disastrous experiences with capitated contracts back in the 1990s. Many physician groups and hospitals formed joint ventures to accept these fixed-fee deals and suffered big losses. New structures aim to even out the economics with gainsharing.

WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE

However unfortunate, private practice is collapsing, and more hospitals are employing doctors and creating their own multispecialty, integrated delivery systems. That, Goldsmith says, will allow hospital systems to manage care with their employed doctors. Likewise, health plans may be ready to return to working with provider groups to manage their patient populations because current cost-control methods, such as external utilization review and patient cost-sharing, aren’t sufficient.

“I can’t tell you whether that mindset has changed and whether plans have decided they’ve run out of tricks and are ready to return to working with providers in a constructive way,” Goldsmith says.

Scott Armstrong, president of Group Health Cooperative, says, “our whole industry is in the process of trying to come up with an answer to how health plans can work with providers. How can [global payment] create alignment around common goals? We have to overwhelm the skepticism based on bad experiences in the past.”

Even beyond that, however, Geisinger’s Dr. Davis says it’s going to take time to make healthcare better and cheaper. While integrated systems like his offer important lessons, there are no “big bang” solutions. The primary care medical home is a good place for health plans to start aligning payment incentives for improved care.

“There’s a huge opportunity for the insurance industry to use its skill sets and work in partnership with the clinical side to coordinate very fragmented care,” he says. “If we don’t figure out how to do primary care and coordination better, in the long run, payers will lose anyway.”

While private-industry payers can work on reducing fragmentation, government-supported coverage continues to face budget challenges. As a result, even the highest quality, most efficient providers stand to lose further reimbursement as rates decline.

The Mayo Clinic announced early last month that its Rochester, Minn., clinic, which has treated patients from the Midwest and West, will only accept Medicaid beneficiaries from Minnesota and the four states that border it. Meanwhile, its Arizona location no longer accepts Medicare for patients seeking primary care at its Glendale facility after reviewing results from a two-year pilot project. Mayo leaders made the decisions to limit service based on the low payment rates in Medicare and Medicaid.

We’re All In This Together

As a physician, Reed Tuckson, MD, has seen his share of suffering. He specifically recalls a hospital patient he treated who had congestive heart failure and diabetes. The woman was discharged home, but many social services in her community had been cut, leaving her without meal delivery, transportation or health aid.

When Dr. Tuckson saw her again, she was in the emergency room, septic and malnourished with decubitus ulcers. She had missed every one of her follow up appointments. Medical science could certainly help treat her conditions, however, what the woman truly needed was support beyond the scope of medicine alone.

Dr. Tuckson, who today serves as executive vice president and chief of medical affairs for UnitedHealth Group, believes optimal healthcare delivery requires pulling the pieces of medical and social services together in a comprehensive way, “so that lovely, wonderful woman is not in a wheelchair at two in the morning, unable to breathe, hungry and in pain.” He says the experience with that particular patient still resonates with him.

During his first week on the job with UnitedHealth Group in 2000, he listened in on telephone support calls between care coordinators and plan members and heard them working to solve complex health and social issues not unlike those of his former hospital patient. As he listened in, he heard the insurer’s resources at work. He says the mission to improve health of populations as well as individuals is what drives him.

“The highest level of our mission requires us to find the common connection with the missions of the other stakeholders, because none of us can do alone what actually has to be done on behalf of each individual person,” Dr. Tuckson says. The insurer’s role—which he believes is generally misunderstood by those outside of the industry—is one of collaboration with providers, employers, patients and policymakers. Insurers have experience with the types of value determinations and cost-effectiveness strategies that many are insisting on to reshape the healthcare system overall.

Making Decisions

Dr. Tuckson believes the industry must be more explicit about what patient-centered healthcare delivery should look like and how it should function, then share the vision beyond the purview of its own ranks. That vision isn’t clear enough now to influence change. In order to generate a meaningful conversation that might lead to improvements in the system, the nation must take a long hard look at making choices and engaging consumers, he says.

“What’s so frustrating about the health reform debate in Washington,” he says, “is that it is so completely uninformed about the real issues: How do we make decisions that are personally appropriate that advance our chance for affordable access for the services that we need as individuals—both medical services and medically necessary social services?”

For example, preventive medicine, which many believe can lead to reduced costs and improved health if encouraged more widely, is often dependent on community situations. And the issues are twofold. First, an individual’s community environment plays a role in health. Lack of affordable and healthy food, unsafe neighborhoods and negative media images create inherent challenges to healthy lifestyles. Also, a lack of health clinics to deliver needed prevention can compound the problem.

It’s unreasonable to expect individuals in traditionally underserved populations with little optimism for the future to make healthy lifestyle choices a priority. Many skip preventive health services because they are struggling simply to get a hot meal on the table each night, Dr. Tuckson says.

“If gunshots are ringing through your community, it is very difficult to think about going jogging in the evening or planting a community garden, if there’s no actual earth in which to plant,” he says. “Those are real challenges that are stated the most dramatically.”

It Can Be Done

United Health Foundation, which was established by UnitedHealth Group in 1999, has committed $23 million to four community health centers in Miami, New Orleans, New York City and Washington, D.C., since 2003. Published studies from the George Washington University Medical Center have documented that these clinics, which are located in medically underserved communities, provide high-quality care that equals or exceeds care provided in the private sector, based on national quality benchmarks without risk adjustment.

The clinics have transformed from “centers of last resort to centers of choice,” according to Dr. Tuckson, who serves on the foundation’s board. In September, the university reported that three of the clinics had exceeded the national average of 30% for the percentage of diabetes patients with blood pressure under 130/80 mm Hg. New York (46%), Miami (40%) and New Orleans (39%) beat the benchmark. The same three also exceed the national average of 73% for the percentage of patients with diabetes receiving at least one LDL-cholesterol test—Miami reached 84%, New York reached 82%, and New Orleans reached 98%.

Through innovation, the clinics have been able to serve patients with chronic conditions who need a high level of comprehensive care. There’s no reason why the model of care, which has been able to make the most of scarce resources, should be limited to just one project, one population or to a certain type of coverage category, Dr. Tuckson says.

“The lessons we learn from the health centers ought to be applied to the rest of society and vice versa,” he says.

When considering underserved populations, he also says it’s important to recognize that absolutely every person in every community has a set of unique issues—medical and social—that require multidimensional responses from the healthcare system overall. Individualizing care for each person has become an emerging trend that complements the opportunity for managing care from a population perspective, regardless of what that population might be.

“When it comes to healthcare, it is exceedingly important to realize we’re all in it together,” he says. “The sense of ghetto-izing or segregating certain people, ethnicities or cultures is becoming inappropriate.”

Bringing It All Together

Three emerging factors are accelerating the ability for health plans to push comprehensive care forward:

Improved data analytics now afford opportunities to identify members with a variety of health needs;

Improved health data can also indicate the health needs proactively and with greater specificity; and

Consumerism is increasing members’ engagement levels in their health.

Certainly much of what enables comprehensive care stems from technology, but the tools still have yet to provide for true integration of care delivery among the healthcare silos. While the pace of such progress is frustrating, Dr. Tuckson says the partnership among payers, providers and other stakeholders is helping to overcome the siloed infrastructure more than ever before. The idea of integrated delivery of care has been talked about conceptually for more than a decade, but only now is the healthcare industry beginning to stitch the fragments together, he says.

For example, medical home projects nationwide are bringing care teams together and offering appropriate reimbursement for coordinated clinical approaches. The coordinated approaches are supported by data analytics that provide a snapshot of the comprehensive health needs of each individual person, he says.

“Putting that data into the primary care physician’s office as part of their traditional clinical capabilities and working in partnership allows for more comprehensive management of the individual,” he says. “That’s the next area. That will be defined, obviously, by how fast we can move the health information technology infrastructure.”

UnitedHealth Group launched a patient-centered medical home pilot in February in which it provides technology, infrastructure and care-coordination support to select primary care physicians in Arizona. There are more than 100 medical home pilots underway nationally, and tracking the data over time will inform plans’ future strategies.

Financial Footing

While furthering integrated care, population management and individualization is all well and good, the benevolent side of the mission only tells half the story. Healthcare has become an economic strategy in the United States. The bleak statistics of runaway costs on pace to reach $4 trillion are repeated so often that average Americans have begun to recite them by heart.

Dr. Tuckson says legitimate value determinations are needed to evaluate the relative cost and quality of medical procedures, drugs and devices. Once the value picture is sketched out with some degree of quantification, the individual member or patient is enabled to make clinically and economically smart care choices with his or her providers.

“There has to be a way in which people and society choose what they want and what they are willing to afford within the reality that there has to be controls,” he says. “The easiest part of that conversation would be that people should have access to care that works and is cost-effective. That ought to be a given, however, we also know we have a very suboptimal research infrastructure available to answer that question for expensive and increasingly important interventions, especially given the pace of discovery.”

The genius of America’s inventors and scientists has produced a difficult dilemma in which medical advances that save lives, improve quality of life and reduce pain and suffering also create an unaffordable inflationary spiral. New and improved treatments don’t come cheap. Likewise, the discrete evaluation of emerging procedures and products might prove that each has merit but fails to judge each one’s merit against comparable treatments.

Comparing the effectiveness of treatments head-to-head through scientifically sound research—comparative effectiveness research (CER)—has become cx. Federal health agencies have just begun to dole out $1.1 billion in stimulus funding for CER.

According to Dr. Tuckson, CER will also need to be taken a step further to create protocols in real-world clinical practice based on research results. He says CER funding is promising but it’s not likely to produce the scope of research needed nor the speed at which it must be delivered to improve the health of Americans affordably. His plea is that stakeholders fight “so much harder for the research infrastructure that delivers the answers to these questions.”

Clinical Expertise

Once the federally sponsored CER begins drawing conclusions, specialty societies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics for example, could then take a lead role in translating research into best practices then in communicating the guidance to physicians. Specialty societies will need more support for that to happen, however, because they currently don’t have the resources to turn that kind information around in a timely manner.

“It is terribly inappropriate to leave those kind of choices to our industry, uninformed by the best of our nation’s clinical science expertise,” Dr. Tuckson says. “At United, we put our money where our mouth is by putting money into these societies, but with the level of scale that’s needed, no one company can do this by itself.”

He says he is “deeply saddened” when health insurers use their experience to make value decisions, then are criticized for it. Other stakeholders need to be involved, and he says he looks forward to having honest conversations at the national level to address the shared goals of value determinations and controlling the rising cost trends.

No one wants their insurer to exclude any service from the benefit package, Dr. Tuckson says, but on the other hand, no one is pleased by the amount of waste and misuse of services that are prevalent in the U.S. system. The fundamental contradiction of these two attitudes have become more evident in recent policy discussions. It makes for a frustrating process when trying to bend the cost curve and design benefits appropriately.

That’s why Dr. Tuckson believes when it comes to healthcare, everyone is in it together. No matter what operational challenges health plans must confront, sensible contracting, providing affordable access, and maintaining dynamic partnerships with providers and community organizations remain the plans’ responsibility.

“All pieces of that puzzle must all work together,” he says. “And we have to be part of that, acting on behalf of the needs of the person. If we lose sight of that, we do so at our peril.”

Reed Tuckson, MD, on…

The politics of health reform

“Health reform is talked about almost as if it were a political football game, and you’re either on one side or you’re on another. People use terms—public plan, health exchange, single payer—and that sort of lets you know if you’re on this team or that team…I refuse to be on any of those teams. It’s silliness.”

Holding down costs

“You have to get at controlling the inflation of unit costs for physician and hospital reimbursement. You have to get at the issue of appropriateness in the access to services and controlling waste and inefficiency in the delivery.”

Health insurers as stakeholders

“We in our industry clearly understand what it means to try to control unit costs and be fair to the hospitals and physicians who are delivering the care. We absolutely understand what it means to try and take the waste out of the system and all the challenges that come from doing that every day. We also know the anger and the frustration that occurs when you do it. We bring a set of experiential knowledge that is essential when trying to find solutions to problems, more so than anyone.”

Health insurance exchanges

“The health insurance exchange concept today as discussed is a philosophical placeholder for a political or social agenda, as opposed to being something that everyone understands what it means, how it would work and the ways in which it is going to deal with the two fundamental issues on the table: How will it deal with unit cost pricing and how will it deal with utilization and the control of utilization of healthcare services?”

Expansion of Medicaid

“Expanding Medicaid, public insurance, is an important part of the mosaic. It will take a mosaic to achieve our goals, and public insurance is going to be very important in that regard, just as private insurance will be important in that regard.”

Insurers being called ‘dishonest’

“When it comes to health and human survival, this is a profound social ethic that requires and demands the best of all of us. To deliberately and mean-spiritedly deny the participation and challenge the ethical integrity of a major stakeholder in the solution to this problem is to do potential violence to the opportunity for optimal solutions and thereby optimal health of the nation.”
Reed Tuckson, MD, UnitedHealth Group, Executive Vice President and Chief of Medical Affairs
Reed Tuckson, MD, has more than 25 years of experience in healthcare leadership and has been a member of several bipartisan federal advisory committees on genetics, infant mortality, children’s health, violence, radiation testing and healthcare reform. Previously he served as senior vice president for professional standards for the American Medical Assn. In February, Black Enterprise named him one of the “100 Most Powerful Executives in Corporate America.” He earned a bachelor’s degree in zoology from Howard University and his medical degree from the Georgetown University School of Medicine.

Exchanges would need local participation

As Congress continues to debate health reform legislation, a variety of health policy concepts have emerged. One idea that holds strong promise is the creation of health insurance exchanges.

In concept, health insurance exchanges would create a new marketplace through which consumers could buy quality health insurance coverage at an affordable price. One major bill in Congress would establish a national exchange, and other bills would create state or regional exchanges (or “gateways,” as one bill calls it). Health plans would compete to offer consumers health insurance coverage at the best value.

Details matter a lot. If done well, these insurance exchanges could effectively pool risk and provide good options for consumers, but the devil is in the details. The structure and the rules governing the insurance exchanges will determine whether they flourish or fail. Here are some questions we should be asking:

• Will the insurance exchanges be managed and operated on a national, state or regional level?
• Will exchanges actively negotiate with insurers to offer multiple options within the exchange?
• Will insurers be positioned to compete effectively and fairly?
• Will a public plan be adopted? If it is, what rules will be in place to ensure a level playing field that will allow private insurers to compete?
• How will consumers be assured that there will be an adequate number of plans from which to choose?
• Will there be sufficient subsidies to make health insurance affordable for all individuals, especially if there is a requirement that everyone must have health insurance?

The answers to these questions and others will determine the success of the insurance exchanges. To ensure adequate participation from health plans, Congress should put in place policies that encourage a variety of plans including private, local health plans to participate.

KNOW THE MARKET

I continue to believe that all healthcare is local. Care is best delivered on a local level by providers and insurers who are part of the community, know the patients they serve, and know the market in which they live.

As we prepare for what is likely to be significant change resulting from health reform, integrated delivery systems like Summa Health System are well positioned to compete in the new insurance exchanges—assuming the rules allow for a level playing field for private, local insurers. At SummaCare, we work closely with Summa Health System’s physicians and hospitals to create value for our members and for the community through collaboration.

While a national exchange could offer some economies of scale, state-level exchanges are more likely to recognize the advantages of close integration with local delivery systems.

The challenge for the government will be to design the insurance exchanges in a way that encourages a thriving marketplace and does not tilt the playing field in favor of one set of players over another. The exchanges should focus on fostering fair and robust competition to deliver affordable health plan options, while ensuring effective risk adjustment to facilitate national, regional, and local plans’ participation and serving to protect consumers by providing a variety of high quality choices.

Martin P. Hauser is president of SummaCare, which provides commercial and Medicare plans in Ohio.

We’re All In This Together

As a physician, Reed Tuckson, MD, has seen his share of suffering. He specifically recalls a hospital patient he treated who had congestive heart failure and diabetes. The woman was discharged home, but many social services in her community had been cut, leaving her without meal delivery, transportation or health aid.

When Dr. Tuckson saw her again, she was in the emergency room, septic and malnourished with decubitus ulcers. She had missed every one of her follow up appointments. Medical science could certainly help treat her conditions, however, what the woman truly needed was support beyond the scope of medicine alone.

Dr. Tuckson, who today serves as executive vice president and chief of medical affairs for UnitedHealth Group, believes optimal healthcare delivery requires pulling the pieces of medical and social services together in a comprehensive way, “so that lovely, wonderful woman is not in a wheelchair at two in the morning, unable to breathe, hungry and in pain.” He says the experience with that particular patient still resonates with him.

During his first week on the job with UnitedHealth Group in 2000, he listened in on telephone support calls between care coordinators and plan members and heard them working to solve complex health and social issues not unlike those of his former hospital patient. As he listened in, he heard the insurer’s resources at work. He says the mission to improve health of populations as well as individuals is what drives him.

“The highest level of our mission requires us to find the common connection with the missions of the other stakeholders, because none of us can do alone what actually has to be done on behalf of each individual person,” Dr. Tuckson says.

The insurer’s role—which he believes is generally misunderstood by those outside of the industry—is one of collaboration with providers, employers, patients and policymakers. Insurers have experience with the types of value determinations and cost-effectiveness strategies that many are insisting on to reshape the healthcare system overall.

Making Decisions

Dr. Tuckson believes the industry must be more explicit about what patient-centered healthcare delivery should look like and how it should function, then share the vision beyond the purview of its own ranks. That vision isn’t clear enough now to influence change. In order to generate a meaningful conversation that might lead to improvements in the system, the nation must take a long hard look at making choices and engaging consumers, he says.

“What’s so frustrating about the health reform debate in Washington,” he says, “is that it is so completely uninformed about the real issues: How do we make decisions that are personally appropriate that advance our chance for affordable access for the services that we need as individuals—both medical services and medically necessary social services?”

For example, preventive medicine, which many believe can lead to reduced costs and improved health if encouraged more widely, is often dependent on community situations. And the issues are twofold. First, an individual’s community environment plays a role in health. Lack of affordable and healthy food, unsafe neighborhoods and negative media images create inherent challenges to healthy lifestyles. Also, a lack of health clinics to deliver needed prevention can compound the problem.

It’s unreasonable to expect individuals in traditionally underserved populations with little optimism for the future to make healthy lifestyle choices a priority. Many skip preventive health services because they are struggling simply to get a hot meal on the table each night, Dr. Tuckson says.

“If gunshots are ringing through your community, it is very difficult to think about going jogging in the evening or planting a community garden, if there’s no actual earth in which to plant,” he says. “Those are real challenges that are stated the most dramatically.”

It Can Be Done

United Health Foundation, which was established by UnitedHealth Group in 1999, has committed $23 million to four community health centers in Miami, New Orleans, New York City and Washington, D.C., since 2003. Published studies from the George Washington University Medical Center have documented that these clinics, which are located in medically underserved communities, provide high-quality care that equals or exceeds care provided in the private sector, based on national quality benchmarks without risk adjustment.

The clinics have transformed from “centers of last resort to centers of choice,” according to Dr. Tuckson, who serves on the foundation’s board. In September, the university reported that three of the clinics had exceeded the national average of 30% for the percentage of diabetes patients with blood pressure under 130/80 mm Hg. New York (46%), Miami (40%) and New Orleans (39%) beat the benchmark. The same three also exceed the national average of 73% for the percentage of patients with diabetes receiving at least one LDL-cholesterol test—Miami reached 84%, New York reached 82%, and New Orleans reached 98%.

Through innovation, the clinics have been able to serve patients with chronic conditions who need a high level of comprehensive care. There’s no reason why the model of care, which has been able to make the most of scarce resources, should be limited to just one project, one population or to a certain type of coverage category, Dr. Tuckson says.

“The lessons we learn from the health centers ought to be applied to the rest of society and vice versa,” he says.

When considering underserved populations, he also says it’s important to recognize that absolutely every person in every community has a set of unique issues—medical and social—that require multidimensional responses from the healthcare system overall. Individualizing care for each person has become an emerging trend that complements the opportunity for managing care from a population perspective, regardless of what that population might be.

“When it comes to healthcare, it is exceedingly important to realize we’re all in it together,” he says. “The sense of ghetto-izing or segregating certain people, ethnicities or cultures is becoming inappropriate.”

Bringing It All Together

Three emerging factors are accelerating the ability for health plans to push comprehensive care forward:

Improved data analytics now afford opportunities to identify members with a variety of health needs;

Improved health data can also indicate the health needs proactively and with greater specificity; and

Consumerism is increasing members’ engagement levels in their health.

Certainly much of what enables comprehensive care stems from technology, but the tools still have yet to provide for true integration of care delivery among the healthcare silos. While the pace of such progress is frustrating, Dr. Tuckson says the partnership among payers, providers and other stakeholders is helping to overcome the siloed infrastructure more than ever before. The idea of integrated delivery of care has been talked about conceptually for more than a decade, but only now is the healthcare industry beginning to stitch the fragments together, he says.

For example, medical home projects nationwide are bringing care teams together and offering appropriate reimbursement for coordinated clinical approaches. The coordinated approaches are supported by data analytics that provide a snapshot of the comprehensive health needs of each individual person, he says.

“Putting that data into the primary care physician’s office as part of their traditional clinical capabilities and working in partnership allows for more comprehensive management of the individual,” he says. “That’s the next area. That will be defined, obviously, by how fast we can move the health information technology infrastructure.”

UnitedHealth Group launched a patient-centered medical home pilot in February in which it provides technology, infrastructure and care-coordination support to select primary care physicians in Arizona. There are more than 100 medical home pilots underway nationally, and tracking the data over time will inform plans’ future strategies.

Financial Footing

While furthering integrated care, population management and individualization is all well and good, the benevolent side of the mission only tells half the story. Healthcare has become an economic strategy in the United States. The bleak statistics of runaway costs on pace to reach $4 trillion are repeated so often that average Americans have begun to recite them by heart.

Dr. Tuckson says legitimate value determinations are needed to evaluate the relative cost and quality of medical procedures, drugs and devices. Once the value picture is sketched out with some degree of quantification, the individual member or patient is enabled to make clinically and economically smart care choices with his or her providers.

“There has to be a way in which people and society choose what they want and what they are willing to afford within the reality that there has to be controls,” he says. “The easiest part of that conversation would be that people should have access to care that works and is cost-effective. That ought to be a given, however, we also know we have a very suboptimal research infrastructure available to answer that question for expensive and increasingly important interventions, especially given the pace of discovery.”

The genius of America’s inventors and scientists has produced a difficult dilemma in which medical advances that save lives, improve quality of life and reduce pain and suffering also create an unaffordable inflationary spiral. New and improved treatments don’t come cheap. Likewise, the discrete evaluation of emerging procedures and products might prove that each has merit but fails to judge each one’s merit against comparable treatments.

Comparing the effectiveness of treatments head-to-head through scientifically sound research—comparative effectiveness research (CER)—has become cx. Federal health agencies have just begun to dole out $1.1 billion in stimulus funding for CER.

According to Dr. Tuckson, CER will also need to be taken a step further to create protocols in real-world clinical practice based on research results. He says CER funding is promising but it’s not likely to produce the scope of research needed nor the speed at which it must be delivered to improve the health of Americans affordably. His plea is that stakeholders fight “so much harder for the research infrastructure that delivers the answers to these questions.”

Clinical Expertise

Once the federally sponsored CER begins drawing conclusions, specialty societies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics for example, could then take a lead role in translating research into best practices then in communicating the guidance to physicians. Specialty societies will need more support for that to happen, however, because they currently don’t have the resources to turn that kind information around in a timely manner.

“It is terribly inappropriate to leave those kind of choices to our industry, uninformed by the best of our nation’s clinical science expertise,” Dr. Tuckson says. “At United, we put our money where our mouth is by putting money into these societies, but with the level of scale that’s needed, no one company can do this by itself.”

He says he is “deeply saddened” when health insurers use their experience to make value decisions, then are criticized for it. Other stakeholders need to be involved, and he says he looks forward to having honest conversations at the national level to address the shared goals of value determinations and controlling the rising cost trends.

No one wants their insurer to exclude any service from the benefit package, Dr. Tuckson says, but on the other hand, no one is pleased by the amount of waste and misuse of services that are prevalent in the U.S. system. The fundamental contradiction of these two attitudes have become more evident in recent policy discussions. It makes for a frustrating process when trying to bend the cost curve and design benefits appropriately.

That’s why Dr. Tuckson believes when it comes to healthcare, everyone is in it together. No matter what operational challenges health plans must confront, sensible contracting, providing affordable access, and maintaining dynamic partnerships with providers and community organizations remain the plans’ responsibility.

“All pieces of that puzzle must all work together,” he says. “And we have to be part of that, acting on behalf of the needs of the person. If we lose sight of that, we do so at our peril.”

Reed Tuckson, MD, on…

The politics of health reform

“Health reform is talked about almost as if it were a political football game, and you’re either on one side or you’re on another. People use terms—public plan, health exchange, single payer—and that sort of lets you know if you’re on this team or that team…I refuse to be on any of those teams. It’s silliness.”

Holding down costs

“You have to get at controlling the inflation of unit costs for physician and hospital reimbursement. You have to get at the issue of appropriateness in the access to services and controlling waste and inefficiency in the delivery.”

Health insurers as stakeholders

“We in our industry clearly understand what it means to try to control unit costs and be fair to the hospitals and physicians who are delivering the care. We absolutely understand what it means to try and take the waste out of the system and all the challenges that come from doing that every day. We also know the anger and the frustration that occurs when you do it. We bring a set of experiential knowledge that is essential when trying to find solutions to problems, more so than anyone.”

Health insurance exchanges

“The health insurance exchange concept today as discussed is a philosophical placeholder for a political or social agenda, as opposed to being something that everyone understands what it means, how it would work and the ways in which it is going to deal with the two fundamental issues on the table: How will it deal with unit cost pricing and how will it deal with utilization and the control of utilization of healthcare services?”

Expansion of Medicaid

“Expanding Medicaid, public insurance, is an important part of the mosaic. It will take a mosaic to achieve our goals, and public insurance is going to be very important in that regard, just as private insurance will be important in that regard.”

Insurers being called ‘dishonest’

“When it comes to health and human survival, this is a profound social ethic that requires and demands the best of all of us. To deliberately and mean-spiritedly deny the participation and challenge the ethical integrity of a major stakeholder in the solution to this problem is to do potential violence to the opportunity for optimal solutions and thereby optimal health of the nation.”

Next Page »