2010 Management Guide

Dealing with Survey Deficiencies

After receiving 23 pages of citations and a threat of losing its license, a Texas ASC (that had gone three years without a state/Medicare survey) recognized its desperate situation. While many of the citations concerned the new conditions for coverage and multiple notes for the same deficiency, the center still needed to respond with corrections within 10 days. Typical of smaller facilities, the employees responsible for compliance activities are the same individuals involved in routine care. While intending to comply with regulations, patient treatment takes priority and administrative paperwork falls behind.

In addition to their daily routine, management now needed to research, evaluate and interpret the regulations in order to rewrite/update their policies within the response time. The practitioners (both administrative and physician) realized that the task they faced required the resources and skills of an outside expert. The facility searched for a consultant that could help solve their problems. Separated by 1,500 miles, with the days ticking away, recognizing travel arrangement difficulties and skyrocketing travel expenses, they requested FWI Healthcare’s assistance.

Receiving and reviewing their citations, FWI presented a cost-effective proposal to the client that was accepted. The client faxed requested documents for our analysis. We discussed existing materials and the need for changes. FWI also developed some revisions to their policy manual and the plan of correction for submission. This information was provided to the client and after telephone clarification and minor adjustments; the transcripts were ready for use.

The plan of correction was accepted and upon the surveyor’s return for a follow-up visit (finding everything to be acceptable), she recommended the license and certification be renewed.

Many small ASCs do not have personnel with experience, knowledge or time necessary to rapidly respond to deficiencies cited by survey agencies. This is where relying on the resources of consultants (who provide assistance on a fee for service basis) is invaluable. All of FWI’s work was completed with minimal expense and without either party leaving their office.

By Roger Pence, president, FWI Healthcare www.fwihealthcare.com • 419.298.3700

Challenges Unique to De Novo Facilities

De novo projects can be a long and not always painless process, but like turnarounds, they have incentives as well. With a new development, we are able to construct the center from the ground up to ensure our high standards are met and so high-quality care can be administered efficiently from day one. We are also able to form a great group of physician partners with the right balance for a successful ASC. Now, just because we get to make initial decisions on the facility and the business with our partners, it is not always roses when developing a new center. We deal with doubting partners, setbacks, stumbles and roadblocks. In the case of our new de novo facility in Mt. Dora, Fla. we hit an unusual roadblock — gopher turtles. Yes, gopher turtles. This protected species was living on our construction site. We had to have the turtles moved, but that could only be done after three consecutive days of 50 degrees or warmer weather. The turtle relocation caused about a six-week delay in the building process, and while no one could have anticipated a gopher turtle infestation, we took care of the situation and did what we could to get the project back on track.

We found that the perspective of the partnering physicians in de novo projects is quite different from that of partners in turnarounds. While in turnarounds we are often thought of as better managers than we are, sometimes in new developments we are thought of as worse. Partners focused on financial returns view any stumble on the way to distributions as a failure, when in fact, stumbles are a part of the process and sometimes result in positive outcomes. The objective is to have the “wiggle room” to adjust, correct problems, and move forward.

No matter what we encounter along the path to developing a new center, we are committed to our partners and the success of the center and look forward to developing new, successful centers across the country.

By Tom Mallon, CEO, Regent Surgical Health

www.regentsurgicalhealth.com 708.492.0531

Ostrich Strategies for ASCs: Never A Good Idea

The phrase “burying your head in the sand” has become synonymous with hiding from the truth or hiding at the first sign of danger. Ostriches are alleged to do that, but they actually do not. However, owners of distressed outpatient centers sometimes really do.

Our firm gets involved in helping distressed outpatient centers, including surgery centers, and our experience has shown that it is the rare owner who does not “bury his (or her) head in the sand” hoping that something will occur that will cause the source of the distress to simply go away. Employing an “ostrich strategy” is a bad idea, as well as a waste of valuable time and resources because the sources of distress rarely go away simply and easily.

The “ostrich strategy” usually results in the center being behind in payments to lenders, landlords, the taxing authority, staff and most vendors by the time we get involved. The task of pulling your head out of the sand and developing workable strategies is complex and multi-dimensional, and involves lawyers and lots of different personalities. In addition, there are always varying degrees of trust among the owners and the managers (who are also often owners). Getting to the core problems requires information analysis, lots of conversation and a site visit or two. Once those core issues are made clear, then the people leading the charge put a simple strategy in place. It needs to be simple because additional and incremental complexity will only complicate matters and likely make things worse. Our firm often leads the charge, but many times we do it in tandem with the center’s lawyers. Depending upon how far behind the center is with various creditors and what legal actions have already been taken, the lawyers may well take the lead.

Follow your strategies, keep your head out of the sand, stay calm and focused, engage the right professionals for you and you may be able to yourself of the sources of distress that caused you the problems in the first place.

By Robert S. Goodman, managing partner, The Mansfield Group www.mansfield-group.com 609.267.0990

Adding Specialties to Increase Profitability

Foundation Surgery Affiliate of Huntingdon Valley, Pa. is an AAAHC-accredited, multi-specialty ASC that opened in 2003. With four operating rooms, two procedure rooms and 19 surgeon partners, this 18,000-square-foot facility was profitable; however, there was still a tremendous opportunity for growth through increasing OR utilization and case volume. “We continually strive to develop new tools and methods that will enhance the profitability of our centers while also adapting to the changing outpatient surgery environment,” says FSA chief operations officer Thomas A. Newman. He recalls the FSA specialty and case analysis:

1. Take inventory. FSA creates a checklist of all specialties that can be performed at an ASC.

2. Analyze and evaluate. Management performs an extensive cost/benefit analysis, weighing equipment and labor costs against typical revenues provided by the specialty.

3. Determine which specialty is most worth pursuing.

4. Recruit surgeons. Utilize data collected in steps 1-3 and tap existing surgery partners as a primary resource for new partner candidates.

In the case of Huntingdon Valley, a surgeon partner suggested that the center consider adding fertility as a specialty. Based on that recommendation, FSA performed steps 2-4. During the first month of adding fertility, case volume increased 12 percent and overall revenues increased by more than 25 percent. As a result of this exercise, FSA formalized the process and rolled it out to all of its centers.

“Our center was already doing quite well when FSA performed the specialty and case analysis and presented the impact of adding gynecology partners specializing in fertility,” says center administrator Robert Puglisi. “Now, return is even higher as a direct result of adding our reproductive medicine partners.”

Larry Barmat, MD, one of the center’s fertility partners, says, “Reproductive medicine is almost tailored to the ASC environment because the procedures are of short duration and low risk, thereby lending them to being done in an outpatient setting.”

Chairman of the board Robert Mannherz, MD, says, “The addition of reproductive medicine has been positive for the center on several levels. It has increased the utilization of the center and our cash flow, as well as diversified our services to patients.”

By Caleb Germany, Foundation Surgery Affiliates www.foundationsurgery.com800.783.0404

Reimbursement and Billing Compliance Issues

A full financial, business office and clinical evaluation was performed by Surgery Consultants of America (SCA) and Serbin Surgery Center Billing (SCB); however, this case study is reporting only reimbursement and billing compliance issues. The initial findings were determined during the evaluation. The current improvements are results obtained after twelve months of reimbursement management by SCB.

The Medicare-certified, multi-specialty center was open 18 months, has two ORs and performs an average of 100 cases per month; the physician-owned clinic shared the same site with the ASC. The challenges were as follows:

» Practice software not meeting all ASC needs

» Billing outsourced to clinic billing staff resulting in:

•overwhelming volume

•increase in errors due to lack of ASC billing knowledge

» Revenue stream reduced to trickle

» Days in A/R escalating – 97 at time of evaluation

» Claim backlog growing – minimum 7 to 10 days lag time between services rendered and subsequent posting and billing

» Denial rate climbing – 20 percent to 25 percent first time denial rate

» Cost of staffing and supplies as a percentage of revenue continuing to increase because of claim backlog

» Non-compliance concerns mounting

Our findings and recommendations were as follows:

Processes

» Using practice software

» Recommend acquiring ASC software

» No CMS list of ASC covered services or matrix of insurance contracts

» Recommend providing both to scheduler and insurance verifier

» No up-front collections

» Recommend notifying patient of financial responsibility before DOS

Reimbursement

» Billing not up-to-date

» Recommend hiring additional staff or outsourcing

» Coding inaccuracies identified

» Recommend coding audit by certified coder – rebill where necessary

» Not following up on submitted claims

» Recommend audit to determine timely filing, refunds, resubmission claims

Compliance

» Receptionist making patient contact calls

» Recommend moving these calls to back desk for HIPAA reasons

» No notification to payor of out-of-network status

» Recommend notifying payor at time of verification and again at billing

» No advance notification of financial policy to patient

» Recommend providing written policy prior to DOS via phone or brochure

Our evaluation resulted in the following changes:

» Appointed separate ASC administrator

» Changed to ASC software

» Revised fee schedule

» Acquired copies of payor contracts

» Initiated use of bank lockbox

» Created new insurance verification position

» Established process to collect co-pays

» Developed financial policies to handle self-pay patients, payment plans, financial hardship cases, etc.

» Made changes in business office task responsibilities

Improvements included:

» No billing backlog

» Decrease in days in A/R – 58 percent (97 days to 41 days)

» Increase in average net revenue per case – 14 percent

» Increase in average charge per case – 31 percent

» Meeting billing compliance guidelines

By Caryl A. Serbin, RN, SSN, LHRM SURGERY CONSULTANTS OF AMERICAwww.surgecon.com 888-453-1144

Florida ASC Increases Revenues

Acting as a strategic business partner, NovaMeda dedicates an experienced team of experts to help our ASCs grow and prosper, while assuring the best possible experience and outcomes for both patients and physicians.

We recently increased the revenue of our Florida ASCs by employing a comprehensive managed care strategy. Over the last two years, we have renegotiated contracts with major payors in Florida and increased the value of the contracts by as much as 20 percent. This has equated to an increase in revenue of 5 percent to 10 percent for each of our four ASCs in Florida.

Developing and executing an overall managed care strategy can lead to major revenue enhancement and overall improved financial performance of our ASCs. Our strategy is founded upon the principles of maximizing the revenue of all our managed care contracts, assuring that the ASC is getting paid what it should based on the contract, and monitoring the performance of managed-care contracts to ensure the ASC is realizing projected revenue.

Executing our managed-care strategy begins by reviewing our ASC’s total book of business and managed-care contracts. Using best-of-breed financial models, we assign a value to each contract based on payor case/mix and market dynamics, and then negotiate (or renegotiate) each contract to ensure maximum revenue generated for our ASC. An ongoing process, we employ a proactive stance on managed-care contract negotiations to ensure the profitability of our ASCs.

By Lisa Streit, director of managed care, NovaMed www.novamed.com 888-NOVAMED

Implementation, Cons & More

The Practice Partners in Healthcare (PPH) team met with the physicians and began to plan for the implementation of the single-specialty center. During the planning process PPH reviewed volumes, expenses and thresholds in the CON. It was determined that additional surgeons would be necessary to make the center successful. PPH began to recruit additional surgeons to the project. To recruit physicians it was necessary to modify the operating and partnership agreements to make the arrangement fair for all physicians and not have the initial group control the project. PPH negotiated with the groups for a successful operating agreement and partnership arrangement to allow the entry of new physicians.

The ability of a third party to develop an independent plan, negotiate and execute is necessary to assure the original group and joining physicians that the best plan for the total partnership is presented. During the negotiations it was clear that the groups combining were fierce competitors and the role of PPH was to make fair and strategic decisions that would demonstrate to both groups the combined strength in the ASC setting but allowing the market forces to continue in the practice setting. Furthermore, the individuals had to work together to develop block time schedules and utilization of the center that would present the most favorable results. In doing so PPH developed a block time schedule that interfaced with both practices clinic schedule and inpatient surgical schedules. PPH developed a strategy and schedule designed for each group’s physician to follow block time by that same group. In doing so the potential conflicts of another group adding on patients and extending the operative day would only affect that group and not the competitor.

When administrators are considering modifying of implementing block time considerations on the impact of running over to other physician block time may reduce issues by this practice. The physicians could then work within their individual groups to correct reoccurring situations. Additionally, when administrators are planning for block time the utilization of historical operative or procedure times should be utilized when evaluating the duration of the individual block to allow for the anticipated daily throughput for each surgeon.

By Larry Taylor, president and CEO, Practice Partners in Healthcare, Incwww.practicepartners.org 205.824.6250

Joint Venture Feasibility

In early 2005, Alegent Health engaged Health Inventures (HI) to perform a feasibility study for joint-venturing (JV) outpatient surgery services with physicians at their Lakeside and Bergan Mercy Medical Center campuses in Omaha, Neb. HI conducted extensive physician interviews to educate physicians about the JV process and gauge interest. Based on positive feedback from the interviews and HI’s financial forecasts, it was determined that a JV was feasible.

The degree of physician interest showed enough case volume to occupy two new facilities. However, HI determined the most immediate opportunity to establish a JV was to convert an existing two OR HOPD to a free-standing ASC in a medical office building (MOB) on the Lakeside Campus. The conversion process included obtaining licensure and certification to operate as an ASC. This facility would operate for 18 months while a new facility with four ORs and one procedure room was built in the same building.

Throughout 2005, a steering committee with representatives from HI, Alegent Health, interested physician groups and legal counsel met regularly to determine the terms of the operating agreement and the governance structure of the JV. Meanwhile, valuation firm performed a third-party valuation of the existing ASC. Based on financial projections and this valuation, HI and deal counsel developed a private placement memorandum (PPM) and subscription agreement and opened the “offering” for physician investment.

The offering closed in December 2005. Two major surgeon groups and 19 individual physicians invested in the facility for a total of 31 physician users/owners. Alegent maintains 51 percent ownership in the new LLC that leases operating space from Alegent in the MOB.

The owners appointed a management board (MB) and clinical operations committee (COC) as the principal decision making authorities. The MB has equal physician/Alegent representation and the COC is physician-controlled.

In September 2007, the physician owners moved their cases from the upstairs ASC to the newly constructed facility on the ground floor of the MOB. The high subscription rate of the offering and cash flow from the existing facility provided adequate funding for the construction without any term debt financing. Only a line of credit was needed when the facility opened.

By Catherine A. Martin, contract manager, Health Inventures, LLCwww.healthinventures.com 877.304.8940

Compiled by Jessica Barreras

Gov. Paterson proposes bill to require disclosure from PBM

New York Governor David A. Paterson has proposed legislation that would increase transparency and promote competition among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) by requiring them to disclose additional drug information to health plans, doctors, and patients.
“PBMs perform a valuable service, but there is little oversight of their practices and little competition,” said New York State Health Commissioner Richard Daines, M.D., in the release. “The three largest PBMs—Medco, Caremark, and Express Scripts—manage pharmacy benefits for 200 million Americans, 95% of those who have prescription drug coverage.”

Under Paterson’s bill, PBMs would be required to disclose the actual use of drugs by the health plan’s participants, any conflict of interest that the PBM might have with the health plan, any increase in the net price to the health plan for a covered drug and the reason for the increase, and all contracts entered into by the PBM with a network pharmacy or pharmaceutical manufacturer. The bill would also notify patients and disclose any relevant clinical and financial information to prescribers before a PBM could switch a patient to a more expensive drug, the governor said in the press release.

Medical homes in practice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squeeze out waste

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

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

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

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

PASSING THE BLAME

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

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

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

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

TECHNOLOGY TO THE RESCUE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHERE TO FIND WASTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONSUMER BAD HABITS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE OPPORTUNITIES ARE REAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PHYSICIANS’ WEIGH THEIR COSTS

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

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

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

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.”

New data shows obesity costs will grow to $344 billion by 2018

A new study predicts that rising obesity rates will continue to be an increasing burden on the health care system over the next decade. The report, “The Future Cost of Obesity: National and State Estimates of the Impact of Obesity on Direct Health Care Expenses,” estimates obesity prevalence and costs at the state and national level 10 years from now.

Based on research by Emory University healthcare economist Ken Thorpe, executive director of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD), the report was commissioned by UnitedHealth Foundation, Partnership for Prevention, and American Public Health Association in conjunction with their annual America’s Health Rankings report.

The new data predicts that if current trends continue, 43% of U.S. adults will be obese and obesity spending will quadruple to $344 billion by 2018. However, if obesity rates are held at current levels, the U.S. would save nearly $200 billion in health care costs, according to the report.

“Because obesity is related to the onset of so many other illnesses, stopping the growth of obesity in the U.S. is vital not only to our health — but also to the solvency of our health care system,” said Thorpe.

The report projects that obesity will surpass 50% of the adult population in Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma and South Dakota, with an associated increase in health spending linked to obesity of more than $1,600 per person in each of those states. The report also projects that obesity rates will remain below 35% in Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Obesity-attributable health spending will climb to more than $800 per person by 2018 in each of those states, according to the report.

Severe rhinovirus nothing to sneeze at

Most cultures have a clever saying to respond when someone sneezes. In English-speaking countries, the response is a blessing, while other countries usually offer a wish for good health, such as the German gesundheit (healthiness). The history of responding to a sneeze goes back hundreds of years, tied to everything from the plague of the fourteenth century to a prayer request from the Pope to medieval beliefs about evil spirits stealing your breath.

Either way, saying “bless you” is considered the polite thing to do today, even though it’s a dramatically out-of-date custom that is based in what amounts to superstition. And yet, it’s a gut reaction to always respond when someone sneezes.

As the United States continues to monitor flu season, patients and doctors are resorting to gut reaction, assuming those coughs and sneezes are probably the H1N1 virus. Because it is logistically impossible to test everyone with flu symptoms, the default is to diagnose (or self-diagnose) swine flu.

Researchers at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia are challenging those assumptions because they’ve discovered that of the large number of people who presented with typical flu symptoms, most actually had a nasty strain of rhinovirus. In fact, epidemiologists were surprised by the prevalence and severity of the illness, noting that rhinovirus is being underestimated.

Although it’s “just” the common cold, this severe outbreak seems to be causing more lower-respiratory-tract infections and pneumonia than normal, according to the hospital. It will be impossible to track the outbreak because there is no national reporting mechanism for rhinovirus—like there is for the H1N1 pandemic—and few providers routinely test for it.

Prevention amounts to covering coughs and sneezes as well as frequent hand washing, and there is no cure. Tamiflu, which shows some effect on H1N1, does nothing for rhinovirus, which is the leading cause of respiratory illness worldwide.

What we can learn from this bit of data is that it’s never too late to challenge our assumptions and question our gut reactions. Maybe it’s time to view rhinovirus just as seriously as we view H1N1.

A DIG AT DARTMOUTH

Speaking of challenging assumptions, a 73-year-old University of Pennsylvania medical school professor recently took a shot at the venerated Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. You know the one: the ground-breaking research report that first uncovered the dramatic variation in care delivery across the country. It’s cited as gospel by nearly every politician.

Richard Cooper dismisses the atlas, saying its research is flawed. He believes variation in care actually is a function of poverty. More poverty results in greater health needs, and, therefore, more spending, he says.

His wholesale rejection of the atlas lacks credibility; however, he makes a valid point about measuring poverty in relation to healthcare. Care in the emergency room is costly, and the impoverished frequently show up in emergency rooms for routine care. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission has started its own study of variation, and it promises to take socioeconomic issues into account.

It’s a new era in healthcare overall. Let no assumption go unchallenged.

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

Chile’s healthcare offers public and private plans

As healthcare legislation muddles through Congress, the United States could stand to learn a few lessons from Chile, such as its effective public/private partnership and guaranteed care for those with certain chronic diseases, as well as a growing emphasis on primary care and cost-effectiveness. The Academy for International Health Studies (AIHS) sponsored 50 executive delegates who traveled to Santiago, the capital city, this fall to observe the country’s health infrastructure.

Chile boasts life expectancy of 78 years, compared to that of the United States at 77.7 years of life expectancy. In just 15 years, the country has seen a 50% reduction in child mortality and can boast an insured population of more than 90%.

Unfortunately, 13.6% of Chile’s 16.9 million people—40% live in the Santiago metropolitan area—are impoverished, and 10.8% are plagued by unemployment. The Ministry of Health, however, reports that 98% of Chileans have drinkable water, 99.5% have electric lights and 89% have sanitary sewers.

MOST HAVE PUBLIC INSURANCE

The Ministry of Health is the governing body responsible for establishing health policies and for reinforcing their compliance. Under its auspices fall the public healthcare system (referred to as FONASA) and regulatory responsibility for private health insurers (referred to as ISAPREs).

The majority of the population (67%) is insured under FONASA, while 14.8% opt for insurance provided by ISAPREs. The remainder is covered by other private plans, and a fairly small percentage is uninsured. Healthcare is funded by a universal income tax deduction of at least 7% of every worker’s salary and supplemented by government to cover indigents and public health programs.

Beneficiaries in the public program are segmented into four classes based on income and subsidized accordingly. In addition, many private insurers encourage people to pay an amount above the 7% to upgrade their basic health plans.

FONASA is financed with 48% public funding, 32% individual financing and 18% copayment, while 70% of ISAPREs funding comes from individual financing and 30% from copayments. Unfortunately, the costs of caring for people don’t align with the number targeted or with risk. While the sectors equally receive 7% of wages, the public sector cares for about five times more people than the private sector. ISAPREs spend twice as much on members as FONASA does on its higher risk beneficiaries.

The public sector not only serves as the primary insurer, but also the largest healthcare provider. The state owns and operates two-thirds of inpatient capacity with 200 hospitals, 2.3 hospital beds per 1,000, and 1,000 ambulatory medical centers. FONASA covers 90% of those over 65 (11.5% of the total population in 2005, which is expected to grow to 28.2% by 2050). ISAPREs’ tightly regulated premiums are age/gender adjusted and therefore, premiums are higher for women and seniors, so seniors opt for FONASA.

Chile’s public insurance offers one plan at variable prices, while ISAPREs offer 13 plans, each of whose prices remain constant. Even if Chileans are covered under FONASA, they can access a private provider with a copayment tied to the amount of their income. A survey by the Ministry of Health shows there is overwhelming satisfaction with both the private (96.4%) and public (82.2%) healthcare systems in Chile.

DIGGING INTO REFORM

Spending 5.4% of gross national product, or about $689 per capita, on healthcare, Chile is still readjusting to a reform initiative that began in 2002. It is tackling objectives in phases.

Initial goals are to address inequities and disparities in healthcare, strengthen the focus on primary care, reduce waiting time in the public sector, introduce more competition into the ISAPREs market, improve efficiencies and care for the ever-growing senior population.

Among the new laws that are key to reform is what’s known as the AUGE Plan (in English: the plan for universal access with explicit guarantees). AUGE specifies four basic guarantees for healthcare concerns related to 56 defined health conditions, based on the highest burden of disease, effectiveness of treatments and highest cost. Guarantees include: access, timeliness, quality and financial protection. Twenty four more conditions are slated for inclusion next year.

In short, AUGE guarantees a basic, uniform benefit plan, which applies equally to beneficiaries of public and private insurers.

“If you are a supporter of Chile’s reforms, AUGE guarantees access and assures quality,” says Bruce Pollack, president of AIHS and MHE editorial advisor. “Detractors refer to the methodology as rationing.”

One delegate, Gabriel Hanna, president and CEO of DC Chartered Health Plan based in Washington, D.C., says he does not believe that there is any competition between the public and the private healthcare sectors in Chile.

“Those who can afford to buy private coverage will receive much better access—no waiting list—to a somewhat better delivery system. On the other hand, competition among private insurers seems to exist based on levels of care and price; however, with only 13 private insurers to serve the entire country, it appears to me that there is some competition, but it doesn’t appear to be fierce,” Hanna says.

Chile has a public plan covering the majority of lives, but it is not driving the private plans out of business, according to delegate Margaret Murray, CEO, Association for Community Affiliated Plans also in Washington, D.C.

Standards in Chile’s public sector need a bit of tweaking, however. Since many low income people can only opt for the public system, there is little incentive for high performance, quality and efficient management from providers. More than 1 million members are currently on a waiting list for AUGE services, including 117,000 surgeries as well as hundreds of thousands of medical appointments.

AIHS delegates had an opportunity to visit a pre-eminent 270-bed, for-profit hospital, Santiago’s premier tertiary care public hospital with 340 beds, and a 403-bed private hospital that also serves a significant proportion of public patients. Delegates observed the comparatively superior access, negligible waiting lists and private rooms that come with the private hospitals.

Another field trip took delegates to the 216-bed Clinica Las Condes, accredited by the Joint Commission International, which benefits from a 10-year affiliation with Johns Hopkins Medicine International and the institution’s expertise.

TECHNOLOGY LEAVES A PRINT

Many delegates agree that one of the most memorable discoveries was the innovative fingerprint technology used by all public and private providers to immediately verify eligibility and benefits.

The biometric identification system captures the impression of a patient’s fingerprint, which is then used as proof of identity. The technology can also generate electronic vouchers to cover specific medical exams, procedures, treatments and consults. It is not surprising that a California Silicon Valley company is responsible for the technology.

Clinica Davila also utilizes color-coded electronic boards in its outpatient and inpatient departments, which indicate the status of patients in the clinic. As one clinic physician put it, Chile falls somewhere between being a “developing and a developed country.”

“Chile’s healthcare system does an admirable job of providing reasonably good care at remarkably low cost,” Pollack says. “A national focus has been on public health and access while guaranteeing nearly universal coverage. The public/private interface works and works well. The public option is not the option of last resort, but rather the first choice for most Chileans.”

Mari Edlin is a frequent contributor to MANAGED HEALTHCARE EXECUTIVE and has traveled with AIHS on previous missions.

Mari Edlin
The delegation from the Academy for International Health Studies included executives from public and private U.S. health plans

AMD Alliance Intl sponsors video contest

In an effort to raise awareness about age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the AMD Alliance International (Toronto, Canada) is hosting a video contest with a $10,000 grand prize, the group said last month.

Video submissions should dramatize the “societal, psychological, and physiological effects of AMD,” the group said on its Web site. Videos will be judged on originality, creativity, effectiveness, production quality, and YouTube hits. Second place will receive $2,000 and third place will receive $1,000.

The contest is open until Feb. 28, 2010. Winners will be announced March 31, 2010.

For further details about the contest including rules, visit www.AMDAlliance.org/.

Next Page »