Getting Skin in the Game

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuberculosis treatment requires medication and monitoring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DIRECT PATIENT OBSERVATION NEEDED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mortality, costs higher for women with cardiovascular disease

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

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

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

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

LESS THERAPY FOR WOMEN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RISK FACTORS ON THE RISE

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

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

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

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

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

No-shows at public hearing not making any friends

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

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

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

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

LONG LIST OF QUESTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

PROVIDE POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

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

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

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

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

Julie Miller

Kaiser questions complexity of drug-safety programs

Kaiser Permanente is concerned that too many diverse drug safety programs will impose a burden on the healthcare system and on patients, and that this will drive up costs and limit access to therapies.

The integrated health plan wants a greater say in how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and drug companies design and implement these programs to ensure they don’t discriminate against certain healthcare providers and pharmacies.

In 2007, Congress expanded FDA’s authority to require drug makers to establish Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) to enhance the safe and appropriate use of marketed medicines. Most of the 80 or more approved REMS are fairly modest, only providing patients with printed medication guides that describe proper drug use.

But a growing number of these programs also include more extensive Elements to Assure Safe Use (ETASU), which tightly manage prescribing and dispensing of high-risk medicines. ETASU can involve limited distribution of the drug and certification of prescribers and pharmacists to ensure appropriate prescribing and dispensing; in some cases patients have to be tested to ensure they’re not pregnant, for example, or that the drug is not causing harmful reactions.

COST AND ACCESS QUESTIONED

Kaiser is concerned that its physicians and pharmacies will be cut out of such certification and distribution programs, and that its patients will have difficulty gaining access to needed therapies. Such requirements could increase costs for health plans and for consumers, limiting access to needed drugs and the overall benefits of the REMS safety program.

The problem has not been that noticeable so far because most REMS with ETASU have involved drugs for relatively small patient populations. However, FDA is considering a more involved REMS for the broad class of extended-use opioids, and might weigh such an approach for erythropoietin-stimulating agents (for red blood cell production), drugs that are expensive and widely used.

Consequently, Kaiser has formally petitioned FDA to open up its process for designing and approving REMS with ETASU. Kaiser proposes that FDA’s public advisory committees review such processes to make the proposals more transparent and to allow plans and providers to have a say. That would give Kaiser an opportunity to have its own specialty pharmacy operation included in a REMS network.

The health plan also wants to ensure that REMS programs protect the privacy of patient health information.

Clinical consequences drive the need for pharmacy integration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE FOUNDATION OF INTEGRATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cost spiral slows, stays on upward path

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

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

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

PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SPENDING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SLOW GROWTH ON DRUG SPENDING

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consumer experience provides worthwhile quality data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANECDOTES PROVIDE INSIGHT

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shelly Reese is a freelance writer based in Cincinnati

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.

Next Page »