Take steps to prepare for insurance exchanges

Health insurance exchanges, not unlike the ones already operating in Massachusetts and Utah, are expected to play an increasing role in individual and micro-group insurance distribution. These exchanges will not exist in a vacuum; they will touch every part of the healthcare system and require substantial changes to the way payers do business.

Begin taking specific steps today (“no regret investments”) to prepare for the risks and opportunities exchanges will create. These investments will enable payers to improve customer service, enhance decision-making and reduce administrative and care costs, no matter the result of reform legislation over the next few years. The three areas of focus are:

1. Sales and service transaction efficiency. With potentially tens of millions of Americans accessing insurance through exchanges, health plans will need to operate more quickly and efficiently to service this fast-paced and high-volume market segment.

2. Applied business intelligence. After healthcare reform is enacted, insurance will be more retail-oriented and no longer medically underwritten. Payers will have to rely on more robust decision support to better understand their customers’ buying behavior, lifestyle preferences and medical history and to foster strong and profitable customer relationships.

3. Constituent engagement. In this new retail marketplace, competition will be fierce. Payers must differentiate themselves through systems and business processes that better engage and retain brokers, federal and state governments.

Begin with seven “no regret” investments now. These are not “no risk” investments; however, without these investments, payers may find themselves unable to compete for and profit from the expanding and sizable individual and micro-group market.

Sales and Service Transaction Efficiency

With the large influx of new individual and micro-group customers accessing insurance through health insurance exchanges, payers must focus on transactional efficiency if they are to remain profitable and competitive. Importantly, various reform proposals include taxing health plans and setting minimum medical expense ratios; therefore, plans must reduce administrative costs.

1. Quote-to-card process. Payers should create a single, integrated system that can automatically carry the customer from enrollment at the exchange, to ID card generation, and to post-sale service. Because customers likely will expect instantaneous answers when using the Web-based exchange, the old way of doing business—including full medical underwriting and lengthy case installation windows—will not provide competitive advantages or profitable outcomes. Payers should invest in multi-payer architectures that integrate case installation and policy administration.

2. Eligibility determination. To ensure proper pairing of the low-income consumer and a subsidized insurance plan, payers will need to develop multi-directional eligibility determination utilizing the exchange. Payers must ensure that the information they receive is accurate and they will need to get clarification quickly and efficiently. For example, payers should develop interfaces with payroll companies to provide for real-time wage and tax determinations.

3. Care management integration. Given that most reform efforts call for all risk to be treated equally and requires guaranteed issue for pre-existing conditions, payers must leverage key enrollment cycle data (e.g., health risk assessments) earlier and more effectively. Members who are predisposed to certain conditions or who have pre-existing chronic diseases must be routed immediately to appropriate care management programs. Payers are advised to develop processes that enable them to immediately recognize high-risk enrollees and divert them to appropriate care management programs.

Applied Business Intelligence

Working within the exchange framework—with more competition, more enrollment, and more unseen risk—intensifies the need to provide and receive decision support. Health insurance exchanges will give payers instant feedback, letting them know which offerings are enticing customers, which are not, and what needs to change.

1. Decision-support tools. In an exchange, consumers will be given multiple health plan options coupled with extensive information, but few consumers will have sufficient expertise to choose the best option. At the same time, benefits are becoming more complex. For example, value-based benefits plans or high-deductible health plans offer increased options for lowering costs, but these plans may be confusing to consumers who are new to the marketplace. That is why decision support will be vital. Payers must offer benefit-modeling tools that will work within the exchange infrastructure and help consumers choose the best insurance plan for their needs.

2. Customer segmentation. Soon, policies could prohibit insurance companies from rejecting applicants. Nor will payers be allowed to charge higher premiums based on pre-existing conditions or certain demographic information. Because premiums will be regulated and largely the same for all customers within a geographic region, payers should develop tools with which to segment, within the bounds of the law, new exchange customers. These tools will include health risk assessments, personal health records and, importantly, behavioral analytics that can determine the best health plan for each consumer.

3. Product performance. To remain competitive, payers participating in health insurance exchanges will require access to real-time product performance reporting capabilities. These will provide payers’ product development units with critical business intelligence regarding the specific products that customers are buying. Today, most health plans have visibility only into which of their proprietary products are sold; they do not have real visibility into what business is lost and why. Payers that leverage this information to quickly respond to market demands, and design and offer new plans—such as consumer-directed health plans, value-based benefit plans, wellness programs, integrated health savings account use, and more—will be able to capture, retain and enhance market share.

Constituent Engagement

Within the framework of the health insurance exchange, the goal of constituent engagement will remain the same as it is today: to create an efficient dialogue between the constituent and the payer as well as among the constituents themselves. However, the constituents will change. No longer will brokers, individuals and employers be the sole constituents. Payers probably will find that they have expanded relationships with state governments and the federal government, and that these new constituents have new rules and different needs.

States are likely to be major players in the world of exchanges, regardless of how exchanges are organized. Payers should design systems that accommodate state governments’ unique requirements, including standard enrollment applications, state commission payments, complicated billing and eligibility systems, and numerous reporting requirements. In addition, the federal government will play a role in the exchange operation and payers should prepare now to support reporting requirements. Finally, brokers will continue play a critical role in attracting good risk and explaining complex benefits to consumers. Payers should look to offer value-added services and products that can help brokers grow their business.

The future of the American healthcare system is in flux, but the future of payers is not: They will remain the primary purveyors of health insurance. In fact, their role may expand drastically as more people enter the individual and small group market.

Eric Grossman is Vice President, Enterprise Strategy and Communications, for The TriZetto Group, a healthcare IT firm whose technology touches more than half of all insured Americans.

Getting Skin in the Game

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORs of Tomorrow Can Yield Pay-offs Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intrapreneurship

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

EMR 101: An Overview of Key Benefits

It’s no secret the Internet is everywhere, so it is a contradiction that millions of Americans feel secure enough to do their banking online, but the U.S. healthcare system is still wary of transitioning health and medical records into an electronic format.

As I sat with Ron Pelletier, vice president of market strategy, at a SourceMedical conference in Las Vegas, he stated, healthcare in general, grossly underutilizes the internet. We discussed one of the main reasons outpatient centers have been slow to change. “On the ASC side, things may not have been broken. Reimbursements were good, now that is changing. These centers are under pressure with reimbursements shrinking and costs going up. Many are saying, ‘In order to stay competitive and keep my business afloat, I need to find better ways of doing this.’ The necessity now is driving them.” states Pelletier.

This series of articles will cover some of the key points that need to be addressed when considering the implementation of an EMR in your ASC, including key benefits of EMRs, what to look for in a provider, how to get your staff ready for this impending transition.

To begin, we should consider the many definitions of an EMR. “There have been so many people out there that have said ‘I am selling an EMR’ and all it is is scanning in your paper and saving it to a computer,” says Craig Veach, senior vice president of operations for Amkai. “Then there are others who have a forms-based system. In the PIIM study, of the original 50 that were considered, none of those were even the forms-based systems because PIIM thought they were not commercially viable. You want something that is a true work-flow manager. Our EMR handles communications within the organization using an internal email and instant message (IM) that allows people to pass info and stay HIPAA compliant. It’s customizable on how it is set up to manage an individual organization’s workflow,” Veach adds. The Parsons Institute for Information Mapping (PIIM) study Veach refers to recently reviewed the top six EMR systems available on the market today.

This brings us to some of the key benefits a facility can gain through implementing an EMR. Michael Nolte, vice president and general manager of marketing for GE Healthcare IT, is aware that there are many questions and concerns from administrators and staff, but says that the long-term benefits will by far surpass the short-term apprehension. “In particular, for a smaller business, it’s a pretty big transition. There are three key benefits. First is the quality of care that you can deliver as a provider; when an EMR is used effectively it’s a really powerful tool. Both from a medical and a legal perspective, you have ensured that you have the right documentation in place that you are making good care decisions and that you have the ability to deliver the best quality of care for your patients. Second, is when our providers get really good at using a piece of software, and are transitioning from something that is usually more paper-based, it makes them more efficient. The ability to use their time more effectively, spending more time in the operating room and less time in the office is definitely enhanced by use of the software. And third is accuracy from a billing and reimbursement standpoint. In terms of getting a clear, well documented perspective on activity so that clinicians are getting paid for what they do everyday.”

On a more fundamental level, there are cost benefits in paper saving. “A lot of these centers are drowning in paper,” affirms Sean Benson, co-founder of ProVation Medical, part of Wolters Kluwer Health. “They are documenting everything on paper and with that come a lot of cost and inefficiencies. That includes the cost of paper, storage of charts, doing a chart pull, and assembling charts. All of those costs are really taken out of the system when you move to an electronic medical record. You are taking a lot of the redundancies out of the system.”

Oftentimes, hearing the benefits from peers can be most beneficial. Daren Smith, BSN, administrator at Fremont Surgical Center in Fremont, Neb., also shares his thoughts about the benefits. “It has so much capability to increase the level of quality of care that you are able to give to your patients. The EHR system capabilities to cross-check medications and make sure that the required information is there. Also, the ability for that information to be shared widely makes it very important. We have also found that it lends some credibility to your organization; that you are ahead of the game, ahead of the curve.”

What should an ASC look for in a provider? Administrators may want to consider what type of ASC in which they are working. If the ASC is a brand-new facility, it makes sense to start with an EMR. “For new ASCs, it’s almost a no brainer in terms of EMR and full-automation. We find that it is a straight forward conversation when you ask a new ASC, ‘why would you start by duplicating the old paper-based workflow when you have a chance to start fresh?’ The question is usually positively viewed since it just makes sense to go electronic from the outset. Existing ASCs are also interested, but have a little more adaptation to existing processes that they might see necessary. Actually, it’s an opportunity to look at current workflow and adapt it a little to realize the benefits from the software,” Don Fallati, senior vice president of marketing, Amkai states.

The existing ASC wanting to convert to an EMR has various items to address. While a new staff in a new ASC can face the implementation of an EMR with ease, staff members in current less technology-based facilities may be quick to decline the idea of learning anything new. The biggest part of getting ready for an EMR system is to realize there will be change. “If the staff, especially the internal champions or the leaders of the organization are resistant to change then they are going to be real problems. If you can identify key leaders within the organization, who understand that change is an important part of the process, and the short term challenges are worth the longer term benefits moving to an electronic system then you are really on the right track.”, states Benson.

Joe Macies, CEO of Amkai adds, “These systems today are modular. You don’t have to swallow the entire package and it doesn’t have to change every single facet of workflow. My two words of advice would be: get started. The EMR benefits are so great over such a long term, and eventually so necessary, I think, in any healthcare provider organization that you can get started and have a fairly graceful migration of your people at a reasonable pace over time when you’ve got modular software that fits users needs. It’s helpful not to approach EMR as having to find the perfect solution.”

Stay tuned to the second part of this series, EMR 202: How to Get Ready for Implementation where SurgiStrategies speaks to some ASCs that are in the process of EMR implementation or have an EMR in place where they discuss concerns challenges and advice.

HHS pandemic plan unlikely to receive adequate funding

Prompted by 2006 legislation, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released its first National Health Security Strategy last month, hard on the heels of the H1N1 pandemic.

The plan is focused on protecting people’s health during a large-scale emergency, according to a statement from HHS, and includes 10 objectives and an implementation guide to assist public and private healthcare organizations prepare for and manage health threats.

The policy is unlikely to receive adequate funding in the near future, according to Joseph White, professor of public policy, epidemiology and biostatistics, and director of the Center for Policy Studies at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

“The details in the interim strategy seem reasonably well-considered, [but] the overall rhetoric is boilerplate,” says White. “There won’t be much result because the budget situation is awful, and there is unlikely to be real money.”

BIRD FLU PROMPTS NEW PLAN

The security strategy was mandated in the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act, passed shortly after the avian flu scare in 2005 and the SARS epidemic in 2003. The legislation directed the HHS secretary to develop the plan with an accompanying implementation process by 2009 and to revise the documents every four years. HHS stated, however, that it will update the implementation plan every two years to reflect advances in public health and medicine.

“As we’ve learned in the response to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, responsibility for improving our nation’s ability to address existing and emerging health threats must be broadly shared by everyone—governments, communities, families, and individuals,” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. “The National Health Security Strategy is a call to action for each of us so that every community becomes fully prepared and ready to recover quickly after an emergency.”

White believes this policy is, in part, the Obama administration’s attempt to better define duties between the HHS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which joined the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11. Before the terrorist attacks, FEMA took an “all hazards” approach to disaster management, which included health epidemics, White says.

“A lot of serious public administration people whom I know said at the time that putting FEMA in DHS was a terrible idea,” he says. “So ‘all hazards’ was eliminated, and FEMA basically stopped paying attention to little things like hurricanes and epidemics.”

The goals of HHS’s strategy, such as building community resilience and strengthening and sustaining emergency response systems make sense, he says, but are unlikely to be high priorities.

“I’d be shocked if there is real money behind it,” he says.

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.

Next Page »