Survey provides “snapshot” of health IT jobs

Health professionals believe that between 50,000 and 200,000 new jobs will be created in health IT by the year 2015, according to a recent survey.

The American Society of Health Informatics Managers (ASHIM), a nonprofit healthcare organization for health IT professionals, conducted the survey in response to data from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, which indicated a national deficit of qualified health IT workers. ASHIM officials said the survey’s purpose was to provide an early stage snapshot of the jobs activities taking place around health IT in the United States.

The Salt Lake City based organization surveyed 135 health professionals, 20 percent of which were beginners in health IT (one year: student), 30 percent of which were intermediate (one to five years: decision influencer, working level) and 50 percent of which where experts (five-plus years: decision maker, senior management).

According to the survey more than 10 percent of respondents believe that more than 200,000 new jobs will be created in health IT by the year 2015. Almost 30 percent think 50,000 to 100,000 new jobs will be created. And more than 40 percent believe there will be 50,000 new jobs created.

The survey found that most health professionals believe that health IT employers want both IT and healthcare experience and knowledge and that health IT certification is valuable in the hiring process.

According to a blog posted on InformationWeek, San Francisco EMR provider Practice Fusion is not worried about finding employees that have clinical experience when it comes to hiring new staff. As Ryan Howard, the company’s CEO, explained to InformationWeek, his firm “doesn’t want to hire people with preconceived mindsets about EMRs.”

According to the ASHIM survey half of survey respondents believe that IT professionals will be the more likely than healthcare industry professionals and new students to seek additional skills to work in the industry.

“While employers are ramping up to adopt electronic health records, IT workers are looking to augment their skills to meet those needs and to effectively communicate their qualifications,” said ASHIM Senior Vice President Stephanie L. Jones. “ASHIM believes it is important to understand and support the evolving needs of the healthcare community and will continue conducting this survey, adjusting questions, to inquire about them,” she said.

Respondents cited consultants and trainers as most likely to fill new positions (63 percent and 61 percent, respectively), with sales and IT positions following closely behind.

Retail clinics on hit-or-miss trajectory

RETAIL HEALTH clinics have embarked on a period of retrenchment, according to a recent analysis by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions.

There are currently more than 1,100 retail health clinics in the United States offering non-urgent healthcare services in pharmacies and grocery stores.

Between July 2008 and July 2009, the number of operators increased nearly 40%, including the entry of acute care organizations via contractual arrangements with drug store and grocery chains. In addition to the six largest players in the market, more than 50 organizations now operate nearly 140 clinics, claiming 11% of the market.

But just as new players jump in, many established operators are refining.

Clinic openings slowed from an astounding 350% growth rate in 2007 to 30% in 2008. During the first five months of 2009, the market contracted 5%, although the report forecasts modest growth for the year. Nearly 150 clinics closed in 2008. Although more than half of those were associated with smaller retail stores and startups, established operators likewise contracted.

RediClinic, which operated more than 50 sites in 2007, operated just 21 by mid-2009. CVS Caremark’s MinuteClinics, which dominate the market with 451 sites, shed dozens of locations in stores not owned by the company and closed 104 underperforming clinics in the first two quarters of 2009, according to the report.

But don’t read that trend as a retreat or as a direct effect of a recession, says Paul Keckley, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. Keckley says disruptive innovations in healthcare delivery rarely progress on a smooth trajectory.

For the most part, the report notes, retail clinics are modestly profitable and enjoy adequate patient volume. There’s also increasing evidence that insurers are covering their services.

FORMULA FOR GROWTH

The pullback, Keckley says, “has been a decision by the hosts to really focus on refining the model to make it scalable.”

For businesses accustomed to operating in the retail arena, that means refining business models to manage extended hours, liability and additional personnel costs. The hosts likewise need to determine exactly what range of services they’ll provide in a scaled model. Most clinics offer a limited range, such as diagnosing upper respiratory infections and prescribing the appropriate antibiotic. Potential new services could include injection and infusion services, chronic disease management, smoking cessation and direct-to-employer insurance programs.

Keckley expects retail clinics to emerge from this “breather” period with more refined business models tailored to the type of host site—be it a pharmacy, supermarket, big box retailer or employer setting—where the clinic operates. He anticipates a second wave of cautious growth through 2011 followed by more accelerated growth through 2014 with the market topping out at about 4,000 clinics in 2015. Most of the growth, he says, will occur in suburban markets where clinic users would most likely have commercial insurance.

John Bigalke, national managing partner for Deloitte’s health sciences practice, says the clinics could play an important role in providing healthcare for Medicaid recipients as well. As states grapple with providing primary care for the growing Medicaid population, retail health clinics may offer one way they can “continue to uphold their end of the social contract,” he says.

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.

Paying now and chasing later the worst way to counteract fraud

AS SHOWN BY several significant industry studies, fraud and abuse take an enormous bite out of national healthcare. According to a Thomson Reuters’ October 2009 report, fraud costs $125 billion to $175 billion a year, accounting for nearly one-fifth of all healthcare dollars wasted—about 7% of healthcare spending overall. Other experts put the figure as high as 10%.

Preventing funds from leaving the organization, rather than retroactively prosecuting those who took it, is critical, according to James Quiggle, director of communications for the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, based in Washington, D.C.

“Once the money is out the door, it’s very difficult to recover,” he says. “And while an insurer is chasing money that’s already gone, new schemes spring up to take more. Health fraud is easy to get into and highly lucrative. An illiterate immigrant with minimal education could latch onto an organized gang’s scheme and be a multimillionaire a year later.”

On the bright side, efforts to prevent fraud and abuse typically provide an excellent return on investment. For every dollar a payer invests, there usually is a return of six or seven dollars, according to Louis Saccoccio, executive director of the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Assn. (NHCAA).

“Most importantly, all of the healthcare stakeholders need to share information about their fraud investigations,” he says. “Without the relevant information, technology can only do so much.”

Although everyone agrees the problem is rampant, the industry’s outlook on fraud frequently is different from that of the general public. While many in the general population focus on punishing the perpetrators, most health plans simply want to keep from paying out more money than they need to.

“The word ‘fraud’ generates a lot of excitement, because it’s easy to understand and generates a lot of interest from a public relations standpoint,” says Dean Farley, vice president with Eden Prairie, Minn.-based Ingenix Consulting.

In his role, Farley oversees the company’s prospective payment and payment accuracy consulting services. He says in many cases, the intent behind the transaction is difficult to determine, and ultimately irrelevant. From a payer’s perspective, the focus is on any type of incorrect payment or overpayment.

“The goal is to identify all types of overpayment and stop them before money leaves the organization,” he says. “And they’re less concerned with putting the bad guys in jail than they are ensuring that the bad guys don’t get the money in the first place.”

One of the greatest challenges payers have when battling fraud involves provider relations. The more aggressive a plan is when investigating suspicious claims, the more payments will be delayed.

Additionally, there are legal issues regarding prompt payment, at the state level and under ERISA. Many of the laws have exceptions for claims that a payer decides to investigate as potentially fraudulent. Still, unless the evidence is overwhelming, plans usually opt to simply pay it rather than risk worsening provider relations or legal issues.

PAYERS GIVE CHASE

Unfortunately, Quiggle says, paying now and chasing it later isn’t a very effective strategy.

“Once the money leaves the plan, it’s often gone for good,” he says. “These organized gangs are very smart in terms of covering their tracks, and steal with production-line precision and volume. They can steal tens of millions of dollars in a very short time and move much of the money overseas, making it virtually impossible to find. Even the money that stays here in the United States might have already been converted into a Ferrari or a villa by the time a health plan tracks it down.”

Anti-fraud technologies such as predictive analysis seek to identify potentially fraudulent behavior and can do it in near real-time, Quiggle says. Complex schemes that used to take investigators weeks or months of sifting through manila folders to discover, can be uncovered with predictive analysis overnight.

Because not every plan has the resources to invest in prevention, NHCAA has developed a fraud database, available to member companies and all government agencies.

“If someone is defrauding one payer, they’re almost certainly defrauding others, and government agencies as well,” Saccoccio says.

If Payer A (or a government agency) opened an investigation into potential fraud by a certain provider in a certain geographic area, they load the information into the system. Later, if Payer B has suspicions about that provider, they could see that Payer A already opened an investigation.

“The two could then compare notes and get a much better picture of what’s going on,” he says. “Much of the data we need to fight fraud already exists; we just need to share it and use it better.”

Quiggle says without collaboration, every insurance company is like the blind man touching an elephant: He can only get his arms around a small part of the problem and will never see the whole picture.

Overpayments that result from simple misunderstandings, however, might not be fraudulent, even though they cost billions of dollars each year. Part of the problem is the distance and time lapsed between the delivery of the service and the reimbursement for the service. The bill is the only real medium between the two, and payers have little insight into how providers create them.

“The bill is supposed to be a reflection of the medical record, but payers don’t have access to those unless they specifically ask for them,” Farley says. “If payers had more insight into what services are actually being delivered and the clinical condition of the patients when those services were delivered, overpayment would be a much smaller problem.”

And while health plans can’t communicate individually with every one of the thousands of providers in their network, they most certainly can communicate with them en masse. Transparency should be the first goal, Farley says.

“Health plans can use their Web portals to spell out, very clearly, exactly what their expectations are in terms of bill preparation,” Farley says. “They also need to make sure that their claims adjudication systems enforce those payment rules exactly as they are spelled out.”

Another step insurers can take is to design their processes to be similar to those of other health plans—or even the government. There’s a lot of talk about administrative simplification, but there isn’t much of it happening, Farley says.

“There’s no reason that a plan couldn’t align its methodologies with those of other payers, and there’s no reason they couldn’t use Medicare principles and Medicare billing requirements to drive their contracting,” he says. “Most providers are already familiar with those and it would help them understand what a payer’s requirements and expectations are.”

Farley also recommends that plans get serious about audits.

“You can’t check every claim, but you can convey to your network that you’re serious about identifying overpayments,” he says. “That delivers a message to the network, and prevention of overpayment is the number one goal.”

Michael T. McCue is a Virginia-based freelance writer.

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.

New alliance launched to measure and improve long-term care

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

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

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

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

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

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

LTQA board members include:

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

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

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

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

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

Steven Dawson
President, Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute (PHI)

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

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

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

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

Gail Gibson Hunt
President and CEO, National Alliance for Caregiving

Gail Kass
President and CEO, New Courtland Elder Services

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

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

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

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

Sandy Markwood CEO,
National Association of Area Agencies on Aging

Katie Maslow
Director for Policy Development, Alzheimer’s Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The height of health IT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOW ARE THE PHYSICIANS EMBRACING THE INDIVIDUAL HEALTH RECORD?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alcon to Purchase Ophthalmic Pharmaceutical Assets from Sirion

HUENENBERG, Switzerland, Jan 18, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) — Alcon
(NYSE: ACL),
the world’s leader in eye care, announced today that it will purchase
the rights in the United States for two FDA-approved topical eye care
products from Sirion Therapeutics, Inc. The two products purchased are
Durezol(TM), a marketed ophthalmic corticosteroid approved for the
treatment of inflammation and pain associated with eye surgery, and
Zirgan(TM), a recently approved antiviral for the treatment of acute
herpetic keratitis (corneal ulcers). In addition to these marketed
products, Alcon also acquired the global rights, excluding Latin
…

Severe rhinovirus nothing to sneeze at

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A DIG AT DARTMOUTH

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

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

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

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

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

Next Page »