We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byJorden Haycock
Modified about 1 year ago
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Are We Making Progress in Narrowing the Quality Chasm in the US? Elizabeth A. McGlynn, Ph.D. Director, Kaiser Permanente Center for Effectiveness & Safety Research December 7, 2011
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Outline of Talk US performance a decade ago Effects of three policy options An updated view of performance One example of what it takes to significantly improve quality
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Determining the Size and Nature of the Quality Chasm
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Overview of Community Quality Index Study ,275
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE We Constructed an Opportunity Score Score = # of times recommended care was delivered # of opportunities to deliver recommended care
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE On Average, About Half of Recommended Care for Adults Is Delivered Care that meets quality standards McGlynn et al, 2003
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Quality of Care for Cardiopulmonary Problems Varied Widely McGlynn et al., 2003
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Significant Variation Existed in Management of Adults’ General Medical Problems McGlynn et al., 2003
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Children Received Less than Half of Recommended Care Care that meets standards Mangione-Smith et al., 2007
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Quality for Children Also Varied by Condition Mangione-Smith et al., 2007
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Well, That May be True Nationally, but Care in My Community is Better
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE We Examined Quality in Varied Markets SEATTLE ORANGE COUNTY PHOENIX LITTLE ROCK INDIANAPOLIS CLEVELAND GREENVILLE MIAMI NEWARK BOSTON SYRACUSE LANSING
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE And Found You Weren’t Safe Anywhere… Overall Boston Cleveland Greenville Indianapolis Lansing Syracuse Little Rock Miami Newark Orange Co Phoenix Seattle % of recommended care delivered Kerr et al., 2004
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE And Found You Weren’t Safe Anywhere… Preventive Overall Boston Cleveland Greenville Indianapolis Lansing Syracuse Little Rock Miami Newark Orange Co Phoenix Seattle % of recommended care delivered Kerr et al., 2004
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE And Found You Weren’t Safe Anywhere… Preventive Acute Overall Boston Cleveland Greenville Indianapolis Lansing Syracuse Little Rock Miami Newark Orange Co Phoenix Seattle % of recommended care delivered Kerr et al., 2004
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE And Found You Weren’t Safe Anywhere… Preventive Acute Overall Boston Cleveland Greenville Indianapolis Lansing Syracuse Little Rock Miami Newark Orange Co Phoenix Seattle % of recommended care delivered Chronic Kerr et al., 2004
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Some People May Have Problems With Quality, But My Care is Great
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE No One Is Immune From Quality Deficits Male Female White Black Hispanic Other % of recommended care delivered
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Money Doesn’t Buy Quality >$50K $15-50K <$15K Private, nonmanaged Managed care Medicare Medicaid No insurance
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Study Was Critical for Stimulating Forward Movement Breaking through denial that quality was substandard Nationally In diverse communities For all people Allowed solutions to be entertained and tested
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE What Policy Options Have We Tried to Improve Quality in the US? Public reporting of performance Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality Private purchasers Pay-for-performance CMS, private Investment in electronic health records
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Public Reporting
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE How Does Public Reporting Work? Quality Improvement Consumer Choice Information Consumers Providers Improved Processes & Outcomes
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE What Do We Know About the Effect of Public Reporting? Entity Effects on Consumer Choices Quality Improvement Efforts Clinical Outcomes Health PlansMixedNo evidence HospitalsNo effectPositiveMixed PhysiciansMixedNo evidencePositive
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE So, Is It Worth It? Public reporting is the right thing to do But it may not have large effects by itself Other factors (financial incentives) still dominate Biggest impact likely on providers rather than consumers Continuing work on the implementation of these programs is necessary
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Pay-for-Peformance (P4P)
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE What Is Pay-for-Performance? Pay-for-Performance (P4P) programs use financial incentives to motivate hospitals and doctors to increase adherence to best practices Providers receive differential payments based on performance on a set of specified measures: Clinical quality Resource use (efficiency) Patient experience Information technology use or capabilities
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE P4P Is Not a New Idea “If a physician makes a large incision with an operating knife and cures it, or if he opens a tumor (over the eye) with an operating knife, and saves the eye, he shall receive ten shekels in money.” “If a physician makes a large incision with the operating knife, and kills him, or opens a tumor with the operating knife, and cuts out the eye, his hands shall be cut off.” -- Code of Hammurabi, 1750 B.C.
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE What Do We Know about Pay-for- Performance? Little evaluation of pay for performance (P4P) has occurred The handful of published studies show modest positive results P4P program design matters in terms of program impact P4P alone is unlikely to solve quality and cost problems, but may be useful when combined with other policy levers
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE P4P Generated Slightly Greater Improvements than Public Reporting ∆= 2.8% points after adjusting for hospital differences* Performance rate (%) *Study by Lindenaur et al., 2007 (New England Journal of Medicine) Premier P4P hospitals CMS P4R hospitals Comparison of Performance on Composite of 10 Measures: Q Q Q1Q2Q3Q4Q5Q6Q7Q8
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Did P4P Having an Impact in the UK? Performance rate (%) *Study by Campbell et al., July 12, 2007 (New England Journal of Medicine) Changes in Composite Quality Scores in UK: Coronary heart disease Asthma Diabetes ∆= 4% points for asthma, 6% points for diabetes*
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Challenges in Implementing P4P Data: Under-investment in data infrastructure for population management and real-time monitoring can hinder system-level change Operational infrastructure: P4P programs require properly resourced operational infrastructure Absence of available measures to support P4P: In near term, with a small number of performance measures, providers will use stop-gap fixes rather than reengineer care processes
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Health Information Technology (HIT)
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE What’s The Theory? All modern industry uses information technology to manage knowledge, processes Complexity of medicine has increased exponentially Many-to-many matching problem better handled by computers than human brains
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE What Do We Know About the Effect of HIT on Quality? Systematic review (Chaudry et al, 2007) 257 studies met inclusion criteria 25% of studies from 4 academic centers Benefits include increased adherence to evidence-based medicine, enhanced surveillance and monitoring, decreased medication errors Questions about generalizability beyond the benchmark institutions
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE What Do We Know (cont.)? UK Early Adopter Experience (Sheikh et al, 2011) All 377 NHS hospitals expected to adopt health information technology by December 2010 but just 20% had done so Variety of challenges encountered Need to shift from “implementation” focus to “process of adoption” Could be either “best case” or “worst case” analysis
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE What Do We Know (cont.)? Impact on quality improvement (Jones et al, 2010) Basic systems provide small improvement in performance for 3 conditions Upgrades, improvements slow improvement Heterogeneity of experience Hard to assess the technology & its use on a broad scale Led U.S. to develop standards for “meaningful use”
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE So Has the US Made Progress on Quality Performance? Agency for HealthCare Research and Quality (AHRQ) tracks 250 indicators nationally & produces an annual report Until this year organized around the Institute of Medicine 6 domains of quality Measures not collected on a single population – “repurpose” existing data Focus on 8 clinical areas: cancer, diabetes, end stage renal disease, heart disease, HIV/AIDS, maternal & child health, mental health & substance abuse, respiratory diseases
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Most Quality Indicators Tracked Nationally Are Improving But median rate of improvement is only 2.3% per year
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Why Is Quality Improvement So Hard?
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE There Is No Single Solution Measurement alone is not enough to drive improvement Financial incentives, especially when small relative to overall payment, isn’t enough Health information technology is an enabler but it cannot create the will to change Improvement needs to be imbedded in front line operations
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE VA Combined Reporting, Incentives, Health Information & Showed Better Performance Care that meets quality standards Asch et al, 2004
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Greatest Differences Found in Metrics & Conditions Included in VA System Asch et al., 2004
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE It Takes A System…to Improve Quality
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Core Capabilities for Kaiser’s Performance Improvement System Leadership priority setting Systems approach to improvement Measurement capability Learning organization Improvement capability Culture
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Creating Tools for Care Teams Proactive Office Encounter All members of health care team collaborate to produce reliable care Integrates processes, tools, and workflows to pro-actively address each member’s preventive and chronic care needs before, during, and after each encounter. Standardized Proactive Panel Management A standardized and centralized process where the healthcare team supports physicians in managing their panel of patients. Identify patients with key, actionable care gaps, and provide patient- specific recommendations to help close key care gaps outside of a face-to-face encounter* especially, for those patients not actively seeking care
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Decision Support Tools Available for a Range of Care Needs Serve as a Decision Support Tools in addressing the best care for our members while improving clinical quality outcomes Proactive Office Encounter (POE) & Standardized Proactive Panel Management (SPPM) Pre-Encounter, Encounter, Pediatrics, Oncology, Obstetrics & SPPM Checklists Available Lab Screening Due LDL A1c MAU Prenatal ABO RH Indirect Coombs CBC HBsAG UA/Urine Culture Varicella Zoster Rubella AG GC/C GTT GBS Chronic Condition Initiatives Dialated Retinal Exam Due Retinal Photo Monofilament Foot Exam Due SMBG Test Strips Need Refilling BMI Needed or Above Threshold Blood Pressure Measurement Needed Questionnaires & Health Education Alcohol Depression PHQ9 Autism in Toddlers Advance Directive or POLST Diabetes H/E Class Needed Heart Failure Class Needed Healthier Living Class Needed Immunizations Due Flu Pneumovax Pneumococcal Tetnus All Pediatric Cancer & Other Screenings Mammogram Pap Colorectal Chlamydia (16-24 years) Syphillis (Prenatal only) HIV (Prenatal Only) Asthma Specific Asthma Questionnaire Needed Beta Agonist Overuse LABA Monotherapy ED or Hosp Visit and no IAI
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Teams Can Create Different Reports With Data Updated Daily
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Medical Group Directors Can View Physician-Specific Performance
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Teams Can View Care Needs of Their Panel of Patients
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Team Can Identify Patients by Risk and Opportunity Category
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Opportunities to Close Care Gaps Clearly Identified
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Commercial HEDIS Rankings 2011 – Effectiveness of Care KP Ranked in the Top 10 Source: Center for Healthcare Analytics – Department of Quality and Care Delivery Excellence 4 Use of Appropriate Meds for People with Asthma Annual Monitoring for Patients on Persistent Meds—Digoxin Annual Monitoring for Patients on Persistent Meds—Anticonvulsants 5 Appropriate Testing for Children w/Pharyngitis Cholesterol Mgmt. for Patients w/Cardiovascular Conditions—LDL Screening 6 Chlamydia Screening in Women—Total Annual Monitoring for Patients on Persistent Meds—Diuretics Medical Assistance w/Smoking Cessation—Discussing Strategies 7 Cervical Cancer Screening Avoidance of Antibiotic Treatment in Adults w/Acute Bronchitis Comprehensive Diabetes—Eye Exams 9 Cholesterol Mgmt. for Patients w/Cardiovascular Conditions—LDL Control <100 Antidepressant Medication Mgmt.—Effective Acute Phase 10 Pharmacotherapy Mgmt. of COPD Exacerbation—Bronchodilator 1 Weight Assessment for Children BMI Percentile Comprehensive Diabetes Care Medical Attention for Nephropathy 2 Adult BMI Assessment Appropriate Treatment for Children w/URI Comprehensive Diabetes Care LDL Control <100 3 Controlling High Blood Pressure Comprehensive Diabetes Care LDL Screening & Blood Pressure Control (<140/90) Annual Monitoring for Patients on Persistent Meds ACE or ARB
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE 54 Cervical Cancer Screening Rate Up and Unnecessary Testing Down
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE 55 Approaching 100% On Many Joint Commission Core Measures Source: Quality and Risk Management/TJCCore Measures, May 2011
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE 56 Better Than National Average Hospital Mortality Rates Source: Quality and Risk Management/KP Insight May (most recent)
© 2011, KAISER PERMANENTE Concluding Thoughts Establishing that a gap existed in quality was essential to motivate action Research has been vital to evaluate “good ideas” for closing the gap Systems approaches that combine multiple options most likely to succeed
The Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH): Building a Better Health Care Model.
Racial and Ethnic Disparities in U.S. Health Care: A Chartbook Holly Mead, Lara Cartwright-Smith, Karen Jones, Christal Ramos, and Bruce Siegel Department.
Health Care Reform and the New MTM Provisions: What does this Mean for Community Pharmacy? Christopher R. Gauthier, RPh Board Coordinator Maine Pharmacy.
Does The Chronic Care Model Work? A Chartbook created by the staff of: Improving Chronic Illness Care Improving Chronic Illness Care At Group Healths MacColl.
The Importance of Data Analytics in Physician Practice Massachusetts Medical Society March 30, 2012 James L. Holly, MD CEO, SETMA, LLP Adjunct.
Translating Research into Practice: Making Todays Goals Tomorrows Reality Carolyn Clancy, M.D. Director Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Oregon.
FUTURE OF HEALTH CARE WORKGROUP TEXAS HEALTH INSTITUTE AUSTIN, TEXAS Thursday, May 10, 2012.
A dialogue document July The Challenge In a country that expects the best of everything we fail to achieve the best in health. What must be.
Patient Centered Medical Home Data and Recognition Review for Saint Lukes Medical Group by Jennifer Woods, RN, BSN Director of Physician Practice Management.
Healthcare Informatics Executive Summit 2012 Readmissions and the Medical Home: Re-Visioning Care Management Marriott Orlando World Center May
Diane Grieder, M.Ed AliPar, Inc. NYAPRS Conference September 2011 USING PERSON-CENTERED PLANNING AS A ROADMAP FOR CARE COORDINATION AND BETTER OUTCOMES.
New Membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners Work Place Based Assessment.
© Copyright IBM Corporation 2008 IBM Institute for Business Value IBM Global Business Services ibm.com/healthcare/hc2015 Healthcare 2015: Win-win or lose-lose?
Redesigning Chronic Illness Care: The Chronic Care Model Ed Wagner, MD, MPH MacColl Institute for Healthcare Innovation Center for Health Studies Group.
An introduction to Impact Evaluation Markus Goldstein Poverty Reduction Group The World Bank.
Federation of County Networks Feeling the Strength of Our Own Spirit… Developing a Plan to Address Comprehensive Approaches to Perinatal and Family Health.
Welcome to The new GMS & PMS Learning Exchange The National Primary and Care Trust Development Programme.
Best Practices in Emergency Medical Services Presented By: Jonathan D. Washko, BS-EMSA, NREMT-P, EMD Director – REMSA AVP for CEMS Operations – North Shore/Long.
© The Wellesley Institute Bob Gardner Healthcare Interpreters Network November 23, 2009.
1 The Long-Term Financial Outlook for Healthcare and CMS Research Agenda: Searching for Magic Bullets Bill Saunders, Deputy Director Office of Research,
Q uality I mprovement for MDs The Good Hospital Practice Training Series 2009 The Medical City.
Re-visioning the Delivery of Health Care Services to Uninsured Patients in Harris County Final Report Prepared for Save Our ERs July 20, 2004.
Anita M. Baker, Ed.D. Building Evaluation Capacity Presentation Slides for Participatory Evaluation Essentials: An Updated Guide for Non-Profit Organizations.
We Need You: To learn more about whats ailing our nations health care system To participate in conversations – online and in your communities To tell.
Comparison of ONC & LTPAC EHR Functional Criteria AND Testimony to HITPC C/A Workgroup (Summary & Detail Slides) January 10, 2014 (Updated 1/17/2014) Jennie.
SANDRA G HASSINK, MD, FAAP CHAIR, GOVERNORS COUNCIL DIRECTOR NEMOURS OBESITY INITIATIVE A I DUPONT HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN WILMINGTON, DE Governors Council.
SELECTING AND DESIGNING A QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Introduction to Quality Improvement: Karen Greer, MD, MPH Director, Ambulatory Pediatrics St. Barnabas.
Advanced Pay for Performance Presented to National Pay for Performance Summit Los Angeles California February 2006 DeMarcoHealth.com.
Sheryl Abelew MSN RN. Chapter 5 Initiating and Implementing Change.
Million Hearts® and Sodium: Best Practices and Opportunities August 22, :00pm - 3:00pm.
© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.