Presentation on theme: "Innovations In Health Care Delivery Tuesday, March 8, 2011 W Hotel Washington Washington, DC Susan Dentzer Editor-in-Chief Health Affairs."— Presentation transcript:
Innovations In Health Care Delivery Tuesday, March 8, 2011 W Hotel Washington Washington, DC Susan Dentzer Editor-in-Chief Health Affairs
Health Affairs thanks these organizations for their support of today’s briefing and the “Innovation Profiles” featured in the March 2011 issue of the journal:
David Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.P. National Coordinator for Health IT U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Innovations in Health Care Delivery: From Patchwork to Quilt Anne-Marie J. Audet, MD, MSc VP Health System Quality and Efficiency Program The Commonwealth Fund
Defining our Terms: Innovation From Latin Innovatus, Innovare :“To renew or change," from in- "into" + novus "new". Innovation can therefore be seen as the process that renews something that exists and not, as is commonly assumed, the introduction of something new.
High Performance Health System Attributes and Functionalities* Patients' clinically relevant information is available to all providers at the point of care and to patients through electronic health record systems. Patient care is coordinated among multiple providers, and transitions across care settings are actively managed. Providers (including nurses and other members of care teams) both within and across settings have accountability to each other, review each other's work, and collaborate to reliably deliver high-quality, high-value care. Patients have easy access to appropriate care and information including after hours; there are multiple points of entry to the system; and providers are culturally competent and responsive to patients' needs. There is clear accountability for the total care of patients. The system is continuously innovating and learning in order to improve the quality, value, and patients' experiences of health care delivery. Source: A. Shih, K. Davis, S. Schoenbaum, A. Gauthier, R. Nuzum, and D. McCarthy, Organizing the U.S. Health Care Delivery System for High Performance, The Commonwealth Fund, August 2008
Common Themes Convenience sample Variety of settings (context) – Health Systems, Health Plans, Hospitals, Physician Networks, FQHCs, Professional Societies, States Assessment according to logic model of change (Prochaska Behavioral Model) – Knowledge of problem: A+++++ – Tools (innovations): B – Motivation (Incentives, Will): F
Common Themes Identify, know, segment and ongoing close engagement with population (McLuhan’s “The medium (cold vs hot) is the message”) Prioritize primary and preventive care – health and healthcare Multi-disciplinary, accountable team care Performance improvement infrastructure Maneuver within payment and regulatory environment Evolutionary process of change over time (4 or more years) Urgent need for data about impact on Three Part Aim
Ears to the Ground: Know Thy Population and Standardize Person Tailoring Jo-Ann Lynn’s Bridges to Health Model (young healthy, disabled, stable chronic conditions, unstable, end-of-life) Innovations and programs tailored to prevalence of disease, disease burden Segment - high need, low need Standardized tailoring – Bellin’s pyramid access cascade model MyChart patient portal Community-based His Health and Her Health programs Employer-based clinics Fast Care Clinics – retail – Cambridge Health Alliance – MyChart (parents and kids); high touch-low touch segmentation – Clinica Family Health Services (CO)- people measure their own BP at time of visit Open door philosophy, connect to population – often and variety of methods
10 Practice Has Arrangement for Patients’ After-Hours Care to See Doctor/Nurse Percent Source: 2009 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians.
11 Percent AUSCANFRGERNETHNZNORSWESWIZUKUS Has ed medical question to regular doctor or place of care in past two years Can make an appointment via or Web site at regular place of care Online Access at Regular Place of Care Source: 2010 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey in Eleven Countries. Base: Has regular doctor/place of care.
Accountable Care Teams All sites profiled created multidisciplinary teams Accountability at core of team supported by IT to allow just-in-time sharing of information around an entire care plan – Aurora Acute Care for Elder Tracker on E-Geriatrician – Cambridge Health Alliance registry shared by all providers, school based clinics, community-based health workers – GRACE: web-based care plan shared by NP, SW, geriatrician, pharmacist, PT, community resource expert Need for more robust data on cost of these models of care – VT Community Health Teams – 5 FTEs serve 20K population; $350K per year – Martin’s Point teams went from 4.3 employee per MD to 6 per MD – Healthcare Partners – Comprehensive Care Center Program saves $3,500 per hospital day avoided, redirected to support program
Practices Use Nonphysician Clinical Staff for Patient Care Percent reporting practice shares responsibility for managing care, including nurses, medical assistants Source: 2009 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians.
Primary Care is Really Prime Primary care as core value and expected outcome is health not just health care But this entails “system” approach for cross continuum care services – New business model for acute care settings – Successful systems are able to align financial incentives Mercy Health System working with Keystone Mercy Health Plan HealthCare Partners Medical Group - partial or full risk capitation Clinica Family Health Services costs per visit $167, Medicaid pays $155 Performance improvement infrastructure to support practice – Healthcare Partners Medical Group (CA, NE, Fl): “Comprehensive Care Center Program – teams concentrate on stabilizing patients and supports MD practices in taking care of more patients with more intense needs post discharged (45min vs 15 min visits) – VT ITE – Blueprint Central Registry; training practices; web of connection (e.g. heat assistance->medical home referral) – GRACE model – home assessment team – Shared services models (TA, workforce): private/public support
Extrinsic Motivation Examples of financial models: – FFS + PMPM Medical Home Supplement – Risk sharing: Risk-adjusted capitation Global payment Consistent evidence of barriers to innovations: antiquated payment methods and regulations – Successful systems able to move away from volume and service- based payment – Balanced payment models that includes rewards based on quality and efficiency – Allows flexibility in care design – FFS environment prohibitive to sustainability and spread of innovations Professionalism, recertification, professional boards (e.g. AAP)
16 Financial Incentives and Targeted Support Percent can receive financial incentives* for: AUSCANFRGERITANETNZNORSWEUK US High patient satisfaction ratings Achieving clinical care targets Managing patients w/ chronic disease or complex needs Enhanced preventive care activities** Adding non-physician clinicians to practice Non-face-to-face interactions with patients *** * Including bonuses, special payments, higher fees, or reimbursements. ** Including patient counseling or group visits. *** Question not asked in Italy survey. Source: 2009 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians.
From Patchwork to Quilt: Spreading Success Local to National One Community at a Time? Boom Towns Evangelical Epicenters Military Bastions Service Worker Centers Campus and Careers Immigration Nation Minority Central Tractor Community Mormon Outposts Emptying Nests Industrial Metropolises Monied Burbs What is the typology of communities, regions underlying health care system spread strategies? Geography is not sufficient, market characteristics are important, what are other determinants that will be key to spread? Patchwork America Project illustrates subtle, yet significant differences among communities in the US, that affect numerous cultural, political, consumer behaviors. Do these also affect behaviors related to health and health care?
Learning In Order to Spread and Get Results Strategy to identify promising innovations Pawson and Tilley’s approach: emphasize the “why” and not only the “what” works or does not work – “Experimentalists have pursued too single-mindedly the question of whether a social program works at the expense of knowing why it works.” – CMO vs OXO approach Criteria to determine whether the innovation is worth evaluating with goal of spread – Flexibility of adoption in various settings – Requirements for effective adoption How much disruption will be entailed Need for regulatory or other significant changes to allow spread Not every innovation will succeed – How much are we willing to spend – ROI (20% in technology)
From Patchwork to Quilt: What is on the Horizon Payment reform (2003 Leatherman et al HA paper Business Case for Quality) – now a reality Workforce – National Health Care Workforce Commission; Funding for Title VII and Title VIII programs to educate and train primary care physicians and other health professionals Innovation and improvement infrastructure (RECs, QIOs, etc) Data needs – more timely, all payers Longer term horizon for impact with short term expected targets CMMI – promising programs – Mission to identify, validate and scale models that have been effective in achieving better outcomes, but may be relatively unknown. – Eight States selected to participate in the Multi-Payer Advanced Primary Care – Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration will evaluate the impact of this care model on access, quality and cost of care provided to low- income beneficiaries served by these facilities
Christopher A. Langston, Ph.D. Program Director The John A. Hartford Foundation
Sean Cavanaugh Director, Provider Contracting and Reimbursement, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Reflections on Innovation David N. Gans, MSHA, FACMPE Vice President, Innovation and Research Medical Group Management Association
Reflections On the Articles Patient-centered care reduces the total cost of services, while improving quality and patient satisfaction. Savings come from fewer ED visits, less hospital admissions, and shorter lengths of stay, but... With increased expenses to the provider due to increased staff, the application of new technologies, and having to re- engineer workflow.
Key Themes in Innovation and Health Care Delivery Change is not easy. Care plans often combine clinical treatment with “Lifestyle Medicine” –managing the patient’s nutrition, stress, and activity level to improve total health status. Fee-for-service payment does not necessarily consider the costs associated with these innovations.
Increased Administrative Complexity Must Be Addressed Quality and performance measures are unique to each insurance payer and need to be standardized Practice management systems do not fully support data reporting The “Patient Centered Medical Home” has three different organizations setting requirements: the NCQA, AAAHC, and the Joint Commission
A Final Thought on Innovation in Care Delivery We are confronted with insurmountable opportunities. - Walt KellyWalt Kelly
Neil S. Fleming, Ph.D., C.Q.E. Vice President, Health Care Research Baylor Health Care System Dallas, Texas, USA Study Authors: Fleming NS, Becker ER, Culler SD, McCorkle, R, and Ballard, DJ Contact: The Financial and Nonfinancial Costs of Implementing Electronic Health Records in Primary Care Practices
Study Description Funded by: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality R-03 grant Purpose: To quantify the financial and nonfinancial (time and effort) costs of electronic health records (EHRs) in primary care practices to inform stakeholders Setting: 26 HealthTexas primary care practices as part of the Baylor Health Care System, (in North Texas) implementing the electronic health record between June 2006 and December 2008, tracking 120 days prior to launch and 60 days after Methods: interviews with key personnel, documents, calendars, s, and payroll information Study groups: HealthTexas network implementation team, practice implementation team, and end-users with diverse skills and expertise that are carefully coordinated
Results Time and effort are non-financial costs Network implementation team expends hours and $28k per practice Practice implementation team expends 130 hours and $7,857 End-users expend hours and $10,325 per physician Hardware costs: one-time infrastructure purchases are $25k per practice and $7k per physician Software and maintenance costs: licensing, hosting, networking, and technical support for first 60 days are $2,850 and $17,100 per year Total costs: $32,409 per physician and $162,047 in a 5- physician group from launch through first 60 days
Conclusions Financial Alignment is needed between those stakeholders paying for EHRs and those receiving potential benefits Some economies of scale can be achieved with larger practices due to variable nature of some costs Strategies are needed to support and coordinate the diverse set of medical and technical skills required to ensure successful implementation of EHRs and physician satisfaction
More Than Four In Five Office- Based Physicians Could Qualify For Federal Electronic Health Record Incentives Brian Bruen, 1 Leighton Ku, 1 Matthew Burke, 2 and Melinda Buntin 2 1 George Washington University 2 Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology NOTE: Commentary is the authors’ opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.
HITECH Incentives To qualify: – Any Medicare patients – At least 30% Medicaid patient volume More lenient criteria for pediatricians, also clinicians in community health centers and rural health clinics Must demonstrate “meaningful use” of certified EHR technology Get Medicare OR Medicaid, not both
Office-Based Physicians Potentially Eligible For HITECH Incentives And Using Electronic Health Records (EHRs), 2007–08 SOURCE Authors’ calculations based on combined 2007–08 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys. NOTE HITECH is Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health.
Highlights from Findings Incentives should greatly accelerate use of electronic health records – 4 out of 5 office-based physicians could qualify, if they achieve meaningful use Incentives are well-targeted, but certain groups of physicians are more likely to be excluded – pediatricians, psychiatrists, obstetrician-gynecologists
Policy Responses Monitor gaps in eligibility, use Pro-rate eligibility for Medicaid incentives Assist solo practitioners, smaller practices in adopting systems and achieving meaningful use – Government (e.g., ONC) and private roles (e.g., insurers, foundations)
The Benefits of Health Information Technology: A Review Of The Recent Literature Shows Predominantly Positive Results Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin Director, Office of Economic Analysis, Evaluation and Modeling, Office of the National Coordinator, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Director, Office of Economic Analysis, Evaluation and Modeling, Office of the National Coordinator, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Purpose To update policy makers, innovators, health IT users, and those contemplating adoption about health IT’s effects on care delivery and provider and patient satisfaction
Methodology Used framework from two previous reviews (Chaudhry et al and Goldzweig et al. 2009), to identify health IT literature from July 2007 up to February For inclusion, an article must address a relevant aspect of health IT examine its use in clinical practice include quantitative or qualitative outcomes
Outcomes Addressed and Conclusions Reached
Findings Over 92 percent of the studies reached conclusions that were generally positive. Studies emerging from traditional health IT leaders (e.g. Kaiser, the VA) are no more robust in their study design or positive in their conclusions Studies examining provider satisfaction are more likely to have negative findings.
How the Affordable Care Act Can Help Move States Toward A High- Performing System of Long-Term Services and Supports By Susan C. Reinhard, Enid Kassner and Ari Houser March 8, 2011
Characteristics of a High- Performing LTSS System Support for Family Caregivers Ease of Access and Affordability Choice of Settings and Providers Quality of Care and Life Effective Transitions and Organization of Care 43
State LTSS Scorecard States will be ranked on five dimensions that approximate the five characteristics of a high- performing LTSS System. Scorecard will call attention to state variation and put each state’s performance into context. Scorecard will provide a mechanism to track progress in years to come. 44
High Performing LTSS system is composed of characteristics of a high performing LTSS system that are approximated in the Scorecard by dimensions based on available data each of which is constructed from Individual indicators that are interpretable and show variation across states Creating a State LTSS Scorecard 45
The Affordable Care Act’s Role Offer States “Carrots” to Support Improvements in their LTSS Systems Balance Types of Services Establish a Singe Point of Entry Improve Coordination and Transitions 46
ACA Opportunities to Promote Scorecard Measures Ease of Access: –Expanding Aging and Disability Resource Centers –Balancing Incentives Payment Program Choice of Settings: –Community First Choice –Money Follows the Person 47
Palliative Care Consultation Teams Cut Hospital Costs For Medicaid Beneficiaries R. Sean Morrison, Jessica Dietrich, Susan Ladwig, Timothy Quill, Joseph Sacco, John Tangeman, Diane E. Meier Mount Sinai School of Medicine (New York) Center to Advance Palliative Care (New York) National Palliative Care Research Center (New York), University of Rochester Medical Center (Rochester), Bronx-Lebanon Hospital (New York) Center for Hospice and Palliative Care (Cheektowaga)
Background Patients with serious or life-threatening illness account for a disproportionately large amount of Medicaid spending Palliative care, when provided alongside disease directed care, has been shown to reduce symptoms, improve quality of life, reduce family burden, and prolong survival This study was performed to examine the effect of palliative care teams on hospital costs for Medicaid beneficiaries
Palliative Care: A Definition Interdisciplinary specialty that aims to relieve suffering and improve quality of life for patients with advanced illness and their families. Palliative care is provided simultaneously with all other appropriate medical treatment. Distinct from hospice care which is medical care toward the end of life devoted exclusively to palliation
As Illness Progresses… An Increasing Emphasis on Palliation
Methods Retrospective analysis of hospital administrative and cost-accounting data Sites: Four structurally diverse urban New York State hospitals in one large and two mid-size cities All sites had mature palliative care consultation teams Adult Medicaid beneficiaries with advanced illness receiving palliative care were matched by propensity score to usual care patients Calendar years GLM and multivariable logistic regression models used to analyse results
Palliative Care and Cost Outcomes *P<.05, † P<.01 ‡ P<.001. N/A = not applicable
Cost/Day For Patients Discharged Alive
Implications Hospital costs among Medicaid beneficiaries were significantly lower when they had consultations with the palliative care team Palliative care team consultations may reduce expenditures, while helping to ensure quality care consistent with patient wishes, for hospitalized Medicaid beneficiaries. New payment mechanisms aimed at improving quality and efficiency would benefit from inclusion of palliative care teams.
Health Affairs thanks these organizations for their support of today’s briefing and the “Innovation Profiles” featured in the March 2011 issue of the journal: