Introduction Every day and in every corner of the country, innovative health care leaders are conceiving of strategies and programs to manage their patients’ health, as an alternative to treating their sickness (see Figure 1).
The value-based contracts that have proliferated in this
country over the past decade and which now account for about half of the money
spent on healthcare allow these wellness investments to make good financial
sense in addition to benefiting patient health.
However, a phenomenon in health coverage in the US is
increasing costs, destabilizing care continuity and holding back the potential
of value-based care. It prevents us from making the long-term investments we
Churn refers to gaining, losing, or moving between sources of coverage. Every year, approximately a quarter of the US population switches out of their health plan. Reasons can be voluntary or involuntary from the perspective of the beneficiary (see Table 1) and vary from changes in job status, eligibility, insurance offerings, and preference, to non-payment of premiums, to unawareness of pending coverage termination.
At its April 4, 2019 meeting, the staff of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) asked the commission to discuss a very strange proposal: Doctors who treat patients enrolled in Medicare’s traditional fee-for-service (FFS) program must join an “accountable care organization” (ACO) or give up their FFS Medicare practice. (The staff may have meant to give hospitals the same Hobbesian choice, but that is not clear from the transcript of the meeting.)
Here is how MedPAC staffer Eric Rollins laid out the proposal:
“Medicare would require all fee-for-service providers to participate in ACOs. The traditional fee-for-service program would no longer be an option. Providers would have to join ACOs to receive fee-for-service payments. Medicare would assign all beneficiaries to ACOs and would continue to pay claims for ACOs using standard fee-for-service rates. Beneficiaries could still enroll in MA [Medicare Advantage] plans. (p. 12 of the transcript)”
first question that should have occurred to the commissioners was, Are ACOs
making any money? If they aren’t, there’s no point in discussing a policy that
assumes ACOs will flourish across the country.
only two of the 17 commissioners bothered to raise that issue. They asserted
that Medicare ACOs are saving little or no money. Those two commissioners – Paul
Ginsburg and commission Vice Chairman Jon Christianson – did not mince words.
Ginsburg said ACO savings were “slight” and called the proposal to push doctors
into ACOs “hollow” and premature. (pp. 62-63) Christianson was even more
critical. He said the proposal was “really audacious,” and that no “strong
evidence” existed to support the claim that ACOs “can reduce costs for the
Medicare program or improve quality.” (pp. 73-74) Ginsburg and Christianson are
correct – ACOs are not cutting Medicare’s costs when Medicare’s “shared
savings” payments to ACOs are taken into account, and what little evidence we
have on ACO overhead indicates CMS’s small shared savings payments are nowhere
near enough to cover that overhead.
Today, THCB is spotlighting Lightbeam Health Solutions. Lightbeam is an end-to-end population health management solution, which means they build everything from the ground up (i.e. no acquisitions or 3rd party interfaces are used). “Interface to innovation” as Jorge Miranda, CRO of Lightbeam, states, allows Lightbeam to build a health system’s value-based contracts relatively quickly. Their main focus is to generate data insights for ACOs and other provider systems, to engage care teams in the coordination of patient care. This is Lightbeam’s 6th year in the health care field, and with 100 customers and over 20 million patients in their enterprise data warehouse (EDW), they have no signs of slowing down.
Lightbeam has 4 main focuses: data ingestion, data insights, the engagement of the team with the data gathered, and the patient outcomes that result from that data. Lightbeam seeks to use their insights to empower care teams by giving the information back to the caregivers, physicians, and patients. According to them, this creates more transparency in the entire process as well as allows the patient and caregivers to play an active role in their health care process.
The ultimate value that clients (health systems or providers) receive from Lightbeam’s system is cutting costs and improving quality. Lightbeam does this by monitoring engagement numbers and patient outcomes based on the data and insights they gathered, ensuring costs savings for clients as well as an effective approach to cutting the high cost of care today. Lightbeam’s ultimate goal is to replace a manual process that is currently being done by multiple people and using multiple resources, to refocus the target on improving care for everyone involved in the health care system.
Zoya Khan is the Editor-in-Chief of THCB as well as an Associate at SMACK.health, a health-tech advisory service for early-stage startups.
Welcome back–and thank you for bearing with us while we figured out all the technical stuff transitioning the old THCB site to the new one! Hopefully this all looks familiar, but while the content is the same, under the hood everything is actually brand new.
We’ve made some simplifications, particularly having the “big 4” categories listed at the top of the page: Health Tech, Health Policy, Medical Practice & Health Care Business. The left margin has Videos (THCB Spotlight, WTF Health and Health in 2 Point 00), and our latest tweets from @THCBstaff below them. The right margin has room for our soon-to-come podcast “HardCore Health”, as well as 15 years worth of Archives and a place to sign up for our email newsletter, the THCB Reader.
If you want to comment and were previously registered, your registration should have carried over — login is on the top right. Of course you can still register in the same place (and yes, to stop spammers, you do need to do so in order to comment).
We will be adding new features and changing stuff around a little as we stretch our new technical legs! I hope you enjoy the new and improved THCB site — Matthew Holt
I’m thrilled to tell you that after a lot of work by Zoya Khan, Dan Kogan and his tech whizzes, there’ll be a new THCB site up on Monday. Hopefully you’ll notice the changes and think it’s an improvement!
But while we do the switch (to a new server, template, host, et al) the site will be down this weekend starting Friday night PT. So go outside and enjoy some fresh air and we’ll be back Monday morning! Thanks! — Matthew Holt
Jessica DaMassa interviews Paul Simms, the Chairman of eyeforpharma. Eyeforpharma are the “media moguls” when it comes to the Pharma industry. In order to innovate the industry, they are holding two different conferences this year to bring pharma leaders and health technology startups together to foster relationships and strategic partnerships with one another. Their first conference will be held in Barcelona in March, and the second one will be in Philadelphia in April.
Paul speaks to Jess about how health tech startups are maturing in their ways and realizing that health care is an institutionalized game, causing them to pivot their companies’ directions to fit that model. He also comments on how the pharmaceutical industry is trying to build strong relationships with particular startups to innovate their business practices, whether it be in R&D, drug discovery, or clinical research. Paul argues that the future of Pharma is more akin to a platform model, where pharma companies are not just limited to their internal capacity but are much more reliant on a larger ecosystem of moving parts that will help develop and grow the space. He also mentions that Pharma companies could really benefit from taking a page out of Google’s or Facebook’s business model which allows people to innovate and create their own content on these platforms. He further states that large B2C companies, like Amazon, will change the entire game of how people receive and curate their health insurance plans.
eyeforphrama’s conference theme is “medicine is just the beginning”. Paul and his team believe if they bring together specific groups of people, it will benefit the pharmaceutical industry in the short term as well as the long term. Paul believes that “Pharma companies need to have a wider portfolio of innovation that goes far beyond medicine, whether that is drug+plus a solution or without the pill at all.”Currently, Paul states, that the merging of pharma companies with other pharma companies is like having “s*x with your cousins” and believes that Pharma companies need to bridge out of their own space to keep up with the times. If you are a startup in this space, be sure to check out eyeforpharma’s upcoming conferences.
The opioid crisis in the United States is having a devastating impact on individuals, their families, and the health care industry. This multi-part series will focus on the role technology can play in addressing this crisis. Part one of the series proposed a strategic framework for evaluating and pursuing technical solutions.
A Framework for Innovation
As noted in part one of our series, we believe the opioid crisis is an “All Hands-On Deck” moment and health IT (HIT) has a lot to offer. Given the many different possibilities, having a method for organizing and prioritizing potential IT innovations is an important starting point. We have proposed a framework that groups opportunities based on an abstract view of five types of functionality. In this article we will explore the role of technologies that provide clinical decision support.
Sequels generally disappoint. Jason couldn’t match the fear he generated in the original Friday the 13th. The sequel to the Parachute, a satirical piece canvassing PubMed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing parachutes to placebo, matched its brilliance, and even exceeded it, though the margin can’t be confirmed with statistical significance. The Parachute, published in BMJ’s Christmas edition, will go down in history with Jonathan Swift’s Modest Proposal and Frederic Bastiat’s Candlemakers’ Petition as timeless satire in which pedagogy punched above, indeed depended on, their absurdity.
In the Parachute, researchers concluded, deadpan, that since no RCT has tested the efficacy of parachutes when jumping off a plane, there is insufficient evidence to recommend them. At first glance, the joke was on RCTs and those who have an unmoored zeal for them. But that’d be a satirical conclusion. Sure, some want RCTs for everything, for whom absence of evidence means no evidence. But that’s because of a bigger problem which is that we refuse to acknowledge that causality has degrees, shades of gray, yet causality can sometimes be black and white. Somethings are self-evident.
In medicine, causation, even when it’s not correlation, is often probabilistic. Even the dreaded cerebral malaria doesn’t kill everyone. If you jump from a plane at 10, 000 feet without a parachute death isn’t probabilistic, it is certain. And we know this despite the absence of rigorous empiricism. It’s common sense. We need sound science to tease apart probabilities, and grayer the causality the sounder the empiricism must be to accord the treatment its correct quantitative benefit, the apotheosis of this sound science being an RCT. When empiricism ventures into certainties, it’s no longer sound science. It is parody.