Categories

Above the Fold

QUALITY: More from HIT conference (Friday)

Today we’re going to tour the ballpark and have a go in the batting cage. But first…

Shorter Bob Pearl, CEO Permanente Medical Group: Our docs are convinced we care about outcomes. Other people’s docs (other IPA and med groups) have doubts.

Chronic care management is an IT intensive, patient outreach intensive, 24/7/365 process that’s really tough, but need a whole system. We have to track and predict bad incidents. One example is tracking bi-polar people every day in order to predict a manic incident. But the system needs to track all patients –those with chronic illness and those at risk of getting one (which is everyone else!). The system needs to track everyone all the time and find the failures, and report them out for both intervention and later analysis.

Right now 500K in the KP system are being watched by a care manager, but that 500K is not a static population — and they are trying to get them out of that system back to baseline. Everyone everywhere needs constant prompts and that’s where KP’s heading. (Implication is that every one else needs to get on board or they won’t be around…)

POLICY: What will turn the tide? by Atlas

Correspondent Atlas (who you may recall is the token right-winger on THCB)   writes regarding my question as to what will turn the tide regarding reform:

The pondering of what might start a proletarian revolution in health care sounds jarringly reminiscent of Lenin’s observation about Czarist Russia: "The worse, the better."

The reality is that most Americans are reasonably fat and happy with their healthcare, which is why the starry eyed Reds of the health care firmament (Dr. Angell et. al.) are always disappointed when the rage at the machine so fashionable among the chattering class don’t resonate with Red-land.

The real power behind the move to give big pharma and the rest of the healthcare sector, as you allude to in your post, is mean old big business–GM and the rest of the Fortune 500. One industrial titan’s revenue is another’s expense, and since big biz picks up nearly half the tab, they are leading the charge behind the scenes to cut that cost through the usual means–get government to pay for it, or outsource it to India.

Government is the other pincer putting the squeeze on the healthcare-industrial squeeze. Those of you who lament Bush II pay close attention and watch how the Administration uses clever cost cutting wolves in private sector sheep’s clothing to penetrate deep behind healthcare-industrial complex lines.

I’ll have you know there are some otherwise reasonably rational Republicans running around Congress waving bloody reimportation shirts. There are cheap votes to be had in this farce, and most of the Chamber will still respect you in the morning.

Most big business would like nothing more than to unload their healthcare costs on the government, which will then either tax and spend until the whole deck of cards collapses, or (much more likely) ration us into a Kafkaesque gulag system ala Great Britain or those envied denizens of the great white north who migrate south like birds in Fall should they actually need healthcare rather than the illusion of it gratis.

Sad but true, there is no free lunch. Would that there were. But no one works for nothing. Not even noble minded authors. And they are far less likely to be sued into oblivion for human faults than big pharma, hospitals, and the beleaguered medical profession, its ranks already projected to fall 20% short of projected demand by 2015.

Even now, why would any intelligent young person choose medicine over law? A good trial lawyer can make more in a year than a good doctor can make in a lifetime? So those who clamor for socialized health will have to rely on scholarly saints in a capitalist world, which will make the queues for healthcare even longer.

Nonetheless, there are legitimate problems that need to be solved and can be addressed without killing the geese that lay the golden eggs. Some of Kerry’s ideas and some of Hillary’s had merit. If we fully funded Medicaid and raised the eligibility limits, possibly by means testing Medicare and Social Security, I think a lot of the legitimately uninsured would be covered. But instead politicians waste time and political capital on stalking horses like reimportation. Let those who are serious–big business, big pharma, big government, organized medicine and hospitals and all the other players, purveyors, and payers–sit down at the table and make great compromises for the good of the people, instead of demagoguing  for political gain. Only serious candidates need apply.

TECHNOLOGY/QUALITY: A quickie on the DSM companies panel

This’ll be the last one today but it’s been an interesting conference. Some quick ones from the panel of DSM companies.

Carter Coberley from American Healthways likes neural nets to predict cost and therefore go for intervention early.

Frank Martin from I-Trax likes to tell people about the global cost of missing work through illness. Only 1/3 is health care cost, the rest is lost productivity and re-hiring costs. I-Trax has both the predictive bit and the onsite counselling and nursing services prosucing DSM.

Chris Selecky from Lifemasters wants to go for the intervention to the right person at the right time, using more and more sophisticated technologies–start with the high risk people, and then try to get to the people who are going to be sick, BUT they are held accountable for outcomes in only one year–so they have to be effective. Incidentally they are in-source and out-source, in that more case managers are using their system at customers than in their own centers. They are also trying to engage the patients.

I asked about the recent studies showing that it didnt save money. Chris Selecky’s response — people are buying it, and they wouldn’t if it wasn’t working (and she like Sam Nussbaum spent some time slagging off of the CBO report).

One of the biggest challenges is identifying a comparison. American Healthways did a controlled cohort with BCBS MN and showed a 14% PMPM improvement — the same as Anthem showed in the study that Sam Nussbaum showed at lunch. Plus Carter says DSM has an impact on standards of care for everyone else in an osmosis type of way.

QUALITY/TECHNOLOGY: Pay for performance in California

Next session is on P4P in California, where 6 health plans are busy running a P4P program via the Integrated Healthcare Association. (Presentations are linked)

At the moment (Lance Lang, HealthNet) it’s only 0.5% of the dollars for those participating groups, but there’s a lot going on in terms of work being done for that 0.5% and it’s heading to 1% next year and maybe up to 20% (?) by 2009. He thinks that they need to ensure that groups that are not deserving of a bonus get the message that they are not going to be around in the longer term unless they change.

Greater Newport Physicians IPA med director Doug Allen had three main points. Even though his IPA was at 90% in all the metrics, the amount they got from different health plans in bonuses varied 6-fold. So what are they supposed to do?

With the P4P dollars they have created and improved their data warehousing, but there’s nowhere near enough for an EMR. There’s no new money for investment here–the P4P is a variation of a whithhold. Plus some plans are starting to play politics by witholding some of the amount as a bargaining chip for other negotiations.

Finally, he’s (rightfully) concerned that the whole HMO-IPA model is under threat. Even if they can prove they’re better quality, employers are going to other types of health plan (e.g. high deductible PPOs). So this may all go down the tubes anyway? Or at least come under a lot of pressure if they can’t figure out a model to take P4P to the PPO or high deductible world.

In the Medicaid plan world in California, the San Francisco Health Plan did improve its health scores, even though there are no groups and no IT at the physician level. (Michael van Duren, SF health plan) They used direct member intervention (bribes) and direct physician intervention (more and bigger bribes. But it also required visiting the bigger providers (on the 80-20 rule to get at the most patients) face-to-face to get them to do immunizations, etc. To do the visits they are imitating drug reps’ sales tactics. They serve food, and they show the data very quietly, and then start working on improvement by showing them into the live data on the warehouse (online) — then they go down to individual patient data (claims of course). So the incentives get you in the door, but it’s showing the doctors the transparent data as a tool to make them change — and of course most of it is fixing the coding which was done wrong in the first place! Now the plan is doing direct bribes to the physicians’ staff. The provider relations people are entitled to authorize anything that works up to a few thousand dollars,to get them to get their data better (including hiring a low level analyst, but also getting their Internet connection up, etc, etc.)

Of course, as W might say, this is really hard work.

Jeff Flick from CMS thinks that we’re heading from 33% of Californian seniors in Medicare Advantage to 50-60%. (Havent we seen this movie before–the private plans didn’t like the endsing and ran out before the end last time.) He wants to drive it there because he thinks that provate Medicare plans are easier to get to provide better quality care. Also worried about the impact of PPOs. HSAs and other higher deductible plans on shredding the community rating aspecy (as Alain Enthoven said to me in a quick corridor conversation).

In addition the CMS Docket program (seems not to have a Googleable web presence which may be why it’s not so popular!) Doqit program (thanks for the correction, Catherine) helps poorer and smaller practices get into information age, although it has not had much of an uptake so far. He does think that there’ll be a tipping point when doctors get the tech. He also thinks that the chronic care demonstration projects are part of Pay for Performance as they do mandate improved quality, satisfaction and guarantee savings. He said it: "We think that we are going to be able to figure out what works for disease management in Medicare" and it can then go into the main program with no further legislation needed. But in addition to focusing on chronic care, they are focusing on end of life issues which are very expensive and these people are getting no help from intensive case managmenet, or consumer support programs for those people. CMS is going to do a national demonstration for intensive case management. These are all forms of P4P that he thinks have a bright future in Medicare.

Finally CMS is also trying to figure out how to make claims data be useful for measuring quality and performance. As you can’t pay for perfomance if you can’t measure it, but they are working on this. (Ed’s Note. Going down this road will, you might suspect, be tricky given the reputation claims have for accuracy). But they also have to work out the payment issue on the FFS side. From 2006 there’ll be reductions in fees for the next four years. He thinks this needs to be fixed, but how will this be fixed legislatively? His personal hunch (not CMS dogma) that the solution is to increase fees for those physicians with quality information (and the IT to support it) and not for the rest.

In response to me asking him if we hadn’t seen this movie before (Plans launch into Medicare Advantage; rates go down plans so plans quit Medicare)  Jeff says that the Rx benefit, risk adjustment and quality indicators will drive people into Medicare Aadvantage — but of course politics may change this (i.e. the way the BBA reduced payment rates) and he can’t say that it won’t.

TECHNOLOGY/QUALITY: DSM and IT at the HIT meeting

Shorter Sam Nussbaum (CMO Anthem) "DSM does work, really. But the baseline changes (sick people are not homogenous or constant–they also get better (or die). It’s worth about 14% on a PMPM basis across populations, but has an ROI of 2.85 to 1".

TECHNOLOGY: More HIT notes — barriers to EHR acquisition session

Brad Holmes from Forrester breaks up docs by age (under 44 makes them much more accepting of technology). Breaks up demand for software based on what docs want. Want ePresribing and charting, get Medicalogic (GE). Want diagnosis, use Next Gen. So you buy based on what you do. No one size fits all. BUT PMS systems revenues going down, EMR applications are taking off and 2004 will cross the line of PMS revenue

Blackford Middleton (ex Medicalogic, these days at Partners Healthcare in Boston) has worked out the cost-benefit model for rolling out their "LMR". Now used by 3500 of their 7000 affiliated physicians. The biggest impact is for drug savings, by using the on-formulary drugs. For CPOE there are levels; most basic is structuring data capture, second is providing some patient data, third is decision support based on algorithms and the patient record. Partners has the most advanced, and the result is that per provider saves up to 9 ADEs per year and costs savings of up to 28K per year per provider. Most valuable ones have by far the most impact ($28K per year vs $3k). For systems capitated at 14% they think this will cost solo providers a whole lot, and only save money for big groups. BUT Of all the benefits, only 11% go to the physicians. The rest goes to everyone else in the system, primarily the payers.

Gloria Austin from Brown and Toland, a 100% capitated group in San Francisco is just getting their EMR modules up (and now have lab data online) by working with affiliated hospitals, etc , etc. It’s an interesting talk (although her charts suck for readability) but I think it’s mostly irrelevant to most physicians in the US. But they are focused on implementing the EMR by concentrating on providing the physicians with the benefits, and creating the infrastructure foundation to do that. This process started for B&T in 2000 and its taken them till now to get it up. What is it costing them? $8m in first 4 years and another $10-12m going forward. Using IDX Flowcast and Allscripts Touchcast (because they were already using them and the integration was easier) plus you can import this into the Business Intelligence tool they use (Cognos). And in a nutshell this is really, really hard work, and costly organizationally to do. But she believes that you can create a seamless group that looks like a Palo Alto clinic, or a Kaiser.

Blackford said it, in reply to a question from me….there are potential operational improvements for small and solo docs (not just savings to capitated systems) but we have a major public policy problem getting these physicians to the table. And (he didn’t say) no real answers.

TECHNOLOGY: More on HIT

In the response and Q&A to Brailer, we’re told that adoption can happen in small offices and by PCPs. But CMS in California has been handing out some incentives for smaller groups (something called the Docket program) and only 256 out of 15,000 PCPs have so far expressed an interest. As the guy from CMS region said, this is disappointing.

Now the conversation has veered off as to whether we should all use the VA system (Vista). Come on people, the reason that doctors don’t use EMRs is not because the software costs too much or hasn’t been any good. In countries where they do use it a) the government paid for it all (including the hardware) and b) they were told they had to use it!

TECHNOLOGY: Live blogging from HIT conference

I’m at SBC Park in the bar (really!), the Wi-Fi is free and my lap top is propped on one of those big barrels of Coke cans and somewhere in the distance David Brailer is telling us that the US will exceed the achievements of those more centralized (code for socialized) systems. He thinks electronic records will happen but he’s a little less optimistic about inter-operability. No money, no mechanism and no demand for it. I’d agree that it sounds like there’s not much market for it, although there’s a hug amount of value from doing it. He calls this the "first-mover disadvantage". Like the first guy with a fax machine….

OK, Brailer’s just done. He mentioned the RFI released on Monday that is to get at the nitty gritty of the basics behind the NHIN (national health information network).  Is this pure peer to peer? Is it regionally based.

He also talked about the Regional health exchange networks (RIOs).  There are some 25 now, some 12 Federally supported.  But he is counseling against a government solution — "this is the same government that brought you HIPPA!"

He also said that if we get the EMR at the bedside but we don’t get interoperability, then we might make the problem worse.  But then he laid out all the reasons why inter-operability wont happen. I don’t think that he’s as optimistic as he thinks he is.

assetto corsa mods