THCB

Categories

Above the Fold

Commentology: Actually, High-Tech Imaging Can Be High-Value Medicine

• 3

By Robert McNutt, MD & Nortin Hadler, MD

Our comments regarding this interesting blog,  and the comments to the blog, may seem tangential to the author’s points.

The blog and comments point, we think, to a confusing set of principles being considered, perhaps, out of context?

Those comments range from: ACOs will lead to better figuring out what is best (impossible) –  to mismatched information regarding a specific clinical case (reasonable).  What is striking is that we have medical students worrying about costs of care.

Instead, shouldn’t we be teaching them to understand the value of information for decision-making? Shouldn’t we be teaching them the concepts of co-dependent testing leading to all tests being less useful than we think?

Shouldn’t we be teaching students the concepts of decision-analysis, and thresholds, and patient’s being involved in the decisions? Shouldn’t we be teaching that it is better to know than to think we know? Shouldn’t we be doing studies rather than scratching at the “tragedy of the commons” (so many physicians feasting on the grassy fields of a sick patient)?

Continue reading…

The ACO Hypothesis: Farzad Mostashari Responds

• 7

By THCBist

Farzad Mostashari’s  post last week provoked a heated (to put it mildly) discussion between supporters and critics of the ACO model.

Farzad writes:

Commenters have raised several points regarding the early results of the Medicare Shared Savings Program that bear further discussion and clarification:

-The need for more details on the participants by name, along with their characteristics, actions, and outcomes.

I agree. We strongly encourage CMS to release more detailed information about the results of the program to date. As someone who’s been on the other side, I can attest however, that lack of transparency can occur despite the intentions of leadership, and even when there’s nothing to hide. CMS has taken great steps towards open data in recent years- unparalleled in its history (or in comparison to private sector payors and most states), but there is more work to be done to overcome institutional inertia, and concerns regarding the “privacy of providers”.

How is the MSSP different from an HMO?
A major similarity between managed care and “shared savings” programs is that physicians that make decisions about treatment, diagnostic, and referral options do have an incentive to reduce cost. I was trained in an era where we were not supposed to think about (or even be aware of) the cost implications of our care recommendations. I now believe that we need physician engagement in addressing the truly unsustainable rise in healthcare costs that threaten to bankrupt our nation.

However, policymakers have learned a few lessons from the backlash against managed care:

Quality Matters
Reducing cost cannot be the only outcome. In the MSSP, in the first year only can you qualify for savings simply by reporting quality measures. In future years, ACOs will have to not only reduce total cost but also perform well on measures of patient satisfaction, clinical quality, and utilization (such as ambulatory care sensitive admissions) to collect shared savings payments.

What about patient choice?
If the patient doesn’t like the care they’re getting, they can get care elsewhere. This is a sore point for many ACOs, especially those that have been successful in managed care arrangements, but the current regulations in no way limit patients’ ability to seek care elsewhere. MSSPs are required to notify patients that they have formed an ACO, and patients have the option of opting out of the sharing of their claims data with the ACO.

Shared Savings versus capitation
Finally, the MSSP program is indeed layered on top of fee-for-service payments (versus prospective payments/ capitation), and most MSSPs have opted for the “upside only” track for the first three years. We acknowledge that where the ACO includes a hospital sponsor, they must contend with “demand destruction” on their fee-for-service lines of business if they reduce procedures, admissions and emergency department visits. However, physician-led ACOs are not similarly encumbered, and this model provides them with a “safe” transitional path towards taking risk. It is also worth noting that “one-sided risk” during the riskiest early transition period would tend to reduce the likelihood of a physician having to choose between limiting needed care and going bankrupt.

Continue reading…

Can Hospitals Survive? Part II

• 29

By JEFF GOLDSMITH

In 1980, while working at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, I wrote an article for the Harvard Business Review entitled “The Health Care Market: Can Hospitals Survive?”. This article, and the book which followed, argued that hospitals faced a tripartite existential threat:

1)  ambulatory technologies that would enable physicians to compete successfully with hospitals at lower cost in their offices or freestanding settings, 2)  post-acute technologies that would enable presently hospitalized patients to be managed at home and 3) rapidly growing managed care plans that would “ration” inpatient care and bargain aggressively to pay less for the care actually provided.

I predicted a significant decline in inpatient care in the future, and urged hospitals to diversify aggressively into ambulatory and post acute services.   Many did so.  A smaller number, led by organizations like Henry Ford Health System of Detroit and Utah’s Intermountain Health Care, also sponsored health insurance plans and became what are called today “Integrated Delivery Networks” (IDN’s).

In the ensuing thirty years, US hospital inpatient census fell more than 30%, despite ninety million more Americans.   However, hospitals’ ambulatory services volume more than tripled, more than offsetting the inpatient losses; the hospital industry’s total revenues grew almost ten fold.

Ironically, this ambulatory care explosion is now the main reason why healthcare in the US costs so much more than in other countries.  We use far fewer days of inpatient care than any other country in the world.  But as the McKinsey Global Institute showed in 2008 ambulatory spending accounts for two thirds of the difference between what the US spends on healthcare and what other countries spend, far outstripping the contribution of higher drug prices or our multi-payer health financing system.

Continue reading…

Med School: Can the Lecture!

• 4

By James Salwitz, MD

Medical students frequently see patients with us in our office.   Their presence is welcome, if for no other reason than it makes us think young.

A second year student has been coming to our office for over a year and is excited about a future taking care of cancer patients.  She just completed the Hematology and Oncology section of lectures at the med school.  I asked her how it went.  “Frankly, “ she said, in the articulate way of the highly educated, “it sucked.”

I was astonished. How could such an exciting, complex and rapidly evolving field, yield teaching that would cause a motivated student to take such umbrage?   Too much information?  Too complex a topic?  Too much difficulty in the exams?  “No,” she said, it lacked “too” of anything.

It was not organized, not at the appropriate level, rambling and incomplete.  Without reviewing the critical information in texts and online, she would have learned little and the entire class would have failed the subsequent tests.

In a huff, wanting to assure that we not lose a crop of budding oncologists, I swore to find the cause of this didactic discord.  Surely, it must be possible to put together a set of clear, complete, cancer and blood lectures, so that the students were not only taught, but inspired.   Somehow, we would fix those lagging lectures.  But, then it occurred to me, why?

There are 141 medical schools in the United States, 2372 in the world. They teach 20,055 students in North America and hundreds of thousands around the globe.  In every school, every state, and country, they all teach about cancer.  In every school, cancer is the exact same disease.  On every continent, the possible treatments are the same. 

Therefore, why in the world do students listen to different lectures by different teachers on the exact same subject?

Why use the lecture hall format in medical school?  Why not find a few super-experts to write one perfect lecture, and then record that lecture one perfect time, given by a brilliant, inspiring, articulate educator (with translations)?

Continue reading…

Checking the ACA’s Vital Signs

• 2

By Evan Saltzman

Despite pervasive challenges associated with the rollout of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including the botched launch of HealthCare.gov and the concurrent wave of plan cancellations, the administration remains optimistic about the ACA’s fate.

However, critics of the ACA have seized upon these recent mishaps, particularly President Obama’s pledge that “if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan,” as evidence of the inevitable demise of the ACA.

In response to this political firestorm, the Obama administration decided to allow insurers to renew plans not complying with ACA regulations, subject to the approval of state health insurance commissioners.

Under the policy announced last November, plans failing to meet ACA standards could be renewed for one year starting as late as Oct. 1, 2014 (and hence could be continued until Oct. 1, 2015).

The extension announced last week allows individuals to keep such plans until Oct. 1, 2017.

Allowing people to keep plans out of compliance with the ACA could deprive the newly-created marketplaces, where lower- to middle-class families can receive subsidies from the government to purchase private individual coverage, of enrollees, particularly the young and healthy enrollees they need to make premiums affordable.

According to ACA critics, meager enrollment of the young and healthy in the marketplaces would lead to a death spiral, a self-reinforcing cycle of premium increases and enrollment declines that could spell doom for the system. Recent data released by the Department of Health and Human Services suggests that enrollment, particularly among young adults, has been lackluster, falling short of Obama administration targets.

Is a death spiral looming?  Our analysis suggests not.

Continue reading…

Crowdsourcing the Kaiser Permanente Center For Total Health

• 8

By THCBist

Our friends at Kaiser Permanente asked us reach out THCB readers for help with a cool crowdsourcing project. The Kaiser innovation team is working on developing new content for The Kaiser Permanente Center For Total Health , KP’s shiny new 16,000 square foot exhibition and meeting space in downtown Washington D.C.

If you’re close enough to make the trip, we highly recommend that you stop by and take an hour or so to poke around a bit before submitting your suggestions.  Failing that, you can take the online interactive tour here.

If you’re a doctor, a med student, a designer, an entrepreneur, a patient – or if you just have a good idea –  we’d like to hear from you.  KP’s innovation team asked us to ask you four questions. You can answer one or you can answer them all.

1.  What is Total Health? In other words, what is health? What’s important to you?

2. What should total health look like when implemented? What innovations can be used to drive change in the healthcare system? What will healthcare look like in the future?

3.How should total health be supported? What can be done to make healthcare better? Smarter?  Both within the healthcare system? And in our own lives?

4. If you were designing an interactive wall to demonstrate total health to visitors what would you focus on. In other words, if you were designing an exhibition what would it look like? What would your message be? What would help educate the public? How would you get that message across? Yes, you can send us an picture.

Answers can be left in the comment thread below. If you prefer to submit a video response via YouTube send the link to ed****@***************og.com. or paste in the comments below.  Blog posts should be submitted to THCB editors at ed****@***************og.com

For the interactive design question, we asked THCB’s editors what they’d like to see. Here’s what we came up with on the back of our paper napkin:

Continue reading…

Patientgate: Why Patient Recordings Will Change Everything

• 22

By Glyn Elwyn, MD

It’s 8.30 am, just before clinic opens. It is 2010. Dr Byte* checks an online forum, and something catches his eye.

A female patient is complaining about a doctor. Her posting has led to strident reactions from other doctors. Patients are taking her side. It looks ugly.

It turns out that the patient had asked her family doctor whether she could use her smartphone to record the encounter. Her doctor was apparently taken aback and had paused to gather his thoughts. He asked the patient to put her smartphone away, saying that it was not the policy of the clinic to allow patients to take recordings.

The patient described how the mood of the meeting shifted. Initially jovial, the doctor had become defensive. She complied and turned off her smartphone.

The patient wrote that as soon as the smartphone was turned off the doctor raised his voice and berated her for making the request, saying that the use of a recording device would betray the fundamental trust that is the basis of a good patient-doctor relationship.

The patient wrote that she tried to reason, explaining that the recording would be useful to her and her family. But the doctor shouted at her, asking her to leave immediately and find another doctor.

Some participants on the online forum expressed disbelief. But the patient then went on to state that she could prove that this had actually happened, because she actually had a recording of the encounter. Although she had turned off her smartphone, she had a second recording device in her pocket, turned on, that had captured every word.

Continue reading…

Misunderstanding Narrow Networks

• 18

By David Dranove & Craig Garthwaite

In a recent New York Times opinion piece, Obama advisor Ezekiel Emanuel attempts to ease the minds of millions of Americans who may be selecting narrow network plans in the exchanges.

In defending narrow networks, Emanuel cites the well-known example of Kaiser, which has for decades required enrollees to choose among only Kaiser-owned hospitals and Kaiser-employed physicians.

He goes on to propose some “safeguards” for plans in the exchanges such as mandating that insurers disclose the criteria used to establish their network of providers and requiring that insurers pay for second opinions from elite out-of-network providers.

Perhaps surprisingly given our previous commentary, we agree with the general thrust of Emanuel’s argument, which is that freedom of choice is overrated. And while we do not agree with many of his recommended safeguards, our quarrel today is not with his proposals for even more new rules and regulations.

Rather, our primary quarrel is with the vast majority of the individuals who chose to comment on, and often lash out at, Emanuel’s article. These comments are emblematic of the general misunderstanding of the role of narrow network plans in controlling the future growth of health care expenditures.

In a nutshell, this is the archetypal response against Emmanuel’s claim: “Evil insurers have given us narrow networks. The government must intervene in this bloodthirsty lust for profits. Give us freedom of choice! (And preferably with the government taking over the business of insurance altogether).”

Given previous comments on this site, we suspect that many readers of our blog might share similar sentiments. So we would like to take our readers on a stroll down memory lane to explain how insurers ended up creating networks, and why we are all better off for it.

Continue reading…

Congratulations, Doctor, On Your Federally-Subsidized “Hardship”

• 32

By Dan Haley

At HIMSS 2014, the health information technology’s (HIT) largest annual confab, the bestest-best news we heard from a policy perspective, and maybe even an industry perspective, was the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) dual announcement that there will be no further delays for either Meaningful Use Stage 2 (MU-2) or ICD-10.

Perhaps we should have immediately directed our gaze skyward in search of the second shoe preparing to drop.

As it turns out, CMS de facto back-doored an MU-2 delay by issuing broad “hardship” exemptions from scheduled MU-2 penalties. To wit: any provider whose health IT vendor is unprepared to meet MU-2 deadlines, established lo these many months ago, is eligible for a “hardship” exemption.

Few would disagree with the notion that it’s unproductive to criticize policy without offering constructive ideas to fix the underlying problems.

Here,  the underlying problem is easy to define: it is in point of irrefutable fact fundamentally unfair to penalize care providers for their vendors’ failings—especially when the very government proposing to penalize them put its seal of approval on the vendors’ foreheads to begin with.

CMS’s move to exempt providers from those penalties is correctly motivated, but it seeks to ease the provider pain without addressing its cause.

Instead of issuing a blanket exemption for use of unprepared vendors, CMS should:

  1. Waive penalties only for those providers who take steps to replace their inferior technologies with systems that can meet the demands of the 21st century’s information economy;
  2. Publish lists of health IT vendors whose systems are the basis for a hardship exemption, along with an accounting of how many of those 21 billion dollars have been paid to subsidize those vendors’ products; and
  3. Immediately initiate a reevaluation of the MU certification of any vendor whose products form the basis for a hardship exemption.

This proposal might seem bold, but if we’re truly looking to advance health care through the application and use of EHR, then what I’ve outlined above simply represents necessary and sound public policy. Current practice rewards vendors whose products are falling short by perpetuating subsidies for those products.

The federal government should stop paying doctors to implement health IT that cannot meet the standards of the program under which the payments are issued. That’s just a no-brainer.

An EHR should not be a federally-subsidized “hardship.”

Continue reading…

The ACO Hypothesis: What We’re Learning

• 31

By Farzad Mostashari, MD & Ross White

Last month, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reported first-year results from the Medicare Shared Saving Accountable Care Organization Program (MSSP).

As noted in a previous post, shifting to an accountable care model is a long-term, multi-year transition that requires major overhauls to care delivery processes, technology systems, operations, and governance, as well as coordinating efforts with new partners and payers.

Participants in the MSSP program are also taking much more responsibility and risk when it comes to the effectiveness and quality of care delivered.

Given these complexities, it is no surprise that MSSP’s first year results (released January 30, 2014) were mixed. The good news? Of the 114 ACOs in the program, 54 of the ACOs saved money and 29 saved enough money to receive bonus payments.

The 54 ACOs that saved money produced shared net savings of $126 million, while Medicare will see $128 million in total trust fund savings.

At the time, CMS did not provide additional information about the ACOs with savings versus those without.

While a more complete understanding of their characteristics and actions will be necessary to understand what drives ACO success, the recent disclosure of the 29 ACOs that received bonus payments allows us to offer some preliminary interpretations.

Continue reading…