Categories

Above the Fold

Northwestern Memorial Hospital Faces a Brave New World

If you have read my earlier blogs, you know that I am writing a book about the organization of healthcare delivery. A recent story in the Chicago Tribune reminds me that I need to keep my nose to the grindstone. The article told of changes underway at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. In order to prepare for new payment models, the medical staff and hospital want to create something along the lines of an Accountable Care Organization. The ACO will accept an “all-in” fee for treatment of specific conditions. The ACO makes money if it can keep costs under the fee and receives bonuses if quality objectives are met. The ACO model, or versions of it, have floated around for some time, and prepayment is certainly not new. What is new is that payers will now prepay for all costs associated with episodes of care, as opposed to prepaying hospitals for inpatient stays, or prepaying primary care physicians for a year of primary care.

The ACO model tries to better align the payment modality with the “product” that patients would naturally purchase. This should, in theory, lead to a matching of incentives with production. Hospital prepayment leads to a shift to outpatient care. Primary care physician prepayment leads to too much hospital care. Episode of illness prepayment should eliminate these gaming incentives.

Northwestern Memorial and its medical staff still face a dilemma. Should they create a new third legal entity to accept the prepayment, or should the prepayment go directly to the hospital or medical foundation? More importantly, should the hospital and medical foundation become partners in the new venture, or, more radically, unite into a single entity without creating the new entity? Healthcare executives have not always approached this question in the most thoughtful manner, as this short film painfully shows. (Painfully funny if you approach it with the right mindset.)

Integration has many positive connotations, and executives who create new integrated organizations can usually keep their boards at bay. This may explain why so many executives are eager to integrate. But integration comes with numerous challenges. It will take an entire book to make this argument clear, but consider the following two questions. First, what happens when physicians switch from being entrepreneurs to being employees? Second, accepting all-in capitated payments turns the ACO into a de facto insurance company. Will the ACO have the capabilities to be an effective insurer? I hope that Northwestern Memorial does not face the future with its eyes wide shut. Many hospitals have fared quite poorly by jumping on the integration bandwagon without understanding the risks.

David Dranove is the Walter McNerney Distinguished Professor of Health Industry Management at Northwestern University's Kellogg Graduate School of Management, where he is also Professor of Management and Strategy and Director of the Health Enterprise Management Program. He has published over 80 research articles and book chapters and written five books, including "The Economic Evolution of American Healthcare and Code Red". He has a Ph.D. in Economics from Stanford University.

The Massachusetts Connector: Success or Just a PR Coup?

With the passage of insurance exchange legislation in California, and the release of a template for state exchange statutes by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, many state eyes are turning towards the only existing exchange comparable to that required by PPACA: Massachusetts’ Connector.

The Connector, which offers Commonwealth Care subsidized coverage for those with incomes below 300 percent of FPL but not eligible for Medicaid, and Commonwealth Choice private plans for other families and individuals and small employer groups, has been touted as a major success by current and former Commonwealth officials and many national reform advocates.

But, after four years of operation, just how successful has the Connector really been? Has it simplified health plan choice and enrollment, increased the number of insured, reduced marketing costs, created competition, or driven down premiums? It turns out that the answers are far less positive than the Connector’s boosters have admitted.

HAS THE CONNECTOR SIMPLIFIED PLAN SELECTION AND ENROLLMENT?

For some, at least.

For the 33,000-enrollee unsubsidized CommChoice program the answer is yes. Health plan selection and enrollment for the seven plans (with six levels of benefits each) is directly available via the Connector website, with simple well-designed screens and navigation, and easy comparison of alternatives. Even so, only half of thepost-reform non-subsidized insured have chosen coverage via CommChoice.

Continue reading…

Letting the Data Flow, Part One

Making clinical data liquid permeated a series of events I attended last week during Health Innovation Week in San Francisco.  Monday and Tuesday found me at the HIE/REC conference. Wednesday was HealthCamp at Kaiser-Permanente’s Garfield Research Center (KP was extremely gracious in hosting this event and the opportunity to get a tour of the facilities prior to event kick-off was great). The week concluded with the annual and well-orchestrated Health 2.0 conference.

This first post will focus on the HIE/REC event as it was quite distinct from the other events: smaller audience, more staid, dominated by government officials and tied at the hip, for good and bad, to the existing healthcare system infrastructure.

The HIE/REC conference was an odd event with attendance hovering around 200 or so attendees.  The event was focused almost entirely on what the States are doing with the federal funds coming their way to establish Regional Extension Centers (RECs) whose main objective is to get priority primary care physicians (PPCPs) to adopt and meaningfully use a certified EHR. Now, having been to this event and heard many of the State REC initiatives that are now underway via this program, sad to say that my original opinion has not changed. Rather than picking preferred EHRs and assisting with deployment, these RECs may be better off just helping to these PPCPs understand exactly what the HITECH Act is, what are their options, what questions to ask of a vendor or service provider and leave it to EHR consultants and vendors to take it from there.

Continue reading…

Physician Report Cards: Don’t Shoot the Messenger

There is a BIG difference between the popular consumer/physician matching Websites such as: Vitals.com, RateMDs, Angies List, Healthgrades, Zagat and UCompareHealthcare (a NYTimes property), and the other initiatives in place to monitor physician performance as driven by hospitals, government and other payers and health plans. Soon, these differences will be merging with the more complex score cards from hospitals joining forces with the consumer tools.

OPPE (Ongoing Practice Performance Evaluation) and FPPE (focused Practice Performance Evaluation) are initiatives set in place by The Joint Commission (TJC), an arm of the American Hospital Association that accredits health care organizations. These initiatives are coming main stream to provide structured and frequent review of a hospital’s physician personnel. There is nothing new about these initiatives, (TJC has always been a follower in health care business intelligence), but soon ongoing reporting will be required by all and supplied by a variety of experienced commercial firms.

Private enterprise has been helping hospitals benchmark, profile and rate physicians on a broad spectrum of metrics relevant to specific acute service lines for decades. Of course mortality, length of stay, risk-adjusted complications rates, patient safety events and indicators, patient satisfaction, and a long list of Core Process Measures have all been part of that analysis. Progressive hospitals have been sharing this information with physicians, and for the most part physicians have accepted that the profiling analytics have done a good job of educating them on their performance. Medical Evaluation Committees have their hands full with information to help credential and reappoint physicians to hospital privileges, and a more informed dialog has been fostered.

Continue reading…

Patients 2.0 – The Growing Demographic of Networked Patients

In a ballroom at the Hilton Union Square in San Francisco last week, several hundred people shared ideas, debated, and painted a multi-faceted picture of the NewPatient: the networked patient.

The meeting was convened, in “unconference” style, in conjunction between the Health 2.0 Conference and Gilles Frydman, founding father of ACOR, the Association of Cancer Online Resources. Gilles knows a lot about the NewPatient: he’s organized people focused on cancer for over 15 years through his organization, which has helped tens of thousands of health citizens connect to clinical trials, researchers, information, and each other – all seeking to cure virtually every form of known cancer, and identifying forms unknown.

As Jeremy Shane of Health Central kicked off the meeting, he set the theme: this session was, “Not Meet the Parents, but Meet the Patients.” As Health Central sees 14 million visitors to its sites on a monthly basis, Jeremy has some knowledge about the NewPatient, too.

What makes an engaged patient, he has learned, isn’t based on a demographic such as age or gender or socioeconomic status, per se; what makes an engaged patient is a desire to understand her situation and a driving curiosity – in sum, a “need for cognition and understanding,” Jeremy contends.

Jeremy notes that the average search on health has grown from 4 words just a couple of years ago to 6.5 words today — a longer tail – because people are describing their unique situation and they want an answer to their own needs.

Continue reading…

Healthy Eats For Data-Hungry Doctors

Imagine that an innovative health plan – aware that half or more of health care cost is waste and that physician costs to obtain the identical outcome can vary by as much as eight fold – hopes to sweep market share by producing better quality health care for a dramatically lower cost. So it begins to evaluate its vast data stores. It’s goal is to identify the specialists, outpatient services and hospitals within each market that, for episodes of specific high-frequency or high value conditions, consistently produce the best outcomes at the lowest cost. Imagine that, because higher quality is typically produced at lower costs – there are generally fewer complications and lower incidences of revisiting treatment – the health plan will pay high performers more than low performers. Just as importantly, it will limit the network, steering more patients to high performers and away from low performers.

Suddenly, it will become very important for physicians and other providers to understand, in detail, how they compare to their peers within specialty, and how to provide the best care possible. And if they find the results aren’t so positive, they may want to figure out where their deficiencies lie, and how they can improve.

Now imagine that clinicians could easily view data about their patients and themselves.

  • Basic demographics: e.g. age, gender, length of time since last visit.
  • A problem list based on diagnoses within the past year.
  • A list of medications prescribed, including ordering physician, dates and fulfillment information.
  • A list of lab tests ordered, by physician and date.
  • A list of immunizations.

Suppose the clinician could review, revise or copy this information to create a lasting “patient profile,” saving it online and retrieving it for use at each subsequent visit as appropriate.

Continue reading…

Calling Dr. Berwick

On April 27, 2004, President George Bush signed Executive Order 13335 establishing the position of the National Health Information Technology Coordinator. Six years, a recession, a change of administration, a couple of major legislations and a multitude of billions of dollars later, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONCHIT) is finally on the road to delivering on the original vision behind that executive order.

The stated mission of ONCHIT, as reiterated in the HITECH Act, was the creation of a nationwide interoperable health information technology infrastructure that makes pertinent information available at the point of care, improves health care quality and coordination, reduces health care costs and disparities and does all that while protecting privacy and security.

While the 2004 executive order did not go into much operational detail, the HITECH Act provided instruction on the structure and strategy for building the HIT infrastructure. It is interesting to note that the HITECH Act is comprised of two Titles; Title XIII in Division A which outlines the activities expected from ONCHIT and Title IV in Division B which creates the Medicare & Medicaid stimulus incentives to eligible providers. The notorious “Meaningful Use” term appears only in Title IV and only as a prerequisite for stimulus incentives from CMS and is loosely defined by certified technology, electronic prescribing, information exchange and reporting on clinical quality measures.

Additional guidance is provided on the selection of clinical quality measures to be in accordance with Section 1890(a) of the Social Security Act, which awards CMS $10 million every year for contracting development of such measures. Meaningful Use seems a rather benign litmus test for CMS to administer prior to dispersing any stimulus incentives. So why is it that “Meaningful Use” became the defining substance of the ONCHIT mission?

Continue reading…

Too Many Promises

I don’t know what it is about public officials and Ponzi schemes, but the former finds the latter irresistibly attractive almost everywhere. Maybe it’s the fact that the law lets them get away with it. They get off scott-free when they do the very same thing that landed Bernie Madoff in the hoosegow.

Although national attention tends to focus on Social Security, Medicare and other unfunded federal obligations, many state and local governments are in far worse shape. As I explained at my blog the other day, post-retirement health care promises are the fastest growing component. I believe we are on the cusp of a spate of local bankruptcies. Although states cannot declare bankruptcy, they can default on their debt. In California, this seems almost inevitable.

Did you know that the average state has unfunded retiree benefits equal to more than one-fifth (22%) of the income of its residents? Seven states (Alaska, Ohio, Hawaii, New Jersey, New Mexico, Illinois and Kentucky) have unfunded obligations in excess of one-third of their states’ annual income. In Alaska, it’s about half (48%). Take Ohio, for example. The state needs 41% of one year’s income of its citizens right now — in the bank, earning interest — in order to fund its future obligations. And if it doesn’t do that this year, next year it will need even more.

Continue reading…

Health 2.0 Conference 2010: Day 2

Day 2 of the fourth annual Health 2.0 Conference started bright and early with three conversations with CEOs: John de Souza of MedHelp, Giovanni Collella of Castlight, and Jeff Arnold of Sharecare (which we saw demoed yesterday). The CEOs gave their takes on where their products stood in the changing healthcare world, and what they saw as challenges going forward—both for themselves and for others.

Two strong sessions about Tools and Unplatforms followed, highlighting and expanding on topics Indu and Matt had touched upon yesterday. “The Data Utility Layer” brought us a panel of heavy-hitters from the likes of Google, Kaiser, Microsoft and WebMD, while a series of demos showed off a variety of middleware services and products that promised powerful platforms for connecting data and services. “The Emerging Consumer Ecosystem” included an amusing (if occasionally awkward) play that showcased the interoperative power of apps from members of the Health 2.0 Accelerator. Unfortunately, although the concepts were impressive, both sessions seemed to feature products and presentations that didn’t quite live up to the spirit of Health 2.0—they lacked the compelling, human stories we saw yesterday, and suffered from a lack of attention to UI, language, and design.

Lunchtime brought the ever-popular Launch! session, which showcased ten brand new products from companies large and small: Axial Exchange exchange.com, Bill-Doctor.com, Breath Research, Castlight Health, HealthPrize, Mytrus, Univita, TeleThrive, Traitwise, and Trigeminal Solutions. The rapid-fire format gave us a look at some truly interesting new ideas across a wide spectrum of uses and users. At the end, the audience selected their choice for best product, which ended up being the previously-highlighted Castlight.

Continue reading…

assetto corsa mods