Impact of the Vatican's Universal Translation of Faith, Catholic Owned Health Care Facilities and State Legislation on Health Care for Women
The triad of the new stricter Vatican rules for interpretation of Catholic protocols, the trend toward Catholic organizations purchasing non-Catholic hospitals, and the furor over the proposed women's health standards for the 2014 health insurance exchanges have made this a topic which must be revisited. In order of appearance here are the players:the Vatican, Swedish Health Services, and the State of Mississippi.
Vatican Rules on a Universal Translation for Catholics
Beginning November 27, 2011, the Vatican has issued another edict which attempts to tighten the interpretation of the Catholic faith, by mandating a single universal translation of the faith. The church hopes to reign in the more liberal interpretation which is prevalent in the United States and other western countries. Though one might think this only affects Catholics, not-so-fast, it affects all Catholic Church owned enterprises, including hospitals and schools, which serve an interfaith community and that brings us to our next player.
Swedish Health Services Acquiescence to the Catholic Entity Providence Health
Counter-intuitive to the trend of Catholic hospitals purchasing non-Catholic facilities throughout the United States, the secular hospital group, Swedish Health Services has acquired Providence Health Services hospital and clinics. However, what is most interesting about this transaction is the Pope still got his way, as the deal is subject to his approval, and he has mandated a line-item-veto on the secular facility’s ability to provide abortions. One could understand a Catholic hospital which did not wish to provide abortions, but Swedish is a secular institution and it is acquiring Providence. Though Swedish has indicated this wouldn’t have a huge impact on the service for women in the Puget Sound area of Washington State, they did not have any public hearings about this reduction in service. Clinically, there are cases where women may require a hospital facility for an abortion, but that doesn’t seem to matter here. At least in the Seattle area there are other secular facilities which will provide the service. It is important to note that the Vatican has specifically addressed the elective abortions, which can include victims of rape or incest. I am sure these women consider their legal health concerns to be paramount and hardly “elective.” Apparently there is no due process required if it concerns female reproductive rights, even in the highly secular community of Seattle, where Swedish is based. The fact that we have allowed our health care practice to be determined by a celibate male from another country offends not only me, but also the majority of residents.
According to a 2005 report by Catholics for a Free Choice , there are 60 Catholic health care systems located in all 50 states in the United States. One of the concerns about Catholic hospitals is do they restrict health services? This question applies not only for reproductive rights, but also for advanced medical directives for patients who wish to die without certain medical interventions. According to a 2006 survey by Pew Research Council, 70% of Americans felt that patients should sometimes be allowed to die, 70% also indicated they would rather die at home, than in a prolonged artificially extended manner in the hospital. Only 22% of those polled said that life should be prolonged using extraordinary measures. The majority of Americans shun the loss of dignity while being kept alive mechanically, but would a Catholic hospital respect their wishes? The nonprofit group Catholics for a Free Choice, states that Catholic hospitals do restrict health care services based on the edicts of the Vatican via the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care. It should be obvious that non Catholic patients as well as Catholics may disagree with these practices, so it behooves the patient to verify any service restrictions in policy and in practice in advance of treatment in a Catholic facility. Unfortunately, for many people in America this is not an option, as the only hospital in their area may be a Catholic institution, which has an impact on end-stage-of-life-care and other health services decisions.
Mississippi is Close to Defining Life as at the Point of Conception
Previously I have written about my 50-state analysis of the 2010 health care mandates for the regional insurance purchasing cooperatives, including the incendiary furor over women’s reproductive autonomy. Not to be outdone in its leap to the dark ages, the State of Mississippi is close to passing a law which defines human life as beginning at the moment of conception. Needless to say, this will be a sticky wicket when it comes to actually, catching-someone-in-the-act. The personhood law, if it passes will make it a crime for a woman to obtain an abortion at all, as the life of the fetus will supersede that of the woman who is already alive and kicking. Additionally, this “chastity belt” would also outlaw the use of certain birth control devices, including IUD’s which are intrauterine devices that allow fertilization but prevent embryo attachment to the uterine wall. Of course, the morning after pill would not be allowed either. Going a step further than just the birth canal, the destruction of any in vitro fertilized eggs would also be a crime.
The proposed law certainly cuts a wide swath across those who are fertile and those who may have fertility challenges. This state could potentially institutionalize pregnant women to enforce delivery and likewise for rape victims or incest victims. More to the point, for those fertile lasses who have already had several children while using various birth control measures, and decide they cannot afford more children, they would become criminals. It will be interesting to see how this one winds its way through the courts, if it passes the legislature.
Lest you want to write off Mississippi as an rogue state, Colorado attempted to pass similar legislation in 2008, which thankfully failed. In fact, Personhood USA is based in Colorado and is the backer for the Mississippi bill. Additional states who are considering personhood laws to circumvent the 1973 Roe versus Wade ruling that confirmed constitutionality for a woman to have an abortion prior to the fetus’s ability to live outside the womb include; Arkansas, Montana, Nevada, and Oklahoma.
From this vantage point there is no end-in-sight for the pitch back to the dark ages for women in the United States. I can almost see the black hole from here.
On a more personal note, I expect my book, Unraveling U.S. Health Care to be available within the first quarter of 2012 and yes, it is OK to say FINALLY. Anyway, thanks for reading and I hope you continue to review and comment on my musings.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
Reducing Health Care Costs By Improving Primary Health Care
How Primary Care Reduces Health Care Costs in the Long Run
Now that the teeth gnashing over health care reforms has been ongoing for two years, before the lifelines are cut on financing health care for the forty-nine million uninsured population, let’s examine the health care continuum for the impact of a failure-to-fund the health insurance subsidies. One of the things that is missing from many discussions and assertions about the 2010 U.S. health care reforms are which systems need to be changed in order to reduce the long term cost of American health care. And when I say reduce, I mean reduce the cost increases in providing health care to an aging population. It is essential the U.S.A. get the per-capita cost of its health care in-line with other nations, as it gobbles funds that could be used for education, capital investments for industry, and other economy building activities. The country will need to make substantial investments in k-12 education as well as building a more energy efficient infrastructure to have a chance at competing with global leaders for competitive contracts, as Germany and other countries have done. This article addresses the components of American health care that are impacted by the 2010 mandates and what it means for managing patient care over a lifetime.
Perspective
Rather than thinking of health care as a commodity that deserving people get, for those who have worked where it is provided by an employer or who qualify for Medicare by virtue of accumulating enough quarters of eligible earnings, or military personnel, please consider it a part of the national infrastructure for a moment. A healthy population is necessary to obtain optimal output from workers, students, and for the care of our families. The provision of health care may be considered a utility. Utilities are measured by their output, the efficiency of their output, and the cost of producing the service. Measuring quality across the United States health care system, which is disparate and complex, is a major challenge in building higher efficiency into American health care.
Measuring Health
From the moment we are born until we die, we are introduced to various aspects of health care in the U.S. system. Even from birth, we do not provide the same level of care to all pregnant women, nor do all babies have the same chance of surviving their first year in America. In my book, Unraveling U.S. Health Care, I researched all fifty states for health metrics, including infant mortality statistics and in one area of the country, infant mortality was as poor as it is in developing countries (12.6 deaths per 100,000 babies for the District of Columbia) Only in a hand full of states was the infant mortality rate equal to European standards, of 5 or fewer deaths per 100,000 infants. Health care workers do understand and are alarmed about this dramatic difference in a basic health care outcome in the country; however, it seems much of the population is uninformed. A basic measurement for health is infant care and reducing the chance of infant death.
Another health care measure is degree of healthy living, as measured by the DALE or Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy, which measures the number of years an American can expect to live healthily, able to move around, and do their activities of daily living. In other words, how many years you can expect to be reasonably free of impairment from chronic disease. The World Health Organization, developer of this index ranked Japan as the number one country for living longest in good health to an average age of 74.5 in the year 2,000. Though the earthquake and tsunami disaster may have some impact on this in the future, the Japanese have a national health care system designed to provide primary care for their population. The United States ranked below all other developed nations in these criteria, with a Dale index of 70 years. Women are expected to be healthy to age 72.6 (true in my Mom’s case), and American men are only healthy to age 67.5. Wake-up call for boomers born in 1957 or later, you are not eligible for full Social Security benefits (under current standards) until age 67, so guys, just about the time you are expected to lose your quality of life.
The ability to live free of chronic disease is an indication of the effectiveness of a health care system and how it identifies population needs and deploys successful interventions. The U.S. health care system has been less focused on primary care, largely because clinician reimbursements and the high cost of medical school have driven more practitioners into specialty care, which treats disease, but is not geared for prevention of chronic disease. One of the provisions of the 2010 health care reforms is the Medical Home provision in Medicare, which attempts to correct the primary care problem by paying clinicians more to be the primary care provider. This concept is a start in the right direction, but as a nation we need to have more health care incentives for primary care, which prevents chronic diseases from birth through life expectancy. Only through this process can we hope to reduce the incidence and associated costs, both social and economic of chronic disease like Type II Diabetes, hyper tension, and heart disease.
Cost of Delaying Treatment
As cited above, the United States had the poorest score for healthy life expectancy of any industrialized country, literally at the bottom, yet we spend 25% more than any other country in the world. The only way we are going to be able to change this result is to build efficiency into health care delivery and improve basic preventive and primary care.
Arguments about a person’s right to health care miss the Titanic-size glacier that pummels U.S. hospital systems, which is EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment Act which requires all hospitals to treat patients, regardless of their ability to pay for services. States with huge uninsured populations, like Texas, with over 25% lacking any insurance , and half of those people are working for employers who do not provide any medical insurance . Not only do those people lack access to primary care, they appear at the hospital emergency department in advanced stages of chronic disease, which must be treated. This is not an effective way to deliver health care as a nation. Hospitals are designed to treat the acutely ill, not to provide primary care. Much discussion has occurred around the health care safety net for the nation, which directly addresses the ability of these hospital systems to continue to provide free care and pass those un-reimbursed charges on to full paying customers, enrolled in private sector health care plans.
Pass-Through Costs in the Health Care System
To those who complain about providing health insurance for the uninsured, a significant portion of the insurance premium these individuals already pay is based on reimbursing hospitals for under payment serving the uninsured and to a lesser extent, Medicare and Medicaid patients. By deferring treatment in the form of primary care, the nation has elected to force these folks to develop worse chronic disease conditions, which are more expensive to treat, and result in premature death from preventable conditions. In health care, treating a patient earlier in the care continuum is best clinically and economically and this is the direction the nation needs to go. For all of the caterwauling about health insurance rate increases, if there is any hope of stabilizing these impacts, it must be driven by increasing patient access to early and consistent primary care. Further, to those who object to paying a portion of their taxes for the provisions of health care, you are already doing so, by paying more than any other country for your health insurance and the administration of your health care. A better question would be how can we reduce the cost of health care overall? Should be continue to have employers contributing to health care financing or go the European route of having the individual be responsible? And finally, health insurance is a financing tool and not a delivery system for health care. We need to improve how we provide basic health care, including disease surveillance, continuity of care for those with chronic disease, and assurance of quality care throughout the country, not just for the lucky few who live close to centers of excellence.
Moving Forward
The 2010 health care mandates attempt to address these concerns in a number of ways, including improving access to primary care by subsidizing health insurance purchasing for small businesses and individuals and thus increasing the number of people who have health insurance and thereby the ability to obtain care. The Medical Home provisions are a start to addressing the access problem that seniors have with Medicare, which pays so little to doctors providing the care. And the Accountable Care Organization standards will pay health care systems more money for high quality patient outcomes in targeted areas for Medicare. FYI, changes in Medicare become a part of the private sector as well, so health care reporting of patient outcomes for Medicare, will also be reflected in the rest of the nonmilitary (Veterans Administration has its own health care system)population. None of these components of the 2010 reforms will go away, but further wrangling will continue on standardization of care for the health insurance purchasing cooperatives and the insurance purchasing subsidies. In a worst case scenario congress may choose not to fund the subsidies to help people buy medical insurance, which would of course result in tax penalties on all of the private sector who decide they cannot afford to buy the insurance. But then again the United States is famous for its unfair tax policies which tax the poor and middle-class much more than the wealthy. Just remember any deferment of health care access and treatment now will result in more serious chronic diseases later, which we will pay for, by increased hospital charges apportioned across the private sector insurance payers and higher costs for government health care programs.
This article was written by Roberta E. Winter, MHA, MPA an independent health care consultant and journalist and may be reprinted with her permission.
Now that the teeth gnashing over health care reforms has been ongoing for two years, before the lifelines are cut on financing health care for the forty-nine million uninsured population, let’s examine the health care continuum for the impact of a failure-to-fund the health insurance subsidies. One of the things that is missing from many discussions and assertions about the 2010 U.S. health care reforms are which systems need to be changed in order to reduce the long term cost of American health care. And when I say reduce, I mean reduce the cost increases in providing health care to an aging population. It is essential the U.S.A. get the per-capita cost of its health care in-line with other nations, as it gobbles funds that could be used for education, capital investments for industry, and other economy building activities. The country will need to make substantial investments in k-12 education as well as building a more energy efficient infrastructure to have a chance at competing with global leaders for competitive contracts, as Germany and other countries have done. This article addresses the components of American health care that are impacted by the 2010 mandates and what it means for managing patient care over a lifetime.
Perspective
Rather than thinking of health care as a commodity that deserving people get, for those who have worked where it is provided by an employer or who qualify for Medicare by virtue of accumulating enough quarters of eligible earnings, or military personnel, please consider it a part of the national infrastructure for a moment. A healthy population is necessary to obtain optimal output from workers, students, and for the care of our families. The provision of health care may be considered a utility. Utilities are measured by their output, the efficiency of their output, and the cost of producing the service. Measuring quality across the United States health care system, which is disparate and complex, is a major challenge in building higher efficiency into American health care.
Measuring Health
From the moment we are born until we die, we are introduced to various aspects of health care in the U.S. system. Even from birth, we do not provide the same level of care to all pregnant women, nor do all babies have the same chance of surviving their first year in America. In my book, Unraveling U.S. Health Care, I researched all fifty states for health metrics, including infant mortality statistics and in one area of the country, infant mortality was as poor as it is in developing countries (12.6 deaths per 100,000 babies for the District of Columbia) Only in a hand full of states was the infant mortality rate equal to European standards, of 5 or fewer deaths per 100,000 infants. Health care workers do understand and are alarmed about this dramatic difference in a basic health care outcome in the country; however, it seems much of the population is uninformed. A basic measurement for health is infant care and reducing the chance of infant death.
Another health care measure is degree of healthy living, as measured by the DALE or Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy, which measures the number of years an American can expect to live healthily, able to move around, and do their activities of daily living. In other words, how many years you can expect to be reasonably free of impairment from chronic disease. The World Health Organization, developer of this index ranked Japan as the number one country for living longest in good health to an average age of 74.5 in the year 2,000. Though the earthquake and tsunami disaster may have some impact on this in the future, the Japanese have a national health care system designed to provide primary care for their population. The United States ranked below all other developed nations in these criteria, with a Dale index of 70 years. Women are expected to be healthy to age 72.6 (true in my Mom’s case), and American men are only healthy to age 67.5. Wake-up call for boomers born in 1957 or later, you are not eligible for full Social Security benefits (under current standards) until age 67, so guys, just about the time you are expected to lose your quality of life.
The ability to live free of chronic disease is an indication of the effectiveness of a health care system and how it identifies population needs and deploys successful interventions. The U.S. health care system has been less focused on primary care, largely because clinician reimbursements and the high cost of medical school have driven more practitioners into specialty care, which treats disease, but is not geared for prevention of chronic disease. One of the provisions of the 2010 health care reforms is the Medical Home provision in Medicare, which attempts to correct the primary care problem by paying clinicians more to be the primary care provider. This concept is a start in the right direction, but as a nation we need to have more health care incentives for primary care, which prevents chronic diseases from birth through life expectancy. Only through this process can we hope to reduce the incidence and associated costs, both social and economic of chronic disease like Type II Diabetes, hyper tension, and heart disease.
Cost of Delaying Treatment
As cited above, the United States had the poorest score for healthy life expectancy of any industrialized country, literally at the bottom, yet we spend 25% more than any other country in the world. The only way we are going to be able to change this result is to build efficiency into health care delivery and improve basic preventive and primary care.
Arguments about a person’s right to health care miss the Titanic-size glacier that pummels U.S. hospital systems, which is EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment Act which requires all hospitals to treat patients, regardless of their ability to pay for services. States with huge uninsured populations, like Texas, with over 25% lacking any insurance , and half of those people are working for employers who do not provide any medical insurance . Not only do those people lack access to primary care, they appear at the hospital emergency department in advanced stages of chronic disease, which must be treated. This is not an effective way to deliver health care as a nation. Hospitals are designed to treat the acutely ill, not to provide primary care. Much discussion has occurred around the health care safety net for the nation, which directly addresses the ability of these hospital systems to continue to provide free care and pass those un-reimbursed charges on to full paying customers, enrolled in private sector health care plans.
Pass-Through Costs in the Health Care System
To those who complain about providing health insurance for the uninsured, a significant portion of the insurance premium these individuals already pay is based on reimbursing hospitals for under payment serving the uninsured and to a lesser extent, Medicare and Medicaid patients. By deferring treatment in the form of primary care, the nation has elected to force these folks to develop worse chronic disease conditions, which are more expensive to treat, and result in premature death from preventable conditions. In health care, treating a patient earlier in the care continuum is best clinically and economically and this is the direction the nation needs to go. For all of the caterwauling about health insurance rate increases, if there is any hope of stabilizing these impacts, it must be driven by increasing patient access to early and consistent primary care. Further, to those who object to paying a portion of their taxes for the provisions of health care, you are already doing so, by paying more than any other country for your health insurance and the administration of your health care. A better question would be how can we reduce the cost of health care overall? Should be continue to have employers contributing to health care financing or go the European route of having the individual be responsible? And finally, health insurance is a financing tool and not a delivery system for health care. We need to improve how we provide basic health care, including disease surveillance, continuity of care for those with chronic disease, and assurance of quality care throughout the country, not just for the lucky few who live close to centers of excellence.
Moving Forward
The 2010 health care mandates attempt to address these concerns in a number of ways, including improving access to primary care by subsidizing health insurance purchasing for small businesses and individuals and thus increasing the number of people who have health insurance and thereby the ability to obtain care. The Medical Home provisions are a start to addressing the access problem that seniors have with Medicare, which pays so little to doctors providing the care. And the Accountable Care Organization standards will pay health care systems more money for high quality patient outcomes in targeted areas for Medicare. FYI, changes in Medicare become a part of the private sector as well, so health care reporting of patient outcomes for Medicare, will also be reflected in the rest of the nonmilitary (Veterans Administration has its own health care system)population. None of these components of the 2010 reforms will go away, but further wrangling will continue on standardization of care for the health insurance purchasing cooperatives and the insurance purchasing subsidies. In a worst case scenario congress may choose not to fund the subsidies to help people buy medical insurance, which would of course result in tax penalties on all of the private sector who decide they cannot afford to buy the insurance. But then again the United States is famous for its unfair tax policies which tax the poor and middle-class much more than the wealthy. Just remember any deferment of health care access and treatment now will result in more serious chronic diseases later, which we will pay for, by increased hospital charges apportioned across the private sector insurance payers and higher costs for government health care programs.
This article was written by Roberta E. Winter, MHA, MPA an independent health care consultant and journalist and may be reprinted with her permission.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Improving Health Care at Hospitals
Methods for Improving Health Care in the Hospital
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have required hospitals to start reporting on quality criteria for reimbursement consideration as early as 2012, based on 2010 health care reforms. Major changes that clinicians and hospitals must conform to include:
Value-based Purchasing-This provides greater reimbursement with an emphasis on better clinical outcomes, starting in 2013.
Risk-Adjusted Reimbursement-This accounts for higher risk patients with multiple conditions and gives the doctor a higher fee to manage their care than previously, effective in 2014.
Reduced Payments for Hospitals with Excessive Re-admission Rates-This is a penalty for poorer performance and is effective in 2013 for hospitals who do not perform within certain guidelines for specific diagnoses.
This article reviews a report commissioned by The Commonwealth Fund to analyze some of the things the top performing hospitals, who submitted to quality surveys by the independent quality watch dog nonprofit, Leapfrog Group, are doing to improve clinical care and efficiency at their facilities.
Case Study Criteria
This information was drawn from case study analysis of 4 hospitals out of the top 13 hospitals in Leapfrog's Highest Value Hospital criteria using their 2008 survey data. Standards reviewed included short lengths of stay and low readmission rates for the following cardiac procedures; CABG, PCI, and AMI, in addition to pneunomia. The case study review was conducted by Jennifer Edwards, Sharon Silow-Carroll, and Aimee Lashbrook in a report entitled, Achieving Efficiency: Lessons from Four Top Performing Hospitals and was published as a Synthesis Report for the Commonwealth Fund in July 2011.Hospitals included in the report are Fairview Southdale Hospital in Edina, Minnesota,Park-Nicollet Methodist Hospital in Minneapolis, Minnesota, North Mississippi Medical center in Tupelo, Mississippi, and Providence St. Vincent's Medical center in Portland, Oregon. These hospitals scored high in at least three of the four criteria and were recognized as high value hospitals. The Commonwealth Fund commissioned the study in order to assess what hospitals were doing to create high quality outcomes with low resource investments, in other words, producing good results for less money. Here are the top factors influencing high patient quality outcomes at hospitals, listed in order of precedence:
Full-time Quality Assessment Departments
All four hospitals have full-time quality development, measurement, and compliance departments, but the difference between the best scoring facilities and the medium hospitals was how they trained their staff to solve quality problems as a part of their job. This includes clinical and nonclinical staff that assess performance improvement processes. At Fairview Southdale, every department director is required to sponsor at least two initiatives to improve clinical quality and produce a minimum of $60,000 in savings yearly.
Matrix Management Models Enhance Fluid Organizational Changes
In the top hospitals, executives with more fluid organizational roles rather than hierarchical, were able to make systemic adjustments more readily. Matrix operational models support management changes based on organizational links impacting outcomes rather than chain-of-command methods.
Increased Use of Hospitalists as Patient Care Coordinators
All four of these hospitals used hospitalists to coordinate inpatient care rather than "on-call" physicians. These full-time clinicians make patient assessments and provide greater continuity of patient care, making it easier to measure and track patient health. It is easier to implement standards of practice changes with full-time employees than independent contractors. Notably, the Accountable Care Organization criteria looks at reduced hospital re-admissions when rewarding hospitals with higher payments.
Engaging Staff: Quality Improvement is the Responsibility of Everyone
North Mississippi Medical Center, a recipient of the Malcolm Baldridge Award for Quality, solicits all its employees for ideas on process improvement and in 2008, 37% of those were implemented. This process is reinforced through recognition and incentives. Staff empowerment is also one of the measures for the Baldridge Award. St, Vincent's Hospital in Portland, Oregon created a new model to increase staff engagement, called self-governance or one-team-many-hands approach, which gives all staffers representation in hospital decision making.
Information Systems Supporting Patient Care
St. Vincent's and Fairview Southdale are part of integrated systems where patients can request medications on-line, facilitate non emergency health assessments, and schedule appointments. It is much harder for nonintegrated health systems to offer these tools, but here are some of the creative things these facilities have done with technology to improve patient care:
1. An electronic bed board for optimizing facility space and accommodating patients.
2. Patient discharge systems for streamlining patient processes when leaving the facility.
3. An internal alert process when a unit is close to capacity so other departments can handle the back fill.
4. Fairview Southdale uses wireless technology to allow ambulances to send electrocardiograms to the hospital when a patient is enroute, which reduces patient care time by twenty minutes.
Standardization and Simplification
All four hospitals had processes to eliminate unnecessary redundancies, reduce patient slow downs, and stop errors. Something as simple as a defined protocol for assigning a bed for a patient eliminated slowdowns. And in health care, minimizing delays means patients obtain care quicker and financially the facility is able to optimize its resources for all patients. St. Vincent's uses a staggered staffing system to avoid shift change down time.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Demonstration Projects
Here is a brief list of health care demonstration projects through CMS:
Global Capitation Payments-This is a project which is in five states and attempts to address the hospital safety net, which is the extent hospitals serve the poor and uninsured, and it runs from 2010 to 2012.
Medicare Shared Savings-
Medicaid Children's Health Insurance Shared Savings Program-Like the adult shared savings program.
Bundled Medicaid Demonstration Projects-This reviews episodes of care in a hospital and other settings, is deployed in eight states, and runs from 2012 to 2016.
Bundled Medicare Payments-This is a method of enhancing primary or Medical Home provisions to increase clinician reimbursement for patient care.
In closing, all of the selected hospitals were part of health systems, where benchmarking and resourcing services are readily available, which could be problematic for community hospitals lacking these resources. Still, these four stellar hospitals provide creative solutions for managing patient care on a budget, in urban and suburban settings.
It was excruciating to sequester myself to write this article when it is the peak of the Pacific Northwest nirvana weather, so I thank those of you who are going to read it tomorrow morning when it posts. My service to you is reducing the 25 page report down to less than 2 pages. This is the healthpolicymaven signing off in 78 degree air with 56% humidity.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have required hospitals to start reporting on quality criteria for reimbursement consideration as early as 2012, based on 2010 health care reforms. Major changes that clinicians and hospitals must conform to include:
Value-based Purchasing-This provides greater reimbursement with an emphasis on better clinical outcomes, starting in 2013.
Risk-Adjusted Reimbursement-This accounts for higher risk patients with multiple conditions and gives the doctor a higher fee to manage their care than previously, effective in 2014.
Reduced Payments for Hospitals with Excessive Re-admission Rates-This is a penalty for poorer performance and is effective in 2013 for hospitals who do not perform within certain guidelines for specific diagnoses.
This article reviews a report commissioned by The Commonwealth Fund to analyze some of the things the top performing hospitals, who submitted to quality surveys by the independent quality watch dog nonprofit, Leapfrog Group, are doing to improve clinical care and efficiency at their facilities.
Case Study Criteria
This information was drawn from case study analysis of 4 hospitals out of the top 13 hospitals in Leapfrog's Highest Value Hospital criteria using their 2008 survey data. Standards reviewed included short lengths of stay and low readmission rates for the following cardiac procedures; CABG, PCI, and AMI, in addition to pneunomia. The case study review was conducted by Jennifer Edwards, Sharon Silow-Carroll, and Aimee Lashbrook in a report entitled, Achieving Efficiency: Lessons from Four Top Performing Hospitals and was published as a Synthesis Report for the Commonwealth Fund in July 2011.Hospitals included in the report are Fairview Southdale Hospital in Edina, Minnesota,Park-Nicollet Methodist Hospital in Minneapolis, Minnesota, North Mississippi Medical center in Tupelo, Mississippi, and Providence St. Vincent's Medical center in Portland, Oregon. These hospitals scored high in at least three of the four criteria and were recognized as high value hospitals. The Commonwealth Fund commissioned the study in order to assess what hospitals were doing to create high quality outcomes with low resource investments, in other words, producing good results for less money. Here are the top factors influencing high patient quality outcomes at hospitals, listed in order of precedence:
Full-time Quality Assessment Departments
All four hospitals have full-time quality development, measurement, and compliance departments, but the difference between the best scoring facilities and the medium hospitals was how they trained their staff to solve quality problems as a part of their job. This includes clinical and nonclinical staff that assess performance improvement processes. At Fairview Southdale, every department director is required to sponsor at least two initiatives to improve clinical quality and produce a minimum of $60,000 in savings yearly.
Matrix Management Models Enhance Fluid Organizational Changes
In the top hospitals, executives with more fluid organizational roles rather than hierarchical, were able to make systemic adjustments more readily. Matrix operational models support management changes based on organizational links impacting outcomes rather than chain-of-command methods.
Increased Use of Hospitalists as Patient Care Coordinators
All four of these hospitals used hospitalists to coordinate inpatient care rather than "on-call" physicians. These full-time clinicians make patient assessments and provide greater continuity of patient care, making it easier to measure and track patient health. It is easier to implement standards of practice changes with full-time employees than independent contractors. Notably, the Accountable Care Organization criteria looks at reduced hospital re-admissions when rewarding hospitals with higher payments.
Engaging Staff: Quality Improvement is the Responsibility of Everyone
North Mississippi Medical Center, a recipient of the Malcolm Baldridge Award for Quality, solicits all its employees for ideas on process improvement and in 2008, 37% of those were implemented. This process is reinforced through recognition and incentives. Staff empowerment is also one of the measures for the Baldridge Award. St, Vincent's Hospital in Portland, Oregon created a new model to increase staff engagement, called self-governance or one-team-many-hands approach, which gives all staffers representation in hospital decision making.
Information Systems Supporting Patient Care
St. Vincent's and Fairview Southdale are part of integrated systems where patients can request medications on-line, facilitate non emergency health assessments, and schedule appointments. It is much harder for nonintegrated health systems to offer these tools, but here are some of the creative things these facilities have done with technology to improve patient care:
1. An electronic bed board for optimizing facility space and accommodating patients.
2. Patient discharge systems for streamlining patient processes when leaving the facility.
3. An internal alert process when a unit is close to capacity so other departments can handle the back fill.
4. Fairview Southdale uses wireless technology to allow ambulances to send electrocardiograms to the hospital when a patient is enroute, which reduces patient care time by twenty minutes.
Standardization and Simplification
All four hospitals had processes to eliminate unnecessary redundancies, reduce patient slow downs, and stop errors. Something as simple as a defined protocol for assigning a bed for a patient eliminated slowdowns. And in health care, minimizing delays means patients obtain care quicker and financially the facility is able to optimize its resources for all patients. St. Vincent's uses a staggered staffing system to avoid shift change down time.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Demonstration Projects
Here is a brief list of health care demonstration projects through CMS:
Global Capitation Payments-This is a project which is in five states and attempts to address the hospital safety net, which is the extent hospitals serve the poor and uninsured, and it runs from 2010 to 2012.
Medicare Shared Savings-
Medicaid Children's Health Insurance Shared Savings Program-Like the adult shared savings program.
Bundled Medicaid Demonstration Projects-This reviews episodes of care in a hospital and other settings, is deployed in eight states, and runs from 2012 to 2016.
Bundled Medicare Payments-This is a method of enhancing primary or Medical Home provisions to increase clinician reimbursement for patient care.
In closing, all of the selected hospitals were part of health systems, where benchmarking and resourcing services are readily available, which could be problematic for community hospitals lacking these resources. Still, these four stellar hospitals provide creative solutions for managing patient care on a budget, in urban and suburban settings.
It was excruciating to sequester myself to write this article when it is the peak of the Pacific Northwest nirvana weather, so I thank those of you who are going to read it tomorrow morning when it posts. My service to you is reducing the 25 page report down to less than 2 pages. This is the healthpolicymaven signing off in 78 degree air with 56% humidity.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Consumer Tips for Surgery
One of the chapters in my book, Unraveling U.S. Health Care, which is a guide to the health care system, addresses surgery and tips on how to vet your surgeon and find the optimal facility.
Finding a Surgeon
The best web site for researching surgical specialties is the American College of Surgeons, which allows consumers to look up surgeons by specialty and location. The web site for this is: www.facs.org.
Hospital Safety Rankings
Secondarily, it is worth your while to review hospital patient safety ratings before deciding on the facility. Methods to discern patient safety ratings of hospitals include reviewing the published information on www.leapfroggroup.org, by going to the 2010 hospital survey and looking up your state and the targeted hospital. Another method is to go to the federal Health & Human Services Agency web site for comparing hospital performance. It allows you to look at multiple hospitals at once. The web address for this is http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov. and the site was recently updated to make it easier for consumers to use.
Reporting of Hospital Medical Errors
Another important aspect of doing your due diligence before undergoing surgery is reviewing patient medical errors and whether or not your state shares this information with the general public. Let me save you the time on this one, as I have reviewed all fifty states and the District of Columbia and the only states which required public reporting of hospital medical errors impacting patient safety were: Minnesota,Connecticut, and Indiana, The following states collect the data but do not necessarily make it readily available to the public or the data is not facility specific: Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming. I will also mention California, but they have been criticized for not complying with a state law on the reporting of hospital patient safety data. Scarier still is the 2005 Montana Law that has been dubbed the "I'm Sorry Law" giving health care providers additional protections for adverse patient safety events. Though Montana is rural and retention of some clinicians may be an issue, it is still of concern when in 2003, they repealed the requirement for a statewide health database and now clinicians are given more protections than patients.
In terms of preparing for any surgical procedure, it is most important to select the surgeon and the facility, but also to verify the accuracy of the diagnosis, so getting second opinions are a good method if you have any doubt. However, given today's digital imaging, it is much easier to see clear images of tumors and other issues than in 1993 when I had my first big surgical event. So verification of the diagnosis is key.
Once the diagnosis is determined,the treatment plan needs to be discussed and planned. Adverse events, post surgical recovery, and rehabilitation need to be considered in any plan. I suggest using a healthy level of detachment and planning your surgery like a project.
Presently an agent is reviewing my consumer opus: Unraveling U.S. Health Care: A Guidebook to the Complex and Confounding U.S. Health System. I hope to have the publishing path decided soon and of course, I will keep you posted.
Ending with my usual penache the healthpolicymaven suggests that having surgery done at a local facility, one where it is easier for friends to visit, or with a clinician you like are not enough evidence to support a decision potentially involving your health and well being. Take the time to look up the data, as reviewed by independent third party nonprofit organizations or a government agency under the Health & Human Services arm.
And finally, to the douchebag patients who criticize surgeons for not giving them a back rub and serving as their psychologist, that is not his or her job. They are skilled at cutting you up and putting you back together quickly and with low margin for error, so forgive them if they took the cram course in bedside manner. For oncologists, whose relationship with patients is typically long-term the consultative manner of the M.D. is more important. Having had a few surgeries myself, I do not go into the operating theater thinking I am special, but I realize I am one of many in the sea of humanity and many whiny consumers would do well to consider this perspective. It doesn't mean you take less care in your research, preparation, or recovery from your surgery, it just means, have a little consideration for the brilliant hard working medical staff, especially the surgeons.
For an advanced peek at my guide to the health care system, you can read part of it on:http://www.authonomy.com/books/24823/unraveling-u-s-health-care-everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-health-care-but-were-afraid-to-ask/
And this is your healthpolicymaven signing off.
Finding a Surgeon
The best web site for researching surgical specialties is the American College of Surgeons, which allows consumers to look up surgeons by specialty and location. The web site for this is: www.facs.org.
Hospital Safety Rankings
Secondarily, it is worth your while to review hospital patient safety ratings before deciding on the facility. Methods to discern patient safety ratings of hospitals include reviewing the published information on www.leapfroggroup.org, by going to the 2010 hospital survey and looking up your state and the targeted hospital. Another method is to go to the federal Health & Human Services Agency web site for comparing hospital performance. It allows you to look at multiple hospitals at once. The web address for this is http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov. and the site was recently updated to make it easier for consumers to use.
Reporting of Hospital Medical Errors
Another important aspect of doing your due diligence before undergoing surgery is reviewing patient medical errors and whether or not your state shares this information with the general public. Let me save you the time on this one, as I have reviewed all fifty states and the District of Columbia and the only states which required public reporting of hospital medical errors impacting patient safety were: Minnesota,Connecticut, and Indiana, The following states collect the data but do not necessarily make it readily available to the public or the data is not facility specific: Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming. I will also mention California, but they have been criticized for not complying with a state law on the reporting of hospital patient safety data. Scarier still is the 2005 Montana Law that has been dubbed the "I'm Sorry Law" giving health care providers additional protections for adverse patient safety events. Though Montana is rural and retention of some clinicians may be an issue, it is still of concern when in 2003, they repealed the requirement for a statewide health database and now clinicians are given more protections than patients.
In terms of preparing for any surgical procedure, it is most important to select the surgeon and the facility, but also to verify the accuracy of the diagnosis, so getting second opinions are a good method if you have any doubt. However, given today's digital imaging, it is much easier to see clear images of tumors and other issues than in 1993 when I had my first big surgical event. So verification of the diagnosis is key.
Once the diagnosis is determined,the treatment plan needs to be discussed and planned. Adverse events, post surgical recovery, and rehabilitation need to be considered in any plan. I suggest using a healthy level of detachment and planning your surgery like a project.
Presently an agent is reviewing my consumer opus: Unraveling U.S. Health Care: A Guidebook to the Complex and Confounding U.S. Health System. I hope to have the publishing path decided soon and of course, I will keep you posted.
Ending with my usual penache the healthpolicymaven suggests that having surgery done at a local facility, one where it is easier for friends to visit, or with a clinician you like are not enough evidence to support a decision potentially involving your health and well being. Take the time to look up the data, as reviewed by independent third party nonprofit organizations or a government agency under the Health & Human Services arm.
And finally, to the douchebag patients who criticize surgeons for not giving them a back rub and serving as their psychologist, that is not his or her job. They are skilled at cutting you up and putting you back together quickly and with low margin for error, so forgive them if they took the cram course in bedside manner. For oncologists, whose relationship with patients is typically long-term the consultative manner of the M.D. is more important. Having had a few surgeries myself, I do not go into the operating theater thinking I am special, but I realize I am one of many in the sea of humanity and many whiny consumers would do well to consider this perspective. It doesn't mean you take less care in your research, preparation, or recovery from your surgery, it just means, have a little consideration for the brilliant hard working medical staff, especially the surgeons.
For an advanced peek at my guide to the health care system, you can read part of it on:http://www.authonomy.com/books/24823/unraveling-u-s-health-care-everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-health-care-but-were-afraid-to-ask/
And this is your healthpolicymaven signing off.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Health Insurance Premiums and Government Oversight: Consumer Implications from the Affordable Care Act Implications
Government Oversight of Private Insurance: What it Means for the Cost of Your Health Insurance
The plethora of health care laws passed in 2010 under the Affordable Care Act,include provisions for “rate setting” and monitoring of private sector insurance plans on a federal level. The ruling applies to all insurance plans which participate in any government funded health care program, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the soon-to-be-deployed regional insurance exchanges. This article explains how this differs from present rate monitoring and premium-setting and the ultimate impact on the consumer.
The Rules
Health & Human Services is charged with establishing a health insurance rate oversight committee, to assess the reasonableness of proposed health insurance rate increases starting in 2014. Since health insurance premiums have continued to grow at a rate in excess of inflation and increased 41% between 2003 and 2009, according to a Commonwealth Fund study , affordability is a concern. The federal PPACA law mandates health insurance as a means to providing national health care, so the viability of the national health care program depends on manageable health insurance premiums for the private sector.
Current State
Insurance premiums are determined based on each state’s rate authorization standards with the Insurance Commissioner, who is an elected official. Some states have a “use and file” policy which means the insurance company can decide to make plan changes, adjust the rates, and start implementing before the state approves them. Other states have a “file and preapproval” policy, which means you have to get the state office to approve of your math, the reasons for your plan increase first. The insurance company then has the opportunity to comment and either accept the commissioners regulations or withdraw the product. In the case of Principal Financial Group, when a previous Washington State Insurance Commissioner mandated that all individual medical plans provide maternity coverage and other provisions, they pulled their product from the state. In economic terms this is referred to as an unintended consequent of a regulatory action. The federal government does not have the authority to control state insurance premiums for the private sector. Medicare and Medicaid plans are of course, a different story as they are government plans.
Altered State
Through the process of gathering data, analyzing cost impacts, discerning patterns, and revealing information to health care purchasers, both individual and corporate, Health and Human Services, which oversees the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, is charged with creating a more transparent process for what you actually end up paying for medical insurance. The intent is good, but there is no regulatory authority to enforce rate fairness by state and a regulation without enforcement can be problematic. Finally, the cost of the regulation will be borne by the private sector rate payers, which will add a nominal cost to individual premiums, spread over the entire population.
Economic Impact
I spoke briefly of unintended consequences above, but let me restate, if an additional regulation means more insurance companies will cease to offer insurance plans to the small group and individual markets, this may not be a good thing for consumers. Of course, the insurance industry is already seeing a reduction in the number of companies offering medical insurance and this trend has been going on since I was in the benefits business in the 80’s and 90’s. In short, private sector companies, both for-profit and not-for-profit will make market decisions based on where their strengths lie and act accordingly. And one could argue that as long as the companies which remain are of quality and offer good consumer products and services, this change is not untenable. The Netherlands and Switzerland both have private sector insurance programs financing their public health plans and only a hand full of companies provide the coverage, which seems to work fine. Also, they pay much less per-capita for health care than the United States does, but the healthpolicymaven has told you that before.
What it Means to the Health Insurance Premium Payer
OK, here is the “skinny” on this one, since the federal government Does Not have rate setting authority for insurance, which is controlled by each state’s elected insurance commissioner and those state administrators, this change will not have a direct impact on the rates you pay for medical insurance. What is more, since it is highly unlikely the government will be able to overturn ERISA or the McCarran Ferguson Act; don’t expect to see any rate relief. ERISA is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act which created the exemption for self-funded or self-insured plans, which most major employers have used to exempt themselves from many state and federal mandates. I do not see the government succeeding in overturning this act either. The McCarran Ferguson Act is a federal law which gives states the authority to regulate insurance. It should also be noted that insurance premiums taxes are a major source of funding for the states and they will never give up that revenue. Indirectly the fact the government is requiring the disclosure of the rate factors and will publish the information is a good thing for consumers. You will no longer have to be an insider in the insurance business, which you know I was for a couple of decades, to understand this process. In conclusion, will this make your insurance cheaper, no, because that depends on many complex factors that have to do with underfunding of government programs which the private sector has to support with cost transfers, market supply factors, and the degree to which primary health care is deployed in this country. Finally, people will still have to care enough to read about the provisions and many people don’t. The healthpolicymaven’s book, Unraveling U.S. Health Care should come out later this year and it is a guidebook to our health system, in lay person’s terms, which I am hoping will facilitate more outreach in this area.
The plethora of health care laws passed in 2010 under the Affordable Care Act,include provisions for “rate setting” and monitoring of private sector insurance plans on a federal level. The ruling applies to all insurance plans which participate in any government funded health care program, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the soon-to-be-deployed regional insurance exchanges. This article explains how this differs from present rate monitoring and premium-setting and the ultimate impact on the consumer.
The Rules
Health & Human Services is charged with establishing a health insurance rate oversight committee, to assess the reasonableness of proposed health insurance rate increases starting in 2014. Since health insurance premiums have continued to grow at a rate in excess of inflation and increased 41% between 2003 and 2009, according to a Commonwealth Fund study , affordability is a concern. The federal PPACA law mandates health insurance as a means to providing national health care, so the viability of the national health care program depends on manageable health insurance premiums for the private sector.
Current State
Insurance premiums are determined based on each state’s rate authorization standards with the Insurance Commissioner, who is an elected official. Some states have a “use and file” policy which means the insurance company can decide to make plan changes, adjust the rates, and start implementing before the state approves them. Other states have a “file and preapproval” policy, which means you have to get the state office to approve of your math, the reasons for your plan increase first. The insurance company then has the opportunity to comment and either accept the commissioners regulations or withdraw the product. In the case of Principal Financial Group, when a previous Washington State Insurance Commissioner mandated that all individual medical plans provide maternity coverage and other provisions, they pulled their product from the state. In economic terms this is referred to as an unintended consequent of a regulatory action. The federal government does not have the authority to control state insurance premiums for the private sector. Medicare and Medicaid plans are of course, a different story as they are government plans.
Altered State
Through the process of gathering data, analyzing cost impacts, discerning patterns, and revealing information to health care purchasers, both individual and corporate, Health and Human Services, which oversees the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, is charged with creating a more transparent process for what you actually end up paying for medical insurance. The intent is good, but there is no regulatory authority to enforce rate fairness by state and a regulation without enforcement can be problematic. Finally, the cost of the regulation will be borne by the private sector rate payers, which will add a nominal cost to individual premiums, spread over the entire population.
Economic Impact
I spoke briefly of unintended consequences above, but let me restate, if an additional regulation means more insurance companies will cease to offer insurance plans to the small group and individual markets, this may not be a good thing for consumers. Of course, the insurance industry is already seeing a reduction in the number of companies offering medical insurance and this trend has been going on since I was in the benefits business in the 80’s and 90’s. In short, private sector companies, both for-profit and not-for-profit will make market decisions based on where their strengths lie and act accordingly. And one could argue that as long as the companies which remain are of quality and offer good consumer products and services, this change is not untenable. The Netherlands and Switzerland both have private sector insurance programs financing their public health plans and only a hand full of companies provide the coverage, which seems to work fine. Also, they pay much less per-capita for health care than the United States does, but the healthpolicymaven has told you that before.
What it Means to the Health Insurance Premium Payer
OK, here is the “skinny” on this one, since the federal government Does Not have rate setting authority for insurance, which is controlled by each state’s elected insurance commissioner and those state administrators, this change will not have a direct impact on the rates you pay for medical insurance. What is more, since it is highly unlikely the government will be able to overturn ERISA or the McCarran Ferguson Act; don’t expect to see any rate relief. ERISA is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act which created the exemption for self-funded or self-insured plans, which most major employers have used to exempt themselves from many state and federal mandates. I do not see the government succeeding in overturning this act either. The McCarran Ferguson Act is a federal law which gives states the authority to regulate insurance. It should also be noted that insurance premiums taxes are a major source of funding for the states and they will never give up that revenue. Indirectly the fact the government is requiring the disclosure of the rate factors and will publish the information is a good thing for consumers. You will no longer have to be an insider in the insurance business, which you know I was for a couple of decades, to understand this process. In conclusion, will this make your insurance cheaper, no, because that depends on many complex factors that have to do with underfunding of government programs which the private sector has to support with cost transfers, market supply factors, and the degree to which primary health care is deployed in this country. Finally, people will still have to care enough to read about the provisions and many people don’t. The healthpolicymaven’s book, Unraveling U.S. Health Care should come out later this year and it is a guidebook to our health system, in lay person’s terms, which I am hoping will facilitate more outreach in this area.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Accountable Care Medicare Shared Savings Rules and How they Benefit Consumers
Accountable Care Organizations and Medicare Shared Savings Program
The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), announced proposed rules for the much vaunted Shared Savings Program for qualifying Accountable Care Organizations on March 31st. What struck me about the program, was how much of the risk management formula was taken directly from the private insurance sector, which is an indication of a public/private hybrid for program management. Since it is my belief that we can provide optimal public services through this model, I am keen to evaluate, follow, and measure the results for this revolutionary change in health care delivery for Americans. This article explains the risk sharing mechanisms in the new program and what it may mean for consumers.
Private Sector Influence
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid, which administer the largest health care program in the country, have created a health care program, called Accountable Care which requires clinical results within a certain range in order to get optimal reimbursement levels. Additionally, organizations which outperform the government set standards have an opportunity to receive a gain or a share of the unused funds. In the insurance business this is called retrospective financing, where the provider reimbursements and participant insurance rates are established based on certain assumptions by actuaries at the beginning of the plan year. About three months after the close of the plan year a final report is given, which illustrates the true performance compared to the expected levels. At this time the corporate insurance client either owes money or has a credit toward the new plan year. It is this type of accounting that CMS is using to gauge the “Shared Savings” for ACO participants. But before we examine the shared savings program let’s briefly review what it takes to qualify as an Accountable Care Organization.
Eligibility Rules for Accountable Care Organizations
Who is eligible to be part of an ACO? All clinicians in group practice arrangements, networks of individual practitioners, joint venture partnerships with hospitals and other professionals, hospitals who employ ACO professionals, Critical Access Hospitals, and any health care practitioner or entity receiving Medicare reimbursements for services are eligible for ACO status.
Potential Roadblocks in Achieving ACO Status
Rural and semi-rural areas may have difficulty with the ACO status (Wenatchee Valley Medical Center for eastern Washington comes to mind) because anti-trust hurdles must be cleared with respect to market share. I imagine the way an organization will address this is to make sure the mix of employed clinicians versus contracted ones meets the 50% or less rule for Primary Service Area standards. It also looks like the non-urban exemptions and critical access rules will allow organizations like these to qualify.
All organizations who wish to participate in the ACO program must maintain a minimum level of patient volume of 5,000 patients.
The Accountable Care Agreement is binding for Three Consecutive Years
Organizations participating in the ACO Shared Savings Program have a choice of two models, either the one-sided or two-sided version. The names are humorous to me, but let me explain where they come from in terms of insurance risk management programs. The one-sided program means the organization shares only in the “up-side” or gain for performance improvements under the contract. However, CMS always likes to be a little different and this more limited risk exposure is just for the first two years, after which the organization experiences the full risk sharing. The “two sided” model means the organization is exposed to both gains and losses from the beginning of the three year contract. This seems like a no-brainer, why would a clinic want to be on the hook for losses right away in a new Medicaid program? However there is more to it than that, because the potential for gain differs.
Government Incentive for Meeting Benchmarks
Using a complicated formula of a per-enrolled-patient-risk-adjusted cost benchmark CMS has created a financial incentive of 2% to 3.9% depending on the number of patients involved in the ACO. In my previous ACO article in September, I highlighted some of the clinical outcomes the agency was seeking, to be eligible for the shared savings. CMS has identified 65(yes, it is complex) quality measures in these five areas under ACO provisions:
1. Patient/caregiver experience
2. Care Coordination
3. Patient Safety
4. Preventive Health
5. At-risk population/frail elderly health
Conversely, in terms of shared losses, the organization’s cost basis must be 2% or more over the cap to be required to pay CMS a differential based on ACO patient performance. What is important is that the participating ACO organizations report their quality metrics using the Medicare Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) and also using an electronic health record or HER or EMR. This incentive system will allow Medicare, the administrator for the largest health program in the United States to make assessments and extrapolate information on its population, for better program management. This is a great thing for the consumer, which is anyone who is on Medicare now and all of us who are paying for Medicare. There is also an additional incentive to use the Medicare reporting system which is the equivalent of one half percent of the total clinician’s billing to Medicare for each eligible professional’s Medicare Part B fee (out-patient doctor’s visits). This is significant and should encourage providers to participate in the program. Another ACO rule states that at least 50% of primary care physicians must be users of a certified electronic health record by the beginning of the second year of the contract. (Tremendous opportunity for EMR companies). Another aspect of the ACO rules is public reporting of some of the quality measures, which will create a nationwide standard for health care quality measures.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has anticipated that some organizations will have difficulty meeting 100% compliance, so they have a Corrective Action Plan process. The CAP process includes noncompliance warnings, special monitoring, and a formalized corrective plan. If an organization fails to meet the ACO compliance rules and is removed from the program, it must wait three years before re-applying for participation. The review process for noncompliance is rigorous and participating organizations must submit to period audits.
Consumer Benefits
One of the positive aspects of ACO reporting is the data which will be gathered in a standard format and shared in aggregate with participating Accountable Care Organizations. There are also methods to coordinate with other Medicare Demonstration Programs, to avoid “double-dipping.” Other Medicare Demonstration Projects include: the Independence at Home Medical Practice Demonstration, Medicare Health Care Quality Demonstration, Medical Home Demonstrations, Physician Group Practice Transition Demonstration, Community Home Health Teams supporting Patient-Centered Care, and various state initiatives supporting Medicaid patients with chronic conditions.
Conclusions for Consumers
The ground breaking requirements of the Accountable Care Organization Rules enacted in 2010 are the result of a peer review process since the International Order of Medicine’s infamous report on the poor patient safety record in many United States health care facilities. Consumers will start to have access to standardized reports on participating health care facilities clinical safety measures and patient care data. This is a tremendous step forward for American consumers, as transparency in reporting is one of the hallmarks of high quality organizations. Integrated health care organizations like Virginia Mason already provide detailed patient quality information and the CMS Shared Savings Program will help others achieve similar reporting and patient quality standards. This is an example of good governance at its best, with an incentive to respond to the consumer push for greater efficacy in patient care.
The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), announced proposed rules for the much vaunted Shared Savings Program for qualifying Accountable Care Organizations on March 31st. What struck me about the program, was how much of the risk management formula was taken directly from the private insurance sector, which is an indication of a public/private hybrid for program management. Since it is my belief that we can provide optimal public services through this model, I am keen to evaluate, follow, and measure the results for this revolutionary change in health care delivery for Americans. This article explains the risk sharing mechanisms in the new program and what it may mean for consumers.
Private Sector Influence
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid, which administer the largest health care program in the country, have created a health care program, called Accountable Care which requires clinical results within a certain range in order to get optimal reimbursement levels. Additionally, organizations which outperform the government set standards have an opportunity to receive a gain or a share of the unused funds. In the insurance business this is called retrospective financing, where the provider reimbursements and participant insurance rates are established based on certain assumptions by actuaries at the beginning of the plan year. About three months after the close of the plan year a final report is given, which illustrates the true performance compared to the expected levels. At this time the corporate insurance client either owes money or has a credit toward the new plan year. It is this type of accounting that CMS is using to gauge the “Shared Savings” for ACO participants. But before we examine the shared savings program let’s briefly review what it takes to qualify as an Accountable Care Organization.
Eligibility Rules for Accountable Care Organizations
Who is eligible to be part of an ACO? All clinicians in group practice arrangements, networks of individual practitioners, joint venture partnerships with hospitals and other professionals, hospitals who employ ACO professionals, Critical Access Hospitals, and any health care practitioner or entity receiving Medicare reimbursements for services are eligible for ACO status.
Potential Roadblocks in Achieving ACO Status
Rural and semi-rural areas may have difficulty with the ACO status (Wenatchee Valley Medical Center for eastern Washington comes to mind) because anti-trust hurdles must be cleared with respect to market share. I imagine the way an organization will address this is to make sure the mix of employed clinicians versus contracted ones meets the 50% or less rule for Primary Service Area standards. It also looks like the non-urban exemptions and critical access rules will allow organizations like these to qualify.
All organizations who wish to participate in the ACO program must maintain a minimum level of patient volume of 5,000 patients.
The Accountable Care Agreement is binding for Three Consecutive Years
Organizations participating in the ACO Shared Savings Program have a choice of two models, either the one-sided or two-sided version. The names are humorous to me, but let me explain where they come from in terms of insurance risk management programs. The one-sided program means the organization shares only in the “up-side” or gain for performance improvements under the contract. However, CMS always likes to be a little different and this more limited risk exposure is just for the first two years, after which the organization experiences the full risk sharing. The “two sided” model means the organization is exposed to both gains and losses from the beginning of the three year contract. This seems like a no-brainer, why would a clinic want to be on the hook for losses right away in a new Medicaid program? However there is more to it than that, because the potential for gain differs.
Government Incentive for Meeting Benchmarks
Using a complicated formula of a per-enrolled-patient-risk-adjusted cost benchmark CMS has created a financial incentive of 2% to 3.9% depending on the number of patients involved in the ACO. In my previous ACO article in September, I highlighted some of the clinical outcomes the agency was seeking, to be eligible for the shared savings. CMS has identified 65(yes, it is complex) quality measures in these five areas under ACO provisions:
1. Patient/caregiver experience
2. Care Coordination
3. Patient Safety
4. Preventive Health
5. At-risk population/frail elderly health
Conversely, in terms of shared losses, the organization’s cost basis must be 2% or more over the cap to be required to pay CMS a differential based on ACO patient performance. What is important is that the participating ACO organizations report their quality metrics using the Medicare Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) and also using an electronic health record or HER or EMR. This incentive system will allow Medicare, the administrator for the largest health program in the United States to make assessments and extrapolate information on its population, for better program management. This is a great thing for the consumer, which is anyone who is on Medicare now and all of us who are paying for Medicare. There is also an additional incentive to use the Medicare reporting system which is the equivalent of one half percent of the total clinician’s billing to Medicare for each eligible professional’s Medicare Part B fee (out-patient doctor’s visits). This is significant and should encourage providers to participate in the program. Another ACO rule states that at least 50% of primary care physicians must be users of a certified electronic health record by the beginning of the second year of the contract. (Tremendous opportunity for EMR companies). Another aspect of the ACO rules is public reporting of some of the quality measures, which will create a nationwide standard for health care quality measures.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has anticipated that some organizations will have difficulty meeting 100% compliance, so they have a Corrective Action Plan process. The CAP process includes noncompliance warnings, special monitoring, and a formalized corrective plan. If an organization fails to meet the ACO compliance rules and is removed from the program, it must wait three years before re-applying for participation. The review process for noncompliance is rigorous and participating organizations must submit to period audits.
Consumer Benefits
One of the positive aspects of ACO reporting is the data which will be gathered in a standard format and shared in aggregate with participating Accountable Care Organizations. There are also methods to coordinate with other Medicare Demonstration Programs, to avoid “double-dipping.” Other Medicare Demonstration Projects include: the Independence at Home Medical Practice Demonstration, Medicare Health Care Quality Demonstration, Medical Home Demonstrations, Physician Group Practice Transition Demonstration, Community Home Health Teams supporting Patient-Centered Care, and various state initiatives supporting Medicaid patients with chronic conditions.
Conclusions for Consumers
The ground breaking requirements of the Accountable Care Organization Rules enacted in 2010 are the result of a peer review process since the International Order of Medicine’s infamous report on the poor patient safety record in many United States health care facilities. Consumers will start to have access to standardized reports on participating health care facilities clinical safety measures and patient care data. This is a tremendous step forward for American consumers, as transparency in reporting is one of the hallmarks of high quality organizations. Integrated health care organizations like Virginia Mason already provide detailed patient quality information and the CMS Shared Savings Program will help others achieve similar reporting and patient quality standards. This is an example of good governance at its best, with an incentive to respond to the consumer push for greater efficacy in patient care.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Hospital Quality-Checks & Balances
Discerning Hospital Quality
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) now requires health quality measures for specific clinical services, in order to recognize and encourage the best patient outcomes. Recognition will include greater financial reimbursement for those medical practices which conform to the CMS standards for clinical outcomes. This is yet another step in the right direction toward patient-centered-care as identified by the International Order of Medicine. This article highlights the primary hospital quality watchdogs in the United States and consumer tips on how to assess your hospital.
Organizations Measuring Hospital Quality
There are a number of ways to gauge your hospital’s quality, including accessing information from public sites, such as the Center for Disease Control, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Health & Human Services Agency. There are also nonprofit organizations devoted to measuring hospital quality including; the Joint Commission for Hospital Accreditation Organization, National Quality Forum,Then LeapFrog Group and the Quality & Patient Safety Organization. Here are the crib notes for these organizations.
Private Sector Quality Watchdogs
Joint Commission
The Joint Commission for Hospital Accreditation is the pre-eminent organization for auditing and certifying hospital services in the United States. Obtaining its’ certification is an essential requirement for hospitals, which may lose reimbursement contracts and patients without the JCO recognition. The Joint Commission recognizes twenty-two hospital medical errors, which it has been tracking for patient safety purposes for 15 years.
National Quality Forum
The National Quality Forum is a non-profit group created by thirty-two health care organizations to develop consensus about hospital quality indicators and reporting. The NQF reviews twenty-seven patient safety metrics, but the information is not shared with the public.
Quality & Patient Safety Organization
The non-profit Quality and Patient Safety Organization or QuPS provides state-by-state analysis of patient safety initiatives by state governments. You can go to the site and see what your state has done to make your hospital safer.
Public Agency Quality Police
Agency for Health Research and Quality
The Agency of Health Research and Quality or AHRQ was created in 1999 to promote methods for improving health care quality in the United States. Though it doesn’t have any enforcement provisions, it does conduct research, award grants, and recognize health care groups with excellent performance.
Center for Disease Control
The federal Center for Disease Control established the National Health Safety Network in 2005. As of 2010, twenty-two states had adopted this method for reporting patient safety errors in hospitals and other inpatient facilities. Presently, 3,000 hospitals use this system, which make it the largest database for hospital errors in the United States. The data is collected for scientific review and specific facilities are not disclosed.
Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services
The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services polices patient quality outcomes and publishes statistics, like patient mortality from pneumonia, heart failure, and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, mortality information alone is not a good measure of hospital quality or patient safety, because you would have to know the patient volumes as well as the morbidity or overall patient health. This information may be found at:
http://www.cms.gov/HospitalQualityInits/20_OutcomeMeasures.asp
One of the CMS sites that is helpful is the listing for certified organ transplant centers at: www.cms.gov/CertificationandComplianc/Downloads/ApprovedTransplantPrograms.pdf
Health & Human Services
The Health & Human Services Agency or HHS has a web site where you can find your hospital and compare clinical outcomes by diagnosis, to other facilities. This is a useful tool if you live in an urban area with multiple facilities, because you will literally be able to check their performance before your procedure. The link to this site is: www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov
Other Public Sources for Hospital Certification Information
The American College of Surgeons publishes an on-line guide to Trauma Center Certification which is quite detailed because it explains the criteria for Level I Trauma Status. Also, university hospitals are teaching facilities and they typically have the highest status for trauma injuries. Information on your university hospital is available on its web site or through the State Department of Health.
Local Look
Washington State Hospitals which scored high in quality measures for 2009 data include: Virginia Mason, all of the Swedish Hospitals, University of Washington Medical Center, Harborview, Northwest Hospital, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Kadlec Hospital, St. Claire Hospital, and Mary Bridge Children’s Hospital. For information on how hospitals fared in your area, contact the healthpolicymaven by scrolling down to the comment tool or complete the form at: roberta@healthpolicymaven.com
Consumer Tips
The healthpolicymaven’s advice is to know-before-you-go for your surgical procedure and here are some helpful tips to figure out your hospital's quality score:
1.Look for public reporting of hospital medical errors as this is the highest degree of transparency and commitment to improve patient safety.
2.Hospitals which use a national model like the CDC’s National Health Safety Network are using a rigorously tested assessment model.
3.Find out if your state mandates public disclosure of patient safety errors and if it is available by facility.
4.The Center for Medicare & Medicaid publishes information on hospital performance, including infections, surgical errors, and discharge information.
5.Ask questions and do some research.
Closing Thoughts
This patient safety article may not seem that germane now that the country is in its third war and on its knees fiscally. However, the Chinese are paying our light bill, having mastered science and math and access to birth control. Meanwhile folks in the United States continue to debate teaching the science of evolution versus the dogma of religion in public schools. Is it any wonder the US doesn’t measure up to global standards for primary education
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services(CMS) now requires health quality measures for specific clinical services, in order to recognize and encourage the best patient outcomes. Recognition will include greater financial reimbursement for those medical practices which conform to the CMS standards for clinical outcomes. This is yet another step in the right direction toward patient-centered-care as identified by the International Order of Medicine. This article highlights the primary hospital quality watchdogs in the United States and consumer tips on how to assess your hospital.
Organizations Measuring Hospital Quality
There are a number of ways to gauge your hospital’s quality, including accessing information from public sites, such as the Center for Disease Control, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Health & Human Services Agency. There are also nonprofit organizations devoted to measuring hospital quality including; the Joint Commission for Hospital Accreditation Organization, National Quality Forum,Then LeapFrog Group and the Quality & Patient Safety Organization. Here are the crib notes for these organizations.
Private Sector Quality Watchdogs
Joint Commission
The Joint Commission for Hospital Accreditation is the pre-eminent organization for auditing and certifying hospital services in the United States. Obtaining its’ certification is an essential requirement for hospitals, which may lose reimbursement contracts and patients without the JCO recognition. The Joint Commission recognizes twenty-two hospital medical errors, which it has been tracking for patient safety purposes for 15 years.
National Quality Forum
The National Quality Forum is a non-profit group created by thirty-two health care organizations to develop consensus about hospital quality indicators and reporting. The NQF reviews twenty-seven patient safety metrics, but the information is not shared with the public.
Quality & Patient Safety Organization
The non-profit Quality and Patient Safety Organization or QuPS provides state-by-state analysis of patient safety initiatives by state governments. You can go to the site and see what your state has done to make your hospital safer.
Public Agency Quality Police
Agency for Health Research and Quality
The Agency of Health Research and Quality or AHRQ was created in 1999 to promote methods for improving health care quality in the United States. Though it doesn’t have any enforcement provisions, it does conduct research, award grants, and recognize health care groups with excellent performance.
Center for Disease Control
The federal Center for Disease Control established the National Health Safety Network in 2005. As of 2010, twenty-two states had adopted this method for reporting patient safety errors in hospitals and other inpatient facilities. Presently, 3,000 hospitals use this system, which make it the largest database for hospital errors in the United States. The data is collected for scientific review and specific facilities are not disclosed.
Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services
The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services polices patient quality outcomes and publishes statistics, like patient mortality from pneumonia, heart failure, and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, mortality information alone is not a good measure of hospital quality or patient safety, because you would have to know the patient volumes as well as the morbidity or overall patient health. This information may be found at:
http://www.cms.gov/HospitalQualityInits/20_OutcomeMeasures.asp
One of the CMS sites that is helpful is the listing for certified organ transplant centers at: www.cms.gov/CertificationandComplianc/Downloads/ApprovedTransplantPrograms.pdf
Health & Human Services
The Health & Human Services Agency or HHS has a web site where you can find your hospital and compare clinical outcomes by diagnosis, to other facilities. This is a useful tool if you live in an urban area with multiple facilities, because you will literally be able to check their performance before your procedure. The link to this site is: www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov
Other Public Sources for Hospital Certification Information
The American College of Surgeons publishes an on-line guide to Trauma Center Certification which is quite detailed because it explains the criteria for Level I Trauma Status. Also, university hospitals are teaching facilities and they typically have the highest status for trauma injuries. Information on your university hospital is available on its web site or through the State Department of Health.
Local Look
Washington State Hospitals which scored high in quality measures for 2009 data include: Virginia Mason, all of the Swedish Hospitals, University of Washington Medical Center, Harborview, Northwest Hospital, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Kadlec Hospital, St. Claire Hospital, and Mary Bridge Children’s Hospital. For information on how hospitals fared in your area, contact the healthpolicymaven by scrolling down to the comment tool or complete the form at: roberta@healthpolicymaven.com
Consumer Tips
The healthpolicymaven’s advice is to know-before-you-go for your surgical procedure and here are some helpful tips to figure out your hospital's quality score:
1.Look for public reporting of hospital medical errors as this is the highest degree of transparency and commitment to improve patient safety.
2.Hospitals which use a national model like the CDC’s National Health Safety Network are using a rigorously tested assessment model.
3.Find out if your state mandates public disclosure of patient safety errors and if it is available by facility.
4.The Center for Medicare & Medicaid publishes information on hospital performance, including infections, surgical errors, and discharge information.
5.Ask questions and do some research.
Closing Thoughts
This patient safety article may not seem that germane now that the country is in its third war and on its knees fiscally. However, the Chinese are paying our light bill, having mastered science and math and access to birth control. Meanwhile folks in the United States continue to debate teaching the science of evolution versus the dogma of religion in public schools. Is it any wonder the US doesn’t measure up to global standards for primary education
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)