Healthcare Legislation

Archive for Healthcare Legislation

The Secrets of Strong CIO and CMIO Relationships

What’s the secret of a strong CIO and CMIO relationship? Many things including the ability to be adaptable, understand organizational priorities, and deadlines, but most importantly to align on shared goals and purpose.

These were some of the takeaways from the insights shared by CIOs and CMIOs of Confluence Health, and EvergreenHealth at the annual Washington State HIMSS Executive dinner. While the conversation was split between how to foster innovation, and how to manage the demands of an EMR rollout (including the resulting backlog of other IT requests), where the relationship really shone was in the implementation of tools for a shared purpose, in this case tracking and control of opioids to help curb the epidemic we’re seeing in this country.

In particular a project at EvergreenHealth to implement e-prescribing of controlled substances, showed the need for strong CMIO and CIO collaboration. The program is designed to decrease fraud and misuse of controlled substances, but it can also improve patient care. Since it involves both technology implementation and clinical guidelines it’s a perfect example of medical and technology collaboration. In Washington State, where we’re based, the Bree Collaborative also has recommended guidelines for prescribing opioids, that while optional are widely adopted across the state.

We’ve written about this problem before in pain management for total joint replacement. Sadly, an unintended consequence of the pain management question on the HCAHPS survey, is sometimes an overprescribing of prescription pain medication. According to one speaker at the event, 30mg of oxycontin over 7 days is enough to trigger an addiction, and yet often post-surgery up to 30 days of pills are prescribed. We talked to one patient (not a Wellpepper user) who reported taking all of her prescribed pain medication, not because she needed it but because it was prescribed. The first step to solving this problem is with the prescription, and EvergreenHealth’s e-prescription program, combined with locked cabinets in the operating room (the idea is that if you don’t need it immediately, you don’t actually need it), alerts on over prescribing, and programs to substitute suboxone, coupled with behavior health management can all help. As well behavior change happens with the physicians, and a powerful image was the story of a pharmacist who put a bag of unused opioid prescriptions on the table to show that even if they didn’t think so, some physicians may have been over-prescribing.

However there are ways to take it a step further: tracking what the patient actually took outside the clinic, which is why we include a pain medication usage task in many care plans. This activity asks patients some simple questions about their over-the-counter and prescribed pain medication usage, and alerts if the numbers or the length of time is over certain thresholds. It’s in use in care plans that include general pain management, surgical, and neurology (headache management), and provides a view into usage, and the opportunity to reach out and help patients outside the clinic before usage becomes a problem.

We’re strong believers in the ability for patients to record their own outcomes and experiences, and the value of combining this with prescribing and clinical data to close the loop on delivering better care. If you’re interested in learning more, get in touch.

Posted in: Adherence, Behavior Change, Healthcare Legislation, HIPAA, Opioids, Outcomes, patient engagement

Leave a Comment (0) →

Pointing Fingers at Healthcare Problems

I’m only halfway through Elizabeth Rosenthal’s “An American Sickness: How Healthcare Became Big Business and How You Can Take It Back” which means that I haven’t gotten to the “what you can do about the problem” part. It’s a slow read, not because it’s not compelling but because it’s too compelling, and if like the current President, you were surprised at how complicated healthcare is, this book will do nothing to dissuade you. It’s really really complicated.

So far, I have two main takeaways from the book, that are easily illustrated through my recent experience of breaking and dislocating my finger: a simple, non-life-threatening problem, that unearthed a couple of key dysfunctions and unintended consequences.

My first takeaway is that everyone is complicit, and yet seem to manage to finger point at everyone else. Rosenthal spares no punches in unearthing decisions that are not made with the best interest in of the patient at heart. Providers, healthcare organizations, payers, pharma, and employers all are complicit in the mess that is our current healthcare system.

This past fall, I broke and dislocated my finger. It wasn’t a big deal, but because it happened on a Saturday night, my only option for care was at the ER. Last week I received a letter in the mail from my insurance company, that according to the envelope required my urgent reply. In the letter, the insurance company suggested that perhaps someone other than them may be on the hook for my ER bill. While I understand they wanted to make sure this wasn’t a worker’s compensation claim, the form was basically for me to tell them whose fault my injury was so that they could go after another insurance company to pay. This was a sports injury in a game of Ultimate Frisbee, a game so granola-like that there are no referees: players call fouls on themselves. . No one was at fault, and even if they were, I would never have considered suing. However, the form didn’t give me that option: only gave me the option of saying whether I had settled my claim. I created a new box that said “NA” and checked it.

When I received the letter, I couldn’t help but think back to Rosenthal’s book, and also consider the amount of effort and cost that was going into finding someone else to blame and pay. Just imagine what this effort and cost would have been if there were legal action….

The second takeaway is that the original intention of a decision always has much farther reaching implications than anyone who agreed on what seemed like a reasonable decision though. Again with the finger, I was asked a number of times if I wanted a prescription for OxyContin. I did not. As has been well publicized we have an opioid addiction problem in North America. While my finger hurt, aside from morphine during inpatient for an appendectomy, I hadn’t had opioids, and really didn’t think that it was necessary, which I explained to the physician. It wasn’t. Tylenol worked fine—however, it seemed that it was very important that I be the one to make this call, not the physician.

One of the unintended consequences of patient satisfaction scores may be the over prescription of pain medication, as many of the questions on the HCAHPS are about whether the patient’s pain was well managed. In Rosenthal’s book, I was also surprised to learn that a finger fracture where an opioid is prescribed has a different billing code than if it is not prescribed, and that with the fracture plus opioid billing code, hospitals get paid more. Now, if you are wondering how this may be the case, if you think about it, a fracture that requires an opioid must be more severe than one that doesn’t and therefore the billing code reflects the severity. This is exactly where the unintended consequences of billing codes can result in exactly the wrong behavior for patient care and safety.

It’s quite possible that the physicians on duty were not aware of either of these two drivers for prescribing, especially the billing code one. They may have just been told “this is our standard of care” and were following guidelines.

If a simple finger fracture and dislocation can shine a light on two key problems in our healthcare system, just imagine what else is out there. Actually, you don’t have to, just get a copy of Elizabeth’s book yourself, and let’s compare notes when I get to the part about what the fix is. It’s going to take all of us.

Posted in: Health Regulations, Healthcare costs, Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Legislation, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare transformation, Opioids

Leave a Comment (0) →

Disruptive Innovation, Sparks of Light, or the Evolution of Care: Recap of Mayo Transform Conference

In what has been a roller-coaster year for healthcare legislation, it’s the annual touchstone of the Mayo Clinic Transform Conference provided a welcome opportunity to reflect on where we are. This conference, sponsored by the Mayo Clinic Center for Innovation attracts powerhouse speakers like Andy Slavitt and Clayton Christensen, and yet manages to fly under the radar. This year’s theme was about closing the gap between people and health, so the social determinants of health were a key topic, as was whether disruption alone would solve the problem.

Dr Robert Pearl

This was my third year attending, and second year speaking at the conference, and I’ve noticed a trend: the conference starts by articulating the problem, and building up solutions and creative ways to reshape the problems over the course of the two days. This year the conference was deftly moderated by Elizabeth Rosenthal, MD,Editor-In-Chief of Kaiser Health News and author of “An American Sickness.” Rosenthal, an MD herself, and former NYTimes journalist, peppered her moderation with real-world examples of both waste and inefficiencies and effective programs based on her investigative journalism.

I’ve been wanting to write a blog post for a while that riffs on the theme of “You Are Here” trying to outline where we are in the digital evolution in healthcare, but it’s clear that we don’t know where we are, digital or otherwise: too much is currently in flux. There are points of light with effective programs, and things that seem very broken. The panel I was on, was titled “Disruptive Innovation” and I’m afraid we let the audience down, as while we are doing some very interesting things with health systems, we are not turning every model on its head. We work with providers and patients to help patients outside the clinic. Truly disruptive innovation would work completely outside the system, which leads to the question, can health systems disrupt themselves or will it come from entirely new entrants like say Google, Apple, or Amazon?

Dr. David Feinberg of Geisinger reads from debate opponent Dr. Robert Pearl’s book

Clayton Christensen, the closing keynote speaker, likens hospitals to mainframe computers, and basically says they will be overtaken by smaller more nimble organizations, much like the PC and now smartphone revolution. Organizations like Iora Health who holistically and preventatively manage a Medicare Advantage population are the epitome of these new entrants, and we’ve seen some hospitals struggle this year, but will they go away entirely? The answer to this question may lie in the excellent debate session “Is The US Healthcare System Terminally Broken” hosted by Intelligence Squared and moderated by author and ABC News Correspondent John Donovan.

 

Shannon Brownlee, senior VP of the Lown Institute and visiting scientist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Robert Pearl, MD, and former CEO of the Permanente Medical group were arguing that the system is broken, vs Ezekiel Emmanuel, MD, Senior Fellow Center for American Progress, and David Feinberg, MD, CEO of Geisinger.

While prior to the debate the audience favored the idea that the system is irreparably broken, by the end, they had come around to the idea that it’s not, which would point to the ability for healthcare to disrupt itself. The debate

Is Healthcare Terminally Broken

The final audience vote

was ridiculously fun, partially from the enthusiasm of the debaters, and because the topic was so dear to all attendees. You can listen to the podcast yourself. However, the posing of the question set up an almost impossible challenge for Pearl and Brownlee: they had to argue the patient is terminal, but without any possible solution. No one in the room wanted to hear that, and so when Emmanuel and Feinberg were able to point to innovative programs like the Geisinger Money Back Warranty or Fresh Food Pharmacy that just needed to find scale, the audience latched onto the hope that we can fix things, and we all have to believe in these points of light, to face each new day of challenges.

Posted in: Health Regulations, Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Legislation, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Technology, Healthcare transformation

Leave a Comment (0) →

Who Defines Value?

Pharma companies have recently jumped on the value bandwagon with proposals for value-based drug pricing based on outcomes and effectiveness. They have started to enter contracts with payers for specific drugs based on the impact the drug has on the condition the drug is treating.

This is a step in the right direction, and much better than pricing based on maximizing shareholder value, but value is in the eye of the beholder, and the patient is a key stakeholder. Shared decision making does a good job defining what’s important to a patient. The goal of shared decision making is to choose courses of care that offer the best outcome to the patient, and can consider some of the following:

  • Is this procedure my only option? What are alternative types of treatment?
  • What are the possible outcomes and side effects of each option, including the option of doing nothing?
  • What is the estimated cost of the procedure and any related follow-up care or medication?

Source: Center for American Progress

Simply, value can be defined by the following.

The challenge of the equation is in the definitions of acceptable outcomes and costs. Here are a few things that people might consider when evaluating a drug or a course of care.

  • Inconvenience or effort: How much does this disrupt their life? Does it prevent the person from doing other things?
  • Cost: How much does it cost? This could be in monetary terms, time, side effects, or quality of life.
  • Outcome: What is the expected outcome and how closely does it align with the outcome that’s important to me?

You can see that based on these factors, that healthcare can be a market of one. My idea of value and acceptable outcomes could be very different from yours. And, unfortunately, the patient is not a consumer in a free and transparent market. That said, it is possible to make consumer-like decisions in healthcare.

Let’s look at the value decision I tried to make this past weekend. I fractured and dislocated a finger while playing Ultimate Frisbee. I was pretty sure the finger was dislocated, which shouldn’t be a big deal, so tried to go to urgent care where I expected value based on time, outcome, and cost. Well guess what? Urgent care is not open on a Saturday night. I had a feeling that emergency care would not meet my value criteria of effort, since I expected a long wait, and I got it. On the cost, I did know that the provider I went to was in-network so that wasn’t a big issue, but I still don’t know the total cost if I’d had to pay out of pocket.

Waiting in ED

Waiting

Outcome was great, and the level of care was great. What was not great is that it took 4 hours to get x-rays, pop my finger back in, and splint it. If I had been choosing as a consumer, I’d never have chosen this. With higher deductibles and co-pays, people are making decisions as consumers which is why hospitals advertise wait times, and some are looking at how to completely overhaul the ER, both of which would get us closer to value.

Let’s look at an example on value-based drug pricing. Back when I had the Cadillac of US healthcare plans when I was working at Microsoft, I was prescribed a topical psoriasis drug. The expected outcome was no psoriasis lesions. The cost was $800 for a 60g tube. Since I didn’t have to pay anything out of pocket, I got the prescription. Did it work? Yes. Was it worth it to me? No. I had other creams that cost much less, and worked almost as well. I didn’t end up getting it again—I wouldn’t have paid $800 for it myself, so why should my employer? If cost is not part of the equation, people are making decisions with only partial information, and can’t possibly judge value. Co-pays and transparency can help guide people to consumer-like behavior in healthcare, even in an imperfect market.

What’s the upside? The upside is that we’re having these discussions, and that we can see a shift to value and consumer focus, even without legislation, which is really how it needs to happen. The other thing to remember is that people want to deliver excellent and quality care. Everyone I met during my finger ordeal, from the admitting staff to the x-ray tech, to the resident who was excited to see a dislocation he’d never seen before was excellent, and that defines quality in my mind. Maybe we have less far to go than we thought.

Posted in: Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Legislation, Healthcare motivation, Healthcare Policy, Outcomes

Leave a Comment (0) →

T2 Telehealth aka ATA 2017 aka ATA 23: Part 2, How Did We Get Here and Where Are We Going?

This was my second trip to Orange County Convention Center this year, so it was hard not to compare and contrast the annual American Telemedicine conference to HIMSS, the biggest health IT conference. As well, it was my third time at the ATA conference, back after skipping in 2016, and the gap made it easier to reflect on previous years as well.

The ATA annual is almost 10 times smaller than HIMSS, which makes it a lot less exhausting and easier to focus. There’s not a feeling that for every second you’re talking to someone you’re missing out on talking to someone else equally as interesting and valuable. (There is no shortage of interesting people, just a more manageable group.) The size also makes it a bit easier to talk to people as they’re not rushing off to walk a few miles across the convention center to the next session.

The first year I attended, 2014, the tradeshow floor was full of integrated hardware and software solutions, and Rubbermaid was even a vendor selling telemedicine carts. It was almost as though the iPad hadn’t been invented.  It was the year that Mercy Virtual launched their services as a provider of telestroke and telemonitoring for other health systems. A provider as a vendor caused a bit of a stir on the tradeshow floor.

By the next year, the integrated hardware and software vendors were dwindling, but talks were largely still given by academics and were focused on pilot projects that while showed success, talks often ended with a plea for thoughts on how to scale the program.

ATA evolved out of an academic conference and that’s still quite prevalent in the presenters who are often from academic medical centers, and reporting on studies rather than implementation. Data was important in all sessions, but measurement of value was inconsistent. In addition to academic medical centers, most leaders in telehealth seemed to be faith-based not-for-profits, like Mercy and Dignity, and as well as rural organizations where the value was clear.

That said, a welcome addition to this year’s content was two new tracks on Transformation and Value. I spoke in the Value track at ATA, along with Reflexion Health and Hartford Healthcare about the value of telerehab in total joint replacement, and we were able to share data points from real patient implementations, in addition to clinical studies. (If you’re interested, in the Wellpepper segment, get in touch.)

Although, harkening back to the day 1 keynote, the definition of value depended on the business model of the telemedicine platform being implemented. There’s no question that telestroke and neurology programs, and telebehavior programs deliver value especially in rural areas without direct access. At Wellpepper, we’ve seen definite results in post-acute care, both in recovery speed and readmissions.

In other sessions the value was not as clear and no one was able to fully refute the study that when offered the choice, patients used telemedicine in addition to in-person visits, thus driving up costs. In fact, the director of telemedicine for a prominent healthcare organization confirmed that patients were using televisits for surgical prep when they could have just read the instructions given to them. (Or interacted with a digital care plan like Wellpepper.)

As with every technology conference the voice of the patient was absent, with the exception of head of Mercy Virtual Randall Moore, MD who started all his presentations by introducing us to patient Naomi who was able to live out her life at home, attend bingo, and enjoy herself due to the benefits of the wrap-around telemedicine program that Mercy put In place. Oh, and it cost a lot less than the path of hospital admissions she’d been on previously. Sounds like triple aim, and what we all need to aspire to.

So, based on the keynotes, the sessions, and the show floor, I’d characterize this year’s conference as a world in flux, like what’s going on elsewhere. There was a sense of relief that the ACA had not been repealed. HIMSS took place before the proposed repeal and replace plan died, and there was a lot more fear and uncertainty. Vendors and providers alike are looking to strengthen the value chain. Unlike HIMSS, there was a lot less hype. Machine learning and AI were barely mentioned except in keynotes possibly because telemedicine is still largely a world of real-time visits, and extracting meaning from video is a lot harder than from records. We see promise, people want to do the right thing, but it’s not clear which direction will help us ride out the storm.

 

Still trying to figure out what this has to do with Telemedicine. Look better on realtime visits?

Posted in: Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Legislation, Healthcare motivation, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Technology, M-health, Prehabilitation, Rehabilitation Business, Telemedicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

Telehealth 2.0: Our picks for Orlando

File-2016-3478-2017_ATATradeshow_1920_25I am really looking forward to heading to Orlando for the American Telemedicine Conference, aka Telehealth 2.0. Seattle has been under a rain cloud this entire year, and I want to see the sun. I’m also looking forward to sharing our findings in using asynchronous mobile telehealth for remote rehabilitation with patients recovering from total joint replacement. I’ll be speaking with our colleagues from Hartford Health, Reflexion, and Miami Children’s Hospital on Sunday during the first breakout sessions. Hope to see you there!

In addition to the topics about legislation and regulations, it’s great to see these sessions on value, quality, and new treatment models. Here are some of Wellpepper’s picks for the conference.

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

Now with all this great content, networking and a talk to prepare, when will I see the sun?

Posted in: Adherence, Behavior Change, Health Regulations, Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Legislation, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare Research, Healthcare Technology, patient engagement, Telemedicine

Leave a Comment (0) →

What’s True Now?

 

Health systems and payers alike are scrambling to figure out what the incoming administration means by repealing Obamacare. The payers admitted to having no contingency plans if Trump won. Trump doesn’t have a clear model, and the Republican party has a number of proposals. Some involve changing the names of programs or offering them in a different way. Some involve scrapping large sections of the affordable care act.

Rather than second-guessing what’s to come, at Wellpepper, we are focusing on what’s true now and what will remain true going forward.

We believe these things will continue to hold true:

  • Innovation will continue. If anything we hope that new innovation in healthcare, and technology innovation in particular is driven by market forces rather than legislation which created winners out of what was not always the best technology.
  • Consumer-focus is good. 20M newly insured individuals and high-deductibles helped create a market for new care organizations like local urgent care and patient-focused primary care. This consumer evolution will continue as patients demand that their healthcare dollars deliver good service.
  • Value and outcome focused approaches will be rewarded. Whether it’s traditional payers or self-insured employers, the light has been shone on areas to improve care AND reduce costs. Healthcare organizations have seen investments in outcomes pay off as well.

It’s time for a new patient experience that is real-time, connected, and based on the individual. We need to take advantage of the ability of technology to scale, analyze, and deliver personal experiences to leapfrog the current technology implementations in healthcare and deliver better outcomes and greater value in healthcare.

Posted in: Health Regulations, Healthcare Legislation, Healthcare Policy, Outcomes

Leave a Comment (0) →

A CJR Primer

Recently, I had the opportunity to attend a CJR Bootcamp put on by the Healthcare Education Associates in Miami, Florida. The boot camp setting was intimate, collegial, and well targeted. With the exception of a trio of cardio folks who wanted to get ahead of their bundles, all attendees were directly responsible for implementing bundles at their health systems . The two days were jam-packed with information ranging from understanding the legislation to influencing surgeon behavior to assembling a great team to implement CJR. I recommend that if you’re on the hook for bundles in your organization that you check out this or a similar training yourself.

There is too much to recap in a single blog post, so I’ll share some high-level takeaways:

Bundles Are Complex

Even advanced organizations had gaps in their knowledge and understanding when it comes to the complexity associated with bundles. CMS continues to evolve the requirements and guidelines, causing some implementation approaches to have to rely on predicting what’s going to stick.

For example, the original PRO guidelines were for HOOS and KOOS, which have now been changed to HOOSJR and KOOSJR. If you’re concerned about requirements changing, consider adopting requirements that will benefit you even if they change. Organizations that started tracking HOOS and KOOS have a leg (or knee or hip) up because they have historical outcome data and have hopefully streamlined their processes.

Bundles Require Multi-Disciplinary and Multi-Organizational Teams

Within an organization, you’ll need a multi-disciplinary team that includes clinical, administrative, operational and finance, technology, procurement and so on. You’ll also require an executive sponsor who will make sure senior leadership is aware of and supporting your initiative.

A recommended working group looks like this:

  1. Executive Sponsor(s)
  2. Physician Lead
  3. Project Manager(s)
  4. Care Navigator/Care Coordination Lead
  5. HER/IT Lead
  6. Data Analytics & Quality Leads
  7. Compliance Lead
  8. Legal Lead
  9. Communications Lead
  10. Gainsharing Program Support

You’ll need to be skilled in both project management as well as the ability to influence change. Consider all the stakeholders that need to be influenced – who are the best people to influence them and how?

Think about the rhythm of communication to different stakeholders. Too much and you overwhelm. Too little and people aren’t part of the process.

 Influencing Surgeons

One of the sessions focused on how to change behavior of surgeons. It was presented by Claudette Lajam, M.D. Assistant Professor of Orthopedic Surgery Chief Safety Officer at NYU Langone Orthopedics, who had the task of decreasing costs for implants and improving quality by getting Langone’s to use the right selection criteria. Dr. Lajam studied behavior change theory to implement the change, but it came down to understanding surgeon behavior. She presented them with data, and encouraged competition: each surgeon was able to see in a weekly report where they stood with respect to costs and quality against everyone else in the department.

img_0095

In the new model, hospitals are responsible for gain sharing with both upstream and downstream partners where they have less influence and insight. Understanding your top performing orthopedic and skilled nursing partners is key to a successful bundle. In some areas, this risk-and-gain sharing is causing consolidation where orthopedic groups are joining hospitals.

Note that with CJR, different from BPCI, conveners are not allowed. That is, hospitals can only share risk with orthopedic groups and skilled nursing facilities. Organizations that offer to manage your program and share the risk are not allowed to participate in any gain sharing.

Bundles Need Data: But People Don’t Have It

If you need to improve outcomes and lower costs, you need to know where you’re starting from.  To know where you’re starting from, you will need lots of data so that the impact of outliers is harmonized. Not many organizations have this level of detail across their entire pathway, either from organizational challenges or challenges of the system.

Sometimes, this is from a variation of care. For example, one surgeon has most of the complex cases, or another surgeon uses a different combination of implants and auxiliary materials.

Sometimes this is from the challenges of inter-organizational communication. For example, the handoffs between hospital and skilled nursing are notoriously bad – usually with hospitals not knowing where their patients ended up and skilled nursing not knowing why they are there.

Add to this that you can’tthis on top of not being able to find out if a patient is even in the CJR bundle for a period until the CMS data comes back.

So, you’ve got a complex challenge, with large and heterogeneous teams and organizations, and a lack of data. What do you do? Give up? Of course not.

First, attend a boot camp like this one.

Then, treat every patient like they are in a bundle and work on improving outcomes.

Finally, take a look at your position, risk, and low hanging fruit. Even if you only have a few patients in the bundle today, the private payers and self-insured employers are monitoring this closely.

There is Low Hanging Fruit

There are a few areas that have been identified as opportunities to lower costs without impacting quality:

  • Inpatient rehab has been targeted, and often cut. Patients need to get moving soon after surgery, but they may not need as many sessions with a PT directly. We have patients who are following their PT care plan through Wellpepper even in an inpatient setting.
  • Standardization and optimization of implants. Often the implant companies charge separately for each component for the implant and try to upsell on items like screws. Negotiating a standardized bundle can decrease costs here, as can evaluating patients for the best joint for their situation rather than using the surgeon’s favorite. (This was the project undertaken at NYU Langone.)
  • Decreasing the length of inpatient and skilled nursing stay. Equipping patients to be more self-sufficient with joint camps, educational materials, and mobile care plans can enable them to go home faster.

You are Here

Possibly because it’s early days and people are still figuring this out, there isn’t a consistent, phased approach to rolling out the CJR bundle. In fact, you can start anywhere. Or maybe you don’t have to.

First off, make sure you’re in one of the X areas where the bundle is being rolled out. If you are, find out who else is in your region. Your cost accountability is for the average for your region. If there are big spenders in your region, you may already be delivering total joints more effectively than others and may not need to change much besides starting to collect PROs.

Also, take a look at your Medicare population for joint replacement. If it’s low, you may only have a few patients that qualify for the bundle each year – which doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t strive to improve, but it may impact the amount of effort you put in initially.

Figure out where you are today and plan your efforts accordingly. Don’t try to do everything at once and understand that both your process and the information available will continue to improve.

Good luck!

Posted in: Behavior Change, Clinical Research, Healthcare Legislation, Healthcare motivation, Healthcare Research

Leave a Comment (0) →

Let’s Talk About Poop

The ups and downs of the first two keynotes at the 2016 Mayo Transform Conference were mirrored in the session The Challenges of Change which highlighted the story of Cologuard. Cologuard is a joint venture between Mayo Clinic and Exact Sciences whose sole goal for the venture was to create a less invasive way for early detection of colon cancer. They succeeded in this goal and were also the first product to receive FDA clearance and CMS reimbursement on the first day. Cologuard launched to much fanfare on national news.

Did they knock it out of the park? Yes. Are they wildly successful today? No. Why? Keep reading and I’ll tell you.

First let’s start with the problem. Colonoscopies, while effective, are not favored by most people. The preparation is extremely uncomfortable, they require general or partial anesthesia, and people need to take time off work. In addition, in some remote communities, it is difficult to get access to care from specialists. As a result, people put off or skip getting colonoscopies and by the time cancer is detected it is often too late. A clinical challenge with colonoscopies is that they are good at detecting left-side tumors but not right side tumors, the incidence of which has been increasing since the 1980s.

CologuardCologuard solves all of these problems. The test is designed to be used at home and is basically a nicely-packaged stool collection kit combined with specialized testing at Cologuard’s lab. No time, and no procedure required for an individual. As well, Cologuard is more effective than colonoscopy at detecting right side tumors, and comparably effective at left-side tumors. Since it’s a home collection, and all tests are processed at Cologuard, access to care is not an issue either and it’s widely used in the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, which was presented as a success story.

Sounds great, yes? Everyone (aka people who at some point will need a colonoscopy or have already had one) I talked to about it thought so. So what’s the problem? As usual, what’s preventing this innovation is an issue of reimbursement. Colonoscopies are a profit center for healthcare organizations, and they are effective, so this isn’t necessarily a case of a better technology losing. It’s the case of a more patient-friendly technology losing, except in Alaska where there really isn’t a viable option for delivering colonoscopies. As well in violation of CMS, some payers are refusing to cover Cologuard.

Cologuard CEO Kevin Conroy was evasive when asked about pricing, which is more expensive than other screenings but pales in comparison to the coimg_0060sts of a procedure that requires booking an operating room and an anesthesiologist.

Let’s hope that a shift to value-based care changes this. From a patient’s perspective it can’t come soon enough.

PS Apparently a lot of single Cologuard kits are being ordered by cardiologists and other specialists. Conroy thinks they’ve recognized the value and are using the kits on themselves. Harrumph.

Posted in: Clinical Research, Health Regulations, Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Legislation, Outcomes, Patient Advocacy, patient engagement, Patient Satisfaction

Leave a Comment (0) →

Cardiac rehab is effective, but patient-centered care needs to actually be patient-centered

With CMS’s new Cardiac Bundle, cardiac care (especially post-acute care), is the next service line to go under the microscope. As with total joint, variations in outcomes and costs are often seen in post-acute care so looking at how that care is delivered is key. For any bundle to be successful, engaging patients and ensuring their participation in follow up is a driver of success.

I have to admit, I haven’t read the bundle specs yet, just the news on the bundle. According to Becker’s Hospital Review’s “10 things to know about CMS’ new mandatory cardiac bundle”, the bundle includes provisions to test cardiac rehabilitation services, with 36 sessions available over 36 weeks. However, according to this article from NPR, although cardiac rehabilitation is proven to be effective, most people don’t participate. If you read through the comments on the NPR article (ignoring the trolls of course), you’ll start to see the reasons: cardiac rehabilitation care is built around the needs of the people providing the rehabilitation, not the patients.

From our experiences delivering post-acute care plans, as well as talking to payers and providers we’ve learned a few reasons why patients don’t follow up with their outpatient care:

  • Distance: In cardiac cases, patients are taken to the closest hospital, but this may not be the closest to their home or work. In other post-acute scenarios, they may have gone to a center of excellence that is also at distance.
  • Time commitment: These programs often require multiple days of treatment a week. Not everyone has the flexibility to take off work.
  • Timing: Programs are usually offered during 9 to 5, to accommodate the needs of the providers. Patients might prefer evening or weekend programs. We talked to one provider that focuses on lower income patients. People in hourly wage jobs don’t get to choose when they take breaks and their breaks are usually 15 minutes, and maybe 30 minutes for lunch. It’s next to impossible for them to attend in-person sessions.
Francis Ying/Kaiser Health News

Francis Ying/Kaiser Health News

The NPR article keyed in on these within the one example of Kathryn Shiflett (a healthcare worker herself!) whose distance and work hours (4:30 AM – 3:00 PM) pose a significant barrier: “She lives an hour away and is about to start a new job. Cardiac rehab classes happen Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, with sessions at 8 a.m., 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.”

While the bundles are definitely driving the right behavior in focusing on patient outcomes rather than procedures, they need to go further to promote patient-centered care. In this case, that should be testing new models like mobile health or community-based rehab programs that are adaptable to the unique needs of different patient groups.

Posted in: Adherence, Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Legislation, Healthcare motivation, Healthcare transformation, Occupational Therapy, patient engagement, Patient Satisfaction, Rehabilitation Business, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment (0) →

MACRA: A Rule Worth Learning

Introduction to MACRA

Those of us who that work closely with clinicians or simply work in healthcare have no doubt heard of the total revamping of Medicare (Part B) clinician payments from a fee-for-service to a value-based system; this sort of change hasn’t occurred in over a generation. If that isn’t incredible enough for you, how about the fact that this 892 page document was passed by Congress with a bi-partisan ‘supermajority’; that alone speaks volumes on the importance of this change. The culprit of my angst and information overload is called the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) that will go into effect 1/1/17. This rule is so complicated with so many layers, it does not even have a Wikipedia page (nobody as been so bold); so keeping that in mind this blog post is my attempt to sum up my own understanding of this proposed rule.

Courtesy of CMS.gov

Two pathways to payment. MACRA is built upon two value based pathways that eligible clinicians (physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified registered nurse anesthetists) must chose from: Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) or the Advanced Alternative Payment Model (Advanced APM). Which path a clinician takes depends on their patient threshold and if they are new to the Medicare. It also depends if the clinician is part of an Accountable Care Organization that is established as an APM entity. The advantage of one over the other is a 5 percent annual payment increase from CMS over 6 years if a physician decides to be grouped with their ACO APM entity. The risk is if clinicians do not meet metrics chosen and set by their ACO they will not be rewarded with their shared savings. The good news is Physicians can elect to switch between the two payment models from on year to another. This flexibility is the foundation to the MACRA proposed rule. Additional choices given to eligible clinicians are: they can report on measures that are important to them and decide if they want to report as an individual or in a group.

Courtesy of HIMMS MACRA information Webinar

Fundamental basics to the MIPS. The MIPS replaces the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), Value-Based Modifier (VBM) and Meaningful Use (MU) programs with the categories: Quality, Resource Use, Clinical Practice Improvement Activities and Advancing Care Information. Quality metrics are mainly derived from PQRS, Advancing Care Information is a simplified version of MU, and Resource Use is similar to VBM. The biggest change, as far as I can tell, is clinicians can choose six quality reporting measures that are important to them. Each year HHS will publish a list of quality measures to be used in the forthcoming MIPS performance period (which is 365 days) for clinicians to choose from. Out of these measures, one must be an outcome measure of high priority measure, one must be cross-cutting (hit on several quality measures), and clinicians can choose to report a specialty measure set. Clinicians composed quality score is measured against clinicians similar to themselves; this is another significant change. If you recall previously the sustainable growth rate (SGR) “set an arbitrary aggregate spending target” not based upon individual performance or clinician peers.

Introduction to Advance APM. There is a reason why I explained in more detail the MIPS path- because I understand it better; as with many things in my life I relate it to food. MIPS takes the wholesome ingredients from MU, PQRS and VBM programs and makes it a much better appeasing entrée. Whereas the Advanced APM program doesn’t focuses so much on the recipe but on the consumer. From what I understand so far, you have to be an eligible clinician determined by CMS, and work in an organization that participates already as an APM through an agreement with CMS. Also, so far, CMS has only identified six APMs that qualify as Advanced APMs. These include Comprehensive End Stage Renal Disease care, Comprehensive Primary Care Plus, Medicare Shared Savings Program (Track 2 and 3), Next Generation ACO Model, and Oncology Care Model. The three criterion’s in order to become an Advance APM clinicians are: 50% of physicians must use Certified EHR technology; payments are based on quality measures; financial risk and nominal amount standards. I hope to dive deeper into Advanced APMs in a later blog post. For now please check out the HIMSS information deck here.

MACRA professional I am not… is anyone? Whereas I love to always learn, MACRA was difficult for me to grasp, HOWEVER I spent about 2 years in Graduate school studying Meaningful Use, so that says a lot. I am sad to say that a lot of what I learned about MU no longer applicable, but good riddance! The beginning of this year the Acting Administrator of CMS said “The Meaningful Use program as it has existed, will now be effectively over and replaced with something better.” I hope we you are right Mr. Slavitt.

Posted in: Healthcare Legislation, Healthcare Policy, Healthcare transformation, Outcomes

Leave a Comment (1) →
Google+