Blog

Posts Tagged university of Washington

Health Care Innovators’ Uphill Climb

The Healthcare Innovators Collaborative and Cambia Grove have joined forces to present a series of talks on our evolving healthcare challenges.

img_0087

This series was run out of University of Washington last year, and this year’s sessions, subtitled “Under the Boughs” are held at Cambia Grove – where a new Sasquatch In Residence (SIR) ensures that the patient voice is present in the conversations.

September’s session took off with Dr. Carlos A. Pellegrini, Chief Medical Officer of UW Medicine, discussing the shift to value-based care. Pellegrini defined UW’s transformation as a process with 6 key goals:

  1.  Standardization

Standardization improves efficiency and is key to reducing cost and improving outcomes. Today, surgeons performing surgery at different hospitals may have varying tasks per hospital. Patients may receive different instructions depending on which physician or department they interact with. As a result, it is difficult to compare outcomes or optimize clinical workflow without a form of standardization.

      2. Population Health Management

Using system data to anticipate patient needs before they become major problems can both improve care and lower costs.

       3. Medical Home 

Implementing the medical home model can allow providers to be more aware of all of their patients and manage them proactively in measurable groups.

       4. Clinical Technology

Better use of clinical technical systems and of technology generally will enable more efficient and proactive patient care.

Dr. Pellegrini suggested they need to identify which patient was calling and suggesting the care they needed. For example “It’s Linda Smith, and she’s due for a mammogram.”

       5. Risk Management

“The Healthy You” – Sending better information to clinicians can help keep patients healthy, such as regarding activity level for obese patients.

        6. Smart Innovation

In contrast to standardization, consider opportunities to   customize experience/treatment for patients to deliver personalized and targeted care.

Understanding and measuring outcomes is also seen as key to approaching this evolution. Still, it was pointed out that providers, payers, and patients all understand a positive outcome differently. For example, for a provider the outcome is usually functional, for a payer or employer the outcome is financial, and for the patient it is often quality of life.

Only when these three outcomes are considered at once can we have true value-based experiences.

While Dr. Pellegrini and interview Lee Huntsman lamented the fact that US healthcare is ten times as expensive as other models, like the UK’s system, at present only 3% of UW Medicine’s revenue comes from value-based models, and it costs them $200M per year to maintain EPIC.

With numbers like this, the shift to value-based care has some big uphill battles. Keep fighting the good fight everyone, we know that the burgeoning health community in Seattle and the Cambia Sasquatch will!

Posted in: Healthcare Research, Healthcare transformation, Meaningful Use, Outcomes, Patient Advocacy, Seattle

Leave a Comment (0) →

Good, Fast, and Cheap: Demonstrating Value in Health Innovation

The goal of Triple Aim is to say that, despite what any project manager will tell you, you can have all three.

Good, Fast, Cheap

Source: http://ollmann.cc/

This provocative statement, set the tone for this third installment in Seattle’s  Health Innovator’s Collaborative, a talk called “Demonstrating Value in Health Innovation: Lessons from Comparative Effectiveness Research” by Larry Kessler, Professor and Chair, Department of Health Services, UW School of Public Health and formerly of the FDA, NIH, and NIMH. Dr. Kessler believes that the new accountable care organizations are mandated to deliver on all three and used the example of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement which was founded in 1991 on this principle and brings together leading hospitals, policy people, and researchers who are finding the best ways to deliver triple aim across many specialties.

Changes in how healthcare systems deliver care will drive innovation; however, innovation for its own sake will not win. Innovation must show evidence, cost savings, and revenue drivers. At the same time, it must satisfy a much wider group of stakeholders than previously including patients, physicians and clinicians, payers and providers. Innovative approaches and technology will take the leap past simply showing evidence of clinical outcomes to delivering value. This is a dramatically different approach from how typical NIH or FDA studies are done today. Those studies are done with a small slice of the population that is homogeneous, for example, they only have one issue and no co-morbidities. This type of study may prove outcomes with this particular population, but it doesn’t show cost or revenue based value and is no indicator of how something would work in the population at large, where the sickest patients are usually struggling with more than one issue.

Quality needs to be redefined as the best service AND the best health outcomes AND the best cost outcomes. Dr. Kessler went on to show some clear examples where solutions needed to go to the next level to be adopted and show results.

The first example provided a model that showed over a 5 year period, gastric bypass surgery proved cost effective. However, insurance plans do not include this surgery and require copious paperwork to justify it. This may make sense though, as the determinates of whether surgery is actually cost effective include a number of additional factors like the population and especially whether they will be part of your problem in 5 years. This is where the new accountable care organizations that are charged with population health will have an easier time with the cost benefit analysis as they be responsible for these patients in 5 years.

Another similar example is the new drug Solvaldi for the treatment of Hepititis C. It’s recently been in the news for its staggering price tag: $84,000 for a 12-week course. However, the drug has proved to be extremely effective, and University of Washington health economist Sean Sullivan points out “the drug is far cheaper than the alternative, which is a liver transplant and a lifetime of immunosuppressant drugs.” Again, though, whether this is a bargain or not depends on how long the payer thinks they will be responsible for the patient.

Successful business outcomes based on cost savings were shown in the example of two diagnostic tests for whether breast cancer would reoccur. The FDA-approved test MammaPrint could predict the recurrence of breast cancer. The non-FDA approved test Oncotype DX could predict the recurrence of breast cancer AND whether chemotherapy would work for the patient. This test, while not FDA-approved became far more popular as it showed very clear cost savings and quality of life for patients who did not undertake unnecessary chemotherapy.

Another study, Back Pain Outcomes Using Longitudinal Data-Extension of Research (BOLDER) was able to consider the patient experience as part of treatment. This study looked at 5,239 patients over 65 with new primary care visits for back pain across 3 integrated systems: Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Henry Ford Health System, Harvard Vanguard/Harvard Pilgrim. The study goal was to determine the impact of early imaging as an intervention. The results are not yet published, but a couple of observations were already apparent. First, patients sent for MRIs, delay getting physical therapy and if the MRI shows they need physical therapy rather than surgery they have delayed their recovery by the time they waited for the MRI. In this case, the intervention of imaging if it was not needed produced less positive results for patients.

This study used the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and it was also noted that many of the standardized testing tools do not account for what the patient actually considers a good outcome, like whether they can sleep soundly or have sex. Again, this shows that studies need to go a step further into the real world application of the patient’s situation.

These examples showed that it’s not enough to show that an intervention or new technology worked in a study, they also need to work in the real world. For payers that means lowering costs, for providers that means lowering costs or generating revenue while improving outcomes, and for patients that means delivering outcomes that are important to them, not just clinically validated.

The final lecture in this series will be June 3rd with Peter Neupert of Health Innovation Partners. See you there!
“IT can make a big difference in health:  Why hasn’t it?”

Health Innovators Collaborative
4:30 PM, W.H. Foege Building, UW Campus
Seminar: Foege Auditorium (S060)
Reception: Foege North 1st Floor Lobby

 

Posted in: Healthcare Disruption, Healthcare Technology, Healthcare transformation, Seattle

Leave a Comment (0) →
Google+