User login
Transitioning from Employment in Academia to Private Practice
After more than 10 years of serving in a large academic medical center in Chicago, Illinois, that was part of a national health care system, the decision to transition into private practice wasn’t one I made lightly.
Having built a rewarding career and spent over a quarter of my life in an academic medical center and a national health system, the move to starting an independent practice from scratch was both exciting and daunting. The notion of leaving behind the structure, resources, and safety of the large health system was unsettling. However, as the landscape of health care continues to evolve, with worsening large structural problems within the U.S. health care system, I realized that starting an independent gastroenterology practice — focused on trying to fix some of these large-scale problems from the start — would not only align with my professional goals but also provide the personal satisfaction I had failed to find.
As I reflect on my journey, there are a few key lessons I learned from making this leap — lessons that helped me transition from a highly structured employed physician environment to leading a thriving independent practice focused on redesigning gastroenterology care from scratch.
Lesson 1: Autonomy Opens the Door to Innovation
One of the primary reasons I left the employed physician setting was to gain greater control over my clinical practice and decision-making processes.
In a national health care system, the goal of standardization often dictates not only clinical care, but many “back end” aspects of the entire health care experience. We often see the things that are more visible, such as what supplies/equipment you use, how your patient appointments are scheduled, how many support staff members are assigned to help your practice, what electronic health record system you use, and how shared resources (like GI lab block time or anesthesia teams) are allocated.
However, this also impacts things we don’t usually see, such as what fees are billed for care you are providing (like facility fees), communication systems that your patients need to navigate for help, human resource systems you use, and retirement/health benefits you and your other team members receive.
Standardization has two adverse consequences: 1) it does not allow for personalization and as a result, 2) it suppresses innovation. Standard protocols can streamline processes, but they sometimes fail to account for the nuanced differences between patients, such as genetic factors, unique medical histories, or responses/failures to prior treatments. This rigidity can stifle innovation, as physicians are often bound by guidelines that may not reflect the latest advancements or allow for creative, individualized approaches to care. In the long term, an overemphasis on standardization risks turning health care into a one-size-fits-all model, undermining the potential for breakthroughs.
The transition was challenging at first, as we needed to engage our entire new practice with a different mindset now that many of us had autonomy for the first time. Instead of everyone just practicing health care the way they had done before, we took a page from Elon Musk and challenged every member of the team to ask three questions about everything they do on a daily basis:
- Is what I am doing helping a patient get healthy? (Question every requirement)
- If not, do I still need to do this? (Delete any part of the process you can)
- If so, how can I make this easier, faster, or automated? (Simplify and optimize, accelerate cycle time, and automate)
The freedom to innovate is a hallmark of independent practice. Embracing innovation in every aspect of the practice has been the most critical lesson of this journey.
Lesson 2: Financial Stewardship is Critical for Sustainability
Running an independent practice is not just about medicine — it’s also about managing a business.
This was a stark shift from the large academic health systems, where financial decisions were handled by the “administration.” In my new role as a business owner, understanding the financial aspects of health care was crucial for success. The cost of what patients pay for health care in the United States (either directly in deductibles and coinsurance or indirectly through insurance premiums) is unsustainably high. However, inflation continues to cause substantial increases in almost all the costs of delivering care: medical supplies, salaries, benefits, IT costs, etc. It was critical to develop a financial plan that accounted for these two macro-economic trends, and ideally helped solve for both. In our case, delivering high quality care with a lower cost to patients and payers.
We started by reevaluating our relationship with payers. Whereas being part of a large academic health system, we are often taught to look at payers as the adversary; as an independent practice looking to redesign the health care experience, it was critical for us to look to the payers as a partner in this journey. Understanding payer expectations and structuring contracts that aligned with shared goals of reducing total health care costs for patients was one of the foundations of our financial plan.
Offering office-based endoscopy was one innovation we implemented to significantly impact both patient affordability and practice revenue. By performing procedures like colonoscopies and upper endoscopies in an office setting rather than a hospital or ambulatory surgery center, we eliminated facility fees, which are often a significant part of the total cost of care. This directly lowers out-of-pocket expenses for patients and reduces the overall financial burden on insurance companies. At the same time, it allows the practice to capture more of the revenue from these procedures, without the overhead costs associated with larger facilities. This model creates a win-win situation: patients save money while receiving the same quality of care, and the practice experiences an increase in profitability and autonomy in managing its services.
Lesson 3: Collaborative Care and Multidisciplinary Teams Can Exist Anywhere
One aspect I deeply valued in academia was the collaborative environment — having specialists across disciplines work together on challenging cases. In private practice, I was concerned that I would lose this collegial atmosphere. However, I quickly learned that building a robust network of multidisciplinary collaborators was achievable in independent practice, just like it was in a large health system.
In our practice, we established close relationships with primary care physicians, surgeons, advanced practice providers, dietitians, behavioral health specialists, and others. These partnerships were not just referral networks but integrated care teams where communication and shared decision-making were prioritized. By fostering collaboration, we could offer patients comprehensive care that addressed their physical, psychological, and nutritional needs.
For example, managing patients with chronic conditions like inflammatory bowel disease, cirrhosis, or obesity requires more than just prescribing medications. It involves regular monitoring, dietary adjustments, psychological support, and in some cases, surgical intervention. In an academic setting, coordinating this level of care can be cumbersome due to institutional barriers and siloed departments. In our practice, some of these relationships are achieved through partnerships with other like-minded practices. In other situations, team members of other disciplines are employed directly by our practice. Being in an independent practice allowed us the flexibility to prioritize working with the right team members first, and then structuring the relationship model second.
Lesson 4: Technology Is a Vital Tool in Redesigning Health Care
When I worked in a large academic health system, technology was often seen as an administrative burden rather than a clinical asset. Electronic health records (EHR) and a lot of the other IT systems that health care workers and patients interacted with on a regular basis were viewed as a barrier to care or a cause of time burdens instead of as tools to make health care easier. As we built our new practice from scratch, it was critical that we had an IT infrastructure that aligned with our core goals: simplify and automate the health care experience for everyone.
For our practice, we didn’t try to re-invent the wheel. Instead we copied from other industries who had already figured out a great solution for a problem we had. We wanted our patients to have a great customer service experience when interacting with our practice for scheduling, questions, refills, etc. So we implemented a unified communication system that some Fortune 100 companies, with perennial high scores for customer service, used. We wanted a great human resource system that would streamline the administrative time it would take to handle all HR needs for our practice. So we implemented an HR information system that had the best ratings for automation and integration with other business systems. At every point in the process, we reminded ourselves to focus on simplification and automation for every user of the system.
Conclusion: A Rewarding Transition
The lessons I’ve learned along the way — embracing autonomy, understanding financial stewardship, fostering collaboration, and leveraging technology — have helped me work toward a better total health care experience for the community.
This journey has also been deeply fulfilling on a personal level. It has allowed me to build stronger relationships with my patients, focus on long-term health outcomes, and create a practice where innovation and quality truly matter. While the challenges of running a private practice are real, the rewards — both for me and my patients — are immeasurable. If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment. If anything, I should have done it earlier.
Dr. Gupta is Managing Partner at Midwest Digestive Health & Nutrition, in Des Plaines, Illinois. He has reported no conflicts of interest in relation to this article.
After more than 10 years of serving in a large academic medical center in Chicago, Illinois, that was part of a national health care system, the decision to transition into private practice wasn’t one I made lightly.
Having built a rewarding career and spent over a quarter of my life in an academic medical center and a national health system, the move to starting an independent practice from scratch was both exciting and daunting. The notion of leaving behind the structure, resources, and safety of the large health system was unsettling. However, as the landscape of health care continues to evolve, with worsening large structural problems within the U.S. health care system, I realized that starting an independent gastroenterology practice — focused on trying to fix some of these large-scale problems from the start — would not only align with my professional goals but also provide the personal satisfaction I had failed to find.
As I reflect on my journey, there are a few key lessons I learned from making this leap — lessons that helped me transition from a highly structured employed physician environment to leading a thriving independent practice focused on redesigning gastroenterology care from scratch.
Lesson 1: Autonomy Opens the Door to Innovation
One of the primary reasons I left the employed physician setting was to gain greater control over my clinical practice and decision-making processes.
In a national health care system, the goal of standardization often dictates not only clinical care, but many “back end” aspects of the entire health care experience. We often see the things that are more visible, such as what supplies/equipment you use, how your patient appointments are scheduled, how many support staff members are assigned to help your practice, what electronic health record system you use, and how shared resources (like GI lab block time or anesthesia teams) are allocated.
However, this also impacts things we don’t usually see, such as what fees are billed for care you are providing (like facility fees), communication systems that your patients need to navigate for help, human resource systems you use, and retirement/health benefits you and your other team members receive.
Standardization has two adverse consequences: 1) it does not allow for personalization and as a result, 2) it suppresses innovation. Standard protocols can streamline processes, but they sometimes fail to account for the nuanced differences between patients, such as genetic factors, unique medical histories, or responses/failures to prior treatments. This rigidity can stifle innovation, as physicians are often bound by guidelines that may not reflect the latest advancements or allow for creative, individualized approaches to care. In the long term, an overemphasis on standardization risks turning health care into a one-size-fits-all model, undermining the potential for breakthroughs.
The transition was challenging at first, as we needed to engage our entire new practice with a different mindset now that many of us had autonomy for the first time. Instead of everyone just practicing health care the way they had done before, we took a page from Elon Musk and challenged every member of the team to ask three questions about everything they do on a daily basis:
- Is what I am doing helping a patient get healthy? (Question every requirement)
- If not, do I still need to do this? (Delete any part of the process you can)
- If so, how can I make this easier, faster, or automated? (Simplify and optimize, accelerate cycle time, and automate)
The freedom to innovate is a hallmark of independent practice. Embracing innovation in every aspect of the practice has been the most critical lesson of this journey.
Lesson 2: Financial Stewardship is Critical for Sustainability
Running an independent practice is not just about medicine — it’s also about managing a business.
This was a stark shift from the large academic health systems, where financial decisions were handled by the “administration.” In my new role as a business owner, understanding the financial aspects of health care was crucial for success. The cost of what patients pay for health care in the United States (either directly in deductibles and coinsurance or indirectly through insurance premiums) is unsustainably high. However, inflation continues to cause substantial increases in almost all the costs of delivering care: medical supplies, salaries, benefits, IT costs, etc. It was critical to develop a financial plan that accounted for these two macro-economic trends, and ideally helped solve for both. In our case, delivering high quality care with a lower cost to patients and payers.
We started by reevaluating our relationship with payers. Whereas being part of a large academic health system, we are often taught to look at payers as the adversary; as an independent practice looking to redesign the health care experience, it was critical for us to look to the payers as a partner in this journey. Understanding payer expectations and structuring contracts that aligned with shared goals of reducing total health care costs for patients was one of the foundations of our financial plan.
Offering office-based endoscopy was one innovation we implemented to significantly impact both patient affordability and practice revenue. By performing procedures like colonoscopies and upper endoscopies in an office setting rather than a hospital or ambulatory surgery center, we eliminated facility fees, which are often a significant part of the total cost of care. This directly lowers out-of-pocket expenses for patients and reduces the overall financial burden on insurance companies. At the same time, it allows the practice to capture more of the revenue from these procedures, without the overhead costs associated with larger facilities. This model creates a win-win situation: patients save money while receiving the same quality of care, and the practice experiences an increase in profitability and autonomy in managing its services.
Lesson 3: Collaborative Care and Multidisciplinary Teams Can Exist Anywhere
One aspect I deeply valued in academia was the collaborative environment — having specialists across disciplines work together on challenging cases. In private practice, I was concerned that I would lose this collegial atmosphere. However, I quickly learned that building a robust network of multidisciplinary collaborators was achievable in independent practice, just like it was in a large health system.
In our practice, we established close relationships with primary care physicians, surgeons, advanced practice providers, dietitians, behavioral health specialists, and others. These partnerships were not just referral networks but integrated care teams where communication and shared decision-making were prioritized. By fostering collaboration, we could offer patients comprehensive care that addressed their physical, psychological, and nutritional needs.
For example, managing patients with chronic conditions like inflammatory bowel disease, cirrhosis, or obesity requires more than just prescribing medications. It involves regular monitoring, dietary adjustments, psychological support, and in some cases, surgical intervention. In an academic setting, coordinating this level of care can be cumbersome due to institutional barriers and siloed departments. In our practice, some of these relationships are achieved through partnerships with other like-minded practices. In other situations, team members of other disciplines are employed directly by our practice. Being in an independent practice allowed us the flexibility to prioritize working with the right team members first, and then structuring the relationship model second.
Lesson 4: Technology Is a Vital Tool in Redesigning Health Care
When I worked in a large academic health system, technology was often seen as an administrative burden rather than a clinical asset. Electronic health records (EHR) and a lot of the other IT systems that health care workers and patients interacted with on a regular basis were viewed as a barrier to care or a cause of time burdens instead of as tools to make health care easier. As we built our new practice from scratch, it was critical that we had an IT infrastructure that aligned with our core goals: simplify and automate the health care experience for everyone.
For our practice, we didn’t try to re-invent the wheel. Instead we copied from other industries who had already figured out a great solution for a problem we had. We wanted our patients to have a great customer service experience when interacting with our practice for scheduling, questions, refills, etc. So we implemented a unified communication system that some Fortune 100 companies, with perennial high scores for customer service, used. We wanted a great human resource system that would streamline the administrative time it would take to handle all HR needs for our practice. So we implemented an HR information system that had the best ratings for automation and integration with other business systems. At every point in the process, we reminded ourselves to focus on simplification and automation for every user of the system.
Conclusion: A Rewarding Transition
The lessons I’ve learned along the way — embracing autonomy, understanding financial stewardship, fostering collaboration, and leveraging technology — have helped me work toward a better total health care experience for the community.
This journey has also been deeply fulfilling on a personal level. It has allowed me to build stronger relationships with my patients, focus on long-term health outcomes, and create a practice where innovation and quality truly matter. While the challenges of running a private practice are real, the rewards — both for me and my patients — are immeasurable. If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment. If anything, I should have done it earlier.
Dr. Gupta is Managing Partner at Midwest Digestive Health & Nutrition, in Des Plaines, Illinois. He has reported no conflicts of interest in relation to this article.
After more than 10 years of serving in a large academic medical center in Chicago, Illinois, that was part of a national health care system, the decision to transition into private practice wasn’t one I made lightly.
Having built a rewarding career and spent over a quarter of my life in an academic medical center and a national health system, the move to starting an independent practice from scratch was both exciting and daunting. The notion of leaving behind the structure, resources, and safety of the large health system was unsettling. However, as the landscape of health care continues to evolve, with worsening large structural problems within the U.S. health care system, I realized that starting an independent gastroenterology practice — focused on trying to fix some of these large-scale problems from the start — would not only align with my professional goals but also provide the personal satisfaction I had failed to find.
As I reflect on my journey, there are a few key lessons I learned from making this leap — lessons that helped me transition from a highly structured employed physician environment to leading a thriving independent practice focused on redesigning gastroenterology care from scratch.
Lesson 1: Autonomy Opens the Door to Innovation
One of the primary reasons I left the employed physician setting was to gain greater control over my clinical practice and decision-making processes.
In a national health care system, the goal of standardization often dictates not only clinical care, but many “back end” aspects of the entire health care experience. We often see the things that are more visible, such as what supplies/equipment you use, how your patient appointments are scheduled, how many support staff members are assigned to help your practice, what electronic health record system you use, and how shared resources (like GI lab block time or anesthesia teams) are allocated.
However, this also impacts things we don’t usually see, such as what fees are billed for care you are providing (like facility fees), communication systems that your patients need to navigate for help, human resource systems you use, and retirement/health benefits you and your other team members receive.
Standardization has two adverse consequences: 1) it does not allow for personalization and as a result, 2) it suppresses innovation. Standard protocols can streamline processes, but they sometimes fail to account for the nuanced differences between patients, such as genetic factors, unique medical histories, or responses/failures to prior treatments. This rigidity can stifle innovation, as physicians are often bound by guidelines that may not reflect the latest advancements or allow for creative, individualized approaches to care. In the long term, an overemphasis on standardization risks turning health care into a one-size-fits-all model, undermining the potential for breakthroughs.
The transition was challenging at first, as we needed to engage our entire new practice with a different mindset now that many of us had autonomy for the first time. Instead of everyone just practicing health care the way they had done before, we took a page from Elon Musk and challenged every member of the team to ask three questions about everything they do on a daily basis:
- Is what I am doing helping a patient get healthy? (Question every requirement)
- If not, do I still need to do this? (Delete any part of the process you can)
- If so, how can I make this easier, faster, or automated? (Simplify and optimize, accelerate cycle time, and automate)
The freedom to innovate is a hallmark of independent practice. Embracing innovation in every aspect of the practice has been the most critical lesson of this journey.
Lesson 2: Financial Stewardship is Critical for Sustainability
Running an independent practice is not just about medicine — it’s also about managing a business.
This was a stark shift from the large academic health systems, where financial decisions were handled by the “administration.” In my new role as a business owner, understanding the financial aspects of health care was crucial for success. The cost of what patients pay for health care in the United States (either directly in deductibles and coinsurance or indirectly through insurance premiums) is unsustainably high. However, inflation continues to cause substantial increases in almost all the costs of delivering care: medical supplies, salaries, benefits, IT costs, etc. It was critical to develop a financial plan that accounted for these two macro-economic trends, and ideally helped solve for both. In our case, delivering high quality care with a lower cost to patients and payers.
We started by reevaluating our relationship with payers. Whereas being part of a large academic health system, we are often taught to look at payers as the adversary; as an independent practice looking to redesign the health care experience, it was critical for us to look to the payers as a partner in this journey. Understanding payer expectations and structuring contracts that aligned with shared goals of reducing total health care costs for patients was one of the foundations of our financial plan.
Offering office-based endoscopy was one innovation we implemented to significantly impact both patient affordability and practice revenue. By performing procedures like colonoscopies and upper endoscopies in an office setting rather than a hospital or ambulatory surgery center, we eliminated facility fees, which are often a significant part of the total cost of care. This directly lowers out-of-pocket expenses for patients and reduces the overall financial burden on insurance companies. At the same time, it allows the practice to capture more of the revenue from these procedures, without the overhead costs associated with larger facilities. This model creates a win-win situation: patients save money while receiving the same quality of care, and the practice experiences an increase in profitability and autonomy in managing its services.
Lesson 3: Collaborative Care and Multidisciplinary Teams Can Exist Anywhere
One aspect I deeply valued in academia was the collaborative environment — having specialists across disciplines work together on challenging cases. In private practice, I was concerned that I would lose this collegial atmosphere. However, I quickly learned that building a robust network of multidisciplinary collaborators was achievable in independent practice, just like it was in a large health system.
In our practice, we established close relationships with primary care physicians, surgeons, advanced practice providers, dietitians, behavioral health specialists, and others. These partnerships were not just referral networks but integrated care teams where communication and shared decision-making were prioritized. By fostering collaboration, we could offer patients comprehensive care that addressed their physical, psychological, and nutritional needs.
For example, managing patients with chronic conditions like inflammatory bowel disease, cirrhosis, or obesity requires more than just prescribing medications. It involves regular monitoring, dietary adjustments, psychological support, and in some cases, surgical intervention. In an academic setting, coordinating this level of care can be cumbersome due to institutional barriers and siloed departments. In our practice, some of these relationships are achieved through partnerships with other like-minded practices. In other situations, team members of other disciplines are employed directly by our practice. Being in an independent practice allowed us the flexibility to prioritize working with the right team members first, and then structuring the relationship model second.
Lesson 4: Technology Is a Vital Tool in Redesigning Health Care
When I worked in a large academic health system, technology was often seen as an administrative burden rather than a clinical asset. Electronic health records (EHR) and a lot of the other IT systems that health care workers and patients interacted with on a regular basis were viewed as a barrier to care or a cause of time burdens instead of as tools to make health care easier. As we built our new practice from scratch, it was critical that we had an IT infrastructure that aligned with our core goals: simplify and automate the health care experience for everyone.
For our practice, we didn’t try to re-invent the wheel. Instead we copied from other industries who had already figured out a great solution for a problem we had. We wanted our patients to have a great customer service experience when interacting with our practice for scheduling, questions, refills, etc. So we implemented a unified communication system that some Fortune 100 companies, with perennial high scores for customer service, used. We wanted a great human resource system that would streamline the administrative time it would take to handle all HR needs for our practice. So we implemented an HR information system that had the best ratings for automation and integration with other business systems. At every point in the process, we reminded ourselves to focus on simplification and automation for every user of the system.
Conclusion: A Rewarding Transition
The lessons I’ve learned along the way — embracing autonomy, understanding financial stewardship, fostering collaboration, and leveraging technology — have helped me work toward a better total health care experience for the community.
This journey has also been deeply fulfilling on a personal level. It has allowed me to build stronger relationships with my patients, focus on long-term health outcomes, and create a practice where innovation and quality truly matter. While the challenges of running a private practice are real, the rewards — both for me and my patients — are immeasurable. If I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment. If anything, I should have done it earlier.
Dr. Gupta is Managing Partner at Midwest Digestive Health & Nutrition, in Des Plaines, Illinois. He has reported no conflicts of interest in relation to this article.
Colorectal cancer screening quality measures – beyond colonoscopy
Medicine in the United States is undergoing fundamental changes that will continue despite 2016 presidential election results. Changes include consolidation of provider networks, movement from volume- to value-based reimbursement, demands for price and quality transparency, and a shift from focusing solely on individual physician-patient interactions to a broader triple aim focus that incorporates individual patients, population, health, and cost. In this month’s column, Sameer Saini and colleagues suggest that we broaden our view of colorectal cancer screening quality metrics from a colonoscopy-centric focus to a focus on the bottom line: Do we reduce cancer in the population of patients that we serve? When we extend our view to a population level, we use current colonoscopy registries only as internal process controls. A successful health system will develop a mechanism to assess and demonstrate how well the collective team of providers accomplishes the only outcome that matters to patients: preventing colon cancer.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF, Special Section Editor
Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is one of the most valuable services provided by gastroenterologists. The evidence that screening “works” on a population level is undeniable. But not every screening program is equally effective. Data indicate ongoing underuse of screening, particularly in high-risk, vulnerable, and minority communities.1,2 Other data indicate that screening is overused, particularly in low-risk patients and in those with limited life expectancy.3-5 It is also known that endoscopist skill plays an important role in the effectiveness of screening. In short, there is ample room for improvement in the quality of CRC screening, and payers and the public have taken notice. Unsurprisingly, gastroenterologists are often focused on procedural quality indicators, such as adenoma detection and cecal intubation rates.6 These endoscopic quality measures are important indicators of high-quality colonoscopy, but colonoscopy is the common touch point of a much broader system of care that includes other screening tests and other providers (e.g., primary care providers [PCPs], pathologists, and anesthesiologists). Coordinating care across this system is essential for improving the health of patients. As the stewards of digestive health, we owe it to our patients to take a more comprehensive view of CRC screening quality and move beyond colonoscopy alone.
The complex web of care that comprises CRC screening is shown schematically in Figure 1. Appropriate screening begins with selection of suitable screening candidates. In the United States, where most screening is initiated during a clinician encounter, this important task falls primarily on the shoulders of PCPs. It is typically the role of the PCP to assess the two key patient factors that determine screening benefit: CRC risk (using personal and family history) and life expectancy (using age and overall health status). Once a patient has been deemed an appropriate candidate for screening, an acceptable screening test must be selected. Here, patient and practitioner are faced with a menu of options, including fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), colonoscopy, multitarget stool DNA, and computed tomography colonography. For average-risk screening, the ideal test depends primarily on patient preference and local availability.
If a screening test other than colonoscopy is selected, it becomes critical that a positive test is followed by timely and high-quality colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy begins with evidence-based preprocedure education and preparation, including appropriate selection of anesthesia services. Once a patient has been well prepared and adequately sedated, an endoscopist must carefully examine the colonic mucosa and completely resect any suspicious polyps. Unless discarded, resected polyps must be reviewed and categorized by a pathologist, including appropriate identification of serrated polyps. Finally, pathology results must be correctly interpreted by the clinician, with evidence-based follow-up recommendations made and effectively communicated to the patient and the referring provider. Additionally, in the short term, delayed gastrointestinal (GI) and non-GI complications of colonoscopy must be recognized and appropriately addressed. In the long term, the rate of interval cancers must be monitored.
Recognizing the importance of CRC screening, GI specialty societies have proposed a variety of quality measures to ensure that patients receive high-quality and high-value colonoscopy. Several of these measures have been adopted by CMS as part of the Physician Quality Reporting System. Non-GI groups, such as the National Center for Quality Assurance and the Ambulatory Surgery Center Association, have also proposed their own CRC screening–related measures.
Despite the proliferation of measures in the domain of CRC screening, current measures fall short in several ways. First, they are largely focused on colonoscopy technical performance, with less attention paid to the important steps that occur before and after colonoscopy. For example, the existing Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measure for underuse of CRC screening assesses the proportion of patients in a health plan between the ages 50 and 75 who are up to date for CRC screening. This measure is satisfied if a patient completes FOBT, regardless of the result. But FOBT alone is not sufficient to reduce mortality from CRC. Rather, it is imperative that a positive FOBT test be followed by colonoscopy. Numerous studies suggest a quality gap in this critical referral step.7
Yet, outside of selected clinical settings (e.g., the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System), no existing quality measure focuses on colonoscopy completion after positive FOBT. Other examples of important performance gaps beyond colonoscopy technical performance include appropriate use of monitored anesthesia care (data suggest overuse) and appropriate pathology interpretation (data suggest variation in the interpretation of serrated lesions, some of which are associated with increased risk of CRC).
Second, existing measures fail to consider individual patient factors that are known to be predictive of screening benefit, such as life expectancy and personal or familial cancer risk.8
Returning to the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measure as an example, this measure relies on age alone to identify patients who are candidates for screening. Yet, it is widely recognized that life expectancy is a critically important factor when considering screening, particularly in older patients. However, existing measures fail to incorporate estimates of life expectancy. As a result, clinicians are encouraged to screen based on age alone. Data suggest that this leads to overuse in older, sicker patients younger than age 75 (the age cutoff suggested by guidelines and incorporated into the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measure) and underuse in healthy and unscreened patients older than age 75.9
Furthermore, existing measures fail to systematically consider patient preferences and undervalue shared decision making. Data suggest, for instance, that patients who are offered a “menu” of options for screening rather than a single screening test are more likely to complete a screening test.10
But existing measures do not consider whether a physician assessed a patient’s preferences, or offered more than one screening option. Of course, measuring the quality of decision making is an evolving science that presents challenges and requires creative solutions.11
Finally, existing measures do not capture the collaborative nature of modern health care. For example, most existing measures focus on the performance of gastroenterologists and GI practices. Although such a focus is appropriate for specialty-specific quality improvement efforts, it neglects to capture the important interactions and hand-offs between providers needed for successful completion of screening (and downstream reduction in cancer mortality). As a result, this specialty-focused approach fails to meet the needs of patients, who are increasingly interested in whether the care they receive is improving their health regardless of who provides it. It also fails to meet the needs of payers, who are interested in whether a network of providers is delivering high-value care for its members. Developing measures that capture the collaborative nature of modern health care becomes increasingly important as payers embrace alternative payment models and other value-based reimbursement systems.
Given these challenges with existing measures, we propose the following concepts for consideration as noncolonoscopy quality measures of CRC screening:
1. Appropriateness of referral for CRC screening (PCP): Measures in this domain should incorporate assessment of family history, prior screening history, and/or life expectancy, all of which are predictive of screening benefit and can be extracted from structured electronic health record data.
2. Shared decision making in choosing a CRC screening test (PCP): Currently, measures in this domain are (by necessity) relatively simple, such as assessment of documentation of whether stool testing was offered alongside colonoscopy during a clinic visit.
3. Percentage of individuals with a positive noncolonoscopy CRC screening test who complete a colonoscopy within 6 months (PCP and GI): A measure in this domain can be developed and implemented using existing infrastructure. The Veterans Affairs Healthcare System currently uses such a measure to monitor appropriate follow-up of positive fecal immunochemical tests.
4. Predicted reduction in CRC mortality: This measure, which provides an estimate of the effectiveness and value of a screening program, represents the “bottom line” that is ultimately of interest to both patients and payers. However, composite measures that use projected results require sophisticated statistical approaches and case-mix adjustment. They must also contend with “churn” in the covered population.
Although a more comprehensive view of screening is desirable, operationalizing measure concepts, such as those proposed previously, is challenging for several reasons. First, as we have outlined, CRC screening is truly a “team sport.” The stakeholders in CRC screening include public health, primary care, gastroenterology, colorectal surgery, oncology, anesthesiology, and pathology practitioners. As a result, screening has no natural and obvious steward. Rather, various components of care are adopted by different specialty groups, and this approach leads to unmonitored gaps in care. We believe that gastroenterologists can and should take the lead in developing comprehensive quality measures for CRC screening. Such comprehensive measures will be of value to patients and to payers. Second, assessing quality of care more comprehensively has traditionally been infeasible. For example, incorporating life expectancy into quality measures requires electronic assessment of health status.
Traditionally, such efforts have been hampered by the lack of systematic clinical data collection. However, as meaningful use of electronic health records increases, measures that incorporate such information are likely to become increasingly feasible. Finally, we also need to consider how to make these improvements while avoiding measure proliferation. Proliferation leads to provider fatigue and discourages thoughtful clinical decision making, potentially worsening quality of care. Creative approaches, such as rotating measure sets over time, use of clinical decision support tools, and balancing underuse measures with overuse measures, may be warranted. Additionally, composite measures may prove to be more meaningful and more practical for patients, providers, and payers. Ultimately, a distinction must be made between quality assurance and quality improvement; both are important, but the types of measures and the level of measure sophistication used in each program undoubtedly vary.
In summary, gastroenterologists are uniquely positioned to advocate for high-quality CRC screening that extends beyond simply providing a high-quality colonoscopy. This broader view of quality benefits patients by ensuring that our expertise informs the metrics by which delivery of CRC screening is measured. It also ensures that we hold ourselves and our colleagues to the highest standards across the continuum of care. Additionally, as alternative payment models and value-based contracting are implemented, nonendoscopic screening methods will likely become more commonplace. Advocating for high-quality nonendoscopic screening will help maintain gastroenterologists’ role as the stewards of CRC screening and digestive health. Although operationalizing measure concepts such as those proposed here may be difficult, it is critical if we are to provide the best possible care for our patients.
References
1. Sabatino, S.A., White, M.C., Thompson, T.D., et al. Cancer screening test use – United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64:464-8.
2. Anderson, A.E., Henry, K.A., Samadder, N.J., et al. Rural vs urban residence affects risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:526-33.
3. Walter, L.C., Lindquist, K., Nugent, S., et al. Impact of age and comorbidity on colorectal cancer screening among older veterans. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:465-73.
4. Murphy, C.C., Sandler, R.S., Grubber, J.M., et al. Underuse and overuse of colonoscopy for repeat screening and surveillance in the Veterans Health Administration. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:436-44.
5. Mittal, S., Lin, Y.-L., Tan, A., et al. Limited life expectancy among a subgroup of Medicare beneficiaries receiving screening colonoscopies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:443-50.e1
6. Allen, J.I. Quality measures for colonoscopy: where should we be in 2015?. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2015;17:10.
7. Fisher, D.A., Jeffreys, A., Coffman, C.J., et al. Barriers to full colon evaluation for a positive fecal occult blood test. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15:1232-5.
8. Saini, S.D., van Hees, F., Vijan, S. Smarter screening for cancer: possibilities and challenges of personalization. JAMA. 2014;312:2211-2.
9. Saini, S.D., Vijan, S., Schoenfeld, P., et al. Role of quality measurement in inappropriate use of screening for colorectal cancer: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2014;348:g1247.
10. Inadomi, J.M., Vijan, S., Janz, N.K., et al. Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:575-82.
11. Writing Committee Members, Drozda, J.P., Ferguson, T.B., et al. 2015 ACC/AHA focused update of secondary prevention lipid performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:558-87.
Dr. Saini is a research scientist at the VA Center for Clinical Management Research and an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Dr. Adams is a clinical lecturer in the division of gastroenterology, department of internal medicine, University of Michigan, and a research investigator, VA Center for Clinical Management Research; Dr. Brill is the chief medical officer of Predictive Health, Paradise Valley, Ariz., and a clinical assistant professor of medicine, University of Arizona School of Medicine, Phoenix; Dr. Gupta is codirector of Digestive Health Center, director of interventional endoscopy, and associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at Loyola University Medical Center; Dr. Naveed is a clinical assistant professor in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics; Dr. Rosenberg is at Illinois Gastroenterology Group; and Dr. Gellad is associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C. Dr. Saini’s and Dr. Gellad’s research is funded by Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Career Development Awards (CDA 09-213-2 and CDA 14-158). Dr. Gupta has received research support from Cook Medical, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, and CDx Diagnostics.
Medicine in the United States is undergoing fundamental changes that will continue despite 2016 presidential election results. Changes include consolidation of provider networks, movement from volume- to value-based reimbursement, demands for price and quality transparency, and a shift from focusing solely on individual physician-patient interactions to a broader triple aim focus that incorporates individual patients, population, health, and cost. In this month’s column, Sameer Saini and colleagues suggest that we broaden our view of colorectal cancer screening quality metrics from a colonoscopy-centric focus to a focus on the bottom line: Do we reduce cancer in the population of patients that we serve? When we extend our view to a population level, we use current colonoscopy registries only as internal process controls. A successful health system will develop a mechanism to assess and demonstrate how well the collective team of providers accomplishes the only outcome that matters to patients: preventing colon cancer.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF, Special Section Editor
Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is one of the most valuable services provided by gastroenterologists. The evidence that screening “works” on a population level is undeniable. But not every screening program is equally effective. Data indicate ongoing underuse of screening, particularly in high-risk, vulnerable, and minority communities.1,2 Other data indicate that screening is overused, particularly in low-risk patients and in those with limited life expectancy.3-5 It is also known that endoscopist skill plays an important role in the effectiveness of screening. In short, there is ample room for improvement in the quality of CRC screening, and payers and the public have taken notice. Unsurprisingly, gastroenterologists are often focused on procedural quality indicators, such as adenoma detection and cecal intubation rates.6 These endoscopic quality measures are important indicators of high-quality colonoscopy, but colonoscopy is the common touch point of a much broader system of care that includes other screening tests and other providers (e.g., primary care providers [PCPs], pathologists, and anesthesiologists). Coordinating care across this system is essential for improving the health of patients. As the stewards of digestive health, we owe it to our patients to take a more comprehensive view of CRC screening quality and move beyond colonoscopy alone.
The complex web of care that comprises CRC screening is shown schematically in Figure 1. Appropriate screening begins with selection of suitable screening candidates. In the United States, where most screening is initiated during a clinician encounter, this important task falls primarily on the shoulders of PCPs. It is typically the role of the PCP to assess the two key patient factors that determine screening benefit: CRC risk (using personal and family history) and life expectancy (using age and overall health status). Once a patient has been deemed an appropriate candidate for screening, an acceptable screening test must be selected. Here, patient and practitioner are faced with a menu of options, including fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), colonoscopy, multitarget stool DNA, and computed tomography colonography. For average-risk screening, the ideal test depends primarily on patient preference and local availability.
If a screening test other than colonoscopy is selected, it becomes critical that a positive test is followed by timely and high-quality colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy begins with evidence-based preprocedure education and preparation, including appropriate selection of anesthesia services. Once a patient has been well prepared and adequately sedated, an endoscopist must carefully examine the colonic mucosa and completely resect any suspicious polyps. Unless discarded, resected polyps must be reviewed and categorized by a pathologist, including appropriate identification of serrated polyps. Finally, pathology results must be correctly interpreted by the clinician, with evidence-based follow-up recommendations made and effectively communicated to the patient and the referring provider. Additionally, in the short term, delayed gastrointestinal (GI) and non-GI complications of colonoscopy must be recognized and appropriately addressed. In the long term, the rate of interval cancers must be monitored.
Recognizing the importance of CRC screening, GI specialty societies have proposed a variety of quality measures to ensure that patients receive high-quality and high-value colonoscopy. Several of these measures have been adopted by CMS as part of the Physician Quality Reporting System. Non-GI groups, such as the National Center for Quality Assurance and the Ambulatory Surgery Center Association, have also proposed their own CRC screening–related measures.
Despite the proliferation of measures in the domain of CRC screening, current measures fall short in several ways. First, they are largely focused on colonoscopy technical performance, with less attention paid to the important steps that occur before and after colonoscopy. For example, the existing Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measure for underuse of CRC screening assesses the proportion of patients in a health plan between the ages 50 and 75 who are up to date for CRC screening. This measure is satisfied if a patient completes FOBT, regardless of the result. But FOBT alone is not sufficient to reduce mortality from CRC. Rather, it is imperative that a positive FOBT test be followed by colonoscopy. Numerous studies suggest a quality gap in this critical referral step.7
Yet, outside of selected clinical settings (e.g., the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System), no existing quality measure focuses on colonoscopy completion after positive FOBT. Other examples of important performance gaps beyond colonoscopy technical performance include appropriate use of monitored anesthesia care (data suggest overuse) and appropriate pathology interpretation (data suggest variation in the interpretation of serrated lesions, some of which are associated with increased risk of CRC).
Second, existing measures fail to consider individual patient factors that are known to be predictive of screening benefit, such as life expectancy and personal or familial cancer risk.8
Returning to the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measure as an example, this measure relies on age alone to identify patients who are candidates for screening. Yet, it is widely recognized that life expectancy is a critically important factor when considering screening, particularly in older patients. However, existing measures fail to incorporate estimates of life expectancy. As a result, clinicians are encouraged to screen based on age alone. Data suggest that this leads to overuse in older, sicker patients younger than age 75 (the age cutoff suggested by guidelines and incorporated into the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measure) and underuse in healthy and unscreened patients older than age 75.9
Furthermore, existing measures fail to systematically consider patient preferences and undervalue shared decision making. Data suggest, for instance, that patients who are offered a “menu” of options for screening rather than a single screening test are more likely to complete a screening test.10
But existing measures do not consider whether a physician assessed a patient’s preferences, or offered more than one screening option. Of course, measuring the quality of decision making is an evolving science that presents challenges and requires creative solutions.11
Finally, existing measures do not capture the collaborative nature of modern health care. For example, most existing measures focus on the performance of gastroenterologists and GI practices. Although such a focus is appropriate for specialty-specific quality improvement efforts, it neglects to capture the important interactions and hand-offs between providers needed for successful completion of screening (and downstream reduction in cancer mortality). As a result, this specialty-focused approach fails to meet the needs of patients, who are increasingly interested in whether the care they receive is improving their health regardless of who provides it. It also fails to meet the needs of payers, who are interested in whether a network of providers is delivering high-value care for its members. Developing measures that capture the collaborative nature of modern health care becomes increasingly important as payers embrace alternative payment models and other value-based reimbursement systems.
Given these challenges with existing measures, we propose the following concepts for consideration as noncolonoscopy quality measures of CRC screening:
1. Appropriateness of referral for CRC screening (PCP): Measures in this domain should incorporate assessment of family history, prior screening history, and/or life expectancy, all of which are predictive of screening benefit and can be extracted from structured electronic health record data.
2. Shared decision making in choosing a CRC screening test (PCP): Currently, measures in this domain are (by necessity) relatively simple, such as assessment of documentation of whether stool testing was offered alongside colonoscopy during a clinic visit.
3. Percentage of individuals with a positive noncolonoscopy CRC screening test who complete a colonoscopy within 6 months (PCP and GI): A measure in this domain can be developed and implemented using existing infrastructure. The Veterans Affairs Healthcare System currently uses such a measure to monitor appropriate follow-up of positive fecal immunochemical tests.
4. Predicted reduction in CRC mortality: This measure, which provides an estimate of the effectiveness and value of a screening program, represents the “bottom line” that is ultimately of interest to both patients and payers. However, composite measures that use projected results require sophisticated statistical approaches and case-mix adjustment. They must also contend with “churn” in the covered population.
Although a more comprehensive view of screening is desirable, operationalizing measure concepts, such as those proposed previously, is challenging for several reasons. First, as we have outlined, CRC screening is truly a “team sport.” The stakeholders in CRC screening include public health, primary care, gastroenterology, colorectal surgery, oncology, anesthesiology, and pathology practitioners. As a result, screening has no natural and obvious steward. Rather, various components of care are adopted by different specialty groups, and this approach leads to unmonitored gaps in care. We believe that gastroenterologists can and should take the lead in developing comprehensive quality measures for CRC screening. Such comprehensive measures will be of value to patients and to payers. Second, assessing quality of care more comprehensively has traditionally been infeasible. For example, incorporating life expectancy into quality measures requires electronic assessment of health status.
Traditionally, such efforts have been hampered by the lack of systematic clinical data collection. However, as meaningful use of electronic health records increases, measures that incorporate such information are likely to become increasingly feasible. Finally, we also need to consider how to make these improvements while avoiding measure proliferation. Proliferation leads to provider fatigue and discourages thoughtful clinical decision making, potentially worsening quality of care. Creative approaches, such as rotating measure sets over time, use of clinical decision support tools, and balancing underuse measures with overuse measures, may be warranted. Additionally, composite measures may prove to be more meaningful and more practical for patients, providers, and payers. Ultimately, a distinction must be made between quality assurance and quality improvement; both are important, but the types of measures and the level of measure sophistication used in each program undoubtedly vary.
In summary, gastroenterologists are uniquely positioned to advocate for high-quality CRC screening that extends beyond simply providing a high-quality colonoscopy. This broader view of quality benefits patients by ensuring that our expertise informs the metrics by which delivery of CRC screening is measured. It also ensures that we hold ourselves and our colleagues to the highest standards across the continuum of care. Additionally, as alternative payment models and value-based contracting are implemented, nonendoscopic screening methods will likely become more commonplace. Advocating for high-quality nonendoscopic screening will help maintain gastroenterologists’ role as the stewards of CRC screening and digestive health. Although operationalizing measure concepts such as those proposed here may be difficult, it is critical if we are to provide the best possible care for our patients.
References
1. Sabatino, S.A., White, M.C., Thompson, T.D., et al. Cancer screening test use – United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64:464-8.
2. Anderson, A.E., Henry, K.A., Samadder, N.J., et al. Rural vs urban residence affects risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:526-33.
3. Walter, L.C., Lindquist, K., Nugent, S., et al. Impact of age and comorbidity on colorectal cancer screening among older veterans. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:465-73.
4. Murphy, C.C., Sandler, R.S., Grubber, J.M., et al. Underuse and overuse of colonoscopy for repeat screening and surveillance in the Veterans Health Administration. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:436-44.
5. Mittal, S., Lin, Y.-L., Tan, A., et al. Limited life expectancy among a subgroup of Medicare beneficiaries receiving screening colonoscopies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:443-50.e1
6. Allen, J.I. Quality measures for colonoscopy: where should we be in 2015?. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2015;17:10.
7. Fisher, D.A., Jeffreys, A., Coffman, C.J., et al. Barriers to full colon evaluation for a positive fecal occult blood test. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15:1232-5.
8. Saini, S.D., van Hees, F., Vijan, S. Smarter screening for cancer: possibilities and challenges of personalization. JAMA. 2014;312:2211-2.
9. Saini, S.D., Vijan, S., Schoenfeld, P., et al. Role of quality measurement in inappropriate use of screening for colorectal cancer: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2014;348:g1247.
10. Inadomi, J.M., Vijan, S., Janz, N.K., et al. Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:575-82.
11. Writing Committee Members, Drozda, J.P., Ferguson, T.B., et al. 2015 ACC/AHA focused update of secondary prevention lipid performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:558-87.
Dr. Saini is a research scientist at the VA Center for Clinical Management Research and an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Dr. Adams is a clinical lecturer in the division of gastroenterology, department of internal medicine, University of Michigan, and a research investigator, VA Center for Clinical Management Research; Dr. Brill is the chief medical officer of Predictive Health, Paradise Valley, Ariz., and a clinical assistant professor of medicine, University of Arizona School of Medicine, Phoenix; Dr. Gupta is codirector of Digestive Health Center, director of interventional endoscopy, and associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at Loyola University Medical Center; Dr. Naveed is a clinical assistant professor in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics; Dr. Rosenberg is at Illinois Gastroenterology Group; and Dr. Gellad is associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C. Dr. Saini’s and Dr. Gellad’s research is funded by Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Career Development Awards (CDA 09-213-2 and CDA 14-158). Dr. Gupta has received research support from Cook Medical, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, and CDx Diagnostics.
Medicine in the United States is undergoing fundamental changes that will continue despite 2016 presidential election results. Changes include consolidation of provider networks, movement from volume- to value-based reimbursement, demands for price and quality transparency, and a shift from focusing solely on individual physician-patient interactions to a broader triple aim focus that incorporates individual patients, population, health, and cost. In this month’s column, Sameer Saini and colleagues suggest that we broaden our view of colorectal cancer screening quality metrics from a colonoscopy-centric focus to a focus on the bottom line: Do we reduce cancer in the population of patients that we serve? When we extend our view to a population level, we use current colonoscopy registries only as internal process controls. A successful health system will develop a mechanism to assess and demonstrate how well the collective team of providers accomplishes the only outcome that matters to patients: preventing colon cancer.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF, Special Section Editor
Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is one of the most valuable services provided by gastroenterologists. The evidence that screening “works” on a population level is undeniable. But not every screening program is equally effective. Data indicate ongoing underuse of screening, particularly in high-risk, vulnerable, and minority communities.1,2 Other data indicate that screening is overused, particularly in low-risk patients and in those with limited life expectancy.3-5 It is also known that endoscopist skill plays an important role in the effectiveness of screening. In short, there is ample room for improvement in the quality of CRC screening, and payers and the public have taken notice. Unsurprisingly, gastroenterologists are often focused on procedural quality indicators, such as adenoma detection and cecal intubation rates.6 These endoscopic quality measures are important indicators of high-quality colonoscopy, but colonoscopy is the common touch point of a much broader system of care that includes other screening tests and other providers (e.g., primary care providers [PCPs], pathologists, and anesthesiologists). Coordinating care across this system is essential for improving the health of patients. As the stewards of digestive health, we owe it to our patients to take a more comprehensive view of CRC screening quality and move beyond colonoscopy alone.
The complex web of care that comprises CRC screening is shown schematically in Figure 1. Appropriate screening begins with selection of suitable screening candidates. In the United States, where most screening is initiated during a clinician encounter, this important task falls primarily on the shoulders of PCPs. It is typically the role of the PCP to assess the two key patient factors that determine screening benefit: CRC risk (using personal and family history) and life expectancy (using age and overall health status). Once a patient has been deemed an appropriate candidate for screening, an acceptable screening test must be selected. Here, patient and practitioner are faced with a menu of options, including fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), colonoscopy, multitarget stool DNA, and computed tomography colonography. For average-risk screening, the ideal test depends primarily on patient preference and local availability.
If a screening test other than colonoscopy is selected, it becomes critical that a positive test is followed by timely and high-quality colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy begins with evidence-based preprocedure education and preparation, including appropriate selection of anesthesia services. Once a patient has been well prepared and adequately sedated, an endoscopist must carefully examine the colonic mucosa and completely resect any suspicious polyps. Unless discarded, resected polyps must be reviewed and categorized by a pathologist, including appropriate identification of serrated polyps. Finally, pathology results must be correctly interpreted by the clinician, with evidence-based follow-up recommendations made and effectively communicated to the patient and the referring provider. Additionally, in the short term, delayed gastrointestinal (GI) and non-GI complications of colonoscopy must be recognized and appropriately addressed. In the long term, the rate of interval cancers must be monitored.
Recognizing the importance of CRC screening, GI specialty societies have proposed a variety of quality measures to ensure that patients receive high-quality and high-value colonoscopy. Several of these measures have been adopted by CMS as part of the Physician Quality Reporting System. Non-GI groups, such as the National Center for Quality Assurance and the Ambulatory Surgery Center Association, have also proposed their own CRC screening–related measures.
Despite the proliferation of measures in the domain of CRC screening, current measures fall short in several ways. First, they are largely focused on colonoscopy technical performance, with less attention paid to the important steps that occur before and after colonoscopy. For example, the existing Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measure for underuse of CRC screening assesses the proportion of patients in a health plan between the ages 50 and 75 who are up to date for CRC screening. This measure is satisfied if a patient completes FOBT, regardless of the result. But FOBT alone is not sufficient to reduce mortality from CRC. Rather, it is imperative that a positive FOBT test be followed by colonoscopy. Numerous studies suggest a quality gap in this critical referral step.7
Yet, outside of selected clinical settings (e.g., the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System), no existing quality measure focuses on colonoscopy completion after positive FOBT. Other examples of important performance gaps beyond colonoscopy technical performance include appropriate use of monitored anesthesia care (data suggest overuse) and appropriate pathology interpretation (data suggest variation in the interpretation of serrated lesions, some of which are associated with increased risk of CRC).
Second, existing measures fail to consider individual patient factors that are known to be predictive of screening benefit, such as life expectancy and personal or familial cancer risk.8
Returning to the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measure as an example, this measure relies on age alone to identify patients who are candidates for screening. Yet, it is widely recognized that life expectancy is a critically important factor when considering screening, particularly in older patients. However, existing measures fail to incorporate estimates of life expectancy. As a result, clinicians are encouraged to screen based on age alone. Data suggest that this leads to overuse in older, sicker patients younger than age 75 (the age cutoff suggested by guidelines and incorporated into the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measure) and underuse in healthy and unscreened patients older than age 75.9
Furthermore, existing measures fail to systematically consider patient preferences and undervalue shared decision making. Data suggest, for instance, that patients who are offered a “menu” of options for screening rather than a single screening test are more likely to complete a screening test.10
But existing measures do not consider whether a physician assessed a patient’s preferences, or offered more than one screening option. Of course, measuring the quality of decision making is an evolving science that presents challenges and requires creative solutions.11
Finally, existing measures do not capture the collaborative nature of modern health care. For example, most existing measures focus on the performance of gastroenterologists and GI practices. Although such a focus is appropriate for specialty-specific quality improvement efforts, it neglects to capture the important interactions and hand-offs between providers needed for successful completion of screening (and downstream reduction in cancer mortality). As a result, this specialty-focused approach fails to meet the needs of patients, who are increasingly interested in whether the care they receive is improving their health regardless of who provides it. It also fails to meet the needs of payers, who are interested in whether a network of providers is delivering high-value care for its members. Developing measures that capture the collaborative nature of modern health care becomes increasingly important as payers embrace alternative payment models and other value-based reimbursement systems.
Given these challenges with existing measures, we propose the following concepts for consideration as noncolonoscopy quality measures of CRC screening:
1. Appropriateness of referral for CRC screening (PCP): Measures in this domain should incorporate assessment of family history, prior screening history, and/or life expectancy, all of which are predictive of screening benefit and can be extracted from structured electronic health record data.
2. Shared decision making in choosing a CRC screening test (PCP): Currently, measures in this domain are (by necessity) relatively simple, such as assessment of documentation of whether stool testing was offered alongside colonoscopy during a clinic visit.
3. Percentage of individuals with a positive noncolonoscopy CRC screening test who complete a colonoscopy within 6 months (PCP and GI): A measure in this domain can be developed and implemented using existing infrastructure. The Veterans Affairs Healthcare System currently uses such a measure to monitor appropriate follow-up of positive fecal immunochemical tests.
4. Predicted reduction in CRC mortality: This measure, which provides an estimate of the effectiveness and value of a screening program, represents the “bottom line” that is ultimately of interest to both patients and payers. However, composite measures that use projected results require sophisticated statistical approaches and case-mix adjustment. They must also contend with “churn” in the covered population.
Although a more comprehensive view of screening is desirable, operationalizing measure concepts, such as those proposed previously, is challenging for several reasons. First, as we have outlined, CRC screening is truly a “team sport.” The stakeholders in CRC screening include public health, primary care, gastroenterology, colorectal surgery, oncology, anesthesiology, and pathology practitioners. As a result, screening has no natural and obvious steward. Rather, various components of care are adopted by different specialty groups, and this approach leads to unmonitored gaps in care. We believe that gastroenterologists can and should take the lead in developing comprehensive quality measures for CRC screening. Such comprehensive measures will be of value to patients and to payers. Second, assessing quality of care more comprehensively has traditionally been infeasible. For example, incorporating life expectancy into quality measures requires electronic assessment of health status.
Traditionally, such efforts have been hampered by the lack of systematic clinical data collection. However, as meaningful use of electronic health records increases, measures that incorporate such information are likely to become increasingly feasible. Finally, we also need to consider how to make these improvements while avoiding measure proliferation. Proliferation leads to provider fatigue and discourages thoughtful clinical decision making, potentially worsening quality of care. Creative approaches, such as rotating measure sets over time, use of clinical decision support tools, and balancing underuse measures with overuse measures, may be warranted. Additionally, composite measures may prove to be more meaningful and more practical for patients, providers, and payers. Ultimately, a distinction must be made between quality assurance and quality improvement; both are important, but the types of measures and the level of measure sophistication used in each program undoubtedly vary.
In summary, gastroenterologists are uniquely positioned to advocate for high-quality CRC screening that extends beyond simply providing a high-quality colonoscopy. This broader view of quality benefits patients by ensuring that our expertise informs the metrics by which delivery of CRC screening is measured. It also ensures that we hold ourselves and our colleagues to the highest standards across the continuum of care. Additionally, as alternative payment models and value-based contracting are implemented, nonendoscopic screening methods will likely become more commonplace. Advocating for high-quality nonendoscopic screening will help maintain gastroenterologists’ role as the stewards of CRC screening and digestive health. Although operationalizing measure concepts such as those proposed here may be difficult, it is critical if we are to provide the best possible care for our patients.
References
1. Sabatino, S.A., White, M.C., Thompson, T.D., et al. Cancer screening test use – United States, 2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64:464-8.
2. Anderson, A.E., Henry, K.A., Samadder, N.J., et al. Rural vs urban residence affects risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:526-33.
3. Walter, L.C., Lindquist, K., Nugent, S., et al. Impact of age and comorbidity on colorectal cancer screening among older veterans. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:465-73.
4. Murphy, C.C., Sandler, R.S., Grubber, J.M., et al. Underuse and overuse of colonoscopy for repeat screening and surveillance in the Veterans Health Administration. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:436-44.
5. Mittal, S., Lin, Y.-L., Tan, A., et al. Limited life expectancy among a subgroup of Medicare beneficiaries receiving screening colonoscopies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:443-50.e1
6. Allen, J.I. Quality measures for colonoscopy: where should we be in 2015?. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2015;17:10.
7. Fisher, D.A., Jeffreys, A., Coffman, C.J., et al. Barriers to full colon evaluation for a positive fecal occult blood test. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15:1232-5.
8. Saini, S.D., van Hees, F., Vijan, S. Smarter screening for cancer: possibilities and challenges of personalization. JAMA. 2014;312:2211-2.
9. Saini, S.D., Vijan, S., Schoenfeld, P., et al. Role of quality measurement in inappropriate use of screening for colorectal cancer: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2014;348:g1247.
10. Inadomi, J.M., Vijan, S., Janz, N.K., et al. Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:575-82.
11. Writing Committee Members, Drozda, J.P., Ferguson, T.B., et al. 2015 ACC/AHA focused update of secondary prevention lipid performance measures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:558-87.
Dr. Saini is a research scientist at the VA Center for Clinical Management Research and an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Dr. Adams is a clinical lecturer in the division of gastroenterology, department of internal medicine, University of Michigan, and a research investigator, VA Center for Clinical Management Research; Dr. Brill is the chief medical officer of Predictive Health, Paradise Valley, Ariz., and a clinical assistant professor of medicine, University of Arizona School of Medicine, Phoenix; Dr. Gupta is codirector of Digestive Health Center, director of interventional endoscopy, and associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at Loyola University Medical Center; Dr. Naveed is a clinical assistant professor in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics; Dr. Rosenberg is at Illinois Gastroenterology Group; and Dr. Gellad is associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C. Dr. Saini’s and Dr. Gellad’s research is funded by Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Career Development Awards (CDA 09-213-2 and CDA 14-158). Dr. Gupta has received research support from Cook Medical, Cosmo Pharmaceuticals, and CDx Diagnostics.
