Quality

The term “patient-centered medical home” has a nice ring to it, but what does it really mean? And how does it function in the real world? The model is evolving, but here are the main components of the PCMH and how they’ve been implemented in real practice, at least so far:

“PERSONAL” PHYSICIAN: This is the doctor, usually a family or general practice physician, who shepherds patients through the medical system. In practice, this means things like encouraging patient questions about their care, extra efforts to educate patients on their health, and nurses making detailed follow-up calls with patients to make sure they’ve gotten their medications and know how to take them, and communicating any other steps the patient should be taking.

“Whole-person orientation”: The personal physician is responsible for taking care of all of the patient’s medical needs, either himself or by arranging care with specialists. The care ranges from preventive to chronic to end-of-life. In practice, this often means having appointments made with another doctor, if necessary, before the patient leaves the primary-care doctor, or seeing several doctors of different specialties during the same appointment.

Coordinated or integrated care: Care in the PCMH spans all aspects of the healthcare system, from subspecialists to the hospital to the nursing home. In practice, this means the use of electronic registries and health information exchange systems to make sure every health professional has all the information they should have about the patient.

Quality and safety: In practice, it means the development of a care plan that is bolstered by close relationships between patients, doctors, and family members. Plus, a good PCMH will have a more collegial atmosphere, with regular meetings among doctors of varying specialties. Evidence-based medicine is the guide. And feedback from the patient is sought more aggressively. Practices also can undergo a voluntary recognition process by a non-government-related healthcare quality organization, such as the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

Enhanced access: So that patients get the care when they need it, same-day scheduling is often offered. There are expanded hours, and phone and email communication is used more often.

Payment: The payment system in a PCMH encourages better primary care and prevention of illness. Still, most PCMH practices currently use a blend of fee-for-service, a monthly “care coordination” fee, and incentives for quality care.

Source: Adapted from 2007’s Joint Statement on Patient-Centered Medical Home, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

The term “patient-centered medical home” has a nice ring to it, but what does it really mean? And how does it function in the real world? The model is evolving, but here are the main components of the PCMH and how they’ve been implemented in real practice, at least so far:

“PERSONAL” PHYSICIAN: This is the doctor, usually a family or general practice physician, who shepherds patients through the medical system. In practice, this means things like encouraging patient questions about their care, extra efforts to educate patients on their health, and nurses making detailed follow-up calls with patients to make sure they’ve gotten their medications and know how to take them, and communicating any other steps the patient should be taking.

“Whole-person orientation”: The personal physician is responsible for taking care of all of the patient’s medical needs, either himself or by arranging care with specialists. The care ranges from preventive to chronic to end-of-life. In practice, this often means having appointments made with another doctor, if necessary, before the patient leaves the primary-care doctor, or seeing several doctors of different specialties during the same appointment.

Coordinated or integrated care: Care in the PCMH spans all aspects of the healthcare system, from subspecialists to the hospital to the nursing home. In practice, this means the use of electronic registries and health information exchange systems to make sure every health professional has all the information they should have about the patient.

Quality and safety: In practice, it means the development of a care plan that is bolstered by close relationships between patients, doctors, and family members. Plus, a good PCMH will have a more collegial atmosphere, with regular meetings among doctors of varying specialties. Evidence-based medicine is the guide. And feedback from the patient is sought more aggressively. Practices also can undergo a voluntary recognition process by a non-government-related healthcare quality organization, such as the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

Enhanced access: So that patients get the care when they need it, same-day scheduling is often offered. There are expanded hours, and phone and email communication is used more often.

Payment: The payment system in a PCMH encourages better primary care and prevention of illness. Still, most PCMH practices currently use a blend of fee-for-service, a monthly “care coordination” fee, and incentives for quality care.

Source: Adapted from 2007’s Joint Statement on Patient-Centered Medical Home, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

The term “patient-centered medical home” has a nice ring to it, but what does it really mean? And how does it function in the real world? The model is evolving, but here are the main components of the PCMH and how they’ve been implemented in real practice, at least so far:

“PERSONAL” PHYSICIAN: This is the doctor, usually a family or general practice physician, who shepherds patients through the medical system. In practice, this means things like encouraging patient questions about their care, extra efforts to educate patients on their health, and nurses making detailed follow-up calls with patients to make sure they’ve gotten their medications and know how to take them, and communicating any other steps the patient should be taking.

“Whole-person orientation”: The personal physician is responsible for taking care of all of the patient’s medical needs, either himself or by arranging care with specialists. The care ranges from preventive to chronic to end-of-life. In practice, this often means having appointments made with another doctor, if necessary, before the patient leaves the primary-care doctor, or seeing several doctors of different specialties during the same appointment.

Coordinated or integrated care: Care in the PCMH spans all aspects of the healthcare system, from subspecialists to the hospital to the nursing home. In practice, this means the use of electronic registries and health information exchange systems to make sure every health professional has all the information they should have about the patient.

Quality and safety: In practice, it means the development of a care plan that is bolstered by close relationships between patients, doctors, and family members. Plus, a good PCMH will have a more collegial atmosphere, with regular meetings among doctors of varying specialties. Evidence-based medicine is the guide. And feedback from the patient is sought more aggressively. Practices also can undergo a voluntary recognition process by a non-government-related healthcare quality organization, such as the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

Enhanced access: So that patients get the care when they need it, same-day scheduling is often offered. There are expanded hours, and phone and email communication is used more often.

Payment: The payment system in a PCMH encourages better primary care and prevention of illness. Still, most PCMH practices currently use a blend of fee-for-service, a monthly “care coordination” fee, and incentives for quality care.

Source: Adapted from 2007’s Joint Statement on Patient-Centered Medical Home, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

If the “patient-centered medical home” model does what it intends to do—makes people healthier and limits preventable illness—fewer people will likely be hospitalized. Should hospitalists be worried? Will that mean less work for hospitalists?

“That clearly is one potential implication of many of the different healthcare reform models, including the development of primary-care medical homes and folks out there who are participating in accountable-care organizations [ACOs], all of which are designed to provide better access to patients on an outpatient setting,” SHM immediate past president Joseph Ming Wah Li, MD, SFHM, says. “The rationale is that it should ultimately lead to fewer hospitalizations.”

Most hospitalists, Dr. Li adds, will say that’s a good thing.

“You’re never going to argue against” fewer hospitalizations, he says. “I think what hospitalists will have to do is they will have to adapt.”

Ultimately, patients who are hospitalized will be sicker, and hospitalists likely will end up seeing those patients several times a day rather than just once or twice, Dr. Li says.

Dr. Meyers, of AHRQ, says inpatient care in the future could become more meaningful, because while there may be fewer patients, those who are hospitalized will need more complex care management.

“I think America’s a big enough country, though, where with an aging population—and we still have lots of chronic disease—there’s going to be no shortage of work, meaningful work, for hospitalists moving forward,” he says.

Dr. Eichhorn, who works in an already up-and-running PCMH system, says patient census shouldn’t be a concern.

“Most hospitalists would probably say that they have plenty of work,” Dr. Eichhorn says. “I think anything that we can do to prevent a hospital stay certainly promotes health and allows us to be better stewards of healthcare resources. And I think it’s a win for everyone.”

If the “patient-centered medical home” model does what it intends to do—makes people healthier and limits preventable illness—fewer people will likely be hospitalized. Should hospitalists be worried? Will that mean less work for hospitalists?

“That clearly is one potential implication of many of the different healthcare reform models, including the development of primary-care medical homes and folks out there who are participating in accountable-care organizations [ACOs], all of which are designed to provide better access to patients on an outpatient setting,” SHM immediate past president Joseph Ming Wah Li, MD, SFHM, says. “The rationale is that it should ultimately lead to fewer hospitalizations.”

Most hospitalists, Dr. Li adds, will say that’s a good thing.

“You’re never going to argue against” fewer hospitalizations, he says. “I think what hospitalists will have to do is they will have to adapt.”

Ultimately, patients who are hospitalized will be sicker, and hospitalists likely will end up seeing those patients several times a day rather than just once or twice, Dr. Li says.

Dr. Meyers, of AHRQ, says inpatient care in the future could become more meaningful, because while there may be fewer patients, those who are hospitalized will need more complex care management.

“I think America’s a big enough country, though, where with an aging population—and we still have lots of chronic disease—there’s going to be no shortage of work, meaningful work, for hospitalists moving forward,” he says.

Dr. Eichhorn, who works in an already up-and-running PCMH system, says patient census shouldn’t be a concern.

“Most hospitalists would probably say that they have plenty of work,” Dr. Eichhorn says. “I think anything that we can do to prevent a hospital stay certainly promotes health and allows us to be better stewards of healthcare resources. And I think it’s a win for everyone.”

If the “patient-centered medical home” model does what it intends to do—makes people healthier and limits preventable illness—fewer people will likely be hospitalized. Should hospitalists be worried? Will that mean less work for hospitalists?

“That clearly is one potential implication of many of the different healthcare reform models, including the development of primary-care medical homes and folks out there who are participating in accountable-care organizations [ACOs], all of which are designed to provide better access to patients on an outpatient setting,” SHM immediate past president Joseph Ming Wah Li, MD, SFHM, says. “The rationale is that it should ultimately lead to fewer hospitalizations.”

Most hospitalists, Dr. Li adds, will say that’s a good thing.

“You’re never going to argue against” fewer hospitalizations, he says. “I think what hospitalists will have to do is they will have to adapt.”

Ultimately, patients who are hospitalized will be sicker, and hospitalists likely will end up seeing those patients several times a day rather than just once or twice, Dr. Li says.

Dr. Meyers, of AHRQ, says inpatient care in the future could become more meaningful, because while there may be fewer patients, those who are hospitalized will need more complex care management.

“I think America’s a big enough country, though, where with an aging population—and we still have lots of chronic disease—there’s going to be no shortage of work, meaningful work, for hospitalists moving forward,” he says.

Dr. Eichhorn, who works in an already up-and-running PCMH system, says patient census shouldn’t be a concern.

“Most hospitalists would probably say that they have plenty of work,” Dr. Eichhorn says. “I think anything that we can do to prevent a hospital stay certainly promotes health and allows us to be better stewards of healthcare resources. And I think it’s a win for everyone.”

An evaluation of the Pennsylvania-based Geisinger Health System’s ProvenHealth Navigator, a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model, found that hospitalizations have been reduced by 18% for all patients.¹

The National Institutes on Aging-sponsored project Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE), which also functioned according to several PCMH principles, reduced hospitalizations by 40% and 44% in its second and third years, another evaluation showed.^2,3

And in the Veterans Affairs-managed Home-Based Primary Care project, another PCMH-based effort, readmissions were reduced by 22% in the first six months, but the reduction wasn’t sustained for the rest of the year.⁴

Those findings are among the most definitive so far on the effects of the PCMH on hospitalization rates, according to an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) report published in February.

The report concluded that among the statistically significant findings in the biggest PCMH evaluations, favorable results far outnumbered unfavorable results—on outcomes, ED use, and patient experience.

But AHRQ also found that most studies have been inconclusive due to problems with their methodologies. For instance, many studies don’t factor in “clustering,” in which patient outcomes within a practice can be expected to be similar to that of other patients at that practice. AHRQ’s report evaluated the results only from studies it determined had methodologies that were sufficiently rigorous.

The evaluation of the GRACE project was the only evaluation that found any evidence of savings, according to the report. But that study was one of only four on the topic that were deemed worth consideration.

David Meyers, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care, Prevention, and Clinical Partnerships at AHRQ, points out that the systems that have been evaluated are the very earliest adopters of PCMH principles. Researchers estimate that it could take 10 years to get reliable results.

“The good news,” Dr. Meyers says, “is that there are a lot more demonstrations happening now, so we soon will have a lot more guidance about how to make this model work.”

Tom Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

References

1. Gilfillan RJ, Tomcavage J, Rosenthal MB, et al. Value and the medical home: Effects of transformed primary care. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(8):607-614.

2. Bielaszka-DuVernay, et al. The “GRACE” model: in-home assessments lead to better care for dual eligibles. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(3):431-434.

3. Counsell SR, Callahan CM, Tu W, Stump TE, Arling GW. Cost analysis of the Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders care management intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(8):1420-1426.

4. Hughes SL, Weaver FM, Giobbie-Hurder A, et al. Effectiveness of team-managed home-based primary care: a randomized multicenter trial. JAMA. 2000;284(22):2877-2885.

 

An evaluation of the Pennsylvania-based Geisinger Health System’s ProvenHealth Navigator, a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model, found that hospitalizations have been reduced by 18% for all patients.¹

The National Institutes on Aging-sponsored project Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE), which also functioned according to several PCMH principles, reduced hospitalizations by 40% and 44% in its second and third years, another evaluation showed.^2,3

And in the Veterans Affairs-managed Home-Based Primary Care project, another PCMH-based effort, readmissions were reduced by 22% in the first six months, but the reduction wasn’t sustained for the rest of the year.⁴

Those findings are among the most definitive so far on the effects of the PCMH on hospitalization rates, according to an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) report published in February.

The report concluded that among the statistically significant findings in the biggest PCMH evaluations, favorable results far outnumbered unfavorable results—on outcomes, ED use, and patient experience.

But AHRQ also found that most studies have been inconclusive due to problems with their methodologies. For instance, many studies don’t factor in “clustering,” in which patient outcomes within a practice can be expected to be similar to that of other patients at that practice. AHRQ’s report evaluated the results only from studies it determined had methodologies that were sufficiently rigorous.

The evaluation of the GRACE project was the only evaluation that found any evidence of savings, according to the report. But that study was one of only four on the topic that were deemed worth consideration.

David Meyers, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care, Prevention, and Clinical Partnerships at AHRQ, points out that the systems that have been evaluated are the very earliest adopters of PCMH principles. Researchers estimate that it could take 10 years to get reliable results.

“The good news,” Dr. Meyers says, “is that there are a lot more demonstrations happening now, so we soon will have a lot more guidance about how to make this model work.”

Tom Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

References

1. Gilfillan RJ, Tomcavage J, Rosenthal MB, et al. Value and the medical home: Effects of transformed primary care. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(8):607-614.

2. Bielaszka-DuVernay, et al. The “GRACE” model: in-home assessments lead to better care for dual eligibles. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(3):431-434.

3. Counsell SR, Callahan CM, Tu W, Stump TE, Arling GW. Cost analysis of the Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders care management intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(8):1420-1426.

4. Hughes SL, Weaver FM, Giobbie-Hurder A, et al. Effectiveness of team-managed home-based primary care: a randomized multicenter trial. JAMA. 2000;284(22):2877-2885.

 

An evaluation of the Pennsylvania-based Geisinger Health System’s ProvenHealth Navigator, a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model, found that hospitalizations have been reduced by 18% for all patients.¹

The National Institutes on Aging-sponsored project Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders (GRACE), which also functioned according to several PCMH principles, reduced hospitalizations by 40% and 44% in its second and third years, another evaluation showed.^2,3

And in the Veterans Affairs-managed Home-Based Primary Care project, another PCMH-based effort, readmissions were reduced by 22% in the first six months, but the reduction wasn’t sustained for the rest of the year.⁴

Those findings are among the most definitive so far on the effects of the PCMH on hospitalization rates, according to an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) report published in February.

The report concluded that among the statistically significant findings in the biggest PCMH evaluations, favorable results far outnumbered unfavorable results—on outcomes, ED use, and patient experience.

But AHRQ also found that most studies have been inconclusive due to problems with their methodologies. For instance, many studies don’t factor in “clustering,” in which patient outcomes within a practice can be expected to be similar to that of other patients at that practice. AHRQ’s report evaluated the results only from studies it determined had methodologies that were sufficiently rigorous.

The evaluation of the GRACE project was the only evaluation that found any evidence of savings, according to the report. But that study was one of only four on the topic that were deemed worth consideration.

David Meyers, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care, Prevention, and Clinical Partnerships at AHRQ, points out that the systems that have been evaluated are the very earliest adopters of PCMH principles. Researchers estimate that it could take 10 years to get reliable results.

“The good news,” Dr. Meyers says, “is that there are a lot more demonstrations happening now, so we soon will have a lot more guidance about how to make this model work.”

Tom Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

References

1. Gilfillan RJ, Tomcavage J, Rosenthal MB, et al. Value and the medical home: Effects of transformed primary care. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(8):607-614.

2. Bielaszka-DuVernay, et al. The “GRACE” model: in-home assessments lead to better care for dual eligibles. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(3):431-434.

3. Counsell SR, Callahan CM, Tu W, Stump TE, Arling GW. Cost analysis of the Geriatric Resources for Assessment and Care of Elders care management intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(8):1420-1426.

4. Hughes SL, Weaver FM, Giobbie-Hurder A, et al. Effectiveness of team-managed home-based primary care: a randomized multicenter trial. JAMA. 2000;284(22):2877-2885.

 

Click here to listen to Dr. Eichhorn

Click here to listen to Dr. Eichhorn

Click here to listen to Dr. Eichhorn

Click here to listen to

Dr. Maynard and others at the public hearing

Click here to listen to

Dr. Maynard and others at the public hearing

Click here to listen to

Dr. Maynard and others at the public hearing

In less than four months CMS' Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program will start penalizing hospitals with higher-than-projected readmissions rates. But as the Oct. 1 program launch looms for many hospitals, one readmission initiative is making significant progress to reduce unnecessary hospitalizations.

The Minnesota Reducing Avoidable Readmissions Effectively (RARE) campaign set a goal of preventing 4,000 avoidable readmissions among commercial health plan patients by the end of 2012, a 20% reduction from 2009 baseline data. The campaign was launched last September by three operating partners: the Minnesota Hospital Association (MHA); the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI), a nonprofit collaborative of 55 medical groups and hospitals; and Stratis Health, the state's QI organization. RARE's partners include more than 80 hospitals, which according to the MHA already have prevented 1,011 avoidable readmissions in 2011 and expect to surpass the target goal by the end of 2012.

"We had a specific process for each partner to follow, including a commitment by leadership to support and provide needed resources and development of a guidance team and a working team at each site," says Kathy Cummings, RN, MA, project manager at ICSI.

Each participating hospital was invited to join one of three quality collaboratives: one based on Project RED; one based on Dr. Eric Coleman's Care Transitions model; and one focused on safe transitions-of-care communication developed by the MHA.

"Everyone is rallying around the goals. They are all talking at the table, and starting to break down the silos between hospital, nursing home, clinic, and the chasms in between," says hospitalist Howard Epstein, MD, FHM, ICSI's chief health systems officer. "One of the key attributes of hospitalists is collaboration and systems improvement within their hospitals. Working with RARE is broadening their perspectives on the workings of the healthcare system as a whole."

In less than four months CMS' Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program will start penalizing hospitals with higher-than-projected readmissions rates. But as the Oct. 1 program launch looms for many hospitals, one readmission initiative is making significant progress to reduce unnecessary hospitalizations.

The Minnesota Reducing Avoidable Readmissions Effectively (RARE) campaign set a goal of preventing 4,000 avoidable readmissions among commercial health plan patients by the end of 2012, a 20% reduction from 2009 baseline data. The campaign was launched last September by three operating partners: the Minnesota Hospital Association (MHA); the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI), a nonprofit collaborative of 55 medical groups and hospitals; and Stratis Health, the state's QI organization. RARE's partners include more than 80 hospitals, which according to the MHA already have prevented 1,011 avoidable readmissions in 2011 and expect to surpass the target goal by the end of 2012.

"We had a specific process for each partner to follow, including a commitment by leadership to support and provide needed resources and development of a guidance team and a working team at each site," says Kathy Cummings, RN, MA, project manager at ICSI.

Each participating hospital was invited to join one of three quality collaboratives: one based on Project RED; one based on Dr. Eric Coleman's Care Transitions model; and one focused on safe transitions-of-care communication developed by the MHA.

"Everyone is rallying around the goals. They are all talking at the table, and starting to break down the silos between hospital, nursing home, clinic, and the chasms in between," says hospitalist Howard Epstein, MD, FHM, ICSI's chief health systems officer. "One of the key attributes of hospitalists is collaboration and systems improvement within their hospitals. Working with RARE is broadening their perspectives on the workings of the healthcare system as a whole."

In less than four months CMS' Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program will start penalizing hospitals with higher-than-projected readmissions rates. But as the Oct. 1 program launch looms for many hospitals, one readmission initiative is making significant progress to reduce unnecessary hospitalizations.

The Minnesota Reducing Avoidable Readmissions Effectively (RARE) campaign set a goal of preventing 4,000 avoidable readmissions among commercial health plan patients by the end of 2012, a 20% reduction from 2009 baseline data. The campaign was launched last September by three operating partners: the Minnesota Hospital Association (MHA); the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI), a nonprofit collaborative of 55 medical groups and hospitals; and Stratis Health, the state's QI organization. RARE's partners include more than 80 hospitals, which according to the MHA already have prevented 1,011 avoidable readmissions in 2011 and expect to surpass the target goal by the end of 2012.

"We had a specific process for each partner to follow, including a commitment by leadership to support and provide needed resources and development of a guidance team and a working team at each site," says Kathy Cummings, RN, MA, project manager at ICSI.

Each participating hospital was invited to join one of three quality collaboratives: one based on Project RED; one based on Dr. Eric Coleman's Care Transitions model; and one focused on safe transitions-of-care communication developed by the MHA.

"Everyone is rallying around the goals. They are all talking at the table, and starting to break down the silos between hospital, nursing home, clinic, and the chasms in between," says hospitalist Howard Epstein, MD, FHM, ICSI's chief health systems officer. "One of the key attributes of hospitalists is collaboration and systems improvement within their hospitals. Working with RARE is broadening their perspectives on the workings of the healthcare system as a whole."

Several years ago, Presbyterian Medical Group in Albuquerque, N.M., decided to integrate three elements of its healthcare system: its health plan, the employed medical group, and the hospital delivery system. Knitting those parts into a cohesive whole helped the group realize that “lowering the cost of care by improving efficiency, by improving coordination, and by enhancing collaboration between payor and physicians made a lot of sense,” executive medical director David Arredondo, MD, says.

When the accountable care organization (ACO) concept came along, Dr. Arredondo says, “it really was just a natural extension of what we were doing.”

The ACO model, championed as a way to prevent the fragmentation of care and rein in costs by getting providers to assume joint responsibility for specific patient populations, received a major boost through 2010’s Affordable Care Act. Last year’s ACO rule-making process by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), however, was anything but smooth. Cautious optimism by such organizations as SHM gave way to loud complaints over the initial rules for a voluntary initiative called the Shared Savings Program. Critics asserted that participants would be forced to assume too much financial risk while being swamped with paperwork requirements.

By year’s end, though, the final rules had assuaged many of the biggest concerns, and the April 10 announcement of 27 participants for the program’s first round—more than half of which are physician-led organizations—has rekindled much of the enthusiasm. According to CMS officials, the agency is reviewing more than 150 applications for the program’s next round, which will begin in July.

Keys to Success

In December, CMS selected 32 organizations to participate in an even more ambitious initiative called the Pioneer ACO Model. That separate but related experiment in shared accountability launched Jan. 1, and it may be months before enrolled organizations can say whether the rewards outweigh the risks. Interviews with Presbyterian’s Dr. Arredondo and two other Pioneer participants about why they took the plunge, however, have highlighted some potential keys to success.

All three agree that the ACO model offers a better match for their long-term, patient-centered goals and that the fee-for-service model is gradually becoming a thing of the past.

“In some ways, it was actually kind of a relief that the system was going this way because we, probably like many systems, were beginning to be caught between the budgeted model and a fee-for-service model,” Dr. Arredondo says. “When you’re heavily one way or heavily the other way, then it makes things a little easier to manage and understand. When you’re right in the middle, it becomes a little uncomfortable.”

Penny Wheeler, MD, chief clinical officer for Minneapolis-based Allina Hospitals & Clinics, says organizations in that precarious position need to carefully examine their capabilities and consider how best to pace their transition. Otherwise, they might prematurely give up too much revenue that could be used to reinvest in care improvements.

“We can tolerate it if we shoot ourselves in one foot, but we can’t tolerate it if we shoot ourselves in both feet, in this new world,” Dr. Wheeler says.

If caution is warranted, she says, the ACO model still aligns well with a strategy of building toward outcome-based healthcare. Despite the likelihood of “lumps and bumps and warts along the way,” Dr. Wheeler says, “we really wanted to be part of the shaping of that outcome-based delivery, and receive market rewards for what we were creating for our community.”

 

Austin, Texas-based Seton Health Alliance, a third Pioneer participant, is a collaborative effort between a hospital delivery system known as Seton Health Care Family and a multispecialty physician group called Austin Regional Clinic. Greg Sheff, MD, president and chief medical officer of the ACO, says the partnering organizations were separately moving toward more population health initiatives and more proactive, coordinated, and accountable care.

“The Pioneer ACO, for us, really provided an opportunity to light the fire and motivate the organizations to put the entity together and start doing the work,” he says, adding PCPs and hospitalists will be critical to his organization’s ongoing integration efforts.

“The areas where there are opportunities to be more efficient are largely under the care of the hospitalists,” he says, citing in-house utilization as well as care transitions, comprehensive post-acute placement, and readmission prevention efforts. To support those providers, Pioneer participants say well-designed electronic medical records are paramount, while separate efforts, such as patient-centered medical homes and unit-based rounding, might offer timely assists. (Click here to listen to more of The Hospitalist’s interview with Dr. Sheff.)

No one’s expecting the next few years to be seamless, but Dr. Sheff views his newly formed ACO as a long-term endeavor in which success isn’t necessarily defined by whether the group achieves shared cost savings.

“We define success by whether we are able to move our delivery system to a place where we’ll be much more adept at going forward, continuing to manage populations,” he says. “We really see this as a strategic organizational decision more than, ‘Boy, that contract looks like something that we can leverage in the short term.’”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

 

Several years ago, Presbyterian Medical Group in Albuquerque, N.M., decided to integrate three elements of its healthcare system: its health plan, the employed medical group, and the hospital delivery system. Knitting those parts into a cohesive whole helped the group realize that “lowering the cost of care by improving efficiency, by improving coordination, and by enhancing collaboration between payor and physicians made a lot of sense,” executive medical director David Arredondo, MD, says.

When the accountable care organization (ACO) concept came along, Dr. Arredondo says, “it really was just a natural extension of what we were doing.”

The ACO model, championed as a way to prevent the fragmentation of care and rein in costs by getting providers to assume joint responsibility for specific patient populations, received a major boost through 2010’s Affordable Care Act. Last year’s ACO rule-making process by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), however, was anything but smooth. Cautious optimism by such organizations as SHM gave way to loud complaints over the initial rules for a voluntary initiative called the Shared Savings Program. Critics asserted that participants would be forced to assume too much financial risk while being swamped with paperwork requirements.

By year’s end, though, the final rules had assuaged many of the biggest concerns, and the April 10 announcement of 27 participants for the program’s first round—more than half of which are physician-led organizations—has rekindled much of the enthusiasm. According to CMS officials, the agency is reviewing more than 150 applications for the program’s next round, which will begin in July.

Keys to Success

In December, CMS selected 32 organizations to participate in an even more ambitious initiative called the Pioneer ACO Model. That separate but related experiment in shared accountability launched Jan. 1, and it may be months before enrolled organizations can say whether the rewards outweigh the risks. Interviews with Presbyterian’s Dr. Arredondo and two other Pioneer participants about why they took the plunge, however, have highlighted some potential keys to success.

All three agree that the ACO model offers a better match for their long-term, patient-centered goals and that the fee-for-service model is gradually becoming a thing of the past.

“In some ways, it was actually kind of a relief that the system was going this way because we, probably like many systems, were beginning to be caught between the budgeted model and a fee-for-service model,” Dr. Arredondo says. “When you’re heavily one way or heavily the other way, then it makes things a little easier to manage and understand. When you’re right in the middle, it becomes a little uncomfortable.”

Penny Wheeler, MD, chief clinical officer for Minneapolis-based Allina Hospitals & Clinics, says organizations in that precarious position need to carefully examine their capabilities and consider how best to pace their transition. Otherwise, they might prematurely give up too much revenue that could be used to reinvest in care improvements.

“We can tolerate it if we shoot ourselves in one foot, but we can’t tolerate it if we shoot ourselves in both feet, in this new world,” Dr. Wheeler says.

If caution is warranted, she says, the ACO model still aligns well with a strategy of building toward outcome-based healthcare. Despite the likelihood of “lumps and bumps and warts along the way,” Dr. Wheeler says, “we really wanted to be part of the shaping of that outcome-based delivery, and receive market rewards for what we were creating for our community.”

 

Austin, Texas-based Seton Health Alliance, a third Pioneer participant, is a collaborative effort between a hospital delivery system known as Seton Health Care Family and a multispecialty physician group called Austin Regional Clinic. Greg Sheff, MD, president and chief medical officer of the ACO, says the partnering organizations were separately moving toward more population health initiatives and more proactive, coordinated, and accountable care.

“The Pioneer ACO, for us, really provided an opportunity to light the fire and motivate the organizations to put the entity together and start doing the work,” he says, adding PCPs and hospitalists will be critical to his organization’s ongoing integration efforts.

“The areas where there are opportunities to be more efficient are largely under the care of the hospitalists,” he says, citing in-house utilization as well as care transitions, comprehensive post-acute placement, and readmission prevention efforts. To support those providers, Pioneer participants say well-designed electronic medical records are paramount, while separate efforts, such as patient-centered medical homes and unit-based rounding, might offer timely assists. (Click here to listen to more of The Hospitalist’s interview with Dr. Sheff.)

No one’s expecting the next few years to be seamless, but Dr. Sheff views his newly formed ACO as a long-term endeavor in which success isn’t necessarily defined by whether the group achieves shared cost savings.

“We define success by whether we are able to move our delivery system to a place where we’ll be much more adept at going forward, continuing to manage populations,” he says. “We really see this as a strategic organizational decision more than, ‘Boy, that contract looks like something that we can leverage in the short term.’”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

 

Several years ago, Presbyterian Medical Group in Albuquerque, N.M., decided to integrate three elements of its healthcare system: its health plan, the employed medical group, and the hospital delivery system. Knitting those parts into a cohesive whole helped the group realize that “lowering the cost of care by improving efficiency, by improving coordination, and by enhancing collaboration between payor and physicians made a lot of sense,” executive medical director David Arredondo, MD, says.

When the accountable care organization (ACO) concept came along, Dr. Arredondo says, “it really was just a natural extension of what we were doing.”

The ACO model, championed as a way to prevent the fragmentation of care and rein in costs by getting providers to assume joint responsibility for specific patient populations, received a major boost through 2010’s Affordable Care Act. Last year’s ACO rule-making process by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), however, was anything but smooth. Cautious optimism by such organizations as SHM gave way to loud complaints over the initial rules for a voluntary initiative called the Shared Savings Program. Critics asserted that participants would be forced to assume too much financial risk while being swamped with paperwork requirements.

By year’s end, though, the final rules had assuaged many of the biggest concerns, and the April 10 announcement of 27 participants for the program’s first round—more than half of which are physician-led organizations—has rekindled much of the enthusiasm. According to CMS officials, the agency is reviewing more than 150 applications for the program’s next round, which will begin in July.

Keys to Success

In December, CMS selected 32 organizations to participate in an even more ambitious initiative called the Pioneer ACO Model. That separate but related experiment in shared accountability launched Jan. 1, and it may be months before enrolled organizations can say whether the rewards outweigh the risks. Interviews with Presbyterian’s Dr. Arredondo and two other Pioneer participants about why they took the plunge, however, have highlighted some potential keys to success.

All three agree that the ACO model offers a better match for their long-term, patient-centered goals and that the fee-for-service model is gradually becoming a thing of the past.

“In some ways, it was actually kind of a relief that the system was going this way because we, probably like many systems, were beginning to be caught between the budgeted model and a fee-for-service model,” Dr. Arredondo says. “When you’re heavily one way or heavily the other way, then it makes things a little easier to manage and understand. When you’re right in the middle, it becomes a little uncomfortable.”

Penny Wheeler, MD, chief clinical officer for Minneapolis-based Allina Hospitals & Clinics, says organizations in that precarious position need to carefully examine their capabilities and consider how best to pace their transition. Otherwise, they might prematurely give up too much revenue that could be used to reinvest in care improvements.

“We can tolerate it if we shoot ourselves in one foot, but we can’t tolerate it if we shoot ourselves in both feet, in this new world,” Dr. Wheeler says.

If caution is warranted, she says, the ACO model still aligns well with a strategy of building toward outcome-based healthcare. Despite the likelihood of “lumps and bumps and warts along the way,” Dr. Wheeler says, “we really wanted to be part of the shaping of that outcome-based delivery, and receive market rewards for what we were creating for our community.”

 

Austin, Texas-based Seton Health Alliance, a third Pioneer participant, is a collaborative effort between a hospital delivery system known as Seton Health Care Family and a multispecialty physician group called Austin Regional Clinic. Greg Sheff, MD, president and chief medical officer of the ACO, says the partnering organizations were separately moving toward more population health initiatives and more proactive, coordinated, and accountable care.

“The Pioneer ACO, for us, really provided an opportunity to light the fire and motivate the organizations to put the entity together and start doing the work,” he says, adding PCPs and hospitalists will be critical to his organization’s ongoing integration efforts.

“The areas where there are opportunities to be more efficient are largely under the care of the hospitalists,” he says, citing in-house utilization as well as care transitions, comprehensive post-acute placement, and readmission prevention efforts. To support those providers, Pioneer participants say well-designed electronic medical records are paramount, while separate efforts, such as patient-centered medical homes and unit-based rounding, might offer timely assists. (Click here to listen to more of The Hospitalist’s interview with Dr. Sheff.)

No one’s expecting the next few years to be seamless, but Dr. Sheff views his newly formed ACO as a long-term endeavor in which success isn’t necessarily defined by whether the group achieves shared cost savings.

“We define success by whether we are able to move our delivery system to a place where we’ll be much more adept at going forward, continuing to manage populations,” he says. “We really see this as a strategic organizational decision more than, ‘Boy, that contract looks like something that we can leverage in the short term.’”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

 

A new report on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) suggests that implementing a handful of relatively easy strategies can improve mortality rates.

The research, "Hospital Strategies for Reducing Risk-Standardized Mortality Rates in Acute Myocardial Infarction," highlights several techniques for lowering risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMR) in this patient population:

• Holding monthly meetings to review AMI cases (lowered RSMR by 0.7%);

• Fostering an environment that encourages clinicians to solve problems creatively (lowered RSMR by 0.84%);

• Having 24-hour coverage by cardiologists (lowered RSMR by 0.54%);

• Having both a nurse and physician champion for quality in AMI (lowered RSMR by 0.88%); and

• Avoiding cross-training nurses from ICUs for cardiac catheterization laboratories (lowered RSMR by 0.44%).

Fewer than 10% of the 537 hospitals in the cross-sectional survey reported using at least four of the five strategies. Lead author Elizabeth H. Bradley, PhD, faculty director of the Global Health Leadership Institute and professor of public health at Yale University, says the challenge in implementing the strategies lies in changing the often-obstinate culture of healthcare institutions.

"The root of this is the culture," she says, adding if nothing else, "begin with the problems, begin with an analytical mind when errors occur." Dr. Bradley adds that culture of teamwork works only when it has buy-in from in-the-trenches physicians, such as hospitalists and C-suite executives.

"It has to come from the front line and from the top," she says. "In all of our studies over the last decade, [physicians and administrators] need to be supportive of an environment in which problem solving can happen."

A new report on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) suggests that implementing a handful of relatively easy strategies can improve mortality rates.

The research, "Hospital Strategies for Reducing Risk-Standardized Mortality Rates in Acute Myocardial Infarction," highlights several techniques for lowering risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMR) in this patient population:

• Holding monthly meetings to review AMI cases (lowered RSMR by 0.7%);

• Fostering an environment that encourages clinicians to solve problems creatively (lowered RSMR by 0.84%);

• Having 24-hour coverage by cardiologists (lowered RSMR by 0.54%);

• Having both a nurse and physician champion for quality in AMI (lowered RSMR by 0.88%); and

• Avoiding cross-training nurses from ICUs for cardiac catheterization laboratories (lowered RSMR by 0.44%).

Fewer than 10% of the 537 hospitals in the cross-sectional survey reported using at least four of the five strategies. Lead author Elizabeth H. Bradley, PhD, faculty director of the Global Health Leadership Institute and professor of public health at Yale University, says the challenge in implementing the strategies lies in changing the often-obstinate culture of healthcare institutions.

"The root of this is the culture," she says, adding if nothing else, "begin with the problems, begin with an analytical mind when errors occur." Dr. Bradley adds that culture of teamwork works only when it has buy-in from in-the-trenches physicians, such as hospitalists and C-suite executives.

"It has to come from the front line and from the top," she says. "In all of our studies over the last decade, [physicians and administrators] need to be supportive of an environment in which problem solving can happen."

A new report on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) suggests that implementing a handful of relatively easy strategies can improve mortality rates.

The research, "Hospital Strategies for Reducing Risk-Standardized Mortality Rates in Acute Myocardial Infarction," highlights several techniques for lowering risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMR) in this patient population:

• Holding monthly meetings to review AMI cases (lowered RSMR by 0.7%);

• Fostering an environment that encourages clinicians to solve problems creatively (lowered RSMR by 0.84%);

• Having 24-hour coverage by cardiologists (lowered RSMR by 0.54%);

• Having both a nurse and physician champion for quality in AMI (lowered RSMR by 0.88%); and

• Avoiding cross-training nurses from ICUs for cardiac catheterization laboratories (lowered RSMR by 0.44%).

Fewer than 10% of the 537 hospitals in the cross-sectional survey reported using at least four of the five strategies. Lead author Elizabeth H. Bradley, PhD, faculty director of the Global Health Leadership Institute and professor of public health at Yale University, says the challenge in implementing the strategies lies in changing the often-obstinate culture of healthcare institutions.

"The root of this is the culture," she says, adding if nothing else, "begin with the problems, begin with an analytical mind when errors occur." Dr. Bradley adds that culture of teamwork works only when it has buy-in from in-the-trenches physicians, such as hospitalists and C-suite executives.

"It has to come from the front line and from the top," she says. "In all of our studies over the last decade, [physicians and administrators] need to be supportive of an environment in which problem solving can happen."

Click here to listen to Dr. Barrett

Click here to listen to Dr. Barrett

Click here to listen to Dr. Barrett

Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center in Phoenix is combating hospital-acquired VTE with a quality initiative that uses risk-assessment tools and order sets embedded in the electronic health record (EHR) and real-time interventions with physicians.

Cases of hospital-acquired VTE are identified as they occur and assessed for whether they were preventable, says Lori Porter, DO, academic hospitalist and team leader for Banner Good Samaritan's VTE Committee. "If we think the VTE was preventable, we will call the provider and say, 'Can you tell me why you think this happened?'" she says. (Check out more information about Banner Good Samaritan’s VTE program at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement website.)

The program emphasizes risk re-assessment, appropriate use of extended prophylaxis, and involvement of Banner's house staff. All four hospitalist services at Banner Good Samaritan have been receptive to using the order sets.

Banner Good Samaritan's results include a drop in preventable hospital-acquired VTEs to 25% in 2011 from 45% in 2009, along with a 29% relative risk reduction in DVT and 18% in pulmonary embolism.

The hospital belongs to SHM's VTE Prevention Collaborative, and works with mentor Gregory Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, senior vice president of SHM's Center for Healthcare Improvement and Innovation. It uses what Dr. Porter calls "a simple, three-bucket system" for assessing and classifying risk level, derived from the 2008 antithrombotic therapy guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP). However, in February, ACCP issued a new edition of the guidelines, which Dr. Porter has not been eager to embrace.

"They've gone back to a conservative point-scoring system for risk assessment, which seems cumbersome in clinical practice. If a simpler approach has proven to be effective for us, then why commit to making a complicated change?" says Dr. Porter.

Dr. Maynard agrees that the new antithrombotic guidelines have sparked differences of opinion. Dr. Porter's teams, for example, "use the simpler three-bucket model with good results: better prophylaxis, decrease in VTE, and no discernible increase in bleeding," he says. "Improvement teams that want to mimic these results should look at this model, in addition to the models outlined in the ninth edition, and see which models their doctors and nurses would actually use reliably."

 

Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center in Phoenix is combating hospital-acquired VTE with a quality initiative that uses risk-assessment tools and order sets embedded in the electronic health record (EHR) and real-time interventions with physicians.

Cases of hospital-acquired VTE are identified as they occur and assessed for whether they were preventable, says Lori Porter, DO, academic hospitalist and team leader for Banner Good Samaritan's VTE Committee. "If we think the VTE was preventable, we will call the provider and say, 'Can you tell me why you think this happened?'" she says. (Check out more information about Banner Good Samaritan’s VTE program at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement website.)

The program emphasizes risk re-assessment, appropriate use of extended prophylaxis, and involvement of Banner's house staff. All four hospitalist services at Banner Good Samaritan have been receptive to using the order sets.

Banner Good Samaritan's results include a drop in preventable hospital-acquired VTEs to 25% in 2011 from 45% in 2009, along with a 29% relative risk reduction in DVT and 18% in pulmonary embolism.

The hospital belongs to SHM's VTE Prevention Collaborative, and works with mentor Gregory Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, senior vice president of SHM's Center for Healthcare Improvement and Innovation. It uses what Dr. Porter calls "a simple, three-bucket system" for assessing and classifying risk level, derived from the 2008 antithrombotic therapy guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP). However, in February, ACCP issued a new edition of the guidelines, which Dr. Porter has not been eager to embrace.

"They've gone back to a conservative point-scoring system for risk assessment, which seems cumbersome in clinical practice. If a simpler approach has proven to be effective for us, then why commit to making a complicated change?" says Dr. Porter.

Dr. Maynard agrees that the new antithrombotic guidelines have sparked differences of opinion. Dr. Porter's teams, for example, "use the simpler three-bucket model with good results: better prophylaxis, decrease in VTE, and no discernible increase in bleeding," he says. "Improvement teams that want to mimic these results should look at this model, in addition to the models outlined in the ninth edition, and see which models their doctors and nurses would actually use reliably."

 

Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center in Phoenix is combating hospital-acquired VTE with a quality initiative that uses risk-assessment tools and order sets embedded in the electronic health record (EHR) and real-time interventions with physicians.

Cases of hospital-acquired VTE are identified as they occur and assessed for whether they were preventable, says Lori Porter, DO, academic hospitalist and team leader for Banner Good Samaritan's VTE Committee. "If we think the VTE was preventable, we will call the provider and say, 'Can you tell me why you think this happened?'" she says. (Check out more information about Banner Good Samaritan’s VTE program at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement website.)

The program emphasizes risk re-assessment, appropriate use of extended prophylaxis, and involvement of Banner's house staff. All four hospitalist services at Banner Good Samaritan have been receptive to using the order sets.

Banner Good Samaritan's results include a drop in preventable hospital-acquired VTEs to 25% in 2011 from 45% in 2009, along with a 29% relative risk reduction in DVT and 18% in pulmonary embolism.

The hospital belongs to SHM's VTE Prevention Collaborative, and works with mentor Gregory Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, senior vice president of SHM's Center for Healthcare Improvement and Innovation. It uses what Dr. Porter calls "a simple, three-bucket system" for assessing and classifying risk level, derived from the 2008 antithrombotic therapy guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP). However, in February, ACCP issued a new edition of the guidelines, which Dr. Porter has not been eager to embrace.

"They've gone back to a conservative point-scoring system for risk assessment, which seems cumbersome in clinical practice. If a simpler approach has proven to be effective for us, then why commit to making a complicated change?" says Dr. Porter.

Dr. Maynard agrees that the new antithrombotic guidelines have sparked differences of opinion. Dr. Porter's teams, for example, "use the simpler three-bucket model with good results: better prophylaxis, decrease in VTE, and no discernible increase in bleeding," he says. "Improvement teams that want to mimic these results should look at this model, in addition to the models outlined in the ninth edition, and see which models their doctors and nurses would actually use reliably."