Against the backdrop of the so-called safety net hospital (those with heavy Medicare, Medicaid claims utilization) as a healthcare-related industry and campaign ’12 meme, there is interesting data out in JAMA this week that either supports Mitt Romney’s assertion that the “very poor” are taken care of in this country quite adequately, or there is reason to believe that P4P measures (or, at least the idea, anyway) are superficially quite similar in non-safety net acute care centers in terms of ultimate patient dispositions.
Researchers studied whether patients were admitted to the acute hospital within eight hours ED admission or if they were to be discharged, transferred or moved to observation within four hours of coming to the ED. They found that
compliance with proposed ER length-of-stay measures for admitted, discharged, transferred, and observed patients to not differ between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals
Although length-of-stay (LOS) data is interesting, it is not compelling — quite limited in its implications, actually. Currently there is no “accepted” ED LOS strict guideline in the U.S. Digging deeper into this study (abstract-only text cited above available without a JAMA susbscription), one can infer more from the upper decile of data — in which LOS significantly increased among both types of institutions (10-15 h in length), the authors citing mostly acute patient decompensations in mental illness as the reason for protracted admission LOS.
Still, the trial provides renewed attention over a surrogate care parameter just a few years ago was hailed as an agreeable target upon which to base healthcare reform on spending within the government sector. These days, the study may only serve as yet another reason why P4P as a quality measure is so derided by many as the ACA is just beginning to take hold.
The good news: the media have done a reasonably good job of getting the word out to consumers of healthcare with respect to the prevention of medical and surgical mistakes in acute care settings. The bad news? Here in Minnesota, the numbers of “wrong surgeries”, a collective term meaning never-events in this care realm, topped 2010′s tally by five cases — creating a surge in such cases last year.
The figure is the highest in eight years of self-reporting by Minnesota hospitals. Officials cited many reasons for the mistakes — from doctors filling out incorrect orders to sloppy inventories that make it easy to grab the wrong joint implants for orthopedic procedures.
While the surge appears to be from the absolute numbers of incorrect procedures performed, the rate of adverse events has globally decreased, bringing into question the efforts of many healthcare systems in the processes involved in preventing completely avoidable lapses in care delivery. | LINK
After a two-year investigation into disclosure issues surrounding a top University of Minnesota physician faculty member, the case is now closed — accompanied by a stern “cautionary letter” which
instructed him to take corrective measures to prevent further problems, but decided against further disciplinary action. A review committee found no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. However, the committee found that Polly failed to sufficiently disclose the Medtronic relationship in connection with two medical journal publications and a conference presentation.
He no longer does work which requires scrutiny for disclosure since the investigation’s launch in November 2009. | LINK
As a primary care geriatrician, I am especially fortunate to have the dual experience of meeting the difficulty of treating chronic disease and, at the same time, making a difference in the lives of patients and their families. But, I have also been bitten by the acute care bug. For the past couple of years, I have also done urgent care medicine part time. I really enjoy it. And it seems to be falling into a healthcare delivery niche, as far as reform is concerned.
Across the country, an estimated 3 million patients visit these centers each week, according to the Urgent Care Association of America, a trade group based in Chicago. To meet increased demand, the number of facilities has steadily increased from 8,000 in 2008 to more than 9,200 this year, the association said. About 600 new urgent centers opened this year. Fueling that rise are two longstanding trends — crowded emergency rooms and a lack of primary care doctors. Urgent care operators also say another factor is helping to propel business: the drive to lower costs.
I’m not sure what to make of the supposition that the cost savings derived from urgent care as an emergency department surrogate. In the long run, these presumed cost savings will likely be minimal if patients-as-conumers remain in the mindset that urgent care access is equivalent to primary care access. Yes, the decreasing numbers of primary care physicians may be entering a critical phase, and as this scenario demonstrates, urgent care as a delivery mechanism, will not replace the reality of impaired access to primary care. Paitents desirous of value as recipients of health care will always gravitate toward the path of least resistance. Only by increasing the primary care workforce can that level of access and value actually be realized. | LINK
When she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, a Minnesota woman thought that her carefully chosen neurologist had her best interests in mind when prescribing initial treatments to modify the disease. That was before a little detective work uncovered the real motivation for her physician’s patterns of prescribing that left her even more debilitated than when she was initially showing symptoms.
It worried me that none of them ever suggested that I discontinue treatment—or switch to another treatment—even after I reported that my injection site reactions were affecting my quality of life. Despite the fact that my neurologist insisted that I begin disease-modifying therapy, I was never contacted by him, his nurse, or anyone else in the neurology clinic with questions about how my Copaxone injections were going.
The patient, a U of M philosophy graduate student, puts into her own words the ethical issue she gradually uncovered while under the specialist’s care. Just how influential are pharma companies’ financial compensations for physicians who choose to prescribe their products? Just how willing are they to prescribe knowingly untested medications without concern as to their problematic and potentially lethal adverse effects? Her answer came at her next appointment, after enduring months of increasingly debilitating pain and enfeebling function from the trial with the first drug.
[M]y neurologist informed me that I’d begun to develop lesions inside my brain stem. He explained that this was a very bad place to have lesions, occupied as it is with regulating some of the body’s basic functions, such as breathing. He strongly recommended that I go back on MS treatment, suggesting this time a drug called Tysabri (natalizumab), which had worked wonders for some of his patients but also carried some amount of risk. Worried about the new lesions, but knowing little about the drug he was advising, I told him I’d think about it. I needed to be convinced through my own investigations that this drug would be worth taking.
Her investigations were not only telling, but they are also indicative of an all-to-familiar refrain for patients of (mostly specialist) physicians who pocket major coin from pharma companies to get these ridiculously expensive agents to the marketplace, at the risk of patient harm. In Minnesota, the patient was assisted by a database which lists pharmaceutical third parties with which a prescribing physician has a financial interest. She makes little doubt of her eagerness for this requirement to spread nationally as the result of the reform law. | PDF LINK
The federal government finally announces that it will open up its Medicare claims database to allow third party access (advocacy groups, insurers, hospitals, etc). This follows a few years of speculation on the part of pundits and legislators alike on what such a move could entail and how it would impact heatlhcare reform — in particular, enhancing quality parameters. The benefits of availability of such information gleaned from billing, requisitions, and payments will vary among groups seeking such data.
Though the data aggregate is invaluable for constructing tools for everything from clinical trials to arranging care delivery based upon demographics, there is always the specter of misrepresentation of that data. For years, many clinicians (including professional associations like the AMA) have lobbied against the release of such info on the gounds that internal reviews should be made before that info is released to the general public. End data may not always be reflected by the healthcare delivery means for many difficult-to-treat patients, for example.
Still, the move is a win for groups wanting to move beyond the formerly impenetrable wall imposed and maintained by physicians and physician groups in order to access that gold mine of clinical, financial, and parametric information. | LINK
Robbing Peter to pay Paul — in terms of Medicare cost sharing, that is. A new Medicare benefit design will enable increased costs for lower utilizers of the government entitlement (relatively healthier beneficiaries). This limit on cost-sharing among beneficiaries would decrease the costs per sicker beneficiary for, say, acute visits to the hospital rather substantially, leaving those who do not use services as much shouldering the burden.
A melding of the services by hospitals (part A) and doctor visits (B) as they relate to deductibles, plus a requirement that participants pay 20 percent toward a $5500 limit would increase the payment of almost 75 percent of beneficiaries (the lower utilizers of acute care) by almost $200/month. My take? It’s potentially a mechanism for some savings by the federal government, and it may give more ammo to Republicans who are interested in tiering beneficiary eligibility — such as via so-called means-testing.
All this in an interesting study via Kaiser. | LINK
Could retail be the solution to comprehensive healthcare delivery? Well, if big-box retailer Walmart has anything to say about it — then, bring it on! Stretching the idea of retail minute clinics to extremely absurd heights, the retailer wants to partner with other entities to increase care access ahead of the tsunami of increased coverage sure to occur once reform kicks in a couple of years from now. It lays out its plans in a 14-page Request for Information [PDF].
In-store medical clinics, such as those offered by Walmart and other retailers, could also be players in another effort in the health law: encouraging collaborations of doctors and hospitals who want to win financial rewards for streamlining care and lowering costs. Such collaborations, known as “accountable care organizations,” might contract with in-store medical clinics, says Paul Howard, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
The other entities, sometimes labeled as “vendors” in Walmart’s RFI, appear to be (healthcare) organizations which have the potential to collaborate on best practices for many chronic conditions — enabling the partner vendor to benefit in terms of quality, accountability, delivery of healthcare services in order to maximize their bottom lines.
This mode of healthcare delivery raises concerns, to be sure. Could we be seeing an entirely new way of the delivery of healthcare as a pure commodity to be negotiated and priced like any other product? Will it encourage other major national retailers to follow suit? What will this do to the traditional model of healthcare organizational delivery of primary care? Will it enhance it? Will it make it more accountable to third parties? How will this model benefit insurance companies’ approach to premiums in an altered delivery marketplace? Quite an interesting development in the ongoing saga of the cost of healthcare in this country. | LINK
Just under 13 percent of skilled long term care facilities here in Minnesota are part of a project that is aimed at reducing the “supply side” of potentially unnecessary hospitalizations in the care of their elderly patients. The three year initiative is based upon data already gleaned from smaller tests and it essentially involves going back to the fundamentals of physical diagnosis — from all members of the skilled provider team.
“The problem is the doctors,” [Dr. Robert Kane, a University of Minnesota aging expert who is helping lead the experiment, said.] “Physicians familiar with nursing homes learn quickly to trust the precise information from nurses using the Interact tools. But for the others, especially nights or weekends, the default is hospitalization.”
I like to think of this as a recognition about what physicians have always known about medicine. Nothing substitutes for a thorough physical exam, regardless of who the examiner is. Any effort to utilize the good ol’ noggin to diagnose and treat without the knee-jerk rush to the hospital ED to provide primary care is always preferred, and it saves the proverbial bean counters on the acute care side of things (hospitals) of having to deal with yet another inappropriate admission. | LINK
One axiom is certain in medicine: there is always room for controversy. And that’s good, because it spurs further scholarly thought and research — both qualities can only help patients and providers in the long run. With the current discussion in the media regarding the utilization of the PSA in determining the course of action in prostate cancer screening, so many fundamental issues surrounding patient informed consent, unnecessary treatments, and the potential harms from treatments — can serve as valuable teaching points for patients and current and future physicians alike. The discussion — highlighted in the current NEJM — really brings this point home.
Watchful waiting and active surveillance may help prevent the conversion of overdiagnosis to overtreatment, mitigating the harms of screening that are so accurately portrayed by the task force. … we primary care clinicians must ensure there is no more routine, indiscriminate PSA screening — and no washing our hands of responsibility once the patient is referred to a specialist for prostate-cancer treatment. We owe it to our patients to provide them with the kind of guidance about this screening test that they need and deserve…
New rules for accountability care organizations out today from CMS may please providers amid reports of inefficient care delivery models and quality. When the feds released initial ACO rules earlier this year, the process was met with major rounds of criticism with physicians barking the loudest. As a group, its top concern was the financial risk involved (lowered reimbursements amid higher penalties) in agreeing to participate.
Quality benchmarks in EHR adoption and clinical outcomes in certain key chronic medical diagnoses as part of the ACA-mandated rules have all but been retooled with the release of new ACO parameters.
The regulations reduced the number of quality measures by about half and increased the financial incentives for providers. The changes won preliminary praise from major trade groups and professional associations, which moved quickly to digest hundreds of pages of rules from multiple federal agencies, including the CMS, the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department.
Enhanced opportunities in order to improve quality amid a decrease in the perceived risks of doing so. With this new credo in place, many initial hostilities toward the inclusion of ACOs within the scope of reform may be tempered just a bit. | LINK
Originating from Saint Paul, Minnesota, [doctorpundit.com] is a weblog about the policy of healthcare and where it intersects with politics and public opinion; it is edited by Michael Douglas, MD, MBA. Welcome, and please consider my take on what is Healthcare 2.0, complemented by a few of my thoughts on my personal avocations and guilty pleasures: music, prose, and writing. Follow Doctor Pundit via RSS above.
Both sides have weighed in on constitutionality of #ppaca setting stage for #SCOTUS hearing on #healthreform in March http://t.co/wa1dbvay
Class Ii Se Bk in Black from The Medical Outlet http://t.co/E7nYw3NB #nurses #doctors #littmann
RT @PorteNawak: How Europe is Growing Health Apps http://t.co/asZBAx0G #mhsm #mhealth #hcsm #pharma via @berci
RT @dailycamera: #Boulder Community #Hospital receives $1M for #cancer unit. http://t.co/JQnNDAe8
DOCTOR PUNDIT @ ONE YEAR | An occasional DP series from 2010 highlighting healthcare policy trends over the period from 2009-2010 in a compare/contrast format.
