Tag Archives: Healthcare Reform

Can “Big Med” Save the Healthcare Industry?

Atul Gawande has, once again, crystallized some of the fundamental issues in how healthcare in the United States is delivered by making an interesting comparison to the Cheesecake Factory. He asserts that finely tuned corporate practices have enabled the Cheesecake factory, like many other large corporations, to consistently deliver a high quality, reliable and affordable experience for its customers. Does healthcare need to move in this direction, with transformation being enabled by “Big Med” healthcare corporations? This is a debatable position but two things are clear: (1) what we have is not working and (2) entrepreneurism and the ultimate prize of creating a multi-million dollar corporation from scratch is the “American Way” and part of the American dream.

Our current system has failed, pretty miserably, over the past 40-50 years in particular. The percentage of our GDP going to healthcare has risen from 5% in 1960 to 15% in 2008. We spend twice as much on healthcare as we do on food and more on healthcare alone than China spends on all goods and services. Despite this premium pricing, we have the worse quality of any industrialized nation and therefore the worse value for our healthcare dollar among these nations. Other countries have successfully solved or improved their healthcare issues by heavy governmental intervention including single-payer solutions, national guidelines and requiring use of Information Technology (IT). Although some states have gone a similar route, notably Massachusetts and Vermont, this approach is not generally the “American Way”. Freedom of choice and the heroic entrepreneur are highly valued in our society. Therefore “Big Med” may be the only way to save and transform our healthcare system that actually fits our culture. The government can catalyst and create the right conditions but anything heavy handed will be pushed back against. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) probably represents the most that can be done at the federal level and it has received significant push back, although no one really has a better idea to solve this crises. Nevertheless, the ACA actually has created the conditions for the healthcare industry to transform.

The health plan and coverage impact has received much of the press but the really important and smart provisions are those that are impacting providers of care. Over half of the costs of healthcare is going to hospitals and physicians. One persons’ costs are another’s income. To decrease healthcare costs you will have to impact the income or at least the rate of inflation of the income of hospitals and doctors. Unlike the frontal attack on provider’s income that the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) threatens, provisions in the ACA take a more subtle and more fair and reasonable approach. The payment reforms take a two pronged approach. First, the regulations put providers at risk for efficiently managing the healthcare dollar through bundled payments and shared savings. This means that providers will have to begin to really understand their underlying costs. This has previously not been a major issue for providers because as long as you could negotiate enough at a macro-level to cover your aggregate costs, then you were OK. As a result, consolidating markets and gaining bargaining power with payers has been a fairly successful strategy for many providers. However, in a bundled payment scenario you really have to understand your costs at a micro-level because you will create a margin by being efficient in delivering your services below the revenue envelope created by the bundled payment. Different focus, different discipline but one that few businesses in other industries would or could ignore. The healthcare industry reimbursement model gave providers a pass on understanding their true underlying costs for a long time but that time is now over. Secondly, the ACA regulations are demanding more value for the dollar spent through value-based purchasing. This approach places the performance risk where it should be placed, in the hands of the clinicians that make the decisions. Insurance risk (the risk of catastrophic events) should be placed under the management of insurance companies. Insurance companies are very good at determining and managing risk but their reach into managing adherence to clinical care standards (i.e. performance risk) has been intrusive, disruptive and untrusted. It is time that performance risk is transferred to and shared with providers who make the decisions that drive 80% of the costs of the system. We are already putting patients at risk through various “consumer driven” products. The alignment is incomplete without including the providers more directly.

In this evolving market scenario, dollars will shift to those who can be more efficient while sustaining or improving the level of quality. There is plenty of room for improvement as the recent IOM study estimates that 30% of healthcare costs are due to waste. As a provider, to maintain your income you will need to really understand your costs, rigorously eliminate waste and sustain and improve quality. Even if the size of the pie shrinks, you will sustain margins by reducing your own internal waste and likely gaining market share from those who cannot. High quality and high levels of customer satisfaction will be the ticket to play. Sounds like market forces being brought to bear in the healthcare industry. Sounds like an environment where “Big Med” can thrive. Sounds like the “American Way”.

Advertisements

Top 10 Trends That Will Transform Healthcare in 2012

The US healthcare industry is in the midst of the “perfect storm”.  The issue of cost cannot be kicked down the road any further and payers, including the government, are pursuing cost reduction strategies by any means necessary.  Although the Fee-For-Service (FFS) reimbursement model is often cited as the root cause of the dysfunctional care delivery system, it cannot be changed overnight.  In an effort to catalyze the necessary transformation, the government has created several programs and incentives to model, test and drive care delivery in a more functional direction.  Combined with market forces, all payers are expected to follow suit in one way or another to shift the incentives and financial reimbursement model in a more rational direction.  All of these efforts are heavily dependent on upgrading the Information Technology and analytic infrastructure of the industry.  Healthcare has greatly lagged other information intensive industries, such as banking, in investing in and leveraging technology.  All of these efforts will transform the industry and there clearly will be winners and losers.  The early and effective adopters will be well-positioned, although there will certainly be a transition period when overall results may slip.  It will be important to find and take advantage of the synergies in these drivers so as to respond most effectively and without wasting resources.  The basis of competition in the industry is changing and that will be transformative.  The following are the top 10 most important drivers to pay attention and respond to.

1) Healthcare Reform

The broad and comprehensive reforms put forth in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 legislation will be tested at the highest level this year.  The Supreme Court decision will have fundamental impact on which components of the law can go forward and which cannot.  The increased covered lives is not only an important objective but also bringing healthier enrollees into the pool would make providing health insurance more financially viable.  If this form of healthcare reform fails, an alternative would have to be found quickly or draconian cuts in public programs will be likely and private insurance would not be able to make up the difference.  The impact on reimbursement for some providers would be devastating for some.

2) Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH)

The PCMH is a driver which already has tremendous momentum.  There has been unprecedented industry alignment around this concept and adoption is rapidly spreading through primary care practices.  Many early tests are beginning to show results.  The challenge is the reimbursement model and creating a “medical neighborhood” that is aligned with the PCMH.  The most important work of the PCMH is often the uncompensated work of coordinating care.  This is where the FFS reimbursement model comes into direct conflict with more effective reimbursement models.  Many groups and payers are testing hybrid models to see if they can be mutually beneficial.  This model of care is also very dependent on technology and care teams to support the work of coordination and outreach as well as better engaging the patient.

3) Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs)

As one of the programs of the healthcare reform act, testing of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) was established to drive a system orientation for the care of a designed population of patients.  This approach incentivizes the development of Integrated Delivery Systems (IDSs) as the “medical neighborhood”.  The results are expected to be better than the failed movement in the late 1990’s to develop IDSs because incentives are better aligned between providers and payers, quality is more defined, measurable and expected and technology is more mature and affordable.  This is a heavily technology and analytics dependent model in that it means that providers must become more like insurance companies with the attendant need to manage risk.  Data and analytics are the lifeblood of an ACO as what you don’t know can really hurt you.  This will be transformative at a macro level for the entire industry.

4) Population Health Management (PHM)

Population Health Management (PHM) attempts to strike at the root cause of high healthcare costs.  The cost of healthcare has now reached a crisis level.  To solve this crisis, we have to go where the money is.  The costs of care are extremely unevenly distributed with 1% of the population generating 20% or more of the costs.  Chronic conditions are a driver of as much as 75% of costs.  These are patients that you cannot wait until they show up in your emergency room or clinic.  They may be well on their way, by that time, to generating high levels of cost.  ACOs will have to manage risk to be successful and that means becoming very good at PHM.  It will be critical to identify and outreach to high risk patients and mitigate their risks before the clinical time bomb goes off.  This will become the basis of competition as value-based reimbursement becomes more prevalent.  The move to PHM will be a powerful driver of transformation of the system.

5) Health Information Exchanges (HIEs) 

As one of the elements of the stimulus program, funding to support the development of Health Information Exchanges (HIEs) has increased dramatically the number of viable exchanges in the country.  This concept has had appeal for a number of years under different names (e.g. CHINs and RHIOs) but financial sustainability has always been an issue.  HIEs may finally have a sustainable business model in that ACOs and PCMHs need the knowledge of patient care activities that HIEs can potentially aggregate and make available.  Care coordination and proactively managing risk in a population is important because, if you are an ACO, what you don’t know can hurt you.  HIEs will help with tracking patients in and out of your system.

6) ICD-10

Although not scheduled to become mandatory until October 2013, the switch to ICD-10 is expected to have significant and far-reaching impact on the delivery of health services.  And preparation must begin far ahead of the deadline.  There is the priority one issues of ensuring that operations can continue with the switch and that cross-walks create comparable financial scenarios.  However, the transformative aspect is the increased clinical granularity of the codes.  This is expected to drive more effective analytics and understanding of care delivery.  Also the richer code set will enable more precise Clinical Decision Support (CDS) to be deployed.

7) Big Data

An interesting development, just in time to consume the volume of new EHR data that will be produced, is the concept of “Big Data”.  Big data is a term applied to data sets whose size is beyond the ability of commonly used software tools to capture, manage, and process within a tolerable timeframe.  Big data sizes are a constantly moving target currently ranging from a few dozen terabytes to many petabytes of data in a single data set.  The research group, Gartner, has defined the challenge data growth challenges (and opportunities) as being three-dimensional: not only increasing volume (amount of data) but also increasing velocity (speed of data in/out) and variety (range of data types, sources). This certainly describes the situation in healthcare as EHRs, outcomes data, predictive models and genomics are creating increasingly large and varied data sets.  Big Data technologies are tuned to manage these huge volumes of data with acceptable processing times.  This capability, especially in analytics, will be critical for healthcare quality and care management as an organization can move to near real-time decision support and rapid cycles of improvement.

8) Meaningful Use

The Meaningful Use incentives have created a powerful catalyst for organizations to implement Electronic Health Records (EHRs).  Although the incentive will not pay the total freight for implementation, it does defray a significant amount of costs and the looming penalty phase should push the laggards in this direction.  More than $1.3 billion in Medicare and $1.1 billion in Medicaid EHR Incentive Program payments have been made between May 2011 by the end of December 2011.  The result will be the retooling of the entire Information Technology (IT) infrastructure of the healthcare industry.  There will likely some come a time when you are not competitive if you do not have an EHR.  Most importantly, the basis of competition will shift from whether you have an EHR to how effectively you are using your EHR.

9) Personal Health Records (PHRs)

The Personal Health Record (PHR) is seen as an important tools as we move to managing populations and reducing risks associated with chronic conditions.  Engagement of the patient will be essential.  Consumerism and personal accountability for health will gain increased momentum especially as consumers continue to pay more out of pocket for health costs.  Access to quality information and guidance through remote and mobile technologies will be critical to the consumerism revolution. As we move to PHM approaches, it will be important for healthcare providers to use technology to electronically create a “continuous healing relationship” with the patient as well as support caregivers.  Having patients and caregivers empowered, engaged and knowledgeable about their illness and managing their own care is the most cost-efficient and, generally, high quality care delivery model.

10) Social Media

As with many other trends, healthcare has lagged the general business community in adopting certain approaches and technologies.  Social media is one of those technologies.  Issues of privacy are obviously a barrier.  However, the impact of social networking and social media is so important and pervasive that increased healthcare adoption would be transformative.  It is important to recognize that not only is social media technologies useful for engaging with patients but it is also valuable for internal use within the healthcare organization.

The Next 5 Years Will be Transformative for the Healthcare Industry

Rarely has there been so much change in play in the healthcare industry.  There is much at stake in this trillion dollar industry.  There clearly has to be winners, losers and change if we are to bend the cost curve.  In this transformative phase, some organizations will fail, some specialties will see decreased reimbursement, many roles and responsibilities will change and the patient will have to become more accountable for his or her own health.  However, as has typically been the American way, with innovation, influence of market forces and the right level of government intervention, we can come out of this transformation with a stronger, cost-efficient and high quality system that will, once again be competitive on an international scale.

To Bend the Cost Curve You Must Change How Doctors Are Paid

The heated debate over the healthcare crisis and what to do about it has reached a fever pitch. We now have a bill passed from the House though contentious issues remain and the Senate and reconciliation prospects still represent a daunting challenge. The question is how do we fix the American system of care where we pay more than any other country in the world and yet get mediocre quality. Despite the high costs, only 55% of patients receive the care that guidelines say they should. Its like we are paying for a Rolls-Royce that runs only half the time. Care is so expensive that, unlike other industrialized countries, we don’t insure all of our citizens. Part of the healthcare reform puzzle is figuring out how we can pay the insurance costs for an additional 46 million people when the costs of care for those covered is bankrupting companies, individuals and the government. To make matters worse, like a ticking time bomb, cost increases are out-pacing GDP growth every year. How can our businesses be competitive when every year healthcare costs are eating up more and more of their profits? Healthcare costs are a part of the reason for the failure of the automakers. As a country, we now spend more on healthcare than we spend on food. If this situation continues, at some point we will spend all of our money on healthcare. It will crowd out spending on every other good. That scenario would be an economically disastrous and untenable position. This, of course, cannot happen. There will be a breaking point where the government and employers simply will not be able to foot the bill anymore. We are reaching that point now. The early symptoms are that small employers are eliminating the health benefit and larger employers are shifting more and more costs to the employee. If we don’t solve the cost issue, it doesn’t matter who pays the bills, whether it is the government or employers or individuals, they will not be able to afford it.  Most Americans say they are happy with their healthcare. That is because those with private or government insurance are shielded from the full cost of their care. They are paying a small percentage of the full cost and therefore are feeling the pressure on their bank accounts that business are experiencing. Nevertheless, when someone has a catastrophic illness, especially with the increased cost sharing, it still can cause bankruptcy. In this recession, the average American is even more vulnerable to this outcome. In the debate about the public option and death panels, we are missing the root issue. The cost of healthcare is simply the math of price vs volume of services. It doesn’t matter who pays for care, the price is too high. The Health Affairs September/October 2009 issue is focused on “Bending the Curve” of healthcare costs.  This is a very good issue with some of the best thinking on the topic aggregated into one publication. Every one involved in reform should read this issue. One of the most important articles clearly defines what the root issues are that are driving our dysfunctional system. “Market Failure And The Failure Of Discourse: Facing Up To The Power Of Sellers” by Bruce C. Vladeck and Thomas Rice describes the fact that the fundamental problem is the lack of power by purchasers which allows the “sellers” of healthcare services (providers and pharmaceutical companies) to control price. This, in addition to other related structural factors, is why healthcare does not operate like a typical market. Normal market forces are not in play and the power and control of the sellers is one reason. Remember that one person’s cost is another person’s income.  In the US healthcare sellers will resist any effort to reduce their income which just happens to be healthcare costs.  In just about every other country in the world, through various means, purchasers of healthcare have acquired greater leverage. This purchasing leverage is used to control the price of healthcare services and pharmaceuticals and thereby overall costs. This is only one mechanism but it is a fundamentally important and powerful mechanism to control healthcare costs. In other words, we must pay doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies differently if we really want to control costs and improve quality. This is a politically risky proposition due to the power of these groups but, as also noted in the Health Affairs issue, we are seeing promising approaches and experiments popping up throughout the country.

There are only three ways to decrease the underlying cost of healthcare: (1) decrease demand (2) decrease utilization and/or (3) improve efficiency of delivering services (typically through innovation as in other industries) and thereby reduce prices. In healthcare, of course, you must accomplish this while maintaining or improving quality. There are no other options. In other industries due to price pressure, there is an industry motivation to innovate and continually bring to market less costly products and services. In truly competitive markets, there are incentives to fundamentally and continually reduce production costs and innovate to create margins at lower prices and gain market share.  Healthcare is fundamentally difference for two at least reasons. First, clinicians have specialized knowledge that makes it difficult for consumers to judge the quality and reasonableness of their recommendations. In addition when you are dealing with the risk of your or a family member’s health, it is difficult to question the motives or recommendations of your doctor. You can more easily say to a salesperson I don’t need that extra memory on my computer than to say to your doctor I really don’t need that angiogram to see if my heart vessels are clear. When you are not directly paying for or paying a significant proportion of the cost of the procedure as well, why not get the test and gain some reassurance of your health? Secondly, the healthcare reimbursement model is based on Fee-For-Service (FFS) with pricing that is somewhat arbitrary and not necessarily directly related to costs. In the FFS model providers are rewarded for volume of services, not the quality of those services nor the outcomes. In theory, as consumers we should be buying health and longevity for our healthcare dollars. In the US, we are getting a bad bargain for the price we pay. When you combine the FFS model with the specialized knowledge of clinicians, you realize that clinicians can create their own demand apart from the true clinical needs of the patient. Chest pain that could be easily ruled as being dangerous by history, exam, EKG and blood tests could also be extended to include an expensive but unnecessary angiogram. When the price of that angiogram is set by the sellers and not based on competition, as Vladeck and Rice describe, then you get the situation we have in the US.

Therefore in terms of true solutions and not cost shifting, you can attack demand, utilization and/or prices. By changing how physicians are paid you can attack all three issues simultaneously. By shifting from FFS to a global payment model you can address several issues. You can address consumer driven demand by prevention, self-management and healthier lifestyles. However, provider driven demand or “supply driven” demand as described by Wennberg, can be reduced by a global payment method. There are several variations but the principle of paying a set amount for a category of services or episode care reduces the perverse incentive to do more just for the sake of making more. As long as there are controls and monitors for quality and service, then you balance the opposite incentive to do less to make more money. Inappropriate utilization also decreases in this model. If you also have competition at this level, then you begin to move to a more rational market environment. The model also makes it easier to define competition on pricing and can lead to innovative methods of delivering care. This should be where competition occurs. Costs are driven by decisions at the care delivery level and therefore, this is where competition should occur as described by Michael Porter , not at the health plan level.  When you compete at this level you get the kind of innovation that is occurring at Kaiser Permanente, Mayo Clinic and Geisinger. We will see a test of this model in Massachusetts as they test a global payment model. Thus far, the current passed bill and other proposals only weakly impact and acknowledge the importance of this mechanism to control costs. However, the evolution and acceptance of a new model of provider payment will be critical for true transformation of our healthcare system.