April 12th, 2011 by Michael Kirsch, M.D. in Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
Prototype ‘BS’ meter.
So many folks express views that are obviously self-serving, but they try to masquerade them as altruistic positions that benefit some other constituency. These attempts usually fool no one, but yet these performances are common and ongoing. They are potent fertilizer for cynicism.
Teachers’ unions have been performing for us for decades. Their positions on charter schools, school vouchers, merit pay and the tenure system are clear examples of professional advocacy to protect teachers’ jobs and benefits; yet the stated reasons are to protect our kids. Yeah, right. While our kids are not receiving a top flight education, the public has gotten smart in a hurry on what’s really needed to reform our public educational system. This is why these unions are now retreating and regrouping, grudgingly ‘welcoming’ some reform proposals that have been on the table for decades. This was no epiphany on their part. They were exposed and vulnerable. They wisely sensed that the public lost faith in their arguments and was turning against them. Once the public walked away, or became adversaries, established and entrenched teachers’ union views and policies would be aggressively targeted. Those of us in the medical profession have learned the risk of alienating the public. Teachers have been smarter than we were.
The medical profession is full of ‘performances’ where the stated view is mere camouflage. For example, Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at MD Whistleblower*
April 11th, 2011 by Bryan Vartabedian, M.D. in Medblogger Shout Outs, Research
No Comments »
It seems for many doctors Twitter activity is an outpost connected to some other online place. 48% of physicians on Twitter link to their blog according to Katherine Chretien’s recent study published in JAMA. Doctors apparently understand that different types of information flow better in different channels.
If you had asked me I would have estimated that this Twitter-blog association was much lower. Of course I like to believe that I understand the social doctor better than I actually do. And this is why we need original research like Katherine Chretien’s.
*This blog post was originally published at 33 Charts*
April 11th, 2011 by DavidHarlow in Health Policy
No Comments »
ACO regulations and related federal issuances hit the street last Thursday, after several months of waiting — from CMS, OIG, FTC, DOJ and IRS. They cover the waterfront, ranging from the central regulation defining the structure and workings of the ACO, to limited Stark self-referral ban and anti-kickback statute waivers in the fraud and abuse arena, to new frameworks for antitrust analysis, to rules governing joint ventures involving taxable and tax-exempt organizations.
I had the opportunity to discuss the regs the day after they were issued on a special edition of the Blog Talk Radio show, ACO Watch, hosted by Gregg Masters (@2healthguru). Gregg’s guests included Mark Browne (@consultdoc), Vince Kuraitis (@VinceKuraitis), Jaan Sidorov (@DisMgtCareBlog) and yours truly (@healthblawg). We are geographically diverse, and bring a variety of perspectives to the table. I invite you have a listen — we enjoyed the opportunity to discuss the rules, we all learned from each other, and we hope you enjoy the conversation as well. (It runs about 90 minutes.)
Update 4/5/2011: For a collection of ACO analyses curated by Anita Samarth see: http://bit.ly/ACO-Analyses.
Here are a few points to consider as part of a first look at the ACO rules:
1. The rules were worth the wait. There are a lot of moving parts to coordinate, and the multi-agency effort really came together. The CMS rule also retains a fair amount of flexibility. Some requirements are very specific, but others much less so. (For one example of specific guidelines, take a look at the eight-part definition of patient-centeredness; an organization must satisfy all eight in order to be an ACO. Other requirements have no detail at all, and CMS will look to applicants to explain how they meet the requirements, without giving any hints.)
2. This is the Frankenstein regulation: A Medicare beneficiary must sit on the board of the ACO, CMS must approve all marketing materials before they are used …. These requirements may be traced back to origins in CMS demonstration project and Medicare Advantage policies, respectively, and illustrate the way in which CMS took a short statute and really put some meat on the bones. Some may balk at the weight of the requirements limiting the options of an ACO.
3. CMS has bootstrapped a law aimed at ACOs serving at least 5,000 Medicare beneficiaries each into a system of rules that effectively requires that commercial business be handled in an ACO-like manner. This, among other infrastructure requirements (e.g., 50% of ACO docs must be meaningful users of EHRs), leads to the conclusion that there will be relatively few ACOs, at least initially. CMS estimates 75-150 nationwide. There are, of course, many unanswered questions about what a commercial ACO would look like. One model I am familiar with — here in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts — is the AQC, or Alternative Quality Contract offered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts to providers enrolled in its HMO Blue product. One question is whether a slightly different financial model could apply to the commercial side of the house. One model worth a close look is Jeff Goldsmith’s proposed ACO model, which would treat primary care, emergency and diagnostic care, and episodes of specialty care in three distinct ways.
In brief, Goldsmith recommends risk-adjusted capitation payments for primary care, fee-for-service payments for emergency care and diagnostic physician visits, and bundled severity-adjusted payments for episodes of specialty care. Primary care would be provided through a patient-centered medical home model, which would likely have a collateral effect of reducing the total volume of emergency care and diagnostic physician visits. Specialty care would be provided through “specialty care marts,” ideally more than one per specialty per market to maintain a little healthy competition.
A quick explanation of this approach to an intensivist over the weekend elicited a favorable response.
4. Also in the bootstrapping department, CMS has shifted the ACO from a “shared savings” approach to having ACOs share risk as well as the upside. Of course, this makes a lot of sense; a number of commentators, including the HealthBlawger, had lamented the fact that risk sharing was left out of the statute. CMS has used its general waiver and demo authority under the ACA to move the ACO into risk sharing. The ACO may choose: share risk from day one, and enjoy a potentially higher percentage of the upside, or defer the risk sharing to year three.
5. The retrospective nature of patient attribution and savings calculations mean that each ACO must treat every Medicare fee-for-service patient as if he or she is “theirs.” Patients have the right to decide whether they want their data shared with an ACO; if enough patients are spooked by health care data privacy and security issues, fewer and fewer will authorize the sharing from CMS to the ACO, and the ACO will have to drive by feel — or base its management of Medicare beneficiaries on its management of its general patient population.
6. Organizations that dominate their local markets may be the most successful as ACOs, but they may face the most involved antitrust review at the hands of the FTC/DOJ.
7. Scoring on 65 quality metrics in 5 domains will help determine the amount of any shared savings to be paid to an ACO. One domain, patient experience of care, links up nicely with the patient-centeredness threshhold requirement noted above. (For private sector attention to patient experience, see what the Leapfrog Group is doing in this domain, using some of the same measures.) While some may bristle at the number of metrics, it is worth noting that these metrics are all drawn from existing sets of measures.
8. All in all, the regulations represent the first stage of realizing the ACO vision expressed by Don Berwick last fall: there is a field open to experimentation (albeit a field likely limited to large networks of significant means that can underwrite the up-front infrastructure costs), and the ACO rules sketched out in the statute and further delineated in the regulations will enable CMS to incentivize the provider community to help achieve the triple aim of better care for individuals, better health for populations and reduced per-capita costs.
David Harlow
The Harlow Group LLC
Health Care Law and Consulting
*This blog post was originally published at HealthBlawg :: David Harlow's Health Care Law Blog*
April 3rd, 2011 by Bryan Vartabedian, M.D. in Opinion
1 Comment »
Patient care is increasingly under third party control. And as a consequence I make fewer decisions regarding the brand of medication used in my patients.
So the role of a pharmaceutical rep comes into question. If I don’t choose which medication my patients will use, why would a representative call on me? And as American medicine becomes more centralized and standardized, I wonder how and why industry will connect with treating physicians. Pharma it seems is asking the same question: Of the core medications I prescribe, I see far fewer reps these days and our relationships are markedly different from a decade ago.
I don’t miss the pitch. But I find the element of human support to be important. For example, recently the FDA issued a black box warning for the concomitant use of Remicade and 6-MP. My representative visited to be sure that I was aware of the changes in the product insert. Sure the information was in my mailbox – along with 6 inches of pulp spam. It’s basic attenionomics: I’m more likely to hear a person than a letter. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at 33 Charts*
April 3rd, 2011 by RyanDuBosar in News
No Comments »
Patients may not want to discuss clinical matters via social media, but they’d gladly set pay their bills when reminded. Social media’s value in communicating with patients is limited to the administrative aspects of it.
Americans still want traditional ways of communication when they need a clinical consult. A survey finds 84% would not use social media or instant messaging channels for medical communication if their doctors offered it, according to the communications firm Capstrat.
Respondents were more favorable toward conferring with the doctor via e-mail (52%) than they were by Twitter and Facebook (11%), chat or instant messaging (20%) or a private online forum (31%).
Even among those 18 to 29 years old, 21% said they would take advantage of an online forum if their doctor offered it, while 72% would take advantage of a nurse help line if available.
Respondents said they’d take advantage of online appointment scheduling (52%), online access to medical records (50%), or online bill payment (48%).
“It appears consumers are willing to move administrative experiences such as bill payment and records access online, but when it comes to conferring with their health care providers, people still prefer more traditional communications,” said the firm’s president, Karen Albritton, in a press release. “The implications include a way for doctors to free up more time for their patients by moving the right interactions online, and an opportunity to forge stronger connections through personal interaction.”
Patients want the same convenience of online appointments and bill paying from their doctor that they get in other areas of their lives, reports a second survey.
73% of those surveyed would use a secure online option to get lab results, request appointments and pay medical bills. The first caveat is that this survey was done by Intuit. The company is best known for QuickBooks, but its health care division offers patient portals for doctor’s offices. The second caveat is that respondents were surveyed online, which would skew results to people digitally inclined anyway.
With those two caveats in mind, the survey also found that:
–Almost half would consider switching doctors for a practice that offered online access.
–81% would schedule their own appointment via a secure Web service and fill out medical/registration forms online prior to their appointment.
–78% would use a secure online method to access their medical histories and share information with their doctor.
–59% of generation Y respondents said they would switch doctors for one with better online access, compared to only 29% of baby boomers.
–45% of patients wait more than a month to pay their doctor bill, and when they pay, half still send a paper check in the mail.
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
Prototype ‘BS’ meter.
