Blog Home

Archive for the 'Innovation' Category




Innovation In Health Care Education: A Call To Action


January 29th, 2015

Health care administration educators are at a crossroads: the health care sector is rife with inefficiencies, erratic quality, unequal access, and sky-high costs, complex problems which call for innovative solutions. And yet, according to our content analysis of top U.S. health administration schools and a recent article in the Lancet, our educational systems focus their curricula on isolated, theoretical subjects, such as analytics and quantitative problem solving, rather than the team-oriented, practical problem-solving skills required for innovation.

All too often, when graduates of these programs enter the workforce, they find themselves unequipped to meet the challenges for innovation of 21st century health care. The following blog post examines the current educational gaps in traditional health care administration and efforts underway to address them. One such effort is the Global Educators Network for Health Care Innovation Education (GENiE) Group, created by Harvard Business School (HBS) Professor, Regina Herzlinger, whose members are working to make innovation a central part of the education of the future leaders in health care.

Read the rest of this entry »

Finding And Supporting A Workforce With The Right Skill Mix


January 27th, 2015

Editor’s note: This post is part of a series of several posts related to the 4th European Forum on Health Policy and Management: Innovation & Implementation, to be held in Berlin, Germany on January 29 and 30, 2015. For more information or to request your personal invitation contact info@centerforhealthcaremanagement.org or follow @HCMatColumbia.

Many health systems are experiencing shortages of health care workers. Policymakers and practitioners have tried for a long time to figure out how to assess workforce productivity, skills and roles, in order to achieve the best mix of professionals needed to deliver high quality care while preserving sustainability.

Unfortunately, many obstacles have slowed progress toward this goal. Open questions still concern not only how many doctors or nurses are needed in any given system or organization level, but also over what roles and responsibilities fall to different health professionals and specialists.

Read the rest of this entry »

Beyond Law Enforcement: The FTC’s Role In Promoting Health Care Competition And Innovation


January 26th, 2015

By now, the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) law enforcement efforts in the health care area are well known. We have successfully challenged several hospital and physician practice mergers in the last few years. We also continue to pursue anticompetitive pharmaceutical patent settlements, following a victory at the Supreme Court in the Actavis case. Speaking of the Court, it is currently reviewing a case we brought against the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners, alleging that its members conspired to exclude non-dentists from providing teeth whitening services in North Carolina.

Perhaps less publicized are the FTC’s various non-enforcement efforts in health care. Arguably most significant among those is the advocacy that the agency conducts in favor of competition principles before state legislatures and other policymakers. I will discuss our advocacy efforts in the health care space in this post, and then turn to the subject of telemedicine, an area in which FTC competition policy may play a significant role.

Read the rest of this entry »

Health Affairs Briefing: Biomedical Innovation


January 20th, 2015

Biomedical innovation lengthens and enriches our lives through breakthroughs in medications and care, but it is has also been the leading source of health care cost growth over the past few decades. The upcoming February 2015 thematic issue of Health Affairs examines the topic from many perspectives.

You are invited to join us on Thursday, February 5, at a forum featuring authors from the new issue at the W Hotel in Washington, DC.  Panels will cover pharmaceuticals; biotechnology; medical devices; and accelerating, diffusing, and financing innovation.

WHEN: 
Thursday, February 5, 2015
9:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

WHERE: 
W Hotel Washington
515 15th Street NW
Washington, DC, Great Room, Lower Level

Register Now!

Follow live Tweets from the briefing @Health_Affairsand join in the conversation with #HA_BiomedInnovation.

Read the rest of this entry »

How Policy Makers In Emerging Health Systems Can Advance Innovative Care For The Chronically Ill


January 15th, 2015

Editor’s note: This post is part of a series of several posts related to the 4th European Forum on Health Policy and Management: Innovation & Implementation, to be held in Berlin, Germany on January 29 and 30, 2015. For more information or to request your personal invitation contact info@centerforhealthcaremanagement.org or follow @HCMatColumbia.

Discussions of innovation in health care often focus on new technologies, big data, and refined population health strategies within the context of mature Western health care systems. But innovation is just as important, with perhaps greater impact, in evolving systems where more foundational opportunities exist to deliver affordable, quality care to the most expensive and challenging patients: those with chronic illnesses. In that context, public policy and regulation can spur innovation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Value-Based Payment In Practice


January 7th, 2015

Editor’s note: This post is part of a series of several posts related to the 4th European Forum on Health Policy and Management: Innovation & Implementation, to be held in Berlin, Germany on January 29 and 30, 2015. For more information or to request your personal invitation contact info@centerforhealthcaremanagement.org.

Meeting the objectives of a value-based care model requires hospitals and health systems to realign operational processes, invest in targeted resources (such as physician extenders, educational initiatives and care coordination structures), educate physicians and staff, change organizational culture, and invest in capital (such as physical locations and information technology).

Within hospitals, quality measures have been evolving from purely structural-based outcomes (such as the existence of attributes or features like a hospitalist program or an electronic medical record) to process-based (the percent of surgical patients who received prophylactic antibiotics or acute myocardial infarction patients who received aspirin within 24 hours of arrival) to patient-centered outcomes (return of a patient’s functional status post-surgically or measurement of post-surgical pain).

Read the rest of this entry »

How To Succeed At Payment Reform (By Really Trying)


December 18th, 2014

Editor’s note: This is part 2 of a blog post adapted by the author from his recent keynote address at the New York State Health Foundation Conference, “Payment Reform: Expanding the Playing Field.” You can watch his half-hour speech, beginning around the eight-minute mark.

In my previous post, I explained “Why I Oppose Payment Reform.” Despite the reservations I laid out in that post, I do not actually oppose payment reform.

To summarize the case for payment reform, fee-for-service payment has supported a fragmented delivery system with little accountability for cost or quality.  As there is growing consensus that we want to move from our current system toward one that maximizes the health outcomes we achieve relative to the resources we expend, alternative payment models may provide us with a path. We should remember, however, that payment reform is a tool, not an end in itself; and we should be clear about our goals and then deploy the tool where it can help us achieve those goals.

Achieving payment reform is a process.  Here are five elements that are necessary for a successful process.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Innovation Conundrum In Health Care


December 12th, 2014

Editor’s note: This post is part of a series of several posts related to the 4th European Forum on Health Policy and Management: Innovation & Implementation, to be held in Berlin, Germany on January 29 and 30, 2015. For more information or to request your personal invitation contact the Center for Healthcare Management.

It is never too early for new technology in health care. In contrast to the innovator’s dilemma in other industries where the adoption can be sluggish because current customers may not be able to use the future’s toolbox, in medicine innovators always can be assured of an audience when announcing the “life-saving impact” of something new.

Coverage and widespread implementation usually are a different story, but creating hype and demand for unusual and unfamiliar medical technology has never been hard. But who then drives the invention, diffusion, application, and evaluation of such innovation?

Read the rest of this entry »

Why I Oppose Payment Reform


December 12th, 2014

I recently gave the keynote address at the New York State Health Foundation Conference “Payment Reform: Expanding the Playing Field.” This blog post is adapted from those remarks (you can watch the half-hour speech beginning around the eight-minute mark).

I had my epiphany shortly after I announced my departure from the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) about nine months ago. In an effort to help find my successor, I contacted some executive search firms. One firm quoted what they referred to as the “market price.” When I pressed them to tell me how much effort this price represented, they declined to do so. Ultimately, I recommended that NASHP contract with a search firm that charged by the hour.

It was then that I realized that, given the choice between capitation (a fixed fee for the outcome I desired) and fee-for-service (an hourly rate with no accountability for the outcome), I, as a purchaser, chose fee-for-service. Only a hypocrite would go around talking about the importance of payment reform, while secretly conducting business the old way!

Having given the matter some further thought, I present my five reasons for opposing payment reform:

Read the rest of this entry »

Section 1332 Waivers And The Future Of State Health Reform


December 5th, 2014

Editor’s note: This post is part of a series of several posts stemming from presentations given at “The Law of Medicare and Medicaid at Fifty,” a conference held at Yale Law School on November 6 and 7.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) turbocharges state innovation through a number of provisions, such as the creation of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation, funding for states to establish customized insurance exchanges, and Medicaid reforms such as health homes and projects geared toward the dual eligible population. Yet another component of the law holds even more potential for broad reform. Buried in Section 1332 of the law is a sparkplug for innovation called the State Innovation Waivers program.

Also known as 2017 waivers or Wyden waivers, 1332s offer wide latitude to states for transforming their health insurance and health care delivery systems. According to the statute, states can request that the federal government waive basically every major coverage component of the ACA, including exchanges, benefit packages, and the individual and employer mandates. But the cornerstone of 1332 waivers is the financing. To fund their reforms, states can receive the aggregate amount of subsidies—including premium tax credits, cost-sharing reductions, and small business tax credits—that would have otherwise gone to the state’s residents. Depending on the size of the state, the annual payment from the federal government for alternate coverage reform could reach into the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.

Read the rest of this entry »

Adverse Events In Older Adults: The Need For Better Long-Term Care Financing And Delivery Innovation


November 20th, 2014

Evidence mounts that a major disconnect exists between the services most frail older adults need and what they get. The vast majority of frail older adults (around 75 percent) who face challenges in taking care of themselves live at home. According to new research from Vicki Freedman and Brenda Stillman, published in the most recent issue of The Milbank Quarterly, almost a third of these older adults report having an adverse consequence as a result of not getting the help they need. These consequences are pretty grim – the most frequently reported event being wet clothes associated with an unmet need around toileting.

But the most shocking statistic from this research is that hiring a paid helper appears to do little to protect against these consequences. Among those who hired help, nearly 60 percent reported adverse consequences. No doubt this reflects a higher level of need: paid helpers are brought in when the risk is quite high. But, it also reflects an inadequacy in support — an analogous group living in supportive housing (i.e., residential care or assisted living facilities) reported these events at a much lower rate (36 percent).

Read the rest of this entry »

Medicare, Medicaid, And Pharmaceuticals: The Price Of Innovation


November 20th, 2014

Editor’s note: This post is part of a series of several posts stemming from presentations given at “The Law of Medicare and Medicaid at Fifty,” a conference held at Yale Law School on November 6 and 7.

Through much of the last half century, Medicare and Medicaid (MM) have not for the most part supported research intended to lead to new drugs. For their role in drug development, we need to look to infrastructure and incentives. The record of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) illustrates the potential of both for pharmaceutical innovation. The current budget of NIH, the big elephant in the zoo of the federal biomedical enterprise, is $30 billion, but apart from a dozen small programs devoted to targeted drug development, most of these billions are not aimed directly at pharmaceutical innovation (See page 234).

Yet the NIH investment in biomedicine has indirectly fueled drug development in the private sector to a huge degree. It has paid for the training of biomedical scientists and clinicians, many of whom went on to staff the drug industry, especially its laboratories. NIH-sponsored research has also generated basic knowledge and technologies and it has encouraged universities to spin out their potentially useful findings into the industry by allowing for the patenting and licensing of the findings.

Like NIH, MM has helped fuel drug development indirectly by supporting selected experimental cancer treatments, medical education, and some clinical research and training. But investment in these activities has been small and their impact on drug development apparently very limited. In contrast to NIH, the MM stimulus to drug innovation has resided not in the production of new scientists or the patented uses of new knowledge, but principally in markets and pricing.

Read the rest of this entry »

Health Care Accelerators: An Innovative Response To Federal Policy Mandates


November 12th, 2014

Health-focused startup “accelerators” are a new approach to developing solutions to problems in health care. An accelerator serves as a short-term incubator for startups to build innovative new businesses through funding, mentorship, network access and coaching.

Accelerators have been a critical part of the technology economy and innovation ecosystem since the 2006 launch of YCombinator. Health care-focused accelerators emerged in 2011, largely as a result of changes in national health care policy–including the HITECH Act and the Affordable Care Act–and the perceived new opportunities these changes created. Since that time, there has been tremendous growth in accelerators across the nation supported by a diverse set of stakeholders, part of a larger innovation economy that has formed in response to federal policy making.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Law Of Medicare And Medicaid At Fifty


November 4th, 2014

Editor’s note: This is the first of several periodic posts stemming from presentations to be given at “The Law of Medicare and Medicaid at Fifty,” a conference to be held at Yale Law School on November 6 and 7.

This post introduces an online symposium in connection with The Law of Medicare and Medicaid at 50, an upcoming interdisciplinary conference at Yale Law School.  Many thanks to Health Affairs for its co-sponsorship of the conference and for this opportunity to preview some of the work to be presented.

Why focus on the law of Medicare and Medicaid?  These two programs are almost always analyzed from a policy perspective, but one of the most significant changes that the 1965 legislation wrought was bringing two major federal statutes—and, with them,  the three branches of the federal government—squarely into the center of  health care and regulation.  To be sure, Congress had passed laws related to health prior to 1965, but until Medicare and Medicaid, most health policy was made at the local level, by state courts and state governments, and by the medical profession itself.

Medicare and Medicaid brought not only Congress, but the Supreme Court and the rest of the lower federal courts into the picture. It also made the federal administrative apparatus—federal agencies ranging from Health and Human Services, to Treasury, to the Department of Justice—central players in the world of health policy and enforcement.  Nevertheless, amidst the thousands of pages that have been written about the two programs, there has been relatively little reflection on how the distinct features of law—and federal law in particular—have affected the programs’ development and successes.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posts On ACA Tax Forms, Replacement Plan Lead September Health Affairs Blog Top-Ten List


October 10th, 2014

Tim Jost’s post on complicated Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax forms and his review of Avik Roy’s ACA replacement plan were the most-read Health Affairs Blog posts for September. These were followed by a CVS Health post from Troyen Brennan and coauthors on rethinking the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies and a post on bundled payments and innovation from Rebecca Paradis of the Network for Excellence in Health Innovation.

The full list is below.

Read the rest of this entry »

Reminder: Health Affairs Briefing: Specialty Pharmaceuticals


October 3rd, 2014

We live in an era of specialty pharmaceuticals — drugs typically used to treat chronic, serious or life threatening conditions such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, growth hormone deficiency, and multiple sclerosis.  Their cost is often much higher than traditional drugs, and they are set to account for more than half of all drug spending by the end of this decade.

The October 2014 edition of Health Affairs, “Specialty Pharmaceutical Spending and Policy,” contains a cluster of articles examining the host of issues related to specialty pharmaceuticals: from the promise they hold for curing or managing chronic diseases, to the risk they pose for exacerbating health care costs and disparities, and the challenges they present for policymakers striving to balance both.

Please join us on Tuesday, October 7, for a briefing on the October issue moderated by Health Affairs Editor-in-Chief Alan Weil.

WHEN: 
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
9:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.

WHERE: 
Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill
400 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC, Lower Level

REGISTER NOW!

Follow Live Tweets from the briefing @Health_Affairs, and join in the conversation with #HA_SpecialtyDrugs.

Health Affairs is grateful to CVS Health for its financial support of the issue and event.

Read the rest of this entry »

An Interview With George Halvorson: The Kaiser Permanente Renaissance, And Health Reform’s Unfinished Business


September 30th, 2014

For decades, health policymakers considered Kaiser Permanente the lode star of delivery system reform.  Yet by the end of 1999, the nation’s oldest and largest group model HMO had experienced almost three years of significant operating losses, the first in the plan’s history. It was struggling to implement a functional electronic health record, and had a reputation for inconsistent customer service.  But most seriously, it faced deep divisions between management and the leadership of its powerful Permanente Federation, which represents Kaiser’s more than 17,000 physicians, over both strategic direction and operations of the plan.

Against this backdrop, Kaiser surprised the health plan community by announcing in March 2002 the selection of a non-physician, George Halvorson, as its new CEO.  Halvorson had spent most of his career in the Twin Cities, most recently as CEO of HealthPartners, a successful mixed model health plan.  Halvorson’s reputation was as a product innovator; he not only developed a prototype of the consumer-directed health plan in the mid-1990’s, but also population health improvement objectives for its membership, both firsts in the industry.

During his twelve year tenure as CEO, Halvorson not only guided the plan to solid profitability, but added a million members in California, its largest market, despite a devastating recession and a national retreat of commercial HMO membership.  He invested over $6 billion in computerized patient care systems and population health management infrastructure, healed the breach with Kaiser’s physicians, and markedly increased its consumer satisfaction scores, earning 5 STAR ratings under Medicare Advantage.  He left the organization at the end of 2013 with more than $53 billion in revenues and more than $19 billion in reserves and investments.

This interview covers Halvorson’s time at Kaiser, his views of health reform, including the unfinished reform agenda, and his public health activism.  It was conducted by Jeff Goldsmith, a veteran health industry analyst, and Associate Professor of Public Health Sciences at the University of Virginia.  Jeff is a member of the editorial board of Health Affairs.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Payment Reform Landscape: Value-Oriented Payment Jumps, And Yet …


September 30th, 2014

Today, Catalyst for Payment Reform (CPR) unveiled some potentially exciting news: Our 2014 National Scorecard on Payment Reform tells us 40 percent of commercial sector payments to doctors and hospitals now flow through value-oriented payment methods, defined as payment methods designed to improve quality and reduce waste.  This is a dramatic increase since 2013 when the figure was just 11 percent.

Traditional fee-for-service, where we pay for every test and procedure regardless of its value, may rapidly be becoming a relic.  While the Scorecard findings are not wholly representative of health plans across the United States, they are directionally sound and allow us to measure progress toward value-oriented payment in the commercial sector.  (Scorecard findings are based on data representing almost 65 percent of commercial health plans across the country.)

On the face of it, this is thrilling news for CPR, especially since our organizational goal is that at least 20 percent of payments to doctors and hospitals will flow through methods proven to improve value by the year 2020.  But we are not closing up shop just yet.  The proliferation of value-based payment arrangements only matters if they succeed at reducing costs and improving the quality of care. And for many value-oriented payment models, we still don’t have the evidence.

We also remain a bit circumspect because only about half of the value-oriented payments (out of that 40 percent figure) put providers at some financial risk if they fail to improve care or spend over budget.  To employers and others helping to foot the bill for health care, many new payment methods often feel like “cost plus arrangements.”  Instead, purchasers would like to see risk sharing across payers and providers.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bundled Payments: Do They Put Innovation At Risk?


September 22nd, 2014

While the United States health care system is quickly shifting focus from volume to value, bundled payments have emerged as a promising lever for containing costs and improving quality of care. This model, designed to offset some of the downfalls of traditional fee-for-service payments, reimburses providers based on a predetermined cost of an episode, or group of related services.

The model calls for providers to take on some financial risk while meeting quality standards, especially in areas of well-defined procedures like hip and knee replacements. Now, many are beginning to experiment in other high-cost medical areas, such as behavioral health and oncology.

But what is the impact of bundled payments on medical advancement and innovation? Bundled payments are here to stay, but there remains serious apprehension among innovators adjusting to this evolving landscape. NEHI (Network for Excellence in Health Innovation) brought stakeholders together this July to create a conversation in which experts discussed how bundled payments already have, and will, impact patients’ access to innovation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Relative Value Health Insurance And Pay For Performance For Insurers: Complements, Not Substitutes


September 19th, 2014

Background

The quest for value dominates contemporary health policy.  Value, properly defined, is not about cost-savings but about the balance of costs and health benefits — improving the average cost-effectiveness of health interventions.  In choosing which care is funded, insurers are a crucial but commonly neglected driver of health system value.

Insurers can increase health system value by covering fewer cost-ineffective interventions or covering more cost-effective interventions.  Perhaps the earliest attempt to reform insurance, managed care, attempted to pursue both goals, but by the time it was implemented it widely focused (or was perceived to focus) on cost-containment.

A recent insurance reform proposal, known as Relative Value Health Insurance (RVHI), received considerable attention, for instance, in The Upshot, The Incidental Economist, and Forbes.  RVHI enables insurers to reduce their contractual obligation to cover “usual and customary” care.  This and similar earlier proposals rely on the insurers’ natural incentive to cut costs.  Less well-covered, however, are proposals to alter the very incentives of insurers to improve health, which we will call “pay-for-performance-for-insurers” (P4P4I).

Read the rest of this entry »

Click here to email us a new post.