Once In A Weil Blog Home

Archive for the 'Innovation' Category




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 »

The 125 Percent Solution: Fixing Variations In Health Care Prices


August 26th, 2014

Summer vacation’s finally here. You’re strolling along the beach, not a care in the world when – ouch – you step on a piece of broken glass and need a few stitches at the local hospital. Such routine procedures are painless enough, but depending on where you’re treated and by whom, the real pain could occur when you’re handed the ER bill.

In some of the latest evidence on the crazy-quilt patterns of U.S. health care prices, Castlight Health found prices in Dallas TX ranging from $15 to $343 for the same cholesterol test.  What makes these price variations particularly egregious is that the highest prices are typically reserved for those least able to pay, such as the uninsured.

What’s the solution?  In the long run, we need to establish a more transparent system where consumers can choose easily based on reliable quality and price measures.  But our current measures of quality are, to put it politely, inadequate, and people with insurance are often insulated or can generally afford those higher prices.  Reference pricing, in which insurance pays only enough to reimburse providers with adequate quality and relatively lower costs, would help to restrain high prices, but distracted patients or those with strong attachments to specific doctors or hospitals could still get stung with a big bill.

Capping payments at 125 percent of Medicare rates. We suggest a short-term solution: The federal Medicare program has in place a complete system of prices for every procedure and treatment.  It’s not perfect, but it is uniform across regions, with a cost-of-living adjustment that pays more in expensive cities and less in rural areas.  If every patient and every insurance company always had the option of paying 125 percent of the Medicare price for any service, we would effectively cap the worst of the price spikes.  No longer would the tourist checked out at the ER for heat stroke be clobbered with a sky-high bill.  Nor would the uninsured single mother be charged 10 times the best price for her child’s asthma care.  This is not just another government regulation, but instead a protection plan that shields consumers from excessive market power.

Read the rest of this entry »

Health Affairs Briefing: Advancing Global Health Policy


August 22nd, 2014

Please join us on Monday, September 8, when Health Affairs Editor-in-Chief Alan Weil will host a briefing to discuss our September 2014 thematic issue, “Advancing Global Health Policy.”  In an expansion of last year’s theme, “The ‘Triple Aim’ Goes Global,” we explore how developing and industrialized countries around the world are confronting challenges and learning from each other on three aims: cost, quality, and population health.

A highlight of the event will be a discussion of international health policy—led by Weil—featuring former CMS and FDA administrator and current Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Mark McClellan and Lord Ara Darzi, surgeon, scholar, and former UK Health Minister. Additional panels will look at how countries are transforming chronic care, lowering costs, and redesigning delivery systems.

WHEN: 
Monday, September 8, 2014
9:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

WHERE: 
National Press Club
529 14th Street NW
Washington, DC, 13th Floor

REGISTER NOW!

Follow Live Tweets from the briefing @HA_Events, and join in the conversation with #HA_GlobalHealth.

Read the rest of this entry »

Seeing Clinician Slack As A Strategic Investment


August 1st, 2014

The French filmmaker Jean Renoir said, “the foundation of all civilization is loitering,” expressing the view that transformative value is created when people have time to step back and imagine a better way. Most businesses today seem to take a contrary position. Organizations in health care and beyond have spent a generation attacking slack, removing inefficiencies within processes and budgets. The narrow operating margins of health systems have led many to turn to companies such as Toyota or General Electric (GE) to learn about lean or Six Sigma techniques.

Subsequently, frontline clinicians are easy targets for attacks on slack. They are among the most expensive personnel within health systems and their productivity drives profitability. Working at the top of one’s license is set as a goal — reflecting the view that anything that can be delegated to a less expensive resource should be, and that everyone should be adding directly measurable peak value at all times.

A problem in translating lessons derived from general management experience is that even when conceptually appealing, they rarely meet medicine’s evidentiary standards defined by randomized trials or carefully controlled observations with homogenous populations, standardized interventions, and explicit outcomes. Instead, management lessons often take the form of stories – and perhaps only those selected to support a particular point.

Read the rest of this entry »

IOM Graduate Medical Education Report: Better Aligning GME Funding With Health Workforce Needs


July 31st, 2014

After nearly two years of deliberation, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on the Governance and Financing of Graduate Medical Education (GME) has issued its report. It presents a strong case for the need for change and a strong case for its recommendations.

The members of the Committee and the IOM are to be commended for their hard work, vision, and a high quality report. The report presents a clear path to a system that would help produce a physician workforce better aligned with the nation’s needs and a framework for a rational and defensible expenditure of nearly 15 billion dollars in public funds each year on GME.

Issues related to GME financing have been contentious for many years. In 1965, Congress included GME financing under Medicare reimbursement in what was intended to be a temporary arrangement. Nearly 50 years later, we are still trying to find a permanent and more rational way to finance and pay for the training of physicians as an alternative to the current complex, arcane formula built on Medicare inpatient days. Despite the well-documented shortcomings of the current system and numerous studies, attempts to find agreement on how to change and improve GME financing have been unsuccessful.

Read the rest of this entry »

Shifting Motivations: Rethinking Primary Care Physician Incentives In Health IT Implementation


July 21st, 2014

Clinician adoption and implementation of health information technology (IT) has increased significantly since the passage of the HITECH Act in 2009. Dedicated efforts and large financial incentives have spurred innovation and motivated progress in many aspects of information technology, including information exchange and community-level health IT implementation. Yet poor usability of systems and overwhelming reporting burden still present barriers to optimal use of health IT.

Health IT capabilities — such as automated performance feedback; shared documentation with patients; population health tools; and clinical decision support, facilitating evidence-based health care — can potentially drastically improve quality of care, particularly in primary care practices. However, the current incentive and payment structures are not aligned with productive use and spread of health IT innovation. When many primary care physicians use electronic health records (EHRs), the problems they are now tasked to solve relate to billing and coding compliance and to achieving “meaningful use” through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) EHR Incentive Programs; many clinicians and systems are not encountering or using EHRs as productive clinical tools.

Perhaps the focus of providers and health systems on meeting the technical and administrative requirements of “meaningful use” has obscured the creative opportunity for clinicians to explore how to use EHRs to improve care, and to see their own actions as part of the solution to effective implementation. Strategies that focus on creating space for discovering ways that IT can support effective health care — e.g., more flexible payment models with emphasis on population health outcomes — may be more successful than those that focus on health IT adoption.

Read the rest of this entry »

Payment And Delivery Reform Case Study: Cancer Care


July 3rd, 2014

Editor’s note: In addition to Darshak Sanghavi, Mark McClellan, and Kavita Patel, this post is also authored by Kate Samuels, project manager at Brookings. It is adapted from a forthcoming full-length case study, the second in a series from the Engelberg Center’s Merkin Initiative on Physician Payment Reform and Clinical Leadership designed to support clinician leadership of health care delivery, payment, and financing reform. The case study will be presented during the Merkin Initiative’s “MEDTalk” event on July 9 from 10:30 AM to 12:30 PM EDT, featuring live story-telling and knowledge-sharing from patients, providers, and policymakers.

Oncology practices and hospitals across the nation struggle with providing sustainable, comprehensive, and coordinated cancer care. Clinical leaders with strategies and models to improve the quality and value of health care often don’t know how to navigate the landscape of payment and delivery reform options to sustain their innovations.

We use a case study approach to investigate and tell the story of the New Mexico Cancer Center (NMCC), an independent cancer center that is experimenting with innovative ways to improve patient-centered oncology care. We identify challenges for creating sustainable and supportive payments models, and we share the broader strategic and policy lessons for adopting alternative payment models.

Read the rest of this entry »