Blog Home

Archive for the 'Quality' Category




Examining Medicare’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program


July 24th, 2014

New financial incentives and penalties in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) designed to optimize health care system performance are proving difficult to manage, but they are also providing new opportunities for leaders to foster collaboration between acute and post-acute health care providers.

Perhaps one of the most promising, albeit controversial, programs has been Medicare’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), which penalizes hospitals with excess 30-day readmissions for health conditions such as pneumonia, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Although not all hospital readmissions are preventable, many could be avoided with improved post-discharge planning and care coordination.

The HHRP was designed to penalize hospitals with excess 30-day readmissions regardless of whether the patient was readmitted to the same hospital or another hospital. Although there are some exceptions (for example, readmissions due to hospital transfers or planned readmissions), most readmissions of patients with health conditions targeted by the HHRP will count against a hospital.

Read the rest of this entry »

Empowering Patients As Partners In Health Care


July 24th, 2014

Recently, the National Patient Safety Foundation’s Lucian Leape Institute brought together 40 patient safety experts — health professionals, patients, advocates, and others — to develop recommendations for how best to engage patients and families in improving patient safety. They represented patient advocacy organizations, health systems, professional societies, researchers, and international safety organizations.

During the course of two lengthy roundtable discussions, participants were asked to reflect on an experience in which they or someone close to them had experienced harm at the hands of the health care system and how they responded. Among the stories we heard:

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 »

Positive Results For 2012 Physician Quality Reporting System And eRx Program


July 17th, 2014

In April, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the 2012 Physician Quality Reporting System and Electronic Prescribing (eRx) Experience Report, showing a significant increase in participation in two programs that allow eligible professionals to earn incentive payments through voluntary participation.

Record Participation in 2012

With over 430,000 professionals participating in the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) and more than 340,000 e-prescribing, the 2012 report marks encouraging progress in efforts to improve quality measurement and reporting through the PQRS and eRx programs. Thanks to increased participation, more clinicians are actively measuring and reporting on quality and focusing on improvement.

CMS is beginning to add this information to Physician Compare, a website that can be viewed by patients. Measuring, transparently sharing, and improving quality performance provide the keys to a better health system.

At CMS, we are pleased by the success of these programs and other CMS quality measurement programs. We are also encouraged by the potential of these initiatives to empower patients and providers with information that can support care coordination and improved delivery of care.

Read the rest of this entry »

ACO Results And Treating Hepatitis C Most-Read Health Affairs Blog Posts For June


July 15th, 2014

In June, Matthew Petersen and David Muhlestein’s post on the cost and quality implications of the accountable care organization (ACO) model on the health care system was the most-read Health Affairs Blog post. Not too far behind was a post on Medicare’s role in treating Hepatitis C from Tricia Neuman, Jack Hoadley, and Juliette Cubanski.

Next was Tim Jost’s examination of the employer mandate and why it should be repealed and replaced, followed by Jon Gabel’s response to a Health Affairs Web First on cancelled non-group plans.

Here’s the full list:

Read the rest of this entry »

Washington Wakes Up To Socioeconomic Status


July 11th, 2014

John Mathewson, executive vice president of Health Care Services for Children with Special Needs (HSC) – a Medicaid managed care plan in D.C. for children on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) – recently spoke at the Association for Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP) CEO Summit before the July 4 Recess.

Mathewson described what he has dubbed The Kitten Paradox: When HSC examined environmental factors for children with asthma, it found that the presence of pets in the house was a common thread, not too far behind having a smoker around. Yet, it turns out the value a cat brings by protecting from mice or spawning a litter for sale outweighs any financial costs to the family associated with an ER visit, which are often free or carry a low copayment. Thus the paradox.

An awardee at the conference, Hennepin Health, catalogued the evidence showing that reliable housing can improve health outcomes, including improving mental health and lowering emergency room and inpatient hospital utilization.

The focus of these sessions was the social determinants of health, and a lot of these safety net health plan leaders’ heads were nodding throughout. The plans, which disproportionately serve Medicaid enrollees and thus ‘dual eligible’ seniors in Medicare, know something about the importance of social determinants that the health policy community – at least in Washington – is only now slowly waking up to.

Read the rest of this entry »

A Health Reform Framework: Breaking Out Of The Medicaid Model


July 10th, 2014

Editor’s note: This post is coauthored by Joseph Antos and James Capretta.

A primary aim of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is to expand insurance coverage, especially among households with lower incomes. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that about one-third of the additional insurance coverage expected to occur because of the law will come from expansion of the existing, unreformed Medicaid program. The rest of the coverage expansion will come from enrolling millions of people into subsidized insurance offerings on the ACA exchanges — offerings that have strong similarities to Medicaid insurance.

Unfortunately, ample evidence demonstrates that this kind of insurance model leaves the poor and lower-income households with inadequate access to health care. The networks of physicians and hospitals willing to serve large numbers of Medicaid patients have been very constrained for many years, meaning access problems will only worsen when more people enroll and begin using the same overburdened networks of clinics and physician practices.

It does not have to be this way. It is possible to expand insurance coverage for the poor and lower-income households without reliance on the flawed Medicaid insurance model. Opponents of the ACA should embrace plans to replace the current law with reforms that would give the poor real choices among a variety of competing insurance offerings, including the same insurance plans that middle-class families enroll in today. Specifically, we propose a three-part plan that includes a flexible, uniform tax credit for all those who lack employer-based coverage; deregulation of Medicaid; and improved safety-net primary and preventive care.

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 »

Family Caregiving And Palliative Care: Closing The Policy Gap


July 2nd, 2014

Editor’s note: Carol O’Shaughnessy also coauthored this post. This post is part of a periodic Health Affairs Blog series on palliative care, health policy, and health reform. The series features essays adapted from and drawing on an upcoming volume, Meeting the Needs of Older Adults with Serious Illness: Challenges and Opportunities in the Age of Health Care Reform, in which clinicians, researchers and policy leaders address 16 key areas where real-world policy options to improve access to quality palliative care could have a substantial role in improving value.

Family caregivers — what would we do without them?  So why can’t we do more for and with them?

Many studies have demonstrated that family caregivers provide a wide range of essential care to people with serious chronic illnesses or disabilities — the same people who can benefit from palliative care applied as an ongoing approach to care, not just a hospital-based intervention.

It is family caregivers who are responsible for much of the complex care at home, including managing pain and other medications, monitoring equipment, and communicating with the palliative care team.  To say that most family caregivers are not prepared to take on this demanding role is an understatement.

Read the rest of this entry »

New Drug And Device Approval: What Is Sufficient Evidence?


July 1st, 2014

Editor’s note: In addition to Jonathan Darrow, this post is also coauthored by Aaron Kesselheim. 

The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act gives the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to evaluate all prescription drugs and high-risk medical devices before they can be marketed to physicians and patients to ensure that they are safe and effective.

However, there is growing pressure to lessen the traditional standards for defining “safe and effective” for particularly promising therapies and accelerate patient access to these products.

A recent national health policy conference in Washington, D.C., explored the nature of the evidence needed for the regulatory approval of new therapeutics and the implications for patient care. The conference was organized by the Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, the National Center for Health Research, and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Read the rest of this entry »

Do Insurance Marketplace Consumers Need More Doctor Choices In-Network, Or Just Better Information?


June 26th, 2014

Media outlets have focused extensively on consumer complaints about “limited networks” and not being able to find a doctor under qualified health plans (QHPs) offered through the Health Insurance Marketplaces (HIMs). In response, the Obama administration released new standards which will require all QHPs to contract with a larger proportion of essential community providers within its service area. This means that health plans will be forced to accept more health care providers within their network, which may potentially increase costs for consumers.

At the heart of the recent changes lies a fundamental question worth exploring: Is consumer satisfaction with, and perceptions of health plan “network adequacy” grounded in the number of choices for doctors within network, or is it something different?

Read the rest of this entry »

Thoughts On The VA Scandal And The Future


June 13th, 2014

For eight years, until May 2013, I directed the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical research program from its Central Office and became familiar with the operations of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). It was my only VA job and I felt honored to be part of the VA’s vital mission, as did most VA employees I met. Based on this experience, I have some ground level observations on the state of the VA and its future planning in light of the present scandal.

VA’s Scope and Assets

VA has three components: a large health system (VHA), a benefit center (Veterans Benefits Administration, or VBA), and the highly regarded National Cemetery Administration. All report to the VA Secretary but have different missions, issues, and management requisites. For example VHA was a pioneer in the Electronic Health Record (EHR), while VBA has had a more recent painful conversion to information technology (IT). VHA is run by the Undersecretary for Health, on whom VA Secretaries almost totally rely given their general lack of experience in health care.

VHA is divided into 21 networks and has 8.9 million enrollees (out of the 22 million U.S. veterans). It cares for 6.4 million veterans annually at over 1,700 sites of care, including 152 hospitals, about 820 clinics, 130 long-term care facilities, 300 Vet Centers for readjustment problems, and a suicide hotline, as well as homelessness and other programs. It has partly trained two-thirds of U.S physicians and made groundbreaking medical research contributions. These assets create strong constituencies for VA both within and outside the veterans’ community.

Read the rest of this entry »

Narrative Matters: For An Injured Doctor, Quality-Focused Care Misses The Mark


June 11th, 2014

In the June Health Affairs Narrative Matters essay, a physician winds up in the emergency department, where providers put quality metrics and testing before her actual needs. Charlotte Yeh’s article is freely available to all readers, or you can listen to the podcast.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Payment Reform Landscape: Capitation With Quality


June 6th, 2014

When I began this blog series in February, I explained how Catalyst for Payment Reform (CPR) views different payment reform models along a continuum of financial risk. Thus far, we have used this series to explore the evidence behind “upside only” models that give providers the chance for a financial upside, but no added financial risk, or downside. We’ve looked at the evidence behind pay-for-performance and per-member per-month payments to support patient-centered medical homes. This month, we move across the risk spectrum to examine a model that offers both upside and downside financial risk for providers—capitation.

What is Capitation? Is It Widespread?

Capitation is nothing new when it comes to paying for health care. It had its heyday in the HMO era of the 1990 s, but something was seriously lacking in the capitation arrangements of the past that led to a strong backlash from consumers. Consumers feared their health plans were more interested in saving money than providing them with the quality care they needed; in a Kaiser Family Foundation Survey at the time, most reported they or someone they knew had a problem with their plan. Some of these fears proved to be warranted. Fortunately, since the 90s, payers and providers have worked to put quality safeguards in place.

When tracking value-oriented payment, CPR only examines capitation arrangements with a quality measurement and incentive component — what we call “capitation with quality.” CPR defines capitation with quality as “a fixed dollar payment to providers for the care that patients may receive in a given time period, such as a month or year, with payment adjustments based on measured performance and patient risk.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Request For Abstracts: Health Affairs Health Care And Medical Innovation Theme Issue


June 5th, 2014

Health Affairs is planning a theme issue on health care and medical innovation in early-2015. The issue will span the fields of medical technology and also cover public policy and private sector innovations that promote improvements in the delivery of care, lower costs, increase efficiency, etc. We plan to publish 15-20 peer-reviewed articles including research, analyses, and commentaries from leading researchers and scholars, analysts, industry experts, and health and health care stakeholders.

We invite interested authors to submit abstracts for consideration for this issue. To be considered, abstracts must be submitted by June 25, 2014. We regret that we will not be able to consider any abstracts submitted after that date. Editors will review the abstracts and, for those that best fit our vision and goals, invite authors to submit papers for consideration for the issue. Invited papers will be due at the journal by September 2, 2014.

More information on topics and themes for this issue, as well as process guidelines and timetables, is available below and on the Health Affairs website.

Read the rest of this entry »

Implementing Health Reform: State Opt-Outs From Employee Choice In SHOP And Other Developments


June 4th, 2014

If any further evidence were needed that the release of Affordable Care Act regulations has largely ceased for the immediate future, the Office of Management and Budget Spring Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions provides it. The Regulatory Agenda reveals that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is currently working on final rules governing third party payments of qualified health plan (QHP) premiums and fair hearing and appeal procedures for Medicaid and exchange enrollment, as well as proposed rules for accepted benefit plans and, eventually, the 2016 notice of benefit and payment parameters; however, nothing seems likely to be released very soon.

The Internal Revenue Services (IRS) is drafting proposed rules on reporting of minimum essential coverage and final regulations on reporting of information for health insurance exchanges, defining minimum value for employer coverage, and determining whether employment-related health insurance is affordable for the family of an employee (the family glitch). It is also working on further regulations addressing the small employer premium tax credit, minimum essential coverage and other individual responsibility requirement issues. Most of these are topics on which the IRS has already provided partial rules, interim final rules, or other guidance, and no major new developments are anticipated imminently.

State opt-outs from employee choice in the 2015 SHOP exchange. Despite the lull in rulemaking, HHS continues to be very active at the subregulatory level as it prepares for 2015. In particular, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has been very focused on getting the SHOP exchange operational. CMS failed to implement many elements of the SHOP exchange program for the 2014 open enrollment period, including employee plan choice and aggregation of premiums. These elements were to be implemented for 2015.

Under the 2015 Exchange Rule, however, state insurance commissioners were allowed to ask that their states be excused from employee choice in the SHOP exchanges by submitting to CMS a written recommendation “adequately explaining that it is the State Insurance Commissioner’s expert judgment, based on a documented assessment of the full landscape of the small group market in his or her State, that not implementing employee choice would be in the best interests of small employers and their employees and dependents.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Making Markets Work In Health Care: What Does That Mean?


June 3rd, 2014

Editor’s note: See Robert Berenson’s post on consolidation and market power in health care, also published today, and watch for more on these subjects in Health Affairs Blog.

Health Affairs last week posted a set of papers that represent several perspectives on Provider Consolidation in Health Care: Challenges and Solutions. To provide a context for these papers and for the broader discussion of how to make markets work in health care, I suggest a couple of thoughts.

There are two types of markets in health care: the market for health services and the market for health coverage—these markets are interrelated, and both of them are broken.

The historical correlation between provider concentration and both higher prices and lower quality is well-documented. With the increased focus under health reform on collaboration across providers and settings, and the increase in physician and hospital consolidation and the purchase of physician practices by hospitals, the concern is that this trend may lead to adverse consequences for the health system.

Read the rest of this entry »

Acknowledging The Elephant: Moving Market Power And Prices To The Center Of Health Policy


June 3rd, 2014

Editor’s note: See Stuart Guterman’s post on consolidation and market power in health care, also published today, and watch for more on these subjects in Health Affairs Blog.

Health Affairs recently published a set of papers addressing the problem of provider consolidation and consequent increased prices. Perhaps even more striking than the specific arguments made in these papers is the very fact that smart and busy people other than antitrust economists and lawyers now are actually spending a great deal of their professional time thinking about this problem. High prices and the distortions in markets resulting from differential pricing power have been the unacknowledged elephant in the policy room for decades, even as the policy community and policy makers have wrung their hands over what to do about rising health care costs. More than 40 years ago, President Nixon declared that health care spending increases were “unsustainable.” And here we still are grappling with health care spending.

Over the decades I have been told by smart health economists that the main culprit behind increasing health spending is technology, although the definition of technology turns out to be pretty flexible — new ways of providing care are considered new technology, not just machines and drugs. And nominees for the reason our baseline spending exceeds other countries’ by so much have included administrative complexity in our multi-payer, crazy quilt organization of health care; defensive medicine caused by malpractice concerns; and fraud and abuse. Jack Wennberg and colleagues at Dartmouth have argued that variations in service use that do not increase quality explain spending variations, at least in Medicare where payment (price) variations are not permitted other than to reflect differences in input costs.

All of these explanations have merit, but for non-government payers, prices have actually been the main source of high spending and variations in spending, at least in the recent past and probably for much longer. Prices for commercial and self-funded insurance products result from market negotiations between insurers and providers; the balance of power in these negotiations has sometimes shifted, most recently toward many providers, but certainly not all of them — the relatively few remaining independent hospitals and the solo and small physician practices have become “price takers,” even as other providers are able to negotiate payment rates far higher than Medicare benchmarks.

Read the rest of this entry »

ACO Results: What We Know So Far


May 30th, 2014

Editor’s note: For more on this topic, stay tuned for the upcoming June issue of Health Affairs, which features a series of articles on accountable care organizations. 

Accountable care is a relatively recent addition to the health care vernacular, but its roots can be traced to the decades-long effort to coordinate medical care. In the United States, health care has evolved into a fragmented pay-for-volume system which has both driven up cost and decreased quality. Coordination of care is meant to reverse this trend. Through such solutions as Health Management Organizations (HMOs), Integrated Delivery Networks (IDNs) and now Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), policymakers, providers and payers have sought to consolidate and coordinate patient care.

Contemporary care coordination efforts focus on accountable care which increases provider accountability for the cost and quality of care. The driving principle behind the formation of ACOs is the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s triple aim: improving the patient experience of care, improving the health of populations and reducing the per capita cost of health care.

One of the broadest applications of this concept is the creation of Medicare ACOs under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This includes the Pioneer ACO Program and the Medicare Shared Savings Program. More recently, states have also pursued ACO contracts to cover Medicaid populations. In the private sector, providers have forged ACO contracts with commercial payers. At the close of 2010, only 41 preliminary Accountable Care Organizations existed. The number of ACOs more than tripled to 138 a year after the passage of the PPACA. By 2012 the number nearly tripled again, and by the end of 2013 more than 600 ACOs were operating across the U.S.

Read the rest of this entry »

Reducing Barriers To Care For Patients With Parkinson’s And Other Chronic Diseases


May 29th, 2014

Editor’s note: For more on this topic, see the February issue of Health Affairs, which features a series of articles on connected health. 

It is one of the greatest ironies of our time that the United States is home to some of the highest-quality medical care in the world, yet millions of Americans cannot access it. This problem is all too familiar for Parkinson’s patients who could receive better clinical outcomes simply by being connected to a specialist outside of their immediate vicinity.

Every year, approximately 60,000 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, a chronic, progressive neurological disease for which there is no cure. But there is hope.

The TELE-MED Act

With the use of technology, there is an easy way to allow patients to integrate their complex disease management into their daily lives while eliminating frequent and disruptive travel. Unfortunately, this option – popularly known as telemedicine – is not properly regulated, and lawmakers need to update licensure regulations though common sense solutions such as the TELE-MED Act (HR 3077).

This bipartisan measure introduced by Congressmen Nunes (R-CA) and Pallone (D-NJ) would enable health care providers in the Medicare program to treat Medicare patients virtually across state lines without having to obtain additional state medical licenses.

Read the rest of this entry »

Click here to email us a new post.