Free EMR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to EMR and EHR for FREE!

Is Value Based Care Just Regulatory and Reimbursement Hoop Jumping?

Posted on September 17, 2018 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

In theory, we all love the move to value based care. Why aren’t we paying healthcare providers to improve care. It just makes sense. In fact, the fee for service model in many ways feels so unnatural. While the theoretical value based care sounds good, getting there is much easier said than done. Translating the simple idea of value based care into regulations and reimbursement is a really hard thing to do.

I’ve often asked the question, “Is value based care just a regulation and reimbursement hoop jumping activity?” Does he who can jump through the hoops the best win? Or is it really the person who improves the care the most win?

I found two Twitter threads discussing ACOs that may shed some insight into not only ACOs, but the shift to value based reimbursement. Plus, I think it might help to answer the question above.

The first ACO thread is in response to an NGACO report from CMS that was shared by David Muhlestein.

In response to David’s tweet, Adam Solomon offered his perspectives in this tweet storm:

Sorry to chime in late. Our NGACO experience was very interesting. Our benchmark was based on our historical utilization for a similarly attributed population. They then added a very low trend factor to come up with a final target.

In the end, our PBPM cost was actually lower than the benchmark, but we still owed over $5 million to CMS. What happened?

Because the baseline year risk was calculated in the 2014 model and year 1 was the 2016 model, they couldn’t directly compare the acuity of the two populations. Therefore, the utilized a ratio comparing our trend to that of others. Our RAF score didn’t jump as much as theirs.

So our RAF “decreased” suggesting our active population was healthier than our baseline. That accounted for over $2.5 million dollars of “loss.”

The other hit was the way they calculated stop loss. Sure, there was an elective level of aggregate stop loss, but they also assigned a PBPM cost for individual stop loss based on expectations for number of patients with claims over the 90th percentile.

Because California has historically high costs, they estimated that we would have an abnormally high number of patients that exceeded that threshold. That was something like a $20 PBPM hit or another $3.5 million of artificial cost to us.

In the end, although we saved CMS money, we still needed to pay them for our “loss.”

Separate from that, the NORC Report noted above uses a different methodology to estimate savings. Instead of using ourselves as a baseline, they used a regional reference population.

The saddest part for us was that our utilization was always at the top end with little room for improvement. As an example, here’s admits/k for year 2 NGACOs. We’re dark blue.

In a separate tweet storm, Farzad Mostashari, Former National Coordinator at ONC and now Founder of Aledade offered this look at the ACO results:

1/ 2017 #MSSP #ACO Results!
ACOs have scaled rapidly across the country!

In aggregate, the 472 ACOs were accountable for nearly 9 million Medicare beneficiaries and $95 Billion- that’s a quarter of all fee for service, and almost half of the entire Medicare Advantage market.

2/ If you add up all the actual costs versus benchmarks, these 472 ACOs were collectively $1.1B under their benchmarks (more on whether that’s the right counterfactual later).

Medicare shared $780 million in payments with the ACOs, netting the taxpayer $313M

But wait!

There’s lots of evidence that the benchmark under-estimates the savings produced. @JMichaelMcW et al have shown convincingly that a true “difference in difference” approach would show substantially higher net impact.

The green eyeshades folks at CMS OACT said add 60%

3/ So that means that the best guess for MSSP savings is actually $1.75B in 2017, with Medicare paying out $780M (45%)- not a bad deal for the taxpayer!!!

That does NOT count savings that come from lower costs to the taxpayer from Medicare Advantage rates that are keyed off FFS

4/ Here’s how the CMS actuaries put it:

And on quality- the average ACO earned 92% on their quality scores- and the scores improve the longer you are in the program according to the ACO Rule’s Regulatory Impact Assesment.

(The Aledade average quality score applied was over 95%, and as high as 99.8% #GoKANSAS)

6/ Lemme say that again….

ACOs saved Medicare over a Billion dollars in 2017.

Cheaper than FFS, cheaper than MA.

And they did it without cutting payments to doctors or narrow networks

And they did it with higher patient quality.

That’s called delivering what was promised

7/ the Track 1 ACOs more than held their own here

Best guess is that Track 2/3 generated 190M in savings (w 60% spillover) and received $95M (50%)

Track 1: $1.5B in savings, $685M in payments (44%)

(I’m still a believer in moving to 2-sided risk to help weed out ACO squatting)

8/ You know what was a great investment? Giving small and rural physician-led ACOs an advance payment to help them invest in infrastructure and setup costs.

It was critical to the success of several of our @AledadeACO

More commercial payors should do this!

9/ But what this initial release does not help us do is see which type of ACOs are creating the most value.

My guess is that it’s not much different from what the CMS actuaries found for PY 2016- ACOs that include hospitals and directly control more of the cost of care do worse

10/ The “low revenue” ACOs (in the OACT analysis – less than 10% of total cost of care came to them) were only a third of the lives in the program, but generated roughly 98% of the savings.

THAT is why in the ACO Rule CMS proposed letting them stay in low risk models longer

11/ That was the entire thesis behind “the paradox of primary care leadership” that informed the founding of @AledadeACO

That is also why @AledadeACO partners with independent physician practices, not hospitals like others do.

Health Reform and Physician-Led Accountable Care
Even though most adult primary care physicians may not realize it, they each can be seen as a chief executive officer (CEO) in charge of approximately $10 million of annual revenue. Consider that a t…
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1861359

12/ A quick analysis by the amazing @Travis_Broome divides these 2017 results by whether the ACOs included a “facility/CCN” (CAH, RHC, FQHC don’t count for this purpose) –

Same pattern- 95% of the savings are coming from the ACOs that don’t include hospitals.

13/ Only 3.5M of the 9M ACO-attributed benes were cared for by the smaller ACOs that didn’t include a hospital facility- and they generated 95% of the savings.

If you’re an independent practice seeing these results and the policy direction, why would you join a hospital ACO?
So how did @AledadeACO do?

We are always very transparent with our results- even when things didn’t go our way- to look for ways to be better, and to make policies better that are holding back broader success.

This article 2 years ago was full of pain.
The Opportunities and Challenges of the MSSP ACO Program: A Report From the Field
This article provides a detailed description of a Medicare Shared Savings Program accountable care organization (ACO)’s actions and results, to increase understanding of the challenges and opportunit…
https://www.ajmc.com/journals/issue/2016/2016-vol22-n9/the-opportunities-and-challenges-of-the-mssp-aco-program-a-report-from-the-field

15/ This was a good year for @AledadeACO

Only 1/7 freshmen ACOs made savings- but we have learned to set expectations- it’s a long game.

But 5/8 ACOs that were sophomores or older will get checks.

And 2/3 that didn’t get MSSP crushed it in commercial contracts.

16/ But I’m more proud that EVERY ONE of our @AledadeACO have measurably improved health for the patients we are accountable for.

We have increased wellness visits, transitional care, and chronic care management- and that’s translated into lower ED visits and readmissions

17/ So where do we go from here?

The #MSSP #ACO program has been a hugely successful motivator of nationwide transformation, but it can be reformed, and I believe @SeemaCMS is on the right track.

Here’s what I would expect might change between the NPRM and the final ACO rule:

18/ The GlidePath to risk reduces ACO squatting, and brings revenue-based downside risk to MSSP, but the lowered gainshare in 1st 2 years (25%) is not enough to get new entrants and ACO investments.

(as suggested) “low revenue” ACOs should get higher gain-share and lower MSR

19/ The refined benchmarking method gives greater predictability by allowing risk adjustment and regional trending-which is great!
But the cap on risk adj (3% over 5 years?!) don’t control for rising risk and introduces gaming on falling risk

Instead of a cap, do renormalization

20/ Concern about “windfall profits” led to an ill-advised proposal to cap regional efficiency at 5% – In Medicare Advantage if you are efficient, you get to keep the difference, which has spurred huge innovation in the space. why blunt improvement? 100% tax brackets are not good

21/ Credit to CMS for trying to fix the unintended “regional comparator” problem- where rural ACO savings are reduced in direct proportion to market share. But the “national trend blend” proposal makes NO SENSE.

Let’s just take ACO benes out of the regional comparison please!

22/ But the biggest impact of these results on the proposed rule should be on the idea that the way to benefit the Trust Fund is to protect it from ACO earnings.

These caps, etc reduce ACO earnings- and ACO motivation/participation- and therefore reduced benefit to Medicare

23/ The NPRM RIA estimates through 2024 these caps push $390M in lower ACO earnings, but lower ACO participation under these policies will INCREASE claims costs by $60M- and would prevent beneficiaries from receiving the benefits of the program. That’s not the right balance

24/ The magic of accountable care is when physicians & Medicare partner together to sustainably align financial incentives, help beneficiaries and the Trust Fund.

Medicare hasn’t behaved like some commercial payers who are still seeing zero sum. Let’s hold onto that partnership

I’ll let you be the judge after reading through these threads. Are ACOs going to really improve healthcare and lower costs? Will the best healthcare win? Or will the people who understand the government rule making process and healthcare accounting be the big winners?

As I read through these, it seems like you better get your accountants and healthcare policy experts ready. That brings joy to every doctor’s ears…I’m sure!

Physicians Lack IT Tools Needed For Value-Based Care

Posted on July 23, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

A new study sponsored by Quest Diagnostics has concluded that progress toward value-based care has slowed because physicians lack the IT tools they need.  In fact, the survey of health plan executives and physicians found that both groups see the progress of VBC as backsliding, with 67% reporting that the U.S. still has a fee-for-service system in place.

The study, which was conducted by Regina Corso Consulting, took place between April 26 and May 7 of 2018, included 451 respondents, 300 which for primary care physicians in private practice. The other 151 were health plan executives holding director-level positions.

More than half (57%) of health plan respondents said that a lack of tools is preventing doctors from moving ahead with VBC, compared with 45% last year. Also, 72% of physicians and health plan leaders said that doctors don’t have all the information they need about their patients to proceed with VBC.

A minority of doctors (39%) reported that EHRs provide all the data they need to care for the patients, though 86% said they could provide better care for patients if their EHR was interoperable with other technologies. Eighty-eight percent of physicians and health plan execs said that such data can provide insights that prescribing and claims data typically can’t.

All of the survey respondents agreed that making do with existing health IT tools is better than spending more. Fifty-three percent said that optimizing existing health information technology made sense, compared with 25% recommending investing in some new information technology and just 11% suggesting that large information technology infrastructure investments were a good idea.

Survey respondents said that a lack of interoperability between health IT systems with the biggest barrier to investing in new technology, followed by the perception that it would create more work while producing little or no benefit.

On the other hand, respondents named several technologies which could help speed VBC adoption. They include bioinformatics (73%), AI (68%), SMART app platform (65%), FHIR (64%), machine learning (64%), augmented reality (51%) and blockchain (47%). In its commentary, the report noted that SMART app platform use and FHIR might offer near-term benefits, as they allow companies to plug new technologies into existing platforms.

Bottom line, new ideas and technologies can make a difference. Eighty-nine percent off health plan execs and physicians said that healthcare organizations need to be more innovative and integrate more options and tools that support patient care.

Payers Say Value-Based Care Is Lowering Medical Costs, But Tech Isn’t Contributing Much

Posted on June 22, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

A new survey of health insurers has concluded that while value-based care seems to be lowering healthcare costs significantly, they aren’t satisfied with the tools they have to analyze value-based performance.

The report, which draws on a survey sponsored by Change Healthcare, including answers from 120 payers across several types of insurance, including managed Medicare, managed Medicaid and commercial plans.

The topline finding from the report was that value-based care (VBC) has lowered healthcare costs by 5.6% on average, with one-quarter of respondents reporting savings of more than 7.5%.

Meanwhile, the volume of fee-for-service payments has dropped dramatically as a percent of overall payments, now accounting for just 37.2% of all reimbursement among respondents. That number is expected to fall below 26% by 2021.

Not only that, 64% of payers said that provider relationships improved, and 73% said patient engagement improved. This suggests that providers have made some strides in delivering value-based care, as many had a hard time restructuring their business in the past.

That said, some payers haven’t met their own VBC goals. In particular, 66% of payers are investing administrative staffers to support episode-of-care programs given what the study terms “exceptional” medical cost savings. Also, one third to one-half said that episode-of-care models were either very or extremely effective at improving care quality.

However, payers haven’t made much progress as they’d like in rolling out episode-of-care programs. While 21% of payers said they were capable of rolling out a new episode-of-care program in 3 to 6 months, more than a third said the needed a year to launch such a program, 21% said it would take 18 months, and 13% said it would take up to 24 months or more. In other words, many payers are so far behind the curve that the programs they’re designing might be obsolete by the time they roll them out.

What’s more, they’ve had a tough time getting providers interested in episode-of-care programs. Forty-three to 58% reported that it is either very or extremely difficult to get providers to participate in these efforts. Not only that, even when they find interested providers, payers are having a hard time finding common ground with them on episode definitions, budgets, the details of risk and reward sharing and performance metrics. These disagreements could prove a major hurdle to overcome.

In addition, more than half of payers said they were not very satisfied with the current value-based analytics, automation and reporting tools, even though most of the tools were developed in-house by the payers themselves. It could be that given provider resistance, the payers aren’t quite sure about what to look for. Regardless, it seems that payers have a longer-than-expected road to travel here.

Value Based Care: We Need a Better Health IT System to Measure It

Posted on April 16, 2018 I Written By

Healthcare as a Human Right. Physician Suicide Loss Survivor. Janae writes about Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality, Data Analytics, Engagement and Investing in Healthcare. twitter: @coherencemed

At HIMSS this year in Las Vegas I looked at the nature of the EHR and if we have the current computing and data infrastructure to enable better value based care.  Our data capabilities are failing to allow providers to align reimbursement with great care delivery.

Under the premise of “what gets watched gets done”, we understand that improving care delivery will require us to align incentives with desired outcomes. The challenge is that, among the many ills plaguing our version of the truth mined from data found in electronic health records systems, reimbursement data presents the core issue for informatics departments across the country. To resolve this issue, we need documentation to reflect the care we are delivering, and we need care delivery to center around patient care. Health information management should be heavily involved in data capture. To truly improve care, we need better tools to measure it, and healthcare data is expanding to answer difficult questions about care delivery and cost.

Our first challenge is stemming the proliferation of extraneous documentation, and healthcare is still addressing this issue. What used to be written on a 3-by-5 index card (and sometimes via illegible doctor’s notes) is now a single point in a huge electronic record that is, surprisingly, not portable. Central to our issues around the cost of care, we have also seen that quantity is valued more than quality in care delivery.

Duplicated testing or unnecessary procedures are grimly accepted as standard practice within the business of medicine. Meaningless and siloed care delivery only helps this issue proliferate across the health of a population. To resolve these issues, our workflow and records need to capture the outcomes we are trying to obtain and must be customized for the incentives of every party.

Incentives for providers and hospital administrators should center around value: delivering the best outcomes, rather than doing more tests. Carefully mapping the processes of healthcare delivery and looking at the resource costs at the medical condition level, from the personnel costs of everyone involved to perform a medical procedure to the cost of the medical device itself, moves organizations closer to understanding total actual costs of care.  Maximizing value in healthcare–higher quality care at lower costs–involves a closer look and better understanding of costs at the medical condition level. Value and incentives alignment should provide the framework for health records infrastructure.

When you walk into Starbucks, your app will tell you what song is playing and offer options to get extra points based on what you usually order. Starbucks understands their value to the customer and the cost of their products to serve them. From the type of bean, to the seasonal paper cup, to the amount of time it takes to make the perfect pumpkin spice latte, Starbucks develops products with their audience in mind–and they know both how much this production costs and how much the user is willing to pay. The cost of each experience starts well before the purchase of the beverage. For Starbucks, they know their role is more than how many lattes they sell; it is to deliver a holistic experience; delight the customer each time.  

Healthcare has much to learn about careful cost analysis from the food and beverage retail industry, including how to use personalized medicine to deliver the best care. Value-Based Healthcare reporting will help the healthcare industry as a whole move beyond the catch-up game we currently play and be proactive in promoting health with a precise knowledge of individual needs and cost of care. The investment into quantifying healthcare delivery very precisely and defining personal treatment will have massive investments in the coming years and deliver better care at a lowered cost. Do current healthcare information systems and analytics have the capacity to record this type of cost analysis?

“Doctors want to deliver the best outcomes for their patients. They’re highly trained professionals. Value Based Healthcare allows you to implement a framework so every member of the care team operates at the top of his or her license.”

-Mahek Shah, MD of Harvard Business School.

These outcomes should be based on the population a given hospital serves, the group of people being treated, or at the medical condition level. Measures of good outcomes are dynamic and personalized to a population. One of the difficulties in healthcare is that while providers are working hard for the patient, healthcare systems are also working to make a profit.

It is possible to do well while doing good, but these two goals are seemingly in conflict within the billion dollar healthcare field. Providing as many services as possible in a fee-for-service-based system can obfuscate the goal of providing great healthcare. Many patients have seen multiple tests and unnecessary procedures that seem to be aligned with the incentive of getting more codes recorded for billing as opposed to better health outcomes for the patients.  

The work of Value Based Time Data Activity Based Costing can improve personalized delivery for delivery in underserved populations as well as for affluent populations. The World Health Organization (WHO) published the work of improving care delivery in Haiti. This picture of the care delivery team is population-specific. A young person after an accident will have different standards for what constitutes “right care right time right place” than a veteran with PTSD. Veterans might need different coverage than members of the general public, so value based care for a specific group of veterans might incorporate more mental health and behavioral health treatment than value based care serving the frail elderly, which could incorporate more palliative care and social (SDoH) care. Measuring costs with TDABC for that specific population would include not just the cost of specialists specific to each segment of the population, but of the entire team (social worker, nursing, nutritionist, psychologists) that is needed to deliver the right care, achieve the best outcomes, and meet the needs of the patient segment.

Healthcare systems are bombing providers and decision makers with information and trying to ferret out what that information really means. Where is it meaningful? Actionable? Process improvement teams for healthcare should look carefully at data with a solid strategy. This can start with cost analysis specific to given target populations. Frequently, the total cost of care delivery is not well understood, from the time spent at the clinic to prescribe a hip replacement to the time in the OR, to recovery time; capturing a better view includes accounting for every stage of care. Surgeons with better outcomes also have a lower total long-term cost of care, which impacts long-term expenses involved when viewing it through the lens of an entire care cycle. If you are a great surgeon–meaning your outcomes are better than others–you should get paid for it. The best care should be facilitated and compensated, rather than the greatest number of billing codes recorded. Capturing information about outcomes and care across multiple delivery areas means data must be more usable and more fluid than before.

Healthcare informatics systems should streamline the processes that are necessary to patient care and provider compensation. The beginning of this streamlined delivery involves capturing a picture of best care and mapping the cost of processes of care. The initial investment of TDABC in researching these care costs at the patient level can be a huge barrier for healthcare systems with small margins and limited resources. This alignment is an investment in your long-term viability and success.

Once you understand your underlying costs to deliver care, health systems will be better prepared to negotiate value-based payment contracts with payers and direct-to-employers. Pair your measurement of costs with your outcomes. Integrating care delivery with outcomes standards has improved in recent times through ICHOM. Medical systems need to incentivize health if healthy patients are a priority.  The analysis of specific costs to a system needs a better reporting system than a charge master or traditional EHR which is strongly designed toward recording fee for service work. We must align or incentives and our health IT with our desired outcomes in healthcare. The more billing codes I can create in an electronic health record, the more I am reimbursed. Reimbursement alignment should match desired outcomes and physicians operating at top of their license.

Under value-based care, health and well-being become a priority whereby often in the fee-for-service model, sickness can be the priority because you get paid by doing more interventions, which may not lead to the best outcomes. The careful measurement of care (i.e. TDABC) paired with standards of best care will improve care delivery and reduce the cost of that care delivery. Insights about improved models and standards of care for outcomes and healthcare delivery allow patients, providers, and administrators to align with the shared goal of healthier patient populations. I am looking forward to the data infrastructure to catch up with these goals of better care delivery and a great patient experience.

 

The Sexiest Data in Health IT: Datapalooza 2017

Posted on May 15, 2017 I Written By

Healthcare as a Human Right. Physician Suicide Loss Survivor. Janae writes about Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Reality, Data Analytics, Engagement and Investing in Healthcare. twitter: @coherencemed

The data at this conference was the Best Data. The Biggest Data. No one has better data than this conference.

The sexiest data in all of healthIT was highlighted in Washington DC at Datapalooza April 27-28, 2017.  One of the main themes was how to deal with social determinants of health and the value of that data.  Sachin H. Jain, MD of Caremore Health reminded us that “If a patient doesn’t have food at home waiting for them they won’t get better” social data needs to be in the equation. Some of the chatter on the subject of healthcare reform has been criticism that providing mandatory coverage hasn’t always been paired with knowledge of the area. If a patient qualifies for Medicaid and has a lower paying job how can they afford to miss work and get care for their health issues?
a
Rural areas also have access issues. Patient “Charles” works full time during the week and qualifies for Medicaid. He can’t afford to miss a lot of work but needs a half a day to get treatments which affect his ability to work. There is no public transportation in his town to the hospital in a city an hour and a half away. Charles can’t afford the gas or unpaid time off work for his treatment.

Urban patient “Haley” returns to her local ER department more than once a week with Asthma attacks.  Her treatments are failing because she lives in an apartment with mold in the walls. As Craig Kartchner from the Intermountain Healthcare team responded to the #datapalooza  hashtag online- These can be the most difficult things to change.

The 2016 report to Congress addresses the difficulty of the intersection between social factors and providing quality healthcare in terms of Social Determinants of Health:

“If beneficiaries with social risk factors have worse health outcomes because the providers they see provide low quality care, value based purchasing could be a powerful tool to drive improvements in care and reduce health disparities. However, if beneficiaries with social risk factors have worse health outcomes because of elements beyond the quality of care provided, such as the social risk factors themselves, value based payment models could do just the opposite. If providers have limited ability to influence health outcomes for beneficiaries with social risk factors, they may become reluctant to care for beneficiaries with social risk factors, out of fear of incurring penalties due to factors they have limited ability to influence.”

Innovaccer just launched a free tool to help care teams track and monitor Medicare advantage plans. I went to their website and looked at my county and found data about the strengths in Salt Lake where I’m located. They included:

  • Low prevalence of smoking
  • Low Unemployed Percentage
  • Low prevalence of physically inactive adults

Challenges for my area?

  • Low graduation rate
  • High average of daily Air pollution
  • High income inequality
  • High Violent crime rate per 100,000 population

Salt Lake actually has some really bad inversion problems during the winter months and some days the particulate matter in the air creates problems for respiratory problems. During the 2016-2017 winter there were 18 days of red air quality and 28 days of yellow air quality. A smart solution for addressing social determinants of health that negatively impact patients in this area could be addressing decreasing air pollution through increased public transportation. Healthcare systems will see an increase in cost of care during those times and long term population health challenges can emerge. You can look at your county after you enter your email address on their site. This kind of social data visualization can give high level insights into the social factors your population faces.

One of the themes of HealthDataPalooza was how to use system change to navigate the intersection between taking care of patients and not finding way to exclude groups. During his panel discussion of predictive analytics, Craig Monson the medical director for analytics and reporting discussed how “data analytics is the shiny new toy of healthcare.”    In addition to winning the unofficial datapalooza award for the most quotes and one liners – Craig presented the Clinical Risk Prediction Initiative (CRISPI).  This is a multi variable logistic regression model with data from the Atrius health data warehouse. His questions for systems to remember in their data analysis selection are “Who is the population you are serving? What is the outcome you need? What is the intervention you should implement?”

Warning- Craig reminds us that in a world of increasing sexy artificial intelligence coding a lot of the value analysis can be done with regression. Based on that statement alone I think he can be trusted. I still need to see his data.

CRISPI analyzed the relative utility of certain types of data, and didn’t have a large jump in utility when adding Social Determinant Data. This data was one of the most popular data sets during Datapalooza discussions but the reality of making actionable insights into system improvement? Craig’s analysis said it was lacking. Does this mean social determinant data isn’t significant or that it needs to be handled with a combination of traditional modeling and other methods?  Craig’s assertion seemed to fly in the face of the hot new trend of Social Determinants of Health data from the surface.

Do we have too much data or the wrong use of the data? Most of the companies investing into this space used data sources outside the traditional definition to help create solutions with social determinate of health and Patient outcomes. They differed in how they analyzed social determinant data. Traditional data sources for the social determinants of health are well defined within the public health research.  The conditions in which you work and live impact your health.

Datapalooza had some of the greatest minds in data analytics and speakers addressed gaps in data usefulness. Knowing that a certain large county wide population has a problem with air quality might not be enough to improve patient outcomes. There is need for analysis of traditional data sources in this realm and how they can get meaningful impact for patients and communities. Healthcare innovators need to look at different data sources.  Nick Dawson, Executive director of Johns-Hopkins Sibley Innovation Hub responded to the conversation about food at home with the data about Washington DC.  “DC like many cities has open public data on food scarcity. But it’s not part of a clinical record. The two datasets never touch.” Data about food scarcity can help hospital systems collaborate with SNAP and Government as well as local food programs. Dawson leads an innovation lab at Johns Hopkins Sibley where managers, directors, VPs and C Suite leaders are responsible for working with 4 innovation projects each year.

Audun Utengen, the Co Founder of Symplur said “There’s so much gold in the social media data if you choose to see it.” Social data available online helps providers meet patients where they are and collect valuable data.  Social media data is another source to collect data about patient preferences and interactions for reaching healthcare populations providers are trying to serve. With so much data available sorting through relevant and helpful data provides a new challenge for healthcare systems and providers.

New Data sources can be paired with a consultative model for improving the intersection of accountable care and lack of access due to social factors. We have more sophisticated analytic tools than ever for providing high value care in the intersection between provider responsibility and social collaboration. This proactive collaboration needs to occur on local and national levels.  “It’s the social determinants of health and the behavioral aspects that we need to fund and will change healthcare” we were reminded. Finding local community programs that have success and helping develop a strategy for approaching Social Determinants of Health is on the mind of healthIT professionals.

A number of companies examine data from sources such as social media and internet usage or behavioral data to design improvements for social determinants of health outcomes.   They seek to bridge the gaps mentioned by Dawson. Data sets exist that could help build programs for social determinants of health.  Mandi Bishop started Lifely Insights centered around building custom community plans with behavioral insights into social determinant data. Health in all Policies is a government initiative supporting increased structure and guidelines in these areas. They support local and State initiatives with a focus on prevention.

I’m looking forward to seeing how the data landscape evolves this year. Government Challenges such as the Healthy Behavior Data Challenge launched at Datapalooza will help fund great improvements. All the data people will get together and determine meaningful data sets for building programs addressing the social determinants of health. They will have visualization tools with Tableau. They will find ways to get food to patients at home so those patients will get better. Programs will find a way to get care to rural patients with financial difficulty and build safe housing.

From a healthcare delivery perspective the idea of collaborating about data models can help improve community health and decrease provider and payer cost. The social determinants of health can cost healthcare organizations more money than data modeling and proactive community collaboration.

Great regressions, saving money and improving outcomes?

That is Datapalooza.

Practice Management Market To Hit $17.6B Within Seven Years

Posted on February 1, 2017 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

A new research report has concluded that the global practice management systems market should hit $17.6 billion by 2024, fueled in part by the growth of value-adds like integration with other healthcare IT solutions.

The report, by London-based Grand View Research, includes a list of what it regards as key players in this industry. These include Henry Schein MicroMD, Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, AdvantEdge Healthcare Solutions, athenahealth, MediTouch, GE Healthcare, Practice Fusion, Greenway Medical, McKesson Corp, Accumedic Computer Systems and NextGen Healthcare.

The report argues that as PM systems are integrated with external systems EMRs, CPOE and laboratory information systems, practice management tools will increase in popularity. It says that this is happening because the complexity of medical billing and payment has grown over the last several years.

This is particularly the case in North America, where fast economic development, plus the presence of advanced research centers, hospitals, universities and medical device manufacturers keep up the flow of new product development and commercialization, researchers suggest.

In addition, researchers concluded that while PM software has accounted for the larger share of the market a couple of years ago, that’s changing. They predict that the services side of the business should grow substantially as practices demand training, support and system upgrades.

The report also says that cloud-based delivery of PM technology should grow rapidly in coming years. As Grand View reminds us, most PM systems historically have been based on-premise, but the move to cloud-based solutions is the future. This trend took off in 2015, researchers said.

This report, while worthwhile, probably doesn’t tell the whole story. Along with growing demand for PM systems,I’d contend that vendor sales strategies are playing a role here. After all, integration of PM systems with EMRs is part of a successful effort by many vendors to capture this parallel market along with their initial sale.

This may or may not be good for providers. I don’t have any information on how the various integrated practice management systems compare, but my sense is that generally, they’re a bit underpowered compared with their standalone competitors.

Grand View doesn’t take a stand on the comparative benefits of these two models, but it does concede that emerging integrated practice management systems linking EMRs, e-prescribing, patient engagement and other software with billing are actually different than standalone systems, which focus solely on scheduling, billing and administration. That does leave room to consider the possibility that the two models aren’t equal.

Meanwhile, one thing the report doesn’t – and probably can’t – address is how these systems will evolve under value-based care in the US. While appointment scheduling and administration will probably be much the same, it’s not clear to me how billing will evolve in such models. But we’ll need to wait and see on that. The question of how PM systems will work under value-based care probably won’t be critically important for a few years yet.

(Side note:  You may want to check out John’s post from a few years ago on practice management systems trends. It seems that the industry goes back and forth as to whether independent PM systems serve groups better than integrated ones.)

KPMG: Population Health Taking Hold

Posted on January 31, 2017 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of FierceHealthcare.com and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

A new KPMG survey has concluded that population health management approaches are becoming popular – and for nearly half of respondents, are already working.

According to the consulting firm, which reached out to 86 respondents working for a payer or healthcare provider, 44% said that they have a population health platform in place which is being used “efficiently and effectively.” Twenty-four percent of respondents said that they were in the process of implementing a pop health program within the next three years, while 10% said they had no plans to use such a platform. (Another 21% said that their organization didn’t need one.)

Thirty percent of respondents said that the biggest individual obstacle to implementing a population health strategy was aggregating and standardizing information from multiple sources. Meanwhile, 10% cited stakeholder adoption as a barrier, and 10% named integrating with clinical work flows as a key issues. Meanwhile, another 34% cited “all of the above” as a significant barrier, along with enabling patient engagement, funding investments and choosing the right vendors.

Along the way, KPMG asked respondents where they stood with value-based payments. Thirty-six percent said “some of our revenue is generated by value-based payments,” and 14% said that the majority of their revenue came from value-based payments.  As for those that weren’t there yet, 26% said they were planning to enter into value-based contracts within one to three years, while just 7% said they were not planning to do so. (The remaining 17% said they don’t require value-based payments.)

All that being said, though, there’s a problem here. And that problem is that while everyone seems to think they mean the same thing when they discuss population health management, I’d submit that in many cases they aren’t on the same page. In fact, I’d argue that until we get that straight, studies like these don’t tell us a lot.

Yes, I think we all have the same broad idea in mind when the topic of PHM comes up, which is to say that we envision a system in which a health system, ACO or health insurer sets broad goals for key health metrics across a population.  And as most readers probably know, the health insurance industry has been managing a population-wide set of standards known as HEDIS (the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set) for decades. HEDIS is designed to make apples-to-apples comparisons of health plan performance possible by providing very carefully defined criteria.

On the other hand, the number of technologies, approaches and philosophies being implemented by health organizations for population health management do no such thing. While there’s probably many areas of broad consensus on what should be measured – particularly when it comes to chronic, costly conditions like diabetes and heart disease — we don’t have any shared performance standard.

So before we look at pop health stats, it might be a good idea to clarify what that means to those answering surveys like this. Otherwise, it’s GIGO.

How IRIS Puts the Real Triple Aim of Healthcare In Action

Posted on November 22, 2016 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

As I’ve been doing my Fall Healthcare IT Conference tour, I’ve had the chance to meet with hundreds of companies and thousands of people working to improve healthcare. While all this travel takes its toll, I also come away from all of these meetings invigorated by the quality of people and their desire to make healthcare better. That’s true almost across the board.

While most of the solutions I see are an evolution of something I’ve seen before, every once in a while I meet with a company that’s really impacting healthcare in a unique and interesting way. I found just such a case when I met with Patrick Cresson from IRIS – Intelligent Retinal Imaging Systems.

On face value, many might look at IRIS as just another diabetic retinopathy exam that’s been done by ophthalmologists forever. While this is true, what makes IRIS unique is that they have an FDA cleared exam that can be done in the primary care setting as opposed to being referred to an ophthalmologist. As Patrick pointed out to me, of all the diabetic screenings that need to be done for diabetic patients can be done in the primary care setting except for the retinal exam. At least that was the case before IRIS brought those exams to the primary care setting.

A look at the numbers is quite telling. There are 116 million patients with diabetes or pre-diabetes and that number is increasing every day. It’s estimated that 30 million diabetes patients get referred for an eye exam every year and 19 million diabetes patients do not get the annual retinal exam. There are plenty of reasons why this is the case, but it’s not hard to see why this happens. The same thing happens with referrals across healthcare. Diabetic patients that can’t tell any difference in their eyesight are unlikely to keep going back for an annual retinal exam. Who really wants to go to the pain of scheduling an appointment for what doesn’t seem to be an issue? So, they don’t.

The problem with this thinking is that diabetic retinopathy is asymptomatic. The only way to know if you’re heading for trouble is to have a retinal exam. The good news is that early detection can solve the problem and literally save diabetic patients’ eyesight. I know this first hand since it saved my grandfather’s eyesight.

This is the compelling story that IRIS tells as it pushes the retinal exam into the primary care setting where they can ensure patients are getting the early screenings they’ve so often missed in the past. This plays out in the numbers. Over the past 3 years, IRIS has performed 120,000 diabetic retinopathy exams which resulted in 56,000 patients identified with a pathology and 11,600 patients saved from potential blindness.

While this type of early detection can help healthcare organizations HEDIS compliance, I’m intrigued by the way IRIS straddles the fee for service and value based care worlds. I’ve seen very few models that get a primary care provider paid in the fee for service world, but also work to significantly lower the costs of healthcare in a value based care world. However, that’s exactly what you get from IRIS’s early screening exams.

What’s also fascinating to consider about IRIS is ophthalmologists’ response. It’s easy to see how many ophthalmologists could be afraid of diabetic retinal exams being done in the primary care setting and not in the ophthalmologists’ offices. That’s taking business away from them. While this is true, it’s also easy to see how an increase in retinal exams will drive more previously undiagnosed higher acuity exams, surgeries and interventions to ophthalmologists. Every ophthalmologist I know would much rather do a higher acuity surgery than a basic diabetic retinopathy exam. That’s the reality that IRIS creates since it’s an FDA cleared exam for diabetic retinopathy, but it’s only a screening tool for other eye diseases that require a full exam by an ophthalmologist.

Stories like IRIS are why I love blogging about healthcare IT. IRIS is changing healthcare as we know it by reducing healthcare costs, improving the patient experience, and getting doctors paid. That’s the real triple aim of healthcare in action.

Working on Value Based Care and Fee For Service at the Same Time

Posted on November 2, 2015 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the HealthcareScene.com blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of InfluentialNetworks.com and Physia.com. John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

While at MGMA I had a chance to sit down with Mike Hofmeister, Vice President of Value-Based & Community Solutions at Allscripts, to talk about Allscripts’ Chronic Care Management (CCM) and other value based care efforts. Coming out of MGMA I’d say that Chronic Care Management (CCM) was one of the biggest topics people were talking about.

What’s a bit unique about CCM is that it’s a hybrid of value based care in a fee for service world. In fact, when I asked Mike about how Allscripts was balancing value based care with fee for service he told me that they were looking at opportunities to implement processes, procedures, and workflows that benefited both value based care and fee for service.

I found this to be an incredible insight into the path forward for those of us trying to figure out how to navigate this new value based reimbursement world. No doubt there are plenty of efforts that can satisfy both sides of the equation. The reality is that we can’t just flip the value based care switch on and the fee for service switch off. We’re going to be living in a hybrid reimbursement world for a long time to come.

Mike also told me about how Allscripts was well positioned to help with doctor’s CCM efforts because at the core of the CCM program is access to healthcare data, analytics capabilities, and call center capabilities to follow up with the patients. Sure, there are a few more details to the program, but Mike is right that CCM requires the right healthcare data, data processing, and the right patient follow up procedures. For many patients a phone call is still the best follow up procedure. Although, I’m still interested to see how quickly this switches over to secure text from phone calls.

What seems clear to me is that most provider organizations aren’t going to take part in CCM on their own. A few larger ones will try it, but most provider organizations will be looking to an outside company to help them participate in the CCM program together with a larger group of providers.

Of course, we also have to realize that CCM is just the start. The companies that deliver great CCM solutions will be well positioned to deliver on future value based care programs. They’ll just want to make sure that they balance their value based care work together with the ongoing fee for service world.