Posts Tagged ‘medical home’
Save money. Live better. It’s Wal-Mart’s corporate motto, but put it in the context of health care and add a third line targeted at improving care for individuals and you’ve got something awfully close to Don Berwick’s triple aim for health care reform. If cost is the real cancer in the U.S. health care delivery system—and we think it is—why not look to America’s low-cost leader for the cure?
When reports started hitting the news this week about a request for information Wal-Mart sent out to its vendors in late October announcing the mega-retailer’s intent to “build a national, integrated, low-cost primary care health care platform that will provide preventative and chronic care services that are currently out of reach for millions of Americans,” alarms went off in health policy circles across the country.
The company has since backpedaled on the statement of intent. John Agwunobi, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A., head of Wal-Mart’s health and wellness division, released a statement on Nov. 9, 2011, saying, “We are not building a national, integrated, low-cost primary care health care platform.”
Well, that’s a relief.
What struck me about the RFI wasn’t just the ambitious statement of intent, now characterized by the company as “overwritten and incorrect,” it was the list of services Wal-Mart plans to offer: chronic disease management of everything from diabetes, asthma, and hypertension to sleep apnea, osteoporosis, HIV, and clinical depression.
A few years back, Wal-Mart announced plans to open more than 400 retail health clinics in its stores from coast to coast. As of now, it operates about 140 clinics. The company exerted its massive purchasing power and brought us $4 generic pharmaceuticals. And now it wants to bring its cost-cutting strategies to the chronic disease management market.
The trouble is the price points of primary care services and chronic disease management services aren’t the cause of our health care cost crisis. The real problem is the effect on system-wide health expenditures when chronic diseases aren’t managed properly. So maybe Wal-Mart’s idea of enhanced retail clinics could improve access to those services thereby improving population health and lowering overall health care costs, but I doubt it.
I tend to agree with AAFP President Glen Stream, M.D., M.B.I., who told National Public Radio that Wal-Mart’s proposal takes health care in the wrong direction. “I would still be gravely concerned that this is going to fragment care at a time when we now clearly understand that people having a usual source of comprehensive and continuous care in a single location is one of the main features that drives high-quality care, good patient health outcomes, and drives down costs.”
Today, family physicians across the country are transforming their practices to make them more accessible to their patients, and to evolve our delivery system into one that coordinates patient care in an efficient manner to make sure patients receive the right care at the right time and in the right setting. The 2010 AAFP Practice Profile survey shows that significant percentages of our members offer many of the same conveniences that retail health clinics offer. More than 73 percent offer same-day or open-access scheduling. More than 48 percent have extended office hours, and more than 31 percent offer weekend appointments.
Wal-Mart’s interest in expanding its line of health care services is a big indication that primary care is on the rise. Here’s yet another indication. The Baltimore Sun reported this week that Maryland state officials plan “to increase the number of primary care health professionals by as much as 25 percent in the next decade through a wide range of goals that include increased educational opportunities, financial incentives, and tort reform.”
Competition for primary care services is about to get fierce, folks. Wal-Mart knows where the money is and where the demand is. Seems to me family medicine is in a great position for strong market growth.
Following the most basic model for success in business means minimizing overhead and maximizing revenues, Dr. Mark Laitos pointed out at TAFP’s Payment Reform Summit last Saturday. For doctors in private practice and other health care providers, this means billing for as many relative value units, or RVUs, as possible at the best conversion rate, and maximizing ancillary revenue, when possible.
And while this strategy is simple enough, Laitos said it has reduced the “proud field” of medicine to “conveyor belt medicine.” Worse, as payers – including health insurers, employers, and patients to some extent – strive to minimize RVUs, the solution to the cost crisis in a fee-for-service system is to slash payment to physicians and deny care to patients.
Of course neither patients nor doctors (nor the organizations that advocate for them) would allow this to happen considering the scale needed to rein in escalating health care costs. The solution, then, as speaker after speaker suggested, is to trade the volume-based model for a value-based model. This is also the cover story of the latest Texas Family Physician magazine.
Dr. Laitos was the first to bring up the triple aim – three things a health system should strive to do: improve the health of the population, improve the patient experience of care, and reduce the per capita costs of care. This Health Affairs article goes into more depth, but it sounds a lot like the concept behind accountable care organizations – that care should be primary care-based, consider population health, empower patients, and integrate with other care providers on a macro level.
Dr. Eduardo Sanchez, a family physician and medical director of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas agreed on two points, referencing a still-amorphous “virtual medical community” that aims to connect smaller practices currently organized as “onesies, twosies, and foursies” by providing them with a platform for information exchange and management.
He also brought up BCBSTX’s Bridges To Excellence program as a way for physicians to be recognized as high-performing. “Physicians will have to be able to capture data, analyze that data, and have ability to adjust what those data reveal. BTE and PQRS [Physician Quality Reporting System] are not the answer, but they are a way to get started and learn how to manage the system for quality improvement.”
Dr. Chris Crow of Plano, another speaker at the summit, asserted his strong belief in using data and analytics to measure quality and costs; he’s used it in his practice to provide better, more efficient, and more cost-effective care, and he can demonstrate this through real figures to any interested party. Dr. Crow said that once a physician has access to quality and cost measures, he or she can begin to implement changes to improve care services. Not knowing the metrics is like “driving a car without a dashboard.”
Dr. Laitos asserted that there will be winners and losers in health care reform. “The winners will be the doctors who know how to demonstrate value.”
To read more about the Payment Reform Summit, check out TAFP’s coverage published in last week’s QuickInfo e-newsletter. Also stay tuned for video recordings of the lectures to be published later this fall.
Last Friday, the medical community was shocked and saddened by the sudden death of pediatrician and primary care advocate Barbara Starfield, M.D., M.P.H. During her decades spent at Johns Hopkins, she authored and co-authored numerous studies on the value of primary care that provided proof that many of us believed in our hearts but couldn’t quantify—that patients are healthier and costs are lower in a system based on primary care.
However, her work provided more than just facts; it provided the footing for a movement to redesign the fragmented system to one that is better for patients. She inspired us to really take a look at family medicine’s contribution and advocate for its importance. The process has been slow, but her momentum kept it going.
Because of her tremendous contributions to health care research and patient care, several organizations have released poignant and appropriate statements in tribute that must be shared. The first is the full statement from Roland Goertz, M.D., M.B.A., president of AAFP, and the second is an excerpt from Richard Roberts, M.D., J.D., president of the World Organization of Family Doctors.
A statement from Dr. Goertz:
“Patients throughout the world lost a dedicated advocate Friday, June 10, with the sudden death of Barbara Starfield, M.D., M.P.H. We have lost a committed scientist whose work focused the attention of policymakers and the entire health care community on meeting the needs of patients.
“As the University Distinguished Service Professor at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and School of Medicine and as Director of its Primary Care Policy Center, Barbara was a tireless advocate for primary medical care. Her prolific research demonstrated that patients’ health, community health, and the nation’s health care system improved when people had access to primary medical care. She showed the world that family physicians’ expertise is essential to individual people, the communities where they live, and the soundness of the nation’s health care. She reminded family physicians why they chose their specialty—to help people improve the care they received and create a system that respected each person, regardless of their station in life. She painted a new vision for what family medicine could be and urged us to fulfill that vision.
“As a result, Barbara taught the nation that primary medical care is instrumental in turning the ship of health care policy toward a system that serves the needs of the people with efficiency. Her work earned her numerous awards, including the American Academy of Family Physicians’ highly prestigious John G. Walsh Award for Lifetime Contributions to Family Medicine. In giving the award, the AAFP cited Barbara’s dedicated, long-term and effective research in the advancement and development of family medicine.
“We will greatly miss Barbara Starfield’s energy, her commitment to building a system that serves patients and her leadership in teaching all of us about the value of the work we do. We have lost a good friend, an inspiring teacher and an exceptional researcher whose work helped make the world a better place for all of us.”
An excerpt from Dr. Roberts:
“She opened the eyes of family doctors to the considerable abilities we have, the weighty responsibilities we carry, and the unrealized possibilities we represent. She saw family doctors as the best hope for health care. Many times, she challenged our vision of what family medicine should look like, and nudged us to see further and clearer.
“She will be remembered for her passion for social justice, incisive intelligence, and incredible energy. Great people have an extraordinary vitality, which makes them seem immortal and lulls us into thinking we will have them forever. And then they are gone. The best tribute we can offer Barbara is to continue to work toward her vision of a world in which everyone has access to quality health care centered in a trusted relationship with a compassionate, competent, and comprehensive family doctor.”
An important piece of legislation designed to improve quality and lower costs in our fractured and inefficient health care system has received a second chance in the Special Session after dying in the House when time ran out on the 82nd Texas Legislature. However, because of other actions taken by our legislators that defund primary care residency training and other programs to bolster the physician workforce now and in the future, Senate Bill 8’s laudable goals are left without the means to achieve them.
The overarching goal of S.B. 8 is to reverse the negative trend in our health care system, to bend the cost curve by testing and implementing various performance-based payment methods that provide incentives for improved patient outcomes. It achieves this through two key mechanisms: the creation of health care collaboratives and the creation of the Texas Institute of Health Care Quality and Efficiency.
As envisioned in the bill, health care collaboratives clinically integrate physicians, hospitals, diagnostic labs, imaging centers, and other health care providers, aligning financial incentives to keep patients healthy and out of the hospital and emergency room. They are designed to move the delivery system away from a fee-for-service based system—where physicians and hospitals are paid for quantity of services over quality—to one in which doctors, hospitals, and other providers are accountable for the overall care of the patient and the total cost of the care provided.
Mounting evidence supports improved outcomes and lower costs achieved through this type of coordinated care. It works because patients receive care from a medical team, led by a primary care physician, that integrates all aspects of preventive, acute, and chronic needs using the best available evidence and appropriate technology to ensure patients receive the right care, at the right time, in the right place, at the right value.
Equally as important is the Texas Institute of Health Care Quality and Efficiency, which provides a safe harbor from antitrust laws for hospitals, insurers, and physicians to experiment with alternative payment and delivery systems.
A dedicated institute emphasizes experimentation at the state and community level, further encouraging the testing of health care provider collaboration, health care delivery models, and coordination of health care services to improve health care quality, accountability, education, and contain costs in Texas. Through regulation and rulemaking, our state and its agencies can ultimately shape how reform occurs, and this legislation provides the necessary medium for trial and error, adjustment and adaptation.
It is no secret that Texas faces a severe physician shortage, especially among the primary care physicians who are uniquely trained to address a variety of disorders and chronic diseases across multiple organ systems. By 2015, Texas will need more than 4,500 additional primary care physicians and other providers to care for the state’s underserved population.
Over the past few sessions, the Texas Legislature has put in place several provisions designed to increase the number of primary care physicians in our state and to draw those physicians to the rural and underserved areas of the state that need them most. Our elected officials expanded primary care graduate medical education and training, implemented education loan repayments for primary care physicians, and supported medical student primary care preceptorships—each proven to make a positive impact on increasing the primary care workforce.
How easily these gains can be reversed. The 82nd Legislature took a giant step backward when it chose to cut state support of medical residencies by 44 percent, from $106 million in funding for the current biennium to $59.6 million in 2012-2013; slash loan repayment programs, allocating $5.6 million to one repayment program for the first year only and zeroing out another program set up to meet the needs of Texas children; and completely eliminate the Statewide Primary Care Preceptorship Program.
Texas’ 28 family medicine residency programs prepare about 200 new family physicians each year for practice and these programs manage primary care clinics that deliver well-coordinated, cost-effective care to communities that need it. A significant portion of the care they provide is for Medicaid and CHIP patients, Medicare patients, and the uninsured. Many programs already operate at dangerously narrow margins, often teetering on the brink of closure, and proposed budget cuts could be the final nail in the coffin.
Cuts to the loan repayment programs alone could affect up to 1.1 million Texans, by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board’s estimate. Because of lack of funds to recruit new physicians to underserved areas, 750,000 patients could see diminished access to care, and the 426,000 currently served by 142 doctors in the program would likewise have difficulties finding a replacement physician to care for them.
Studies of the preceptorship programs in Texas indicate that exposing medical students to primary care clinical experience early in their training, like that provided by the Texas Statewide Preceptorship Program, is an effective method of increasing the number of primary care physicians and expanding access to primary care in underserved populations. Not funding this program further deteriorates our state’s ability to produce the next generation of primary care physicians.
In addition to patient care, physicians contribute to the state economy, which can be of particular benefit to rural and underserved communities. A March 2011 study by the American Medical Association revealed that through supporting jobs, purchasing goods and services, and generating tax revenue, office-based physicians contributed $1.4 trillion in economic activity and supported 4 million jobs nationwide. And the study found that office-based physicians are unique in the health care system in that they almost always contribute more to state economies than hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies.
Without investing in an adequate primary care base our state will not have the network of physicians it needs to care for a population ballooning at both ends of the age spectrum, and health care costs will inevitably continue their unsustainable march higher.
All is not lost. Texas has a narrow window of opportunity to identify state-based strategies that will trigger dramatic improvements in our health care delivery system, empower patients to better understand their health care choices and responsibilities, increase competition in the insurance market, and lower overall costs.
Should S.B. 8 pass during the Special Session, its goals can be achieved eventually; the bill lays the foundation to re-engineer the fractured health care system to one that serves patients and bends the cost curve to make the system sustainable long term.
The 82nd Legislature fumbled on ensuring we have an adequate workforce to make these goals a reality, but we hope that future legislatures will recommit to primary care for the sake of Texans’ future. Because without the primary care physician workforce, the potential achievements of Senate Bill 8 are just hollow promises.
By Greg Sheff, M.D.
I was fortunate to be one in a group of primary care physicians who met with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst this February to discuss possibilities of payment reform in Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the private insurance market. This meeting comes on the heels of the introduction of two major pieces of legislation, Senate bills 7 and 8. These bills would implement a host of pilot projects to test bundled payments, payments based on episodes of care, and quality incentives. It continues the positive momentum the state needs to move us away from a fractured health care system into one that provides the right care for Texans.
The unrelenting march of increasing health care costs is unsustainable, both for Texas and for the nation. Payment reform that aligns physician and hospital incentives with our society’s goals—affordable, coordinated, evidence-based, quality-measured care—is critical to rein in health care costs. The patient-centered medical home, driven by a strong primary care workforce, is a proven cost-effective method for delivering this coordinated and integrated care.
Earlier this year, Austin Regional Clinic (ARC) joined a multi-year medical home pilot administered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas (BCBSTX). The pilot was initiated in large part in response to Texas legislation requiring the Employees Retirement System (ERS), the self-funded insurer for state employees, to experiment with alternate payment and delivery models in an attempt to reduce the state’s ever-increasing health care costs. We are one of five physician groups in the state participating. Our program serves roughly 45,000 patients, including both the ERS (whose health care benefits are administered by BCBSTX) and BCBSTX fully-insured populations.
As we have seen with our ARC Medical Home Program, there is a definite tipping-point phenomenon in getting providers to commit the resources necessary to proactively coordinate patient care. We have been approached by a number of payers investigating our capability to transform our care delivery model. However, not until we were approached with a payer as large as ERS were we able to make a compelling internal business case for investing the resources to transform our own workflows.
For me, this is the real pearl in the ERS Medical Home initiative: The Legislature, with control of Medicaid, CHIP, and ERS/Teacher Retirement System payments, has the opportunity to change—not by mandate but by example—the cost of care delivered across Texas.
However, a primary-care-led health care system cannot exist without actively nurturing and growing the primary care workforce. Since its inception, ARC has emphasized the importance of long-term doctor/patient relationships, coordination of care, and a strong primary care physician base—three major tenets of the medical home model. Drawing upon ARC’s 30 years of experience, I cannot overstate the importance of supporting initiatives to increase the number of medical school graduates choosing a career in primary care.
Payment and delivery system reform for ERS/TRS, Medicaid, and CHIP patients, coupled with an investment in growing our primary care workforce, helps not only the Texas budget in the short and long term, but provides the seeds to transform all care in Texas.
Gregory Sheff, M.D., is the medical director for the ARC Medical Home Program.