May 23, 2016

Here We GO!!

By · Leave a Comment

And We're BackAs Joey Mack (a/k/a Jimmy Fallon) used to say on Z-105, “… we’re back!” My last post here was at the beginning of December last year. That’s just about the time I entered into serious discussions on the sale of Artower Advisory Services to Symbria, Inc.

I have to say the intervening period has been dominated a lot more by politics than policy – at least so far as the broad spectrum of media reporting have favored upon us a la the circus that is the American presidential race. Believe it or not, in spite of that depressing entertainment a lot of policy continues to be made every day – much of the action happening at the state level. The discussion and debate over healthcare policy is anything but dormant.

So where do things stand on the future of healthcare reform? If Donald Trump is elected do you think he’ll be able to withstand industry resistance to repeal & replace the Affordable Care Act? If Mrs. Clinton is elected, will she be able to use the Medicare model to expand coverage and lower costs? If Bernie Sanders is elected, would the Chinese economy ever grow fast enough to absorb all of the new US debt needed to fund his great ideas?

Set aside what influence, if any really, these presidential hopefuls might have on future healthcare policy and all we are left with are the same difficult issues we’ve been facing for the past few decades:

  • Will this new era of industry consolidation do anything to help achieve the Triple Aim goals espoused by supporters of the Affordable Care Act? Or just create greater monopsony power?
  • What, if any, should be the role of government in addressing escalating drug prices and Pharma’s insatiable appetite for capital?
  • How do we even begin to build a qualified workforce to care for our aging population with stagnated economic growth?
  • More evidence daily shows the promise of mental/ behavioral health integration; what’s the most effective way to accomplish this?
  • New payment and care delivery models have so far shown mixed results, at best; should we continue to invest or stop trying?
  • Will we be able to build the requisite community infrastructures ultimately needed to support population health and the benefits that portends?
  • Where and how should public policy most effectively intersect with health technology?
  • What’s the point of chest-thumping on transparency in healthcare when we are still unable to provide meaningfully basic cost data?
  • Big Data? Big security risks. What can be done to protect patient medical records when it seems nothing electronic is protected?

These are a few of the topics I have been mulling around in my mind over the past five months. These are a few of the topics I would like to start writing about again.

I hope if you are still out there signed up as a follower of the PolicyPub you will think about getting engaged again discussing and debating these issues. As we move through the summer and head toward the two political parties’ national conventions healthcare is going to become a hot topic for debate again. I will do what I can here to help keep you informed and energized.

Cheers,
  ~ Sparky

 

Filed Under: Healthcare Policy Discussion Group · Tagged: , , ,
Dec 4, 2015

Value Isn’t Working

By · 1 Comment

HC FrustrationVALUE. I have written quite a bit in this space over the past three-and-a-half years on the role of value in healthcare and how it has been purported to be used as an effective public policy tool. Just type in, “value” on the search box to the right and 10 such posts will appear for your reading pleasure. But I haven’t written about value in the context I am about to now.

Earlier this week Paul H. Keckley, Managing Director of the Navigant Center for Healthcare Research and Policy Analysis, posted The Meaning of “Value” in Healthcare to the Health Care Blog.  In that post he argues rightly that the significant shortcoming of value as a driver of anything in healthcare is that it is not being defined by end users – i.e., patients, or consumers as it were. In stark contrast to what I have advocated in the past I would go beyond that.

Keckly muses of a system where consumer-driven healthcare is manifested in the dissemination of knowledge and information that empowers rational decision-making and the efficient allocation of resources. Where he stopped short – whether by omission or design – was to suggest the best means of achieving that nirvana. I will pick up the ball and take it a little further.

It is not enough to advocate for consumer-driven empowerment as the means of leveraging value in our healthcare system.  We must also recognize the stark reality that current healthcare policy – and in particular, the Affordable Care Act – is a tremendously effective impediment to achieving that empowerment.

I remain as convinced as ever that value – Porter’s axiomatic assertion that outcomes over cost will drive achievement of the IHI’s Triple Aim – is key to delivery system improvement. But I am terribly disillusioned that value can be effective in a system that is controlled in such a manner that it is determined artificially and arbitrarily by the likes of academics, bureaucrats, administrators and consultants.

Alternative payment models – and the care delivery models that are being developed in response to the artificial financial incentives they are offering – are doomed to ultimately fail because they lack the inert ability to leverage value as it is perceived by the individual consumer, one person at a time. By failure I do not mean they will be soon to go away – but they will not achieve the shared goals referenced above. Disagree?

Cheers,
  ~ Sparky

Filed Under: Editorials & Opinions, Value-Based Healthcare · Tagged: , , ,
Oct 26, 2015

Principles of Alternative Payment Models Framework

By · Leave a Comment

HCPLANGreetings PolicyPub patrons. I would like to take a moment and share with you a whitepaper recently published by the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network. The purpose of the whitepaper is to provide a roadmap to measure progress and establish a shared language and common set of conventions to help facilitate discussion and debate regarding alternative payment models (APM).

A group that I have actively participated in since its inception back in March of this year, HCPLAN was established by the Department of Health and Human Services, “to help achieve better care, smarter spending, and healthier people.” It’s primary purpose is to serve as a convener and facilitator (as well as catalyst) in pursuing HHS’s stated goals of:

  • tying 30 percent of Medicare fee-for-service payments to quality or value through alternative payment models by 2016 and 50 percent by 2018; and
  • tying 85 percent of all Medicare fee-for-service to quality or value by 2016 and 90 percent by 2018.

    The whitepaper identifies seven Key Principles for the APM Framework that all healthcare providers should be aware of and understand:

  • Principle 1: Changing the financial reward to providers is only one way to stimulate and sustain innovative approaches to the delivery of patient-centered care. In the future … it will be important to monitor progress in initiatives that empower patients (via meaningful performance metrics, financial incentives, and other means) to seek care from high-value providers and become active participants in clinical and shared decision-making.

    Principle 2: As delivery systems evolve, the goal is to drive a shift towards shared-risk and population-based payment models, in order to incentivize delivery system reforms that improve the quality and efficiency of patient-centered care.

    Principle 3: To the greatest extent possible, value-based incentives should reach providers who directly deliver care.

    Principle 4: Payment models that do not take quality and value into account will be classified in the appropriate category with a designation that distinguishes them as a payment model that is not value-based. They will not be considered APMs for the purposes of tracking progress towards payment reform.

    Principle 5: In order to reach our goals for health care reform, the intensity of value-based incentives should be high enough to influence provider behaviors and it should increase over time. However, this intensity should not be a determining factor for classifying APMs in the Framework. Intensity will be included when reporting progress toward goals.

    Principle 6: When health plans adopt hybrid payment reforms that incorporate multiple APMs, the payment reform as a whole will be classified according to the more dominant APM. This will avoid double-counting payments through APMs.

    Principle 7: Centers of excellence, patient-centered medical homes, and accountable care organizations are delivery models, not payment models. These delivery system models enable APMs and, in many instances, have achieved successes in advancing quality, but they should not be viewed as synonymous with a specific APM. Accordingly, they appear in multiple locations in the Framework, depending on the underlying payment model that supports them.

    HCPLAN is open to anyone interested in being kept informed of and joining the conversation on HHS’s efforts to  develop new payment models intended to be structured around all of the buzzwords you’ve heard over the past five years now: e.g., value, quality, transparency, patient activation, evidence-based, and so on.

    What it is not, based on my experience, is a veiled promotional vehicle to evidence broad-based support of new payment models that go largely unchallenged. To the contrary, there is a great deal of practical concern being expressed supported by real life experience having already pursued new payment models – the good, the bad and the ugly. To participate in HCPLAN, just visit the registration web page.

    Cheers,
      ~ Sparky

Filed Under: Health Care Payment Learning & Action Network · Tagged: , , , , ,
Jul 11, 2015

Advance-Care Planning

By · Leave a Comment

The cover story of this coming week’s edition of Modern Healthcare (subscription required) focuses on end-of-life directives. The now infamous death panels phenomenon that became coupled with fears over the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and rationing of knee and hip replacement procedures for Medicare recipients. I first wrote about this topic in November of 2012.

So here we are going on three years later and to my knowledge there have been no elderly individuals dragged before a panel of subjective arbiters charged with determining whether or not a person shall live or die. Not to diminish the reality of systemic rationing, as I have also written upon here – and that it will increase dramatically as an issue and concern in proportion to the demand for healthcare of an aging society.

But it has and continues to seem certain that admonishing public policy that raises awareness about the challenges of rationing and end-of-life care through increased and improved communication is rather wrongheaded. Fortunately, pragmatism seems to be winning over irrationality, and there are continued efforts to recognize the realities of having to address how scarce healthcare resources are allocated.

CMS announced last week that its proposed 2016 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule would incorporate physician payment for end-of-life conversations with patients. Though Medicare already provides for advance care planning upon enrollment the new rule would create new and separate advance care planning codes. Numerous medical societies and health organizations have pushed for reimbursement of advance-care planning as a separate, stand-alone service.

In good part much of the support was a desire to be paid for work already being performed. But to some extent it also represents an incentive to provide a service. And there’s the rub: what’s being incentivized? Education and awareness – or an inherent bias to abridge care and treatment options in favor of resource conservation that could be manifested in income to the clinical practitioner?

Indeed, it’s a slippery slope, and we need to be vigilant in understanding the impact of frequently dramatic differences between how an end-of-life is planned and what actually takes place at care settings in the hands of clinicians whose primary directive is to preserve life. From a policy perspective there are multiple elements that may yet contribute more to this discussion (e.g., the apparently defunct IPAB and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute).

For now, however, there is a greater opportunity to empower patients with more knowledge and information to assist them in their personal decision making regarding end-of-life care. That’s a good thing.

Cheers,
  ~ Sparky

Image credit: Martin Kozlowski for WSJ

Filed Under: End-of-Life Directives, In the News · Tagged: , , ,
Apr 23, 2015

WHCOA Regional Forum

By · Leave a Comment

I am delighted to have received an invitation to this Monday’s regional White House Conference on Aging forum. The fourth in a five part series and being held in Cleveland, the regional forum is designed to focus public attention on the key issues of ensuring retirement security, promoting healthy aging, providing long-term services and support and protecting older Americans from financial abuse and neglect.

The Conference on Aging has been held once a decade since the 1960s, “to identify and advance actions to improve the quality of life of older Americans.” Input and engagement is being sought from older adults, as well as a variety of stakeholders sharing an interest and passion for addressing the difficult issues of providing housing, services and care for an aging population with limited resources.

The Cleveland forum is being held at the Global Center for Health Innovation, which showcases the confluence of best practices and emerging technologies impacting how care is provided and received. Northeast Ohio is a leader in advancing innovative solutions to the challenges facing older adults navigating their way through successful aging. With organizations like the Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging and the McGregor Foundation (most proud to note that both are clients of Artower Advisory Services), Greater Cleveland has a well-respected history of supplementing the area’s world class medical care with strong community-based services that enrich and protect the lives of seniors.

It is truly an honor to share the day with individuals served by organizations such as these and to hear firsthand their expectations for successful aging in the years ahead. I promise to take good notes and report back here on the key issues being discussed and debated. And with any luck, maybe a few pub patrons will want to weigh in on those issues.

Cheers,
  ~ Sparky

Filed Under: White House Conference on Aging · Tagged: , , ,
Apr 6, 2015

Chasing Population Health

By · Leave a Comment

A few years back when the ACO concept was starting to gain traction as a result of the Affordable Care Act’s Shared Savings Program, Mark Smith, MD of the California Healthcare Foundation remarked that, "the accountable care organization is like a unicorn, a fantastic creature that is vested with mythical powers. But no one has actually seen one." I am starting to wonder, as are many others, whether that analogy might even more adeptly describe population health and the tidal wave of efforts now being directed toward managing same.

In a post today on the Health Affairs Blog David Kindig argues that in light of the definitional challenges that have led to confusion of what population health is – or is not – what’s now required are “multiple definitions.” Counterintuitive as that may seem, Mr. Kindig explains how the term is today being increasingly applied to populations characterized by disease state and/or chronic condition (i.e., a clinical perspective) rather than the traditional understanding of populations defined primarily by geographic origin.

The latter’s focus is rooted in public health officials’ efforts to observe, quantify, assess and understand a multitude of personal and environmental considerations that impact the health of individuals – and how that impact is manifested in health characteristics of a defined population over time. The former is a growing focus of new delivery and payment models that aim to lower costs by decreasing demand – while assumedly concurrently not affecting safety, quality or having a negative impact on outcomes.

More importantly, population health in the clinical sense is being touted as a primary means of assessing the success of those models – and in turn, providing financial reward for that success. And further, in contrast, it is being used as a disincentive to pursue activities that are not proven to improve population health.

And there’s the rub, isn’t it. One of the two obstacles that currently prevent us from being able to leverage value in healthcare as Porter, et al have envisioned as the market mechanism that will curb costs and increase performance is the ambiguity surrounding how to define a patient outcome (the other being 19th century cost accounting practices still in place in healthcare). If we haven’t yet been able to adequately define and agree upon the comparative merits of individual patient outcomes, then how the hell can we suppose to find benefit from applying that shortcoming exponentially?

Cheers,
  ~ Sparky

Filed Under: Population Health · Tagged: , ,
Mar 31, 2015

Health and Housing Task Force

By · 1 Comment

BPC_logo2The Bipartisan Policy Center, founded in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole and George Mitchell, today announced a new Health and Housing Task Force that seeks to help address the needs of an aging US population. The one-year initiative is to be led by former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, former Senator and HUD Secretary Mel Martinez and former Representatives Allyson Schwartz and Vin Weber.

In echoing research and observations made in the recently released report, Housing America’s Older Adults: Meeting the Needs of An Aging Population, prepared by Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies and the AARP Foundation, the BPC notes the glaring disconnect between forecasted housing, services and care needs as compared to our current ability to meet that demand.

In explaining the task force’s direction Mr. Cisneros noted that, “our aim is to call attention to this emerging challenge facing our nation. This challenge offers incredible opportunity in the near-term, yet is on track to become a major crisis in the coming years if left unaddressed.” Specific goals outlined by the task force include:

Find cost-effective ways to modify homes and communities to make independent living for seniors safe and viable. Identifying potential funding sources will be critical.

Highlight best practices from states and localities for integrating housing, health care, and long-term services and supports. The task force will seek out programs that work and investigate how they can be replicated elsewhere.

Identify barriers to offering home-and community-based services and supports through Medicaid.

Seek opportunities for further collaboration between the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Health and Human Services.

The fourth goal is something that I have been scratching my head about for more than a decade now. I once even had the chance to personally ask a former HHS Secretary why the two departments couldn’t find more ways to collaborate, and that person was surprisingly candid in not knowing why either.

I know it may seem intuitive to those working in senior housing and care, but still much of the healthcare industry is only starting to recognize and understand that if services and care need to be provided “long-term,” then those individuals requiring such care need a place to live – they need a home. Further, we are learning more every day that underscores how important it is to have hospitality services provided in coordination with that care in order to achieve a beneficially holistic approach to health and wellness. Thus I believe any successful delivery model that addresses the crisis this task force sets out to address must reflect a deep understanding of four core areas:

Real estate – a place that can be called home wherever that may be

Operational & clinical performance: consistently safe and high quality services that are unique to the populations being served

Hospitality: recognizing and respecting the human spirit’s desire to live a fulfilling life

Underwriting: understanding the unique financial challenges of providing extended services and care

I would encourage the task force – and any other organizations involved in assessing and contributing to the knowledgebase that increases access and affordability of senior housing and care – to adopt these as the four pillars of any successful delivery model.

Cheers,
  ~ Sparky

Filed Under: BPC Health & Housing Task Force, In the News · Tagged: , , ,
Mar 18, 2015

To Sleep Perchance to Die

By · Leave a Comment

Hamlet___Skull_Study_by_PaulJulianBanksEarlier this week the French parliament acted in a compassionate – and certainly controversial – fashion by passing a law that will allow terminally ill patients to opt for “deep sleep” as an alternative to and/or palliative care. Lawmakers there believe (and by a substantial majority) the measure does not legalize euthanasia, but not everyone agrees. And the applicability of such a policy decision to America’s struggle with healthcare cost containment could not be more profound.

Depending on which study you want to believe, it is estimated that between 25% and 30% of all Medicare spending each year goes toward the 5% of beneficiaries who die in that year. Of that, approximately one-third of expenditures occur in the last month of life. If it weren’t for the realty that life is the most precious commodity on earth, it would be a rather simple fete accompli that such investment is ludicrous.

But any discussion of healthcare policies touching upon end-of-life care is rife with raw emotion and often political hysterics. Death Panels anyone? While Sarah Palin may have done more personally than anyone in history to obfuscate rational, intelligent discussion on reconciling individual rights with social responsibilities she nonetheless hit the mark in connecting the end-of-life care conversation to rationing: because that’s a core element of the policy debate – and it needs to be.

The talking points surrounding healthcare policy that affects end-of-life care are, however, spreading beyond just rationing – as the actions in France indicate. There is a shifting cultural perception of death as not so much a medical problem as it is a spiritual reality that can only be effectively addressed by one person – one moment at a time. And the quality of life vs expenditure is an emerging debate that will be owned by the Baby Boomer generation in a way this country has never seen.

Do the actions of the French lawmakers reflect a cultural awareness that is progressively ahead of where we stand in the US? Or do they reflect the further advance of progressive abandonment of respect for the sanctity of life that we must stand fast to defend?

Before answering, consider . . .

To be, or not to be, that is the question—
Whether ’tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end them? To die, to sleep—
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to? ‘Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; Aye, there’s the rub,
For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause.
~ Hamlet, Act III, Scene i

Cheers,
  ~ Sparky

Picture Credit:
Hamlet – Skull Study by PaulJulianBanks

Filed Under: Deep Sleep Law, In the News · Tagged: , , , , ,
Mar 12, 2015

DocFix is D O A

By · 1 Comment

pic_related_022514_SM_A-Doc-Fix-Thats-Not-a-Fix_0Things have gotten so pitiful in Washington that political reporters – being anxious to share any news their audiences might find not depressing – are apparently falling over one another buying into the idea that a divided city can suddenly  come together and address the $174 billion political juggernaut of Medicare reimbursement for physician services. Using words like momentum, enthusiasm and optimism they report that Congress is advancing on a permanent Doc Fix.

Oh, please.

The rightwing of the Republican Party has already made clear its intent to use intransigence as the primary tactic to implement a strategy of growth through attrition in this 114th Congress.  And the only hope for securing Democratic support to bridge the voting gap left in their wake will be if those Democrats subscribe to Ms. Pelosi’s edict of not reading healthcare legislation before voting on it. Because if they actually read it, they will in all likelihood not be happy at the entitlement program cuts needed to fund the fix.

Alternatively, funding offsets could be achieved on the backs of other clinical providers and Medicare recipients. Those have always been pushover constituencies with poor lobbying representation, right? Or, to steer clear of that minefield legislators could assume funding offsets will come from expanding value-based payment models and continued implementation of other ACA reforms (e.g., lowering of hospital readmissions). That should be an even easier sell with Conservatives in Congress (yeah, more sarcasm).

And let’s not forget the public and private enterprise investments made into ICD-10 implementation, which Republican lawmakers would probably seek to delay as part of SGR repeal. That will be a contentious ideological battle separate from not having $174 billion at hand.

See what I’m getting at?

All this has to be worked through before physicians face an average reduction of 21.1% in Medicare payments in less than three weeks. Physicians who are already nearing their human capacity and ability to fight through the regulatory obstacles that impede helping their patients.

So don’t buy into the hype: 2015 looks a lot like 2002, 2003, etc. – time once again to kick the can down the road.

Cheers,
  ~ Sparky

Filed Under: Editorials & Opinions, Sustained Growth Rate · Tagged: , , ,
Mar 9, 2015

Mental Health: Change Perception–Change Reality

By · Leave a Comment

Reprinted from the SAMHSA blog:

Changing the Story about Mental Health in America

blog.samhsa.gov · by SAMHSA · March 9, 2015

Today, in support of her Joining Forces initiative, the First Lady spoke at the launch of The Campaign to Change Direction, a nation-wide effort to raise awareness around mental health in America. Spearheaded by Give an Hour and co-sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the campaign is designed to change the story of mental health across the nation by urging all Americans to learn the five signs that someone might be in distress.

While there has been much media attention on mental health in the military and veteran community, it is incredibly important to understand that mental health isn’t just a military issue — it is a human issue. Mental health conditions impact our children, our grandparents, and our neighbors. Every year, roughly one in five adults — or more than 40 million Americans — experience a diagnosable mental health condition like depression or anxiety.

"I want to encourage everyone in this country to go to http://t.co/MBYHHV44EY." —The First Lady on learning the five signs of mental illness

— The First Lady (@FLOTUS) March 4, 2015

It’s up to all of us to change the conversation by encouraging everyone to reach out when a friend, co-worker, veteran, or loved one might be struggling, and to ask for help when we need it for ourselves.

As the First Lady said today at the Newseum in Washington, D.C.:

It’s time to tell everyone who’s dealing with a mental health issue that they’re not alone, and that getting support and treatment isn’t a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of strength. That’s something that my husband believes strongly as President. Because in this country, when you’re fighting an illness — whether that’s mental or physical — you should be able to get the help you need, end of story.

Rory Brosius is the Deputy Director of Joining Forces.

Campaign to Change Direction, First Lady of the United States of America, FLOTUS, Joining Forces, Michelle Obama, The First Lady

Cheers,
  ~ Sparky

Filed Under: Mental Health · Tagged: , , , ,
Next Page»