Jul 19, 2012

Pub Chat # 3 ~ Marcia Tetterton

By · Leave a Comment

This edition of Pub Chat coincides with the release of a new report published by Artower Advisory Services, which summarizes findings and observations from the recently completed Organizational Readiness Assessment Survey Instrument (ORASI©).  For more information, please click on the links below: 

   ORASI© Press Release         2012 ORASI© Summary Report

With the recent decision handed down by the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the probability has increased substantially that healthcare providers will have to implement significant changes in the way they do business. To assist providers of home healthcare and hospice in determining their organizational readiness for Healthcare Reform, the Council of State Home Care Associations commissioned the adaptation of an organizational readiness self-assessment survey developed by Artower Advisory Services for use by member agencies.

Over 940 participants from member agencies of 26 state associations took part in the survey during the period April 3, 2012 through July 3, 2012. The primary purpose of this effort was to help those agencies and the state associations to which they belong better understand the areas where attention, focus and training are necessary to help prepare home healthcare and hospice agencies be successful under Healthcare Reform.

You can listen to my interview with Marcia by clicking on Larry’s microphone, below:

~ Sparky

Filed Under: Home Healthcare & Hospice, In the News · Tagged: , , , , , , ,
Jun 7, 2012

Being Proactive in the Face of Uncertainty

By · Leave a Comment

While none of the Policy Pub’s guests have provided any comments yet (I’m hoping a few more “spirited” posts will begin to wear down the  contributory inhibitions), several patrons have emailed me privately and asked whether I had any practical advice on how to approach this period of policy limbo – between before knowing how SCOTUS will decide and the outcome of the fall general election.  So I thought this might be a good opportunity to offer some advice.

Accept the Brutal Reality
Often lost in the din of popular media reporting on the Healthcare Reform debate are the irrefutable realities that underlie how and why it has become a major public policy issue in the first place.  The Internet is replete with charts and tables illustrating the debated evidence of unsustainable healthcare spending.  I think a very poignant and candid assessment that ought to resonate with business-minded individuals can be found in the January 2012 Standard & Poor’s credit report, Mounting Medical Care Spending Could Be Harmful To The G-20’s Credit Health.  It was noted there that, “steadily rising health care spending will pull heavily on public purse strings in the coming decades. If governments do not change their social protection systems, they will likely become unsustainable, in Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services’ view.”

The will to control healthcare spending is not a Republican or Democrat phenomenon.  So holding out hope that future policy outcomes directed at the behest of either current or future elected officials, irrespective of political party, will somehow relieve the pressure is a fantasyland belief that only serves to psychologically forestall the inevitable.  Healthcare organizations that are able to accept and internalize knowing that they will have to compete on value in the future will survive – those that do not, will not.  It is really as simple (and brutal) as that.

Use this Time to Answer Some Tough Questions
If the Affordable Care Act is either partially or fully struck down – and/or the general election delivers a major shift in party majority, there will be a brand new tsunami of political opportunism in its wake.  It will take a fair amount of time (I am betting six quarters, at least) for that special interest flooding to subside to the point where any type of meaningful legislation can be passed replacing the ACA.

What impact that actually has, however, on the timing of the policy-driven financial realties that senior housing and care providers are facing is unclear because much of the ACA’s impact is not scheduled to begin until 2014 in any event.  And while we wait for the Federal government, State budgetary pressures will continue to mount.  So I think a prudent approach is not to mark the passing of time by the political winds but assume that every month going forward should reflect a quantifiable movement toward a future state vision of your organization that is more lean, more efficient – and is able to deliver more value than your competition.

To accomplish this, however, you first need to decide what that future state vision looks like.  I just finished a new whitepaper on strategic planning and positioning that discusses the importance of visioning in context.  For the purposes of this post, I think the relevant questions that need to be answered by most organizations – and very soon – are:
     What business(es) are we in?
     Who really are our constituents and stakeholders –
        and how do we bring value to them?
     Are we ready to partner with other healthcare 
        providers – and under what circumstances?
     How do we ensure that our investments create
         future option value?
     Where are the opportunities to monetize our value
        chain into revenue?

Be Ready to Negotiate
If there was one skillset I would say – on average – represents the weakest link for high quality, high value senior housing and care organizations desiring to thrive in a future world of Healthcare Reform it would be the ability to negotiate business deals.  It is just not an inherent skill that seems to be well correlated with other leadership qualities that are of paramount importance – and have historically been sufficient to achieve leadership excellence.

That is changing, and quickly.  Effective negotiation will determine whether you are  “bought by” or “merged into” another organization.  It will determine whether the acquisition you make increases or decreases the overall value of the combined organizations.  It will determine whether you drive the terms and conditions necessary to financially survive under managed care, or accept what you’re given – and hope for the best.

When the time comes to partner with other market participants (whether those are community-based organizations, physician groups operating as a medical home or  hospitals) you don’t want to be sitting there with your hand up, saying, “oh pick me, pick me!” You want to know well in advance what you bring to the table, what it is worth and what you demand for that value.

Create an Opportunity Assessment Matrix
Finally, senior housing and care organizations will have to be able to react more quickly to opportunities than they have in the past.  As Healthcare Reform – in whatever final format that takes – begins to roll forward in earnest, market dynamics will accelerate.  New – and often unexpected – partnership opportunities will emerge.  Being able to react quickly – and before the competition – will be a huge strategic advantage and key to survival.

One idea that we have found helpful is the Opportunity Assessment Matrix.  This is a concept that we have used with several senior housing and care organizations, and it is a tool that is designed to streamline the process of identifying, assessing, analyzing and prioritizing market opportunities.  It is also helpful in mitigating risks and ensuring the requisite organizational support is in place before valuable resources are invested in pursuit of alternative opportunities.

The concept is basic: discuss, agree upon and document the various elements that any potential opportunity must possess to merit consideration.  Determine the relative weights of those elements in the context of the organization’s business strategy.  And then create a consistent methodology for who and how the individuals responsible for assessing the opportunity will be engaged.

Hope this is helpful . . .
  ~ Sparky

Filed Under: Helpful Advice · Tagged: , , ,
Chronic Care and Technology
May 31, 2012

Chronic Care and Technology

By · Leave a Comment

Whenever I think about Healthcare and Technology I am reminded of a wonderfully poignant joke that Rita Rudner (think, Rodney Dangerfield’s Young Comedians Special back in the 1980s) used to share:

"They’re trying to put warning labels on liquor now. ‘Caution: Alcohol can be dangerous to pregnant women.’ Did you read that? I think that’s ironic – if it wasn’t for alcohol, most women wouldn’t even be that way."

If it wasn’t for advancements in Medical Technology – and the attendant increase in life expectancy – one has to wonder whether the much maligned Cost Curve would hold sway over our social and political anxiety as it does today.  Undoubtedly, Medical Technology has improved delivery system effectiveness from the standpoint of decreased mortality and longevity.  But it comes at a substantial cost that ultimately impacts the cost of healthcare delivery.

The cost that society bears for increased longevity gained through technology is substantial, and we know that much of this cost is centered in the world of senior housing, aging services and post-acute/long-term care.  Evidence of the costs associated with chronic disease were explored on Tuesday at the second event of a three-part series being presented by the Alliance for Health Reform in Washington, DC.  Speakers at the event, Health Care Costs: The Role of Technology and Chronic Conditions, shared with participants some very interesting data and analysis (I encourage you to view the slide presentations).

I wish I could have participated because the presentation materials, though very informative, on balance seemed to focus more on general trends in how chronic disease drives healthcare costs rather than focusing on the specific role that Medical Technology has played.  But it nonetheless affords the opportunity to offer some thoughts on technology and the costs of managing and treating chronic disease. 

As the demographic Age Wave continues to move ashore – and taking with it an increasing amount of available resources – the theoretical discussion of tradeoffs between investments in technology and direct caregiving is likely to be become more intense.  Applying the concept of value to that discussion should not be viewed as a subjective assessment of the worth of an extra year, an extra month – an extra day of longevity by virtue of technology.  Rather, it should be viewed as a means of evaluating alternative investments of available resources.  This would seem to be a prudent basis for developing future policy surrounding public investments in technology.

Policy aside, however, senior housing and care providers face a daunting reality with respect to technology: the investment requirements can be substantial – and the consequences of making poor investments difficult from which to operationally and financially recover.  Yet to play in a world of integrated care delivery where both Information and Medical Technology provide distinct competitive advantages, ignoring required investments is just as sure a path to quiet obsolescence.

And while providers wrestle with that two-headed dragon, legislators have not yet appropriately recognized the need for parity investment in PA/LTC technology infrastructure, so many organizations are having to do what they can with available resources to position their technology investments in what they believe (hope) will be in alignment with acute care providers.  The irony here is of course thick if not beyond frustrating because the train that is integrated care delivery has left the station without the cars behind that represent the ability to achieve interoperability with PA/LTC providers.

There is also, I believe, a need of both providers – and policymakers – to understand that technology will only be able to help us so much.  It is not the silver bullet that will save us from the need to become more efficient, streamline care continuums, dramatically improve provider communication and tear down delivery setting silos.  In addition, technology may help encourage but it cannot directly change individual behaviors that could go a long way to curbing chronic disease incidence.

I would really like to better understand how different organizations are addressing their technology strategy.  Is it still a wait and watch situation? Is the need to develop EHR/EMR technology enough to deal with right now? What concerns you the most about technology? Who is involved in that thought process?

Please take a moment to share your input – don’t be afraid to be first . . . somebody has to.  Hot smile

  ~ Sparky

 

Filed Under: Good to Know, Information Technology · Tagged: , , ,
May 27, 2012

Is Focus on Hospital Readmissions Misguided?

By · Leave a Comment

In the April 2012 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine there was a Perspective’s article that is being circulated and discussed: Thirty-Day Readmissions – Truth and Consequence (you can download and read the article by clicking on it in my Dropbox™ account to the right).  In the article the authors argue, “that policymakers’ emphasis on 30-day readmissions is misguided.”

They present three reasons:
1. many of the variables inherent in driving readmissions are beyond the hospitals’ control (e.g., “patient-and community-level factors”), and they note that, “it is unclear whether readmissions always reflect poor quality”;
2. improved discharge planning and care coordination could be more effectively achieved by focusing on other metrics, rather than readmissions; and
3. resources committed to reducing readmissions may be better allocated to focus areas able to demonstrate a perceived higher ROI (e.g., patient safety and quality).

I think this misses the point as to why there is a focus on hospital readmissions.  In particular, noting that readmissions may not reflect poor quality seems like a fallacious assertion because I don’t think the argument is being made (at least by those who understand the issues and concerns) that readmissions necessarily do reflect poor quality.  At issue is whether the readmission could have been avoided with more effective care planning and transitioning – and thus equal or better care provided in a lower cost setting.  From listening to nursing staff at PA/LTC facilities, the evidence of opportunities for care transitioning improvement is overwhelming, albeit anecdotal from my frame of reference.

Admittedly, it is very difficult to study the true economic impact of hospital readmissions by attributing their causes.  Some patients should never have been discharged in the first place, and there are a host of reasons that drive premature hospital discharges.  Some patients are discharged to inappropriate settings – often because the patient and/or patient’s family intervenes over the recommendations of physicians and/or discharge planners.  Some patients are convinced they can follow a required post-discharge regimen and fall way short within the first 24 hours.  While some patients need just a little support (e.g., queuing, companionship, medication management), but they are in a situation where they have none.  And finally, some patients – particularly the elderly – are significantly impacted emotionally by care setting transitions, leading to adverse reactions that are very unpredictable.

But research has shown that education, coaching and timely intervention can be very effective in disease management.  We know that getting patients to change risky behaviors and become better self-managers of care can improve outcomes across a range of chronic illnesses.  We know that doctors have neither the training nor the time to engage in counseling on behavior change or to give self-management support. 

So it is inevitable that PA/LTC organizations will need to play a growing and critical role in designing, planning and implementing post-discharge care transitioning programs for patients in need of chronic disease management.  The sooner those organizations embrace the importance of this role and begin to build the requisite knowledgebase to be successful partners in integrated care delivery models, the better chance they will have of surviving in an era of Healthcare Reform.

A good place to begin for many of those organizations may be to become familiar with the work of Dr. Eric Coleman (University of CO Denver School of Medicine) and his colleagues on care transitions.  Many of the PA/LTC organizations that I work with now talk of the, “Coleman Model” and/or the “Coleman way” as an emerging standard bearer.  Here’s their web site:

http://caretransitions.org/

Have a Wonderful Memorial Day – and let’s all be very thankful to the brave men and women that have given so much to ensure we still have the ability to share ideas like I do here, open and freely!

  ~ Sparky

Filed Under: In the News, Transitional Care · Tagged: , , , , , , ,
May 23, 2012

Branding in An Era of Healthcare Reform

By · Leave a Comment

Larry Minnix, President & CEO of LeadingAge, recently began a video series entitled, a few minutes with Larry Minnix (I am guessing they didn’t hire Porter Novelli to help with the naming – or, maybe they did).  If you haven’t already, I encourage you to take the time to watch these.  Larry does a wonderful job sharing timely and highly relevant messages in his famously comfortable speakeasy style.

In the current episode that I’ve embedded below Larry discusses LeadingAge’s 2011 Annual Report. 

In referring to LeadingAge member organizations, Larry noted that, “we’ve had reinforced the fact that the most valuable, priceless thing that you own is your not-for-profit brand and heritage.”

I agree with Larry – today. Tomorrow – as in the next five to ten years – is a different story. The looming reality facing nonprofit senior housing and care organizations is that to remain economically viable in the future I believe their brand will have to become more synonymous with value than being nonprofit.

For those nonprofit organizations desiring to survive (and thrive) under Healthcare Reform, future brand identity and perception may need to change significantly. Consumer preferences of the Baby Boomer generation, the need to participate in integrated care delivery systems, learning to financially manage through new payment models (e.g., ACOs, managed care, payment bundling) – these are factors, which will have a greater impact on successful brand strategy than a nonprofit identity.

This is why I found that part of Larry’s message so timely and well placed. Tomorrow is not too soon to begin proactively managing your brand in lieu of Healthcare Reform. To be sure, managing a brand is a bit like herding cats: there are things you can control, things you cannot control and things you foolishly believe you can control.

I am reminded of a passage I like to quote from the book, Brand: It Ain’t the Logo: It’s what people think of you™  by Ted Matthews.

“A Brand is the sum total impression and memory of every remarkable, every so-so and every negative experience with any and all pieces of an organization. A Brand is the personality of a company, product or service and is judged and assessed a value by everyone it touches, whether inside the company (your employees) or outside (your customers, suppliers, shareholders and other stakeholders). These perceptions of value may, or may not, be what you want them to be. Which suggests a fact that may surprise you: your Brand isn’t really yours. You don’t own it – all the people thinking about you do.”

Perception is reality, isn’t it. Being able to monetize the perceptual advantage of being a nonprofit will continue to be critically important to brand awareness and positioning. I am not suggesting otherwise. But – it will not be sufficient for survival in the face of the tremendous challenges ahead, and it will be secondary to perceptually positioning your brand based upon the ability to deliver value under Healthcare Reform.

What do you think?

  ~ Sparky

Filed Under: Editorials & Opinions, Industry Trends & Drivers · Tagged: , , ,
«Previous Page