Health for life

Years ago, the Disease Management Care Blog tagged along as a minor player to a high level strategic meeting involving a pharmaceutical company and a provider organization. The senior leadership egos on display barely competed with the meeting rooms spacious view of the Manhattan skyline as our group was hosted over yummy pastries and coffee by a good looking, gregarious, gracious, intelligent and obviously "connected" pharma executive.

The meeting progressed quite nicely until a coffee break supervened and the DMCB found itself alone in an anteroom with the host. Caught up in the enthusiasm of the moment, the DMCB parroted one of the meetings nostrums about the internet. The executive turned and hissed at the DMCBs stupidity with dripping contempt, turned and walked out. Minutes later, the meeting restarted as if nothing happened.

That was just one of the DMCBs many encounters with an organizational psychopath. Unable to have experience any interpersonal "connection" with anyone, these soulless persons use the people around them to pursue the more tangible rewards of power, financial gain or amusement.  Excluded from the social web of human relationships, psychopaths cant access a moral compass.  As a result, they turn to social mimicry to charm, shame or bully anyone in the pursuit of their goals.  Everyone that surrounds them is a either a means to an end or,in the case of the DMCB, dirt.

While the more famous psychopaths are sadistic murderers, theyre the exception.  Most of them coldly calculate that they dont need violence to achieve their ends. Deceit, predation and manipulation are more than enough while they pursue their goals in the cubicles down the hall and the offices upstairs.  And as they click along, these Sandusky-esque time bombs are often recognized too late.

Heres the DMCBs four  rules on how deal with organizational psychopath:

1.  That ill-defined "feeling" that you have that somethings wrong with that person? You wonder if its bad parenting, drugs, mental illness, curious flattery or an inflated ego?  Trust your instincts and include psychopathy among the possibilities.

2. Dont be surprised when you uncover the extent of the dysfunction.  The prevalence is at least 1% and their toxicity can bring a team, a department and even an organization to its knees before you realize whats happening.

3. The infamous Milgram experiments found that persons in positions of power can lead decent people to do awful things.  Questioning authority is a good thing. If you do it, you deserve credit. If one of your reports does it, they deserve protection.

4. Stay away, contain and remove, perably the latter - even if it means you.  Warnings and counseling will not change their underlying motivation in any appreciable manner.

The DMCB is happy to report that the meeting didnt lead anywhere and that it was wiser for the experience. 

Thats why, years later, its skin crawled in a medical meeting hotel bar. 

Following a standing ovation for a plenary session presentation by the charismatic CEO of a very successful health care organization on the merits population health, the electronic record and systems integration, the DMCB found itself behind him and one of his minions trying to get a cappuccino. English was not the hapless servers primary language and she struggled with the baristas brewing details. The CEOs cold scorn and hateful disdain were radioactive while his companions nervous silence signalled that more than just impatience was at work.  The guy on stage just minutes before was an impostor.

Yes, it really did happen and yes, hes still out there.

ACOs at work.

According to this Bloomberg news release, some of Medicares Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are already achieving cost savings. Mt. Sinai and Coastal Carolina are reducing emergency room visits while Hackensack is reducing costs.

All three institutions are using two key ingredients:

1) information technology-based risk stratification to identify the persons at greatest risk and

 2) dedicated full-time nurses who perform telephonic and in-person outreach, coordinate care and provide patient coaching that, in turn, is tailored to that risk.

To the DMCB, the good news is that ACOs are using the two approaches that define modern-day disease and population health management. That industrys success will be Mt Sinais, Coastal Carolinas and Hackensacks success.

The bad news is that the news release only addresses half the question: did any savings exceed the institutions cost of the risk stratification and the nurse-FTEs? If the early answer is no, then avoided ER visits and reduced costs could turn out to be much like Governor Christies lap band: so far so good but its still risky and could ultimately be all for naught.

And on an unrelated note, this just-published New England Journal article makes note of "not made in America" health care innovations from overseas that could hold important lessons for the United States. In particular, the authors point out that Germanys DRG hospital payment system includes 30-days of post-discharge care and includes the physician payment. Readmissions within that 30 day window are, with a few exceptions, not covered and physician payment is possible because docs are often employees of the hospitals.

"Interesting!" says the DMCB, but is reminded that Germany is hardly a model for reducing inflationary cost trends.   It also specifically recalls hearing Germanys Minister of Health, Daniel Bahr, express impatience with his countrys DRG system just last week. He criticized it for not advancing enough quality in his keynote address at the HauptKongress in Berlin.

The right definition was there all along!

Writing in the March 20 issue of JAMA, Drs. Douglas Noble and Lawrence Casalino say that supporters of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are all muddled over "population health."

The Disease Management Care Blog says the article is what is muddled and that the readers of JAMA deserve better.

According to the authors, after the Affordable Care Act launched the Medicare Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), their stated purpose has morphed from Health-System Ver. 2.0 controlling the chronic care costs of their assigned patients to Health System Ver. 3.0 collaboratively addressing "population health" for an entire geography. 

Between the here of "improving chronic care" and the there of "population health," Drs Noble and Casalino believe ACOs are going to have to confront the additional burdens of preventive care, social services, public health, housing, education, poverty and nutrition. That makes the authors wonder if the term "population health" in the context of ACOs is unclear. If so, that lack of clarity could ultimately lead naive politicians, policymakers, academics and patients to be disappointed when ACOs start reporting outcomes that are limited to chronic conditions.

In short, they dont believe ACOs, as currently configured, are up to the new task.  Thats because ACOs would need to collaborate with social service organizations, be responsible for a geographically defined service area and improve long term public health outcomes.  According to the authors subtitle, the answer to the question "should they try" is "no."

The Disease Management humbly disagrees.  Thats because Drs Noble and Casalino, the editors of JAMA and the manuscripts peer reviewers seem to be ignorant of the the correct definition of population health. Its right there on the Care Continuum Alliances web site, in this longstanding page that describes the "population health model of care."  When the DMCB did a simple Google search on "population health definition," it had little difficulty finding the link.

The CCA helpfully describes population health as:

a delivery model characterized as a physician-guided health care delivery system designed to develop and engage informed and activated patients over time to address both illness and long term health.

Was that so hard?

And how is that accomplished?  According to the CCA, the ingredients to that make for population health include:

• Population identification strategies and processes;

• Comprehensive needs assessments that assess physical, psychological, economic, and environmental needs;

• Proactive health promotion programs that increase awareness of the health risks associated with certain personal behaviors and lifestyles;

• Patient-centric health management goals and education which may include primary prevention, behavior modification programs, and support for concordance between the patient and the primary care provider;

• Self-management interventions aimed at influencing the targeted population to make behavioral changes;

• Routine reporting and feedback loops which may include communications with patient, physicians, health plan and ancillary providers;

• Evaluation of clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes on an ongoing basis with the goal of improving overall population health

Accordingly, if an CMS-contracted ACO can identify its assigned Medicare population, perform needs assessments, promote awareness of health risks, offer education as well as support, increase self management, use data feedback and evaluate outcomes, its offering "population health."  By using that playbook, an ACO will capitalizing on the experience of a community of population health service providers that have been doing precisely this for over a decade.

This vision is far more compact than the overreaching, misinformed and muddled definition of "population health" offered in JAMA.  It is also, if ACOs invest in the right resources and partnerships, well within reach.

The DMCBs answer to the question "Should they try?" is "yes."

"I wonder how I can lose less money?"

The ever resourceful HealthHombre Blog quotes an interesting academic review paper to make an important point: many of the widespread assumptions of smooth sailing for the 106 new ACOs still remain unproven.

The DMCB agrees with this important HealthHombre insight. In addition to the many "known unknowns" (including just how physician-hospital organizations will perform in managing insurance risk), there are also the "known known" year-to-year random fluctuations in claims expense.  And, as the DMCB noted, theres the "unknown unknown" "antifragile" threats to a highly protected sector of the economy that could bring the whole ACO-thing down, 2008-style.

And heres a case in point that backs up HealthHombre.  "Wellspan" is a highly regarded and well-run hospital system that is local to the DMCB. This recent news report is telling because Wellspans success and challenges probably apply to other emerging integrated institutions that have an appetite for risk contracting.

According to the press report, Wellspan garnered an excellent credit rating because...

"766 physicians — more than 75 percent of those in the hospitals market — are affiliated with WellSpan, which [was] counted as a key credit strength."

But the bad news is that the rating also....

.....noted that WellSpans physician group, which employs 411 of those doctors, generated losses of $19.6 million in 2011 and $21.4 million in 2012 (bolding DMCB).

The DMCB has heard similar statements from seasoned health system administrators both locally and nationally.  If "physician integration" is supposed to be the bedrock of ACOs, how is it that the docs are responsible for millions of dollars in losses?  What is the likelihood that these organizations will finish December 31, 2013 in the black?

In a prior posting, the Disease Management Care Blog noted that nurse-to-patient ratios in outpatient care coordination programs run between 1:750 to 1:1500. Based on 2010 Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the average annual salary of a registered nurse (RN) (in hospitals) is $68,610.  Fringe benefits for RNs add 46% for a total of $100,208.

Combine that ratio with the total compensation information and the per member per month (PMPM) cost for a care coordination nurse ranges from $5.57 to $11.13.
 
Obviously, a single RN does not care coordination make.  There are other overhead expenses, such as administration, documentation and supervision.  Assuming human resources account for the bulk of a program’s cost with an additional load of 25%, the total PMPM cost ranges goes from about $7 to $14, while 50% increases it to $8.35 to $16.70.

By my calculation, that puts monthly care coordination costs close to the CMS Innovation Center’s Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative (CPCi) within the “ballpark” of $15 to $20 per Medicare beneficiary per month (see page 3 here).
 
Based on these data:

1) CMS is being reasonable in offering a $20 monthly fee for care coordination.  It falls within industry benchmarks and supports a competitive compensation package for a typical RN.

2)  While CMS’ fee meets benchmarks, this is obviously meant to support a medical practice hiring additional personnel to take on the work of care coordination.  As a result, the fee may offer some additional margin depending on additional overhead.  Hopefully, the providers who participate in the initiative won’t assume that the $20 fee represents pure profit.  Expecting RNs currently on staff to manage care coordination on top of existing duties means that the existing duties or care coordination (and the RNs) will suffer.

3) As the Disease Management Care Blog pointed out in a prior post, this may also represent an argument for the “central” hiring and administration and the “peripheral” distribution of the care coordination nurses.  If administrative costs can be pooled and coordinated by a cluster of primary care sites, that could lower costs significantly.

4) Last but not least, this gives Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) an important insight on one cost that they’ll need to take on if they are serious about care coordination.