Health for life

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.

Months ago, the caffeine-addled Disease Management Care Blog reviewed with the spouse how to pre-set the kitchen coffee brewer for a pot of fresh coffee for the next morning. After listening politely to its earnest instructions, the DMCB spouse rarely set up the brewer.

Which is why the DMCB wasnt surprised by an Iowa Chronic Care Consortium (ICCC) study of how its newly minted medical home coach trainees were being deployed in the real world. The ICCC is a not-for profit organization that was founded in 2002 and offers a training program that prepares health professionals to be members of a medical home team.
.
The Consortium surveyed 318 graduates from their program. Of that number, there were 164 responses, yielding a 54% response rate. 83% of the respondents were nurses, while the remainder were medical or office assistants, diabetes educators, dietitians, social workers, physicians, pharmacists or administrators.
 
The good news is that care-management caffeine was available. The majority of respondents reported that they were using their skills to coach patients for self management, care coordination, planning visits and supporting registry use.  The majority also found their work professionally rewarding.

The bad news is that these professionals were not being supported for maximum effect:

55% were still "building support for the position."

48% reported that "office work" was given a "higher priority," often due to physician and administrator resistance.

73% reported that their coaching duties were part time and was in addition to their more traditional roles.

Only 8% were involved in office "change management."

Only 11% enjoyed a pay differential that rewarded their coaching skills.

The Consortiums paper concludes - paralleling the DMCBs coffee-making travails - that a good idea accompanied by well-meaning training is not enough to overcome established clinic routines, business roles and local culture.  The authors recommend that provider payments "change," coaching functions be "operationalized," training programs be "advanced," outcomes be "demonstrated" and that roles be "clarified."

While the DMCB ponders coffee change, operations, advances, demonstrations and clarifications, the DMCB has a far more more fundamental concern for the medical home:

With friends like this, the fledgling medical home movement doesnt need any enemies.

If the clinics that took the time and the money to train these individuals are unable to leverage their skills, disappointing outcomes could end up snatching usual care from the jaws of primary care clinic transformation.

The DMCB has three recommendations:

History Repeats: Years ago, established "disease management" companies had to go on record and oppose start-ups that were offering "faux" telephonic patient counseling programs. The medical home and population health management community, including the PCPCC, likewise cant afford to have clinics going to market with diluted medical home programs that deliver empty process instead of hard outcomes.  All health care is local, and much of the buy-in for the medical home will ultimately be won or lost at that level.  Speak up!
 
Buyer Beware: Payers and insurers need to be wise to the possibility that having a trained health coach on staff with credentials is not the same as having a health coach on line with the patients. On site credentialing may be in necessary that includes review of policies, job descriptions, pay scales and staff interviews.

Build or buy: Primary care clinics need to know that when they buy patient counseling services from a population health management vendor, you get full time on a plug and play basis. That may be a better option for a clinic that is not prepared to both train and fully use an on-site health coach.

A cure for diabetes?

Mrs. Jones (name changed) was obese. Her weight remained persistently high despite education and entreaties about diet and exercise. She hated taking all those medications. She dreaded bathing suits.

And then.... she had bariatric surgery. She shed pounds faster than Supreme Court justices spanking a health insurance mandate. Instead of having a corpulent and unhealthy patient, the Disease Management Care Blog had a svelte and healthy patient.

Based on witnessing first hand patient transformations like this, the DMCB knows that bariatric surgery for obesity works.

Despite clinical anecdotes, however, obesity surgery skeptics have pointed out that the evidence has been marred by the lack of any prospective randomized clinical trials. Looking backwards at outcomes data cant rule out the possibility that something else was going on to account for the surgerys apparent success. Most of all, this includes self-selection bias where patients, who are destined to independently do well, select surgery. By leaving assignment to chance, docs and patients are out of the decision-making. This randomization helps researchers be more confident that the surgery, and nothing else, accounts for any observed outcomes.

Enter the New England Journal of Medicine, which published the results from two landmark prospective and randomized trials that compared obesity surgery to conservative medical management:

1. Geltrude Mingrone and colleagues screened 72 and then randomly assigned 60 diabetic persons with a BMI of 35 to either a) conventional medical therapy (targeting an A1c of 7% using a multidisciplinary team with visits every 3 months for a year and then one additional visit at two years) or b) gastric bypass or c) biliopancreatic diversion.  The study occurred at Romes Catholic University. Follow-up lasted two years. At the end of the study, 56 patients data were available for analysis. 15 of the 20 patients who had gastric bypass, 19 of the 20 patients who had the diversion and zero of the medically treated patients were off diabetes medications and had normal blood glucoses. As expected, surgery resulted in a whopping decrease in the BMI down to approximately 29.  In contrast the mean BMI was 43 in the medically treated group. Two patients had the surgical complications of hernia and obstruction

2. Philip Schauer and colleagues screened 218 patients and randomly assigned 150 diabetic obese persons with BMIs ranging from 27 to 43 to either a) medical therapy (life style counseling, weight management home glucose monitoring and medications with diabetes specialist clinic visits every three months that targeted an A1c of 6%) or b) "Roux en Y" bypass or c) sleeve gastrectomy. The study occurred at Cleveland Clinic. Follow-up lasted one year and 140 patients data were available for analysis. 5 of 41 patients in the medical therapy group vs. 21 in the 50 assigned to gastric bypass and 18 of 49 who had the sleeve achieved the A1c of 6%. Whats more, most of the surgery patients who achieved the targeted A1c were off all diabetes medications.  As expected, the surgery groups decreased their BMI down to the 26-27 range, while the medically treated patients BMI remained essentially unchanged.  In contrast to Rome, there was a wider range of complications that included 4 reoperations and 1 patient that developed a gastrointestinal leak with peritonitis.

Based on these data plus less pristine studies, its clinical experience and common sense, the DMCB is convinced that bariatric surgery works. These two studies are an important step forward in building the case for the use of this approach in persons with obesity and diabetes.

That being said, there is still room for some skepticism. That lingering doubt could be enough for a commercial insurer to limit coverage. It may be enough to prompt a PCP to recommend that an obese patient with diabetes should still hold off on surgery a bit longer. It may be enough for patients and families to wait another year until there are more confirmatory studies.

Heres why:

1. The studies were not "blinded." The purpose of "blinding" is to keep patients and doctors from being swayed by a "placebo effect." While thats intuitively silly, there is a possibility that having abdominal surgery made those patients believe they were going to lose weight and be cured of diabetes. After all, sham surgery has been known to help angina chest pains.

2. The studies are not necessarily "generalizable." Both studies were conducted by teams of surgeons from single institutions. While we can take Rome and Clevelands word for it, we dont know if obesity surgery done at Bumkinvilles Our Mother of Holy Deficit Hospital will have the same success and low rates of complications.

3. Speaking of complications, both studies were not adequately "powered" to fully assess mishap rates. While there were small single digit differences in the rates of complications, the small numbers may not tell the whole story. Having more patients enrolled in these studies would have increased the ability to meaningfully quantify all the possible bad outcomes.  That was one of the lessons of the Vioxx catastrophe.

4. Last but not least, the success of the surgery may have been inflated by the relatively poor performance of the non-surgical comparison groups. We know very little about the "intensity" of the medical treatment, other than they had the benefit of accessing a multidisciplinary clinic every three months. Population health management experts know that lifestyle change requires an intense program that includes engagement in a personalized and multidimensional care plan that includes far more frequent in-person and telephonic coaching. We dont know if the medical therapy group achieved this level of excellence.

Despite these limitations, however, the DMCB is more convinced that, for patients in whom nothing else works, bariatric surgery can reverse diabetes.