Health for life

Changing opinion from right to left

Has marriage made the Disease Management Care Blog a better person?

While it and the spouse heartily agree on the ultimate answer, using hard numbers to prove it to a skeptical mother-in-law is a different matter. To definitively answer the question, the affable DMCB came up with some proposed measurement approaches, such as:

1. Pre vs. Post: comparing past beer guzzling to present-day chardonnay sipping;

2. Actuarial: actual vs. projected appreciation for the leather-clad vampire vixens of Underworld;

3. Comparison to a Control: the DMCBs willingness to take direction on shrubbery trimming, versus that of more docile hubbies;

4. Randomized and Prospective: (the DMCB has wisely opted to not go there).

While the DMCB continues to work on the complex methodology of marital outcomes, it is reminded of a key paradox: while we live in an "Information Age," other pressing questions - such as the extent of the Eurozones influence on GDP, the merits of vouchers in public education and the link between the Presidents approval rating and his governing by remote memo - likewise defy conclusive measurement.

Whats more, frustrated by our worlds complexity, we ironically want fewer answers. The DMCB suggests this search for simplicity partially explains the luster of a balanced budget amendment, laws on minimum medical loss ratios, Newts bombast, Obamas rhetoric, blanket coverage of birth control and, last but not least, single approaches to assessment of population-based programs.

Which brings the DMCB to Al Lewis $10,000 challenge, in which he dares anyone to come up with a more accurate approach to measuring disease management return on investment. 

Al is a luminary in the disease management firmament who leads the Disease Management Purchasing Consortium. He was there at the founding of the Disease Management Association of America, led the attack on the vendors past lazy outcomes reporting and has been instrumental in questioning the conclusions about North Carolinas Medical Home Program. He now claims to offer the only approach to accurately measuring the financial impact of disease and population health management.

Maybe, but the DMCB would like to humbly offer up an alternate perspective.

Check out this DMCB paper that simultaneously deployed three uncomplicated methodologies to assess the claims expense impact of a chronic heart failure disease management program. While all three gave different answers, they all pointed in the same direction.

That was enough for the DMCB boss to continue the programs funding.

This same overlapping and multi-layed approach also underlies the Care Continuum Alliances Outcomes Guidelines Reports, which recommend a suite of measurement approaches that pivot on important determinants such as population characteristics, the influence of confounders as well as bias and the resources available to answer the question.

None of this should be any surprise to seasoned and prudent health administrators, physician leaders, clinical program architects or DMCB readers. They know that good actuaries use complimentary and overlapping approaches to come up with the right premium. They understand that good medical researchers demand caution, skepticism and multiple research studies before reaching any conclusions.

In other words, there is no one-time and one-size fits all approach in outcomes assessment.

All this adds up to the fact that optimum outcomes measurement triangulates on the truth. The measurement approaches advocated by the DMCB, Care Continuum Alliance members and health system leaders have been around for years, are within the reach of standard statistical software, are familiar to researchers and are highly adaptable to the circumstances of 99.99% of disease management programs, not to mention the medical home and accountable care organizations.

The DMCB says that when multiple, competing, overlapping, repeated and adaptable measurement methodologies point in the same direction, thats when regulators, consumers, purchasers, buyers, providers and patients and mothers-in-law can be really confident that they have the answer they need.

Image from Wikipedia

Dr. Smith* was well known among the hospitals medical directors. Thanks to his superb training and busy clinical practice, this busy physician was convinced, thank you very much, that he had all the knowledge necessary to manage his patient population.

Summary quality reports, feedback and best practice advice he did not need.  He also loved pointing out that he wasnt being adequately reimbursed to deal with administrative hassles, many national Clinical Guidelines were based on faulty research, his patients were not "average," and his duty to his patients was to "first do no harm."  He believed in patient education but resented administrators meddling.

The medical directors werent about to use a "stick" and "de"credential Dr. Smith and kick him out of the network. The "carrot" financial P4P incentives they offered for quality measures were modest and comprised a only a small percentage of the physicians income.  They. Were. Stuck.

Enter the Affordable Care Acts Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Writing in the latest issue of Health Affairs, RAND researchers Justin Timble, Eric Schneider, Kristin Van Busum and Steven Fox reassure frustrated medical directors everywhere that PCORI will come to their rescue by ushering in a new dawn of clinical trial research.  The studies will be so good that Dr. Smith will change his passive-aggressive ways.

Dr. Timble et al point out that the reluctance of physicians like Dr. Smith to change their clinical practice is not surprising.  Payment mechanisms incent questionable treatments, much of the published medical science is riddled with ambiguities, even expert scientists succumb to a host of biases when they interpret study results and doctors are more interested in avoiding the risky downsides versus the upside benefit of new medical advances.  Last but not least, clinic-based electronic record decision support never fails to disappoint.

Fortunately, says these RAND authors, the PCORI is on it. Its sponsored research will transparently solicit stakeholder input and investigate all meaningful outcomes, including side effects.  When this high octane knowledge is combined with a dollop of rigorous guideline development, more gigabytes of information tech decision support and the luster of Obamacares payment reforms, uncooperative Dr. Smith will be transformed into compliant Dr. Smith.

Sounds good, but the DMCB doubts that sprinkling PCORI pixie dust on docs is the cure to what ails the health care system. In its estimation, the RAND authors and the editors of Health Affairs are only telling half the story.

The DMCB to the rescue.

Despite the authors enthusiasm, PCORIs well-meaning stakeholders will have to make real-world compromises on study scope, data collection and completeness. Their research methods and findings will never be completely immunized against healthy skepticism.  And while RAND scientists and the readers of Health Affairs are professionally invested in PCORI, how well it competes for the attention of practicing docs like Dr. Smith remains to be seen.

Financial carrots and sticks can be used to change physician behavior, but Dr. Smith will ultimately stay in the drivers seat thanks to a) a looming physician shortage and b) the prospect that total physician reimbursement will go down, leaving no room for incentives. While integrated delivery systems, accountable care organizations and physician-hospital alliances may (or maybe not) wring some dollars out of PCORI-based efficiency and quality studies, it remains to be seen how these big capital-intense organizations will share any precious leftover dollars with their docs.

The population health management (PHM) service community has a better answer.

While high quality research conducted under the supervision of an expert professional class has its place, they know its ultimately up to the informed patient to make decision.  A considerable body of research, much of which would pass PCORI muster, has shown that shared decision making using a personal physicians advice is remarkably adept at reconciling imperfect research with patient values and preferences.  This, in turn, increases quality and reduces unnecessary costs.

The DMCB has seen countless physicians like Dr. Smith welcome the help of team-based nurses who can help his patients. He may call it "education," but theyre engaging patients in science based decision-making and taking a lot of work off of Dr. Smiths hands.