Health for life

You read the Disease Management Care Blog and use its literature-based links.  As a result, you know a lot about shared decision making (SDM).   Based on the randomized control clinical trial data that are regularly linked by the DMCB, youre ready to implement it in your network of primary care clinics.  You call your physicians together for a meeting, explain SDM is the best thing since the invention of the Woods lamp and ask them to er patients to the program.

Except for the part about the DMCB, thats what basically happened at the eight highly regarded medical institutions: Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, MaineHealth, Massachusetts General Hospital, Mercy Clinics in Iowa, the Oregon Rural Practice–Based Research Network, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, the Stillwater Medical Group in Minnesota and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  The decision aids covered approximately 50 common conditions such as knee arthritis and prostate enlargement

And it didnt work out.

To investigate what happened, investigators at RAND interviewed 23 "key informants" from the 34 primary care sites that had implemented the Informed Medical Decision Foundations shared decision making program. The interviews were conducted between December 2010 and March 2011.  Their study is published in the February issue of Health Affairs.

Three barriers were identified:

Overworked physicians: given all the other health care needs of their patients, it was difficult to count on physicians to distribute the decision aids.  As a result, only 10%-30% of eligible patients participated.

Overconfident physicians: many doctors felt that they were already providing sufficient patient education or that their patients would not benefit from the decision aids.  Just telling the docs that this worked was not enough.

Underperforming EHRs: the state-of-the-art information technology could not flag potential patents, remember which individuals had been exposed to the decision aids or record the patients perences.

The answers?

Well, if the someone from the eight institutions had simply called the DMCB and asked, it would have told them about the many times it explained stuff to a roomful of physicians and had zero impact.  There also good peer-reviewed literature on why its so difficult to change physician behavior. 

The DMCB ultimately found the answer is to take physicians out of the work flow.

Thats what the RAND researchers found.  Based on their interviews, they recommend that if youre going to implement SDM in your clinics:

 Automate the process as much as possible and remove human decision-making from the process the triggered the decision aid.  That could be done on the basis of pre-existing clinical criteria or when a specialist erral had been arranged.

 If automation was not feasible, rely on non-physicians to trigger the decision-aid.  For example, office assistants could offer SDM to patients in the course of check-out.

Image from Wikipedia

Even the modest Disease Management Care Blog has to agree that its recent Patient Centered Primary Care Collaborative webinar on supporting care coordination within the medical home was a huge success.  Not only did it get to learn about the impressive work underway at North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, but the questions from a record 522 listeners helped the DMCB sharpen its focus.

Here’s one of the better questions that was emailed after the webinar was concluded:

What shared savings arrangements can happen on a small scale, for example a 4 doc office?

The (gently edited) DMCB reply:

None.

The month-to month variability in the insurance claims (think 95% confidence intervals) from a small practice makes it practically mathematically impossible to confidently compare an observed dollar amount to a target dollar amount. 

There are methods that can be applied to diminish the variability (such as censoring “excess” claims and using “risk adjustment”) but, at the end of a fiscal year, a lack of documented savings could be the result of either a) poor care coordination or b) an “underpowered” or mathematically suspect claims analysis.  The skeptical insurer will say it was the former and the screwed docs will say it was the latter.  When that happens, docs lose.

This is an example of the “law of large numbers” and why the shared risk arrangements in Medicare ACOs have to be based on a minimum of “5000” persons. By having that many observations, the variability is blunted and measures of central tendency hold up in an actuarial basis.

And then there are the two policy implications.  First of all, shared risk contract involving a relatively small practice is perilously close to the bad old days of capitation and HMOs, vs. the approach of spreading accountability across a large system that is armed with all the requisite care coordination resources  A four person group can’t match that.  Secondly, the insurers have little interest in putting together a payment system that could financially cripple a four person clinical practice, especially if its primary care.

The DMCB will examine accountable-like arrangements for a small group practice in a future post.

The Disease Management Care Blog recently attended a physician meeting that keynoted a U.S. Senator.  In his prepared comments, he admitted that he knew little about controlling health care costs.  Unfortunately, that didnt stop him from humbly paraphrasing the testimony of a famous economist:

"Find out what works," said the expert, "and do that."

Maybe some of the physicians silence that followed was an "aha!" reaction to the Senators insightful nostrum.  Some of it may have also been out of respect. 

The DMCB is sure, however, that most of the docs in the room were quietly thinking "You must be kidding me."

Such is the approach of the mandarins leading our federal health care institutions.  "Science and existing literature" says HHS Secretary Sebelius.  "Effectiveness" is the mantra of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation.  "Improving health care" is now part and parcel of CMS. 

Unfortunately, applying scientific evidence to the economics of health care delivery sounds easy enough until you get down into the weeds.  For a perfect example of that, consider the common condition of painful spinal stenosis among Medicare beneficiaries. According to this JAMA article, there were over 37,000 operations in this population at a national cost of $1.65 billion. 

Which begs the question: does spinal surgery "work," is "effective" and "improves health care?" Can the "science and existing literature" help us decide?

To get an idea of just how complicated the answer is, check out this Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) research review on Spinal Fusion for Treating Painful Lumbar Degenerated Discs or Joints.  The conclusions from the abstract are:

Overall, limited evidence suggests that spinal fusion compared with physical therapy improves pain and function for adults undergoing fusion for low back pain due to disc degeneration. Because of insufficient reporting and variation in surgical methods used in the different studies, the incidence of adverse events (serious and minor) associated with fusion could not be determined conclusively. The evidence was insufficient to draw evidence-based conclusions for the benefits and harms of spinal fusion for patients with degenerative stenosis or degenerative spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine. The evidence was also largely insufficient to draw conclusions about the benefits and harms of fusion compared with other invasive treatments or different fusion approaches or techniques.

In other words, there is some evidence that, compared to conservative treatment, surgery helps.  After that, its the stuff of caveats, statistics, evolving technique and myriad study limitations.

In fact, its so complicated that the only way it can be applied is by helping patients understand how the science applies to their unique circumstances and values.  Once the patient understands things, its a matter of letting that patient and doctor jointly decide on the best course of action.

That approach - in contrast to U.S. Senators musing on how we need a one-size-fits-all approach to what works - is called shared decision making and it can be applied to back surgery with considerable cost savings.

"What works?" asks the Senator?  The answer is for you to consider staying out of the way.

As readers may recall, the Disease Management Care Blog is a big fan of shared decision making (SDM). Using unbiased, state-of-the-art and interactive media that presents a set of treatment options, patients with the help of their doctors are surprisingly able to input their values, make trade-offs and come up with the best choice. Research suggests that patients tend, in aggregate, to be both reasonable and conservative.

The DMCB is also a fan of the ePatient movement.  Based social media, this is the networked and two-way sharing of medical information in a virtual community of like-minded patients that also facilitates informed patient decision-making. Compared to SDM, ePatients have been less well studied, but there is some good research that suggests that these on-line communities are remarkably disciplined and accurate. In fact, advocates argue that ePatient communities, compared to physicians, are better able to alert its members about the latest medical updates.

Which makes the DMCB wonder if the ePatient movement represents a classic disruptive innovation that is threatening the SDM business model.  Commercial SDM typically is made up of video content (much like a DVD) that is developed by credentialed experts and has to be updated periodically. Contrast that approach with the ePatient community (on-line, on demand whenever you want it) that harnesses the wisdom of crowds and is so organic, it really never stops being updated.

Think music CDs vs. iTunes. Or DVD movies vs. on-line streaming.

But the most important distinction? The former is being sold by physicians or content developers, while the latter is being given away.

The DMCB speculates:

The shortage of primary care services, increased cost sharing, spreading consumerism, the explosion of medical information, distrust of authority, ease of use for social media, less concern about privacy, the rise of self-educated experts and a curious immunity from actually having to make money all make the DMCB think that the ePatient movement is here to stay.  Its value will trump the inevitable anecdotes of waylaid web users, e-mistakes and death by internet.

In order to stay relevant, commercial shared decision support tools will begin to direct users to medical e-communities. Physicians will "outsource" their own SDM to online ePatients. This will give IBMs Watson a run for its money. Architects of clinical guidelines, point of care decision support, EHR portals and health information exchanges will successfully ignore the ePatient movement - for now.

On-line bulletin boards will be the first stop for any new symptom and to second guess physician advice. The doctor-patient relationship will turn into a menage a trois.

"eApps" will appear for the persons with diabetes, mothers of leukemics and the children of persons with Alzheimers.

Health insurer perred provider networks will have one more reason to die off.

e-Communities will add value in helping its ePatients figure out how to get insurers to cover services that would otherwise be denied.

Some mainstream health organizations will host ePatient communities.  Authentic and trustworthy ones will learn from them. None will successfully commercialize them.

Researchers will tap into e-communities to recruit patients for research. The pooling of users data for observational research studies will grow.

Unfortunately, this will exacerbate the medical digital divide for persons without reliable access to the internet.

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.