Health for life

Measuring ROI

In yesterdays posting on Al Lewis book Why No One Believes the Numbers, the Disease Management Care Blog pointed out that the measurement of population health management (PHM) outcomes remains an inexact and still evolving science. While that can be a source of endless fascination for the DMCB, the inability of the industry to rustle up credible "return on investment" numbers has prompted some observers to condemn PHM as a waste of money.

The search for simple answers explains much of the appeal of this book.

According to author, one important solution is the "dummy year analysis" (DYA). This relies on repeated year-over-year measurements of utilization that use multiple comparison pairings of all patients with the condition of interest. When thats combined with a "plausibility" check list, Mr. Lewis says purchasers of the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH), disease management or wellness programs should be able to get a better fix on whether they saved any money. You can a sense of that perspective here.

The DMCB isnt too sure about that because a) other factors that have nothing to do with population health management can also impact utilization during and after the dummy years, making it difficult to assign an attributable ROI and b) entire health plan populations can likewise regress toward a regional or national mean.

The DMCB also sees three additional reasons why there may be less to this books methodology than meets the eye:

1. When employers, health plans, accountable care organizations or other buyers have a list of names that have been through a care program, they typically want to understand the outcomes for the individuals on that list. If thats the case, the challenge is to find an adequate comparator that portrays what would have happened in the absence of the care program. Multiple options for identifying a parallel comparator have been used in published science for decades. Thats difficult, imperfect, but not broken.  It remains an option.

2. While the book is replete with examples of "actuaries behaving badly," it is impossible to underestimate the influence of actuarial science and trending on premium rate setting, statutory accounting, and the regulation of insurance. As a result, if the actuaries say money is - or is not - being saved, health system leaders ignore their insights at their peril.

3. Isolating the impact of PCMH, disease management or wellness program out of all the other "noise" of a changing economy, evolving consumerism, benefit changes, electronic health record databases, medical advances, inflation and the news media is a function of an increasingly sophisticated and changing statistical sciences and computational technology. Its ironic, but one outcome has been a better description and measurement of the uncertainty surrounding a result.
 
To the authors credit, Why No One Believes the Numbers is not being promoted as the single best methodology that will lead PCMH, disease management and wellness programs to outcomes certainty. Rather, it is one option among many in asking whether a program had any financial impact.

Ultimately, theore, thats why the DMCB advises that measuring outcomes in PHM - absent an ironclad methodology - comes down to using multiple approaches to triangulate on the truth. After reading Why No One Believes the Numbers, some readers may choose it as one of those approaches.

(From time to time, the Disease Management Care Blog welcomes commentary from its readers.  Heres an interesting thought.....)

As a long-term reader, I thought the erudite but contrarian and sometimes snarky DMCB might be the best venue to ask others of my ilk to comment on an observation of mine.

I am a primary care provider working at the quantum level of patient care.  I am in my second year of full fledged EHR use.  It is obvious to me from the consultation notes that I receive on an hourly basis that most of my colleagues are also on board.  Journal articles as well as my first-hand experience have convinced me that we have indeed reached the tipping point of electronic record use. 

Since this milestone passed, I have noticed a change in the focus of office notes and consults.  I am seeing neurosurgeons document conversations regarding the safety of patients relationships and whether or not they feel threatened.  Podiatrists routinely document the existence of living wills.  Dermatologists are now savvy about the sexual activity of octogenarians with actinic keratosis. Despite my consultants thoroughness in their care (and conversations with health care students who have rotated through these specialties make me believe that some specialists are using telepathy to document things), I am not seeing traditional assessment and plans at the end of the encounter. 

What I usually see is the same generalized diagnosis code that I sent them with followed by a list of tests cluttered with a erences to various quality metrics that are inspired by systems such as HEDIS®.  The old fashioned differential diagnoses or thoughtful prose concerning the evaluation is conspicuously absent. 

I call this my hypoplastic hypothesis.

As a primary care physician, when I consult a colleague, I am really asking the specialist “Hey, what do you think?” Prior to the advent of the EHR, much of my continuing medical education has come from the insights that I use to get from these consults. Now Im reading about feeling threatened, living wills and sexual activity.
 
How did we get here?

When I was an undergrad in Biochemistry, during the dreaded Physical Chemistry course, we learned about the observer effect and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Wikipedia defines both as:

"In science, the term observer effect ers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.....However in quantum mechanics, which deals with very small objects, it is not possible to observe a system without changing the system, so the observer must be considered part of the system being observed.

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position and momentum, can be known simultaneously. For instance, the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa."

In my opinion we now have a new phenomena that parallel the laws of physical chemistry:  I call it the HEDIS uncertainty principle. 

The actual act of measuring HEDIS® scores and other similarly contrived quality metrics has fundamentally intruded into the quantum level of physician care.  Does this measurement change the behavior of the particles of the system and alter the ultimate structure of the encounter?  Are the data still reliable and the measurements still accurate?  Have the impressions and treatment recommendations indeed become hypoplastic, or has the encounter remained unchanged but the documentation is skewed to HEDIS®? Is the question asked of the consultant answered but not documented?  If not, what does this portend for disease management and health care quality?

I have my suspicions, but I would like to tap the wisdom of the DMCB readers for theirs.

Image from Wikipedia