Category Archives: Clinician-Patient Relationships

Controlling Health Care Costs and Improving Quality with Effective Care Coordination

Posted on by
2

A study published by in the New England Journal of Medicine last week examining the effects of 15 different Medicare care coordination demonstrations received wide coverage by the general media.  Unfortunately, much of this focused on the study’s overall finding that these programs didn’t reduce hospitalizations or Medicare spending.  For example, the AP story’s headline, “Study finds bid to cut Medicare costs failed,” was used by many papers such as the Washington Times.

However, the actual study had much more complex, important, and useful findings, and the paper’s authors from Mathematica, (which Medicare contracted to do the analysis from this project), deserve a lot of credit for extracting meaningful information from this project.

Complexity of Medicare Care Coordination Demonstration Projects
The study was very complex and presented many analytical challenges, including:

  1. The “study” involved 15 different and diverse “care coordination” programs: 5 disease management companies, 3 community hospitals, 3 academic medical centers, 1 integrated delivery system, 1 hospice, 1 long-term care facility, and 1 retirement community
  2. Despite being called “care coordination” programs, the major intervention was nurses communicating with patients outside of the patients’ direct clinical care team
  3. Most of the programs’ care coordinators didn’t have significant interactions with the physicians treating the individual patients – although reports were provided to the physicians
  4. The primary outcomes the study looked at were hospitalizations and total Medicare costs

Given that physicians direct most clinical decisions and thus influencing overall healthcare spending, it is not surprising that third party programs were ineffective in changing clinical or cost outcomes.  With the patient’s physicians not being directly engaged in the development and implementation of these programs, nor vested – either financially or cognitively – in the success of these care coordination programs, this outcome is not surprising. This is like expecting travel agents to improve the safety and efficiency of air travel, i.e. while they can provide information to individuals they are not engaged in the operations of the airplane or airports. [OK – that’s an overly simplistic example, but I think it helps make the point.]

Positive “Findings” From the Study:
Despite the disparate structure of the programs in this study, the authors found that the more successful programs:

  1. Had greater in-person contacts with the patients – nearly 1 per month
  2. Focused their efforts on individuals with higher Medicare costs
  3. Had greater success educating patients on how to properly take their medicines
  4. “Worked closely with local hospitals, which provided the programs with timely information on patient hospitalizations and enhanced potential to manage transitions and reduce short-term readmissions”
  5. “Had frequent opportunities to interact informally with physicians”

Implications for Medical Homes
These findings reinforce the importance of focusing on the role of physicians in controlling and managing clinical care decisions – which overall account for up to 80% of all healthcare spending.  This observation is consistent with the conclusions the authors of the Care Coordination study reach in their NEJM article about their findings being able to help support the implementation and success of medical homes: “The successful interventions also may offer more detailed lessons for medical homes about how best to educate and monitor patients, the types of patients for whom they are likely to be most effective, and how to help patients overcome barriers to better self-care.”

This is a very timely and important conclusion since Medicare is getting ready to launch a Medical Home Demonstration Project in 8 states – and possibly more through legislation enacted last summer. Medicare’s Medical Home Demonstration has a greater likelihood of improving quality and lowering costs than the Care Coordination project because the Medical Home Demonstrations will directly put the responsibility for care coordination and improving patient self-management on the patients’ individual physicians – as opposed to providing an outside service for patients. In addition, similar to the two somewhat successful Care Coordination projects, the Medical Home Demonstrations will focus on Medicare patients with chronic conditions.

Implications for Overall Health Reform Efforts
The Care Coordination study’s observation that the successful programs differed from the unsuccessful ones in how they improved patients’ compliance with medications also has implications for broader health reform initiatives. It makes sense that patients with chronic conditions who aren’t receiving adequate medicinal treatments would have increased costs and hospitalizations, and thus improving compliance would reduce both. This finding, along with studies about the costs associated with medication errors, point to the value of focusing on medication compliance and proper usage in initiatives for reforming healthcare delivery.

For example, improving medication compliance might be improved by creating better written instructions for patients. An analogy might be to the checklists that help surgical teams and physicians placing central IV lines reduce errors and infections. Individualized patient “checklists” created in a standard format could help patients with chronic conditions take their medicines correctly and thus improve quality and lower costs.  And of course, these “checklists’ should also include ALL the patient’s medicines, reminders about avoiding certain OTC medicines and herbal supplements that might interfere with their prescribed medicines, and to urge them to promptly inform their physicians if they develop certain signs or symptoms related to their medical conditions.

All of this really goes back to the benefits of improving patient-clinician communications, and strengthening their joint engagement with the broader care team that includes pharmacists, nurses, specialized clinical educators, and family members as appropriate.

Strengthening Care Teams Through Better Communications
Such checklists and more standardization of care protocols – for use by clinicians as well as patients – should help foster this communications and team-base management.  However, if they are viewed by anyone in the team as cookbook medicine, or impersonal standardization – rather than guidance to protect against overlooking important actions and opportunities – then these protocols will not produce positive clinical and economic outcomes.  To encourage positive attitudes and actions about such quality improving changes, clinicians and patient advocacy leaders of all types – and at all levels – will need to be educated about the value of such shifts in clinical operations, and for them to be promoted as champions of these new paradigms for clinical care. (Group visits for patients with conditions like diabetes or congestive heart failure are an example of care delivery innovations that can increase quality and lower costs through greater efficiency and engagement of patients and their care team.)

Changing Reimbursement to Support Care Delivery Reforms
Making these changes to the clinical care delivery so that they are attractive to clinicians – both in private practice and in larger care delivery systems – will likely require altering reimbursement systems to change the financial incentives.  The Medicare Medical Home Demonstration project seeks to do this by directly paying physicians for their medical home management activities.

While this Demonstration is being implemented, a more widespread and timely change in Medicare’s physician payment system may happen this year because of the unsustainability of Medicare’s “Sustainable Growth Rate” formula.  Under the current SGR formula, Medicare payments for physician services are expected to be reduced by ~22% starting in January 2010. Deliberations to avoid this “broadsword” financial cliff may be a leverage point for making such changes – although it is unlikely that a dramatic, wholesale change will occur immediately.  It is more likely that significant changes will be phased in over several years and across geographic regions.  A gradual implementation makes sense since it provides opportunities for clinicians and Medicare enrollees to become familiar with the new payment and clinical delivery structures, it enables champions for better care delivery methods to be created, and it allows those who are more cautious to observe the changes while they are implemented for and by others.

Chronic Wellness Promotion v. Chronic Disease Management in Medical Homes

Posted on by
2

One of the hottest health reform topics is Medical Homes: Medicare has Demonstration Project starting this year, several states have implemented, (or are implementing), medical home related initiatives, the Center for Studying Health System Change (CSHSC) released a great white paper titled “Making Medical Homes Work,” and the New York Times just had a story about how IBM is teaming up with United Healthcare to promote Medical Homes for their 11,000 employees and dependents in Arizona.

Definition of Medical Homes
One of the controversies in Medical Homes is the definition.  CSHSC and many others use the definition developed by 4 national medical societies which combines aspects of preexisting primary care and chronic care models with the goal of creating a primary care “home” that can more effectively address the needs of patients with chronic conditions.

Focus on Chronic Diseases – That’s Where the Money Is
This combination makes perfect sense since the majority of healthcare costs are used by the least well patients:  In 2003, 80% of health spending went for 20% of people in the US, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimates that 70% of healthcare spending is for treating chronic diseases.

figure1_11.gif
[Source: Kaiser Family Foundation]

Emphasizing chronic disease management for Medical Homes reflects how most healthcare innovations, (including technologies, payment schemes, and care delivery changes), are first used in the most organized and intensive care settings -  such as hospitals – and then migrate out into primary care and preventive settings, including home use and patient self-management.  Thus Medical Homes’ focus on care coordination for chronic conditions parallels the decades old movement and growth in team-based care in hospitals.

Medical Homes and Wellness Care
Beyond improving chronic disease management, Medical Home capabilities should also help promote better wellness for all patients, i.e. the other 80% of people.  Patients wellness from better exercise, diet and other actions could be improved through Medical Homes providing more targeted counseling and self-management training.  Similarly, Medical Homes use of patient registries and reminder systems should increase compliance with vaccinations, prenatal vitamins, and reminders to follow-up on patient specific wellness interventions.

Long-Term Vision for Medical Homes
The long-term vision for Medical homes should include how they can improve clinical care for all people in a community – not just those with chronic or costly illnesses. As I work with payers, clinicians, and others about the desired characteristics of Medical Homes, this vision should help shape how payments for providing Medical Home services are structured and evolve, (e.g. PMPM for specific sets of Medical Home capabilities), and how additional compensation – such as bonuses – are constructed and modified to reward Medical Homes for achieving clinical and cost outcomes. Such a vision should also be part of our national long-term strategy for making healthcare delivery more efficient and coordinated, and transforming our delivery system’s culture to embrace the rapid adoption of change to provide greater clinical and societal value.

Quality of Care in Medical Practices – Size Does Matter

Posted on by
6

The Journal of General Internal Medicine published a study last month that looked at primary care medical practices in Massachusetts to see how well they were able to provide the quality improving capabilities of Patient-Centered Medical Homes.  These structural capabilities represent process measures that assess the quality of care in medical practices.  However, these same measures could also help patients select their own primary care physicians.

Study Finds Larger Practices Have More Quality Related Capabilities
Not surprisingly the study found that larger practices, (and to a lesser extent those affiliated with larger networks of practices), provided more capabilities to improve the quality of patient care. The most significant difference in capabilities was seen in practices with 5 or more physicians, and these included:

  • Practice meets to discuss quality more frequently than every quarter
  • Practice regularly open to provide care on weekends
  • Use of Electronic health records that provide medication list, problem list, and electronic reminders

In addition, practices with 9 or more physicians were more likely to have specialty trained staff to assist with patient self-management, and there was an overall trend for larger practices to have reminder systems for preventive care:

Quality Improving Capabilities Increase with Practice SizeAsking Questions to Improve Quality
The questions used by the researchers in this study are clearly useful for assessing the quality relate capabilities of primary care practices, but additional research certainly it warranted to determine how well these process measures translate into actual improvements in clinical and economic outcomes. In addition, as such lists are developed and validated further, they could also be used by individuals looking for their own primary care physicians, and by patient advocacy organizations seeking to both promote quality improvement and to “grade” primary care providers.

The specific questions used in the study’s survey was:

Quality Capabilities for Primary Care Practices

One of the challenges for individuals or groups to effectively use any list of this type is that it needs to be customized because they will have different priorities and concerns. For example, the availability of translation services might be important for one family or advocacy organization, but less so for others.

Conclusion
Much has been written about using checklists to improve quality and reduce errors in hospitals – and particularly in the operating room.  But perhaps checklists could be derived from this type of Medical Home capabilities survey for use by individual patients and their advocates to assess outpatient clinical sites.   While the operating room checklist concept was based upon the airplane pre-flight checklist, maybe the checklist for assessing primary care practices could be likened to the checklist that home inspectors use to help home buyers understand the strengths and problems of a house. If individual patients and their collective advocacy groups regularly used checklists of this type, it could create a significant patient driven force for transforming the structure and operations of outpatient medical care in the United States to improve quality and control costs.

Making Physicians Better, and Making Better Physicians

Posted on by
5

A few recent reports point to ways for improving the quality of physician delivered care that has little to do with technology or complex interventions.  The first involves how physicians interact with patients, and the second examines the work hours for physicians in training.

Etiquette in Medicine
The first article, by Dr. Michael Kahn in the New York Times, describes six recommended actions for physician to create a good rapport with hospitalized patients. Dr. Kahn collectively calls these actions “etiquette-based medicine”:

  1. Ask permission to enter the room; wait for an answer
  2. Introduce yourself; show your ID badge
  3. Shake hands
  4. Sit down. Smile if appropriate
  5. Explain your role on the health care team
  6. Ask how the patient feels about being in the hospital

Clearly these actions are all directed towards creating a stronger person-to-person connection between the physician and the patient as a step toward improved communications – which is the foundation for developing and effectively delivering a treatment plan to and for the patient.

Physicians Getting Rest
Another challenge physicians have in this process is being awake and aware enough to actually engage in those 6 steps. (Having enough energy also would effect their ability to engage patients empathetically – something I’ve written about before.)  [Also see the previous posting about napping being better than caffeine for improving verbal and physical memory and learning.]

How much sleep physicians need to act appropriately – and avoid making errors – is the subject of a recent Institute of Medicine report, (“Resident Duty Hours: Enhancing Sleep, Supervision and Safety”), that makes new recommendations for limits to the work hours for physicians in training:

  • Duty hours should not exceed 16 hours per shift; For 30 hour shifts there should be an uninterrupted five hour break for sleep
  • Residents should have variable off-duty periods between shifts based on the timing and duration of shifts to increase residents’ opportunities for sleep each day, as well as regular days off that enable residents to recover from chronic sleep deprivation.
  • Medical moonlighting, (additional paid healthcare work), should be restricted
    [A chart comparing the current and new recommendations is available here.]

While all these changes would certainly make for more aware and awake residents, the IOM also estimates that recruiting and paying professional staff to substitute for the work hours the residents would have been (over)working, would cost about $1.7 billion.

Besides figuring out how to pay for these new staff hours, one policy question for implementing these recommendations is how to find the clinicians to actually work these hours considering there is such a shortage of non-physician clinicians.

Anther policy question these recommendations raise, is why they should they only apply to physicians in training?  Why shouldn’t they also apply to physicians who’ve finished their training and are supervising, teaching, and mentoring residents and medical students – and of course are directly responsible for patients?  While it might be argued that most physicians don’t work these long hours, for some that may not be the case – particularly in hospitals without many residents.

Considering that many quality improvements for medicine have been taken from the airline industry – such as the pre-flight/pre-surgery checklist – then why shouldn’t the limits on pilot shifts and hours also be applied to fully licensed physicians?  [I suspect that this will not make me popular with some physicians, but I wonder how they will defend their right to treat patients round-the-clock without sleep?]

Conclusions
Perhaps work hours and etiquette should be other aspects of quality improvement and patient safety that are considered as part of health reform discussions at the Federal and State levels. Certainly well-rested, empathetic physicians trained to interact with their patients with etiquette should improve the quality of healthcare by reducing errors and making physician-patient communications more effective.

How to integrate all these “innovations” into physician training and practice will be a significant challenge, because teaching such skills and promoting their use is not very exciting or technological, and it will be hard for such behaviors to be tied to economic incentives – which are often the carrot or stick for quality improvement initiatives.  Hopefully, as health reform ideas move forward and become crafted into comprehensive packages and plans, they will expand beyond direct economic incentives for improving clinical processes, to include non-economic inducements to promote quality enhancing actions and attitudes for clinicians as well as patients.

Engage With Grace

Posted on by
1

Many bloggers are posting information today about a initiative to encourage conversation about a very difficult topic: How we want to die. This collective effort to prompt discussions about this topic at the beginning of the holiday season is very timely, and it is a good complement to my post last week about empathy and compassion in healthcare.

What follows is essentially the same text that appears on many other blogs along with a picture of the “One Slide” listing the 5 conversation promoting questions that are at the core of the Project:

———————————————————-

Engage with Grace: The One Slide Project is an astonishingly simple idea that literally touches everyone. Alexandra (“Alex”) Drane, whose sister-in-law died in the hospital, (at age 32 of glioblastoma – seven months post diagnosis – grab your tissues and see the backstory), has set in motion a talking/blogging/thinking campaign to get us to deeply consider how we want to die.

Alex’s one slide has five conversation-starter questions about dying, really simple stuff like: given the choice, do you want to die at home or in the hospital; do you want medical intervention or not…etc (see below) – and then she did the networking thing. Now bloggers have agreed to post her message about the campaign as a Thanksgiving project. We’re all posting the same message – with a lead-in of our choosing on Nov 26 – and leaving it up throughout the holiday weekend (yay! an enforced break from blogging – my family will be so happy).

The One Slide from the Engage with Grace Project

There’s also a great video with Alex explaining how she used the very best of networking principles to keep this really really simple. We make choices throughout our lives – where we want to live, what types of activities will fill our days, with whom we spend our time. These choices are often a balance between our desires and our means, but at the end of the day, they are decisions made with intent. But when it comes to how we want to be treated at the end our lives, often we don’t express our intent or tell our loved ones about it.

This has real consequences. 73% of Americans would prefer to die at home, but up to 50% die in hospital. More than 80% of Californians say their loved ones “know exactly” or have a “good idea” of what their wishes would be if they were in a persistent coma, but only 50% say they’ve talked to them about their preferences.But our end of life experiences are about a lot more than statistics. They’re about all of us.

So the first thing we need to do is start talking. Engage With Grace: The One Slide Project was designed with one simple goal: to help get the conversation about end of life experience started. The idea is simple: Create a tool to help get people talking. One Slide, with just five questions on it. Five questions designed to help get us talking with each other, with our loved ones, about our preferences.

And we’re asking people to share this One Slide – wherever and whenever they can.at a presentation, at dinner, at their book club. Just One Slide, just five questions. Lets start a global discussion that, until now, most of us haven’t had. Here is what we are asking you:

Download The One Slide and share it at any opportunity – with colleagues, family, friends. Think of the slide as currency and donate just two minutes whenever you can. Commit to being able to answer these five questions about end of life experience for yourself, and for your loved ones. Then commit to helping others do the same. Get this conversation started.

Let’s start a viral movement driven by the change we as individuals can effect…and the incredibly positive impact we could have collectively. Help ensure that all of us – and the people we care for – can end our lives in the same purposeful way we live them. Just One Slide, just one goal. Think of the enormous difference we can make together.

(To learn more please go to www.engagewithgrace.org. This post was written by Alexandra Drane and the Engage With Grace team.)

———————————————————-

P.S. – I just wanted to add that I have had several friends and relatives succumb to brain tumors, so I have a personal connection this story and this project’s goals.

Proposals for Expanding the Full Range of Compassionate Care

Posted on by
3

Two recent events made me think about how traditional medical care and medical education address the issue of compassion.

The first was at the annual dinner for the Kenneth B. Schwartz Center when they gave out their annual Compassionate Caregiver Award, and reviewed the accomplishments of  previous awardees.  These individuals have all made remarkable differences in the lives of patients and families through their empathy and personal connections.

The second event was reading about the passing of Florence Wald, the former Dean of Nursing at Yale who organized the first hospice in the United States in 1974 because of her interest in compassionate care at the end of life.

While there has been much discussion about:

  • Shortages of primary care clinicians
  • How medical school graduates are increasingly going into specialties
  • Medical schools are thinking of replacing the requirement that applicants have taken organic chemistry with requirements for more biochemistry or genetics
  • A survey of physicians finding that over the next three years 49% plan to reduce the number of patients they see or stop practicing entirely, and 60% would not recommend medicine as a career

All these relate to the structure and content of physician education and training.  And I have two proposals:

First, while  medical school education has progressively shifted from teaching in hospitals to more out-patient and community care, I think doing more to show medical students and residents the rewards of community primary care would be a good step for increasing the number and prestige of primary care clinicians.

And second, while medical schools require students to go through rotations in pediatrics, Ob/Gyn, medicine, surgery and psychiatry, I don’t know of any that require students to go through a hospice rotation.  This may be because medicine and society try to discount death as a failure, but a hospice rotation would be a great opportunity for teaching students about empathy and compassion, and shifting the discussion of death within the context of medical education so that it is viewed more as part of the continuum of life.  In addition, having medical students in a rotation where they are not reporting to (and trying to impress) senior physicians, but rather working with nurses and social workers, also might provide them with a better perspective on teamwork in healthcare delivery – as well as a dose of humility.

The value of hospice (or palliative care) rotations for students does seem to be growing.  An article from 2006 reported that the University of Arizona was thinking about requiring a hospice rotation.  And the American Association of Medical College’s web-site has an article from 2004 about how Mt. Sinai has integrated palliative care into their curriculum.

Does anyone know of any medical schools that require hospice rotations for medical students or have integrated these types of programs into their core curriculum?  (BTW – A major focus for the Schwartz Center is grand rounds and other educational programs about compassionate care and patient-caregiver communications for both established clinicians and students.)

And lastly, it should also be recognized that expanding young physicians communications and empathy skills should help them work better with their patients, (and patients’ families), which could help reduce unnecessary and costly care.

Another Humorous? Humana Video

Posted on by
Reply

Last week I wrote about Humana’s YouTube videos designed to “explain” parts of the healthcare system.  Well they just put another one titled, “Some Doctors Cost More. Why?”

Two interesting points about this video: First, at the beginning they describe  insurance companies (like Humana) as “Providers.” (The narration uses the term “health coverage providers,” but the graphic shows “PROVIDER.”)

While physicians and other clinicians really dislike being called providers, I think they wouldn’t want to see that term used for insurance companies either, since it implies that the insurance company is actually providing healthcare.  (I usually reserve the term provider to describe broad groupings of clinical entities, such as, “providers of oncology care in the Chicago area,” – which would include physicians, nurses, hospitals, etc…)

And second, the title and content of the video doesn’t focus on the total costs of care or services provided by individual physicians, but mostly only patients’ co-pays – which are lower when they use the physicians that are in-network for their insurance plan.

And as the video’s tag line says, “Now you know.”

Medical Homes, Hammers and Nails

Posted on by
2

Medical homes are being promoted as a way to improve health care delivery by increasing the coordination of patient’s primary and specialty medical care.  The goal of medical homes is to ensure that patients’ care is comprehensive, appropriate and patient-focused.

One of the benefits to the patients and the healthcare system is that medical homes can help sort out the confusion that can arise from the phenomenon sometimes described as, “When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

Hammer & Nails

In healthcare delivery what this means is that sometimes the diagnoses or treatment recommendations from specialized clinicians will reflect their expertise – and thus their may be inconsistencies or conflicts in the recommendations coming from several  specialists. The challenge for the patient is to determine the best course of action for them.  And that’s where the value of their primary care clinician in a medical home – they have access to all the patient’s information and can help coordinate and translate all this information for the patient, so together they can make the most informed and appropriate decision.

This coordinating and translating task is important for acute and serious illnesses, as well as for chronic conditions – particularly when their is no generally agreed upon standard of care, of if the accepted course of treatment does not prove satisfactory for the patient.

This situation arose recently for a friend at the same time there was an article in the New York Times where the author described her nearly identical series of interactions (and frustrations) with the medical care system when dealing with hallux limitus or rigiditus – basically, limited motion of the big toe, accompanied by pain caused by bone spurs and/or arthritis.  The “hammer sees a nail” phenomenon here is that the surgeon sees primarily a problem that can be solved with surgery, while the podiatrist sees primarily a problem that can be helped by an orthotic.  As the New York Times author discovered, there may be other options that could work for her.  But from her writing – and my friend’s experience – this was discovered because of the patient’s diligence and not from the coordinating role of her primary care clinician in a medical home.

Another way to view the function of the medical home is to look at a medical home as trying to replicate the close interpersonal relationship between each patient and their primary care clinician that existed decades ago, while still enabling the patient to take full advantage of medical advances.  In addition, such relationship building could help reduce malpractice costs since it should improve both the quality of care, and patient-clinician communications about the goals and expectations from possible treatment options.

Challenges to Creating Medical Homes
Building these homes faces several challenges, including the shortage of primary care clinicians who need to be at the center of the coordination process working with patients and other clinicians to define realistic and patient-specific goals and treatment plans. Another challenge to creating well-run medical homes is that specialists may balk at being part of such a formal coordination process.

Implications for Health Care Reform
What this mean for health care reform is that while medical homes should be promoted, they cannot easily be created for everyone from our existing resources.  Therefore, they should first be built where they can have the greatest impact – for people with chronic and multiple medical problems, while at the same time our overall capacity of primary care clinicians is increased.  These two initiatives can be complementary because creating successful medical homes should increase the economic attraction of primary care as a medical career, while also demonstrating to medical students and residents the value and attractiveness of primary care when practiced in a medical home type setting.

In addition, other important health reform initiatives such as electronic medical records, and turning the findings from comparative effectiveness research into actual medical practice, will support of the creation of medical homes that can improve the quality of medical care, help reduce waste and improve the overall efficiency of health care delivery.

And lastly, it is clear that there is a desire for medical home type services since this is basically the concept underlying concierge medical practices.  For those not familiar with concierge medicine, this is where the primary care clinician signs up a limited number of patients who pay $1,500 – $25,000 per year, and the clinicians commits to spending more time with them, will explain in greater detail their medical issues and options, and take on the role of coordinating their care amongst all needed specialists.  While I don’t have the data, I’m guessing that individuals who are are paying for these concierge services are not the patients who would receive the most clinical benefit from medical homes.  And clearly, with too few primary care clinicians, having these physicians limiting the number of patients they will see doesn’t alleviate that shortage.  So, while I understand the motivations and market forces driving the creation of concierge medical practices, given the current problems in our healthcare system, I don’t think they are pushing the use of limited resources in the best direction to benefit society overall.

Patient – Doctor Communications

Posted on by
1

In the last couple of weeks there were two interesting articles in the New York Times about patient-physicians communications.

Value of Empathy
In the first  piece, Dr. Pauline Chen discusses an academic article that explored the way physicians communicate empathy to their patients who have serious and life threatening illnesses.  The conclusion of the research, (which looked at the experience of people who had lung cancer), was that physicians miss 90% of the opportunities to connect empathetically with their patients.

The researchers speculated that physicians don’t engage patients empathetically because they are concerned that this would take too much time. However, according to Dr. Chen, the researchers found that “empathy, expressed throughout the patient-doctor encounter, may actually help alleviate problems with time.”  This occured because when empathy was not acknowledged at the beginning of the visit, patients would to try to elicit that type of support from the physician, which could actually extend the time of the visit.

Patients Make a List
The second article was from Jane Brody – a wonderfully gifted health writer – who wrote about ways patients can improve their communications and interactions with clinicians.  Her list had two parts: 6 things to keep written down and bring to your doctor appointments, and 4 tips on how to interact with clinicians.  Her list of 6 things you should keep written down is a good one, and in essence [with my annotations] it is:

  1. Questions for the doctor
  2. Diary of symptoms
  3. List of medicines, supplements and vitamins you take – with name, dosage and how frequently you take them. [Also, please tell your doctor if you are not taking the medicines as instructed for any reason, including if you are having a problem affording any of them.]
  4. Your understanding of how you are supposed to be treating your medical problems [Doctors may think that because they told you something at your last visit that you both understood what they said and are following their guidance.]
  5. Medical history for yourself and your immediate family
  6. Your use of alcohol, tobacco and any drugs not included in #3

The other 4 items on Jane Brody’s list are also valuable:

  1. “Be willing to see a physician’s assistant or nurse practitioner for routine care.”  [They will likely be able to spend more time with you on preventive and wellness care issues.]
  2. Ask if the doctor uses email for non-urgent issues and questions.   [Some physicians do and some don’t – possibly because they don’t get reimbursed for communicating with patients via email or over the phone.]
  3. If the doctor tells you to go to the Emergency Room because of your symptoms, don’t wait.  [Go right away.  Don’t wait for your TV show to be over, for the laundry to finish, or to put on makeup or shave.]
  4. If you are told you have a life threatening condition or you need surgery, get a second opinion.

Physicians Use Lists Too
Lists are clearly good things to use so that important things are not forgotten.  People involved with critical, safety-conscious activities like flying airplanes have used lists to make sure that everything is set before takeoff and landing.  After what has probably been too long, such lists are making their way into modern medicine in a more standardized way.

Last December, Atul Gawande wrote in The New Yorker about how such lists are being used to improve the quality of care and save live (and money) in Intensive Care Units.  The first standardized and studied checklist was for putting in a central intravenous line.  The results were remarkable – lowering infection rates in lines that had been in patients for 10 day from 11% to essentially zero.  Peter Pronovost and his collaborators have since developed many other such checklists, (or protocols as they may sometimes be called), and their use has expanded to many, but still probably not most hospitals.

While these lists are clearly beneficial and valuable, like many medical advances, they are first developed and used for the most critically ill patients in hospitals.  This makes sense, because for hospitalized patients a mistake – or action not taken – can mean the difference between life and death.  And hospitals are also places where systematic changes can be implemented and the results measured.

More Use of List by Physicians
Physicians treating patients outside of hospitals often have lists too, but they are often incomplete and are certainly not standardized.  For example, the charts for most patients have problem lists, which list the individual’s medical problems.  However, it is up to the physicians to refer to them, otherwise, the only problem that may be addressed by the clinician will be the one that brought the patient to the office that day – so any needed preventive or wellness care (like an annual eye exam for someone with diabetes) might be overlooked. This is one reason why the list recommended by Jane Brody is so important.

So while physicians may have their own lists, and they know the reason why each patient has come to see them that day, they might be better served by making a list for each patient’s visit so they can make sure to cover all the things that are needed for that individual patient – and of course, that list should also include a reminder to connect empathetically to the patient.  (This is the same concept as having an agenda before any business meeting that not only lists the topics to be covered, but also states an overall objective and concludes with a wrap-up of actions to be taken – a practice I try to follow and force others to do when I’m invited to a meeting.)

Optimism for the Future
In the future, more diagnostic and treatment protocols and guidelines will be developed and configured into standardized checklists to be used in the outpatient setting.  Integrating these into electronic medical records (EMRs) – which include prioritized problem lists with links to recommended preventative exams and monitoring tests – will certainly help improve the quality of care and control the growth in costs.  Of course, this is predicated upon the development of EMRs that can provide such information in ways that are easily used by physicians and their associates.  (This too might be an area where the medical IT industry can learn from those designing airplane information systems.)

While physicians have railed in the past about guidelines and protocols forcing them to practice cookbook medicine, I hope that in the coming years they will welcome them as a way to standardize and simplify their practices so that they can actually work to individualize care for every patient, and connect empathically with them as individuals.  In decades past, that was one of the primary functions of the local doctor, and perhaps if that function again rises in prominence, the interpersonal rewards of practicing primary care medicine will help it grow in popularity with graduating medical students and residents.

Questions and Answers About Pay-For-Performance (P4P)

Posted on by
1

An article in the July/August Health Affairs about Massachusetts health plans implementing Pay-for-Performance (P4P) incentives for physicians raised more questions than it answered.

The study found that P4P programs from 5 private sector payers “wasn’t associated with greater improvement in quality” compared to the overall upward trend in the factors measured.  But the study didn’t address some overarching questions and basic realities about P4P, such as:

  • How the payers P4P incentives to the physician groups was actually translated into incentives for the individual physicians – or smaller groups of physicians inside the larger groups?
  • How the P4P incentives compared to the other financial incentives the physicians are facing?  For example, seeing more patients or doing more procedures could increase their income more than meeting the P4P standards. (The Health Affairs article states that P4P incentives for Massachusetts physician groups averaged 2.2% of their income.)
  • The quality measures used in the study were all performance based, rather than actual outcomes, e.g. cholesterol screening rates rather than patients’ actual cholesterol levels, HbA1C screening rates in diabetics rather than their actual HbA1C levels, or asthma medication use for children ages 5-17, rather than ER visits or hospitalizations for these same children.  What impact does that has on physicians’ behavior, and the value of changing their actions to meet these process standards?  Would physicians be more responsive to incentives tied to clinical outcomes?

Making Incentive Programs Successful:
While the study concluded that the P4P incentives program instituted in 2002 may not have produced dramatic changes in the HEDIS process measures, that does not mean  they were ineffective or that P4P is not a useful tool.

First, while collecting process measures data is easier, since clinical outcomes are what patients (and their physicians) should really care about, shouldn’t P4P incentives be based upon actual clinical outcomes? Process measures are easier to monitor by using billing data, but as the prevalence of quality electronic medical records systems grows, collecting and analyzing data about clinical outcomes will become much easier.  In addition, measuring a small set of any factors – process or outcome – presents the pitfall of driving physicians to focus on those diseases and measures to the exclusion of other important things.  For example, in the Health Affairs study, there are a number of preventive services in the process measures, but what about flu vaccinations, colonoscopies or smoking cessation?  This “managing what is being measured” behavior is why the number of factors used for P4P incentives should be as broad as possible.  (But this does not mean that they all have to be measured at every interval, or for every compensation period.)

Second, as any psychologist (or parent) will attest, the time between the actions and the reward (or penalty) is very important for changing behaviors. The Health Affairs article indicates that the bonuses are paid to the physicians groups annually.  Having the incentives paid annually, (or even quarterly), would be unlikely to provide adequate feedback to physicians to prompt them to change their behaviors.  An alternative blended methodology would be to provide physicians feedback on their actual performance against many of the possible measures on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, while making the P4P payments on a monthly or quarterly basis.

Third, many large companies structure their bonuses for their senior managers around a minimum of 20% of compensation.  If incentives for P4P programs only represent a small percentage of physicians’ income, then it would be unlikely to change their behaviors – particularly if they can make up for any lost income by increasing volume.  However, if physicians are being paid a fixed (capitated) amount per month to provide a certain set of services to a patient group – either primary or specialty care – then the volume part of the equation disappears, and P4P programs could be much more effective, even at a lower fraction of their potential income.

And lastly, and most simply, the insurers would not be spending time and money developing and implementing these programs if they didn’t think they provided some benefit – even if it is only financial – so they must be getting some benefits, or at least learning some things to make these programs beneficial in the future.

Conclusions:
18 years ago I wrote a book chapter that focused on structuring incentives for physicians.  Since then it has been hard to move payers and clinicians toward using more focused financial incentive systems.  But the P4P concepts are important, and to be successful they need to be implemented in a way that works for payers, physicians, and patients.  Unless these and other stakeholder groups buy-in to the purpose and practice of such incentives systems, they are unlikely to have the desired effects.  And the result will be more of the same – rising costs, variable quality, and limited access for many patients.