Jane Jerrard

An increase in uninsured patients who show up in emergency departments (EDs), physician specialty shortages, and a physician population unwilling to take call all have led to a now-common practice: hospitals pay physician-specialists for on-call coverage of their EDs.

Though essential for providing adequate emergency care, this hospital-physician arrangement can violate anti-kickback laws. But recently, one hospital’s payments to on-call physicians was given an official federal stamp of approval. What does this official statement mean for hospital medicine groups and the hospitalists they employ?

Origins of the Opinion

In September 2007, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued an advisory opinion that a hospital that pays physicians for providing on-call and indigent care services in the ED does not violate the federal anti-kickback statute.

An unnamed medical center requested the opinion and submitted details on the comprehensive, detailed program it had created to ensure coverage of the ED.

The hospital’s program includes varied payment structures for staff physicians based on their participation in an on-call schedule for the ED and provision of inpatient follow-up care to patients seen while on call, among other actions.

The program applies to 18 specialties including hospitalists, and all participating physicians receive a per-diem payment for each on-call day.

Lou Glaser, partner at law firm of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, in Chicago, wrote the request.

“In this particular case, the hospital extended the program to nearly every specialty on the staff,” he explains. “Few hospitals have gone that far. But my client wanted to ensure that this program was appropriate and, if questioned, wanted to be able to say that they did everything possible to set up an appropriate program. They also, to the extent that if the OIG said no, wanted to be able to tell their physicians that they tried everything possible” to set up a fair payment system.

Ron Greeno, MD, FCCP, chief medical officer at Cogent Healthcare in Irvine, Calif., and a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, is surprised the opinion was requested.

“It came out of the blue,” he says. “We weren’t worrying about it.” He believes the shortage of physicians willing to provide on-call care in the ED—particularly to uninsured patients—forces hospitals to create similar payment structures.

“The opinion basically says the OIG doesn’t frown on the current practice,” Dr. Greeno says. “There’s no reason they would—and if they did, it would mean a staffing crisis for all hospitals.” Part of this potential crisis includes care for uninsured patients, for which the hospital isn’t compensated.

Uninsured Patients

A pivotal point in the OIG opinion and in the problems hospitals have with ED on-call staffing is payment for care of uninsured patients—especially those who require an on-call physician at the ED in the middle of the night.

“My client wanted a solution to this, a solution that ensured their indigent patients would receive care from all necessary specialties,” says Glaser.

The payment program created by Glaser’s client hospitals was structured to include care for indigent patients. “The OIG latched on to that for a number of reasons,” says Glaser. “But basically it shows that physicians are being paid for something that they would not otherwise be paid for.”

Effect on Hospitalists

Though the OIG opinion doesn’t change status quo for most, it provides valuable guidance on what the government considers an acceptable plan for covering on-call shortages. Criteria outlined in the opinion include:

• There must be a clear, demonstrated need for the on-call service;
• Participating physicians would otherwise be un- or under-compensated for a meaningful portion of their work, such as caring for uninsured admissions;
• Participating physicians deliver defined added value such as better outcomes, or participation in quality initiatives; and
• Reimbursement reflects market value.

Because most hospitalists are employed by or supported by the hospital for which they are on call, they are entirely exempt from anti-kickback issues. Therefore, the OIG opinion won’t affect their on-call payments.

“The opinion obviously isn’t geared toward any specialty,” Glaser points out. “In fact, the OIG noted that the hospital could not select specific groups and try to steer money toward those. That said, hospitalists are in a slightly different position than other medical staff. They maintain their practice at the hospital, and depend on that for their volume and income.”

If your hospital medicine group is not supported primarily by the hospital, how can you ensure your on-call payments are legally acceptable?

First, have a lawyer review your arrangements. While the onus for staying within the bounds of the law is on hospitals, it’s important for every hospital medicine group to have local legal experts examine their current or proposed payment structure for on-call and indigent care.

“Any time a hospital gives money to a doctor, [he or she] is subject to scrutiny,” says Dr. Greeno. “This has to be legally vetted.”

Second, document your own payment system. “There was a great deal of discussion in the request for opinion on how the hospital established its payment structure,” says Glaser. “The opinion shows the importance of having a well-documented process for establishing the rates to be paid, and showing that that’s fair.”

You can start your review of your own payment program by downloading a comprehensive overview of the OIG advisory opinion at SHM’s Web site, www.hospitalmedicine.org.

“For most of us who have been minding their p’s and q’s, [the opinion] doesn’t require any changes,” Dr. Greeno stresses. However, hospital medicine directors should stay on the safe side and check any on-call payment programs you might be participating in. TH

Jane Jerrard has written for The Hospitalist since 2005.

An increase in uninsured patients who show up in emergency departments (EDs), physician specialty shortages, and a physician population unwilling to take call all have led to a now-common practice: hospitals pay physician-specialists for on-call coverage of their EDs.

Though essential for providing adequate emergency care, this hospital-physician arrangement can violate anti-kickback laws. But recently, one hospital’s payments to on-call physicians was given an official federal stamp of approval. What does this official statement mean for hospital medicine groups and the hospitalists they employ?

Origins of the Opinion

In September 2007, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued an advisory opinion that a hospital that pays physicians for providing on-call and indigent care services in the ED does not violate the federal anti-kickback statute.

An unnamed medical center requested the opinion and submitted details on the comprehensive, detailed program it had created to ensure coverage of the ED.

The hospital’s program includes varied payment structures for staff physicians based on their participation in an on-call schedule for the ED and provision of inpatient follow-up care to patients seen while on call, among other actions.

The program applies to 18 specialties including hospitalists, and all participating physicians receive a per-diem payment for each on-call day.

Lou Glaser, partner at law firm of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, in Chicago, wrote the request.

“In this particular case, the hospital extended the program to nearly every specialty on the staff,” he explains. “Few hospitals have gone that far. But my client wanted to ensure that this program was appropriate and, if questioned, wanted to be able to say that they did everything possible to set up an appropriate program. They also, to the extent that if the OIG said no, wanted to be able to tell their physicians that they tried everything possible” to set up a fair payment system.

Ron Greeno, MD, FCCP, chief medical officer at Cogent Healthcare in Irvine, Calif., and a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, is surprised the opinion was requested.

“It came out of the blue,” he says. “We weren’t worrying about it.” He believes the shortage of physicians willing to provide on-call care in the ED—particularly to uninsured patients—forces hospitals to create similar payment structures.

“The opinion basically says the OIG doesn’t frown on the current practice,” Dr. Greeno says. “There’s no reason they would—and if they did, it would mean a staffing crisis for all hospitals.” Part of this potential crisis includes care for uninsured patients, for which the hospital isn’t compensated.

Uninsured Patients

A pivotal point in the OIG opinion and in the problems hospitals have with ED on-call staffing is payment for care of uninsured patients—especially those who require an on-call physician at the ED in the middle of the night.

“My client wanted a solution to this, a solution that ensured their indigent patients would receive care from all necessary specialties,” says Glaser.

The payment program created by Glaser’s client hospitals was structured to include care for indigent patients. “The OIG latched on to that for a number of reasons,” says Glaser. “But basically it shows that physicians are being paid for something that they would not otherwise be paid for.”

Effect on Hospitalists

Though the OIG opinion doesn’t change status quo for most, it provides valuable guidance on what the government considers an acceptable plan for covering on-call shortages. Criteria outlined in the opinion include:

• There must be a clear, demonstrated need for the on-call service;
• Participating physicians would otherwise be un- or under-compensated for a meaningful portion of their work, such as caring for uninsured admissions;
• Participating physicians deliver defined added value such as better outcomes, or participation in quality initiatives; and
• Reimbursement reflects market value.

Because most hospitalists are employed by or supported by the hospital for which they are on call, they are entirely exempt from anti-kickback issues. Therefore, the OIG opinion won’t affect their on-call payments.

“The opinion obviously isn’t geared toward any specialty,” Glaser points out. “In fact, the OIG noted that the hospital could not select specific groups and try to steer money toward those. That said, hospitalists are in a slightly different position than other medical staff. They maintain their practice at the hospital, and depend on that for their volume and income.”

If your hospital medicine group is not supported primarily by the hospital, how can you ensure your on-call payments are legally acceptable?

First, have a lawyer review your arrangements. While the onus for staying within the bounds of the law is on hospitals, it’s important for every hospital medicine group to have local legal experts examine their current or proposed payment structure for on-call and indigent care.

“Any time a hospital gives money to a doctor, [he or she] is subject to scrutiny,” says Dr. Greeno. “This has to be legally vetted.”

Second, document your own payment system. “There was a great deal of discussion in the request for opinion on how the hospital established its payment structure,” says Glaser. “The opinion shows the importance of having a well-documented process for establishing the rates to be paid, and showing that that’s fair.”

You can start your review of your own payment program by downloading a comprehensive overview of the OIG advisory opinion at SHM’s Web site, www.hospitalmedicine.org.

“For most of us who have been minding their p’s and q’s, [the opinion] doesn’t require any changes,” Dr. Greeno stresses. However, hospital medicine directors should stay on the safe side and check any on-call payment programs you might be participating in. TH

Jane Jerrard has written for The Hospitalist since 2005.

An increase in uninsured patients who show up in emergency departments (EDs), physician specialty shortages, and a physician population unwilling to take call all have led to a now-common practice: hospitals pay physician-specialists for on-call coverage of their EDs.

Though essential for providing adequate emergency care, this hospital-physician arrangement can violate anti-kickback laws. But recently, one hospital’s payments to on-call physicians was given an official federal stamp of approval. What does this official statement mean for hospital medicine groups and the hospitalists they employ?

Origins of the Opinion

In September 2007, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued an advisory opinion that a hospital that pays physicians for providing on-call and indigent care services in the ED does not violate the federal anti-kickback statute.

An unnamed medical center requested the opinion and submitted details on the comprehensive, detailed program it had created to ensure coverage of the ED.

The hospital’s program includes varied payment structures for staff physicians based on their participation in an on-call schedule for the ED and provision of inpatient follow-up care to patients seen while on call, among other actions.

The program applies to 18 specialties including hospitalists, and all participating physicians receive a per-diem payment for each on-call day.

Lou Glaser, partner at law firm of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, in Chicago, wrote the request.

“In this particular case, the hospital extended the program to nearly every specialty on the staff,” he explains. “Few hospitals have gone that far. But my client wanted to ensure that this program was appropriate and, if questioned, wanted to be able to say that they did everything possible to set up an appropriate program. They also, to the extent that if the OIG said no, wanted to be able to tell their physicians that they tried everything possible” to set up a fair payment system.

Ron Greeno, MD, FCCP, chief medical officer at Cogent Healthcare in Irvine, Calif., and a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, is surprised the opinion was requested.

“It came out of the blue,” he says. “We weren’t worrying about it.” He believes the shortage of physicians willing to provide on-call care in the ED—particularly to uninsured patients—forces hospitals to create similar payment structures.

“The opinion basically says the OIG doesn’t frown on the current practice,” Dr. Greeno says. “There’s no reason they would—and if they did, it would mean a staffing crisis for all hospitals.” Part of this potential crisis includes care for uninsured patients, for which the hospital isn’t compensated.

Uninsured Patients

A pivotal point in the OIG opinion and in the problems hospitals have with ED on-call staffing is payment for care of uninsured patients—especially those who require an on-call physician at the ED in the middle of the night.

“My client wanted a solution to this, a solution that ensured their indigent patients would receive care from all necessary specialties,” says Glaser.

The payment program created by Glaser’s client hospitals was structured to include care for indigent patients. “The OIG latched on to that for a number of reasons,” says Glaser. “But basically it shows that physicians are being paid for something that they would not otherwise be paid for.”

Effect on Hospitalists

Though the OIG opinion doesn’t change status quo for most, it provides valuable guidance on what the government considers an acceptable plan for covering on-call shortages. Criteria outlined in the opinion include:

• There must be a clear, demonstrated need for the on-call service;
• Participating physicians would otherwise be un- or under-compensated for a meaningful portion of their work, such as caring for uninsured admissions;
• Participating physicians deliver defined added value such as better outcomes, or participation in quality initiatives; and
• Reimbursement reflects market value.

Because most hospitalists are employed by or supported by the hospital for which they are on call, they are entirely exempt from anti-kickback issues. Therefore, the OIG opinion won’t affect their on-call payments.

“The opinion obviously isn’t geared toward any specialty,” Glaser points out. “In fact, the OIG noted that the hospital could not select specific groups and try to steer money toward those. That said, hospitalists are in a slightly different position than other medical staff. They maintain their practice at the hospital, and depend on that for their volume and income.”

If your hospital medicine group is not supported primarily by the hospital, how can you ensure your on-call payments are legally acceptable?

First, have a lawyer review your arrangements. While the onus for staying within the bounds of the law is on hospitals, it’s important for every hospital medicine group to have local legal experts examine their current or proposed payment structure for on-call and indigent care.

“Any time a hospital gives money to a doctor, [he or she] is subject to scrutiny,” says Dr. Greeno. “This has to be legally vetted.”

Second, document your own payment system. “There was a great deal of discussion in the request for opinion on how the hospital established its payment structure,” says Glaser. “The opinion shows the importance of having a well-documented process for establishing the rates to be paid, and showing that that’s fair.”

You can start your review of your own payment program by downloading a comprehensive overview of the OIG advisory opinion at SHM’s Web site, www.hospitalmedicine.org.

“For most of us who have been minding their p’s and q’s, [the opinion] doesn’t require any changes,” Dr. Greeno stresses. However, hospital medicine directors should stay on the safe side and check any on-call payment programs you might be participating in. TH

Jane Jerrard has written for The Hospitalist since 2005.

What exactly is the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and why are hospitalists urged to increase its portion of the federal budget pie each year?

According to its mission statement, the AHRQ is “the lead federal agency charged with improving the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of healthcare for all Americans.” This includes supporting high-quality, impartial research that specifically improves healthcare quality, reduces costs, advances patient safety, decreases medical errors, eliminates healthcare disparities, and broadens access to essential services.

“Supporting AHRQ is supporting an unbiased government organization that’s clearly on the side of patient safety, and that gets important information out fast,” says Andrew Fishmann, MD, FCCP, FACP, a member of AHRQ’s National Advisory Council and director of intensive care at Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles. “Where’s the argument?”

Fight over Funding

The argument is over money, plain and simple. Each year, medical associations like SHM push for increased federal funding for AHRQ so the agency’s research can be expanded. And each year, Congress refuses those increases. Lawmakers have granted a slight boost in funding: Since 2002, AHRQ’s budget has increased by $2 million, or 6.7%.

Proponents of AHRQ believe precarious funding levels threaten the agency’s ability to achieve its essential mission. Last year, SHM lobbied for an increase in federal funding for AHRQ to $350 million in fiscal year 2008—$31 million more than the agency’s fiscal 2007 budget. By late 2007, Congress was weighing an increase of $329 million, plus $5 million targeted for comparative-effectiveness research.

“Think of AHRQ compared to the $28 billion that NIH gets,” says Dr. Fishmann. “[AHRQ’s] is a small budget relative to what they do.”

How much does AHRQ need to provide adequate research information? The answer is, apparently, as much as they can get. There are countless areas in healthcare the agency could address.

“If they got $500 million, could they spend it?” asks Dr. Fishmann. “Yes. They could look at the top 20 diseases instead of the top 10.”

What AHRQ Does

Regardless of the final budget amount they receive, AHRQ spends roughly 80% on grants and contracts focused on improving healthcare.

“AHRQ doesn’t do its own research or create its own data,” explains Dr. Fishmann. Rather, AHRQ conducts and supports health services research in leading academic institutions, hospitals, and other settings. In 2005, two hospitalists received separate grants for projects that have already had an effect on hospital medicine. Greg Maynard, MD, MS, division chief of hospital medicine at University of California San Diego School of Medicine, used AHRQ funds for an intervention project to prevent hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE). Dr. Maynard’s project continued to grow since that grant and has yielded key findings such as a risk-assessment model for VTE. Data and lessons learned are available in the VTE Resource Room on SHM’s Web site at www.hospitalmedicine.org/ResourceRoomRedesign/RR_LandingPage.cfm.

Asked why he went after AHRQ funding, Dr. Maynard explains: “AHRQ is one of the few [funding] agencies that focuses on the realm of implementation—that impact the patient immediately. It was a perfect marriage of what we wanted to do.” The other AHRQ-funded hospital medicine project was conducted by Mark V. Williams, MD, FACP, professor and chief, division of hospital medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, and editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine. Working for Emory University’s hospital medicine program in Atlanta at the time, Dr. Williams used the grant to create a “discharge bundle” of patient safety interventions such as medication reconciliation and patient-centered education to improve patient safety transitions out of the hospital setting.

“We would not have been able to conduct the study without the support of AHRQ,” says Dr. Williams. “We certainly need more research funds such as this. AHRQ is the primary federal agency funding health services research—however, they receive less than 5% of the funding that goes to NIH and fund more basic science-oriented research. As few as one in 10 grants submitted to AHRQ are actually funded.”

Like Dr. Maynard’s work on VTE prevention, the injection of AHRQ funds also allowed Dr. Williams’ project to continue and grow. “With support from the Society of Hospital Medicine, we have been quite fortunate to utilize the momentum from the AHRQ Patient Safe-[Discharge] grant to obtain a $1.4 million grant from the John A. Hartford Grant to develop a discharge toolkit and facilitate implementation of it at hundreds of hospital,” he explains. “The BOOST [Better Outcomes for Older adults through Safe Transitions] project aims to improve care delivery to older adults at hospitals across America as they transition from the hospital to home.”

Additional research is developed in AHRQ’s Centers for Education and Research in Therapeutics (CERTS). Each of the 11 CERTS has a specific charge and gathers data on the benefits, risks, and cost-effectiveness of therapeutic products such as drugs, medical devices, and biological products.

AHRQ disseminates current healthcare data quickly and more effectively than private channels. “They look at healthcare as a whole,” explains Dr. Fishmann. “For five years, they’ve published the annual National Quality Report and the National Disparity Report. They try to zero in on information to share with the public and with physicians, including all issues related to patient safety. They allow anyone access to the information: One market is hospitalists.”

AHRQ and Hospitalists

Of course, the research and information that AHRQ provides is vital to all physicians. But Dr. Fishmann believes hospitalists find the agency particularly valuable.

“SHM perceives AHRQ as their champion,” he says. “It’s a great partnership: AHRQ documents the value of having hospitalists. SHM provides an efficient way to disseminate new information relevant to hospitals.”

Many essential data and resources for physicians can be found on AHRQ’s Web site at www.ahrq.gov.

“The average hospitalist already uses this site, but I don’t think the average resident does,” says Dr. Fishmann. “I hope everyone knows about it.” TH

Jane Jerrard has written for The Hospitalist since 2005.

What exactly is the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and why are hospitalists urged to increase its portion of the federal budget pie each year?

According to its mission statement, the AHRQ is “the lead federal agency charged with improving the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of healthcare for all Americans.” This includes supporting high-quality, impartial research that specifically improves healthcare quality, reduces costs, advances patient safety, decreases medical errors, eliminates healthcare disparities, and broadens access to essential services.

“Supporting AHRQ is supporting an unbiased government organization that’s clearly on the side of patient safety, and that gets important information out fast,” says Andrew Fishmann, MD, FCCP, FACP, a member of AHRQ’s National Advisory Council and director of intensive care at Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles. “Where’s the argument?”

Fight over Funding

The argument is over money, plain and simple. Each year, medical associations like SHM push for increased federal funding for AHRQ so the agency’s research can be expanded. And each year, Congress refuses those increases. Lawmakers have granted a slight boost in funding: Since 2002, AHRQ’s budget has increased by $2 million, or 6.7%.

Proponents of AHRQ believe precarious funding levels threaten the agency’s ability to achieve its essential mission. Last year, SHM lobbied for an increase in federal funding for AHRQ to $350 million in fiscal year 2008—$31 million more than the agency’s fiscal 2007 budget. By late 2007, Congress was weighing an increase of $329 million, plus $5 million targeted for comparative-effectiveness research.

“Think of AHRQ compared to the $28 billion that NIH gets,” says Dr. Fishmann. “[AHRQ’s] is a small budget relative to what they do.”

How much does AHRQ need to provide adequate research information? The answer is, apparently, as much as they can get. There are countless areas in healthcare the agency could address.

“If they got $500 million, could they spend it?” asks Dr. Fishmann. “Yes. They could look at the top 20 diseases instead of the top 10.”

What AHRQ Does

Regardless of the final budget amount they receive, AHRQ spends roughly 80% on grants and contracts focused on improving healthcare.

“AHRQ doesn’t do its own research or create its own data,” explains Dr. Fishmann. Rather, AHRQ conducts and supports health services research in leading academic institutions, hospitals, and other settings. In 2005, two hospitalists received separate grants for projects that have already had an effect on hospital medicine. Greg Maynard, MD, MS, division chief of hospital medicine at University of California San Diego School of Medicine, used AHRQ funds for an intervention project to prevent hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE). Dr. Maynard’s project continued to grow since that grant and has yielded key findings such as a risk-assessment model for VTE. Data and lessons learned are available in the VTE Resource Room on SHM’s Web site at www.hospitalmedicine.org/ResourceRoomRedesign/RR_LandingPage.cfm.

Asked why he went after AHRQ funding, Dr. Maynard explains: “AHRQ is one of the few [funding] agencies that focuses on the realm of implementation—that impact the patient immediately. It was a perfect marriage of what we wanted to do.” The other AHRQ-funded hospital medicine project was conducted by Mark V. Williams, MD, FACP, professor and chief, division of hospital medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, and editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine. Working for Emory University’s hospital medicine program in Atlanta at the time, Dr. Williams used the grant to create a “discharge bundle” of patient safety interventions such as medication reconciliation and patient-centered education to improve patient safety transitions out of the hospital setting.

“We would not have been able to conduct the study without the support of AHRQ,” says Dr. Williams. “We certainly need more research funds such as this. AHRQ is the primary federal agency funding health services research—however, they receive less than 5% of the funding that goes to NIH and fund more basic science-oriented research. As few as one in 10 grants submitted to AHRQ are actually funded.”

Like Dr. Maynard’s work on VTE prevention, the injection of AHRQ funds also allowed Dr. Williams’ project to continue and grow. “With support from the Society of Hospital Medicine, we have been quite fortunate to utilize the momentum from the AHRQ Patient Safe-[Discharge] grant to obtain a $1.4 million grant from the John A. Hartford Grant to develop a discharge toolkit and facilitate implementation of it at hundreds of hospital,” he explains. “The BOOST [Better Outcomes for Older adults through Safe Transitions] project aims to improve care delivery to older adults at hospitals across America as they transition from the hospital to home.”

Additional research is developed in AHRQ’s Centers for Education and Research in Therapeutics (CERTS). Each of the 11 CERTS has a specific charge and gathers data on the benefits, risks, and cost-effectiveness of therapeutic products such as drugs, medical devices, and biological products.

AHRQ disseminates current healthcare data quickly and more effectively than private channels. “They look at healthcare as a whole,” explains Dr. Fishmann. “For five years, they’ve published the annual National Quality Report and the National Disparity Report. They try to zero in on information to share with the public and with physicians, including all issues related to patient safety. They allow anyone access to the information: One market is hospitalists.”

AHRQ and Hospitalists

Of course, the research and information that AHRQ provides is vital to all physicians. But Dr. Fishmann believes hospitalists find the agency particularly valuable.

“SHM perceives AHRQ as their champion,” he says. “It’s a great partnership: AHRQ documents the value of having hospitalists. SHM provides an efficient way to disseminate new information relevant to hospitals.”

Many essential data and resources for physicians can be found on AHRQ’s Web site at www.ahrq.gov.

“The average hospitalist already uses this site, but I don’t think the average resident does,” says Dr. Fishmann. “I hope everyone knows about it.” TH

Jane Jerrard has written for The Hospitalist since 2005.

What exactly is the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and why are hospitalists urged to increase its portion of the federal budget pie each year?

According to its mission statement, the AHRQ is “the lead federal agency charged with improving the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of healthcare for all Americans.” This includes supporting high-quality, impartial research that specifically improves healthcare quality, reduces costs, advances patient safety, decreases medical errors, eliminates healthcare disparities, and broadens access to essential services.

“Supporting AHRQ is supporting an unbiased government organization that’s clearly on the side of patient safety, and that gets important information out fast,” says Andrew Fishmann, MD, FCCP, FACP, a member of AHRQ’s National Advisory Council and director of intensive care at Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles. “Where’s the argument?”

Fight over Funding

The argument is over money, plain and simple. Each year, medical associations like SHM push for increased federal funding for AHRQ so the agency’s research can be expanded. And each year, Congress refuses those increases. Lawmakers have granted a slight boost in funding: Since 2002, AHRQ’s budget has increased by $2 million, or 6.7%.

Proponents of AHRQ believe precarious funding levels threaten the agency’s ability to achieve its essential mission. Last year, SHM lobbied for an increase in federal funding for AHRQ to $350 million in fiscal year 2008—$31 million more than the agency’s fiscal 2007 budget. By late 2007, Congress was weighing an increase of $329 million, plus $5 million targeted for comparative-effectiveness research.

“Think of AHRQ compared to the $28 billion that NIH gets,” says Dr. Fishmann. “[AHRQ’s] is a small budget relative to what they do.”

How much does AHRQ need to provide adequate research information? The answer is, apparently, as much as they can get. There are countless areas in healthcare the agency could address.

“If they got $500 million, could they spend it?” asks Dr. Fishmann. “Yes. They could look at the top 20 diseases instead of the top 10.”

What AHRQ Does

Regardless of the final budget amount they receive, AHRQ spends roughly 80% on grants and contracts focused on improving healthcare.

“AHRQ doesn’t do its own research or create its own data,” explains Dr. Fishmann. Rather, AHRQ conducts and supports health services research in leading academic institutions, hospitals, and other settings. In 2005, two hospitalists received separate grants for projects that have already had an effect on hospital medicine. Greg Maynard, MD, MS, division chief of hospital medicine at University of California San Diego School of Medicine, used AHRQ funds for an intervention project to prevent hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE). Dr. Maynard’s project continued to grow since that grant and has yielded key findings such as a risk-assessment model for VTE. Data and lessons learned are available in the VTE Resource Room on SHM’s Web site at www.hospitalmedicine.org/ResourceRoomRedesign/RR_LandingPage.cfm.

Asked why he went after AHRQ funding, Dr. Maynard explains: “AHRQ is one of the few [funding] agencies that focuses on the realm of implementation—that impact the patient immediately. It was a perfect marriage of what we wanted to do.” The other AHRQ-funded hospital medicine project was conducted by Mark V. Williams, MD, FACP, professor and chief, division of hospital medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, and editor of the Journal of Hospital Medicine. Working for Emory University’s hospital medicine program in Atlanta at the time, Dr. Williams used the grant to create a “discharge bundle” of patient safety interventions such as medication reconciliation and patient-centered education to improve patient safety transitions out of the hospital setting.

“We would not have been able to conduct the study without the support of AHRQ,” says Dr. Williams. “We certainly need more research funds such as this. AHRQ is the primary federal agency funding health services research—however, they receive less than 5% of the funding that goes to NIH and fund more basic science-oriented research. As few as one in 10 grants submitted to AHRQ are actually funded.”

Like Dr. Maynard’s work on VTE prevention, the injection of AHRQ funds also allowed Dr. Williams’ project to continue and grow. “With support from the Society of Hospital Medicine, we have been quite fortunate to utilize the momentum from the AHRQ Patient Safe-[Discharge] grant to obtain a $1.4 million grant from the John A. Hartford Grant to develop a discharge toolkit and facilitate implementation of it at hundreds of hospital,” he explains. “The BOOST [Better Outcomes for Older adults through Safe Transitions] project aims to improve care delivery to older adults at hospitals across America as they transition from the hospital to home.”

Additional research is developed in AHRQ’s Centers for Education and Research in Therapeutics (CERTS). Each of the 11 CERTS has a specific charge and gathers data on the benefits, risks, and cost-effectiveness of therapeutic products such as drugs, medical devices, and biological products.

AHRQ disseminates current healthcare data quickly and more effectively than private channels. “They look at healthcare as a whole,” explains Dr. Fishmann. “For five years, they’ve published the annual National Quality Report and the National Disparity Report. They try to zero in on information to share with the public and with physicians, including all issues related to patient safety. They allow anyone access to the information: One market is hospitalists.”

AHRQ and Hospitalists

Of course, the research and information that AHRQ provides is vital to all physicians. But Dr. Fishmann believes hospitalists find the agency particularly valuable.

“SHM perceives AHRQ as their champion,” he says. “It’s a great partnership: AHRQ documents the value of having hospitalists. SHM provides an efficient way to disseminate new information relevant to hospitals.”

Many essential data and resources for physicians can be found on AHRQ’s Web site at www.ahrq.gov.

“The average hospitalist already uses this site, but I don’t think the average resident does,” says Dr. Fishmann. “I hope everyone knows about it.” TH

Jane Jerrard has written for The Hospitalist since 2005.

How many conflicts do you witness during your average shift? How many are you embroiled in? Are any of them resolved amicably? How many can you resolve?

“Everyone does conflict resolution on some level,” says Leonard J. Marcus, PhD, director of the Program for Health Care Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, Harvard School of Public Health in Cambridge, Mass. “If you’re in a relationship, if you have kids—we all do it. The difference is that hospitalists do it as part of their professional work, and that requires a different level of complexity.” Dr. Marcus teaches conflict resolution skills in SHM’s Leadership Academy.

Everyone’s Best Interest

Dr. Marcus’ colleague and associate director of his program is Barry C. Dorn, MD, MHCM. Dr. Dorn clarifies: “Conflict is not bad. But unresolved conflict can be costly.”

A good leader can—and should—resolve problems on his team for the sake of the team, the project or work, and the hospital. Understanding that is easy—it’s how to end the problem that can be tricky.

“There are two poles to conflict resolution,” explains Dr. Marcus. “Positional bargaining is the adversarial win-lose approach to problem solving, and many people believe that’s the only way to resolve a conflict. However, interest-based negotiation focuses on what different people want to accomplish. It’s what we call a collaborative, cooperative approach—it’s gain-gain negotiating.”

How Hard Can It Be?

As Dr. Marcus says, everyone resolves conflicts. So is training in how to go about it really necessary?

“Absolutely,” asserts Dr. Dorn. “[Hospitalist leaders] need some sort of training, though a lot of it can be self-taught. I think this training is the most important thing a physician can do. The stresses and rapid changes in healthcare today make people crazy. It’s not just hospitalists—all physicians have conflicts with other groups. That conflict takes its toll; it’s a tremendous waste of time and energy. And it’s very costly to an institution to have people constantly at odds.”

Dr. Marcus agrees. “Given the role of the hospitalist, having specific skills training in conflict resolution is a huge plus,” he says. “They regularly face challenges in engaging other departments and other physicians, which can lead to turf wars and territoriality. They have to go beyond the simple ability to resolve conflicts and get to the core of the issue quickly. That’s where the training comes in.”

Conflicts among Peers

To further complicate the conflicts they face, hospitalists often find themselves managing a group of peers as committee chairs or lead researchers. They don’t have the title or authority to tell fellow hospitalists, other physicians, hospital staff, and administrators what to do. This can lead to some delicate conflict resolution.

“They’re dealing with people who lead individual silos within the healthcare system,” says Dr. Dorn. “And when someone else wants to step into their silo, it makes you and them uncomfortable. Leaders have to make others feel comfortable and learn to speak their language. Hospitalists have to lead across silos as well as within their own silo [of hospital medicine]; then they have to lead up, because hospital administrators have a lot of control. There are many nuances to leadership.”

As group leaders, hospitalists may face a wide range of conflicts, says Dr. Marcus, “from differences of opinion to resistance to downright draw-the-line-in-the-sand and get out of my way. The other piece is that some issues are clinical, whether between physicians, between physician and patient or family member, and some are administrative or managerial. Hospitalists are at the hub of all those issues; they serve as the fulcrum.”

According to Dr. Dorn, physician-physician conflicts can be disagreements of opinion, of training, of personality, and of reimbursement issues. “Physicians are very concerned with reimbursement—they want to know what it is going to cost them in time and money,” he explains.

For a hospitalist serving as a committee chair, says Dr. Dorn, “The critical thing is that when they assume these positions without authority, the only way to make it work is to increase their level of influence. The level of influence over authority is the indication of a good leader.”

You can acquire the necessary influence by learning solid conflict resolution skills.

Resolve to Study

There are a number of resources available for hospitalists interested in studying conflict resolution. Drs. Dorn and Marcus have co-written a book on the subject, Renegotiating Health Care: Resolving Conflict to Build Collaboration. “The conflicts we deal with [in the book] are right at the core of what’s going on in healthcare right now,” Dr. Marcus says.

Dr. Dorn also recommends some general books on resolving conflict. “Most of conflict resolution is interest-based negotiation, and the father of interest-based negotiation is Roger Fisher,” he says. “With Bill Ury, he wrote Getting to Yes. I think a better book for physicians is Getting Past No. It’s very simple and concise. These are basic books on conflict resolution.”

For a more detailed textbook, Dr. Dorn suggests The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflicts by Chris Moore. “This is the definitive text,” he says. “I also like Difficult Conversations by Stone, Patton, and Heen.”

Whether you’re in a leadership role or a hospitalist doing straight clinical work, successfully resolving conflicts on the job can be a much-appreciated skill. “[Conflict resolution training] will make your life so much easier, so much more pleasant,” promises Dr. Dorn. TH

Jane Jerrard writes “Public Policy” for The Hospitalist.

How many conflicts do you witness during your average shift? How many are you embroiled in? Are any of them resolved amicably? How many can you resolve?

“Everyone does conflict resolution on some level,” says Leonard J. Marcus, PhD, director of the Program for Health Care Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, Harvard School of Public Health in Cambridge, Mass. “If you’re in a relationship, if you have kids—we all do it. The difference is that hospitalists do it as part of their professional work, and that requires a different level of complexity.” Dr. Marcus teaches conflict resolution skills in SHM’s Leadership Academy.

Everyone’s Best Interest

Dr. Marcus’ colleague and associate director of his program is Barry C. Dorn, MD, MHCM. Dr. Dorn clarifies: “Conflict is not bad. But unresolved conflict can be costly.”

A good leader can—and should—resolve problems on his team for the sake of the team, the project or work, and the hospital. Understanding that is easy—it’s how to end the problem that can be tricky.

“There are two poles to conflict resolution,” explains Dr. Marcus. “Positional bargaining is the adversarial win-lose approach to problem solving, and many people believe that’s the only way to resolve a conflict. However, interest-based negotiation focuses on what different people want to accomplish. It’s what we call a collaborative, cooperative approach—it’s gain-gain negotiating.”

How Hard Can It Be?

As Dr. Marcus says, everyone resolves conflicts. So is training in how to go about it really necessary?

“Absolutely,” asserts Dr. Dorn. “[Hospitalist leaders] need some sort of training, though a lot of it can be self-taught. I think this training is the most important thing a physician can do. The stresses and rapid changes in healthcare today make people crazy. It’s not just hospitalists—all physicians have conflicts with other groups. That conflict takes its toll; it’s a tremendous waste of time and energy. And it’s very costly to an institution to have people constantly at odds.”

Dr. Marcus agrees. “Given the role of the hospitalist, having specific skills training in conflict resolution is a huge plus,” he says. “They regularly face challenges in engaging other departments and other physicians, which can lead to turf wars and territoriality. They have to go beyond the simple ability to resolve conflicts and get to the core of the issue quickly. That’s where the training comes in.”

Conflicts among Peers

To further complicate the conflicts they face, hospitalists often find themselves managing a group of peers as committee chairs or lead researchers. They don’t have the title or authority to tell fellow hospitalists, other physicians, hospital staff, and administrators what to do. This can lead to some delicate conflict resolution.

“They’re dealing with people who lead individual silos within the healthcare system,” says Dr. Dorn. “And when someone else wants to step into their silo, it makes you and them uncomfortable. Leaders have to make others feel comfortable and learn to speak their language. Hospitalists have to lead across silos as well as within their own silo [of hospital medicine]; then they have to lead up, because hospital administrators have a lot of control. There are many nuances to leadership.”

As group leaders, hospitalists may face a wide range of conflicts, says Dr. Marcus, “from differences of opinion to resistance to downright draw-the-line-in-the-sand and get out of my way. The other piece is that some issues are clinical, whether between physicians, between physician and patient or family member, and some are administrative or managerial. Hospitalists are at the hub of all those issues; they serve as the fulcrum.”

According to Dr. Dorn, physician-physician conflicts can be disagreements of opinion, of training, of personality, and of reimbursement issues. “Physicians are very concerned with reimbursement—they want to know what it is going to cost them in time and money,” he explains.

For a hospitalist serving as a committee chair, says Dr. Dorn, “The critical thing is that when they assume these positions without authority, the only way to make it work is to increase their level of influence. The level of influence over authority is the indication of a good leader.”

You can acquire the necessary influence by learning solid conflict resolution skills.

Resolve to Study

There are a number of resources available for hospitalists interested in studying conflict resolution. Drs. Dorn and Marcus have co-written a book on the subject, Renegotiating Health Care: Resolving Conflict to Build Collaboration. “The conflicts we deal with [in the book] are right at the core of what’s going on in healthcare right now,” Dr. Marcus says.

Dr. Dorn also recommends some general books on resolving conflict. “Most of conflict resolution is interest-based negotiation, and the father of interest-based negotiation is Roger Fisher,” he says. “With Bill Ury, he wrote Getting to Yes. I think a better book for physicians is Getting Past No. It’s very simple and concise. These are basic books on conflict resolution.”

For a more detailed textbook, Dr. Dorn suggests The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflicts by Chris Moore. “This is the definitive text,” he says. “I also like Difficult Conversations by Stone, Patton, and Heen.”

Whether you’re in a leadership role or a hospitalist doing straight clinical work, successfully resolving conflicts on the job can be a much-appreciated skill. “[Conflict resolution training] will make your life so much easier, so much more pleasant,” promises Dr. Dorn. TH

Jane Jerrard writes “Public Policy” for The Hospitalist.

How many conflicts do you witness during your average shift? How many are you embroiled in? Are any of them resolved amicably? How many can you resolve?

“Everyone does conflict resolution on some level,” says Leonard J. Marcus, PhD, director of the Program for Health Care Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, Harvard School of Public Health in Cambridge, Mass. “If you’re in a relationship, if you have kids—we all do it. The difference is that hospitalists do it as part of their professional work, and that requires a different level of complexity.” Dr. Marcus teaches conflict resolution skills in SHM’s Leadership Academy.

Everyone’s Best Interest

Dr. Marcus’ colleague and associate director of his program is Barry C. Dorn, MD, MHCM. Dr. Dorn clarifies: “Conflict is not bad. But unresolved conflict can be costly.”

A good leader can—and should—resolve problems on his team for the sake of the team, the project or work, and the hospital. Understanding that is easy—it’s how to end the problem that can be tricky.

“There are two poles to conflict resolution,” explains Dr. Marcus. “Positional bargaining is the adversarial win-lose approach to problem solving, and many people believe that’s the only way to resolve a conflict. However, interest-based negotiation focuses on what different people want to accomplish. It’s what we call a collaborative, cooperative approach—it’s gain-gain negotiating.”

How Hard Can It Be?

As Dr. Marcus says, everyone resolves conflicts. So is training in how to go about it really necessary?

“Absolutely,” asserts Dr. Dorn. “[Hospitalist leaders] need some sort of training, though a lot of it can be self-taught. I think this training is the most important thing a physician can do. The stresses and rapid changes in healthcare today make people crazy. It’s not just hospitalists—all physicians have conflicts with other groups. That conflict takes its toll; it’s a tremendous waste of time and energy. And it’s very costly to an institution to have people constantly at odds.”

Dr. Marcus agrees. “Given the role of the hospitalist, having specific skills training in conflict resolution is a huge plus,” he says. “They regularly face challenges in engaging other departments and other physicians, which can lead to turf wars and territoriality. They have to go beyond the simple ability to resolve conflicts and get to the core of the issue quickly. That’s where the training comes in.”

Conflicts among Peers

To further complicate the conflicts they face, hospitalists often find themselves managing a group of peers as committee chairs or lead researchers. They don’t have the title or authority to tell fellow hospitalists, other physicians, hospital staff, and administrators what to do. This can lead to some delicate conflict resolution.

“They’re dealing with people who lead individual silos within the healthcare system,” says Dr. Dorn. “And when someone else wants to step into their silo, it makes you and them uncomfortable. Leaders have to make others feel comfortable and learn to speak their language. Hospitalists have to lead across silos as well as within their own silo [of hospital medicine]; then they have to lead up, because hospital administrators have a lot of control. There are many nuances to leadership.”

As group leaders, hospitalists may face a wide range of conflicts, says Dr. Marcus, “from differences of opinion to resistance to downright draw-the-line-in-the-sand and get out of my way. The other piece is that some issues are clinical, whether between physicians, between physician and patient or family member, and some are administrative or managerial. Hospitalists are at the hub of all those issues; they serve as the fulcrum.”

According to Dr. Dorn, physician-physician conflicts can be disagreements of opinion, of training, of personality, and of reimbursement issues. “Physicians are very concerned with reimbursement—they want to know what it is going to cost them in time and money,” he explains.

For a hospitalist serving as a committee chair, says Dr. Dorn, “The critical thing is that when they assume these positions without authority, the only way to make it work is to increase their level of influence. The level of influence over authority is the indication of a good leader.”

You can acquire the necessary influence by learning solid conflict resolution skills.

Resolve to Study

There are a number of resources available for hospitalists interested in studying conflict resolution. Drs. Dorn and Marcus have co-written a book on the subject, Renegotiating Health Care: Resolving Conflict to Build Collaboration. “The conflicts we deal with [in the book] are right at the core of what’s going on in healthcare right now,” Dr. Marcus says.

Dr. Dorn also recommends some general books on resolving conflict. “Most of conflict resolution is interest-based negotiation, and the father of interest-based negotiation is Roger Fisher,” he says. “With Bill Ury, he wrote Getting to Yes. I think a better book for physicians is Getting Past No. It’s very simple and concise. These are basic books on conflict resolution.”

For a more detailed textbook, Dr. Dorn suggests The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflicts by Chris Moore. “This is the definitive text,” he says. “I also like Difficult Conversations by Stone, Patton, and Heen.”

Whether you’re in a leadership role or a hospitalist doing straight clinical work, successfully resolving conflicts on the job can be a much-appreciated skill. “[Conflict resolution training] will make your life so much easier, so much more pleasant,” promises Dr. Dorn. TH

Jane Jerrard writes “Public Policy” for The Hospitalist.

The new payment system for hospitalized Medicare patients spells big changes for hospitals and hospitalists.

On Aug. 1, 2006, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) issued final regulations for Medicare payments to hospitals in 2008. This update to the hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) is designed to improve the accuracy of Medicare payments and includes a new reporting system with new incentives for participating hospitals, restructured inpatient diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), and the exclusion of some hospital-acquired conditions.

The IPPS contains a number of provisions that will affect hospital medicine, and the incentives paid will come from many hospitalist-treated patients. “Realistically, the majority of patients that hospitalists admit are Medicare patients,” says Eric Siegal, MD, regional medical director of Cogent Healthcare in Madison, Wis., and chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee.

27 Quality Measures

Under the IPPS, hospitals must now report on 27 quality measures to receive their full update. These include 30-day mortality measures for acute myocardial infarction and heart failure for Medicare patients, three measures related to surgical care, and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems patient satisfaction survey.

The set of measures will be expanded for 2009 to include a 30-day mortality measure for pneumonia and four additional measures related to surgical care, contingent on their endorsement by the National Quality Forum (NQF).

More Precise DRGs

The new IPPS uses restructured DRGs to better account for the severity of each patient’s condition. Now, 745 severity-adjusted DRGs have replaced the previous 538. This means hospitals that serve more severely ill patients will receive increased payments in an effort to prevent rewards for cherry-picking the healthiest patients.

“At least conceptually, this is a better way of doing things,” says Dr. Siegal. “Hospitals have been effectively penalized for taking care of really sick patients, because the DRGs weren’t really differentiating degrees of serious illness. Now that hospital comparison is becoming a big deal, people look at a statistic like mortality rates,” and the figures don’t specify which patients were mortally ill upon admission.

What’s Not Covered?

One interesting aspect to IPPS is that it specifies that Medicare will not cover additional costs of eight preventable, hospital-acquired conditions. These conditions include an object mistakenly left in a patient during surgery, air embolism, blood incompatibility, falls, mediastinitis, catheter-associated urinary tract infections (UTIs), pressure ulcers, and vascular catheter associated infections. For 2009, CMS will also propose excluding ventilator associated pneumonia, staphylococcus aureus septicemia, and deep-vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism.

“Some of this stuff will be easy. Some cases, like ‘object left in patient during surgery’ are so obvious as to be laughable,” says Dr. Siegal. “Others are a tougher call, such as a catheter-associated UTI. These are not always as clear-cut as [CMS] says they will be. Philosophically, I think this is the right thing to do—it’s not right to pay a hospital for treating something they caused.”

Hospitalists and hospital staff are likely to see added paperwork as a result of this rule. “I can guarantee that there will be an added checklist for these conditions on admission,” says Dr. Siegal. “We’ll have to check for pressure ulcer, UTI, etc.—and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.”

Key Role for Hospitalists

When hospital payment based on reporting is involved, hospitalists are quickly drawn in. “This puts more money for hospitals at risk,” explains Dr. Siegal. “There’s a clear imperative to document better, and to identify who’s really sick. This will all land squarely on the shoulders of hospitalists—and, in fact, it already [has].”

On average, hospitals that comply with all provisions of the rule will earn an additional 3.5% in Medicare payments. This is really a result of the 3.3% market basket increase.

“The difference between doing this well and doing it poorly can add up to the margin for some hospitals,” stresses Dr. Siegal. “There’s absolutely no question that if I’m a hospital and I’m shelling out for a hospital medicine program, the single thing I want them to do and do well is report properly on these measures.”

Careful documentation includes the DRGs. Dr. Siegal points out that there’s a $4,000 swing between the DRG for low-acuity heart failure (a $3,900 payment) and high-acuity heart failure (a $7,900 payment). “Clearly, there will be a shift in reimbursement to those hospitals with sicker patients—or those that do a better job of documenting those patients,” he says. “You can bet that hospitals will make this a priority. They’re going to get much more finicky about how we document.”

Here’s an example: If presented with a patient with sepsis and a UTI, different physicians will have different diagnoses—or rather, use different terms, whether it’s sepsis, severe sepsis, urosepsis, SIRS, or something else. “Hospitals will try to force all physicians to get more crisp in their definitions,” says Dr. Siegal. “This could be good, because we’ll all be using the same language. But some aspects of this will just be a pain … like any other broadly applied rule. If you admit someone with chest pains, you will no longer be able to note ‘chest pains’; you’ll have to describe the pains.”

Starting now, the new IPPS will force hospitalists to perform more—and more careful—documentation for each patient. “It feels like one more hoop to jump through,” says Dr. Siegal. “But there should be no doubt that this is the future of healthcare, like it or not.” TH

Jane Jerrard has been writing for The Hospitalist since 2005.

The new payment system for hospitalized Medicare patients spells big changes for hospitals and hospitalists.

On Aug. 1, 2006, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) issued final regulations for Medicare payments to hospitals in 2008. This update to the hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) is designed to improve the accuracy of Medicare payments and includes a new reporting system with new incentives for participating hospitals, restructured inpatient diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), and the exclusion of some hospital-acquired conditions.

The IPPS contains a number of provisions that will affect hospital medicine, and the incentives paid will come from many hospitalist-treated patients. “Realistically, the majority of patients that hospitalists admit are Medicare patients,” says Eric Siegal, MD, regional medical director of Cogent Healthcare in Madison, Wis., and chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee.

27 Quality Measures

Under the IPPS, hospitals must now report on 27 quality measures to receive their full update. These include 30-day mortality measures for acute myocardial infarction and heart failure for Medicare patients, three measures related to surgical care, and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems patient satisfaction survey.

The set of measures will be expanded for 2009 to include a 30-day mortality measure for pneumonia and four additional measures related to surgical care, contingent on their endorsement by the National Quality Forum (NQF).

More Precise DRGs

The new IPPS uses restructured DRGs to better account for the severity of each patient’s condition. Now, 745 severity-adjusted DRGs have replaced the previous 538. This means hospitals that serve more severely ill patients will receive increased payments in an effort to prevent rewards for cherry-picking the healthiest patients.

“At least conceptually, this is a better way of doing things,” says Dr. Siegal. “Hospitals have been effectively penalized for taking care of really sick patients, because the DRGs weren’t really differentiating degrees of serious illness. Now that hospital comparison is becoming a big deal, people look at a statistic like mortality rates,” and the figures don’t specify which patients were mortally ill upon admission.

What’s Not Covered?

One interesting aspect to IPPS is that it specifies that Medicare will not cover additional costs of eight preventable, hospital-acquired conditions. These conditions include an object mistakenly left in a patient during surgery, air embolism, blood incompatibility, falls, mediastinitis, catheter-associated urinary tract infections (UTIs), pressure ulcers, and vascular catheter associated infections. For 2009, CMS will also propose excluding ventilator associated pneumonia, staphylococcus aureus septicemia, and deep-vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism.

“Some of this stuff will be easy. Some cases, like ‘object left in patient during surgery’ are so obvious as to be laughable,” says Dr. Siegal. “Others are a tougher call, such as a catheter-associated UTI. These are not always as clear-cut as [CMS] says they will be. Philosophically, I think this is the right thing to do—it’s not right to pay a hospital for treating something they caused.”

Hospitalists and hospital staff are likely to see added paperwork as a result of this rule. “I can guarantee that there will be an added checklist for these conditions on admission,” says Dr. Siegal. “We’ll have to check for pressure ulcer, UTI, etc.—and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.”

Key Role for Hospitalists

When hospital payment based on reporting is involved, hospitalists are quickly drawn in. “This puts more money for hospitals at risk,” explains Dr. Siegal. “There’s a clear imperative to document better, and to identify who’s really sick. This will all land squarely on the shoulders of hospitalists—and, in fact, it already [has].”

On average, hospitals that comply with all provisions of the rule will earn an additional 3.5% in Medicare payments. This is really a result of the 3.3% market basket increase.

“The difference between doing this well and doing it poorly can add up to the margin for some hospitals,” stresses Dr. Siegal. “There’s absolutely no question that if I’m a hospital and I’m shelling out for a hospital medicine program, the single thing I want them to do and do well is report properly on these measures.”

Careful documentation includes the DRGs. Dr. Siegal points out that there’s a $4,000 swing between the DRG for low-acuity heart failure (a $3,900 payment) and high-acuity heart failure (a $7,900 payment). “Clearly, there will be a shift in reimbursement to those hospitals with sicker patients—or those that do a better job of documenting those patients,” he says. “You can bet that hospitals will make this a priority. They’re going to get much more finicky about how we document.”

Here’s an example: If presented with a patient with sepsis and a UTI, different physicians will have different diagnoses—or rather, use different terms, whether it’s sepsis, severe sepsis, urosepsis, SIRS, or something else. “Hospitals will try to force all physicians to get more crisp in their definitions,” says Dr. Siegal. “This could be good, because we’ll all be using the same language. But some aspects of this will just be a pain … like any other broadly applied rule. If you admit someone with chest pains, you will no longer be able to note ‘chest pains’; you’ll have to describe the pains.”

Starting now, the new IPPS will force hospitalists to perform more—and more careful—documentation for each patient. “It feels like one more hoop to jump through,” says Dr. Siegal. “But there should be no doubt that this is the future of healthcare, like it or not.” TH

Jane Jerrard has been writing for The Hospitalist since 2005.

The new payment system for hospitalized Medicare patients spells big changes for hospitals and hospitalists.

On Aug. 1, 2006, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) issued final regulations for Medicare payments to hospitals in 2008. This update to the hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) is designed to improve the accuracy of Medicare payments and includes a new reporting system with new incentives for participating hospitals, restructured inpatient diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), and the exclusion of some hospital-acquired conditions.

The IPPS contains a number of provisions that will affect hospital medicine, and the incentives paid will come from many hospitalist-treated patients. “Realistically, the majority of patients that hospitalists admit are Medicare patients,” says Eric Siegal, MD, regional medical director of Cogent Healthcare in Madison, Wis., and chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee.

27 Quality Measures

Under the IPPS, hospitals must now report on 27 quality measures to receive their full update. These include 30-day mortality measures for acute myocardial infarction and heart failure for Medicare patients, three measures related to surgical care, and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems patient satisfaction survey.

The set of measures will be expanded for 2009 to include a 30-day mortality measure for pneumonia and four additional measures related to surgical care, contingent on their endorsement by the National Quality Forum (NQF).

More Precise DRGs

The new IPPS uses restructured DRGs to better account for the severity of each patient’s condition. Now, 745 severity-adjusted DRGs have replaced the previous 538. This means hospitals that serve more severely ill patients will receive increased payments in an effort to prevent rewards for cherry-picking the healthiest patients.

“At least conceptually, this is a better way of doing things,” says Dr. Siegal. “Hospitals have been effectively penalized for taking care of really sick patients, because the DRGs weren’t really differentiating degrees of serious illness. Now that hospital comparison is becoming a big deal, people look at a statistic like mortality rates,” and the figures don’t specify which patients were mortally ill upon admission.

What’s Not Covered?

One interesting aspect to IPPS is that it specifies that Medicare will not cover additional costs of eight preventable, hospital-acquired conditions. These conditions include an object mistakenly left in a patient during surgery, air embolism, blood incompatibility, falls, mediastinitis, catheter-associated urinary tract infections (UTIs), pressure ulcers, and vascular catheter associated infections. For 2009, CMS will also propose excluding ventilator associated pneumonia, staphylococcus aureus septicemia, and deep-vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism.

“Some of this stuff will be easy. Some cases, like ‘object left in patient during surgery’ are so obvious as to be laughable,” says Dr. Siegal. “Others are a tougher call, such as a catheter-associated UTI. These are not always as clear-cut as [CMS] says they will be. Philosophically, I think this is the right thing to do—it’s not right to pay a hospital for treating something they caused.”

Hospitalists and hospital staff are likely to see added paperwork as a result of this rule. “I can guarantee that there will be an added checklist for these conditions on admission,” says Dr. Siegal. “We’ll have to check for pressure ulcer, UTI, etc.—and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.”

Key Role for Hospitalists

When hospital payment based on reporting is involved, hospitalists are quickly drawn in. “This puts more money for hospitals at risk,” explains Dr. Siegal. “There’s a clear imperative to document better, and to identify who’s really sick. This will all land squarely on the shoulders of hospitalists—and, in fact, it already [has].”

On average, hospitals that comply with all provisions of the rule will earn an additional 3.5% in Medicare payments. This is really a result of the 3.3% market basket increase.

“The difference between doing this well and doing it poorly can add up to the margin for some hospitals,” stresses Dr. Siegal. “There’s absolutely no question that if I’m a hospital and I’m shelling out for a hospital medicine program, the single thing I want them to do and do well is report properly on these measures.”

Careful documentation includes the DRGs. Dr. Siegal points out that there’s a $4,000 swing between the DRG for low-acuity heart failure (a $3,900 payment) and high-acuity heart failure (a $7,900 payment). “Clearly, there will be a shift in reimbursement to those hospitals with sicker patients—or those that do a better job of documenting those patients,” he says. “You can bet that hospitals will make this a priority. They’re going to get much more finicky about how we document.”

Here’s an example: If presented with a patient with sepsis and a UTI, different physicians will have different diagnoses—or rather, use different terms, whether it’s sepsis, severe sepsis, urosepsis, SIRS, or something else. “Hospitals will try to force all physicians to get more crisp in their definitions,” says Dr. Siegal. “This could be good, because we’ll all be using the same language. But some aspects of this will just be a pain … like any other broadly applied rule. If you admit someone with chest pains, you will no longer be able to note ‘chest pains’; you’ll have to describe the pains.”

Starting now, the new IPPS will force hospitalists to perform more—and more careful—documentation for each patient. “It feels like one more hoop to jump through,” says Dr. Siegal. “But there should be no doubt that this is the future of healthcare, like it or not.” TH

Jane Jerrard has been writing for The Hospitalist since 2005.

With the first major statewide attempt at universal healthcare access under way in Massachusetts, everyone from presidential candidates to uninsured families on the other side of the U.S. is watching to see if the state’s plan will succeed. If so, it could become the basis of a national healthcare plan.

Massachusetts healthcare reform became law April 2006 as part of the Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care. It requires that virtually all state residents either purchase health insurance or get coverage through state-sponsored insurance for people with low incomes (May 2007 The Hospitalist, p. 1). The plan, based on insurance market reforms, merges the individual and small-group insurance market, allowing residents to get lower group insurance rates.

The law required coverage by July 1, and residents must show evidence of their coverage on their income tax return or face a substantial fine—up to 50% of the cost of a health insurance plan.

Many Massachusetts residents get healthcare coverage through their employers. The state plan requires companies with more than 10 employees to provide coverage or to pay a “Fair Share” contribution of up to $295 for each employee each year. Employers must also offer a “cafeteria plan” that allows workers to purchase healthcare with pre-tax income.

The bill created the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector, which offers affordable, quality insurance to individuals and small businesses. The Connector board approved plans offered by seven insurers that include several options.

As for low-income residents, sliding-scale government-funded subsidies are provided by the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program (C-CHIP). As of June 1, nearly 80,000 low-income adults had enrolled in C-CHIP. In addition, the statute expanded MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage for children of low-income parents and restored MassHealth benefits such as dental and vision care.

The plan also includes a system for quality standards and for publicizing performance of providers.

The money for the plan comes from several sources. Gov. Deval Patrick has requested $1.725 billion to fund the program in the next fiscal year. This will supplement federal Medicaid payments, employer contributions, and general revenues.

What Hospitalists Face

How will universal healthcare coverage for state residents affect Massachusetts hospitalists and other physicians? Massachusetts resident Win Whitcomb, MD, director of clinical performance improvement at Mercy Medical Center in Springfield, and co-founder of SHM, weighed the pros and cons.

“The first issue is the effect on primary care providers,” says Dr. Whitcomb. “A large number of patients will be steered into the system of primary care, which is already overwhelmed. A new [state] commission has been formed to address this shortage, but it’s too late—the system already lacks capacity.”

Soon-to-be-overwhelmed primary care physicians will take every step possible to share the workload: “I think [the plan] will be a new impetus for primary care providers to refer patients to hospitalists,” stresses Dr. Whitcomb. “Hospitalists may well see new demand from primary care providers.”

Will this trend mean more openings for hospitalists at Mass­achusetts institutions? “There are so many drivers behind [the growth of the hospital medicine]; this is just another driver,” says Dr. Whitcomb.

The second likely outcome of the plan will be a transformation of the types of patients treated by hospitalists. Hospitalists around the country are well aware of the problems of treating today’s uninsured patients. “The uninsured tend to show up in the ER in the middle of the night, with diseases in an advanced state” because they haven’t seen a doctor until the last minute, says Dr. Whitcomb. “That situation is not going to go away, but it might decrease” in Massachusetts under the new plan.

“The big question is, will the previously uninsured population, which hospitalists are all too familiar with, be a fundamentally different population?” muses Dr. Whitcomb. “In other words, if [patients] go through a primary care provider and have good management of their illness, will they become a different type of patient than hospitalists are seeing at present? This would be good for hospitalists; it will mean more control over chronic disease and illness.”

How Is It Working?

The plan is still in its infancy, but more than 150,000 of the state’s previously uninsured residents had coverage before the July deadline. However, the total estimated number of remaining uninsured is 250,000 to 375,000.

“The two roadblocks are the ability to enroll patients and finding primary care to handle everyone,” says Dr. Whitcomb. “It’s just one of those wait-and-see issues. I applaud the plan. It’s a sincere effort to deal with the uninsured. I think the primary care shortage is a major problem and will impact the success of the plan.”

Hospitalists around the country may want to keep an eye on developments in Massachusetts because the state’s healthcare system could affect their patient loads, daily work, and compensation. TH

Jane Jerrard has been writing for The Hospitalist since 2005.

With the first major statewide attempt at universal healthcare access under way in Massachusetts, everyone from presidential candidates to uninsured families on the other side of the U.S. is watching to see if the state’s plan will succeed. If so, it could become the basis of a national healthcare plan.

Massachusetts healthcare reform became law April 2006 as part of the Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care. It requires that virtually all state residents either purchase health insurance or get coverage through state-sponsored insurance for people with low incomes (May 2007 The Hospitalist, p. 1). The plan, based on insurance market reforms, merges the individual and small-group insurance market, allowing residents to get lower group insurance rates.

The law required coverage by July 1, and residents must show evidence of their coverage on their income tax return or face a substantial fine—up to 50% of the cost of a health insurance plan.

Many Massachusetts residents get healthcare coverage through their employers. The state plan requires companies with more than 10 employees to provide coverage or to pay a “Fair Share” contribution of up to $295 for each employee each year. Employers must also offer a “cafeteria plan” that allows workers to purchase healthcare with pre-tax income.

The bill created the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector, which offers affordable, quality insurance to individuals and small businesses. The Connector board approved plans offered by seven insurers that include several options.

As for low-income residents, sliding-scale government-funded subsidies are provided by the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program (C-CHIP). As of June 1, nearly 80,000 low-income adults had enrolled in C-CHIP. In addition, the statute expanded MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage for children of low-income parents and restored MassHealth benefits such as dental and vision care.

The plan also includes a system for quality standards and for publicizing performance of providers.

The money for the plan comes from several sources. Gov. Deval Patrick has requested $1.725 billion to fund the program in the next fiscal year. This will supplement federal Medicaid payments, employer contributions, and general revenues.

What Hospitalists Face

How will universal healthcare coverage for state residents affect Massachusetts hospitalists and other physicians? Massachusetts resident Win Whitcomb, MD, director of clinical performance improvement at Mercy Medical Center in Springfield, and co-founder of SHM, weighed the pros and cons.

“The first issue is the effect on primary care providers,” says Dr. Whitcomb. “A large number of patients will be steered into the system of primary care, which is already overwhelmed. A new [state] commission has been formed to address this shortage, but it’s too late—the system already lacks capacity.”

Soon-to-be-overwhelmed primary care physicians will take every step possible to share the workload: “I think [the plan] will be a new impetus for primary care providers to refer patients to hospitalists,” stresses Dr. Whitcomb. “Hospitalists may well see new demand from primary care providers.”

Will this trend mean more openings for hospitalists at Mass­achusetts institutions? “There are so many drivers behind [the growth of the hospital medicine]; this is just another driver,” says Dr. Whitcomb.

The second likely outcome of the plan will be a transformation of the types of patients treated by hospitalists. Hospitalists around the country are well aware of the problems of treating today’s uninsured patients. “The uninsured tend to show up in the ER in the middle of the night, with diseases in an advanced state” because they haven’t seen a doctor until the last minute, says Dr. Whitcomb. “That situation is not going to go away, but it might decrease” in Massachusetts under the new plan.

“The big question is, will the previously uninsured population, which hospitalists are all too familiar with, be a fundamentally different population?” muses Dr. Whitcomb. “In other words, if [patients] go through a primary care provider and have good management of their illness, will they become a different type of patient than hospitalists are seeing at present? This would be good for hospitalists; it will mean more control over chronic disease and illness.”

How Is It Working?

The plan is still in its infancy, but more than 150,000 of the state’s previously uninsured residents had coverage before the July deadline. However, the total estimated number of remaining uninsured is 250,000 to 375,000.

“The two roadblocks are the ability to enroll patients and finding primary care to handle everyone,” says Dr. Whitcomb. “It’s just one of those wait-and-see issues. I applaud the plan. It’s a sincere effort to deal with the uninsured. I think the primary care shortage is a major problem and will impact the success of the plan.”

Hospitalists around the country may want to keep an eye on developments in Massachusetts because the state’s healthcare system could affect their patient loads, daily work, and compensation. TH

Jane Jerrard has been writing for The Hospitalist since 2005.

With the first major statewide attempt at universal healthcare access under way in Massachusetts, everyone from presidential candidates to uninsured families on the other side of the U.S. is watching to see if the state’s plan will succeed. If so, it could become the basis of a national healthcare plan.

Massachusetts healthcare reform became law April 2006 as part of the Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care. It requires that virtually all state residents either purchase health insurance or get coverage through state-sponsored insurance for people with low incomes (May 2007 The Hospitalist, p. 1). The plan, based on insurance market reforms, merges the individual and small-group insurance market, allowing residents to get lower group insurance rates.

The law required coverage by July 1, and residents must show evidence of their coverage on their income tax return or face a substantial fine—up to 50% of the cost of a health insurance plan.

Many Massachusetts residents get healthcare coverage through their employers. The state plan requires companies with more than 10 employees to provide coverage or to pay a “Fair Share” contribution of up to $295 for each employee each year. Employers must also offer a “cafeteria plan” that allows workers to purchase healthcare with pre-tax income.

The bill created the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector, which offers affordable, quality insurance to individuals and small businesses. The Connector board approved plans offered by seven insurers that include several options.

As for low-income residents, sliding-scale government-funded subsidies are provided by the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program (C-CHIP). As of June 1, nearly 80,000 low-income adults had enrolled in C-CHIP. In addition, the statute expanded MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage for children of low-income parents and restored MassHealth benefits such as dental and vision care.

The plan also includes a system for quality standards and for publicizing performance of providers.

The money for the plan comes from several sources. Gov. Deval Patrick has requested $1.725 billion to fund the program in the next fiscal year. This will supplement federal Medicaid payments, employer contributions, and general revenues.

What Hospitalists Face

How will universal healthcare coverage for state residents affect Massachusetts hospitalists and other physicians? Massachusetts resident Win Whitcomb, MD, director of clinical performance improvement at Mercy Medical Center in Springfield, and co-founder of SHM, weighed the pros and cons.

“The first issue is the effect on primary care providers,” says Dr. Whitcomb. “A large number of patients will be steered into the system of primary care, which is already overwhelmed. A new [state] commission has been formed to address this shortage, but it’s too late—the system already lacks capacity.”

Soon-to-be-overwhelmed primary care physicians will take every step possible to share the workload: “I think [the plan] will be a new impetus for primary care providers to refer patients to hospitalists,” stresses Dr. Whitcomb. “Hospitalists may well see new demand from primary care providers.”

Will this trend mean more openings for hospitalists at Mass­achusetts institutions? “There are so many drivers behind [the growth of the hospital medicine]; this is just another driver,” says Dr. Whitcomb.

The second likely outcome of the plan will be a transformation of the types of patients treated by hospitalists. Hospitalists around the country are well aware of the problems of treating today’s uninsured patients. “The uninsured tend to show up in the ER in the middle of the night, with diseases in an advanced state” because they haven’t seen a doctor until the last minute, says Dr. Whitcomb. “That situation is not going to go away, but it might decrease” in Massachusetts under the new plan.

“The big question is, will the previously uninsured population, which hospitalists are all too familiar with, be a fundamentally different population?” muses Dr. Whitcomb. “In other words, if [patients] go through a primary care provider and have good management of their illness, will they become a different type of patient than hospitalists are seeing at present? This would be good for hospitalists; it will mean more control over chronic disease and illness.”

How Is It Working?

The plan is still in its infancy, but more than 150,000 of the state’s previously uninsured residents had coverage before the July deadline. However, the total estimated number of remaining uninsured is 250,000 to 375,000.

“The two roadblocks are the ability to enroll patients and finding primary care to handle everyone,” says Dr. Whitcomb. “It’s just one of those wait-and-see issues. I applaud the plan. It’s a sincere effort to deal with the uninsured. I think the primary care shortage is a major problem and will impact the success of the plan.”

Hospitalists around the country may want to keep an eye on developments in Massachusetts because the state’s healthcare system could affect their patient loads, daily work, and compensation. TH

Jane Jerrard has been writing for The Hospitalist since 2005.

You may have an idea for a business you’d like to start, perhaps attracted by the prospect of controlling your time and work, chasing extra income, or fulfilling the dream of having an alternate career. Should you try turning your dream into reality—and if so, how?

Philippa Kennealy, MD, MPH, has guided hospitalists and other physicians along this path. She heads The Entrepreneurial MD, a Los Angeles-based coaching service for physicians who want to become more entrepreneurial with their practices or start a side business. She has a unique perspective on how physicians can add a satisfying second career to their practice of medicine. “I myself am a physician-entrepreneur,” says Dr. Kennealy.

Why Increase Workloads?

What makes busy hospitalists seek a side business? Why overload your schedule with the extra hours and responsibilities of running a business?

“It’s an opportunity to do something that feels creative, that gives you control,” explains Dr. Kennealy. “I feel that physicians don’t get to use creativity, and they don’t have much control. Their daily actions and decisions are quite regulated. Owning their own time is attractive to physicians. Hospitalists in particular are at it all day in the hospital.”

Is it really possible to continue to work as a hospitalist while shaping a second business? Yes—and others have done it.

“A lot of physicians dream of [entrepreneurship] but feel trapped by their existing time commitments,” says Dr. Kennealy. “But there are some who take the necessary steps, who carve out the time to do it. Many of them hook up with someone to form a partnership—often this is with a non-physician.”

Types of Endeavors

Some physicians are interested in a start-up business that goes hand in hand with their patient care; others may go in a completely different direction.

“There’s an enormous array of [physician-owned businesses] out there,” says Dr. Kennealy. “Many of my clients go into consulting, mostly within healthcare. Some have developed a software application that supports some aspect of healthcare.” Other physicians open health and wellness centers. One of Dr. Kennealy’s clients has developed a sculpting business and is ready to open her own gallery.

Lucia Ferreras-Cox, MD, works as an independent contractor in urgent care and hospital medicine while she runs her company, Ejerce Medecina USA, in Gilbert, Ariz. Ejerce offers Web-based training for Spanish-speaking physicians in other countries to help them pass the U.S. medical board review, then serves as a recruiting firm for those physicians once they get their U.S. licenses.

“I went back to business school for three months to refresh my skills,” says Dr. Ferreras-Cox, who previously had a pediatric practice. “I had to relearn—to learn that I was not a not-for-profit anymore.”

Marica Pook, MD, is a full-time hospitalist in Superior, Colo., and president of ExtraMD PC, a company that provides short-term physician staffing. Her start-up was quite simple. “I’ve been a hospitalist for seven years now, and of course part of my job is to call primary care physicians about patients,” Dr. Pook says. “I started thinking about what it’s like for those physicians and how they can get some help when they’re at their busiest.”

She decided to provide that help. In 2004 she used her contacts to start a kind of mini locum tenens job, working for different physician groups and hospitals. “Nine months into it, I started bringing in other physicians,” she says. Today, the business is thriving, with a growing number of local physicians involved, as well as some much-needed staff.

“I have an excellent bookkeeper, who does all the financials, invoicing, and budgeting—almost like a controller,” says Dr. Pook. “And I just hired a virtual assistant last week. I’ve found that it works best when I farm out the calling and scheduling and I just focus on the marketing. And I include talking to the physicians in that.”

Get Started

So how do you begin your transformation from hospitalist to hospitalist-entrepreneur?

“The basic steps begin with identifying whether this is an escapist fantasy or a deep, abiding interest,” stresses Dr. Kennealy. “It will take a deep interest to get you through the difficult times—it’s a real commitment.”

Once you determine you’re willing to invest time and expense in your own business, Dr. Kennealy advises you to assess your skills and acquire any new ones you’ll need. One way is to meet businesspeople, learn how they think, and understand the language of business. You can also study business and marketing books and journals or take business courses.

“I think physicians don’t know how to run a business,” says Dr. Pook. “We’re not trained to do this. What really helped me was a business coach. I’d advise others to either get a coach or get hooked up with someone who knows a lot about business.”

Before you make too deep a commitment, consider an important component. “You need some sense of the marketplace,” says Dr. Kennealy. Who will buy your product or service? Is there enough interest to support your efforts? What is the competition like in your area?

The next step, she says, is to develop a business plan. “There are free resources available at SCORE.org [the Web site of SCORE, Counselors to America’s Small Business],” she says. “As you start on your plan, you may see that you require further analysis. You need to close those knowledge gaps before you start the business.”

And finally, you have to have marketing savvy to make it work. “Wrap it all up in a sound marketing plan,” concludes Dr. Kennealy. “How will you reach your target audience, and how will you do it efficiently? You must learn the art of marketing, and most physicians don’t have a clue. You have to shift your thinking from a physician whose patients basically come flocking to someone who has to attract and keep customers.” TH

Jane Jerrard also writes “Public Policy” for The Hospitalist.

You may have an idea for a business you’d like to start, perhaps attracted by the prospect of controlling your time and work, chasing extra income, or fulfilling the dream of having an alternate career. Should you try turning your dream into reality—and if so, how?

Philippa Kennealy, MD, MPH, has guided hospitalists and other physicians along this path. She heads The Entrepreneurial MD, a Los Angeles-based coaching service for physicians who want to become more entrepreneurial with their practices or start a side business. She has a unique perspective on how physicians can add a satisfying second career to their practice of medicine. “I myself am a physician-entrepreneur,” says Dr. Kennealy.

Why Increase Workloads?

What makes busy hospitalists seek a side business? Why overload your schedule with the extra hours and responsibilities of running a business?

“It’s an opportunity to do something that feels creative, that gives you control,” explains Dr. Kennealy. “I feel that physicians don’t get to use creativity, and they don’t have much control. Their daily actions and decisions are quite regulated. Owning their own time is attractive to physicians. Hospitalists in particular are at it all day in the hospital.”

Is it really possible to continue to work as a hospitalist while shaping a second business? Yes—and others have done it.

“A lot of physicians dream of [entrepreneurship] but feel trapped by their existing time commitments,” says Dr. Kennealy. “But there are some who take the necessary steps, who carve out the time to do it. Many of them hook up with someone to form a partnership—often this is with a non-physician.”

Types of Endeavors

Some physicians are interested in a start-up business that goes hand in hand with their patient care; others may go in a completely different direction.

“There’s an enormous array of [physician-owned businesses] out there,” says Dr. Kennealy. “Many of my clients go into consulting, mostly within healthcare. Some have developed a software application that supports some aspect of healthcare.” Other physicians open health and wellness centers. One of Dr. Kennealy’s clients has developed a sculpting business and is ready to open her own gallery.

Lucia Ferreras-Cox, MD, works as an independent contractor in urgent care and hospital medicine while she runs her company, Ejerce Medecina USA, in Gilbert, Ariz. Ejerce offers Web-based training for Spanish-speaking physicians in other countries to help them pass the U.S. medical board review, then serves as a recruiting firm for those physicians once they get their U.S. licenses.

“I went back to business school for three months to refresh my skills,” says Dr. Ferreras-Cox, who previously had a pediatric practice. “I had to relearn—to learn that I was not a not-for-profit anymore.”

Marica Pook, MD, is a full-time hospitalist in Superior, Colo., and president of ExtraMD PC, a company that provides short-term physician staffing. Her start-up was quite simple. “I’ve been a hospitalist for seven years now, and of course part of my job is to call primary care physicians about patients,” Dr. Pook says. “I started thinking about what it’s like for those physicians and how they can get some help when they’re at their busiest.”

She decided to provide that help. In 2004 she used her contacts to start a kind of mini locum tenens job, working for different physician groups and hospitals. “Nine months into it, I started bringing in other physicians,” she says. Today, the business is thriving, with a growing number of local physicians involved, as well as some much-needed staff.

“I have an excellent bookkeeper, who does all the financials, invoicing, and budgeting—almost like a controller,” says Dr. Pook. “And I just hired a virtual assistant last week. I’ve found that it works best when I farm out the calling and scheduling and I just focus on the marketing. And I include talking to the physicians in that.”

Get Started

So how do you begin your transformation from hospitalist to hospitalist-entrepreneur?

“The basic steps begin with identifying whether this is an escapist fantasy or a deep, abiding interest,” stresses Dr. Kennealy. “It will take a deep interest to get you through the difficult times—it’s a real commitment.”

Once you determine you’re willing to invest time and expense in your own business, Dr. Kennealy advises you to assess your skills and acquire any new ones you’ll need. One way is to meet businesspeople, learn how they think, and understand the language of business. You can also study business and marketing books and journals or take business courses.

“I think physicians don’t know how to run a business,” says Dr. Pook. “We’re not trained to do this. What really helped me was a business coach. I’d advise others to either get a coach or get hooked up with someone who knows a lot about business.”

Before you make too deep a commitment, consider an important component. “You need some sense of the marketplace,” says Dr. Kennealy. Who will buy your product or service? Is there enough interest to support your efforts? What is the competition like in your area?

The next step, she says, is to develop a business plan. “There are free resources available at SCORE.org [the Web site of SCORE, Counselors to America’s Small Business],” she says. “As you start on your plan, you may see that you require further analysis. You need to close those knowledge gaps before you start the business.”

And finally, you have to have marketing savvy to make it work. “Wrap it all up in a sound marketing plan,” concludes Dr. Kennealy. “How will you reach your target audience, and how will you do it efficiently? You must learn the art of marketing, and most physicians don’t have a clue. You have to shift your thinking from a physician whose patients basically come flocking to someone who has to attract and keep customers.” TH

Jane Jerrard also writes “Public Policy” for The Hospitalist.

You may have an idea for a business you’d like to start, perhaps attracted by the prospect of controlling your time and work, chasing extra income, or fulfilling the dream of having an alternate career. Should you try turning your dream into reality—and if so, how?

Philippa Kennealy, MD, MPH, has guided hospitalists and other physicians along this path. She heads The Entrepreneurial MD, a Los Angeles-based coaching service for physicians who want to become more entrepreneurial with their practices or start a side business. She has a unique perspective on how physicians can add a satisfying second career to their practice of medicine. “I myself am a physician-entrepreneur,” says Dr. Kennealy.

Why Increase Workloads?

What makes busy hospitalists seek a side business? Why overload your schedule with the extra hours and responsibilities of running a business?

“It’s an opportunity to do something that feels creative, that gives you control,” explains Dr. Kennealy. “I feel that physicians don’t get to use creativity, and they don’t have much control. Their daily actions and decisions are quite regulated. Owning their own time is attractive to physicians. Hospitalists in particular are at it all day in the hospital.”

Is it really possible to continue to work as a hospitalist while shaping a second business? Yes—and others have done it.

“A lot of physicians dream of [entrepreneurship] but feel trapped by their existing time commitments,” says Dr. Kennealy. “But there are some who take the necessary steps, who carve out the time to do it. Many of them hook up with someone to form a partnership—often this is with a non-physician.”

Types of Endeavors

Some physicians are interested in a start-up business that goes hand in hand with their patient care; others may go in a completely different direction.

“There’s an enormous array of [physician-owned businesses] out there,” says Dr. Kennealy. “Many of my clients go into consulting, mostly within healthcare. Some have developed a software application that supports some aspect of healthcare.” Other physicians open health and wellness centers. One of Dr. Kennealy’s clients has developed a sculpting business and is ready to open her own gallery.

Lucia Ferreras-Cox, MD, works as an independent contractor in urgent care and hospital medicine while she runs her company, Ejerce Medecina USA, in Gilbert, Ariz. Ejerce offers Web-based training for Spanish-speaking physicians in other countries to help them pass the U.S. medical board review, then serves as a recruiting firm for those physicians once they get their U.S. licenses.

“I went back to business school for three months to refresh my skills,” says Dr. Ferreras-Cox, who previously had a pediatric practice. “I had to relearn—to learn that I was not a not-for-profit anymore.”

Marica Pook, MD, is a full-time hospitalist in Superior, Colo., and president of ExtraMD PC, a company that provides short-term physician staffing. Her start-up was quite simple. “I’ve been a hospitalist for seven years now, and of course part of my job is to call primary care physicians about patients,” Dr. Pook says. “I started thinking about what it’s like for those physicians and how they can get some help when they’re at their busiest.”

She decided to provide that help. In 2004 she used her contacts to start a kind of mini locum tenens job, working for different physician groups and hospitals. “Nine months into it, I started bringing in other physicians,” she says. Today, the business is thriving, with a growing number of local physicians involved, as well as some much-needed staff.

“I have an excellent bookkeeper, who does all the financials, invoicing, and budgeting—almost like a controller,” says Dr. Pook. “And I just hired a virtual assistant last week. I’ve found that it works best when I farm out the calling and scheduling and I just focus on the marketing. And I include talking to the physicians in that.”

Get Started

So how do you begin your transformation from hospitalist to hospitalist-entrepreneur?

“The basic steps begin with identifying whether this is an escapist fantasy or a deep, abiding interest,” stresses Dr. Kennealy. “It will take a deep interest to get you through the difficult times—it’s a real commitment.”

Once you determine you’re willing to invest time and expense in your own business, Dr. Kennealy advises you to assess your skills and acquire any new ones you’ll need. One way is to meet businesspeople, learn how they think, and understand the language of business. You can also study business and marketing books and journals or take business courses.

“I think physicians don’t know how to run a business,” says Dr. Pook. “We’re not trained to do this. What really helped me was a business coach. I’d advise others to either get a coach or get hooked up with someone who knows a lot about business.”

Before you make too deep a commitment, consider an important component. “You need some sense of the marketplace,” says Dr. Kennealy. Who will buy your product or service? Is there enough interest to support your efforts? What is the competition like in your area?

The next step, she says, is to develop a business plan. “There are free resources available at SCORE.org [the Web site of SCORE, Counselors to America’s Small Business],” she says. “As you start on your plan, you may see that you require further analysis. You need to close those knowledge gaps before you start the business.”

And finally, you have to have marketing savvy to make it work. “Wrap it all up in a sound marketing plan,” concludes Dr. Kennealy. “How will you reach your target audience, and how will you do it efficiently? You must learn the art of marketing, and most physicians don’t have a clue. You have to shift your thinking from a physician whose patients basically come flocking to someone who has to attract and keep customers.” TH

Jane Jerrard also writes “Public Policy” for The Hospitalist.

A poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation in August found that healthcare is the top domestic issue that the public wants presidential candidates to address.

Republicans and independent voters ranked healthcare second only to Iraq in the poll, while for the first time, Democrats ranked the two issues as equally important for the candidates to discuss as they campaign.

With more voters interested in changes to American healthcare—which is really shorthand for affordable access to health insurance coverage—the presidential candidates are also showing interest. Sort of.

Some, including John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Mitt Romney, have a broad plan or opinion in place. Others, such as Mike Huckabee and John McCain, have not yet shared a plan.

As the election progresses—or even after a new president is sworn into office—will we see any real changes to healthcare access? “There has to be [some change],” states Bradley Flansbaum, DO, MPH, chief of hospitalist section at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, N.Y. “We’ve reached a tipping point. You can’t continue to play kick the can.” The impetus for change, Dr. Flansbaum believes, will not be public opinion so much as money.

“I think that we’re reaching a critical mass, and that premiums will drive the change,” he predicts. “Employers can’t afford insurance benefits any more, and now that employers are changing plans and employees are paying more and faced with higher premiums, I think the house of cards will collapse.”

Laura Allendorf, SHM’s senior adviser for advocacy and government affairs, agrees change is in the air.

“I do think there are better opportunities for action than there have been in the past,” she says. “Various polls show that healthcare [access] is an important issue. That’s why so many candidates are developing proposals on this, or already have a proposal.” She adds, “A U.S. Census Bureau report just came out showing an increase in the number of unemployed—this will lend pressure for policymakers.”

Where Will the Trail Lead?

Campaigning for the 2008 election is in full swing, and no one is surprised the candidates lack firm or detailed opinions on healthcare access. But what can we expect to see in the next year of campaigning?

“As much as Hillary [Clinton] is a lightening rod in some ways, she’s going to be driving the debate on this,” predicts Dr. Flansbaum. “As we get closer to the election and the second- and third-tier candidates start to come apart, she’ll be the one leading the healthcare debate.”

In general, Democrats and Republicans have settled into two camps on the issue.

“It’s easy to say, ‘Don’t listen to the Democrats—they want socialized medicine,’ while the Democrats are saying ‘The Republicans want corporate America to take over,’” says Dr. Flansbaum. “They’re playing games right now. I can’t say if a purely government or a purely corporate system would work, but we probably need and are going to get a mixture of both.” After the election, he says, “There’s got to be some compromise in the middle.”

What about other healthcare issues besides the rising costs and lack of access? “In addition to access, quality improvement is certainly key,” says Allendorf.

For Dr. Flansbaum, everything is connected to access, including healthcare IT, informatics, quality reporting, cost control, and waste reduction.

Hail to the New Chief

Once a new president and his or her administration is in place, will the concerns—and possibly the campaign promises—over healthcare access be dropped?

“Definitely something would—or rather, should—be done,” says Allendorf. “The two parties obviously have different philosophic approaches, but if [the next president] listens to the voters, they’ll act. The voters have spoken.” And if no action is taken on the issues, Allendorf adds, “It’s up to associations like SHM to push for reform.”

But Dr. Flansbaum warns that whatever the change is, it won’t happen overnight.

“There are too many lobbyists and people with their hand in the till to turn this around overnight,” states Dr. Flansbaum. “It will be an incremental change, and it will probably start out like the Massachusetts plan.”

Beginning July 1, Massachusetts enacted a law designed to cover the state’s uninsured population. The law mandates that individuals purchase health insurance with government subsidies to ensure affordability.

The two parties obviously have different philosophic approaches, but if [the next president] listens to the voters, they’ll act.

—Laura Allendorf, SHM’s senior adviser for advocacy and government affairs

Physician, Educate Thyself

The next year promises more campaigning, including debates and town hall forums, updated Web sites, media interviews, and so on. Allendorf says that as the candidates change and their positions on healthcare issues are fleshed out and become more apparent.

“SHM will provide information through our usual channels and publications about the candidates’ positions as they gel,” she says. “We’ll probably also want to hear from any SHM members who are involved in working with candidates on their positions, crafting proposals or working on healthcare advisory groups.”

For information on the candidates’ healthcare access positions, you can download an August report from the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, “The 2008 Presidential Candidates on Health Care Reform,” from www.cahi.org.

You can also find nonpartisan, up-to-date information about candidates’ healthcare policy, as well as analysis of health policy issues, regular public opinion surveys, and news coverage, on a site hosted by the Kaiser Family Foundation: www.health08.org. TH

Jane Jerrard has been writing for The Hospitalist since 2005.

A poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation in August found that healthcare is the top domestic issue that the public wants presidential candidates to address.

Republicans and independent voters ranked healthcare second only to Iraq in the poll, while for the first time, Democrats ranked the two issues as equally important for the candidates to discuss as they campaign.

With more voters interested in changes to American healthcare—which is really shorthand for affordable access to health insurance coverage—the presidential candidates are also showing interest. Sort of.

Some, including John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Mitt Romney, have a broad plan or opinion in place. Others, such as Mike Huckabee and John McCain, have not yet shared a plan.

As the election progresses—or even after a new president is sworn into office—will we see any real changes to healthcare access? “There has to be [some change],” states Bradley Flansbaum, DO, MPH, chief of hospitalist section at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, N.Y. “We’ve reached a tipping point. You can’t continue to play kick the can.” The impetus for change, Dr. Flansbaum believes, will not be public opinion so much as money.

“I think that we’re reaching a critical mass, and that premiums will drive the change,” he predicts. “Employers can’t afford insurance benefits any more, and now that employers are changing plans and employees are paying more and faced with higher premiums, I think the house of cards will collapse.”

Laura Allendorf, SHM’s senior adviser for advocacy and government affairs, agrees change is in the air.

“I do think there are better opportunities for action than there have been in the past,” she says. “Various polls show that healthcare [access] is an important issue. That’s why so many candidates are developing proposals on this, or already have a proposal.” She adds, “A U.S. Census Bureau report just came out showing an increase in the number of unemployed—this will lend pressure for policymakers.”

Where Will the Trail Lead?

Campaigning for the 2008 election is in full swing, and no one is surprised the candidates lack firm or detailed opinions on healthcare access. But what can we expect to see in the next year of campaigning?

“As much as Hillary [Clinton] is a lightening rod in some ways, she’s going to be driving the debate on this,” predicts Dr. Flansbaum. “As we get closer to the election and the second- and third-tier candidates start to come apart, she’ll be the one leading the healthcare debate.”

In general, Democrats and Republicans have settled into two camps on the issue.

“It’s easy to say, ‘Don’t listen to the Democrats—they want socialized medicine,’ while the Democrats are saying ‘The Republicans want corporate America to take over,’” says Dr. Flansbaum. “They’re playing games right now. I can’t say if a purely government or a purely corporate system would work, but we probably need and are going to get a mixture of both.” After the election, he says, “There’s got to be some compromise in the middle.”

What about other healthcare issues besides the rising costs and lack of access? “In addition to access, quality improvement is certainly key,” says Allendorf.

For Dr. Flansbaum, everything is connected to access, including healthcare IT, informatics, quality reporting, cost control, and waste reduction.

Hail to the New Chief

Once a new president and his or her administration is in place, will the concerns—and possibly the campaign promises—over healthcare access be dropped?

“Definitely something would—or rather, should—be done,” says Allendorf. “The two parties obviously have different philosophic approaches, but if [the next president] listens to the voters, they’ll act. The voters have spoken.” And if no action is taken on the issues, Allendorf adds, “It’s up to associations like SHM to push for reform.”

But Dr. Flansbaum warns that whatever the change is, it won’t happen overnight.

“There are too many lobbyists and people with their hand in the till to turn this around overnight,” states Dr. Flansbaum. “It will be an incremental change, and it will probably start out like the Massachusetts plan.”

Beginning July 1, Massachusetts enacted a law designed to cover the state’s uninsured population. The law mandates that individuals purchase health insurance with government subsidies to ensure affordability.

The two parties obviously have different philosophic approaches, but if [the next president] listens to the voters, they’ll act.

—Laura Allendorf, SHM’s senior adviser for advocacy and government affairs

Physician, Educate Thyself

The next year promises more campaigning, including debates and town hall forums, updated Web sites, media interviews, and so on. Allendorf says that as the candidates change and their positions on healthcare issues are fleshed out and become more apparent.

“SHM will provide information through our usual channels and publications about the candidates’ positions as they gel,” she says. “We’ll probably also want to hear from any SHM members who are involved in working with candidates on their positions, crafting proposals or working on healthcare advisory groups.”

For information on the candidates’ healthcare access positions, you can download an August report from the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, “The 2008 Presidential Candidates on Health Care Reform,” from www.cahi.org.

You can also find nonpartisan, up-to-date information about candidates’ healthcare policy, as well as analysis of health policy issues, regular public opinion surveys, and news coverage, on a site hosted by the Kaiser Family Foundation: www.health08.org. TH

Jane Jerrard has been writing for The Hospitalist since 2005.

A poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation in August found that healthcare is the top domestic issue that the public wants presidential candidates to address.

Republicans and independent voters ranked healthcare second only to Iraq in the poll, while for the first time, Democrats ranked the two issues as equally important for the candidates to discuss as they campaign.

With more voters interested in changes to American healthcare—which is really shorthand for affordable access to health insurance coverage—the presidential candidates are also showing interest. Sort of.

Some, including John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Mitt Romney, have a broad plan or opinion in place. Others, such as Mike Huckabee and John McCain, have not yet shared a plan.

As the election progresses—or even after a new president is sworn into office—will we see any real changes to healthcare access? “There has to be [some change],” states Bradley Flansbaum, DO, MPH, chief of hospitalist section at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, N.Y. “We’ve reached a tipping point. You can’t continue to play kick the can.” The impetus for change, Dr. Flansbaum believes, will not be public opinion so much as money.

“I think that we’re reaching a critical mass, and that premiums will drive the change,” he predicts. “Employers can’t afford insurance benefits any more, and now that employers are changing plans and employees are paying more and faced with higher premiums, I think the house of cards will collapse.”

Laura Allendorf, SHM’s senior adviser for advocacy and government affairs, agrees change is in the air.

“I do think there are better opportunities for action than there have been in the past,” she says. “Various polls show that healthcare [access] is an important issue. That’s why so many candidates are developing proposals on this, or already have a proposal.” She adds, “A U.S. Census Bureau report just came out showing an increase in the number of unemployed—this will lend pressure for policymakers.”

Where Will the Trail Lead?

Campaigning for the 2008 election is in full swing, and no one is surprised the candidates lack firm or detailed opinions on healthcare access. But what can we expect to see in the next year of campaigning?

“As much as Hillary [Clinton] is a lightening rod in some ways, she’s going to be driving the debate on this,” predicts Dr. Flansbaum. “As we get closer to the election and the second- and third-tier candidates start to come apart, she’ll be the one leading the healthcare debate.”

In general, Democrats and Republicans have settled into two camps on the issue.

“It’s easy to say, ‘Don’t listen to the Democrats—they want socialized medicine,’ while the Democrats are saying ‘The Republicans want corporate America to take over,’” says Dr. Flansbaum. “They’re playing games right now. I can’t say if a purely government or a purely corporate system would work, but we probably need and are going to get a mixture of both.” After the election, he says, “There’s got to be some compromise in the middle.”

What about other healthcare issues besides the rising costs and lack of access? “In addition to access, quality improvement is certainly key,” says Allendorf.

For Dr. Flansbaum, everything is connected to access, including healthcare IT, informatics, quality reporting, cost control, and waste reduction.

Hail to the New Chief

Once a new president and his or her administration is in place, will the concerns—and possibly the campaign promises—over healthcare access be dropped?

“Definitely something would—or rather, should—be done,” says Allendorf. “The two parties obviously have different philosophic approaches, but if [the next president] listens to the voters, they’ll act. The voters have spoken.” And if no action is taken on the issues, Allendorf adds, “It’s up to associations like SHM to push for reform.”

But Dr. Flansbaum warns that whatever the change is, it won’t happen overnight.

“There are too many lobbyists and people with their hand in the till to turn this around overnight,” states Dr. Flansbaum. “It will be an incremental change, and it will probably start out like the Massachusetts plan.”

Beginning July 1, Massachusetts enacted a law designed to cover the state’s uninsured population. The law mandates that individuals purchase health insurance with government subsidies to ensure affordability.

The two parties obviously have different philosophic approaches, but if [the next president] listens to the voters, they’ll act.

—Laura Allendorf, SHM’s senior adviser for advocacy and government affairs

Physician, Educate Thyself

The next year promises more campaigning, including debates and town hall forums, updated Web sites, media interviews, and so on. Allendorf says that as the candidates change and their positions on healthcare issues are fleshed out and become more apparent.

“SHM will provide information through our usual channels and publications about the candidates’ positions as they gel,” she says. “We’ll probably also want to hear from any SHM members who are involved in working with candidates on their positions, crafting proposals or working on healthcare advisory groups.”

For information on the candidates’ healthcare access positions, you can download an August report from the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, “The 2008 Presidential Candidates on Health Care Reform,” from www.cahi.org.

You can also find nonpartisan, up-to-date information about candidates’ healthcare policy, as well as analysis of health policy issues, regular public opinion surveys, and news coverage, on a site hosted by the Kaiser Family Foundation: www.health08.org. TH

Jane Jerrard has been writing for The Hospitalist since 2005.

Interested in a promotion? If you have your eye on an administrative career, go ahead and think big—because the opportunities for today’s hospitalists are there for the taking, with some planning and the careful acquisition of skills, experience, and training.

“Any hospitalist who has any desire to be a leader, whether in a medical practice or in a hospital, has numerous opportunities,” says Patrick Cawley, MD, chief medical officer of Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) Medical Center in Charleston. “If you’re willing to step up, you can attain that leadership position.”

Plan Your Path

Ambitious hospitalists must consider the administrative positions available to them in the long run.

“Within a hospital medicine practice, you have just one director,” says Joan C. Faro, MD, FACP, MBA, chief medical officer, John T. Mather Memorial Hospital, Port Jefferson, N.Y. “So people working in the ranks need to be creative and come up with ideas on gaining experience, such as creating a QA position.” She advises hospitalists to look at the job description and the performance measures of the director’s position to see what expectations come with the job.

The promotion to director may involve switching practices. “If you want to move quickly, you have to be able to move [to a different group],” explains Dr. Cawley. “In a local community, there will be others ahead of you. If you’re willing to move to a less-than-ideal location, you can find better opportunities.” For community-based hospitalists especially, the director’s position is a necessary one before moving higher up the administrative ladder.

“You need to be managing some people before you become a CMO [chief medical officer] or administrator,” explains Dr. Faro. “You really have to show that you can do some significant work. In academia, you can do this as a division chief or something like that.” As the director of a hospital medicine program, she says, “you can broaden your scope and move higher up into hospital administration.”

First Steps

How do you move from working hospitalist to director or department head? Start small.

“You can start with easy committee assignments,” says Dr. Cawley. “Even while you’re getting leadership training, you can be building those skills on the job. Start with small projects, such as small committee roles or quality management projects. You can then move up, but consider that you’ll need new skills as you do. Before you chair your first committee, you’ll have to brush up on how to run a meeting. You can progressively take on larger, broader roles.”

Enlist the help of your own leaders to help you get started.

“You could go to your CMO or your medical director—if they’re in a position to help—and ask what you need to do to get to the next step,” advises Dr. Faro. “You don’t need formal training at this point; test the waters, find what you’re interested in and make sure that leading change is something you enjoy before you [invest in] formal training.”

Dr. Faro was working as an internist in an academic medical setting when she discovered an affinity for leadership. “I went to my dean and asked to be put on committees,” she recalls. “I also worked in a volunteer capacity and did committee work for the local chapter of the American Heart Association. I ended up chairing a number of committees over the years. It just seemed to happen naturally because I enjoyed it. After these experiences, I knew I had a talent for working with disparate groups and getting things done.”

As you concentrate on committee work and project work, focus on building clinical and administrative skills.

“The most important things are having the right skills and experience,” stresses Dr. Cawley. “In my opinion, experience will count for more than skills, because people tend to assume that your skills improve as you gain experience. Experience is more important than an advanced degree, with the caveat that degrees are one way that leaders can prove themselves. Having that MBA or MPH doesn’t hurt, and it shows that you’re serious; it requires some dedication to earn that.”

Leadership Training A Must

If your committee and project experience assures you that you want to pursue a leadership path, says Dr. Cawley, “you really need leadership training. Now, is that an MBA or simply selective reading and coursework? That depends on what you want and how you want to go about it.”

However you decide to educate yourself, that leadership training should emphasize certain skills.

“You definitely need formal negotiation skills training,” says Dr. Cawley. “You should also train in how to deal with a physician who’s disruptive. You’ll need a little bit of financial training, and then leadership training itself—what is a leader and what are the expectations of a leader? These are the basics.”

Dr. Faro adds that communication skills and presentation skills are important for leaders. “These are things that physicians think they know— after all we all feel we communicate well and we need to talk to our patients—but there’s a difference between teaching your patients about medications and engaging an audience,” she warns. “It’s also important to understand your management or your leadership style.”

Leadership training is easy to find. “Every single organization has now recognized that being a leader is something that requires training,” Dr. Faro points out. Physician leadership training is offered by the American College of Healthcare Executives, the American College of Physician Executives, the American College of Physicians, and SHM.

Opportunities Abound

In the growing field of hospital medicine, opportunities for advancement are growing as well. “Within just a few years, you’d be surprised what level you can reach,” says Dr. Cawley.

“There is a lot of potential for leadership within hospital medicine groups, and for moving from leading a group to a leadership role at a hospital,” says Dr. Cawley. “But the leadership chasm [in healthcare today] extends to every area where physicians are providing care.

“To me, it’s all about opportunities, skills and experience. With these, you’ll find that the sky’s the limit.”

Dr. Faro believes hospitalists are in a perfect position to rise to administrative positions. “You are, by definition, working in an institution,’’ he says. “Hospital medicine is replete with opportunities for leadership—opportunities to start a team for quality endeavors, an IHI [Institute of Healthcare Improvement] campaign, look at medication reconciliation, DVT prophylaxis, or glucose control. There are so many right things for physicians to be doing in a hospital setting. In any hospital today, there are going to be opportunities.” TH

Jane Jerrard also writes “Public Policy” for The Hospitalist.

Interested in a promotion? If you have your eye on an administrative career, go ahead and think big—because the opportunities for today’s hospitalists are there for the taking, with some planning and the careful acquisition of skills, experience, and training.

“Any hospitalist who has any desire to be a leader, whether in a medical practice or in a hospital, has numerous opportunities,” says Patrick Cawley, MD, chief medical officer of Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) Medical Center in Charleston. “If you’re willing to step up, you can attain that leadership position.”

Plan Your Path

Ambitious hospitalists must consider the administrative positions available to them in the long run.

“Within a hospital medicine practice, you have just one director,” says Joan C. Faro, MD, FACP, MBA, chief medical officer, John T. Mather Memorial Hospital, Port Jefferson, N.Y. “So people working in the ranks need to be creative and come up with ideas on gaining experience, such as creating a QA position.” She advises hospitalists to look at the job description and the performance measures of the director’s position to see what expectations come with the job.

The promotion to director may involve switching practices. “If you want to move quickly, you have to be able to move [to a different group],” explains Dr. Cawley. “In a local community, there will be others ahead of you. If you’re willing to move to a less-than-ideal location, you can find better opportunities.” For community-based hospitalists especially, the director’s position is a necessary one before moving higher up the administrative ladder.

“You need to be managing some people before you become a CMO [chief medical officer] or administrator,” explains Dr. Faro. “You really have to show that you can do some significant work. In academia, you can do this as a division chief or something like that.” As the director of a hospital medicine program, she says, “you can broaden your scope and move higher up into hospital administration.”

First Steps

How do you move from working hospitalist to director or department head? Start small.

“You can start with easy committee assignments,” says Dr. Cawley. “Even while you’re getting leadership training, you can be building those skills on the job. Start with small projects, such as small committee roles or quality management projects. You can then move up, but consider that you’ll need new skills as you do. Before you chair your first committee, you’ll have to brush up on how to run a meeting. You can progressively take on larger, broader roles.”

Enlist the help of your own leaders to help you get started.

“You could go to your CMO or your medical director—if they’re in a position to help—and ask what you need to do to get to the next step,” advises Dr. Faro. “You don’t need formal training at this point; test the waters, find what you’re interested in and make sure that leading change is something you enjoy before you [invest in] formal training.”

Dr. Faro was working as an internist in an academic medical setting when she discovered an affinity for leadership. “I went to my dean and asked to be put on committees,” she recalls. “I also worked in a volunteer capacity and did committee work for the local chapter of the American Heart Association. I ended up chairing a number of committees over the years. It just seemed to happen naturally because I enjoyed it. After these experiences, I knew I had a talent for working with disparate groups and getting things done.”

As you concentrate on committee work and project work, focus on building clinical and administrative skills.

“The most important things are having the right skills and experience,” stresses Dr. Cawley. “In my opinion, experience will count for more than skills, because people tend to assume that your skills improve as you gain experience. Experience is more important than an advanced degree, with the caveat that degrees are one way that leaders can prove themselves. Having that MBA or MPH doesn’t hurt, and it shows that you’re serious; it requires some dedication to earn that.”

Leadership Training A Must

If your committee and project experience assures you that you want to pursue a leadership path, says Dr. Cawley, “you really need leadership training. Now, is that an MBA or simply selective reading and coursework? That depends on what you want and how you want to go about it.”

However you decide to educate yourself, that leadership training should emphasize certain skills.

“You definitely need formal negotiation skills training,” says Dr. Cawley. “You should also train in how to deal with a physician who’s disruptive. You’ll need a little bit of financial training, and then leadership training itself—what is a leader and what are the expectations of a leader? These are the basics.”

Dr. Faro adds that communication skills and presentation skills are important for leaders. “These are things that physicians think they know— after all we all feel we communicate well and we need to talk to our patients—but there’s a difference between teaching your patients about medications and engaging an audience,” she warns. “It’s also important to understand your management or your leadership style.”

Leadership training is easy to find. “Every single organization has now recognized that being a leader is something that requires training,” Dr. Faro points out. Physician leadership training is offered by the American College of Healthcare Executives, the American College of Physician Executives, the American College of Physicians, and SHM.

Opportunities Abound

In the growing field of hospital medicine, opportunities for advancement are growing as well. “Within just a few years, you’d be surprised what level you can reach,” says Dr. Cawley.

“There is a lot of potential for leadership within hospital medicine groups, and for moving from leading a group to a leadership role at a hospital,” says Dr. Cawley. “But the leadership chasm [in healthcare today] extends to every area where physicians are providing care.

“To me, it’s all about opportunities, skills and experience. With these, you’ll find that the sky’s the limit.”

Dr. Faro believes hospitalists are in a perfect position to rise to administrative positions. “You are, by definition, working in an institution,’’ he says. “Hospital medicine is replete with opportunities for leadership—opportunities to start a team for quality endeavors, an IHI [Institute of Healthcare Improvement] campaign, look at medication reconciliation, DVT prophylaxis, or glucose control. There are so many right things for physicians to be doing in a hospital setting. In any hospital today, there are going to be opportunities.” TH

Jane Jerrard also writes “Public Policy” for The Hospitalist.

Interested in a promotion? If you have your eye on an administrative career, go ahead and think big—because the opportunities for today’s hospitalists are there for the taking, with some planning and the careful acquisition of skills, experience, and training.

“Any hospitalist who has any desire to be a leader, whether in a medical practice or in a hospital, has numerous opportunities,” says Patrick Cawley, MD, chief medical officer of Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) Medical Center in Charleston. “If you’re willing to step up, you can attain that leadership position.”

Plan Your Path

Ambitious hospitalists must consider the administrative positions available to them in the long run.

“Within a hospital medicine practice, you have just one director,” says Joan C. Faro, MD, FACP, MBA, chief medical officer, John T. Mather Memorial Hospital, Port Jefferson, N.Y. “So people working in the ranks need to be creative and come up with ideas on gaining experience, such as creating a QA position.” She advises hospitalists to look at the job description and the performance measures of the director’s position to see what expectations come with the job.

The promotion to director may involve switching practices. “If you want to move quickly, you have to be able to move [to a different group],” explains Dr. Cawley. “In a local community, there will be others ahead of you. If you’re willing to move to a less-than-ideal location, you can find better opportunities.” For community-based hospitalists especially, the director’s position is a necessary one before moving higher up the administrative ladder.

“You need to be managing some people before you become a CMO [chief medical officer] or administrator,” explains Dr. Faro. “You really have to show that you can do some significant work. In academia, you can do this as a division chief or something like that.” As the director of a hospital medicine program, she says, “you can broaden your scope and move higher up into hospital administration.”

First Steps

How do you move from working hospitalist to director or department head? Start small.

“You can start with easy committee assignments,” says Dr. Cawley. “Even while you’re getting leadership training, you can be building those skills on the job. Start with small projects, such as small committee roles or quality management projects. You can then move up, but consider that you’ll need new skills as you do. Before you chair your first committee, you’ll have to brush up on how to run a meeting. You can progressively take on larger, broader roles.”

Enlist the help of your own leaders to help you get started.

“You could go to your CMO or your medical director—if they’re in a position to help—and ask what you need to do to get to the next step,” advises Dr. Faro. “You don’t need formal training at this point; test the waters, find what you’re interested in and make sure that leading change is something you enjoy before you [invest in] formal training.”

Dr. Faro was working as an internist in an academic medical setting when she discovered an affinity for leadership. “I went to my dean and asked to be put on committees,” she recalls. “I also worked in a volunteer capacity and did committee work for the local chapter of the American Heart Association. I ended up chairing a number of committees over the years. It just seemed to happen naturally because I enjoyed it. After these experiences, I knew I had a talent for working with disparate groups and getting things done.”

As you concentrate on committee work and project work, focus on building clinical and administrative skills.

“The most important things are having the right skills and experience,” stresses Dr. Cawley. “In my opinion, experience will count for more than skills, because people tend to assume that your skills improve as you gain experience. Experience is more important than an advanced degree, with the caveat that degrees are one way that leaders can prove themselves. Having that MBA or MPH doesn’t hurt, and it shows that you’re serious; it requires some dedication to earn that.”

Leadership Training A Must

If your committee and project experience assures you that you want to pursue a leadership path, says Dr. Cawley, “you really need leadership training. Now, is that an MBA or simply selective reading and coursework? That depends on what you want and how you want to go about it.”

However you decide to educate yourself, that leadership training should emphasize certain skills.

“You definitely need formal negotiation skills training,” says Dr. Cawley. “You should also train in how to deal with a physician who’s disruptive. You’ll need a little bit of financial training, and then leadership training itself—what is a leader and what are the expectations of a leader? These are the basics.”

Dr. Faro adds that communication skills and presentation skills are important for leaders. “These are things that physicians think they know— after all we all feel we communicate well and we need to talk to our patients—but there’s a difference between teaching your patients about medications and engaging an audience,” she warns. “It’s also important to understand your management or your leadership style.”

Leadership training is easy to find. “Every single organization has now recognized that being a leader is something that requires training,” Dr. Faro points out. Physician leadership training is offered by the American College of Healthcare Executives, the American College of Physician Executives, the American College of Physicians, and SHM.

Opportunities Abound

In the growing field of hospital medicine, opportunities for advancement are growing as well. “Within just a few years, you’d be surprised what level you can reach,” says Dr. Cawley.

“There is a lot of potential for leadership within hospital medicine groups, and for moving from leading a group to a leadership role at a hospital,” says Dr. Cawley. “But the leadership chasm [in healthcare today] extends to every area where physicians are providing care.

“To me, it’s all about opportunities, skills and experience. With these, you’ll find that the sky’s the limit.”

Dr. Faro believes hospitalists are in a perfect position to rise to administrative positions. “You are, by definition, working in an institution,’’ he says. “Hospital medicine is replete with opportunities for leadership—opportunities to start a team for quality endeavors, an IHI [Institute of Healthcare Improvement] campaign, look at medication reconciliation, DVT prophylaxis, or glucose control. There are so many right things for physicians to be doing in a hospital setting. In any hospital today, there are going to be opportunities.” TH

Jane Jerrard also writes “Public Policy” for The Hospitalist.

Pay for performance (P4P) has been the hottest topic among physicians for quite a while. Perhaps the time has come to ask: Is it worth the hype?

“In terms of organized pay-for-performance programs, we’re at the very beginning of seeing pay for performance in action,” says Patrick J. Torcson, MD, MMM, FACP, member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee and director of hospital medicine at St. Tammany Parish Hospital in Covington, La.

Although P4P is still in its infancy, one major demonstration trial is complete, and researchers have begun to mine results for indications of success.

The largest national P4P trial to date is the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS)/Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration Project, which involved more than 260 hospitals reporting on 34 quality measures from October 2003 through September 2006. The measures were grouped in five clinical areas: acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, coronary artery bypass graft, pneumonia, and hip and knee replacement.

Hospitals in the top 10% for each of the quality measures received a 2% bonus of their Medicare payments for the measured condition; hospitals in the top 20% received a 1% bonus; and hospitals in the bottom 20% returned 1% to 2% of their diagnosis-related group (DRG) payments.

CMS has paid $17.55 million in incentives to the top-tier, participating hospitals and reported savings of $1.4 billion in terms of avoidable deaths, complications and readmissions prevented, and shortened lengths of stay.

As for quality improvements, results from the first two years of the demonstration project show proven improvement across all five clinical focus areas. The average improvement of the composite quality scores (CQS), an aggregate of all quality measures within each clinical area, in the project’s second year was 6.7%, for total gains of 11.8% over the project’s first two years.

The CQS improved significantly between the start date and the end of the second year in all five clinical focus areas:

• From 87.5% to 94.4% for patients with acute myocardial infarction;
• From 64.5% to 82.4% for patients with heart failure;
• From 69.3% to 85.8% for patients with community acquired pneumonia;
• From 84.8% to 93.8% for patients with coronary artery bypass graft; and
• From 84.6% to 93.4% for patients with hip and knee replacement.

“In many circles, this is proof positive that pay for performance works,” Dr. Torcson says of the results of the Premier demo. “However, this was hospital-level P4P and involves a different methodology than physician-level P4P. I don’t think it’s safe or accurate to extrapolate these results.”

What the Research Says

Various researchers have examined available P4P data to see if incentives improve care.

Recent studies include one led by hospitalist Peter Lindenauer, MD, MSc, FACP, medical director, clinical and quality informatics, Baystate Health in Springfield, Mass., and assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.1 Dr. Lindenauer and his colleagues examined data from the CMS data warehouse gathered as part of the Hospital Quality Alliance (Hospital Compare) project. Specifically, they compared P4P CMS Premier hospitals with 408 hospitals that participated only in public reporting, with no compensation.

They found that the P4P hospitals showed modestly greater improvement in all composite measures of quality than hospitals that simply reported on measures. Specifically, improvements in the P4P hospitals ranged from 2.6% to 4.1% over two years. “The small gains in process of care measures observed in the study are unlikely to have translated into meaningful improvements in outcomes,” Dr. Lindenauer says.

Other studies of P4P are inconclusive. A literature review on the subject finds “little evidence to support the effectiveness of paying for quality.”2

A second literature review out of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston based on 17 studies “suggests some positive effects of financial incentives at the physician level, the provider group level, and the healthcare payment system level. The findings also suggest that ongoing monitoring of incentive programs is critical to determine whether incentives are having unintended effects on quality of care.”3

Finally, a study of P4P programs for family practices in the United Kingdom revealed that serious financial incentives for physicians resulted in 83.4% achieving goals for 10 chronic diseases in a year.4

“There is no conclusive evidence that physician-level P4P works to improve quality of care and reduce cost of care,” concludes Dr. Torcson. “The U.K. experience demonstrates that given a sufficient incentive, physicians will adhere to and report on performance measures. Further study is being done to see if this translates into quality improvement for patients.”

The next phase of P4P is pay for reporting—which may help pin down the true value of P4P.

The Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI), now well under way, “is the first nationwide pay-for-performance program, and one of the first to include hospitalists,” says Dr. Torcson. “This is the first taste we’re all having of physician-level pay-for-performance since the PQRI started on July 1.”

The incentives for participating in the trial aren’t high. “Based on projections of PQRI reporting, hospitalists can earn a bonus of $807,” says Dr. Torcson. “This may not be a strong motivator to participate in PQRI. However, it’s a beginning. If you’re going to fail [at reporting], this is the time to do it.”

The PQRI trial is short; it will end Dec. 31. And early next year, it’s guaranteed that all eyes will be on outcomes from this program. “Private payers are watching this very closely; they’re ready to jump into the game,” says Dr. Torcson. Healthcare organizations and professionals should be ready to jump as well, because next steps for P4P and other payment factors are still unknown.

“What happens after Dec. 31 is wide open,” Dr. Torcson says. “We don’t know what to expect from Congress. Right now we’re looking at a proposed 9.8% cut to physician fees. Will this cut be made up by pay-for-performance bonuses? Congress determines what will happen, and the [2008] election could change everything.”

To date, P4P has not lived up to its hype; however, the use of incentives to improve quality is in the early stages. Time will tell if P4P pays off in improved care—but CMS and many physicians seem committed to the idea.

“I think there’s a lot to be said for the concept of providing incentives that encourage hospitals to invest in quality of care,” says Dr. Lindenauer. “Our current system of healthcare hasn’t done that.”

Dr. Lindenauer’s advice for moving ahead with P4P? “We need to proceed cautiously and be mindful of some of the unintended consequences,” he concludes. TH

Jane Jerrard has been writing for The Hospitalist since 2005.

References

1. Lindenauer PK, Remus D, Roman S, et al. Public reporting and pay for performance in hospital quality improvement. N Engl J Med. 2007 Feb 1;356(5):486-496.
2. Rosenthal MB, Frank RG. What is the empirical basis for paying for quality in health care? Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63(2):135-137.
3. Petersen LA, Woodard LD, Urech T, et al. Does pay-for-performance improve the quality of health care? Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(4):265-272.
4. Doran T, Fullwood C, Gravelle H, et al. Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(4):375-384.

Pay for performance (P4P) has been the hottest topic among physicians for quite a while. Perhaps the time has come to ask: Is it worth the hype?

“In terms of organized pay-for-performance programs, we’re at the very beginning of seeing pay for performance in action,” says Patrick J. Torcson, MD, MMM, FACP, member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee and director of hospital medicine at St. Tammany Parish Hospital in Covington, La.

Although P4P is still in its infancy, one major demonstration trial is complete, and researchers have begun to mine results for indications of success.

The largest national P4P trial to date is the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS)/Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration Project, which involved more than 260 hospitals reporting on 34 quality measures from October 2003 through September 2006. The measures were grouped in five clinical areas: acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, coronary artery bypass graft, pneumonia, and hip and knee replacement.

Hospitals in the top 10% for each of the quality measures received a 2% bonus of their Medicare payments for the measured condition; hospitals in the top 20% received a 1% bonus; and hospitals in the bottom 20% returned 1% to 2% of their diagnosis-related group (DRG) payments.

CMS has paid $17.55 million in incentives to the top-tier, participating hospitals and reported savings of $1.4 billion in terms of avoidable deaths, complications and readmissions prevented, and shortened lengths of stay.

As for quality improvements, results from the first two years of the demonstration project show proven improvement across all five clinical focus areas. The average improvement of the composite quality scores (CQS), an aggregate of all quality measures within each clinical area, in the project’s second year was 6.7%, for total gains of 11.8% over the project’s first two years.

The CQS improved significantly between the start date and the end of the second year in all five clinical focus areas:

• From 87.5% to 94.4% for patients with acute myocardial infarction;
• From 64.5% to 82.4% for patients with heart failure;
• From 69.3% to 85.8% for patients with community acquired pneumonia;
• From 84.8% to 93.8% for patients with coronary artery bypass graft; and
• From 84.6% to 93.4% for patients with hip and knee replacement.

“In many circles, this is proof positive that pay for performance works,” Dr. Torcson says of the results of the Premier demo. “However, this was hospital-level P4P and involves a different methodology than physician-level P4P. I don’t think it’s safe or accurate to extrapolate these results.”

What the Research Says

Various researchers have examined available P4P data to see if incentives improve care.

Recent studies include one led by hospitalist Peter Lindenauer, MD, MSc, FACP, medical director, clinical and quality informatics, Baystate Health in Springfield, Mass., and assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.1 Dr. Lindenauer and his colleagues examined data from the CMS data warehouse gathered as part of the Hospital Quality Alliance (Hospital Compare) project. Specifically, they compared P4P CMS Premier hospitals with 408 hospitals that participated only in public reporting, with no compensation.

They found that the P4P hospitals showed modestly greater improvement in all composite measures of quality than hospitals that simply reported on measures. Specifically, improvements in the P4P hospitals ranged from 2.6% to 4.1% over two years. “The small gains in process of care measures observed in the study are unlikely to have translated into meaningful improvements in outcomes,” Dr. Lindenauer says.

Other studies of P4P are inconclusive. A literature review on the subject finds “little evidence to support the effectiveness of paying for quality.”2

A second literature review out of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston based on 17 studies “suggests some positive effects of financial incentives at the physician level, the provider group level, and the healthcare payment system level. The findings also suggest that ongoing monitoring of incentive programs is critical to determine whether incentives are having unintended effects on quality of care.”3

Finally, a study of P4P programs for family practices in the United Kingdom revealed that serious financial incentives for physicians resulted in 83.4% achieving goals for 10 chronic diseases in a year.4

“There is no conclusive evidence that physician-level P4P works to improve quality of care and reduce cost of care,” concludes Dr. Torcson. “The U.K. experience demonstrates that given a sufficient incentive, physicians will adhere to and report on performance measures. Further study is being done to see if this translates into quality improvement for patients.”

The next phase of P4P is pay for reporting—which may help pin down the true value of P4P.

The Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI), now well under way, “is the first nationwide pay-for-performance program, and one of the first to include hospitalists,” says Dr. Torcson. “This is the first taste we’re all having of physician-level pay-for-performance since the PQRI started on July 1.”

The incentives for participating in the trial aren’t high. “Based on projections of PQRI reporting, hospitalists can earn a bonus of $807,” says Dr. Torcson. “This may not be a strong motivator to participate in PQRI. However, it’s a beginning. If you’re going to fail [at reporting], this is the time to do it.”

The PQRI trial is short; it will end Dec. 31. And early next year, it’s guaranteed that all eyes will be on outcomes from this program. “Private payers are watching this very closely; they’re ready to jump into the game,” says Dr. Torcson. Healthcare organizations and professionals should be ready to jump as well, because next steps for P4P and other payment factors are still unknown.

“What happens after Dec. 31 is wide open,” Dr. Torcson says. “We don’t know what to expect from Congress. Right now we’re looking at a proposed 9.8% cut to physician fees. Will this cut be made up by pay-for-performance bonuses? Congress determines what will happen, and the [2008] election could change everything.”

To date, P4P has not lived up to its hype; however, the use of incentives to improve quality is in the early stages. Time will tell if P4P pays off in improved care—but CMS and many physicians seem committed to the idea.

“I think there’s a lot to be said for the concept of providing incentives that encourage hospitals to invest in quality of care,” says Dr. Lindenauer. “Our current system of healthcare hasn’t done that.”

Dr. Lindenauer’s advice for moving ahead with P4P? “We need to proceed cautiously and be mindful of some of the unintended consequences,” he concludes. TH

Jane Jerrard has been writing for The Hospitalist since 2005.

References

1. Lindenauer PK, Remus D, Roman S, et al. Public reporting and pay for performance in hospital quality improvement. N Engl J Med. 2007 Feb 1;356(5):486-496.
2. Rosenthal MB, Frank RG. What is the empirical basis for paying for quality in health care? Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63(2):135-137.
3. Petersen LA, Woodard LD, Urech T, et al. Does pay-for-performance improve the quality of health care? Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(4):265-272.
4. Doran T, Fullwood C, Gravelle H, et al. Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(4):375-384.

Pay for performance (P4P) has been the hottest topic among physicians for quite a while. Perhaps the time has come to ask: Is it worth the hype?

“In terms of organized pay-for-performance programs, we’re at the very beginning of seeing pay for performance in action,” says Patrick J. Torcson, MD, MMM, FACP, member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee and director of hospital medicine at St. Tammany Parish Hospital in Covington, La.

Although P4P is still in its infancy, one major demonstration trial is complete, and researchers have begun to mine results for indications of success.

The largest national P4P trial to date is the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS)/Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration Project, which involved more than 260 hospitals reporting on 34 quality measures from October 2003 through September 2006. The measures were grouped in five clinical areas: acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, coronary artery bypass graft, pneumonia, and hip and knee replacement.

Hospitals in the top 10% for each of the quality measures received a 2% bonus of their Medicare payments for the measured condition; hospitals in the top 20% received a 1% bonus; and hospitals in the bottom 20% returned 1% to 2% of their diagnosis-related group (DRG) payments.

CMS has paid $17.55 million in incentives to the top-tier, participating hospitals and reported savings of $1.4 billion in terms of avoidable deaths, complications and readmissions prevented, and shortened lengths of stay.

As for quality improvements, results from the first two years of the demonstration project show proven improvement across all five clinical focus areas. The average improvement of the composite quality scores (CQS), an aggregate of all quality measures within each clinical area, in the project’s second year was 6.7%, for total gains of 11.8% over the project’s first two years.

The CQS improved significantly between the start date and the end of the second year in all five clinical focus areas:

• From 87.5% to 94.4% for patients with acute myocardial infarction;
• From 64.5% to 82.4% for patients with heart failure;
• From 69.3% to 85.8% for patients with community acquired pneumonia;
• From 84.8% to 93.8% for patients with coronary artery bypass graft; and
• From 84.6% to 93.4% for patients with hip and knee replacement.

“In many circles, this is proof positive that pay for performance works,” Dr. Torcson says of the results of the Premier demo. “However, this was hospital-level P4P and involves a different methodology than physician-level P4P. I don’t think it’s safe or accurate to extrapolate these results.”

What the Research Says

Various researchers have examined available P4P data to see if incentives improve care.

Recent studies include one led by hospitalist Peter Lindenauer, MD, MSc, FACP, medical director, clinical and quality informatics, Baystate Health in Springfield, Mass., and assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.1 Dr. Lindenauer and his colleagues examined data from the CMS data warehouse gathered as part of the Hospital Quality Alliance (Hospital Compare) project. Specifically, they compared P4P CMS Premier hospitals with 408 hospitals that participated only in public reporting, with no compensation.

They found that the P4P hospitals showed modestly greater improvement in all composite measures of quality than hospitals that simply reported on measures. Specifically, improvements in the P4P hospitals ranged from 2.6% to 4.1% over two years. “The small gains in process of care measures observed in the study are unlikely to have translated into meaningful improvements in outcomes,” Dr. Lindenauer says.

Other studies of P4P are inconclusive. A literature review on the subject finds “little evidence to support the effectiveness of paying for quality.”2

A second literature review out of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston based on 17 studies “suggests some positive effects of financial incentives at the physician level, the provider group level, and the healthcare payment system level. The findings also suggest that ongoing monitoring of incentive programs is critical to determine whether incentives are having unintended effects on quality of care.”3

Finally, a study of P4P programs for family practices in the United Kingdom revealed that serious financial incentives for physicians resulted in 83.4% achieving goals for 10 chronic diseases in a year.4

“There is no conclusive evidence that physician-level P4P works to improve quality of care and reduce cost of care,” concludes Dr. Torcson. “The U.K. experience demonstrates that given a sufficient incentive, physicians will adhere to and report on performance measures. Further study is being done to see if this translates into quality improvement for patients.”

The next phase of P4P is pay for reporting—which may help pin down the true value of P4P.

The Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI), now well under way, “is the first nationwide pay-for-performance program, and one of the first to include hospitalists,” says Dr. Torcson. “This is the first taste we’re all having of physician-level pay-for-performance since the PQRI started on July 1.”

The incentives for participating in the trial aren’t high. “Based on projections of PQRI reporting, hospitalists can earn a bonus of $807,” says Dr. Torcson. “This may not be a strong motivator to participate in PQRI. However, it’s a beginning. If you’re going to fail [at reporting], this is the time to do it.”

The PQRI trial is short; it will end Dec. 31. And early next year, it’s guaranteed that all eyes will be on outcomes from this program. “Private payers are watching this very closely; they’re ready to jump into the game,” says Dr. Torcson. Healthcare organizations and professionals should be ready to jump as well, because next steps for P4P and other payment factors are still unknown.

“What happens after Dec. 31 is wide open,” Dr. Torcson says. “We don’t know what to expect from Congress. Right now we’re looking at a proposed 9.8% cut to physician fees. Will this cut be made up by pay-for-performance bonuses? Congress determines what will happen, and the [2008] election could change everything.”

To date, P4P has not lived up to its hype; however, the use of incentives to improve quality is in the early stages. Time will tell if P4P pays off in improved care—but CMS and many physicians seem committed to the idea.

“I think there’s a lot to be said for the concept of providing incentives that encourage hospitals to invest in quality of care,” says Dr. Lindenauer. “Our current system of healthcare hasn’t done that.”

Dr. Lindenauer’s advice for moving ahead with P4P? “We need to proceed cautiously and be mindful of some of the unintended consequences,” he concludes. TH

Jane Jerrard has been writing for The Hospitalist since 2005.

References

1. Lindenauer PK, Remus D, Roman S, et al. Public reporting and pay for performance in hospital quality improvement. N Engl J Med. 2007 Feb 1;356(5):486-496.
2. Rosenthal MB, Frank RG. What is the empirical basis for paying for quality in health care? Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63(2):135-137.
3. Petersen LA, Woodard LD, Urech T, et al. Does pay-for-performance improve the quality of health care? Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(4):265-272.
4. Doran T, Fullwood C, Gravelle H, et al. Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(4):375-384.

Ambitious hospitalists may be eager to add an MBA or a PhD to their credentials, in the belief those magic letters will open doors to leadership positions or higher compensation. But before you fork over tuition for an advanced degree program, consider whether that degree will pay off.

Choose Your Career Path

If you’re considering pursuing a Master of Business Administration (MBA), Master of Public Health (MPH), Master of Health Administration (MPH), or even a doctorate degree, the first thing you should consider is which career path within hospital medicine you’re interested in. What position would you ultimately like to hold? And which, if any, advanced degree can help you get there?

“Explore the idea [of earning an advanced degree], but the most important steps are to try to get some work experience and set some goals,” says Mary Jo Gorman, MD, MBA, the CEO of Advanced ICU Care, St. Louis, Mo. “Along the way, find out what you have an aptitude for.” Once you know your general or specific career goals, you can consider whether to earn an advanced degree.

“It’s a significant monetary and time commitment, so make sure it makes sense for where you want to go,” advises Dr. Gorman. “I’d also advise career counseling to help with this. Great people to talk to are recruiters. They’ll tell you what you need in order to apply for certain positions.”

It should be obvious that some positions will require certain degrees beyond an MD or a DO. Look at the next—or final—job you want. Is the job held by someone with an MBA, a PhD, or another degree? Is that person’s successor likely to need specific education?

“If you want to be the chief operating officer of a hospital, or the CEO of a large medical group, you’re not getting that without an MBA,” Dr. Gorman says. “In fact, if you’re planning to apply for a position that requires strong financial expertise, they’re not going to accept you without [an MBA] unless you’re of a certain age and have a great track record that shows you can do the job.”

On the other hand, many experienced hospitalist leaders don’t have an MBA and won’t need one. “A lot of community-based hospitalists are already doing these things and don’t need the degree,” Dr. Gorman points out. “They created the job, or they created the group.”

A New Way of Thinking

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of any higher degree is the training one receives, which can provide new ways to approach one’s work, problem solving and general thought processes.

“The degree alone won’t help if you haven’t learned while getting it,” explains Sanjay Saint, MD, MPH, hospitalist and professor of internal medicine, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center and University of Michigan Medical School. “That’s the real value: Learn the material and it will alter how you approach things.”

Fred A. McCurdy, MD, who holds a PhD and an MBA, was recently promoted from pediatric department chair at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at Amarillo to associate dean for faculty development. He earned his MBA with an eye on becoming department chair and says that the MBA program “gave me a background in thought process. From there, I could build on that foundation.”

As for his PhD, Dr. McCurdy says the degree “has its place. The program taught me methodology and scientific process. It taught me how to break down a problem into researchable questions, and I can apply that to areas like education. If your job calls for thinking logically and critically, a PhD gives experience in using scientific methods.”

Earning an MPH also bears fruit.

“Having an MPH is helpful,” says Dr. Saint. “In addition to helping you learn how to research, how to be a better user of literature, it helps prepare someone for taking a leadership role.”

[An advanced degree] may open the door, but you still have to walk through it.

—Sanjay Saint, MD, MPH, hospitalist and professor of internal medicine, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center and University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor

Your Dream Job

While an additional degree can improve your knowledge and skills, it’s no guarantee you’ll move to the top of a list for a promotion or new job.

“It’s not a given that it will necessarily help your career,” warns Dr. Gorman. “You need to first do an analysis about what you want to achieve, then work toward that goal. A lot of doctors don’t really realize that they need to think in terms of their total career plan.”

Dr. Saint agrees, saying of an MPH, “It may open the door, but you still have to walk through it. You still have to do the work yourself. You cannot hide behind the MPH. You have to be productive and even be an overperformer. But it does give you the tools you need, and it can help you get that first job.”

Dr. McCurdy believes a degree such as an MBA can be helpful for today’s hospitalists: “For a hospitalist with a strong interest in rising up through the hospital administrative ranks, having an MBA early in their career could definitely be beneficial,” speculates Dr. McCurdy. “Holding an MBA [in academia] is becoming the norm rather than the exception. There’s an increasing awareness in academics that this is a business.”

Does an ad­vanced degree make a new hospitalist more hirable? “That dep­ends,” says Dr. McCurdy. “For hospitalists working in a large hospital system, it becomes a matter of choice. I don’t think you’d be hired based on an advanced degree [such as a PhD] unless the job has something to do with a scholarly pursuit such as research or teaching. If you’re competing for a job in an academic health science center, a PhD degree can help if it has to do with scholarship.”

The Final Answer

Follow this sound advice: Chart your hospital medicine career path, and then work backward to see whether you’ll benefit from obtaining a specific degree.

“It has to do with what you intend to do in a five- or 10-year timeframe, with the course direction of your career,” says Dr. McCurdy. “If you plan to pursue academic scholarship, a PhD can be very helpful. If you aspire to become medical director at Maryland Shock Trauma, an MBA is the ticket you’re definitely going to need to punch.” TH

Jane Jerrard has been writing for The Hospitalist since 2005.

Ambitious hospitalists may be eager to add an MBA or a PhD to their credentials, in the belief those magic letters will open doors to leadership positions or higher compensation. But before you fork over tuition for an advanced degree program, consider whether that degree will pay off.

Choose Your Career Path

If you’re considering pursuing a Master of Business Administration (MBA), Master of Public Health (MPH), Master of Health Administration (MPH), or even a doctorate degree, the first thing you should consider is which career path within hospital medicine you’re interested in. What position would you ultimately like to hold? And which, if any, advanced degree can help you get there?

“Explore the idea [of earning an advanced degree], but the most important steps are to try to get some work experience and set some goals,” says Mary Jo Gorman, MD, MBA, the CEO of Advanced ICU Care, St. Louis, Mo. “Along the way, find out what you have an aptitude for.” Once you know your general or specific career goals, you can consider whether to earn an advanced degree.

“It’s a significant monetary and time commitment, so make sure it makes sense for where you want to go,” advises Dr. Gorman. “I’d also advise career counseling to help with this. Great people to talk to are recruiters. They’ll tell you what you need in order to apply for certain positions.”

It should be obvious that some positions will require certain degrees beyond an MD or a DO. Look at the next—or final—job you want. Is the job held by someone with an MBA, a PhD, or another degree? Is that person’s successor likely to need specific education?

“If you want to be the chief operating officer of a hospital, or the CEO of a large medical group, you’re not getting that without an MBA,” Dr. Gorman says. “In fact, if you’re planning to apply for a position that requires strong financial expertise, they’re not going to accept you without [an MBA] unless you’re of a certain age and have a great track record that shows you can do the job.”

On the other hand, many experienced hospitalist leaders don’t have an MBA and won’t need one. “A lot of community-based hospitalists are already doing these things and don’t need the degree,” Dr. Gorman points out. “They created the job, or they created the group.”

A New Way of Thinking

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of any higher degree is the training one receives, which can provide new ways to approach one’s work, problem solving and general thought processes.

“The degree alone won’t help if you haven’t learned while getting it,” explains Sanjay Saint, MD, MPH, hospitalist and professor of internal medicine, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center and University of Michigan Medical School. “That’s the real value: Learn the material and it will alter how you approach things.”

Fred A. McCurdy, MD, who holds a PhD and an MBA, was recently promoted from pediatric department chair at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at Amarillo to associate dean for faculty development. He earned his MBA with an eye on becoming department chair and says that the MBA program “gave me a background in thought process. From there, I could build on that foundation.”

As for his PhD, Dr. McCurdy says the degree “has its place. The program taught me methodology and scientific process. It taught me how to break down a problem into researchable questions, and I can apply that to areas like education. If your job calls for thinking logically and critically, a PhD gives experience in using scientific methods.”

Earning an MPH also bears fruit.

“Having an MPH is helpful,” says Dr. Saint. “In addition to helping you learn how to research, how to be a better user of literature, it helps prepare someone for taking a leadership role.”

[An advanced degree] may open the door, but you still have to walk through it.

—Sanjay Saint, MD, MPH, hospitalist and professor of internal medicine, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center and University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor

Your Dream Job

While an additional degree can improve your knowledge and skills, it’s no guarantee you’ll move to the top of a list for a promotion or new job.

“It’s not a given that it will necessarily help your career,” warns Dr. Gorman. “You need to first do an analysis about what you want to achieve, then work toward that goal. A lot of doctors don’t really realize that they need to think in terms of their total career plan.”

Dr. Saint agrees, saying of an MPH, “It may open the door, but you still have to walk through it. You still have to do the work yourself. You cannot hide behind the MPH. You have to be productive and even be an overperformer. But it does give you the tools you need, and it can help you get that first job.”

Dr. McCurdy believes a degree such as an MBA can be helpful for today’s hospitalists: “For a hospitalist with a strong interest in rising up through the hospital administrative ranks, having an MBA early in their career could definitely be beneficial,” speculates Dr. McCurdy. “Holding an MBA [in academia] is becoming the norm rather than the exception. There’s an increasing awareness in academics that this is a business.”

Does an ad­vanced degree make a new hospitalist more hirable? “That dep­ends,” says Dr. McCurdy. “For hospitalists working in a large hospital system, it becomes a matter of choice. I don’t think you’d be hired based on an advanced degree [such as a PhD] unless the job has something to do with a scholarly pursuit such as research or teaching. If you’re competing for a job in an academic health science center, a PhD degree can help if it has to do with scholarship.”

The Final Answer

Follow this sound advice: Chart your hospital medicine career path, and then work backward to see whether you’ll benefit from obtaining a specific degree.

“It has to do with what you intend to do in a five- or 10-year timeframe, with the course direction of your career,” says Dr. McCurdy. “If you plan to pursue academic scholarship, a PhD can be very helpful. If you aspire to become medical director at Maryland Shock Trauma, an MBA is the ticket you’re definitely going to need to punch.” TH

Jane Jerrard has been writing for The Hospitalist since 2005.

Ambitious hospitalists may be eager to add an MBA or a PhD to their credentials, in the belief those magic letters will open doors to leadership positions or higher compensation. But before you fork over tuition for an advanced degree program, consider whether that degree will pay off.

Choose Your Career Path

If you’re considering pursuing a Master of Business Administration (MBA), Master of Public Health (MPH), Master of Health Administration (MPH), or even a doctorate degree, the first thing you should consider is which career path within hospital medicine you’re interested in. What position would you ultimately like to hold? And which, if any, advanced degree can help you get there?

“Explore the idea [of earning an advanced degree], but the most important steps are to try to get some work experience and set some goals,” says Mary Jo Gorman, MD, MBA, the CEO of Advanced ICU Care, St. Louis, Mo. “Along the way, find out what you have an aptitude for.” Once you know your general or specific career goals, you can consider whether to earn an advanced degree.

“It’s a significant monetary and time commitment, so make sure it makes sense for where you want to go,” advises Dr. Gorman. “I’d also advise career counseling to help with this. Great people to talk to are recruiters. They’ll tell you what you need in order to apply for certain positions.”

It should be obvious that some positions will require certain degrees beyond an MD or a DO. Look at the next—or final—job you want. Is the job held by someone with an MBA, a PhD, or another degree? Is that person’s successor likely to need specific education?

“If you want to be the chief operating officer of a hospital, or the CEO of a large medical group, you’re not getting that without an MBA,” Dr. Gorman says. “In fact, if you’re planning to apply for a position that requires strong financial expertise, they’re not going to accept you without [an MBA] unless you’re of a certain age and have a great track record that shows you can do the job.”

On the other hand, many experienced hospitalist leaders don’t have an MBA and won’t need one. “A lot of community-based hospitalists are already doing these things and don’t need the degree,” Dr. Gorman points out. “They created the job, or they created the group.”

A New Way of Thinking

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of any higher degree is the training one receives, which can provide new ways to approach one’s work, problem solving and general thought processes.

“The degree alone won’t help if you haven’t learned while getting it,” explains Sanjay Saint, MD, MPH, hospitalist and professor of internal medicine, Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center and University of Michigan Medical School. “That’s the real value: Learn the material and it will alter how you approach things.”

Fred A. McCurdy, MD, who holds a PhD and an MBA, was recently promoted from pediatric department chair at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at Amarillo to associate dean for faculty development. He earned his MBA with an eye on becoming department chair and says that the MBA program “gave me a background in thought process. From there, I could build on that foundation.”

As for his PhD, Dr. McCurdy says the degree “has its place. The program taught me methodology and scientific process. It taught me how to break down a problem into researchable questions, and I can apply that to areas like education. If your job calls for thinking logically and critically, a PhD gives experience in using scientific methods.”

Earning an MPH also bears fruit.

“Having an MPH is helpful,” says Dr. Saint. “In addition to helping you learn how to research, how to be a better user of literature, it helps prepare someone for taking a leadership role.”

[An advanced degree] may open the door, but you still have to walk through it.

—Sanjay Saint, MD, MPH, hospitalist and professor of internal medicine, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center and University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor

Your Dream Job

While an additional degree can improve your knowledge and skills, it’s no guarantee you’ll move to the top of a list for a promotion or new job.

“It’s not a given that it will necessarily help your career,” warns Dr. Gorman. “You need to first do an analysis about what you want to achieve, then work toward that goal. A lot of doctors don’t really realize that they need to think in terms of their total career plan.”

Dr. Saint agrees, saying of an MPH, “It may open the door, but you still have to walk through it. You still have to do the work yourself. You cannot hide behind the MPH. You have to be productive and even be an overperformer. But it does give you the tools you need, and it can help you get that first job.”

Dr. McCurdy believes a degree such as an MBA can be helpful for today’s hospitalists: “For a hospitalist with a strong interest in rising up through the hospital administrative ranks, having an MBA early in their career could definitely be beneficial,” speculates Dr. McCurdy. “Holding an MBA [in academia] is becoming the norm rather than the exception. There’s an increasing awareness in academics that this is a business.”

Does an ad­vanced degree make a new hospitalist more hirable? “That dep­ends,” says Dr. McCurdy. “For hospitalists working in a large hospital system, it becomes a matter of choice. I don’t think you’d be hired based on an advanced degree [such as a PhD] unless the job has something to do with a scholarly pursuit such as research or teaching. If you’re competing for a job in an academic health science center, a PhD degree can help if it has to do with scholarship.”

The Final Answer

Follow this sound advice: Chart your hospital medicine career path, and then work backward to see whether you’ll benefit from obtaining a specific degree.

“It has to do with what you intend to do in a five- or 10-year timeframe, with the course direction of your career,” says Dr. McCurdy. “If you plan to pursue academic scholarship, a PhD can be very helpful. If you aspire to become medical director at Maryland Shock Trauma, an MBA is the ticket you’re definitely going to need to punch.” TH

Jane Jerrard has been writing for The Hospitalist since 2005.