Kelly April Tyrrell

On July 1, 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced proposed changes to its controversial two-midnight rule. The changes afford physicians more flexibility to determine patient hospitalization status and place primary patient status auditing authority with Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO), rather than the unpopular Recovery Auditor Contractors (RACs).

The original policy was implemented in October 2013 to reduce the number of long observation stays impacting Medicare beneficiaries, which are not payable under Part A and impact coverage for some types of follow-up care. Under the policy, stays under two midnights are considered outpatient while longer stays are considered inpatient. Physicians must decide at time of admission how to designate a patient and provide adequate documentation for the decision. The changes give physicians the authority to designate shorter stays for inpatients based on medical necessity.

According to CMS actuary data published in the 2016 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System proposed payment rule, the two-midnight rule is working. Since fiscal year 2013, observation stays longer than two days are down 11%. It also says a related 0.2% reduction in payment for inpatient services is justified based on an increase in the number of inpatient admissions.

The agency has sought public comment on three separate occasions since the policy began but says no suitable alternatives to the rule—other than full repeal—have been offered. While the American Hospital Association has said the changes are a good first step, it and others contend the rule still leaves too much uncertainty.

“There’s so little objectivity, it makes it hard to understand how this is going to be implemented,” says Dr. Lauren Doctoroff, MD, a hospitalist and medical director for utilization management at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

While the two-midnight rule has helped Dr. Doctoroff's hospital better determine which stays should be considered inpatient and which observation, when it comes to review of short inpatient stays, CMS has not made clear how much influence RACs will continue to play or how QIOs will be different, she says. The RACs have been unpopular because they share in savings recovered on behalf of CMS even when their aggressive audit decisions are overturned, which studies show happens with frequency. Nor do the changes indicate what constitutes adequate documentation.

“There are so many gray areas,” says Dr. Doctoroff, particularly when physicians treat patients with complex social needs, who may not have a stable situation for discharge. “There are some potential benefits, but it’s unclear how it will work and what role the QIOs take relative to RAs, whether it will be more of the same with a different name. It’s not clear if it’s going to be better.”

Visit our website for more information on CMS' two-midnight rule.

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

On July 1, 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced proposed changes to its controversial two-midnight rule. The changes afford physicians more flexibility to determine patient hospitalization status and place primary patient status auditing authority with Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO), rather than the unpopular Recovery Auditor Contractors (RACs).

The original policy was implemented in October 2013 to reduce the number of long observation stays impacting Medicare beneficiaries, which are not payable under Part A and impact coverage for some types of follow-up care. Under the policy, stays under two midnights are considered outpatient while longer stays are considered inpatient. Physicians must decide at time of admission how to designate a patient and provide adequate documentation for the decision. The changes give physicians the authority to designate shorter stays for inpatients based on medical necessity.

According to CMS actuary data published in the 2016 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System proposed payment rule, the two-midnight rule is working. Since fiscal year 2013, observation stays longer than two days are down 11%. It also says a related 0.2% reduction in payment for inpatient services is justified based on an increase in the number of inpatient admissions.

The agency has sought public comment on three separate occasions since the policy began but says no suitable alternatives to the rule—other than full repeal—have been offered. While the American Hospital Association has said the changes are a good first step, it and others contend the rule still leaves too much uncertainty.

“There’s so little objectivity, it makes it hard to understand how this is going to be implemented,” says Dr. Lauren Doctoroff, MD, a hospitalist and medical director for utilization management at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

While the two-midnight rule has helped Dr. Doctoroff's hospital better determine which stays should be considered inpatient and which observation, when it comes to review of short inpatient stays, CMS has not made clear how much influence RACs will continue to play or how QIOs will be different, she says. The RACs have been unpopular because they share in savings recovered on behalf of CMS even when their aggressive audit decisions are overturned, which studies show happens with frequency. Nor do the changes indicate what constitutes adequate documentation.

“There are so many gray areas,” says Dr. Doctoroff, particularly when physicians treat patients with complex social needs, who may not have a stable situation for discharge. “There are some potential benefits, but it’s unclear how it will work and what role the QIOs take relative to RAs, whether it will be more of the same with a different name. It’s not clear if it’s going to be better.”

Visit our website for more information on CMS' two-midnight rule.

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

On July 1, 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced proposed changes to its controversial two-midnight rule. The changes afford physicians more flexibility to determine patient hospitalization status and place primary patient status auditing authority with Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO), rather than the unpopular Recovery Auditor Contractors (RACs).

The original policy was implemented in October 2013 to reduce the number of long observation stays impacting Medicare beneficiaries, which are not payable under Part A and impact coverage for some types of follow-up care. Under the policy, stays under two midnights are considered outpatient while longer stays are considered inpatient. Physicians must decide at time of admission how to designate a patient and provide adequate documentation for the decision. The changes give physicians the authority to designate shorter stays for inpatients based on medical necessity.

According to CMS actuary data published in the 2016 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System proposed payment rule, the two-midnight rule is working. Since fiscal year 2013, observation stays longer than two days are down 11%. It also says a related 0.2% reduction in payment for inpatient services is justified based on an increase in the number of inpatient admissions.

The agency has sought public comment on three separate occasions since the policy began but says no suitable alternatives to the rule—other than full repeal—have been offered. While the American Hospital Association has said the changes are a good first step, it and others contend the rule still leaves too much uncertainty.

“There’s so little objectivity, it makes it hard to understand how this is going to be implemented,” says Dr. Lauren Doctoroff, MD, a hospitalist and medical director for utilization management at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

While the two-midnight rule has helped Dr. Doctoroff's hospital better determine which stays should be considered inpatient and which observation, when it comes to review of short inpatient stays, CMS has not made clear how much influence RACs will continue to play or how QIOs will be different, she says. The RACs have been unpopular because they share in savings recovered on behalf of CMS even when their aggressive audit decisions are overturned, which studies show happens with frequency. Nor do the changes indicate what constitutes adequate documentation.

“There are so many gray areas,” says Dr. Doctoroff, particularly when physicians treat patients with complex social needs, who may not have a stable situation for discharge. “There are some potential benefits, but it’s unclear how it will work and what role the QIOs take relative to RAs, whether it will be more of the same with a different name. It’s not clear if it’s going to be better.”

Visit our website for more information on CMS' two-midnight rule.

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

In April, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publicly revealed for the first time which hospitals achieved five stars and which had room for improvement based on patient experience per the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey.

Although these measures are not new, this year CMS assembled the star ratings from HCAHPS survey results and made them available on its consumer-facing website, in an effort to increase transparency.

The decision has not been met without controversy, particularly given the fact that just 251 hospitals out of more than 3,500 received five stars, and only two major teaching hospitals achieved the highest rating. Some professional groups, like the American Hospital Association (AHA), which issued a statement the day CMS released its ratings, believe the rankings risk “oversimplifying the complexity of quality care or misinterpreting what is important to a particular patient, especially since patients seek care for many different reasons.”

Others argue that there is a disconnect between what hospital leaders perceive as important drivers of patient experience and what patients really want. For instance, a 2013 Harvard Business Review article cites a 2012 survey in which C-suite leaders suggested new facilities, private rooms, on-demand food, bedside electronics, and more amenities were necessary to improve patient experience in the hospital.¹

“I am surprised at how much controversy there is on this,” says Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, hospitalist at the VA Boston Healthcare System and professor of health policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “Modestly good evidence suggests that hospitals that do well on patient experience scores are also the hospitals that have better patient outcomes on more hard measures, like mortality and evidence-based guidelines.”

Dr. Jha cites a February 2015 study, published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, in which patients were moved from one clinical building to a newer one with more patient-centered features.² The care team remained the same. The study concluded that patients were able to differentiate between satisfactory clinical care and their surroundings, and that clinical care had a greater impact on patient experience than any other factor.

“Was your pain controlled adequately? Were people responsive to your needs? Were you treated with dignity and respect?” Dr. Jha says. “I think it’s disrespectful to say patients can’t tell the difference between high thread-count bed sheets and being treated with disrespect.”

The HCAHPS survey, Dr. Jha notes, reflects important aspects of healthcare that only patients can report. It encompasses 11 measures that gauge, for example, how well patients felt nurses and physicians communicated with them. It also asks patients to provide an overall hospital rank on a 10-point scale (counting only those that receive a nine or 10), according to Kaiser Health News, and to rate the cleanliness and quietness of the rooms.

Hospitals must send surveys to a random sample of adult patients monthly, including those not on Medicare, within six weeks of discharge, and Inpatient Prospective Payment System hospitals should collect at least 300 surveys every four years, CMS says.

“I think one of the most important things for a hospital to understand is [that] the methodology behind creating the star ratings and the way CMS structures the ratings does make it challenging to achieve the very highest score,” says Akin Demehin, AHA senior associate director of policy.

While CMS applies adjustments to account for sampling methods and patient characteristics of hospitals, an analysis by Dr. Jha’s team showed significant disparities between the rankings of large, academic medical centers and those of small, for-profit hospitals, as well as a substantial difference between hospitals that provide for the greatest number of poor patients and those that serve the fewest.³

However, he writes on his blog, "An Ounce of Evidence," that survey methodology is not the problem and that he believes star ratings are a good idea. Although some hospitals might find themselves at score cut-offs—a one-point difference can translate to a full star change—it’s a “small price to pay to make data more accessible to patients,” he writes.

“There is pretty good evidence hospitals are paying attention, and one that gets a one or two-star rating may be motivated to be better,” Dr. Jha says.

“Every hospital is interested in this because it’s part of value-based purchasing,” says Trina Dorrah, MD, MPH, a hospitalist and director of quality at Baylor Scott & White Health in Round Rock, Texas.

Dr. Dorrah has authored two books focused on patient experience, and she suggests simple ways hospitals can work toward improving their HCAHPS scores, and potentially their star ratings, from having nurses round with physicians to installing communication-facilitating whiteboards in every room.

Her hospital also awards bonuses to the hospitalist group for achieving set goals. Some hospitalist programs around the country are also adding questions to their surveys to link individual providers to patient rankings, she said, though many also do it in aggregate, because linking patients to individual physicians can get “very messy.”

CMS advises caution in interpreting star rankings, acknowledging that they are not the only valuable measures of care quality. Despite the concern over the contextual value of the new rankings, Demehin says AHA supports use of the HCAHPS survey and the value of patient experience measures and believes they should be consulted in conjunction with other quality improvement efforts.

“When I’m really sick and I go to the hospital, I want to be treated with dignity and respect and I want my pain treated quickly, but I also want to survive and not develop an infection,” Dr. Jha says. “That’s obviously not in the star ratings.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Merlino J, Raman A. Understanding the drivers of the patient experience. Harvard Business Review. Sept. 17, 2013. Accessed May 14, 2015.
2. Siddiqui Z, Zuccarelli R, Durkin N, Wu AW, Brotman DJ. Changes in patient satisfaction related to hospital renovation: Experience with a new clinical building. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(3):165-171.
3. Jha A. Finding the stars of hospital care in the U.S. An Ounce of Evidence blog. April 20, 2015. Accessed June 4, 2015.

In April, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publicly revealed for the first time which hospitals achieved five stars and which had room for improvement based on patient experience per the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey.

Although these measures are not new, this year CMS assembled the star ratings from HCAHPS survey results and made them available on its consumer-facing website, in an effort to increase transparency.

The decision has not been met without controversy, particularly given the fact that just 251 hospitals out of more than 3,500 received five stars, and only two major teaching hospitals achieved the highest rating. Some professional groups, like the American Hospital Association (AHA), which issued a statement the day CMS released its ratings, believe the rankings risk “oversimplifying the complexity of quality care or misinterpreting what is important to a particular patient, especially since patients seek care for many different reasons.”

Others argue that there is a disconnect between what hospital leaders perceive as important drivers of patient experience and what patients really want. For instance, a 2013 Harvard Business Review article cites a 2012 survey in which C-suite leaders suggested new facilities, private rooms, on-demand food, bedside electronics, and more amenities were necessary to improve patient experience in the hospital.¹

“I am surprised at how much controversy there is on this,” says Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, hospitalist at the VA Boston Healthcare System and professor of health policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “Modestly good evidence suggests that hospitals that do well on patient experience scores are also the hospitals that have better patient outcomes on more hard measures, like mortality and evidence-based guidelines.”

Dr. Jha cites a February 2015 study, published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, in which patients were moved from one clinical building to a newer one with more patient-centered features.² The care team remained the same. The study concluded that patients were able to differentiate between satisfactory clinical care and their surroundings, and that clinical care had a greater impact on patient experience than any other factor.

“Was your pain controlled adequately? Were people responsive to your needs? Were you treated with dignity and respect?” Dr. Jha says. “I think it’s disrespectful to say patients can’t tell the difference between high thread-count bed sheets and being treated with disrespect.”

The HCAHPS survey, Dr. Jha notes, reflects important aspects of healthcare that only patients can report. It encompasses 11 measures that gauge, for example, how well patients felt nurses and physicians communicated with them. It also asks patients to provide an overall hospital rank on a 10-point scale (counting only those that receive a nine or 10), according to Kaiser Health News, and to rate the cleanliness and quietness of the rooms.

Hospitals must send surveys to a random sample of adult patients monthly, including those not on Medicare, within six weeks of discharge, and Inpatient Prospective Payment System hospitals should collect at least 300 surveys every four years, CMS says.

“I think one of the most important things for a hospital to understand is [that] the methodology behind creating the star ratings and the way CMS structures the ratings does make it challenging to achieve the very highest score,” says Akin Demehin, AHA senior associate director of policy.

While CMS applies adjustments to account for sampling methods and patient characteristics of hospitals, an analysis by Dr. Jha’s team showed significant disparities between the rankings of large, academic medical centers and those of small, for-profit hospitals, as well as a substantial difference between hospitals that provide for the greatest number of poor patients and those that serve the fewest.³

However, he writes on his blog, "An Ounce of Evidence," that survey methodology is not the problem and that he believes star ratings are a good idea. Although some hospitals might find themselves at score cut-offs—a one-point difference can translate to a full star change—it’s a “small price to pay to make data more accessible to patients,” he writes.

“There is pretty good evidence hospitals are paying attention, and one that gets a one or two-star rating may be motivated to be better,” Dr. Jha says.

“Every hospital is interested in this because it’s part of value-based purchasing,” says Trina Dorrah, MD, MPH, a hospitalist and director of quality at Baylor Scott & White Health in Round Rock, Texas.

Dr. Dorrah has authored two books focused on patient experience, and she suggests simple ways hospitals can work toward improving their HCAHPS scores, and potentially their star ratings, from having nurses round with physicians to installing communication-facilitating whiteboards in every room.

Her hospital also awards bonuses to the hospitalist group for achieving set goals. Some hospitalist programs around the country are also adding questions to their surveys to link individual providers to patient rankings, she said, though many also do it in aggregate, because linking patients to individual physicians can get “very messy.”

CMS advises caution in interpreting star rankings, acknowledging that they are not the only valuable measures of care quality. Despite the concern over the contextual value of the new rankings, Demehin says AHA supports use of the HCAHPS survey and the value of patient experience measures and believes they should be consulted in conjunction with other quality improvement efforts.

“When I’m really sick and I go to the hospital, I want to be treated with dignity and respect and I want my pain treated quickly, but I also want to survive and not develop an infection,” Dr. Jha says. “That’s obviously not in the star ratings.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Merlino J, Raman A. Understanding the drivers of the patient experience. Harvard Business Review. Sept. 17, 2013. Accessed May 14, 2015.
2. Siddiqui Z, Zuccarelli R, Durkin N, Wu AW, Brotman DJ. Changes in patient satisfaction related to hospital renovation: Experience with a new clinical building. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(3):165-171.
3. Jha A. Finding the stars of hospital care in the U.S. An Ounce of Evidence blog. April 20, 2015. Accessed June 4, 2015.

In April, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publicly revealed for the first time which hospitals achieved five stars and which had room for improvement based on patient experience per the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey.

Although these measures are not new, this year CMS assembled the star ratings from HCAHPS survey results and made them available on its consumer-facing website, in an effort to increase transparency.

The decision has not been met without controversy, particularly given the fact that just 251 hospitals out of more than 3,500 received five stars, and only two major teaching hospitals achieved the highest rating. Some professional groups, like the American Hospital Association (AHA), which issued a statement the day CMS released its ratings, believe the rankings risk “oversimplifying the complexity of quality care or misinterpreting what is important to a particular patient, especially since patients seek care for many different reasons.”

Others argue that there is a disconnect between what hospital leaders perceive as important drivers of patient experience and what patients really want. For instance, a 2013 Harvard Business Review article cites a 2012 survey in which C-suite leaders suggested new facilities, private rooms, on-demand food, bedside electronics, and more amenities were necessary to improve patient experience in the hospital.¹

“I am surprised at how much controversy there is on this,” says Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, hospitalist at the VA Boston Healthcare System and professor of health policy at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “Modestly good evidence suggests that hospitals that do well on patient experience scores are also the hospitals that have better patient outcomes on more hard measures, like mortality and evidence-based guidelines.”

Dr. Jha cites a February 2015 study, published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, in which patients were moved from one clinical building to a newer one with more patient-centered features.² The care team remained the same. The study concluded that patients were able to differentiate between satisfactory clinical care and their surroundings, and that clinical care had a greater impact on patient experience than any other factor.

“Was your pain controlled adequately? Were people responsive to your needs? Were you treated with dignity and respect?” Dr. Jha says. “I think it’s disrespectful to say patients can’t tell the difference between high thread-count bed sheets and being treated with disrespect.”

The HCAHPS survey, Dr. Jha notes, reflects important aspects of healthcare that only patients can report. It encompasses 11 measures that gauge, for example, how well patients felt nurses and physicians communicated with them. It also asks patients to provide an overall hospital rank on a 10-point scale (counting only those that receive a nine or 10), according to Kaiser Health News, and to rate the cleanliness and quietness of the rooms.

Hospitals must send surveys to a random sample of adult patients monthly, including those not on Medicare, within six weeks of discharge, and Inpatient Prospective Payment System hospitals should collect at least 300 surveys every four years, CMS says.

“I think one of the most important things for a hospital to understand is [that] the methodology behind creating the star ratings and the way CMS structures the ratings does make it challenging to achieve the very highest score,” says Akin Demehin, AHA senior associate director of policy.

While CMS applies adjustments to account for sampling methods and patient characteristics of hospitals, an analysis by Dr. Jha’s team showed significant disparities between the rankings of large, academic medical centers and those of small, for-profit hospitals, as well as a substantial difference between hospitals that provide for the greatest number of poor patients and those that serve the fewest.³

However, he writes on his blog, "An Ounce of Evidence," that survey methodology is not the problem and that he believes star ratings are a good idea. Although some hospitals might find themselves at score cut-offs—a one-point difference can translate to a full star change—it’s a “small price to pay to make data more accessible to patients,” he writes.

“There is pretty good evidence hospitals are paying attention, and one that gets a one or two-star rating may be motivated to be better,” Dr. Jha says.

“Every hospital is interested in this because it’s part of value-based purchasing,” says Trina Dorrah, MD, MPH, a hospitalist and director of quality at Baylor Scott & White Health in Round Rock, Texas.

Dr. Dorrah has authored two books focused on patient experience, and she suggests simple ways hospitals can work toward improving their HCAHPS scores, and potentially their star ratings, from having nurses round with physicians to installing communication-facilitating whiteboards in every room.

Her hospital also awards bonuses to the hospitalist group for achieving set goals. Some hospitalist programs around the country are also adding questions to their surveys to link individual providers to patient rankings, she said, though many also do it in aggregate, because linking patients to individual physicians can get “very messy.”

CMS advises caution in interpreting star rankings, acknowledging that they are not the only valuable measures of care quality. Despite the concern over the contextual value of the new rankings, Demehin says AHA supports use of the HCAHPS survey and the value of patient experience measures and believes they should be consulted in conjunction with other quality improvement efforts.

“When I’m really sick and I go to the hospital, I want to be treated with dignity and respect and I want my pain treated quickly, but I also want to survive and not develop an infection,” Dr. Jha says. “That’s obviously not in the star ratings.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Merlino J, Raman A. Understanding the drivers of the patient experience. Harvard Business Review. Sept. 17, 2013. Accessed May 14, 2015.
2. Siddiqui Z, Zuccarelli R, Durkin N, Wu AW, Brotman DJ. Changes in patient satisfaction related to hospital renovation: Experience with a new clinical building. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(3):165-171.
3. Jha A. Finding the stars of hospital care in the U.S. An Ounce of Evidence blog. April 20, 2015. Accessed June 4, 2015.

In December 2014, nearly three years since its launch, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the first proposed rule changes to the Shared Savings Program. The changes, if approved, would take effect in the 2016 performance year and would focus on a host of alterations impacting participating accountable care organizations (ACOs), including reduced administrative burden, improved function and transparency, and enhanced incentives to participate in risk-based models.

Experts say the changes could address some of the biggest flaws in the program but also may not go far enough to incentivize more healthcare providers to participate—or protect them from the risk of financial loss. The rules are under review following a public comment period.

“Many features about the original rules weaken the incentives to participate in ACOs,” says Michael McWilliams, MD, PhD, associate professor of healthcare policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a practicing primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The ACO model encourages providers to realize savings under fee-for-service Medicare through better-coordinated care and improvements in metrics related to utilization and quality. Any savings relative to a benchmark year are shared between the ACO and CMS.

This year, 424 ACOs are participating in the program nationwide, and while the number of Pioneer ACOs has fallen in recent years (Pioneer ACOs wager higher savings for participants at the risk of greater financial loss), a new independent report commissioned by CMS shows the program saved more than $300 annually per beneficiary in its first two years, achieving $384 million in savings.¹ In a statement, CMS concluded this meets the criteria for expanding the Pioneer program; however, Dr. McWilliams says policy changes may still be needed to encourage participation in ACOs with downside risk.

In January, Dr. McWilliams and colleagues published a study in Health Affairs that demonstrated that existing benchmark rules may actually encourage higher Medicare spending as ACOs try to “fatten up” so they have more improvements to make and, therefore, more chance of success at realizing savings.²

Currently, providers’ performance is stacked against their performance and cost benchmarks established in the year prior to forming an ACO. As improvements are made, it becomes increasingly challenging for ACOs to do better. Dr. McWilliams says ACOs should instead be compared to other ACOs and providers.

It’s a “melting ice cube problem,” says Gregory Burke, MPA, director of innovation strategies for New York-based United Health Fund (UHF), a research and philanthropic organization focused on advancing healthcare.

“You are punishing the good, lean providers that are efficient,” he adds, “and rewarding people who are less efficient, in terms of cost of care and utilization of services.”

Burke and a colleague at UHF, health policy analyst Suzanne Brundage, recently completed qualitative and quantitative reports on ACOs in the state of New York, which currently make up 20% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries.^3,4

Through their analysis, which included structured interviews with 17 Pioneer ACO leaders, Burke and Brundage found ACO rules could change in the following ways to make the program sustainable and more attractive to providers:

• Patients should be attributed to PCPs within the ACO;
• Risk adjustment should be made for ACO providers serving a sicker population of patients; and
• Benchmark rules should be altered.

Additionally, Dr. McWilliams says the shared savings rate realized by ACOs should be higher than 50%, which is especially true for hospitals within an ACO, since the goals of the program are to reduce hospital visits, extensive specialist services, and testing services.

“For a hospital system, the bulk of the money comes from inpatient care,” Burke says. “We’re saying: ‘You stomp on your own air hose today, and a year from now I’ll give you 50% oxygen—and you have to share with your buddy.’”

The 2014 State of Hospital Medicine report indicates that 36% of adult hospitalist medicine groups are in hospitals either already involved in or considering involvement in an ACO; however, respondents in that report also reflect no clear role for hospitalists in the ACO model.

This is a point disputed by Val Akopov, MD, vice president and chief of hospital medicine at WellStar Health System, a not-for-profit organization in northwestern Atlanta and a participating ACO. Dr. Akopov highlights ways in which hospitals and hospitalists could take advantage of the model.

“Five measures fall into the domain of care coordination that are directly, unequivocally related to what hospitalists do, and these metrics are part of, in my opinion, what any hospital medicine program should have as a value proposition,” Dr. Akopov says.

At WellStar, for example, hospitalists have become part of the ACO structure by serving as medical directors and attending physicians at skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). They are “solely responsible to attend to patients in SNFs, and we have seen a dramatic improvement in readmission rates and quality metrics in nursing homes, such as incidence of falls, use of antipsychotics, and 30-day unplanned readmissions to acute care hospitals,” Dr. Akopov explains.

Additionally, WellStar hospitalists work with each inpatient to ensure they have primary care follow-up scheduled before discharge, Dr. Akopov says, noting that the model is a good opportunity to explore changes to the way hospitals and providers deliver care.

“There are roughly 38,000 Medicare patients in [our] ACO; it’s much easier to work out the kinks with innovations on a limited patient population and then extrapolate findings on 1.5 million annually, rather than trying to bite too much,” he says.

Despite the challenges, experts are optimistic the ACO model can—and will—work. In their reporting, Burke and Brundage found healthcare leaders participating in ACOs remain optimistic.

“It’s a post-Copernican universe, where the world no longer revolves around the hospital, so balancing the equation is a little different,” Burke says. “But they’re staying in the game, because that’s where the puck is going to be.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Affordable Care Act payment model saves more than $384 million in two years, meets criteria for first-ever expansion. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Published May 4, 2015. Accessed May 11, 2015.
2. Douven R, McGuire TG, McWilliams JM. Avoiding unintended incentives in ACO payment models. Health Aff. 2015;34(1):143-149.
3. Burke, G, Brundage S. Accountable care in New York state: emerging themes and issues. United Hospital Fund. Accessed May 9, 2015.
4. Burke, G and Brundage S. New York’s Medicare ACOs: participants and performance. United Hospital Fund. Accessed May 9, 2015.

In December 2014, nearly three years since its launch, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the first proposed rule changes to the Shared Savings Program. The changes, if approved, would take effect in the 2016 performance year and would focus on a host of alterations impacting participating accountable care organizations (ACOs), including reduced administrative burden, improved function and transparency, and enhanced incentives to participate in risk-based models.

Experts say the changes could address some of the biggest flaws in the program but also may not go far enough to incentivize more healthcare providers to participate—or protect them from the risk of financial loss. The rules are under review following a public comment period.

“Many features about the original rules weaken the incentives to participate in ACOs,” says Michael McWilliams, MD, PhD, associate professor of healthcare policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a practicing primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The ACO model encourages providers to realize savings under fee-for-service Medicare through better-coordinated care and improvements in metrics related to utilization and quality. Any savings relative to a benchmark year are shared between the ACO and CMS.

This year, 424 ACOs are participating in the program nationwide, and while the number of Pioneer ACOs has fallen in recent years (Pioneer ACOs wager higher savings for participants at the risk of greater financial loss), a new independent report commissioned by CMS shows the program saved more than $300 annually per beneficiary in its first two years, achieving $384 million in savings.¹ In a statement, CMS concluded this meets the criteria for expanding the Pioneer program; however, Dr. McWilliams says policy changes may still be needed to encourage participation in ACOs with downside risk.

In January, Dr. McWilliams and colleagues published a study in Health Affairs that demonstrated that existing benchmark rules may actually encourage higher Medicare spending as ACOs try to “fatten up” so they have more improvements to make and, therefore, more chance of success at realizing savings.²

Currently, providers’ performance is stacked against their performance and cost benchmarks established in the year prior to forming an ACO. As improvements are made, it becomes increasingly challenging for ACOs to do better. Dr. McWilliams says ACOs should instead be compared to other ACOs and providers.

It’s a “melting ice cube problem,” says Gregory Burke, MPA, director of innovation strategies for New York-based United Health Fund (UHF), a research and philanthropic organization focused on advancing healthcare.

“You are punishing the good, lean providers that are efficient,” he adds, “and rewarding people who are less efficient, in terms of cost of care and utilization of services.”

Burke and a colleague at UHF, health policy analyst Suzanne Brundage, recently completed qualitative and quantitative reports on ACOs in the state of New York, which currently make up 20% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries.^3,4

Through their analysis, which included structured interviews with 17 Pioneer ACO leaders, Burke and Brundage found ACO rules could change in the following ways to make the program sustainable and more attractive to providers:

• Patients should be attributed to PCPs within the ACO;
• Risk adjustment should be made for ACO providers serving a sicker population of patients; and
• Benchmark rules should be altered.

Additionally, Dr. McWilliams says the shared savings rate realized by ACOs should be higher than 50%, which is especially true for hospitals within an ACO, since the goals of the program are to reduce hospital visits, extensive specialist services, and testing services.

“For a hospital system, the bulk of the money comes from inpatient care,” Burke says. “We’re saying: ‘You stomp on your own air hose today, and a year from now I’ll give you 50% oxygen—and you have to share with your buddy.’”

The 2014 State of Hospital Medicine report indicates that 36% of adult hospitalist medicine groups are in hospitals either already involved in or considering involvement in an ACO; however, respondents in that report also reflect no clear role for hospitalists in the ACO model.

This is a point disputed by Val Akopov, MD, vice president and chief of hospital medicine at WellStar Health System, a not-for-profit organization in northwestern Atlanta and a participating ACO. Dr. Akopov highlights ways in which hospitals and hospitalists could take advantage of the model.

“Five measures fall into the domain of care coordination that are directly, unequivocally related to what hospitalists do, and these metrics are part of, in my opinion, what any hospital medicine program should have as a value proposition,” Dr. Akopov says.

At WellStar, for example, hospitalists have become part of the ACO structure by serving as medical directors and attending physicians at skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). They are “solely responsible to attend to patients in SNFs, and we have seen a dramatic improvement in readmission rates and quality metrics in nursing homes, such as incidence of falls, use of antipsychotics, and 30-day unplanned readmissions to acute care hospitals,” Dr. Akopov explains.

Additionally, WellStar hospitalists work with each inpatient to ensure they have primary care follow-up scheduled before discharge, Dr. Akopov says, noting that the model is a good opportunity to explore changes to the way hospitals and providers deliver care.

“There are roughly 38,000 Medicare patients in [our] ACO; it’s much easier to work out the kinks with innovations on a limited patient population and then extrapolate findings on 1.5 million annually, rather than trying to bite too much,” he says.

Despite the challenges, experts are optimistic the ACO model can—and will—work. In their reporting, Burke and Brundage found healthcare leaders participating in ACOs remain optimistic.

“It’s a post-Copernican universe, where the world no longer revolves around the hospital, so balancing the equation is a little different,” Burke says. “But they’re staying in the game, because that’s where the puck is going to be.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Affordable Care Act payment model saves more than $384 million in two years, meets criteria for first-ever expansion. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Published May 4, 2015. Accessed May 11, 2015.
2. Douven R, McGuire TG, McWilliams JM. Avoiding unintended incentives in ACO payment models. Health Aff. 2015;34(1):143-149.
3. Burke, G, Brundage S. Accountable care in New York state: emerging themes and issues. United Hospital Fund. Accessed May 9, 2015.
4. Burke, G and Brundage S. New York’s Medicare ACOs: participants and performance. United Hospital Fund. Accessed May 9, 2015.

In December 2014, nearly three years since its launch, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the first proposed rule changes to the Shared Savings Program. The changes, if approved, would take effect in the 2016 performance year and would focus on a host of alterations impacting participating accountable care organizations (ACOs), including reduced administrative burden, improved function and transparency, and enhanced incentives to participate in risk-based models.

Experts say the changes could address some of the biggest flaws in the program but also may not go far enough to incentivize more healthcare providers to participate—or protect them from the risk of financial loss. The rules are under review following a public comment period.

“Many features about the original rules weaken the incentives to participate in ACOs,” says Michael McWilliams, MD, PhD, associate professor of healthcare policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a practicing primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

The ACO model encourages providers to realize savings under fee-for-service Medicare through better-coordinated care and improvements in metrics related to utilization and quality. Any savings relative to a benchmark year are shared between the ACO and CMS.

This year, 424 ACOs are participating in the program nationwide, and while the number of Pioneer ACOs has fallen in recent years (Pioneer ACOs wager higher savings for participants at the risk of greater financial loss), a new independent report commissioned by CMS shows the program saved more than $300 annually per beneficiary in its first two years, achieving $384 million in savings.¹ In a statement, CMS concluded this meets the criteria for expanding the Pioneer program; however, Dr. McWilliams says policy changes may still be needed to encourage participation in ACOs with downside risk.

In January, Dr. McWilliams and colleagues published a study in Health Affairs that demonstrated that existing benchmark rules may actually encourage higher Medicare spending as ACOs try to “fatten up” so they have more improvements to make and, therefore, more chance of success at realizing savings.²

Currently, providers’ performance is stacked against their performance and cost benchmarks established in the year prior to forming an ACO. As improvements are made, it becomes increasingly challenging for ACOs to do better. Dr. McWilliams says ACOs should instead be compared to other ACOs and providers.

It’s a “melting ice cube problem,” says Gregory Burke, MPA, director of innovation strategies for New York-based United Health Fund (UHF), a research and philanthropic organization focused on advancing healthcare.

“You are punishing the good, lean providers that are efficient,” he adds, “and rewarding people who are less efficient, in terms of cost of care and utilization of services.”

Burke and a colleague at UHF, health policy analyst Suzanne Brundage, recently completed qualitative and quantitative reports on ACOs in the state of New York, which currently make up 20% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries.^3,4

Through their analysis, which included structured interviews with 17 Pioneer ACO leaders, Burke and Brundage found ACO rules could change in the following ways to make the program sustainable and more attractive to providers:

• Patients should be attributed to PCPs within the ACO;
• Risk adjustment should be made for ACO providers serving a sicker population of patients; and
• Benchmark rules should be altered.

Additionally, Dr. McWilliams says the shared savings rate realized by ACOs should be higher than 50%, which is especially true for hospitals within an ACO, since the goals of the program are to reduce hospital visits, extensive specialist services, and testing services.

“For a hospital system, the bulk of the money comes from inpatient care,” Burke says. “We’re saying: ‘You stomp on your own air hose today, and a year from now I’ll give you 50% oxygen—and you have to share with your buddy.’”

The 2014 State of Hospital Medicine report indicates that 36% of adult hospitalist medicine groups are in hospitals either already involved in or considering involvement in an ACO; however, respondents in that report also reflect no clear role for hospitalists in the ACO model.

This is a point disputed by Val Akopov, MD, vice president and chief of hospital medicine at WellStar Health System, a not-for-profit organization in northwestern Atlanta and a participating ACO. Dr. Akopov highlights ways in which hospitals and hospitalists could take advantage of the model.

“Five measures fall into the domain of care coordination that are directly, unequivocally related to what hospitalists do, and these metrics are part of, in my opinion, what any hospital medicine program should have as a value proposition,” Dr. Akopov says.

At WellStar, for example, hospitalists have become part of the ACO structure by serving as medical directors and attending physicians at skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). They are “solely responsible to attend to patients in SNFs, and we have seen a dramatic improvement in readmission rates and quality metrics in nursing homes, such as incidence of falls, use of antipsychotics, and 30-day unplanned readmissions to acute care hospitals,” Dr. Akopov explains.

Additionally, WellStar hospitalists work with each inpatient to ensure they have primary care follow-up scheduled before discharge, Dr. Akopov says, noting that the model is a good opportunity to explore changes to the way hospitals and providers deliver care.

“There are roughly 38,000 Medicare patients in [our] ACO; it’s much easier to work out the kinks with innovations on a limited patient population and then extrapolate findings on 1.5 million annually, rather than trying to bite too much,” he says.

Despite the challenges, experts are optimistic the ACO model can—and will—work. In their reporting, Burke and Brundage found healthcare leaders participating in ACOs remain optimistic.

“It’s a post-Copernican universe, where the world no longer revolves around the hospital, so balancing the equation is a little different,” Burke says. “But they’re staying in the game, because that’s where the puck is going to be.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Affordable Care Act payment model saves more than $384 million in two years, meets criteria for first-ever expansion. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Published May 4, 2015. Accessed May 11, 2015.
2. Douven R, McGuire TG, McWilliams JM. Avoiding unintended incentives in ACO payment models. Health Aff. 2015;34(1):143-149.
3. Burke, G, Brundage S. Accountable care in New York state: emerging themes and issues. United Hospital Fund. Accessed May 9, 2015.
4. Burke, G and Brundage S. New York’s Medicare ACOs: participants and performance. United Hospital Fund. Accessed May 9, 2015.

In late January, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the early results of two multi-year innovation projects focused on the creation of patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs).

Although PCMH models have been lauded as a way to achieve CMS’ triple aim —better quality patient care and improved health at a lower cost—little evidence currently backs up this claim. The latest reports show that PCMH interventions hold promise, but the jury is still out.

“I think, two to three years from now, we will be in a totally different position, in terms of a sound evidence base for policy,” says Mark Friedberg, MD, MPP, a practicing general internist and senior natural scientist for the RAND Corporation. “We know these very large CMS demonstrations are just starting to trickle in with year one results.”

Both the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) Initiative and the Multi-payer Advanced Primary Care Practice (MAPCP) are large, multi-year CMS demonstrations launched in 2012 and 2011, respectively, and the reports cover just their first 12 months. Although different in numerous ways, both projects aim to create better coordinated care that will in turn lower hospital admissions and ED visits, reduce duplications, enhance patient health through prevention, improve chronic disease management, and move away from a fee-for-service approach. They are just two of many experiments supported by the 10-year, $10 billion CMS Innovation Center.

In its first 12 months, the CPC focused on improving the care of high-risk patients in four states plus three separate regions of the U.S. It served 345,000 Medicare beneficiaries and roughly 2.5 million patients overall among nearly 500 primary care practices identified as likely to achieve meaningful results.

The evaluation, performed by policy research firm Mathematica, found that CPC cut hospital admissions by 2% and saw a 3% reduction in ED visits relative to similar practices not participating in the initiative, contributing to an overall $168 savings per Medicare beneficiary. It generated more than $70,000 in additional revenue per median practice clinician.¹

However, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) paid practices $240 per patient to cover the costs of establishing the medical home, including hiring nurses, improving electronic health records, and setting up 24-hour call lines. Thus, the initiative failed to offset its costs. Even so, Mathematica called the findings “promising” and “more favorable” than expected for the first year of the initiative, though it advised caution in interpreting the findings at this stage.

The MAPCP involved primary care initiatives in eight states, encompassing 3,800 providers across 700 practices; it touched 400,000 Medicare beneficiaries in its first year (today, it serves practices in just six states). Private payers and Medicaid also took part, leading to an estimated savings of $4.2 million, according to the initiative’s evaluators, RTI International and The Urban Institute.²

The demonstration realized a reduction in fee-for-service Medicare growth in Vermont and Michigan, largely resulting from lower inpatient expenditures, but did little to reduce hospitalizations, readmissions, or ED visits. Data collection and utilization were recurring challenges.

Dr. Friedberg says these first reports are akin to seeing the first few ships of the armada break the horizon. Last year, he was first author of a Journal of the American Medical Association study of a three-year PCMH intervention in Pennsylvania, Southeastern Pennsylvania’s Chronic Care Initiative, which also showed mixed results.³ He currently is part of a team evaluating the CMS Federally Qualified Health Center Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration, which concluded last October.

Although he has not yet seen an evaluation of a PCMH intervention involving hospitalists, Dr. Friedberg says it would be interesting to see the results of a rigorously studied pilot that involves such an evaluation. A 2012 article in The Hospitalist highlighted one project in Wisconsin and laid out ways in which hospitalists could be involved in PCMH initiatives—among them, being part of hospital admissions decision making and maintaining open lines of communication.⁴ Leaders of that project declined to comment at this time.

“The patient-centered medical home really is an outpatient strategy more than it is an inpatient strategy,” says Robert Centor, MD, MACP, an academic hospitalist at the University of Alabama Huntsville and chair of the Board of Regents of the American College of Physicians, yet he sees a role for hospitalists.

“If we start getting good results with patient-centered medical homes and more people go to the model, a relationship between the PCMH on the outpatient side and a cadre of people who know how to work the inpatient side is going to be critical to success,” Dr. Centor says.

Indeed, Dr. Friedberg says hospitalists’ involvement could be one of the “missing ingredients” that might contribute to the success of any given PCMH intervention, and he’s careful to emphasize there is no such thing as “the medical home.” Rather, there are “many medical homes,” he says.

Dr. Centor says hospitalists could serve as conduits between care inside the hospital and follow-up care, which could reduce length of stay for some patients and smooth the transition from discharge to primary care. A well-versed hospitalist with the PCMH might also assist in reducing repeat tests and procedures.

“I think it comes down to relationships more than anything else,” Dr. Centor says. “The challenge is, given all of the busyness of outpatient practice and inpatient care, how do we best communicate?”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Mathematica Policy Research. Evaluation of the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative: first annual report. Reference number 40102.R14. Available at: http://innovation.cms.gov/Files/reports/CPCI-EvalRpt1.pdf. Accessed March 4, 2015.
2. RTI International. Evaluation of the multi-payer advanced primary care practice (MAPCP) demonstration: first annual report. RTI Project Number 0212790.005.001.001. Available at: http://innovation.cms.gov/Files/reports/MAPCP-EvalRpt1.pdf. Accessed March 4, 2015.
3. Friedberg MW, Schneider EC, Rosenthal MB, Volpp KG, Werner RM. Association between participation in a multipayer medical home intervention and changes in quality, utilization, and costs of care. JAMA. 2014;311(8):815-825.
4. Collins T. Patients should prepare for the patient-centered medical home. The Hospitalist. July 3, 2012. Available at: http://www.the-hospitalist.org/article/hospitalists-should-prepare-for-the-patient-centered-medical-home/. Accessed March 4, 2015.

In late January, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the early results of two multi-year innovation projects focused on the creation of patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs).

Although PCMH models have been lauded as a way to achieve CMS’ triple aim —better quality patient care and improved health at a lower cost—little evidence currently backs up this claim. The latest reports show that PCMH interventions hold promise, but the jury is still out.

“I think, two to three years from now, we will be in a totally different position, in terms of a sound evidence base for policy,” says Mark Friedberg, MD, MPP, a practicing general internist and senior natural scientist for the RAND Corporation. “We know these very large CMS demonstrations are just starting to trickle in with year one results.”

Both the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) Initiative and the Multi-payer Advanced Primary Care Practice (MAPCP) are large, multi-year CMS demonstrations launched in 2012 and 2011, respectively, and the reports cover just their first 12 months. Although different in numerous ways, both projects aim to create better coordinated care that will in turn lower hospital admissions and ED visits, reduce duplications, enhance patient health through prevention, improve chronic disease management, and move away from a fee-for-service approach. They are just two of many experiments supported by the 10-year, $10 billion CMS Innovation Center.

In its first 12 months, the CPC focused on improving the care of high-risk patients in four states plus three separate regions of the U.S. It served 345,000 Medicare beneficiaries and roughly 2.5 million patients overall among nearly 500 primary care practices identified as likely to achieve meaningful results.

The evaluation, performed by policy research firm Mathematica, found that CPC cut hospital admissions by 2% and saw a 3% reduction in ED visits relative to similar practices not participating in the initiative, contributing to an overall $168 savings per Medicare beneficiary. It generated more than $70,000 in additional revenue per median practice clinician.¹

However, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) paid practices $240 per patient to cover the costs of establishing the medical home, including hiring nurses, improving electronic health records, and setting up 24-hour call lines. Thus, the initiative failed to offset its costs. Even so, Mathematica called the findings “promising” and “more favorable” than expected for the first year of the initiative, though it advised caution in interpreting the findings at this stage.

The MAPCP involved primary care initiatives in eight states, encompassing 3,800 providers across 700 practices; it touched 400,000 Medicare beneficiaries in its first year (today, it serves practices in just six states). Private payers and Medicaid also took part, leading to an estimated savings of $4.2 million, according to the initiative’s evaluators, RTI International and The Urban Institute.²

The demonstration realized a reduction in fee-for-service Medicare growth in Vermont and Michigan, largely resulting from lower inpatient expenditures, but did little to reduce hospitalizations, readmissions, or ED visits. Data collection and utilization were recurring challenges.

Dr. Friedberg says these first reports are akin to seeing the first few ships of the armada break the horizon. Last year, he was first author of a Journal of the American Medical Association study of a three-year PCMH intervention in Pennsylvania, Southeastern Pennsylvania’s Chronic Care Initiative, which also showed mixed results.³ He currently is part of a team evaluating the CMS Federally Qualified Health Center Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration, which concluded last October.

Although he has not yet seen an evaluation of a PCMH intervention involving hospitalists, Dr. Friedberg says it would be interesting to see the results of a rigorously studied pilot that involves such an evaluation. A 2012 article in The Hospitalist highlighted one project in Wisconsin and laid out ways in which hospitalists could be involved in PCMH initiatives—among them, being part of hospital admissions decision making and maintaining open lines of communication.⁴ Leaders of that project declined to comment at this time.

“The patient-centered medical home really is an outpatient strategy more than it is an inpatient strategy,” says Robert Centor, MD, MACP, an academic hospitalist at the University of Alabama Huntsville and chair of the Board of Regents of the American College of Physicians, yet he sees a role for hospitalists.

“If we start getting good results with patient-centered medical homes and more people go to the model, a relationship between the PCMH on the outpatient side and a cadre of people who know how to work the inpatient side is going to be critical to success,” Dr. Centor says.

Indeed, Dr. Friedberg says hospitalists’ involvement could be one of the “missing ingredients” that might contribute to the success of any given PCMH intervention, and he’s careful to emphasize there is no such thing as “the medical home.” Rather, there are “many medical homes,” he says.

Dr. Centor says hospitalists could serve as conduits between care inside the hospital and follow-up care, which could reduce length of stay for some patients and smooth the transition from discharge to primary care. A well-versed hospitalist with the PCMH might also assist in reducing repeat tests and procedures.

“I think it comes down to relationships more than anything else,” Dr. Centor says. “The challenge is, given all of the busyness of outpatient practice and inpatient care, how do we best communicate?”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Mathematica Policy Research. Evaluation of the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative: first annual report. Reference number 40102.R14. Available at: http://innovation.cms.gov/Files/reports/CPCI-EvalRpt1.pdf. Accessed March 4, 2015.
2. RTI International. Evaluation of the multi-payer advanced primary care practice (MAPCP) demonstration: first annual report. RTI Project Number 0212790.005.001.001. Available at: http://innovation.cms.gov/Files/reports/MAPCP-EvalRpt1.pdf. Accessed March 4, 2015.
3. Friedberg MW, Schneider EC, Rosenthal MB, Volpp KG, Werner RM. Association between participation in a multipayer medical home intervention and changes in quality, utilization, and costs of care. JAMA. 2014;311(8):815-825.
4. Collins T. Patients should prepare for the patient-centered medical home. The Hospitalist. July 3, 2012. Available at: http://www.the-hospitalist.org/article/hospitalists-should-prepare-for-the-patient-centered-medical-home/. Accessed March 4, 2015.

In late January, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the early results of two multi-year innovation projects focused on the creation of patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs).

Although PCMH models have been lauded as a way to achieve CMS’ triple aim —better quality patient care and improved health at a lower cost—little evidence currently backs up this claim. The latest reports show that PCMH interventions hold promise, but the jury is still out.

“I think, two to three years from now, we will be in a totally different position, in terms of a sound evidence base for policy,” says Mark Friedberg, MD, MPP, a practicing general internist and senior natural scientist for the RAND Corporation. “We know these very large CMS demonstrations are just starting to trickle in with year one results.”

Both the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) Initiative and the Multi-payer Advanced Primary Care Practice (MAPCP) are large, multi-year CMS demonstrations launched in 2012 and 2011, respectively, and the reports cover just their first 12 months. Although different in numerous ways, both projects aim to create better coordinated care that will in turn lower hospital admissions and ED visits, reduce duplications, enhance patient health through prevention, improve chronic disease management, and move away from a fee-for-service approach. They are just two of many experiments supported by the 10-year, $10 billion CMS Innovation Center.

In its first 12 months, the CPC focused on improving the care of high-risk patients in four states plus three separate regions of the U.S. It served 345,000 Medicare beneficiaries and roughly 2.5 million patients overall among nearly 500 primary care practices identified as likely to achieve meaningful results.

The evaluation, performed by policy research firm Mathematica, found that CPC cut hospital admissions by 2% and saw a 3% reduction in ED visits relative to similar practices not participating in the initiative, contributing to an overall $168 savings per Medicare beneficiary. It generated more than $70,000 in additional revenue per median practice clinician.¹

However, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) paid practices $240 per patient to cover the costs of establishing the medical home, including hiring nurses, improving electronic health records, and setting up 24-hour call lines. Thus, the initiative failed to offset its costs. Even so, Mathematica called the findings “promising” and “more favorable” than expected for the first year of the initiative, though it advised caution in interpreting the findings at this stage.

The MAPCP involved primary care initiatives in eight states, encompassing 3,800 providers across 700 practices; it touched 400,000 Medicare beneficiaries in its first year (today, it serves practices in just six states). Private payers and Medicaid also took part, leading to an estimated savings of $4.2 million, according to the initiative’s evaluators, RTI International and The Urban Institute.²

The demonstration realized a reduction in fee-for-service Medicare growth in Vermont and Michigan, largely resulting from lower inpatient expenditures, but did little to reduce hospitalizations, readmissions, or ED visits. Data collection and utilization were recurring challenges.

Dr. Friedberg says these first reports are akin to seeing the first few ships of the armada break the horizon. Last year, he was first author of a Journal of the American Medical Association study of a three-year PCMH intervention in Pennsylvania, Southeastern Pennsylvania’s Chronic Care Initiative, which also showed mixed results.³ He currently is part of a team evaluating the CMS Federally Qualified Health Center Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration, which concluded last October.

Although he has not yet seen an evaluation of a PCMH intervention involving hospitalists, Dr. Friedberg says it would be interesting to see the results of a rigorously studied pilot that involves such an evaluation. A 2012 article in The Hospitalist highlighted one project in Wisconsin and laid out ways in which hospitalists could be involved in PCMH initiatives—among them, being part of hospital admissions decision making and maintaining open lines of communication.⁴ Leaders of that project declined to comment at this time.

“The patient-centered medical home really is an outpatient strategy more than it is an inpatient strategy,” says Robert Centor, MD, MACP, an academic hospitalist at the University of Alabama Huntsville and chair of the Board of Regents of the American College of Physicians, yet he sees a role for hospitalists.

“If we start getting good results with patient-centered medical homes and more people go to the model, a relationship between the PCMH on the outpatient side and a cadre of people who know how to work the inpatient side is going to be critical to success,” Dr. Centor says.

Indeed, Dr. Friedberg says hospitalists’ involvement could be one of the “missing ingredients” that might contribute to the success of any given PCMH intervention, and he’s careful to emphasize there is no such thing as “the medical home.” Rather, there are “many medical homes,” he says.

Dr. Centor says hospitalists could serve as conduits between care inside the hospital and follow-up care, which could reduce length of stay for some patients and smooth the transition from discharge to primary care. A well-versed hospitalist with the PCMH might also assist in reducing repeat tests and procedures.

“I think it comes down to relationships more than anything else,” Dr. Centor says. “The challenge is, given all of the busyness of outpatient practice and inpatient care, how do we best communicate?”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Mathematica Policy Research. Evaluation of the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative: first annual report. Reference number 40102.R14. Available at: http://innovation.cms.gov/Files/reports/CPCI-EvalRpt1.pdf. Accessed March 4, 2015.
2. RTI International. Evaluation of the multi-payer advanced primary care practice (MAPCP) demonstration: first annual report. RTI Project Number 0212790.005.001.001. Available at: http://innovation.cms.gov/Files/reports/MAPCP-EvalRpt1.pdf. Accessed March 4, 2015.
3. Friedberg MW, Schneider EC, Rosenthal MB, Volpp KG, Werner RM. Association between participation in a multipayer medical home intervention and changes in quality, utilization, and costs of care. JAMA. 2014;311(8):815-825.
4. Collins T. Patients should prepare for the patient-centered medical home. The Hospitalist. July 3, 2012. Available at: http://www.the-hospitalist.org/article/hospitalists-should-prepare-for-the-patient-centered-medical-home/. Accessed March 4, 2015.

On Dec. 15, 2014, 37-year-old hospitalist and internist Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, was sworn in as the 19th surgeon general of the United States. He is the youngest person to hold the post and the first of Indian-American descent.

Dr. Murthy said in a February 26 conference call that, as the nation’s highest physician, he plans to focus on the challenges of obesity and chronic illness—especially diabetes and cardiovascular disease—as well as advocate for expanded health coverage, modernize communications from the surgeon general’s office, and work with local communities to improve the health of all Americans.

He also highlighted the ways in which his work as a hospitalist will inform his new role.

“Being a hospitalist has given me a wonderful view into the challenges people face during moments of acute illness,” said Dr. Murthy, who practices as a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “I’ve had the opportunity to work with patients and their families during moments of crisis, and I have a deep appreciation for how important it is to not only have healthcare and a healthcare system that takes care of people, but also how hard we need to work in preventing illness in the first place.”

Dr. Murthy recently completed part of a nationwide listening tour, visiting communities around the country to hear about the issues they face.

“In every place we visited, there was great concern about obesity, chronic disease, mental illness, substance abuse, and vaccination rates, especially with the current outbreak of measles,” Dr. Murthy said.

As a result, he plans to focus heavily on community health, working on three approaches: taking care of people where they are, equipping children with the tools and education they need to lead healthy lives, and building cross-sector collaborations to address the social aspects of health and disease.

Dr. Murthy has experience in this arena, as co-founder of a community health project in India called Swasthya (Sanskrit for health and well-being), where women were enlisted as health providers and educators.

Changes may also be in store for medical training; Dr. Murthy says he hopes to better integrate primary care and public health, areas that he said have “traditionally been more separate than they need to be.”

“Physicians are an important part of improving public health for the country,” Dr. Murthy said. “One of the first [priorities] is to get the message out to the public about the importance of vaccinations, particularly measles.”

Many parents, he said, would benefit from hearing from their doctors that vaccines are safe, effective, and one of the best ways to protect their children’s health. Most are not strongly opposed to vaccinations; they just lack the right information.

As surgeon general, Dr. Murthy serves as the country’s top public health spokesperson, overseeing the 6,700-member U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

The time he spent in his parents’ primary care office in his hometown of Miami inspired Dr. Murthy to pursue medicine. He earned his MBA and MD from Yale and already founded a drug development software company, TrialNetworks (now DrugDev TrialNetworks), as well as two nonprofits, Doctors for America (formerly Doctors for Obama) and VISIONS Worldwide, Inc., which is dedicated to HIV and AIDS education.

In Boston, working as a hospitalist both before and after major health reform efforts in the state, Dr. Murthy saw the difference that access to health insurance made in the lives of his patients. Now, as the country’s top doctor, he wants to do “everything possible” to ensure a high-quality, lower-cost healthcare system in the U.S.

His mission is especially relevant this year, as the Supreme Court takes on another challenge to the Affordable Care Act in King v. Burwell.

“I am concerned that patients may be in a situation, and citizens may be in a situation, where they lose coverage and access to healthcare in the coming months or years, depending on the ruling,” he said. “I want to emphasize this kind of coverage is essential to patients.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

On Dec. 15, 2014, 37-year-old hospitalist and internist Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, was sworn in as the 19th surgeon general of the United States. He is the youngest person to hold the post and the first of Indian-American descent.

Dr. Murthy said in a February 26 conference call that, as the nation’s highest physician, he plans to focus on the challenges of obesity and chronic illness—especially diabetes and cardiovascular disease—as well as advocate for expanded health coverage, modernize communications from the surgeon general’s office, and work with local communities to improve the health of all Americans.

He also highlighted the ways in which his work as a hospitalist will inform his new role.

“Being a hospitalist has given me a wonderful view into the challenges people face during moments of acute illness,” said Dr. Murthy, who practices as a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “I’ve had the opportunity to work with patients and their families during moments of crisis, and I have a deep appreciation for how important it is to not only have healthcare and a healthcare system that takes care of people, but also how hard we need to work in preventing illness in the first place.”

Dr. Murthy recently completed part of a nationwide listening tour, visiting communities around the country to hear about the issues they face.

“In every place we visited, there was great concern about obesity, chronic disease, mental illness, substance abuse, and vaccination rates, especially with the current outbreak of measles,” Dr. Murthy said.

As a result, he plans to focus heavily on community health, working on three approaches: taking care of people where they are, equipping children with the tools and education they need to lead healthy lives, and building cross-sector collaborations to address the social aspects of health and disease.

Dr. Murthy has experience in this arena, as co-founder of a community health project in India called Swasthya (Sanskrit for health and well-being), where women were enlisted as health providers and educators.

Changes may also be in store for medical training; Dr. Murthy says he hopes to better integrate primary care and public health, areas that he said have “traditionally been more separate than they need to be.”

“Physicians are an important part of improving public health for the country,” Dr. Murthy said. “One of the first [priorities] is to get the message out to the public about the importance of vaccinations, particularly measles.”

Many parents, he said, would benefit from hearing from their doctors that vaccines are safe, effective, and one of the best ways to protect their children’s health. Most are not strongly opposed to vaccinations; they just lack the right information.

As surgeon general, Dr. Murthy serves as the country’s top public health spokesperson, overseeing the 6,700-member U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

The time he spent in his parents’ primary care office in his hometown of Miami inspired Dr. Murthy to pursue medicine. He earned his MBA and MD from Yale and already founded a drug development software company, TrialNetworks (now DrugDev TrialNetworks), as well as two nonprofits, Doctors for America (formerly Doctors for Obama) and VISIONS Worldwide, Inc., which is dedicated to HIV and AIDS education.

In Boston, working as a hospitalist both before and after major health reform efforts in the state, Dr. Murthy saw the difference that access to health insurance made in the lives of his patients. Now, as the country’s top doctor, he wants to do “everything possible” to ensure a high-quality, lower-cost healthcare system in the U.S.

His mission is especially relevant this year, as the Supreme Court takes on another challenge to the Affordable Care Act in King v. Burwell.

“I am concerned that patients may be in a situation, and citizens may be in a situation, where they lose coverage and access to healthcare in the coming months or years, depending on the ruling,” he said. “I want to emphasize this kind of coverage is essential to patients.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

On Dec. 15, 2014, 37-year-old hospitalist and internist Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, was sworn in as the 19th surgeon general of the United States. He is the youngest person to hold the post and the first of Indian-American descent.

Dr. Murthy said in a February 26 conference call that, as the nation’s highest physician, he plans to focus on the challenges of obesity and chronic illness—especially diabetes and cardiovascular disease—as well as advocate for expanded health coverage, modernize communications from the surgeon general’s office, and work with local communities to improve the health of all Americans.

He also highlighted the ways in which his work as a hospitalist will inform his new role.

“Being a hospitalist has given me a wonderful view into the challenges people face during moments of acute illness,” said Dr. Murthy, who practices as a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “I’ve had the opportunity to work with patients and their families during moments of crisis, and I have a deep appreciation for how important it is to not only have healthcare and a healthcare system that takes care of people, but also how hard we need to work in preventing illness in the first place.”

Dr. Murthy recently completed part of a nationwide listening tour, visiting communities around the country to hear about the issues they face.

“In every place we visited, there was great concern about obesity, chronic disease, mental illness, substance abuse, and vaccination rates, especially with the current outbreak of measles,” Dr. Murthy said.

As a result, he plans to focus heavily on community health, working on three approaches: taking care of people where they are, equipping children with the tools and education they need to lead healthy lives, and building cross-sector collaborations to address the social aspects of health and disease.

Dr. Murthy has experience in this arena, as co-founder of a community health project in India called Swasthya (Sanskrit for health and well-being), where women were enlisted as health providers and educators.

Changes may also be in store for medical training; Dr. Murthy says he hopes to better integrate primary care and public health, areas that he said have “traditionally been more separate than they need to be.”

“Physicians are an important part of improving public health for the country,” Dr. Murthy said. “One of the first [priorities] is to get the message out to the public about the importance of vaccinations, particularly measles.”

Many parents, he said, would benefit from hearing from their doctors that vaccines are safe, effective, and one of the best ways to protect their children’s health. Most are not strongly opposed to vaccinations; they just lack the right information.

As surgeon general, Dr. Murthy serves as the country’s top public health spokesperson, overseeing the 6,700-member U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

The time he spent in his parents’ primary care office in his hometown of Miami inspired Dr. Murthy to pursue medicine. He earned his MBA and MD from Yale and already founded a drug development software company, TrialNetworks (now DrugDev TrialNetworks), as well as two nonprofits, Doctors for America (formerly Doctors for Obama) and VISIONS Worldwide, Inc., which is dedicated to HIV and AIDS education.

In Boston, working as a hospitalist both before and after major health reform efforts in the state, Dr. Murthy saw the difference that access to health insurance made in the lives of his patients. Now, as the country’s top doctor, he wants to do “everything possible” to ensure a high-quality, lower-cost healthcare system in the U.S.

His mission is especially relevant this year, as the Supreme Court takes on another challenge to the Affordable Care Act in King v. Burwell.

“I am concerned that patients may be in a situation, and citizens may be in a situation, where they lose coverage and access to healthcare in the coming months or years, depending on the ruling,” he said. “I want to emphasize this kind of coverage is essential to patients.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

In 2015, reimbursement for physicians in large groups is subject to a value modifier that takes into account the cost and quality of services performed under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. By 2017, the modifier will apply to all physicians participating in fee-for-service Medicare.

It’s one more way the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the federal government are attempting to tip the scales on skyrocketing healthcare costs. Their end goal is a focus on better efficiency and less waste in the healthcare system.

But in an environment of top-down measures, hospitalists on the front lines are leading the charge to reduce overuse and overtreatment, slow cost growth, and improve both the quality of care and outcomes for their patients.

“I think the hospitalist movement has prided itself on quality improvement and patient safety in the hospital,” says Chris Moriates, MD, assistant clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and co-creator of the cost awareness curriculum for UCSF’s internal medicine residents. “Over the last few years…they are more focused and enthusiastic about looking at value.”

Dr. Moriates leads the UCSF hospitalist division’s High Value Care Committee and is director of implementation initiatives at Costs of Care. He’s also part of a UCSF program that invites all employees to submit ideas for cutting waste in the hospital while maintaining or improving patient care quality. Last year, the winning project tackled unnecessary blood transfusions and at the same time realized $1 million in savings due to lower transfusion rates. This year, the hospital will focus on decreasing money spent on surgical supplies, potentially saving millions of dollars, he says.

A 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) estimates wasteful spending costs the U.S. healthcare system at least $600 billion and potentially more than a trillion dollars annually due to such issues as care coordination and care delivery failures and overtreatment.¹ Numerous studies also indicate overtreatment can lead to patient harm.²

“Say a patient gets a prophylactic scan for abdominal pain,” says Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, a hospitalist on faculty in the University of Chicago’s department of medicine and director of education initiatives for Costs of Care. “The patient gets better, but an incidental finding of the scan is a renal mass. Now, there is a work-up of that mass, the patient gets a biopsy, and they have a bleed. A lot of testing leads to more testing, and more testing can lead to harm.”

Doing less is often better, says John Bulger, DO, MBA, SFHM, chief quality officer for the Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa. Dr. Bulger, who has led SHM’s participation in the Choosing Wisely campaign, cites a September 2014 study in JAMA Internal Medicine, in which Christiana Care Health System—an 1,100-bed tertiary care center in northern Delaware—built best practice telemetry guidelines into its electronic ordering system to help physicians determine when monitoring was appropriate.³ The health system also assembled multidisciplinary teams, which identified when medications warranted telemetry, and equipped nurses with tools to determine when telemetry should be stopped.

Appropriate use of telemetry is one of SHM’s five Choosing Wisely recommendations for adult patient care.

In addition to an overall 70% reduction in telemetry use without negative impact to patient safety, Christiana Care saved $4.8 million. Throughout its inpatient units, Christiana Care utilizes a multidisciplinary team approach to coordinate patient care. Daily rounds are attended by hospitalists, nurses, pharmacists, case managers, social workers, and others to ensure timely and appropriate patient care. The health system’s Value Institute evaluates hospital efforts and assesses process design to improve efficiency and, ultimately, outcomes.

“This is preparing for war in a time of peace, essentially,” says LeRoi S. Hicks, MD, MPH, a hospitalist, researcher, and educator at Christiana Care. “The goal will be, as we move to bundled payment and population health approaches, to minimize the time patients spend in the hospitals and limit the growth curve in spending on the hospital side. We are doing this and not taking on financial risk.”

Dr. Hicks adds that in its most simple form the project “reduces variation in the care we deliver” while improving efficiency and outcomes.

For many physicians, the best way to start is to begin a dialogue with patients who might also be at risk of financial harm due to unnecessary care, Dr. Arora says. “Patients are willing to change their minds and go with the more affordable and more evidence-based treatment and forgo expensive ones if they have that conversation,” she says.

Many resources exist for physicians interested in driving the frontline charge to improve healthcare quality and value. The Costs of Care curriculum provides training and tools for physicians at teachingvalue.org, as do SHM’s Center for Quality Innovation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Dr. Moriates and Dr. Arora also have co-authored a book, along with Neel Shah, MD, founder and executive director of Costs of Care, called “Understanding Value Based Healthcare.” The book will be available this spring.

“We shouldn’t sit by the side of the road waiting for things to pass by,” Dr. Arora says. “I think the key is, we know the needle is shifting in Washington, we know system innovation models are being tested. It would be silly for us to say we’re going to continue the status quo and not look at ways to contribute as physicians.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD. Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):1513-1516.
2. Morgan DJ, Wright SM, Dhruva S. Update on medical overuse. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(1):120-124.
3. Dressler R, Dryer MM, Coletti C, Mahoney D, Doorey AJ. Altering overuse of cardiac telemetry in non-intensive care unit settings by hardwiring the use of American Heart Association guidelines. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(11):1852-1854.

In 2015, reimbursement for physicians in large groups is subject to a value modifier that takes into account the cost and quality of services performed under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. By 2017, the modifier will apply to all physicians participating in fee-for-service Medicare.

It’s one more way the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the federal government are attempting to tip the scales on skyrocketing healthcare costs. Their end goal is a focus on better efficiency and less waste in the healthcare system.

But in an environment of top-down measures, hospitalists on the front lines are leading the charge to reduce overuse and overtreatment, slow cost growth, and improve both the quality of care and outcomes for their patients.

“I think the hospitalist movement has prided itself on quality improvement and patient safety in the hospital,” says Chris Moriates, MD, assistant clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and co-creator of the cost awareness curriculum for UCSF’s internal medicine residents. “Over the last few years…they are more focused and enthusiastic about looking at value.”

Dr. Moriates leads the UCSF hospitalist division’s High Value Care Committee and is director of implementation initiatives at Costs of Care. He’s also part of a UCSF program that invites all employees to submit ideas for cutting waste in the hospital while maintaining or improving patient care quality. Last year, the winning project tackled unnecessary blood transfusions and at the same time realized $1 million in savings due to lower transfusion rates. This year, the hospital will focus on decreasing money spent on surgical supplies, potentially saving millions of dollars, he says.

A 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) estimates wasteful spending costs the U.S. healthcare system at least $600 billion and potentially more than a trillion dollars annually due to such issues as care coordination and care delivery failures and overtreatment.¹ Numerous studies also indicate overtreatment can lead to patient harm.²

“Say a patient gets a prophylactic scan for abdominal pain,” says Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, a hospitalist on faculty in the University of Chicago’s department of medicine and director of education initiatives for Costs of Care. “The patient gets better, but an incidental finding of the scan is a renal mass. Now, there is a work-up of that mass, the patient gets a biopsy, and they have a bleed. A lot of testing leads to more testing, and more testing can lead to harm.”

Doing less is often better, says John Bulger, DO, MBA, SFHM, chief quality officer for the Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa. Dr. Bulger, who has led SHM’s participation in the Choosing Wisely campaign, cites a September 2014 study in JAMA Internal Medicine, in which Christiana Care Health System—an 1,100-bed tertiary care center in northern Delaware—built best practice telemetry guidelines into its electronic ordering system to help physicians determine when monitoring was appropriate.³ The health system also assembled multidisciplinary teams, which identified when medications warranted telemetry, and equipped nurses with tools to determine when telemetry should be stopped.

Appropriate use of telemetry is one of SHM’s five Choosing Wisely recommendations for adult patient care.

In addition to an overall 70% reduction in telemetry use without negative impact to patient safety, Christiana Care saved $4.8 million. Throughout its inpatient units, Christiana Care utilizes a multidisciplinary team approach to coordinate patient care. Daily rounds are attended by hospitalists, nurses, pharmacists, case managers, social workers, and others to ensure timely and appropriate patient care. The health system’s Value Institute evaluates hospital efforts and assesses process design to improve efficiency and, ultimately, outcomes.

“This is preparing for war in a time of peace, essentially,” says LeRoi S. Hicks, MD, MPH, a hospitalist, researcher, and educator at Christiana Care. “The goal will be, as we move to bundled payment and population health approaches, to minimize the time patients spend in the hospitals and limit the growth curve in spending on the hospital side. We are doing this and not taking on financial risk.”

Dr. Hicks adds that in its most simple form the project “reduces variation in the care we deliver” while improving efficiency and outcomes.

For many physicians, the best way to start is to begin a dialogue with patients who might also be at risk of financial harm due to unnecessary care, Dr. Arora says. “Patients are willing to change their minds and go with the more affordable and more evidence-based treatment and forgo expensive ones if they have that conversation,” she says.

Many resources exist for physicians interested in driving the frontline charge to improve healthcare quality and value. The Costs of Care curriculum provides training and tools for physicians at teachingvalue.org, as do SHM’s Center for Quality Innovation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Dr. Moriates and Dr. Arora also have co-authored a book, along with Neel Shah, MD, founder and executive director of Costs of Care, called “Understanding Value Based Healthcare.” The book will be available this spring.

“We shouldn’t sit by the side of the road waiting for things to pass by,” Dr. Arora says. “I think the key is, we know the needle is shifting in Washington, we know system innovation models are being tested. It would be silly for us to say we’re going to continue the status quo and not look at ways to contribute as physicians.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD. Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):1513-1516.
2. Morgan DJ, Wright SM, Dhruva S. Update on medical overuse. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(1):120-124.
3. Dressler R, Dryer MM, Coletti C, Mahoney D, Doorey AJ. Altering overuse of cardiac telemetry in non-intensive care unit settings by hardwiring the use of American Heart Association guidelines. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(11):1852-1854.

In 2015, reimbursement for physicians in large groups is subject to a value modifier that takes into account the cost and quality of services performed under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. By 2017, the modifier will apply to all physicians participating in fee-for-service Medicare.

It’s one more way the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the federal government are attempting to tip the scales on skyrocketing healthcare costs. Their end goal is a focus on better efficiency and less waste in the healthcare system.

But in an environment of top-down measures, hospitalists on the front lines are leading the charge to reduce overuse and overtreatment, slow cost growth, and improve both the quality of care and outcomes for their patients.

“I think the hospitalist movement has prided itself on quality improvement and patient safety in the hospital,” says Chris Moriates, MD, assistant clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and co-creator of the cost awareness curriculum for UCSF’s internal medicine residents. “Over the last few years…they are more focused and enthusiastic about looking at value.”

Dr. Moriates leads the UCSF hospitalist division’s High Value Care Committee and is director of implementation initiatives at Costs of Care. He’s also part of a UCSF program that invites all employees to submit ideas for cutting waste in the hospital while maintaining or improving patient care quality. Last year, the winning project tackled unnecessary blood transfusions and at the same time realized $1 million in savings due to lower transfusion rates. This year, the hospital will focus on decreasing money spent on surgical supplies, potentially saving millions of dollars, he says.

A 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) estimates wasteful spending costs the U.S. healthcare system at least $600 billion and potentially more than a trillion dollars annually due to such issues as care coordination and care delivery failures and overtreatment.¹ Numerous studies also indicate overtreatment can lead to patient harm.²

“Say a patient gets a prophylactic scan for abdominal pain,” says Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, a hospitalist on faculty in the University of Chicago’s department of medicine and director of education initiatives for Costs of Care. “The patient gets better, but an incidental finding of the scan is a renal mass. Now, there is a work-up of that mass, the patient gets a biopsy, and they have a bleed. A lot of testing leads to more testing, and more testing can lead to harm.”

Doing less is often better, says John Bulger, DO, MBA, SFHM, chief quality officer for the Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa. Dr. Bulger, who has led SHM’s participation in the Choosing Wisely campaign, cites a September 2014 study in JAMA Internal Medicine, in which Christiana Care Health System—an 1,100-bed tertiary care center in northern Delaware—built best practice telemetry guidelines into its electronic ordering system to help physicians determine when monitoring was appropriate.³ The health system also assembled multidisciplinary teams, which identified when medications warranted telemetry, and equipped nurses with tools to determine when telemetry should be stopped.

Appropriate use of telemetry is one of SHM’s five Choosing Wisely recommendations for adult patient care.

In addition to an overall 70% reduction in telemetry use without negative impact to patient safety, Christiana Care saved $4.8 million. Throughout its inpatient units, Christiana Care utilizes a multidisciplinary team approach to coordinate patient care. Daily rounds are attended by hospitalists, nurses, pharmacists, case managers, social workers, and others to ensure timely and appropriate patient care. The health system’s Value Institute evaluates hospital efforts and assesses process design to improve efficiency and, ultimately, outcomes.

“This is preparing for war in a time of peace, essentially,” says LeRoi S. Hicks, MD, MPH, a hospitalist, researcher, and educator at Christiana Care. “The goal will be, as we move to bundled payment and population health approaches, to minimize the time patients spend in the hospitals and limit the growth curve in spending on the hospital side. We are doing this and not taking on financial risk.”

Dr. Hicks adds that in its most simple form the project “reduces variation in the care we deliver” while improving efficiency and outcomes.

For many physicians, the best way to start is to begin a dialogue with patients who might also be at risk of financial harm due to unnecessary care, Dr. Arora says. “Patients are willing to change their minds and go with the more affordable and more evidence-based treatment and forgo expensive ones if they have that conversation,” she says.

Many resources exist for physicians interested in driving the frontline charge to improve healthcare quality and value. The Costs of Care curriculum provides training and tools for physicians at teachingvalue.org, as do SHM’s Center for Quality Innovation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Dr. Moriates and Dr. Arora also have co-authored a book, along with Neel Shah, MD, founder and executive director of Costs of Care, called “Understanding Value Based Healthcare.” The book will be available this spring.

“We shouldn’t sit by the side of the road waiting for things to pass by,” Dr. Arora says. “I think the key is, we know the needle is shifting in Washington, we know system innovation models are being tested. It would be silly for us to say we’re going to continue the status quo and not look at ways to contribute as physicians.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD. Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA. 2012;307(14):1513-1516.
2. Morgan DJ, Wright SM, Dhruva S. Update on medical overuse. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(1):120-124.
3. Dressler R, Dryer MM, Coletti C, Mahoney D, Doorey AJ. Altering overuse of cardiac telemetry in non-intensive care unit settings by hardwiring the use of American Heart Association guidelines. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(11):1852-1854.

He has aged a year since President Obama nominated him for U.S. Surgeon General in November 2013, but on Monday Boston hospitalist Vivek Murthy, MD, was confirmed as the highest physician in America.

According to multiple sources, Dr. Murthy’s outspoken support for stricter gun laws and belief that guns are a public health issue delayed his confirmation due to opposition from the National Rifle Association (NRA), which in a letter to Senate leadership in February said Dr. Murthy’s confirmation would be a “prescription for disaster for America’s gun owners.”

Despite this, Senate Democrats approved his four-year appointment in a 51-43 vote that cut along party lines. In his confirmation hearing in February, Dr. Murthy said he does not “intend to use the surgeon general’s office as a bully pulpit for gun control.”

Dr. Murthy, 37, earned his medical and business degrees from Yale and for the last decade has worked as both an internist and a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. He is the youngest surgeon general ever, and the first of Indian-American descent.

“On behalf of America's 44,000 hospitalists, I congratulate Dr. Murthy, a fellow hospitalist and one of our SHM members, on his historic appointment to U.S. Surgeon General,” says Society of Hospital Medicine President Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM. “Being America’s doctor requires many of the same traits required of hospitalists: leadership, sharp clinical skills, and the ability to engage with patients. And, like hospitalists in thousands of hospitals across the country, I am confident Dr. Murthy will become an agent of change to improve delivery of care in our country.”

In 2008, Dr. Murthy founded Doctors for Obama, a nonprofit, grassroots organization of 16,000 physicians and medical students dedicated to transforming the healthcare system. After the election, he changed the name of the organization to Doctors for America. He also started the software company TrialNetworks in 2007 to aid in drug development, and, in 1995, he started an HIV and AIDS education nonprofit in India called VISIONS Worldwide.

In a statement from the White House Monday, President Obama applauded the Senate for Dr. Murthy’s confirmation, saying: “Vivek’s confirmation makes us better positioned to save lives around the world and protect the American people here at home.”

Dr. Murthy replaces acting Surgeon General Boris Lushniak, who took over when Regina Benjamin resigned in July 2013. The surgeon general is the U.S.’ top spokesperson on all matters of public health and oversees the 6,700 members of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

He has aged a year since President Obama nominated him for U.S. Surgeon General in November 2013, but on Monday Boston hospitalist Vivek Murthy, MD, was confirmed as the highest physician in America.

According to multiple sources, Dr. Murthy’s outspoken support for stricter gun laws and belief that guns are a public health issue delayed his confirmation due to opposition from the National Rifle Association (NRA), which in a letter to Senate leadership in February said Dr. Murthy’s confirmation would be a “prescription for disaster for America’s gun owners.”

Despite this, Senate Democrats approved his four-year appointment in a 51-43 vote that cut along party lines. In his confirmation hearing in February, Dr. Murthy said he does not “intend to use the surgeon general’s office as a bully pulpit for gun control.”

Dr. Murthy, 37, earned his medical and business degrees from Yale and for the last decade has worked as both an internist and a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. He is the youngest surgeon general ever, and the first of Indian-American descent.

“On behalf of America's 44,000 hospitalists, I congratulate Dr. Murthy, a fellow hospitalist and one of our SHM members, on his historic appointment to U.S. Surgeon General,” says Society of Hospital Medicine President Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM. “Being America’s doctor requires many of the same traits required of hospitalists: leadership, sharp clinical skills, and the ability to engage with patients. And, like hospitalists in thousands of hospitals across the country, I am confident Dr. Murthy will become an agent of change to improve delivery of care in our country.”

In 2008, Dr. Murthy founded Doctors for Obama, a nonprofit, grassroots organization of 16,000 physicians and medical students dedicated to transforming the healthcare system. After the election, he changed the name of the organization to Doctors for America. He also started the software company TrialNetworks in 2007 to aid in drug development, and, in 1995, he started an HIV and AIDS education nonprofit in India called VISIONS Worldwide.

In a statement from the White House Monday, President Obama applauded the Senate for Dr. Murthy’s confirmation, saying: “Vivek’s confirmation makes us better positioned to save lives around the world and protect the American people here at home.”

Dr. Murthy replaces acting Surgeon General Boris Lushniak, who took over when Regina Benjamin resigned in July 2013. The surgeon general is the U.S.’ top spokesperson on all matters of public health and oversees the 6,700 members of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

He has aged a year since President Obama nominated him for U.S. Surgeon General in November 2013, but on Monday Boston hospitalist Vivek Murthy, MD, was confirmed as the highest physician in America.

According to multiple sources, Dr. Murthy’s outspoken support for stricter gun laws and belief that guns are a public health issue delayed his confirmation due to opposition from the National Rifle Association (NRA), which in a letter to Senate leadership in February said Dr. Murthy’s confirmation would be a “prescription for disaster for America’s gun owners.”

Despite this, Senate Democrats approved his four-year appointment in a 51-43 vote that cut along party lines. In his confirmation hearing in February, Dr. Murthy said he does not “intend to use the surgeon general’s office as a bully pulpit for gun control.”

Dr. Murthy, 37, earned his medical and business degrees from Yale and for the last decade has worked as both an internist and a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. He is the youngest surgeon general ever, and the first of Indian-American descent.

“On behalf of America's 44,000 hospitalists, I congratulate Dr. Murthy, a fellow hospitalist and one of our SHM members, on his historic appointment to U.S. Surgeon General,” says Society of Hospital Medicine President Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM. “Being America’s doctor requires many of the same traits required of hospitalists: leadership, sharp clinical skills, and the ability to engage with patients. And, like hospitalists in thousands of hospitals across the country, I am confident Dr. Murthy will become an agent of change to improve delivery of care in our country.”

In 2008, Dr. Murthy founded Doctors for Obama, a nonprofit, grassroots organization of 16,000 physicians and medical students dedicated to transforming the healthcare system. After the election, he changed the name of the organization to Doctors for America. He also started the software company TrialNetworks in 2007 to aid in drug development, and, in 1995, he started an HIV and AIDS education nonprofit in India called VISIONS Worldwide.

In a statement from the White House Monday, President Obama applauded the Senate for Dr. Murthy’s confirmation, saying: “Vivek’s confirmation makes us better positioned to save lives around the world and protect the American people here at home.”

Dr. Murthy replaces acting Surgeon General Boris Lushniak, who took over when Regina Benjamin resigned in July 2013. The surgeon general is the U.S.’ top spokesperson on all matters of public health and oversees the 6,700 members of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

He has aged a year since President Obama nominated him for U.S. Surgeon General in November 2013, but on Monday Boston hospitalist Vivek Murthy, MD, was confirmed as the highest physician in America.

According to multiple sources, Dr. Murthy’s outspoken support for stricter gun laws and belief that guns are a public health issue delayed his confirmation due to opposition from the National Rifle Association (NRA), which in a letter to Senate leadership in February said Dr. Murthy’s confirmation would be a “prescription for disaster for America’s gun owners.”

Despite this, Senate Democrats approved his four-year appointment in a 51-43 vote that cut along party lines. In his confirmation hearing in February, Dr. Murthy said he does not “intend to use the surgeon general’s office as a bully pulpit for gun control.”

Dr. Murthy, 37, earned his medical and business degrees from Yale and for the last decade has worked as both an internist and a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. He is the youngest Surgeon General ever, and the first of Indian-American descent.

"On behalf of America's 44,000 hospitalists, I congratulate Dr. Murthy, a fellow hospitalist and one of our SHM members, on his historic appointment to U.S. Surgeon General," says Society of Hospital Medicine President Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM. "Being America’s doctor requires many of the same traits required of hospitalists: leadership, sharp clinical skills, and the ability to engage with patients. And, like hospitalists in thousands of hospitals across the country, I am confident Dr. Murthy will become an agent of change to improve delivery of care in our country."

In 2008, Dr. Murthy founded Doctors for Obama, a non-profit, grassroots organization of 16,000 physicians and medical students dedicated to transforming the healthcare system. After the election, he changed the name of the organization to Doctors for America. He also started the software company TrialNetworks in 2007 to aid in drug development, and, in 1995, he started an HIV and AIDS education non-profit in India called VISIONS Worldwide.

In a statement from the White House Monday, President Obama applauded the Senate for Dr. Murthy’s confirmation, saying: “Vivek’s confirmation makes us better positioned to save lives around the world and protect the American people here at home.”

Dr. Murthy replaces acting Surgeon General Boris Lushniak, who took over when Regina Benjamin resigned in July 2013. The surgeon general is the U.S.’ top spokesperson on all matters of public health and oversees the 6,700 members of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

 Information for this report was published online at cnn.com and usatoday.com.

He has aged a year since President Obama nominated him for U.S. Surgeon General in November 2013, but on Monday Boston hospitalist Vivek Murthy, MD, was confirmed as the highest physician in America.

According to multiple sources, Dr. Murthy’s outspoken support for stricter gun laws and belief that guns are a public health issue delayed his confirmation due to opposition from the National Rifle Association (NRA), which in a letter to Senate leadership in February said Dr. Murthy’s confirmation would be a “prescription for disaster for America’s gun owners.”

Despite this, Senate Democrats approved his four-year appointment in a 51-43 vote that cut along party lines. In his confirmation hearing in February, Dr. Murthy said he does not “intend to use the surgeon general’s office as a bully pulpit for gun control.”

Dr. Murthy, 37, earned his medical and business degrees from Yale and for the last decade has worked as both an internist and a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. He is the youngest Surgeon General ever, and the first of Indian-American descent.

"On behalf of America's 44,000 hospitalists, I congratulate Dr. Murthy, a fellow hospitalist and one of our SHM members, on his historic appointment to U.S. Surgeon General," says Society of Hospital Medicine President Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM. "Being America’s doctor requires many of the same traits required of hospitalists: leadership, sharp clinical skills, and the ability to engage with patients. And, like hospitalists in thousands of hospitals across the country, I am confident Dr. Murthy will become an agent of change to improve delivery of care in our country."

In 2008, Dr. Murthy founded Doctors for Obama, a non-profit, grassroots organization of 16,000 physicians and medical students dedicated to transforming the healthcare system. After the election, he changed the name of the organization to Doctors for America. He also started the software company TrialNetworks in 2007 to aid in drug development, and, in 1995, he started an HIV and AIDS education non-profit in India called VISIONS Worldwide.

In a statement from the White House Monday, President Obama applauded the Senate for Dr. Murthy’s confirmation, saying: “Vivek’s confirmation makes us better positioned to save lives around the world and protect the American people here at home.”

Dr. Murthy replaces acting Surgeon General Boris Lushniak, who took over when Regina Benjamin resigned in July 2013. The surgeon general is the U.S.’ top spokesperson on all matters of public health and oversees the 6,700 members of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

 Information for this report was published online at cnn.com and usatoday.com.

He has aged a year since President Obama nominated him for U.S. Surgeon General in November 2013, but on Monday Boston hospitalist Vivek Murthy, MD, was confirmed as the highest physician in America.

According to multiple sources, Dr. Murthy’s outspoken support for stricter gun laws and belief that guns are a public health issue delayed his confirmation due to opposition from the National Rifle Association (NRA), which in a letter to Senate leadership in February said Dr. Murthy’s confirmation would be a “prescription for disaster for America’s gun owners.”

Despite this, Senate Democrats approved his four-year appointment in a 51-43 vote that cut along party lines. In his confirmation hearing in February, Dr. Murthy said he does not “intend to use the surgeon general’s office as a bully pulpit for gun control.”

Dr. Murthy, 37, earned his medical and business degrees from Yale and for the last decade has worked as both an internist and a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. He is the youngest Surgeon General ever, and the first of Indian-American descent.

"On behalf of America's 44,000 hospitalists, I congratulate Dr. Murthy, a fellow hospitalist and one of our SHM members, on his historic appointment to U.S. Surgeon General," says Society of Hospital Medicine President Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM. "Being America’s doctor requires many of the same traits required of hospitalists: leadership, sharp clinical skills, and the ability to engage with patients. And, like hospitalists in thousands of hospitals across the country, I am confident Dr. Murthy will become an agent of change to improve delivery of care in our country."

In 2008, Dr. Murthy founded Doctors for Obama, a non-profit, grassroots organization of 16,000 physicians and medical students dedicated to transforming the healthcare system. After the election, he changed the name of the organization to Doctors for America. He also started the software company TrialNetworks in 2007 to aid in drug development, and, in 1995, he started an HIV and AIDS education non-profit in India called VISIONS Worldwide.

In a statement from the White House Monday, President Obama applauded the Senate for Dr. Murthy’s confirmation, saying: “Vivek’s confirmation makes us better positioned to save lives around the world and protect the American people here at home.”

Dr. Murthy replaces acting Surgeon General Boris Lushniak, who took over when Regina Benjamin resigned in July 2013. The surgeon general is the U.S.’ top spokesperson on all matters of public health and oversees the 6,700 members of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

 Information for this report was published online at cnn.com and usatoday.com.

When the outbreak first started, and in the months that followed, Ebola virus dominated American headlines. The disease made its way from West Africa, infecting nurses in Spain and the U.S., and questions arose over how to keep healthcare providers and the public safe.

The answers to these questions are not limited to Ebola. Hospitalists and other providers work in the face of infectious disease on a routine basis, particularly in an era of widespread antibiotic resistance and emerging infections caused by such viruses as chikungunya, enterovirus D68, and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) coronavirus.

The key to adequate preparation, says Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, FACP, SFHM, associate director of the Center for Patient Safety at the University of Miami-Jackson Memorial Hospital, is “information, the ability to implement relevant protocols and procedures when necessary, and, when possible, simulated exercises.”

Hospitalists can play a key role in ensuring their hospitals are prepared.

“I am constantly being reminded by my Society of Hospital Medicine colleagues that many facilities may not have an infectious disease specialist or an infectious disease program,” says Abbigail Tumpey, MPH, CHES, associate director for communications science in the CDC’s Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion.

It starts at the front door of the hospital, Tumpey and Dr. Lenchus say, with appropriate triage, screening, and isolation of potentially infectious patients.

“We diligently draft screening procedures for our frontline staff, clinic personnel, and appointment line phone operators to adequately and quickly evaluate patients so that those affected are provided the appropriate level of care,” says Dr. Lenchus, also a hospitalist and associate professor of clinical medicine and anesthesiology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

“We diligently draft screening procedures for our frontline staff, clinic personnel, and appointment line phone operators to adequately and quickly evaluate patients so that those affected are provided the appropriate level of care.”–Dr. Lenchus

These screening and management procedures originate with the CDC and state health departments and are often informed by outbreaks occurring in other locales.

“When an outbreak occurs elsewhere in the world, it is simply a matter of time before we may be faced with it in the United States,” Dr. Lenchus says, “so it behooves us to begin the research process and work with our hospital, local, and state personnel.”

The second line of defense, says Tumpey, is having in place the proper administrative controls to ensure that providers have time to don the appropriate personal protective equipment, or PPE. This means not just having access to PPE, but also the ability to put it on and take it off appropriately.

According to The New York Times, European officials investigated whether the Spanish nurse became infected with Ebola by accidentally touching her face while removing her PPE, and officials in the U.S. investigated whether the Dallas nurse who contracted Ebola while treating an infected Liberian patient also breached protocol. In Spain, investigators determined the layout of the hospital’s cramped Ebola ward could lead to accidents. In Dallas, rapidly changing conditions and poor preparation may have played a role, according to some reports. For just these kinds of reasons, Tumpey and Dr. Lenchus suggest hospitals engage in simulations and drills of outbreak events whenever possible.

“The facilities we’ve seen do this have found information they didn’t realize or a way of handling things that was surprising to them,” Tumpey says. “Certainly, there are some things that come up in those drills that highlight potential flaws and show opportunities where you can improve.”

For instance, simulations might reveal problems with the storage or disposal of PPE, lead to changes in hand hygiene locations, or highlight the need for better communication among healthcare workers.

Calm, Cool, Collected

Proper infection control procedures—hand hygiene, injection safety, appropriate cleanup, and careful waste handling—are a third line of defense in preventing the spread of infectious disease, Tumpey says.

Dr. Lenchus says that, particularly in light of diseases like Ebola, hospitalists should present concerned patients with valid information in a “calm, cool, and collected manner” that “helps allay the fear, misconception, and hysteria from generalizations, emotional responses, and anecdotal hearsay.”

These conversations present hospitalists with an opportunity to highlight the protocols, procedures, and patient safety programs in place at their institutions. They also provide a forum to discuss common cold and influenza viruses, which spread more easily than Ebola.

Of course, in the face of new rules for admissions, packed EDs, mounting metrics, and sometimes nonintuitive electronic health records, staying abreast of the latest information and catching every patient with symptoms that may or may not be related to an infectious disease may be easier said than done.

The CDC is redoubling its outreach efforts, Tumpey says, and will offer webinars and trainings for health providers.

“Our hope is that increased awareness can improve triage, early recognition, and appropriate infection control and could help for other things like MRSA, the endemic threats we face every day in U.S. healthcare facilities, even emerging diseases like MERS and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae,” says Tumpey. “Awareness of proper infection control could help with many disease threats.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

When the outbreak first started, and in the months that followed, Ebola virus dominated American headlines. The disease made its way from West Africa, infecting nurses in Spain and the U.S., and questions arose over how to keep healthcare providers and the public safe.

The answers to these questions are not limited to Ebola. Hospitalists and other providers work in the face of infectious disease on a routine basis, particularly in an era of widespread antibiotic resistance and emerging infections caused by such viruses as chikungunya, enterovirus D68, and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) coronavirus.

The key to adequate preparation, says Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, FACP, SFHM, associate director of the Center for Patient Safety at the University of Miami-Jackson Memorial Hospital, is “information, the ability to implement relevant protocols and procedures when necessary, and, when possible, simulated exercises.”

Hospitalists can play a key role in ensuring their hospitals are prepared.

“I am constantly being reminded by my Society of Hospital Medicine colleagues that many facilities may not have an infectious disease specialist or an infectious disease program,” says Abbigail Tumpey, MPH, CHES, associate director for communications science in the CDC’s Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion.

It starts at the front door of the hospital, Tumpey and Dr. Lenchus say, with appropriate triage, screening, and isolation of potentially infectious patients.

“We diligently draft screening procedures for our frontline staff, clinic personnel, and appointment line phone operators to adequately and quickly evaluate patients so that those affected are provided the appropriate level of care,” says Dr. Lenchus, also a hospitalist and associate professor of clinical medicine and anesthesiology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

“We diligently draft screening procedures for our frontline staff, clinic personnel, and appointment line phone operators to adequately and quickly evaluate patients so that those affected are provided the appropriate level of care.”–Dr. Lenchus

These screening and management procedures originate with the CDC and state health departments and are often informed by outbreaks occurring in other locales.

“When an outbreak occurs elsewhere in the world, it is simply a matter of time before we may be faced with it in the United States,” Dr. Lenchus says, “so it behooves us to begin the research process and work with our hospital, local, and state personnel.”

The second line of defense, says Tumpey, is having in place the proper administrative controls to ensure that providers have time to don the appropriate personal protective equipment, or PPE. This means not just having access to PPE, but also the ability to put it on and take it off appropriately.

According to The New York Times, European officials investigated whether the Spanish nurse became infected with Ebola by accidentally touching her face while removing her PPE, and officials in the U.S. investigated whether the Dallas nurse who contracted Ebola while treating an infected Liberian patient also breached protocol. In Spain, investigators determined the layout of the hospital’s cramped Ebola ward could lead to accidents. In Dallas, rapidly changing conditions and poor preparation may have played a role, according to some reports. For just these kinds of reasons, Tumpey and Dr. Lenchus suggest hospitals engage in simulations and drills of outbreak events whenever possible.

“The facilities we’ve seen do this have found information they didn’t realize or a way of handling things that was surprising to them,” Tumpey says. “Certainly, there are some things that come up in those drills that highlight potential flaws and show opportunities where you can improve.”

For instance, simulations might reveal problems with the storage or disposal of PPE, lead to changes in hand hygiene locations, or highlight the need for better communication among healthcare workers.

Calm, Cool, Collected

Proper infection control procedures—hand hygiene, injection safety, appropriate cleanup, and careful waste handling—are a third line of defense in preventing the spread of infectious disease, Tumpey says.

Dr. Lenchus says that, particularly in light of diseases like Ebola, hospitalists should present concerned patients with valid information in a “calm, cool, and collected manner” that “helps allay the fear, misconception, and hysteria from generalizations, emotional responses, and anecdotal hearsay.”

These conversations present hospitalists with an opportunity to highlight the protocols, procedures, and patient safety programs in place at their institutions. They also provide a forum to discuss common cold and influenza viruses, which spread more easily than Ebola.

Of course, in the face of new rules for admissions, packed EDs, mounting metrics, and sometimes nonintuitive electronic health records, staying abreast of the latest information and catching every patient with symptoms that may or may not be related to an infectious disease may be easier said than done.

The CDC is redoubling its outreach efforts, Tumpey says, and will offer webinars and trainings for health providers.

“Our hope is that increased awareness can improve triage, early recognition, and appropriate infection control and could help for other things like MRSA, the endemic threats we face every day in U.S. healthcare facilities, even emerging diseases like MERS and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae,” says Tumpey. “Awareness of proper infection control could help with many disease threats.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

When the outbreak first started, and in the months that followed, Ebola virus dominated American headlines. The disease made its way from West Africa, infecting nurses in Spain and the U.S., and questions arose over how to keep healthcare providers and the public safe.

The answers to these questions are not limited to Ebola. Hospitalists and other providers work in the face of infectious disease on a routine basis, particularly in an era of widespread antibiotic resistance and emerging infections caused by such viruses as chikungunya, enterovirus D68, and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) coronavirus.

The key to adequate preparation, says Joshua Lenchus, DO, RPh, FACP, SFHM, associate director of the Center for Patient Safety at the University of Miami-Jackson Memorial Hospital, is “information, the ability to implement relevant protocols and procedures when necessary, and, when possible, simulated exercises.”

Hospitalists can play a key role in ensuring their hospitals are prepared.

“I am constantly being reminded by my Society of Hospital Medicine colleagues that many facilities may not have an infectious disease specialist or an infectious disease program,” says Abbigail Tumpey, MPH, CHES, associate director for communications science in the CDC’s Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion.

It starts at the front door of the hospital, Tumpey and Dr. Lenchus say, with appropriate triage, screening, and isolation of potentially infectious patients.

“We diligently draft screening procedures for our frontline staff, clinic personnel, and appointment line phone operators to adequately and quickly evaluate patients so that those affected are provided the appropriate level of care,” says Dr. Lenchus, also a hospitalist and associate professor of clinical medicine and anesthesiology at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

“We diligently draft screening procedures for our frontline staff, clinic personnel, and appointment line phone operators to adequately and quickly evaluate patients so that those affected are provided the appropriate level of care.”–Dr. Lenchus

These screening and management procedures originate with the CDC and state health departments and are often informed by outbreaks occurring in other locales.

“When an outbreak occurs elsewhere in the world, it is simply a matter of time before we may be faced with it in the United States,” Dr. Lenchus says, “so it behooves us to begin the research process and work with our hospital, local, and state personnel.”

The second line of defense, says Tumpey, is having in place the proper administrative controls to ensure that providers have time to don the appropriate personal protective equipment, or PPE. This means not just having access to PPE, but also the ability to put it on and take it off appropriately.

According to The New York Times, European officials investigated whether the Spanish nurse became infected with Ebola by accidentally touching her face while removing her PPE, and officials in the U.S. investigated whether the Dallas nurse who contracted Ebola while treating an infected Liberian patient also breached protocol. In Spain, investigators determined the layout of the hospital’s cramped Ebola ward could lead to accidents. In Dallas, rapidly changing conditions and poor preparation may have played a role, according to some reports. For just these kinds of reasons, Tumpey and Dr. Lenchus suggest hospitals engage in simulations and drills of outbreak events whenever possible.

“The facilities we’ve seen do this have found information they didn’t realize or a way of handling things that was surprising to them,” Tumpey says. “Certainly, there are some things that come up in those drills that highlight potential flaws and show opportunities where you can improve.”

For instance, simulations might reveal problems with the storage or disposal of PPE, lead to changes in hand hygiene locations, or highlight the need for better communication among healthcare workers.

Calm, Cool, Collected

Proper infection control procedures—hand hygiene, injection safety, appropriate cleanup, and careful waste handling—are a third line of defense in preventing the spread of infectious disease, Tumpey says.

Dr. Lenchus says that, particularly in light of diseases like Ebola, hospitalists should present concerned patients with valid information in a “calm, cool, and collected manner” that “helps allay the fear, misconception, and hysteria from generalizations, emotional responses, and anecdotal hearsay.”

These conversations present hospitalists with an opportunity to highlight the protocols, procedures, and patient safety programs in place at their institutions. They also provide a forum to discuss common cold and influenza viruses, which spread more easily than Ebola.

Of course, in the face of new rules for admissions, packed EDs, mounting metrics, and sometimes nonintuitive electronic health records, staying abreast of the latest information and catching every patient with symptoms that may or may not be related to an infectious disease may be easier said than done.

The CDC is redoubling its outreach efforts, Tumpey says, and will offer webinars and trainings for health providers.

“Our hope is that increased awareness can improve triage, early recognition, and appropriate infection control and could help for other things like MRSA, the endemic threats we face every day in U.S. healthcare facilities, even emerging diseases like MERS and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae,” says Tumpey. “Awareness of proper infection control could help with many disease threats.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

Hospitals with the highest rates of preventable adverse events will soon see their Medicare reimbursements cut by 1%.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) is a product of the Affordable Care Act, implemented to tackle the high number of patients who experience avoidable, adverse—and too often fatal—medical events in the hospital; however, while patient safety has been a crucial issue for years, and one largely ignored by Congress until recently, some experts say the new metrics used to evaluate safety and penalize the bottom 25% of hospitals are imprecise and stand to punish those that serve the sickest patients and those that are among the most diligent about tracking patient safety.

“The biggest surprise was how big of a difference there was between academic medical centers and safety-net hospitals and everybody else,” says Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, hospitalist at the VA Boston Healthcare System, professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, and part of a team that recently used the CMS measures—patient safety indicators (PSI), central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI)—to evaluate where the nation’s hospitals might fall under HACRP.

In its analysis, Dr. Jha’s team found that major teaching hospitals are 2.9% more likely to be penalized under the program than nonteaching hospitals. Large, urban, public, teaching hospitals in the Northeast, with lots of poor patients, have a 62% chance of being penalized, compared to just a 9% chance for small, rural, for-profit, nonteaching hospitals in the South.

In 1998, the Institutes of Medicine estimated that nearly 100,000 patients die every year due to preventable medical errors. A recent estimate in the Journal of Patient Safety says this number may now be as high as 440,000.

In 2012, CMS reported that one in eight Medicare patients incurred a potentially avoidable complication while in the hospital, a 9% reduction from the previous baseline in 2010.

Patient safety clearly is an issue in the United States. But whether all of the HACRP metrics decided upon by CMS are appropriate is up for debate.

“PSI scores…were initially developed to look at healthcare trends broadly and not for comparing institutional performance,” says Ken Sands, MD, MPH, senior vice president of healthcare quality and chief quality officer at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “They were hijacked for that purpose, and a lot of the measures are based on administrative data.”

Dr. Sands, like Dr. Jha, is concerned that variation in the way hospitals code can influence the rate of adverse events reported through PSIs—which scan billing codes for hospital complications—without a clearly defined set of rules and without clearly defined language. Hospitals vary in how hard they look for complications and in how diligently they code, Dr. Jha says. Hospitals looking for safety issues are more likely to find and code for them, compared to less attentive institutions.

“It’s an inexpensive way to collect data nationally,” Dr. Sands says. “But whether we’re discriminating on quality is not that clear.”

Beth Israel ranks better than most U.S. hospitals on measures of mortality yet falls to the bottom quartile of the hospital-acquired condition (HAC) measures. The medical center may be penalized starting in October.

Although Dr. Sands says his colleagues continue to work to improve their CAUTI rates, an endeavor that preceded the CMS program, he is seeking better training for his coding staff and is working within the medical center’s electronic health record (EHR) to ensure accurate and consistent reporting.

At small, rural Nanticoke Memorial Hospital in southern Delaware, which is not at risk of HAC penalties next year, chief operating officer and chief nursing officer Penny Short says the hospital is currently adopting a “pretty robust” EHR to assist clinicians with early identification of sepsis and other risks. She says there is a lot more that EHRs can do to assist in patient safety, and hospitalists at her institution have been at the helm, driving progress.

It’s an approach Dr. Jha advocates for moving the needle forward in identifying better patient safety metrics. Meaningful use of EHRs provides clinically based, high quality metrics that can be captured far more effectively than the billing record, he says, offering an “automated approach as a routine part of the delivery of health care for tracking and potentially identifying adverse events.”

It’s up to physician leaders, Dr. Jha says—indeed, it is their moral responsibility—to encourage their CEOs to make these investments. And it’s something he believes CMS should get behind as well.

“Is this going to be cheap and easy? No,” Dr. Jha says. “Does CMS have the capacity to say hospitals have to invest? I think they do.

“I think we can do so much better. The opportunity to do so much better is right now.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

Hospitals with the highest rates of preventable adverse events will soon see their Medicare reimbursements cut by 1%.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) is a product of the Affordable Care Act, implemented to tackle the high number of patients who experience avoidable, adverse—and too often fatal—medical events in the hospital; however, while patient safety has been a crucial issue for years, and one largely ignored by Congress until recently, some experts say the new metrics used to evaluate safety and penalize the bottom 25% of hospitals are imprecise and stand to punish those that serve the sickest patients and those that are among the most diligent about tracking patient safety.

“The biggest surprise was how big of a difference there was between academic medical centers and safety-net hospitals and everybody else,” says Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, hospitalist at the VA Boston Healthcare System, professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, and part of a team that recently used the CMS measures—patient safety indicators (PSI), central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI)—to evaluate where the nation’s hospitals might fall under HACRP.

In its analysis, Dr. Jha’s team found that major teaching hospitals are 2.9% more likely to be penalized under the program than nonteaching hospitals. Large, urban, public, teaching hospitals in the Northeast, with lots of poor patients, have a 62% chance of being penalized, compared to just a 9% chance for small, rural, for-profit, nonteaching hospitals in the South.

In 1998, the Institutes of Medicine estimated that nearly 100,000 patients die every year due to preventable medical errors. A recent estimate in the Journal of Patient Safety says this number may now be as high as 440,000.

In 2012, CMS reported that one in eight Medicare patients incurred a potentially avoidable complication while in the hospital, a 9% reduction from the previous baseline in 2010.

Patient safety clearly is an issue in the United States. But whether all of the HACRP metrics decided upon by CMS are appropriate is up for debate.

“PSI scores…were initially developed to look at healthcare trends broadly and not for comparing institutional performance,” says Ken Sands, MD, MPH, senior vice president of healthcare quality and chief quality officer at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “They were hijacked for that purpose, and a lot of the measures are based on administrative data.”

Dr. Sands, like Dr. Jha, is concerned that variation in the way hospitals code can influence the rate of adverse events reported through PSIs—which scan billing codes for hospital complications—without a clearly defined set of rules and without clearly defined language. Hospitals vary in how hard they look for complications and in how diligently they code, Dr. Jha says. Hospitals looking for safety issues are more likely to find and code for them, compared to less attentive institutions.

“It’s an inexpensive way to collect data nationally,” Dr. Sands says. “But whether we’re discriminating on quality is not that clear.”

Beth Israel ranks better than most U.S. hospitals on measures of mortality yet falls to the bottom quartile of the hospital-acquired condition (HAC) measures. The medical center may be penalized starting in October.

Although Dr. Sands says his colleagues continue to work to improve their CAUTI rates, an endeavor that preceded the CMS program, he is seeking better training for his coding staff and is working within the medical center’s electronic health record (EHR) to ensure accurate and consistent reporting.

At small, rural Nanticoke Memorial Hospital in southern Delaware, which is not at risk of HAC penalties next year, chief operating officer and chief nursing officer Penny Short says the hospital is currently adopting a “pretty robust” EHR to assist clinicians with early identification of sepsis and other risks. She says there is a lot more that EHRs can do to assist in patient safety, and hospitalists at her institution have been at the helm, driving progress.

It’s an approach Dr. Jha advocates for moving the needle forward in identifying better patient safety metrics. Meaningful use of EHRs provides clinically based, high quality metrics that can be captured far more effectively than the billing record, he says, offering an “automated approach as a routine part of the delivery of health care for tracking and potentially identifying adverse events.”

It’s up to physician leaders, Dr. Jha says—indeed, it is their moral responsibility—to encourage their CEOs to make these investments. And it’s something he believes CMS should get behind as well.

“Is this going to be cheap and easy? No,” Dr. Jha says. “Does CMS have the capacity to say hospitals have to invest? I think they do.

“I think we can do so much better. The opportunity to do so much better is right now.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

Hospitals with the highest rates of preventable adverse events will soon see their Medicare reimbursements cut by 1%.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) is a product of the Affordable Care Act, implemented to tackle the high number of patients who experience avoidable, adverse—and too often fatal—medical events in the hospital; however, while patient safety has been a crucial issue for years, and one largely ignored by Congress until recently, some experts say the new metrics used to evaluate safety and penalize the bottom 25% of hospitals are imprecise and stand to punish those that serve the sickest patients and those that are among the most diligent about tracking patient safety.

“The biggest surprise was how big of a difference there was between academic medical centers and safety-net hospitals and everybody else,” says Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, hospitalist at the VA Boston Healthcare System, professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, and part of a team that recently used the CMS measures—patient safety indicators (PSI), central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI)—to evaluate where the nation’s hospitals might fall under HACRP.

In its analysis, Dr. Jha’s team found that major teaching hospitals are 2.9% more likely to be penalized under the program than nonteaching hospitals. Large, urban, public, teaching hospitals in the Northeast, with lots of poor patients, have a 62% chance of being penalized, compared to just a 9% chance for small, rural, for-profit, nonteaching hospitals in the South.

In 1998, the Institutes of Medicine estimated that nearly 100,000 patients die every year due to preventable medical errors. A recent estimate in the Journal of Patient Safety says this number may now be as high as 440,000.

In 2012, CMS reported that one in eight Medicare patients incurred a potentially avoidable complication while in the hospital, a 9% reduction from the previous baseline in 2010.

Patient safety clearly is an issue in the United States. But whether all of the HACRP metrics decided upon by CMS are appropriate is up for debate.

“PSI scores…were initially developed to look at healthcare trends broadly and not for comparing institutional performance,” says Ken Sands, MD, MPH, senior vice president of healthcare quality and chief quality officer at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “They were hijacked for that purpose, and a lot of the measures are based on administrative data.”

Dr. Sands, like Dr. Jha, is concerned that variation in the way hospitals code can influence the rate of adverse events reported through PSIs—which scan billing codes for hospital complications—without a clearly defined set of rules and without clearly defined language. Hospitals vary in how hard they look for complications and in how diligently they code, Dr. Jha says. Hospitals looking for safety issues are more likely to find and code for them, compared to less attentive institutions.

“It’s an inexpensive way to collect data nationally,” Dr. Sands says. “But whether we’re discriminating on quality is not that clear.”

Beth Israel ranks better than most U.S. hospitals on measures of mortality yet falls to the bottom quartile of the hospital-acquired condition (HAC) measures. The medical center may be penalized starting in October.

Although Dr. Sands says his colleagues continue to work to improve their CAUTI rates, an endeavor that preceded the CMS program, he is seeking better training for his coding staff and is working within the medical center’s electronic health record (EHR) to ensure accurate and consistent reporting.

At small, rural Nanticoke Memorial Hospital in southern Delaware, which is not at risk of HAC penalties next year, chief operating officer and chief nursing officer Penny Short says the hospital is currently adopting a “pretty robust” EHR to assist clinicians with early identification of sepsis and other risks. She says there is a lot more that EHRs can do to assist in patient safety, and hospitalists at her institution have been at the helm, driving progress.

It’s an approach Dr. Jha advocates for moving the needle forward in identifying better patient safety metrics. Meaningful use of EHRs provides clinically based, high quality metrics that can be captured far more effectively than the billing record, he says, offering an “automated approach as a routine part of the delivery of health care for tracking and potentially identifying adverse events.”

It’s up to physician leaders, Dr. Jha says—indeed, it is their moral responsibility—to encourage their CEOs to make these investments. And it’s something he believes CMS should get behind as well.

“Is this going to be cheap and easy? No,” Dr. Jha says. “Does CMS have the capacity to say hospitals have to invest? I think they do.

“I think we can do so much better. The opportunity to do so much better is right now.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.