Susan Parks, MD

With the number of aging Americans projected to grow dramatically in the next several years, the need for primary palliative care and advance care planning (ACP) is more important than ever. Patients and their families want and expect palliative care when needed, but initial conversations about ACP can be difficult for them. Appropriate timing in raising this subject and clear communication can give patients the opportunity, while they are still independent, to set their goals for medical care.

For the past several decades, political decisions and judicial cases have shaped palliative care as we know it today. And its shape is still evolving. In support of ACP, advocacy groups at a national level are developing models that practitioners can use to engage patients in setting goals. And Medicare is now reimbursing primary care providers for this work that they have been doing for years (although many still may not be billing for the service).

Finally, the busy primary care office may have its own set of challenges in addressing ACP. Our aim in this review is to identify the barriers we face and the solutions we can implement to make a difference in our patients’ end-of-life care planning.

LANDMARK EVENTS HAVE DEFINED ACP TODAY

In 1969, Luis Kutner, an Illinois attorney, proposed the idea of a “living will,” envisioned as a document specifying the types of treatment a person would be willing to receive were he or she unable at a later time to participate in making a decision.¹ In 1976, California became the first state to give living wills the power of the law through the Natural Death Act.²

Throughout the 1970s and ‘80s, several high-profile court cases brought this idea into the national spotlight. In 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted the parents of 21-year-old Karen Ann Quinlan the right to discontinue the treatment sustaining her in a persistent vegetative state. Ms. Quinlan was removed from the ventilator and lived nine more months before dying in a nursing home.

In 1983, age 25, Nancy Cruzan was involved in a motor vehicle accident that left her in a persistent vegetative state. She remained so until 1988, when her parents asked that her feeding tube be removed. The hospital refused, indicating that it would lead to her death. The family sued, and the case eventually went to the US Supreme Court in 1989.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a state was legally able to require “clear and convincing evidence” of a patient’s wish for removal of life-sustaining therapies. Cruzan’s family was able to provide such evidence, and her artificial nutrition was withheld. She died 12 days later.

The Cruzan case was instrumental in furthering ACP, leading to the passage of the Patient Self Determination Act by ­Congress in 1990. All federally funded health care facilities were now required to educate ­patients of their rights in determining their medical care and to ask about advance directives.³ The ACP movement gained ad­ditional momentum from the landmark SUPPORT study that documented short­comings in communication between phys­icians and patients/families about treat­ment preferences and end-of-life care in US hospitals.⁴

In the Terri Schiavo case, the patient’s husband disagreed with the life-sustaining decisions of his wife’s parents, given her persistent vegetative state and the fact that she had no chance of meaningful recovery. After a prolonged national debate, it was ultimately decided that the husband could elect to withhold artificial nutrition. (She died in 2005.) The Schiavo case, as well as the Institute of Medicine’s report on Dying in America, influenced Congress in 2016 to pass legislation funding ACP conversations.⁵

THE DEMONSTRATED BENEFITS OF ACP

When done comprehensively, ACP yields many benefits for patients and families and for the health care system. A systematic review demonstrated that, despite the few studies examining the economic cost of ACP, the process may lead to decreased health care costs in certain populations (nursing home residents, community-dwelling adults with dementia, and those living in high health care–spending regions) and at the very least does not increase health care costs.⁶ ACP has increased the number of do-not-resuscitate orders and has decreased hospitalizations, admissions to intensive care units, and rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and use of tube feeding.^6-8

More noteworthy than the decrease in resource utilization and potential cost savings is the impact that ACP can have on a patient’s quality of life. Patients who receive aggressive care at the end of life tend to experience decreased quality of life compared with those receiving hospice care.⁷ Quality-of-life scores for patients in hospice improved with the length of enrollment in that care.⁷ When ACP discussions have taken place, the care patients receive at the end of life tends to conform more closely to their wishes and to increase family satis­faction.^9-11

One reason that practitioners often give for not completing ACP is the fear of increasing patient or family anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, studies have shown this concern to be unfounded.^7,12 While ACP studies have not shown a decrease in rates of anxiety or PTSD, no study has shown an increase in these psychologic morbidities.⁸

Caveats to keep in mind. Not all studies have shown unambiguous benefits related to ACP. Among the systematic reviews previously noted, there was significant variability in quality of data. Additionally, some experts argue that the traditional view of ACP (ie, completion of a single advance directive/living will) is outdated and should be replaced with a method that prepares patients and families to anticipate “in-the-moment decision making.”¹³ While we still believe that completion of an advance directive is useful, the experts’ point is well taken, especially since many patients change their preferences over time (and typically toward more aggressive care).^14,15 While the advance directive serves a role, it is more important to help patients recognize their goals and preferences and to facilitate ongoing discussions between the patient and his or her family/surrogate decision-maker and providers.

A SNAPSHOT OF PARTICIPATION IN ACP

Despite the ACP movement and the likely benefits associated with it, most individuals have not participated. Rates of completion do seem to be rising, but there is still room for improvement. Among all individuals older than 18, only 26.3% have an advance directive.¹⁶ In a cohort of older patients seen in an emergency department, only 40% had a living will, while nearly 54% had a designated health care power of attorney.¹⁷ Perhaps more alarming is the lack of ACP for those patients almost all providers would agree need it: the long-term care population. The National Center for Health Statistics has reported that only 28% of home health care patients, 65% of nursing home residents, and 88% of hospice patients have an advance directive on file.¹⁸

PROVIDER AND PATIENT BARRIERS TO ACP

If ACP can decrease resource utilization and improve caregiver compliance with a patient’s wishes for end of life, the obvious question is: Why isn’t it done more often? A longstanding barrier for providers has been that these types of discussions are time intensive and have not been billable. However, since January 1, 2016, we are now able to bill for these discussions. (More on this in a bit.) Providers do cite other barriers, though.

A recent systematic review showed that ACP is hindered by time constraints imposed by other clinical and administrative tasks that are heavily monitored.¹⁹ Barriers to engaging in ACP reported by patients include a reluctance to think about dying, a belief that family or providers will know what to do, difficulty understanding ACP forms, and the absence of a person who can serve as a surrogate decision-maker.^20,21

NATIONAL MODELS TO HELP WITH IMPLEMENTATION

The percentage of individuals with an advance directive in the US has not increased significantly over the past decade.²² The lack of traction in completion and use of advance directives has led several authors to question the utility of this older model of ACP.²² Several experts in the field believe that more robust, ongoing goals-of-care conversations between patients, families, and providers are equally, or even more, important than the completion of actual advance directive documents.^23,24

National models such as the POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) paradigm have become popular in several states (www.polst.org). Intended for those with estimated life expectancy of less than one year, POLST is not an advance directive but a physician order for these seriously ill patients. Emergency medical service workers are legally able to follow a POLST document but not a living will or advance directive—a significant reason for those with end-stage illness to consider completing a POLST document with their health care provider. Programs such as “Respecting Choices” have incorporated POLST documentation as part of ongoing goals-of-care conversations between patients and health care providers (www.gundersenhealth.org/respecting-choices).

Many groups have developed products to encourage patients and their families to initiate conversations at home. An example is the Conversation Project, a free online resource available in multiple languages that can help break the ice for patients and get them talking about their wishes for end-of-life care (www.theconversationproject.org). It poses simple stimulating questions such as “What kind of role do you want to have in the decision-making process?” and “What are your concerns about treatment?”

HOW-TO TIPS FOR ACP IN OUTPATIENT SETTINGS

When approaching the topic of ACP with patients, it’s important to do so over time, starting as soon as possible with older patients and those with chronic illness that confers a high risk for significant morbidity or mortality. Assess each patient’s understanding of ACP and readiness to discuss the topic. Many patients think of ACP in the context of a document (eg, living will), so asking about the existence of a living will may help to start the conversation. Alternatively, consider inquiring about whether the patient has had experience with family or friends at the end of life or during a difficult medical situation, and whether the patient has thought about making personal plans for such a situation.²⁵

When a patient is ready to have this conversation, your goal should be three-fold:²⁶

1. Help the patient articulate personal values, goals, and preferences.
2. Ask the patient to formally assign health care power of attorney (POA) to a trusted individual or to name a surrogate decision-maker. Document this decision in the medical record.
3. Help the patient translate expressed values into specific medical care plans, if applicable.

Because ACP conversations are often time consuming, it’s a good idea to schedule separate appointments to focus on this alone. If, however, a patient is unable to return for a dedicated ACP visit, a first step that can be completed in a reasonably short period would be choosing a surrogate decision-maker.

Helping a patient articulate personal values may be eased by asking such questions as, “Have you ever thought about what kind of care you would want if the time came when you could not make your own decisions?” or “What worries you the most about possibly not being able to make your own decisions?”²⁷ If the patient is able to identify a surrogate decision-maker before the ACP appointment, ask that this person attend. A family member or close friend may remember instances in which the patient expressed health care preferences, and their presence can help to minimize gaps in communication.

Once the patient’s preferences are clear, document them in the medical record. Some preferences may be suitable for translation into POLST orders or an advance directive, but this is less important than the overall discussion. ACP should be an ongoing conversation, since a patient’s goals may change over time. And encourage the patient to share any desired change in plans with their surrogate decision-maker or update the POA document.

BE SURE TO BILL FOR ACP SERVICES

To encourage office-based providers to conduct ACP, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented payment for CPT codes 99497 and 99498.

CPT code 99497 covers the first 30 minutes of face-to-face time with patients or their family members or medical decision-makers. This time can be used to discuss living wills or advance directives.

CPT code 99498 can be applied to each additional 30 minutes of ACP services. Typically, this billing code would be used as an add-on for a particular diagnosis, such as heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or pancreatic cancer.

CPT Code 99497 equates to 2.40 relative-value units (RVU) with an estimated payment of $85.99, while CPT code 99498 equates to 2.09 RVU with an estimated payment of $74.88.²⁸

According to CMS, there is no annual limit to the number of times the ACP codes can be billed for a particular patient. And there are no restrictions regarding location of service, meaning a provider could perform this in an outpatient setting, an inpatient setting, or a long-term care facility. All health care providers are allowed to bill with this code. Also worth noting: You don’t need to complete any particular documentation for a visit to be billed as an ACP service. CMS provides a helpful Q & A at www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched/Downloads/FAQ-Advance-Care-Planning.pdf.

With the number of aging Americans projected to grow dramatically in the next several years, the need for primary palliative care and advance care planning (ACP) is more important than ever. Patients and their families want and expect palliative care when needed, but initial conversations about ACP can be difficult for them. Appropriate timing in raising this subject and clear communication can give patients the opportunity, while they are still independent, to set their goals for medical care.

For the past several decades, political decisions and judicial cases have shaped palliative care as we know it today. And its shape is still evolving. In support of ACP, advocacy groups at a national level are developing models that practitioners can use to engage patients in setting goals. And Medicare is now reimbursing primary care providers for this work that they have been doing for years (although many still may not be billing for the service).

Finally, the busy primary care office may have its own set of challenges in addressing ACP. Our aim in this review is to identify the barriers we face and the solutions we can implement to make a difference in our patients’ end-of-life care planning.

LANDMARK EVENTS HAVE DEFINED ACP TODAY

In 1969, Luis Kutner, an Illinois attorney, proposed the idea of a “living will,” envisioned as a document specifying the types of treatment a person would be willing to receive were he or she unable at a later time to participate in making a decision.¹ In 1976, California became the first state to give living wills the power of the law through the Natural Death Act.²

Throughout the 1970s and ‘80s, several high-profile court cases brought this idea into the national spotlight. In 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted the parents of 21-year-old Karen Ann Quinlan the right to discontinue the treatment sustaining her in a persistent vegetative state. Ms. Quinlan was removed from the ventilator and lived nine more months before dying in a nursing home.

In 1983, age 25, Nancy Cruzan was involved in a motor vehicle accident that left her in a persistent vegetative state. She remained so until 1988, when her parents asked that her feeding tube be removed. The hospital refused, indicating that it would lead to her death. The family sued, and the case eventually went to the US Supreme Court in 1989.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a state was legally able to require “clear and convincing evidence” of a patient’s wish for removal of life-sustaining therapies. Cruzan’s family was able to provide such evidence, and her artificial nutrition was withheld. She died 12 days later.

The Cruzan case was instrumental in furthering ACP, leading to the passage of the Patient Self Determination Act by ­Congress in 1990. All federally funded health care facilities were now required to educate ­patients of their rights in determining their medical care and to ask about advance directives.³ The ACP movement gained ad­ditional momentum from the landmark SUPPORT study that documented short­comings in communication between phys­icians and patients/families about treat­ment preferences and end-of-life care in US hospitals.⁴

In the Terri Schiavo case, the patient’s husband disagreed with the life-sustaining decisions of his wife’s parents, given her persistent vegetative state and the fact that she had no chance of meaningful recovery. After a prolonged national debate, it was ultimately decided that the husband could elect to withhold artificial nutrition. (She died in 2005.) The Schiavo case, as well as the Institute of Medicine’s report on Dying in America, influenced Congress in 2016 to pass legislation funding ACP conversations.⁵

THE DEMONSTRATED BENEFITS OF ACP

When done comprehensively, ACP yields many benefits for patients and families and for the health care system. A systematic review demonstrated that, despite the few studies examining the economic cost of ACP, the process may lead to decreased health care costs in certain populations (nursing home residents, community-dwelling adults with dementia, and those living in high health care–spending regions) and at the very least does not increase health care costs.⁶ ACP has increased the number of do-not-resuscitate orders and has decreased hospitalizations, admissions to intensive care units, and rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and use of tube feeding.^6-8

More noteworthy than the decrease in resource utilization and potential cost savings is the impact that ACP can have on a patient’s quality of life. Patients who receive aggressive care at the end of life tend to experience decreased quality of life compared with those receiving hospice care.⁷ Quality-of-life scores for patients in hospice improved with the length of enrollment in that care.⁷ When ACP discussions have taken place, the care patients receive at the end of life tends to conform more closely to their wishes and to increase family satis­faction.^9-11

One reason that practitioners often give for not completing ACP is the fear of increasing patient or family anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, studies have shown this concern to be unfounded.^7,12 While ACP studies have not shown a decrease in rates of anxiety or PTSD, no study has shown an increase in these psychologic morbidities.⁸

Caveats to keep in mind. Not all studies have shown unambiguous benefits related to ACP. Among the systematic reviews previously noted, there was significant variability in quality of data. Additionally, some experts argue that the traditional view of ACP (ie, completion of a single advance directive/living will) is outdated and should be replaced with a method that prepares patients and families to anticipate “in-the-moment decision making.”¹³ While we still believe that completion of an advance directive is useful, the experts’ point is well taken, especially since many patients change their preferences over time (and typically toward more aggressive care).^14,15 While the advance directive serves a role, it is more important to help patients recognize their goals and preferences and to facilitate ongoing discussions between the patient and his or her family/surrogate decision-maker and providers.

A SNAPSHOT OF PARTICIPATION IN ACP

Despite the ACP movement and the likely benefits associated with it, most individuals have not participated. Rates of completion do seem to be rising, but there is still room for improvement. Among all individuals older than 18, only 26.3% have an advance directive.¹⁶ In a cohort of older patients seen in an emergency department, only 40% had a living will, while nearly 54% had a designated health care power of attorney.¹⁷ Perhaps more alarming is the lack of ACP for those patients almost all providers would agree need it: the long-term care population. The National Center for Health Statistics has reported that only 28% of home health care patients, 65% of nursing home residents, and 88% of hospice patients have an advance directive on file.¹⁸

PROVIDER AND PATIENT BARRIERS TO ACP

If ACP can decrease resource utilization and improve caregiver compliance with a patient’s wishes for end of life, the obvious question is: Why isn’t it done more often? A longstanding barrier for providers has been that these types of discussions are time intensive and have not been billable. However, since January 1, 2016, we are now able to bill for these discussions. (More on this in a bit.) Providers do cite other barriers, though.

A recent systematic review showed that ACP is hindered by time constraints imposed by other clinical and administrative tasks that are heavily monitored.¹⁹ Barriers to engaging in ACP reported by patients include a reluctance to think about dying, a belief that family or providers will know what to do, difficulty understanding ACP forms, and the absence of a person who can serve as a surrogate decision-maker.^20,21

NATIONAL MODELS TO HELP WITH IMPLEMENTATION

The percentage of individuals with an advance directive in the US has not increased significantly over the past decade.²² The lack of traction in completion and use of advance directives has led several authors to question the utility of this older model of ACP.²² Several experts in the field believe that more robust, ongoing goals-of-care conversations between patients, families, and providers are equally, or even more, important than the completion of actual advance directive documents.^23,24

National models such as the POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) paradigm have become popular in several states (www.polst.org). Intended for those with estimated life expectancy of less than one year, POLST is not an advance directive but a physician order for these seriously ill patients. Emergency medical service workers are legally able to follow a POLST document but not a living will or advance directive—a significant reason for those with end-stage illness to consider completing a POLST document with their health care provider. Programs such as “Respecting Choices” have incorporated POLST documentation as part of ongoing goals-of-care conversations between patients and health care providers (www.gundersenhealth.org/respecting-choices).

Many groups have developed products to encourage patients and their families to initiate conversations at home. An example is the Conversation Project, a free online resource available in multiple languages that can help break the ice for patients and get them talking about their wishes for end-of-life care (www.theconversationproject.org). It poses simple stimulating questions such as “What kind of role do you want to have in the decision-making process?” and “What are your concerns about treatment?”

HOW-TO TIPS FOR ACP IN OUTPATIENT SETTINGS

When approaching the topic of ACP with patients, it’s important to do so over time, starting as soon as possible with older patients and those with chronic illness that confers a high risk for significant morbidity or mortality. Assess each patient’s understanding of ACP and readiness to discuss the topic. Many patients think of ACP in the context of a document (eg, living will), so asking about the existence of a living will may help to start the conversation. Alternatively, consider inquiring about whether the patient has had experience with family or friends at the end of life or during a difficult medical situation, and whether the patient has thought about making personal plans for such a situation.²⁵

When a patient is ready to have this conversation, your goal should be three-fold:²⁶

1. Help the patient articulate personal values, goals, and preferences.
2. Ask the patient to formally assign health care power of attorney (POA) to a trusted individual or to name a surrogate decision-maker. Document this decision in the medical record.
3. Help the patient translate expressed values into specific medical care plans, if applicable.

Because ACP conversations are often time consuming, it’s a good idea to schedule separate appointments to focus on this alone. If, however, a patient is unable to return for a dedicated ACP visit, a first step that can be completed in a reasonably short period would be choosing a surrogate decision-maker.

Helping a patient articulate personal values may be eased by asking such questions as, “Have you ever thought about what kind of care you would want if the time came when you could not make your own decisions?” or “What worries you the most about possibly not being able to make your own decisions?”²⁷ If the patient is able to identify a surrogate decision-maker before the ACP appointment, ask that this person attend. A family member or close friend may remember instances in which the patient expressed health care preferences, and their presence can help to minimize gaps in communication.

Once the patient’s preferences are clear, document them in the medical record. Some preferences may be suitable for translation into POLST orders or an advance directive, but this is less important than the overall discussion. ACP should be an ongoing conversation, since a patient’s goals may change over time. And encourage the patient to share any desired change in plans with their surrogate decision-maker or update the POA document.

BE SURE TO BILL FOR ACP SERVICES

To encourage office-based providers to conduct ACP, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented payment for CPT codes 99497 and 99498.

CPT code 99497 covers the first 30 minutes of face-to-face time with patients or their family members or medical decision-makers. This time can be used to discuss living wills or advance directives.

CPT code 99498 can be applied to each additional 30 minutes of ACP services. Typically, this billing code would be used as an add-on for a particular diagnosis, such as heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or pancreatic cancer.

CPT Code 99497 equates to 2.40 relative-value units (RVU) with an estimated payment of $85.99, while CPT code 99498 equates to 2.09 RVU with an estimated payment of $74.88.²⁸

According to CMS, there is no annual limit to the number of times the ACP codes can be billed for a particular patient. And there are no restrictions regarding location of service, meaning a provider could perform this in an outpatient setting, an inpatient setting, or a long-term care facility. All health care providers are allowed to bill with this code. Also worth noting: You don’t need to complete any particular documentation for a visit to be billed as an ACP service. CMS provides a helpful Q & A at www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched/Downloads/FAQ-Advance-Care-Planning.pdf.

With the number of aging Americans projected to grow dramatically in the next several years, the need for primary palliative care and advance care planning (ACP) is more important than ever. Patients and their families want and expect palliative care when needed, but initial conversations about ACP can be difficult for them. Appropriate timing in raising this subject and clear communication can give patients the opportunity, while they are still independent, to set their goals for medical care.

For the past several decades, political decisions and judicial cases have shaped palliative care as we know it today. And its shape is still evolving. In support of ACP, advocacy groups at a national level are developing models that practitioners can use to engage patients in setting goals. And Medicare is now reimbursing primary care providers for this work that they have been doing for years (although many still may not be billing for the service).

Finally, the busy primary care office may have its own set of challenges in addressing ACP. Our aim in this review is to identify the barriers we face and the solutions we can implement to make a difference in our patients’ end-of-life care planning.

LANDMARK EVENTS HAVE DEFINED ACP TODAY

In 1969, Luis Kutner, an Illinois attorney, proposed the idea of a “living will,” envisioned as a document specifying the types of treatment a person would be willing to receive were he or she unable at a later time to participate in making a decision.¹ In 1976, California became the first state to give living wills the power of the law through the Natural Death Act.²

Throughout the 1970s and ‘80s, several high-profile court cases brought this idea into the national spotlight. In 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted the parents of 21-year-old Karen Ann Quinlan the right to discontinue the treatment sustaining her in a persistent vegetative state. Ms. Quinlan was removed from the ventilator and lived nine more months before dying in a nursing home.

In 1983, age 25, Nancy Cruzan was involved in a motor vehicle accident that left her in a persistent vegetative state. She remained so until 1988, when her parents asked that her feeding tube be removed. The hospital refused, indicating that it would lead to her death. The family sued, and the case eventually went to the US Supreme Court in 1989.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a state was legally able to require “clear and convincing evidence” of a patient’s wish for removal of life-sustaining therapies. Cruzan’s family was able to provide such evidence, and her artificial nutrition was withheld. She died 12 days later.

The Cruzan case was instrumental in furthering ACP, leading to the passage of the Patient Self Determination Act by ­Congress in 1990. All federally funded health care facilities were now required to educate ­patients of their rights in determining their medical care and to ask about advance directives.³ The ACP movement gained ad­ditional momentum from the landmark SUPPORT study that documented short­comings in communication between phys­icians and patients/families about treat­ment preferences and end-of-life care in US hospitals.⁴

In the Terri Schiavo case, the patient’s husband disagreed with the life-sustaining decisions of his wife’s parents, given her persistent vegetative state and the fact that she had no chance of meaningful recovery. After a prolonged national debate, it was ultimately decided that the husband could elect to withhold artificial nutrition. (She died in 2005.) The Schiavo case, as well as the Institute of Medicine’s report on Dying in America, influenced Congress in 2016 to pass legislation funding ACP conversations.⁵

THE DEMONSTRATED BENEFITS OF ACP

When done comprehensively, ACP yields many benefits for patients and families and for the health care system. A systematic review demonstrated that, despite the few studies examining the economic cost of ACP, the process may lead to decreased health care costs in certain populations (nursing home residents, community-dwelling adults with dementia, and those living in high health care–spending regions) and at the very least does not increase health care costs.⁶ ACP has increased the number of do-not-resuscitate orders and has decreased hospitalizations, admissions to intensive care units, and rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and use of tube feeding.^6-8

More noteworthy than the decrease in resource utilization and potential cost savings is the impact that ACP can have on a patient’s quality of life. Patients who receive aggressive care at the end of life tend to experience decreased quality of life compared with those receiving hospice care.⁷ Quality-of-life scores for patients in hospice improved with the length of enrollment in that care.⁷ When ACP discussions have taken place, the care patients receive at the end of life tends to conform more closely to their wishes and to increase family satis­faction.^9-11

One reason that practitioners often give for not completing ACP is the fear of increasing patient or family anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, studies have shown this concern to be unfounded.^7,12 While ACP studies have not shown a decrease in rates of anxiety or PTSD, no study has shown an increase in these psychologic morbidities.⁸

Caveats to keep in mind. Not all studies have shown unambiguous benefits related to ACP. Among the systematic reviews previously noted, there was significant variability in quality of data. Additionally, some experts argue that the traditional view of ACP (ie, completion of a single advance directive/living will) is outdated and should be replaced with a method that prepares patients and families to anticipate “in-the-moment decision making.”¹³ While we still believe that completion of an advance directive is useful, the experts’ point is well taken, especially since many patients change their preferences over time (and typically toward more aggressive care).^14,15 While the advance directive serves a role, it is more important to help patients recognize their goals and preferences and to facilitate ongoing discussions between the patient and his or her family/surrogate decision-maker and providers.

A SNAPSHOT OF PARTICIPATION IN ACP

Despite the ACP movement and the likely benefits associated with it, most individuals have not participated. Rates of completion do seem to be rising, but there is still room for improvement. Among all individuals older than 18, only 26.3% have an advance directive.¹⁶ In a cohort of older patients seen in an emergency department, only 40% had a living will, while nearly 54% had a designated health care power of attorney.¹⁷ Perhaps more alarming is the lack of ACP for those patients almost all providers would agree need it: the long-term care population. The National Center for Health Statistics has reported that only 28% of home health care patients, 65% of nursing home residents, and 88% of hospice patients have an advance directive on file.¹⁸

PROVIDER AND PATIENT BARRIERS TO ACP

If ACP can decrease resource utilization and improve caregiver compliance with a patient’s wishes for end of life, the obvious question is: Why isn’t it done more often? A longstanding barrier for providers has been that these types of discussions are time intensive and have not been billable. However, since January 1, 2016, we are now able to bill for these discussions. (More on this in a bit.) Providers do cite other barriers, though.

A recent systematic review showed that ACP is hindered by time constraints imposed by other clinical and administrative tasks that are heavily monitored.¹⁹ Barriers to engaging in ACP reported by patients include a reluctance to think about dying, a belief that family or providers will know what to do, difficulty understanding ACP forms, and the absence of a person who can serve as a surrogate decision-maker.^20,21

NATIONAL MODELS TO HELP WITH IMPLEMENTATION

The percentage of individuals with an advance directive in the US has not increased significantly over the past decade.²² The lack of traction in completion and use of advance directives has led several authors to question the utility of this older model of ACP.²² Several experts in the field believe that more robust, ongoing goals-of-care conversations between patients, families, and providers are equally, or even more, important than the completion of actual advance directive documents.^23,24

National models such as the POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) paradigm have become popular in several states (www.polst.org). Intended for those with estimated life expectancy of less than one year, POLST is not an advance directive but a physician order for these seriously ill patients. Emergency medical service workers are legally able to follow a POLST document but not a living will or advance directive—a significant reason for those with end-stage illness to consider completing a POLST document with their health care provider. Programs such as “Respecting Choices” have incorporated POLST documentation as part of ongoing goals-of-care conversations between patients and health care providers (www.gundersenhealth.org/respecting-choices).

Many groups have developed products to encourage patients and their families to initiate conversations at home. An example is the Conversation Project, a free online resource available in multiple languages that can help break the ice for patients and get them talking about their wishes for end-of-life care (www.theconversationproject.org). It poses simple stimulating questions such as “What kind of role do you want to have in the decision-making process?” and “What are your concerns about treatment?”

HOW-TO TIPS FOR ACP IN OUTPATIENT SETTINGS

When approaching the topic of ACP with patients, it’s important to do so over time, starting as soon as possible with older patients and those with chronic illness that confers a high risk for significant morbidity or mortality. Assess each patient’s understanding of ACP and readiness to discuss the topic. Many patients think of ACP in the context of a document (eg, living will), so asking about the existence of a living will may help to start the conversation. Alternatively, consider inquiring about whether the patient has had experience with family or friends at the end of life or during a difficult medical situation, and whether the patient has thought about making personal plans for such a situation.²⁵

When a patient is ready to have this conversation, your goal should be three-fold:²⁶

1. Help the patient articulate personal values, goals, and preferences.
2. Ask the patient to formally assign health care power of attorney (POA) to a trusted individual or to name a surrogate decision-maker. Document this decision in the medical record.
3. Help the patient translate expressed values into specific medical care plans, if applicable.

Because ACP conversations are often time consuming, it’s a good idea to schedule separate appointments to focus on this alone. If, however, a patient is unable to return for a dedicated ACP visit, a first step that can be completed in a reasonably short period would be choosing a surrogate decision-maker.

Helping a patient articulate personal values may be eased by asking such questions as, “Have you ever thought about what kind of care you would want if the time came when you could not make your own decisions?” or “What worries you the most about possibly not being able to make your own decisions?”²⁷ If the patient is able to identify a surrogate decision-maker before the ACP appointment, ask that this person attend. A family member or close friend may remember instances in which the patient expressed health care preferences, and their presence can help to minimize gaps in communication.

Once the patient’s preferences are clear, document them in the medical record. Some preferences may be suitable for translation into POLST orders or an advance directive, but this is less important than the overall discussion. ACP should be an ongoing conversation, since a patient’s goals may change over time. And encourage the patient to share any desired change in plans with their surrogate decision-maker or update the POA document.

BE SURE TO BILL FOR ACP SERVICES

To encourage office-based providers to conduct ACP, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented payment for CPT codes 99497 and 99498.

CPT code 99497 covers the first 30 minutes of face-to-face time with patients or their family members or medical decision-makers. This time can be used to discuss living wills or advance directives.

CPT code 99498 can be applied to each additional 30 minutes of ACP services. Typically, this billing code would be used as an add-on for a particular diagnosis, such as heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or pancreatic cancer.

CPT Code 99497 equates to 2.40 relative-value units (RVU) with an estimated payment of $85.99, while CPT code 99498 equates to 2.09 RVU with an estimated payment of $74.88.²⁸

According to CMS, there is no annual limit to the number of times the ACP codes can be billed for a particular patient. And there are no restrictions regarding location of service, meaning a provider could perform this in an outpatient setting, an inpatient setting, or a long-term care facility. All health care providers are allowed to bill with this code. Also worth noting: You don’t need to complete any particular documentation for a visit to be billed as an ACP service. CMS provides a helpful Q & A at www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched/Downloads/FAQ-Advance-Care-Planning.pdf.

With the number of aging Americans projected to grow dramatically in the next several years, the need for primary palliative care and advance care planning (ACP) is more important than ever. Patients and their families want and expect palliative care when needed, but initial conversations about ACP can be difficult for them. Appropriate timing in raising this subject and clear communication can give patients the opportunity, while they are still independent, to set their goals for medical care.

For the past several decades, political decisions and judicial cases have shaped palliative care as we know it today. And its shape is still evolving. In support of ACP, advocacy groups at a national level are developing models that practitioners can use to engage patients in setting goals. And Medicare is now reimbursing primary care providers for this work that they have been doing for years (although many still may not be billing for the service).

Finally, the busy primary care office may have its own set of challenges in addressing ACP. Our aim in this review is to identify the barriers we face and the solutions we can implement to make a difference in our patients’ end-of-life care planning.

[polldaddy:9795119]

Landmark events have defined advance care planning today

In 1969, Luis Kutner, an Illinois attorney, proposed the idea of a “living will,” envisioned as a document specifying the types of treatment a person would be willing to receive were they unable at a later time to participate in making a decision.¹ In 1976, California became the first state to give living wills the power of the law through the Natural Death Act.²

Throughout the 1970s and '80s, several high-profile court cases brought this idea into the national spotlight. In 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted the parents of 21-year-old Karen Ann Quinlan the right to discontinue the treatment sustaining her in a persistent vegetative state. Ms. Quinlan was removed from the ventilator and lived 9 more months before dying in a nursing home.

A few years later, Nancy Cruzan, a 32-year-old woman involved in a 1983 motor vehicle accident, was also in a persistent vegetative state and remained so until 1988 when her parents asked that her feeding tube be removed. The hospital refused, indicating that it would lead to her death. The family sued and the case eventually went to the US Supreme Court in 1989.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a state was legally able to require “clear and convincing evidence” of a patient’s wish for removal of life-sustaining therapies. Cruzan’s family was able to provide such evidence and her artificial nutrition was withheld. She died 12 days later.

Among all individuals older than 18 years, only 26% have an advance directive.

The Cruzan case was instrumental in furthering ACP, leading to the passage of the Patient Self Determination Act (PSDA) by Congress in 1990. All federally funded health care facilities were now required to educate patients of their rights in determining their medical care and to ask about advance directives.³ The ACP movement gained additional momentum from the landmark SUPPORT study that documented shortcomings in communication between physicians and patients/families about treatment preferences and end-of-life care in US hospitals.⁴

In the Terri Schiavo case, the patient’s husband disagreed with the life-sustaining decisions of his wife’s parents given her persistent vegetative state and the fact that she had no chance of meaningful recovery. After a prolonged national debate, it was ultimately decided that the husband could elect to withhold artificial nutrition. (She died in 2005.) The Schiavo case, as well as the Institute of Medicine’s report on “Dying in America,”⁵ influenced Congress in 2016 to pass legislation funding ACP conversations.

The demonstrated benefits of advance care planning

When done comprehensively, ACP yields many benefits for patients and families and for the health care system. A systematic review demonstrated that, despite the few studies examining the economic cost of ACP, the process may lead to decreased health care costs in certain populations (nursing home residents, community dwelling adults with dementia, and those living in high health care spending regions) and at the very least does not increase health care costs.⁶ ACP has increased the number of do-not-resuscitate orders⁷ and has decreased hospitalizations,⁸ admissions to intensive care units,^7,8 and rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation,^7,8 mechanical ventilation,^7,8 and use of tube feeding.⁸

More noteworthy than the decrease in resource utilization and potential cost savings is the impact that ACP can have on a patient’s quality of life. Patients who receive aggressive care at the end of life tend to experience decreased quality of life compared with those receiving hospice care.⁷ Quality-of-life scores for patients in hospice improved with the length of enrollment in that care.⁷ When ACP discussions have taken place, the care patients receive at the end of life tends to conform more closely to their wishes and to increase family satisfaction.^9-11

One reason that practitioners often give for not completing ACP is the fear of increasing patient or family anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, studies have shown this concern to be unfounded.^7,12 While ACP studies have not shown a decrease in rates of anxiety or PTSD, no study has shown an increase in these psychological morbidities.⁸

Caveats to keep in mind. Not all studies have shown unambiguous benefits related to ACP. Among the systematic reviews previously noted, there was significant variability in quality of data. Additionally, some experts argue that the traditional view of ACP (ie, completion of a single advance directive/living will) is outdated and should be replaced with a method that prepares patients and families to anticipate “in-the-moment decision making.”¹³ While we still believe that completion of an advance directive is useful, the experts’ point is well taken, especially since many patients change their preferences over time (and typically towards more aggressive care).^14,15 While the advance directive serves a role, it is more important to help patients recognize their goals and preferences and to facilitate ongoing discussions between the patient and their families/surrogate decision maker and providers.

A snapshot of participation in advance care planning

Despite the ACP movement and the likely benefits associated with it, most individuals have not participated. Rates of completion do seem to be rising, but there is still room for improvement. Among all individuals older than 18 years, only 26.3% have an advance directive.¹⁶ In a cohort of older patients seen in an emergency department, only 40% had a living will, while nearly 54% had a designated health care power of attorney.¹⁷ Perhaps more alarming is the lack of ACP for those patients almost all physicians would agree need it—the long-term care population. The National Center for Health Statistics has reported that only 28% of home health care patients, 65% of nursing home residents, and 88% of hospice patients have an advance directive on file.¹⁸

Physician and patient barriers to advance care planning

If ACP can decrease resource utilization and improve caregiver compliance with a patient’s wishes for end of life, the obvious question is: Why isn’t it done more often? A longstanding barrier for physicians has been that these types of discussions are time intensive and have not been billable. However, since January 1, 2016, we are now able to bill for these discussions. (More on this in a bit.) Physicians do cite other barriers, though.

A recent systematic review showed that ACP is hindered by time constraints imposed by other clinical and administrative tasks that are heavily monitored.¹⁹ Barriers to engaging in ACP reported by patients include a reluctance to think about dying, a belief that family or physicians will know what to do, difficulty understanding ACP forms, and the absence of a person who can serve as a surrogate decision-maker.^20,21

There are national models to help with implementation

The percentage of individuals with an advance directive in the United States has not increased significantly over the past decade.²² The lack of traction in completion and use of advance directives has lead several authors to question the utility of this older model of ACP.²² Several experts in the field believe that more robust, ongoing goals-of-care conversations between patients, families, and providers are equally, or even more, important than the completion of actual advance directive documents.^23,24

Explore recognized models for advance care planning, such as the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) paradigm and the Respecting Choices program.

National models such as the POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) paradigm have become popular in several states (http://www.polst.org). Intended for those with estimated life expectancy of less than one year, POLST is not an advance directive but a physician order for these seriously ill patients. Emergency medical service workers are legally able to follow a POLST document but not a living will or advance directive—a significant reason for those with end-stage illness to consider completing a POLST document with their health care provider. Programs such as, “Respecting Choices,” have incorporated POLST documentation as part of ongoing goals-of-care conversations between patients and health care providers (http://www.gundersenhealth.org/respecting-choices).

Many groups have developed products to encourage patients and their families to initiate conversations at home. An example is the Conversation Project, a free online resource available in multiple languages that can help break the ice for patients and get them talking about their wishes for end-of-life care (http://www.theconversationproject.org). It poses simple stimulating questions such as: “What kind of role do you want to have in the decision-making process?” and “What are your concerns about treatment?”

How-to tips for advance care planning in the outpatient setting

When approaching the topic of ACP with patients, it’s important to do so over time, starting as soon as possible with older patients and those with chronic illness conferring a high risk of significant morbidity or mortality. Assess each patient’s understanding of ACP and readiness to discuss the topic. Many patients think of ACP in the context of a document (eg, living will), so asking about the existence of a living will may help to start the conversation. Alternatively, consider inquiring about whether the patient has had experience with family or friends at the end of life or during a difficult medical situation, and whether the patient has thought about making personal plans for such a situation.²⁵

When a patient is ready to have this conversation, your goal should be three-fold: ²⁶

1. Help the patient articulate personal values, goals, and preferences.
2. Ask the patient to formally assign health care power of attorney (POA) to a trusted individual or to name a surrogate decision-maker. Document this decision in the medical record.
3. Help the patient translate expressed values into specific medical care plans, if applicable.

Because ACP conversations are often time consuming, it’s a good idea to schedule separate appointments to focus on this alone. If, however, a patient is unable to return for a dedicated ACP visit, a first step that can be completed in a reasonably short period would be choosing a surrogate decision-maker.

Helping a patient articulate personal values may be eased by asking, "Have you ever thought about what kind of care you would want if you could not make your own decisions?"

Helping a patient articulate personal values may be eased by asking such questions as: “Have you ever thought about what kind of care you would want if the time came when you could not make your own decisions?” or “What worries you the most about possibly not being able to make your own decisions?”²⁷ If the patient is able to identify a surrogate decision maker before the ACP appointment, ask that this person attend. A family member or close friend may remember instances in which the patient expressed health care preferences, and their presence can help to minimize gaps in communication.

Once the patient’s preferences are clear, document them in the medical record. Some preferences may be suitable for translation into POLST orders or an advance directive, but this is less important than the overall discussion. ACP should be an ongoing conversation, since a patient’s goals may change over time. And encourage the patient to share any desired change in plans with their surrogate decision-maker or update the POA document.

Be sure to bill for advance care planning services

To encourage office-based providers to conduct ACP, CMS implemented payment for CPT codes 99497 and 99498.

CPT code 99497 covers the first 30 minutes of face-to-face time with patients or their family members or medical decision-makers. This time can be used to discuss living wills or advance directives.

CPT code 99498 can be applied to each additional 30 minutes of ACP services. Typically, this billing code would be used as an add-on for a particular diagnosis such as heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or pancreatic cancer.

CPT Code 99497 equates to 2.40 relative-value units (RVU) with an estimated payment of $85.99, while CPT code 99498 equates to 2.09 RVU with an estimated payment of $74.88.²⁸

According to CMS, there is no annual limit to the number of times the ACP codes can be billed for a particular patient. And there are no restrictions regarding location of service, meaning a provider could perform this in an outpatient setting, an inpatient setting, or a long-term care facility. Both physicians and non-physician practitioners are allowed to bill with this code. Also worth noting: You don’t need to complete any particular documentation for a visit to be billed as an ACP service. CMS provides a helpful Q & A at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched/Downloads/FAQ-Advance-Care-Planning.pdf.

CORRESPONDENCE
John Liantonio, MD, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Department of Family and Community Medicine, 1015 Walnut Street, Suite 401, Philadelphia, PA 19107; john.liantonio@jefferson.edu

With the number of aging Americans projected to grow dramatically in the next several years, the need for primary palliative care and advance care planning (ACP) is more important than ever. Patients and their families want and expect palliative care when needed, but initial conversations about ACP can be difficult for them. Appropriate timing in raising this subject and clear communication can give patients the opportunity, while they are still independent, to set their goals for medical care.

For the past several decades, political decisions and judicial cases have shaped palliative care as we know it today. And its shape is still evolving. In support of ACP, advocacy groups at a national level are developing models that practitioners can use to engage patients in setting goals. And Medicare is now reimbursing primary care providers for this work that they have been doing for years (although many still may not be billing for the service).

Finally, the busy primary care office may have its own set of challenges in addressing ACP. Our aim in this review is to identify the barriers we face and the solutions we can implement to make a difference in our patients’ end-of-life care planning.

[polldaddy:9795119]

Landmark events have defined advance care planning today

In 1969, Luis Kutner, an Illinois attorney, proposed the idea of a “living will,” envisioned as a document specifying the types of treatment a person would be willing to receive were they unable at a later time to participate in making a decision.¹ In 1976, California became the first state to give living wills the power of the law through the Natural Death Act.²

Throughout the 1970s and '80s, several high-profile court cases brought this idea into the national spotlight. In 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted the parents of 21-year-old Karen Ann Quinlan the right to discontinue the treatment sustaining her in a persistent vegetative state. Ms. Quinlan was removed from the ventilator and lived 9 more months before dying in a nursing home.

A few years later, Nancy Cruzan, a 32-year-old woman involved in a 1983 motor vehicle accident, was also in a persistent vegetative state and remained so until 1988 when her parents asked that her feeding tube be removed. The hospital refused, indicating that it would lead to her death. The family sued and the case eventually went to the US Supreme Court in 1989.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a state was legally able to require “clear and convincing evidence” of a patient’s wish for removal of life-sustaining therapies. Cruzan’s family was able to provide such evidence and her artificial nutrition was withheld. She died 12 days later.

Among all individuals older than 18 years, only 26% have an advance directive.

The Cruzan case was instrumental in furthering ACP, leading to the passage of the Patient Self Determination Act (PSDA) by Congress in 1990. All federally funded health care facilities were now required to educate patients of their rights in determining their medical care and to ask about advance directives.³ The ACP movement gained additional momentum from the landmark SUPPORT study that documented shortcomings in communication between physicians and patients/families about treatment preferences and end-of-life care in US hospitals.⁴

In the Terri Schiavo case, the patient’s husband disagreed with the life-sustaining decisions of his wife’s parents given her persistent vegetative state and the fact that she had no chance of meaningful recovery. After a prolonged national debate, it was ultimately decided that the husband could elect to withhold artificial nutrition. (She died in 2005.) The Schiavo case, as well as the Institute of Medicine’s report on “Dying in America,”⁵ influenced Congress in 2016 to pass legislation funding ACP conversations.

The demonstrated benefits of advance care planning

When done comprehensively, ACP yields many benefits for patients and families and for the health care system. A systematic review demonstrated that, despite the few studies examining the economic cost of ACP, the process may lead to decreased health care costs in certain populations (nursing home residents, community dwelling adults with dementia, and those living in high health care spending regions) and at the very least does not increase health care costs.⁶ ACP has increased the number of do-not-resuscitate orders⁷ and has decreased hospitalizations,⁸ admissions to intensive care units,^7,8 and rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation,^7,8 mechanical ventilation,^7,8 and use of tube feeding.⁸

More noteworthy than the decrease in resource utilization and potential cost savings is the impact that ACP can have on a patient’s quality of life. Patients who receive aggressive care at the end of life tend to experience decreased quality of life compared with those receiving hospice care.⁷ Quality-of-life scores for patients in hospice improved with the length of enrollment in that care.⁷ When ACP discussions have taken place, the care patients receive at the end of life tends to conform more closely to their wishes and to increase family satisfaction.^9-11

One reason that practitioners often give for not completing ACP is the fear of increasing patient or family anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, studies have shown this concern to be unfounded.^7,12 While ACP studies have not shown a decrease in rates of anxiety or PTSD, no study has shown an increase in these psychological morbidities.⁸

Caveats to keep in mind. Not all studies have shown unambiguous benefits related to ACP. Among the systematic reviews previously noted, there was significant variability in quality of data. Additionally, some experts argue that the traditional view of ACP (ie, completion of a single advance directive/living will) is outdated and should be replaced with a method that prepares patients and families to anticipate “in-the-moment decision making.”¹³ While we still believe that completion of an advance directive is useful, the experts’ point is well taken, especially since many patients change their preferences over time (and typically towards more aggressive care).^14,15 While the advance directive serves a role, it is more important to help patients recognize their goals and preferences and to facilitate ongoing discussions between the patient and their families/surrogate decision maker and providers.

A snapshot of participation in advance care planning

Despite the ACP movement and the likely benefits associated with it, most individuals have not participated. Rates of completion do seem to be rising, but there is still room for improvement. Among all individuals older than 18 years, only 26.3% have an advance directive.¹⁶ In a cohort of older patients seen in an emergency department, only 40% had a living will, while nearly 54% had a designated health care power of attorney.¹⁷ Perhaps more alarming is the lack of ACP for those patients almost all physicians would agree need it—the long-term care population. The National Center for Health Statistics has reported that only 28% of home health care patients, 65% of nursing home residents, and 88% of hospice patients have an advance directive on file.¹⁸

Physician and patient barriers to advance care planning

If ACP can decrease resource utilization and improve caregiver compliance with a patient’s wishes for end of life, the obvious question is: Why isn’t it done more often? A longstanding barrier for physicians has been that these types of discussions are time intensive and have not been billable. However, since January 1, 2016, we are now able to bill for these discussions. (More on this in a bit.) Physicians do cite other barriers, though.

A recent systematic review showed that ACP is hindered by time constraints imposed by other clinical and administrative tasks that are heavily monitored.¹⁹ Barriers to engaging in ACP reported by patients include a reluctance to think about dying, a belief that family or physicians will know what to do, difficulty understanding ACP forms, and the absence of a person who can serve as a surrogate decision-maker.^20,21

There are national models to help with implementation

The percentage of individuals with an advance directive in the United States has not increased significantly over the past decade.²² The lack of traction in completion and use of advance directives has lead several authors to question the utility of this older model of ACP.²² Several experts in the field believe that more robust, ongoing goals-of-care conversations between patients, families, and providers are equally, or even more, important than the completion of actual advance directive documents.^23,24

Explore recognized models for advance care planning, such as the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) paradigm and the Respecting Choices program.

National models such as the POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) paradigm have become popular in several states (http://www.polst.org). Intended for those with estimated life expectancy of less than one year, POLST is not an advance directive but a physician order for these seriously ill patients. Emergency medical service workers are legally able to follow a POLST document but not a living will or advance directive—a significant reason for those with end-stage illness to consider completing a POLST document with their health care provider. Programs such as, “Respecting Choices,” have incorporated POLST documentation as part of ongoing goals-of-care conversations between patients and health care providers (http://www.gundersenhealth.org/respecting-choices).

Many groups have developed products to encourage patients and their families to initiate conversations at home. An example is the Conversation Project, a free online resource available in multiple languages that can help break the ice for patients and get them talking about their wishes for end-of-life care (http://www.theconversationproject.org). It poses simple stimulating questions such as: “What kind of role do you want to have in the decision-making process?” and “What are your concerns about treatment?”

How-to tips for advance care planning in the outpatient setting

When approaching the topic of ACP with patients, it’s important to do so over time, starting as soon as possible with older patients and those with chronic illness conferring a high risk of significant morbidity or mortality. Assess each patient’s understanding of ACP and readiness to discuss the topic. Many patients think of ACP in the context of a document (eg, living will), so asking about the existence of a living will may help to start the conversation. Alternatively, consider inquiring about whether the patient has had experience with family or friends at the end of life or during a difficult medical situation, and whether the patient has thought about making personal plans for such a situation.²⁵

When a patient is ready to have this conversation, your goal should be three-fold: ²⁶

1. Help the patient articulate personal values, goals, and preferences.
2. Ask the patient to formally assign health care power of attorney (POA) to a trusted individual or to name a surrogate decision-maker. Document this decision in the medical record.
3. Help the patient translate expressed values into specific medical care plans, if applicable.

Because ACP conversations are often time consuming, it’s a good idea to schedule separate appointments to focus on this alone. If, however, a patient is unable to return for a dedicated ACP visit, a first step that can be completed in a reasonably short period would be choosing a surrogate decision-maker.

Helping a patient articulate personal values may be eased by asking, "Have you ever thought about what kind of care you would want if you could not make your own decisions?"

Helping a patient articulate personal values may be eased by asking such questions as: “Have you ever thought about what kind of care you would want if the time came when you could not make your own decisions?” or “What worries you the most about possibly not being able to make your own decisions?”²⁷ If the patient is able to identify a surrogate decision maker before the ACP appointment, ask that this person attend. A family member or close friend may remember instances in which the patient expressed health care preferences, and their presence can help to minimize gaps in communication.

Once the patient’s preferences are clear, document them in the medical record. Some preferences may be suitable for translation into POLST orders or an advance directive, but this is less important than the overall discussion. ACP should be an ongoing conversation, since a patient’s goals may change over time. And encourage the patient to share any desired change in plans with their surrogate decision-maker or update the POA document.

Be sure to bill for advance care planning services

To encourage office-based providers to conduct ACP, CMS implemented payment for CPT codes 99497 and 99498.

CPT code 99497 covers the first 30 minutes of face-to-face time with patients or their family members or medical decision-makers. This time can be used to discuss living wills or advance directives.

CPT code 99498 can be applied to each additional 30 minutes of ACP services. Typically, this billing code would be used as an add-on for a particular diagnosis such as heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or pancreatic cancer.

CPT Code 99497 equates to 2.40 relative-value units (RVU) with an estimated payment of $85.99, while CPT code 99498 equates to 2.09 RVU with an estimated payment of $74.88.²⁸

According to CMS, there is no annual limit to the number of times the ACP codes can be billed for a particular patient. And there are no restrictions regarding location of service, meaning a provider could perform this in an outpatient setting, an inpatient setting, or a long-term care facility. Both physicians and non-physician practitioners are allowed to bill with this code. Also worth noting: You don’t need to complete any particular documentation for a visit to be billed as an ACP service. CMS provides a helpful Q & A at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched/Downloads/FAQ-Advance-Care-Planning.pdf.

CORRESPONDENCE
John Liantonio, MD, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Department of Family and Community Medicine, 1015 Walnut Street, Suite 401, Philadelphia, PA 19107; john.liantonio@jefferson.edu

With the number of aging Americans projected to grow dramatically in the next several years, the need for primary palliative care and advance care planning (ACP) is more important than ever. Patients and their families want and expect palliative care when needed, but initial conversations about ACP can be difficult for them. Appropriate timing in raising this subject and clear communication can give patients the opportunity, while they are still independent, to set their goals for medical care.

For the past several decades, political decisions and judicial cases have shaped palliative care as we know it today. And its shape is still evolving. In support of ACP, advocacy groups at a national level are developing models that practitioners can use to engage patients in setting goals. And Medicare is now reimbursing primary care providers for this work that they have been doing for years (although many still may not be billing for the service).

Finally, the busy primary care office may have its own set of challenges in addressing ACP. Our aim in this review is to identify the barriers we face and the solutions we can implement to make a difference in our patients’ end-of-life care planning.

[polldaddy:9795119]

Landmark events have defined advance care planning today

In 1969, Luis Kutner, an Illinois attorney, proposed the idea of a “living will,” envisioned as a document specifying the types of treatment a person would be willing to receive were they unable at a later time to participate in making a decision.¹ In 1976, California became the first state to give living wills the power of the law through the Natural Death Act.²

Throughout the 1970s and '80s, several high-profile court cases brought this idea into the national spotlight. In 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court granted the parents of 21-year-old Karen Ann Quinlan the right to discontinue the treatment sustaining her in a persistent vegetative state. Ms. Quinlan was removed from the ventilator and lived 9 more months before dying in a nursing home.

A few years later, Nancy Cruzan, a 32-year-old woman involved in a 1983 motor vehicle accident, was also in a persistent vegetative state and remained so until 1988 when her parents asked that her feeding tube be removed. The hospital refused, indicating that it would lead to her death. The family sued and the case eventually went to the US Supreme Court in 1989.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a state was legally able to require “clear and convincing evidence” of a patient’s wish for removal of life-sustaining therapies. Cruzan’s family was able to provide such evidence and her artificial nutrition was withheld. She died 12 days later.

Among all individuals older than 18 years, only 26% have an advance directive.

The Cruzan case was instrumental in furthering ACP, leading to the passage of the Patient Self Determination Act (PSDA) by Congress in 1990. All federally funded health care facilities were now required to educate patients of their rights in determining their medical care and to ask about advance directives.³ The ACP movement gained additional momentum from the landmark SUPPORT study that documented shortcomings in communication between physicians and patients/families about treatment preferences and end-of-life care in US hospitals.⁴

In the Terri Schiavo case, the patient’s husband disagreed with the life-sustaining decisions of his wife’s parents given her persistent vegetative state and the fact that she had no chance of meaningful recovery. After a prolonged national debate, it was ultimately decided that the husband could elect to withhold artificial nutrition. (She died in 2005.) The Schiavo case, as well as the Institute of Medicine’s report on “Dying in America,”⁵ influenced Congress in 2016 to pass legislation funding ACP conversations.

The demonstrated benefits of advance care planning

When done comprehensively, ACP yields many benefits for patients and families and for the health care system. A systematic review demonstrated that, despite the few studies examining the economic cost of ACP, the process may lead to decreased health care costs in certain populations (nursing home residents, community dwelling adults with dementia, and those living in high health care spending regions) and at the very least does not increase health care costs.⁶ ACP has increased the number of do-not-resuscitate orders⁷ and has decreased hospitalizations,⁸ admissions to intensive care units,^7,8 and rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation,^7,8 mechanical ventilation,^7,8 and use of tube feeding.⁸

More noteworthy than the decrease in resource utilization and potential cost savings is the impact that ACP can have on a patient’s quality of life. Patients who receive aggressive care at the end of life tend to experience decreased quality of life compared with those receiving hospice care.⁷ Quality-of-life scores for patients in hospice improved with the length of enrollment in that care.⁷ When ACP discussions have taken place, the care patients receive at the end of life tends to conform more closely to their wishes and to increase family satisfaction.^9-11

One reason that practitioners often give for not completing ACP is the fear of increasing patient or family anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, studies have shown this concern to be unfounded.^7,12 While ACP studies have not shown a decrease in rates of anxiety or PTSD, no study has shown an increase in these psychological morbidities.⁸

Caveats to keep in mind. Not all studies have shown unambiguous benefits related to ACP. Among the systematic reviews previously noted, there was significant variability in quality of data. Additionally, some experts argue that the traditional view of ACP (ie, completion of a single advance directive/living will) is outdated and should be replaced with a method that prepares patients and families to anticipate “in-the-moment decision making.”¹³ While we still believe that completion of an advance directive is useful, the experts’ point is well taken, especially since many patients change their preferences over time (and typically towards more aggressive care).^14,15 While the advance directive serves a role, it is more important to help patients recognize their goals and preferences and to facilitate ongoing discussions between the patient and their families/surrogate decision maker and providers.

A snapshot of participation in advance care planning

Despite the ACP movement and the likely benefits associated with it, most individuals have not participated. Rates of completion do seem to be rising, but there is still room for improvement. Among all individuals older than 18 years, only 26.3% have an advance directive.¹⁶ In a cohort of older patients seen in an emergency department, only 40% had a living will, while nearly 54% had a designated health care power of attorney.¹⁷ Perhaps more alarming is the lack of ACP for those patients almost all physicians would agree need it—the long-term care population. The National Center for Health Statistics has reported that only 28% of home health care patients, 65% of nursing home residents, and 88% of hospice patients have an advance directive on file.¹⁸

Physician and patient barriers to advance care planning

If ACP can decrease resource utilization and improve caregiver compliance with a patient’s wishes for end of life, the obvious question is: Why isn’t it done more often? A longstanding barrier for physicians has been that these types of discussions are time intensive and have not been billable. However, since January 1, 2016, we are now able to bill for these discussions. (More on this in a bit.) Physicians do cite other barriers, though.

A recent systematic review showed that ACP is hindered by time constraints imposed by other clinical and administrative tasks that are heavily monitored.¹⁹ Barriers to engaging in ACP reported by patients include a reluctance to think about dying, a belief that family or physicians will know what to do, difficulty understanding ACP forms, and the absence of a person who can serve as a surrogate decision-maker.^20,21

There are national models to help with implementation

The percentage of individuals with an advance directive in the United States has not increased significantly over the past decade.²² The lack of traction in completion and use of advance directives has lead several authors to question the utility of this older model of ACP.²² Several experts in the field believe that more robust, ongoing goals-of-care conversations between patients, families, and providers are equally, or even more, important than the completion of actual advance directive documents.^23,24

Explore recognized models for advance care planning, such as the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) paradigm and the Respecting Choices program.

National models such as the POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) paradigm have become popular in several states (http://www.polst.org). Intended for those with estimated life expectancy of less than one year, POLST is not an advance directive but a physician order for these seriously ill patients. Emergency medical service workers are legally able to follow a POLST document but not a living will or advance directive—a significant reason for those with end-stage illness to consider completing a POLST document with their health care provider. Programs such as, “Respecting Choices,” have incorporated POLST documentation as part of ongoing goals-of-care conversations between patients and health care providers (http://www.gundersenhealth.org/respecting-choices).

Many groups have developed products to encourage patients and their families to initiate conversations at home. An example is the Conversation Project, a free online resource available in multiple languages that can help break the ice for patients and get them talking about their wishes for end-of-life care (http://www.theconversationproject.org). It poses simple stimulating questions such as: “What kind of role do you want to have in the decision-making process?” and “What are your concerns about treatment?”

How-to tips for advance care planning in the outpatient setting

When approaching the topic of ACP with patients, it’s important to do so over time, starting as soon as possible with older patients and those with chronic illness conferring a high risk of significant morbidity or mortality. Assess each patient’s understanding of ACP and readiness to discuss the topic. Many patients think of ACP in the context of a document (eg, living will), so asking about the existence of a living will may help to start the conversation. Alternatively, consider inquiring about whether the patient has had experience with family or friends at the end of life or during a difficult medical situation, and whether the patient has thought about making personal plans for such a situation.²⁵

When a patient is ready to have this conversation, your goal should be three-fold: ²⁶

1. Help the patient articulate personal values, goals, and preferences.
2. Ask the patient to formally assign health care power of attorney (POA) to a trusted individual or to name a surrogate decision-maker. Document this decision in the medical record.
3. Help the patient translate expressed values into specific medical care plans, if applicable.

Because ACP conversations are often time consuming, it’s a good idea to schedule separate appointments to focus on this alone. If, however, a patient is unable to return for a dedicated ACP visit, a first step that can be completed in a reasonably short period would be choosing a surrogate decision-maker.

Helping a patient articulate personal values may be eased by asking, "Have you ever thought about what kind of care you would want if you could not make your own decisions?"

Helping a patient articulate personal values may be eased by asking such questions as: “Have you ever thought about what kind of care you would want if the time came when you could not make your own decisions?” or “What worries you the most about possibly not being able to make your own decisions?”²⁷ If the patient is able to identify a surrogate decision maker before the ACP appointment, ask that this person attend. A family member or close friend may remember instances in which the patient expressed health care preferences, and their presence can help to minimize gaps in communication.

Once the patient’s preferences are clear, document them in the medical record. Some preferences may be suitable for translation into POLST orders or an advance directive, but this is less important than the overall discussion. ACP should be an ongoing conversation, since a patient’s goals may change over time. And encourage the patient to share any desired change in plans with their surrogate decision-maker or update the POA document.

Be sure to bill for advance care planning services

To encourage office-based providers to conduct ACP, CMS implemented payment for CPT codes 99497 and 99498.

CPT code 99497 covers the first 30 minutes of face-to-face time with patients or their family members or medical decision-makers. This time can be used to discuss living wills or advance directives.

CPT code 99498 can be applied to each additional 30 minutes of ACP services. Typically, this billing code would be used as an add-on for a particular diagnosis such as heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or pancreatic cancer.

CPT Code 99497 equates to 2.40 relative-value units (RVU) with an estimated payment of $85.99, while CPT code 99498 equates to 2.09 RVU with an estimated payment of $74.88.²⁸

According to CMS, there is no annual limit to the number of times the ACP codes can be billed for a particular patient. And there are no restrictions regarding location of service, meaning a provider could perform this in an outpatient setting, an inpatient setting, or a long-term care facility. Both physicians and non-physician practitioners are allowed to bill with this code. Also worth noting: You don’t need to complete any particular documentation for a visit to be billed as an ACP service. CMS provides a helpful Q & A at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched/Downloads/FAQ-Advance-Care-Planning.pdf.

CORRESPONDENCE
John Liantonio, MD, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Department of Family and Community Medicine, 1015 Walnut Street, Suite 401, Philadelphia, PA 19107; john.liantonio@jefferson.edu

CASE › Charles T, age 74, has a 3-year history of myocardial infarction (MI) and congestive heart failure (CHF) and a 10-year his-tory of type 2 diabetes with retinopathy. You have cared for him in the outpatient setting for 8 years. You are notified that he is in the emergency department (ED) and being admitted to the hospital, again. This is his third ED visit in the past 3 months; he was hospitalized for 6 days during his last admission 3 weeks ago.

What should you do with this information? How can you best communicate with the admitting team?

Hospital readmissions are widespread, costly, and often avoidable. Nearly 20% of Medicare beneficiaries discharged from hospitals are rehospitalized within 
30 days, and 34% are rehospitalized within 90 days.¹ For patients with conditions like CHF, the rate of readmission within 30 days approaches 25%.² The estimated cost to Medicare for unplanned rehospitalizations in 2004 was $17.4 billion.¹ The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services penalizes hospitals for high rates of readmission within 30 days of discharge for patients with CHF, MI, and pneumonia.

Listen to Dr. Geoffrey Mills' audiocast, Learn how to get reimbursed for postdischarge care“Avoidable” hospitalizations are those that may be prevented by effective outpatient management and improved care coordination. Although efforts to reduce readmissions have focused on improving the discharge process, family physicians (FPs) can play a central role in reducing readmissions. This article describes key approaches that FPs can take to address this important issue. Because patients ages ≥65 years consistently have the highest rate of hospital readmissions,¹ we will focus on this population.

Multiple complex factors are
 associated with hospital readmissions

Characteristics of the patient, physician, and health care setting contribute to potentially avoidable readmissions (TABLE 1).^3,4

Medical conditions and comorbidities associated with high rates of rehospitalization include CHF, acute MI, pneumonia, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, a recent study found that a diverse range of conditions, frequently differing from the index cause of hospitalization, were responsible for 30-day readmissions of Medicare patients.⁵

Use a risk stratification method that captures the issues most likely to cause readmissions in your patient population, or consider using a variety of methods.Identifying those at high risk:
 Why and how


Determining which patients are at highest risk for readmission enables health care teams to match the intensity of interventions to the individual’s likelihood of readmission. However, current readmission risk prediction models remain a work in progress6 and few models have been tested in the outpatient setting. Despite numerous limitations, it’s still important to focus resources more efficiently. Thus, we recommend using risk stratification tools to identify patients at high risk for readmission.

Many risk stratification methods use data from electronic medical records (EMRs) and administrative databases or self-reported data from patients.⁷ Risk prediction tools that are relatively simple and easy to administer or generate through EMRs—such as the Probability of Repeated Admission (Pra),⁸ the LACE (Length of stay, acuity of the admission, comorbidities, ED visits in the previous 6 months) index,⁹ or the Community Assessment Risk Screen (CARS)¹⁰—may be best for use in the primary care setting. These tools generally identify key risk factors, such as prior health care utilization, presence of specific conditions such as heart disease or cognitive impairment, self-reported health status, absence of a caregiver, and/or need for assistance with daily routines.

Many of these tools have been used to identify high-risk older adults and may not be appropriate for patients who are likely to be readmitted for different reasons, such as mental illness, substance abuse, or chronic pain. Therefore, it is important to use a risk stratification method that captures the issues most likely to cause readmissions in your patient population, or to consider using a variety of methods.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) offers resources to help FPs design methods for determining a patient’s health risk status and linking higher levels of risk to increasing care management at http://www.aafp.org/practice-management/pcmh/initiatives/cpci/rscm.html.

CASE › Mr. T has been admitted to the hospital 3 times in the past 3 months, so you use the lace index to evaluate his risk. You determine that Mr. T’s score is 15, which means his expected risk of death or unplanned readmission is 26.6% (TABLE 2).^8,11 What are your next steps?

Foster communication between
 the hospital and outpatient office

Patients are particularly vulnerable during the transition from hospital to home. Delayed or inaccurate information adversely affects continuity of care, patient safety and satisfaction, and efficient use of resources.¹² Discharge summaries are the main method of communication between providers, but their content, timeliness, availability, and quality frequently are lacking.¹³ Discharge summaries are available at only 12% to 34% of first postdischarge visits, and these summaries often lack important information such as diagnostic test results (33%-63%) or discharge medications (2%-40%).¹² Although researchers have not consistently found that transferring a discharge summary to an outpatient physician reduces readmission rates, it is likely that direct communication can improve the handoff process independent of its effects on readmissions.^12,14

Timely follow-up appointments
 are essential


Many factors influence the need for rapid follow-up, including disease severity, management complexity, ability of the patient to provide sufficient self-care, and adequacy of social supports.^15,16 Studies have found that discharged patients who receive timely outpatient follow-up are less likely to be readmitted.^1,17 While the optimal time interval between discharge and the first follow-up appointment is unknown, some literature supports follow-up within 4 weeks.^15,18 However, because readmissions often cluster in the first several days or week following discharge,¹⁸ follow-up within the first 2 weeks (and within the first week for higher-risk patients) may be appropriate.¹⁹ Ideally, follow-up appointments should be scheduled before the patient is discharged. Patients who schedule a follow-up appointment before they are discharged are more likely to make their follow-up visit than those who are asked to call after discharge and schedule their own appointment.¹²

Set up a follow-up appointment within one or
 2 weeks of discharge, depending upon the patient’s risk of readmission.Employ outpatient 
follow-up alternatives

Follow-up telephone calls to patients after discharge help patients understand and adhere to discharge instructions and troubleshoot problems. Clinicians who use scripted telephone calls can evaluate symptoms related to the index hospitalization, provide patient education, schedule relevant appointments or testing, and, most importantly, initiate medication reconciliation, which is described at right.²⁰ The FIGURE includes the script we use at our practice.

Home visits may be appropriate for certain patients, including the frail elderly. Home visits allow clinicians to evaluate the patient’s environmental safety, social sup port, and medication adherence.¹² Preventive home visits generally have not been found to reduce hospital readmissions, but do enhance patient satisfaction with care.²¹

Bundled interventions, such as alternating home visits and follow-up telephone calls, may be more effective than individual interventions in reducing readmission.²²

Reconciling medications may have far-reaching benefits


Medication discrepancies are observed in up to 70% of all patients at admission or discharge and are associated with adverse drug events (ADEs).²³ To prevent ADEs and possibly readmission, take the following steps to reconcile a patient’s medications²³:

Obtain a complete list of current medications. Information on all of the patient’s prescription and nonprescription medications should be collected from the patient/caregiver, the discharge summary, prescription bottles, home visits, and pharmacies.^12,24

Reconcile preadmission and postdischarge medications. Clarify any discrepancies, review all medications for safety and appropriateness, and, when appropriate, resume any held medications and/or discontinue unnecessary ones.

Research shows that patients who received a phone call from a pharmacist within 3 to 7 days of discharge had lower readmission rates.Enlist pharmacy support. Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to review indications as well as potential duplication and interactions of a patient’s medications. Inpatient studies have demonstrated that partnering with pharmacists results in fewer ADEs.12,25 One study showed that patients at high risk for readmission who received a phone call from a pharmacist 3 to 7 days after discharge had lower readmission rates.26 The pharmacist reconciled the patients’ medications and ensured that patients had a clear understanding of each medication, its common safety concerns, and how often they were supposed to take it.26

Make medication adherence
 as easy as possible


As many as half of all patients don’t take their medications as prescribed.²⁷ There is limited data on health outcomes associated with medication nonadherence, and existing data frequently are contradictory—some studies have found that as many as 11% of hospital admissions are attributed to nonadherence, while others show no association.²⁸

A patient who understands the purpose of a recommendation—especially when directly linked to a patient-derived goal—may be more likely to adhere to a plan of care.Factors that affect adherence include psychiatric or cognitive impairment, limited insight into disease process or lack of belief in benefit of treatment, medication cost or adverse effect profile, poor provider-patient relationship, limited access to care or medication, or complexity of treatment.²⁹ To promote medication adherence, consider the following educational and behavioral strategies³⁰:

Identify patients at risk for nonadherence. This includes those with complex regimens and/or uncontrolled disease states or symptoms.

Increase patient communication and counseling. Patient education, particularly on the importance of adherence, is one of the few solo interventions that can improve compliance.³¹ Involving caregivers and using both verbal and written materials provides additional benefit.^31,32

Simplify dosing schedules. Simple, convenient medication regimens may im- prove adherence. For example, adjusting dosing from 3 times a day to once a day can increase adherence from 59% to 83%.³³ Aids such as pillboxes to organize medications may be of benefit.^29,32

Ensure consistent follow-up. Patients who miss appointments are more likely to be nonadherent. They may benefit from easy access, help with scheduling, and frequent visits.³²

Be mindful of patients’ out-of-pocket expenses. Reducing copayments improves adherence rates.³⁰

Minimize polypharmacy. Polypharmacy has been independently associated with nonadherence and increased risk for ADEs.³⁴

Identify patients who have limited health literacy. Limited health literacy may be linked to increased medication errors and nonadherence.^12,35 Patients with low health literacy may be unable to identify medications recorded in their medical record. TABLE W3^36-41 outlines strategies for identifying patients with low health literacy and improving communication with them.

CASE › By speaking with hospital staff before Mr. T is discharged, you are able to confirm that he has scheduled a follow-up visit with you for one week after discharge, and that a discharge summary will be available for him to bring to that visit. Mr. T brings his discharge summary with him to your office, and you reconcile his medication list. Because he is your last patient of the day, you have some time to sit with him and his wife to explore his goals of care.

Improve care—and possibly reduce readmissions—through goal setting

Goal setting is an important element of postdischarge follow-up, particularly for elderly patients and those with progressive or end-stage diseases. Goal setting can improve patient care by linking care plans with desired outcomes and keeping diagnostic and therapeutic interventions relevant to the patient.⁴² A patient who understands the purpose of a recommendation—especially when directly linked to a patient-derived goal—may be more likely to adhere to the plan of care.

Asking patients to articulate their goals of care using “Ask-Tell-Ask” framework described in TABLE W3^36-41 will allow you to deliver the prognosis, reinforce treatment options to achieve patient-specific goals, empower patients to assert their preferences, and develop a follow-up plan to see if treatment is successful.

Empowering patients

Consider using both verbal and written approaches when educating patients about self-care behaviors such as monitoring symptoms and adhering to dietary/behavior restrictions and medication instructions. One study showed that a brief one-on-one patient education session decreased readmissions in patients with heart failure,⁴³ although another study found that patient education alone yielded a nonsignificant decrease.⁴⁴

Providing caregivers with education and support is a critical and perhaps overlooked opportunity to reduce readmissions.⁴⁵ Involving key family members in discharge planning, preparation, follow-up, and ongoing management is essential in caring for patients with functional deficits and/or complex care needs. Educating caregivers can help them feel more prepared and effective in their roles.

Establish an “action plan.” For patients with chronic, periodically symptomatic diseases such as asthma and heart failure, action planning can be useful. Action plans should include information that reinforces patients’ daily self-care behaviors and instructions for what to do if symptoms get worse. Action planning also might include simple if-then plans (“if x happens, then I will do y”), which can help with problem solving for common scenarios. Action plans have been shown to reduce admissions for children with asthma⁴⁶ and adults with heart failure when coupled with home monitoring or telephone support from a registered nurse.^16,47

Generate an individualized care plan for each patient, taking into account your patient’s health literacy, goals of care, and level of social support. This care plan may include educational and behavioral interventions, action planning, and follow-up plans. Most successful approaches to reducing readmissions have included both system-level and patient-level interventions that use an interdisciplinary team of providers.⁴⁸

Make the most of follow-up visits. The traditional 15-minute FP visit can make it challenging to provide the level of care necessary for recently discharged patients. Multiple models of team-based care have been proposed to improve this situation, including using the “teamlet” model, which may include a clinician and one or 2 health coaches.⁴⁹ During each visit, the health coaches—often medical assistants trained in chronic disease self-management skills—see patients before and after the physician. They also contact patients be- tween visits to facilitate action planning and to promote self-management.

Palliative care programs:
 A resource for FPs


Action plans should include information that reinforces patients' daily self-care behaviors and instructions for what to do if symptoms get worse.The growth of palliative care programs in US hospitals has helped increase the emphasis on establishing goals of care. Inpatient-based palliative care consultation programs work with patients and families to establish goals. However, after discharge, many of these goals and plans begin to unravel due to gaps in the current health care model, including lack of follow-up and support.⁵⁰ Outpatient palliative care programs have begun to address these gaps in care.⁵⁰ Comprehensive palliative care programs are quickly becoming an important resource for FPs to help address transitional care issues.

CASE › When you ask Mr. and Mrs. T about his goals for treatment, they say are getting tired of the “back and forth” to the hospital. After discussing his lengthy history of worsening CHF and diabetes, you raise the idea of palliative care, including hospice, with the couple. They acknowledge that they have had family members get hospice care, and they are open to it—just not yet. In a "teamlet" model, health coaches meet with patients before and after the physician, and contact patients between visits.The 3 of you craft an “if-then” plan of care to use at home. You schedule a 2-week follow-up visit and remind Mr. T and his wife of your office’s 24-hour on-call service.

CORRESPONDENCE
Danielle Snyderman, MD, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut Street, Suite 401, Philadelphia, Pa 19107; danielle.snyderman@jefferson.edu

CASE › Charles T, age 74, has a 3-year history of myocardial infarction (MI) and congestive heart failure (CHF) and a 10-year his-tory of type 2 diabetes with retinopathy. You have cared for him in the outpatient setting for 8 years. You are notified that he is in the emergency department (ED) and being admitted to the hospital, again. This is his third ED visit in the past 3 months; he was hospitalized for 6 days during his last admission 3 weeks ago.

What should you do with this information? How can you best communicate with the admitting team?

Hospital readmissions are widespread, costly, and often avoidable. Nearly 20% of Medicare beneficiaries discharged from hospitals are rehospitalized within 
30 days, and 34% are rehospitalized within 90 days.¹ For patients with conditions like CHF, the rate of readmission within 30 days approaches 25%.² The estimated cost to Medicare for unplanned rehospitalizations in 2004 was $17.4 billion.¹ The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services penalizes hospitals for high rates of readmission within 30 days of discharge for patients with CHF, MI, and pneumonia.

Listen to Dr. Geoffrey Mills' audiocast, Learn how to get reimbursed for postdischarge care“Avoidable” hospitalizations are those that may be prevented by effective outpatient management and improved care coordination. Although efforts to reduce readmissions have focused on improving the discharge process, family physicians (FPs) can play a central role in reducing readmissions. This article describes key approaches that FPs can take to address this important issue. Because patients ages ≥65 years consistently have the highest rate of hospital readmissions,¹ we will focus on this population.

Multiple complex factors are
 associated with hospital readmissions

Characteristics of the patient, physician, and health care setting contribute to potentially avoidable readmissions (TABLE 1).^3,4

Medical conditions and comorbidities associated with high rates of rehospitalization include CHF, acute MI, pneumonia, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, a recent study found that a diverse range of conditions, frequently differing from the index cause of hospitalization, were responsible for 30-day readmissions of Medicare patients.⁵

Use a risk stratification method that captures the issues most likely to cause readmissions in your patient population, or consider using a variety of methods.Identifying those at high risk:
 Why and how


Determining which patients are at highest risk for readmission enables health care teams to match the intensity of interventions to the individual’s likelihood of readmission. However, current readmission risk prediction models remain a work in progress6 and few models have been tested in the outpatient setting. Despite numerous limitations, it’s still important to focus resources more efficiently. Thus, we recommend using risk stratification tools to identify patients at high risk for readmission.

Many risk stratification methods use data from electronic medical records (EMRs) and administrative databases or self-reported data from patients.⁷ Risk prediction tools that are relatively simple and easy to administer or generate through EMRs—such as the Probability of Repeated Admission (Pra),⁸ the LACE (Length of stay, acuity of the admission, comorbidities, ED visits in the previous 6 months) index,⁹ or the Community Assessment Risk Screen (CARS)¹⁰—may be best for use in the primary care setting. These tools generally identify key risk factors, such as prior health care utilization, presence of specific conditions such as heart disease or cognitive impairment, self-reported health status, absence of a caregiver, and/or need for assistance with daily routines.

Many of these tools have been used to identify high-risk older adults and may not be appropriate for patients who are likely to be readmitted for different reasons, such as mental illness, substance abuse, or chronic pain. Therefore, it is important to use a risk stratification method that captures the issues most likely to cause readmissions in your patient population, or to consider using a variety of methods.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) offers resources to help FPs design methods for determining a patient’s health risk status and linking higher levels of risk to increasing care management at http://www.aafp.org/practice-management/pcmh/initiatives/cpci/rscm.html.

CASE › Mr. T has been admitted to the hospital 3 times in the past 3 months, so you use the lace index to evaluate his risk. You determine that Mr. T’s score is 15, which means his expected risk of death or unplanned readmission is 26.6% (TABLE 2).^8,11 What are your next steps?

Foster communication between
 the hospital and outpatient office

Patients are particularly vulnerable during the transition from hospital to home. Delayed or inaccurate information adversely affects continuity of care, patient safety and satisfaction, and efficient use of resources.¹² Discharge summaries are the main method of communication between providers, but their content, timeliness, availability, and quality frequently are lacking.¹³ Discharge summaries are available at only 12% to 34% of first postdischarge visits, and these summaries often lack important information such as diagnostic test results (33%-63%) or discharge medications (2%-40%).¹² Although researchers have not consistently found that transferring a discharge summary to an outpatient physician reduces readmission rates, it is likely that direct communication can improve the handoff process independent of its effects on readmissions.^12,14

Timely follow-up appointments
 are essential


Many factors influence the need for rapid follow-up, including disease severity, management complexity, ability of the patient to provide sufficient self-care, and adequacy of social supports.^15,16 Studies have found that discharged patients who receive timely outpatient follow-up are less likely to be readmitted.^1,17 While the optimal time interval between discharge and the first follow-up appointment is unknown, some literature supports follow-up within 4 weeks.^15,18 However, because readmissions often cluster in the first several days or week following discharge,¹⁸ follow-up within the first 2 weeks (and within the first week for higher-risk patients) may be appropriate.¹⁹ Ideally, follow-up appointments should be scheduled before the patient is discharged. Patients who schedule a follow-up appointment before they are discharged are more likely to make their follow-up visit than those who are asked to call after discharge and schedule their own appointment.¹²

Set up a follow-up appointment within one or
 2 weeks of discharge, depending upon the patient’s risk of readmission.Employ outpatient 
follow-up alternatives

Follow-up telephone calls to patients after discharge help patients understand and adhere to discharge instructions and troubleshoot problems. Clinicians who use scripted telephone calls can evaluate symptoms related to the index hospitalization, provide patient education, schedule relevant appointments or testing, and, most importantly, initiate medication reconciliation, which is described at right.²⁰ The FIGURE includes the script we use at our practice.

Home visits may be appropriate for certain patients, including the frail elderly. Home visits allow clinicians to evaluate the patient’s environmental safety, social sup port, and medication adherence.¹² Preventive home visits generally have not been found to reduce hospital readmissions, but do enhance patient satisfaction with care.²¹

Bundled interventions, such as alternating home visits and follow-up telephone calls, may be more effective than individual interventions in reducing readmission.²²

Reconciling medications may have far-reaching benefits


Medication discrepancies are observed in up to 70% of all patients at admission or discharge and are associated with adverse drug events (ADEs).²³ To prevent ADEs and possibly readmission, take the following steps to reconcile a patient’s medications²³:

Obtain a complete list of current medications. Information on all of the patient’s prescription and nonprescription medications should be collected from the patient/caregiver, the discharge summary, prescription bottles, home visits, and pharmacies.^12,24

Reconcile preadmission and postdischarge medications. Clarify any discrepancies, review all medications for safety and appropriateness, and, when appropriate, resume any held medications and/or discontinue unnecessary ones.

Research shows that patients who received a phone call from a pharmacist within 3 to 7 days of discharge had lower readmission rates.Enlist pharmacy support. Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to review indications as well as potential duplication and interactions of a patient’s medications. Inpatient studies have demonstrated that partnering with pharmacists results in fewer ADEs.12,25 One study showed that patients at high risk for readmission who received a phone call from a pharmacist 3 to 7 days after discharge had lower readmission rates.26 The pharmacist reconciled the patients’ medications and ensured that patients had a clear understanding of each medication, its common safety concerns, and how often they were supposed to take it.26

Make medication adherence
 as easy as possible


As many as half of all patients don’t take their medications as prescribed.²⁷ There is limited data on health outcomes associated with medication nonadherence, and existing data frequently are contradictory—some studies have found that as many as 11% of hospital admissions are attributed to nonadherence, while others show no association.²⁸

A patient who understands the purpose of a recommendation—especially when directly linked to a patient-derived goal—may be more likely to adhere to a plan of care.Factors that affect adherence include psychiatric or cognitive impairment, limited insight into disease process or lack of belief in benefit of treatment, medication cost or adverse effect profile, poor provider-patient relationship, limited access to care or medication, or complexity of treatment.²⁹ To promote medication adherence, consider the following educational and behavioral strategies³⁰:

Identify patients at risk for nonadherence. This includes those with complex regimens and/or uncontrolled disease states or symptoms.

Increase patient communication and counseling. Patient education, particularly on the importance of adherence, is one of the few solo interventions that can improve compliance.³¹ Involving caregivers and using both verbal and written materials provides additional benefit.^31,32

Simplify dosing schedules. Simple, convenient medication regimens may im- prove adherence. For example, adjusting dosing from 3 times a day to once a day can increase adherence from 59% to 83%.³³ Aids such as pillboxes to organize medications may be of benefit.^29,32

Ensure consistent follow-up. Patients who miss appointments are more likely to be nonadherent. They may benefit from easy access, help with scheduling, and frequent visits.³²

Be mindful of patients’ out-of-pocket expenses. Reducing copayments improves adherence rates.³⁰

Minimize polypharmacy. Polypharmacy has been independently associated with nonadherence and increased risk for ADEs.³⁴

Identify patients who have limited health literacy. Limited health literacy may be linked to increased medication errors and nonadherence.^12,35 Patients with low health literacy may be unable to identify medications recorded in their medical record. TABLE W3^36-41 outlines strategies for identifying patients with low health literacy and improving communication with them.

CASE › By speaking with hospital staff before Mr. T is discharged, you are able to confirm that he has scheduled a follow-up visit with you for one week after discharge, and that a discharge summary will be available for him to bring to that visit. Mr. T brings his discharge summary with him to your office, and you reconcile his medication list. Because he is your last patient of the day, you have some time to sit with him and his wife to explore his goals of care.

Improve care—and possibly reduce readmissions—through goal setting

Goal setting is an important element of postdischarge follow-up, particularly for elderly patients and those with progressive or end-stage diseases. Goal setting can improve patient care by linking care plans with desired outcomes and keeping diagnostic and therapeutic interventions relevant to the patient.⁴² A patient who understands the purpose of a recommendation—especially when directly linked to a patient-derived goal—may be more likely to adhere to the plan of care.

Asking patients to articulate their goals of care using “Ask-Tell-Ask” framework described in TABLE W3^36-41 will allow you to deliver the prognosis, reinforce treatment options to achieve patient-specific goals, empower patients to assert their preferences, and develop a follow-up plan to see if treatment is successful.

Empowering patients

Consider using both verbal and written approaches when educating patients about self-care behaviors such as monitoring symptoms and adhering to dietary/behavior restrictions and medication instructions. One study showed that a brief one-on-one patient education session decreased readmissions in patients with heart failure,⁴³ although another study found that patient education alone yielded a nonsignificant decrease.⁴⁴

Providing caregivers with education and support is a critical and perhaps overlooked opportunity to reduce readmissions.⁴⁵ Involving key family members in discharge planning, preparation, follow-up, and ongoing management is essential in caring for patients with functional deficits and/or complex care needs. Educating caregivers can help them feel more prepared and effective in their roles.

Establish an “action plan.” For patients with chronic, periodically symptomatic diseases such as asthma and heart failure, action planning can be useful. Action plans should include information that reinforces patients’ daily self-care behaviors and instructions for what to do if symptoms get worse. Action planning also might include simple if-then plans (“if x happens, then I will do y”), which can help with problem solving for common scenarios. Action plans have been shown to reduce admissions for children with asthma⁴⁶ and adults with heart failure when coupled with home monitoring or telephone support from a registered nurse.^16,47

Generate an individualized care plan for each patient, taking into account your patient’s health literacy, goals of care, and level of social support. This care plan may include educational and behavioral interventions, action planning, and follow-up plans. Most successful approaches to reducing readmissions have included both system-level and patient-level interventions that use an interdisciplinary team of providers.⁴⁸

Make the most of follow-up visits. The traditional 15-minute FP visit can make it challenging to provide the level of care necessary for recently discharged patients. Multiple models of team-based care have been proposed to improve this situation, including using the “teamlet” model, which may include a clinician and one or 2 health coaches.⁴⁹ During each visit, the health coaches—often medical assistants trained in chronic disease self-management skills—see patients before and after the physician. They also contact patients be- tween visits to facilitate action planning and to promote self-management.

Palliative care programs:
 A resource for FPs


Action plans should include information that reinforces patients' daily self-care behaviors and instructions for what to do if symptoms get worse.The growth of palliative care programs in US hospitals has helped increase the emphasis on establishing goals of care. Inpatient-based palliative care consultation programs work with patients and families to establish goals. However, after discharge, many of these goals and plans begin to unravel due to gaps in the current health care model, including lack of follow-up and support.⁵⁰ Outpatient palliative care programs have begun to address these gaps in care.⁵⁰ Comprehensive palliative care programs are quickly becoming an important resource for FPs to help address transitional care issues.

CASE › When you ask Mr. and Mrs. T about his goals for treatment, they say are getting tired of the “back and forth” to the hospital. After discussing his lengthy history of worsening CHF and diabetes, you raise the idea of palliative care, including hospice, with the couple. They acknowledge that they have had family members get hospice care, and they are open to it—just not yet. In a "teamlet" model, health coaches meet with patients before and after the physician, and contact patients between visits.The 3 of you craft an “if-then” plan of care to use at home. You schedule a 2-week follow-up visit and remind Mr. T and his wife of your office’s 24-hour on-call service.

CORRESPONDENCE
Danielle Snyderman, MD, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut Street, Suite 401, Philadelphia, Pa 19107; danielle.snyderman@jefferson.edu

CASE › Charles T, age 74, has a 3-year history of myocardial infarction (MI) and congestive heart failure (CHF) and a 10-year his-tory of type 2 diabetes with retinopathy. You have cared for him in the outpatient setting for 8 years. You are notified that he is in the emergency department (ED) and being admitted to the hospital, again. This is his third ED visit in the past 3 months; he was hospitalized for 6 days during his last admission 3 weeks ago.

What should you do with this information? How can you best communicate with the admitting team?

Hospital readmissions are widespread, costly, and often avoidable. Nearly 20% of Medicare beneficiaries discharged from hospitals are rehospitalized within 
30 days, and 34% are rehospitalized within 90 days.¹ For patients with conditions like CHF, the rate of readmission within 30 days approaches 25%.² The estimated cost to Medicare for unplanned rehospitalizations in 2004 was $17.4 billion.¹ The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services penalizes hospitals for high rates of readmission within 30 days of discharge for patients with CHF, MI, and pneumonia.

Listen to Dr. Geoffrey Mills' audiocast, Learn how to get reimbursed for postdischarge care“Avoidable” hospitalizations are those that may be prevented by effective outpatient management and improved care coordination. Although efforts to reduce readmissions have focused on improving the discharge process, family physicians (FPs) can play a central role in reducing readmissions. This article describes key approaches that FPs can take to address this important issue. Because patients ages ≥65 years consistently have the highest rate of hospital readmissions,¹ we will focus on this population.

Multiple complex factors are
 associated with hospital readmissions

Characteristics of the patient, physician, and health care setting contribute to potentially avoidable readmissions (TABLE 1).^3,4

Medical conditions and comorbidities associated with high rates of rehospitalization include CHF, acute MI, pneumonia, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, a recent study found that a diverse range of conditions, frequently differing from the index cause of hospitalization, were responsible for 30-day readmissions of Medicare patients.⁵

Use a risk stratification method that captures the issues most likely to cause readmissions in your patient population, or consider using a variety of methods.Identifying those at high risk:
 Why and how


Determining which patients are at highest risk for readmission enables health care teams to match the intensity of interventions to the individual’s likelihood of readmission. However, current readmission risk prediction models remain a work in progress6 and few models have been tested in the outpatient setting. Despite numerous limitations, it’s still important to focus resources more efficiently. Thus, we recommend using risk stratification tools to identify patients at high risk for readmission.

Many risk stratification methods use data from electronic medical records (EMRs) and administrative databases or self-reported data from patients.⁷ Risk prediction tools that are relatively simple and easy to administer or generate through EMRs—such as the Probability of Repeated Admission (Pra),⁸ the LACE (Length of stay, acuity of the admission, comorbidities, ED visits in the previous 6 months) index,⁹ or the Community Assessment Risk Screen (CARS)¹⁰—may be best for use in the primary care setting. These tools generally identify key risk factors, such as prior health care utilization, presence of specific conditions such as heart disease or cognitive impairment, self-reported health status, absence of a caregiver, and/or need for assistance with daily routines.

Many of these tools have been used to identify high-risk older adults and may not be appropriate for patients who are likely to be readmitted for different reasons, such as mental illness, substance abuse, or chronic pain. Therefore, it is important to use a risk stratification method that captures the issues most likely to cause readmissions in your patient population, or to consider using a variety of methods.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) offers resources to help FPs design methods for determining a patient’s health risk status and linking higher levels of risk to increasing care management at http://www.aafp.org/practice-management/pcmh/initiatives/cpci/rscm.html.

CASE › Mr. T has been admitted to the hospital 3 times in the past 3 months, so you use the lace index to evaluate his risk. You determine that Mr. T’s score is 15, which means his expected risk of death or unplanned readmission is 26.6% (TABLE 2).^8,11 What are your next steps?

Foster communication between
 the hospital and outpatient office

Patients are particularly vulnerable during the transition from hospital to home. Delayed or inaccurate information adversely affects continuity of care, patient safety and satisfaction, and efficient use of resources.¹² Discharge summaries are the main method of communication between providers, but their content, timeliness, availability, and quality frequently are lacking.¹³ Discharge summaries are available at only 12% to 34% of first postdischarge visits, and these summaries often lack important information such as diagnostic test results (33%-63%) or discharge medications (2%-40%).¹² Although researchers have not consistently found that transferring a discharge summary to an outpatient physician reduces readmission rates, it is likely that direct communication can improve the handoff process independent of its effects on readmissions.^12,14

Timely follow-up appointments
 are essential


Many factors influence the need for rapid follow-up, including disease severity, management complexity, ability of the patient to provide sufficient self-care, and adequacy of social supports.^15,16 Studies have found that discharged patients who receive timely outpatient follow-up are less likely to be readmitted.^1,17 While the optimal time interval between discharge and the first follow-up appointment is unknown, some literature supports follow-up within 4 weeks.^15,18 However, because readmissions often cluster in the first several days or week following discharge,¹⁸ follow-up within the first 2 weeks (and within the first week for higher-risk patients) may be appropriate.¹⁹ Ideally, follow-up appointments should be scheduled before the patient is discharged. Patients who schedule a follow-up appointment before they are discharged are more likely to make their follow-up visit than those who are asked to call after discharge and schedule their own appointment.¹²

Set up a follow-up appointment within one or
 2 weeks of discharge, depending upon the patient’s risk of readmission.Employ outpatient 
follow-up alternatives

Follow-up telephone calls to patients after discharge help patients understand and adhere to discharge instructions and troubleshoot problems. Clinicians who use scripted telephone calls can evaluate symptoms related to the index hospitalization, provide patient education, schedule relevant appointments or testing, and, most importantly, initiate medication reconciliation, which is described at right.²⁰ The FIGURE includes the script we use at our practice.

Home visits may be appropriate for certain patients, including the frail elderly. Home visits allow clinicians to evaluate the patient’s environmental safety, social sup port, and medication adherence.¹² Preventive home visits generally have not been found to reduce hospital readmissions, but do enhance patient satisfaction with care.²¹

Bundled interventions, such as alternating home visits and follow-up telephone calls, may be more effective than individual interventions in reducing readmission.²²

Reconciling medications may have far-reaching benefits


Medication discrepancies are observed in up to 70% of all patients at admission or discharge and are associated with adverse drug events (ADEs).²³ To prevent ADEs and possibly readmission, take the following steps to reconcile a patient’s medications²³:

Obtain a complete list of current medications. Information on all of the patient’s prescription and nonprescription medications should be collected from the patient/caregiver, the discharge summary, prescription bottles, home visits, and pharmacies.^12,24

Reconcile preadmission and postdischarge medications. Clarify any discrepancies, review all medications for safety and appropriateness, and, when appropriate, resume any held medications and/or discontinue unnecessary ones.

Research shows that patients who received a phone call from a pharmacist within 3 to 7 days of discharge had lower readmission rates.Enlist pharmacy support. Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to review indications as well as potential duplication and interactions of a patient’s medications. Inpatient studies have demonstrated that partnering with pharmacists results in fewer ADEs.12,25 One study showed that patients at high risk for readmission who received a phone call from a pharmacist 3 to 7 days after discharge had lower readmission rates.26 The pharmacist reconciled the patients’ medications and ensured that patients had a clear understanding of each medication, its common safety concerns, and how often they were supposed to take it.26

Make medication adherence
 as easy as possible


As many as half of all patients don’t take their medications as prescribed.²⁷ There is limited data on health outcomes associated with medication nonadherence, and existing data frequently are contradictory—some studies have found that as many as 11% of hospital admissions are attributed to nonadherence, while others show no association.²⁸

A patient who understands the purpose of a recommendation—especially when directly linked to a patient-derived goal—may be more likely to adhere to a plan of care.Factors that affect adherence include psychiatric or cognitive impairment, limited insight into disease process or lack of belief in benefit of treatment, medication cost or adverse effect profile, poor provider-patient relationship, limited access to care or medication, or complexity of treatment.²⁹ To promote medication adherence, consider the following educational and behavioral strategies³⁰:

Identify patients at risk for nonadherence. This includes those with complex regimens and/or uncontrolled disease states or symptoms.

Increase patient communication and counseling. Patient education, particularly on the importance of adherence, is one of the few solo interventions that can improve compliance.³¹ Involving caregivers and using both verbal and written materials provides additional benefit.^31,32

Simplify dosing schedules. Simple, convenient medication regimens may im- prove adherence. For example, adjusting dosing from 3 times a day to once a day can increase adherence from 59% to 83%.³³ Aids such as pillboxes to organize medications may be of benefit.^29,32

Ensure consistent follow-up. Patients who miss appointments are more likely to be nonadherent. They may benefit from easy access, help with scheduling, and frequent visits.³²

Be mindful of patients’ out-of-pocket expenses. Reducing copayments improves adherence rates.³⁰

Minimize polypharmacy. Polypharmacy has been independently associated with nonadherence and increased risk for ADEs.³⁴

Identify patients who have limited health literacy. Limited health literacy may be linked to increased medication errors and nonadherence.^12,35 Patients with low health literacy may be unable to identify medications recorded in their medical record. TABLE W3^36-41 outlines strategies for identifying patients with low health literacy and improving communication with them.

CASE › By speaking with hospital staff before Mr. T is discharged, you are able to confirm that he has scheduled a follow-up visit with you for one week after discharge, and that a discharge summary will be available for him to bring to that visit. Mr. T brings his discharge summary with him to your office, and you reconcile his medication list. Because he is your last patient of the day, you have some time to sit with him and his wife to explore his goals of care.

Improve care—and possibly reduce readmissions—through goal setting

Goal setting is an important element of postdischarge follow-up, particularly for elderly patients and those with progressive or end-stage diseases. Goal setting can improve patient care by linking care plans with desired outcomes and keeping diagnostic and therapeutic interventions relevant to the patient.⁴² A patient who understands the purpose of a recommendation—especially when directly linked to a patient-derived goal—may be more likely to adhere to the plan of care.

Asking patients to articulate their goals of care using “Ask-Tell-Ask” framework described in TABLE W3^36-41 will allow you to deliver the prognosis, reinforce treatment options to achieve patient-specific goals, empower patients to assert their preferences, and develop a follow-up plan to see if treatment is successful.

Empowering patients

Consider using both verbal and written approaches when educating patients about self-care behaviors such as monitoring symptoms and adhering to dietary/behavior restrictions and medication instructions. One study showed that a brief one-on-one patient education session decreased readmissions in patients with heart failure,⁴³ although another study found that patient education alone yielded a nonsignificant decrease.⁴⁴

Providing caregivers with education and support is a critical and perhaps overlooked opportunity to reduce readmissions.⁴⁵ Involving key family members in discharge planning, preparation, follow-up, and ongoing management is essential in caring for patients with functional deficits and/or complex care needs. Educating caregivers can help them feel more prepared and effective in their roles.

Establish an “action plan.” For patients with chronic, periodically symptomatic diseases such as asthma and heart failure, action planning can be useful. Action plans should include information that reinforces patients’ daily self-care behaviors and instructions for what to do if symptoms get worse. Action planning also might include simple if-then plans (“if x happens, then I will do y”), which can help with problem solving for common scenarios. Action plans have been shown to reduce admissions for children with asthma⁴⁶ and adults with heart failure when coupled with home monitoring or telephone support from a registered nurse.^16,47

Generate an individualized care plan for each patient, taking into account your patient’s health literacy, goals of care, and level of social support. This care plan may include educational and behavioral interventions, action planning, and follow-up plans. Most successful approaches to reducing readmissions have included both system-level and patient-level interventions that use an interdisciplinary team of providers.⁴⁸

Make the most of follow-up visits. The traditional 15-minute FP visit can make it challenging to provide the level of care necessary for recently discharged patients. Multiple models of team-based care have been proposed to improve this situation, including using the “teamlet” model, which may include a clinician and one or 2 health coaches.⁴⁹ During each visit, the health coaches—often medical assistants trained in chronic disease self-management skills—see patients before and after the physician. They also contact patients be- tween visits to facilitate action planning and to promote self-management.

Palliative care programs:
 A resource for FPs


Action plans should include information that reinforces patients' daily self-care behaviors and instructions for what to do if symptoms get worse.The growth of palliative care programs in US hospitals has helped increase the emphasis on establishing goals of care. Inpatient-based palliative care consultation programs work with patients and families to establish goals. However, after discharge, many of these goals and plans begin to unravel due to gaps in the current health care model, including lack of follow-up and support.⁵⁰ Outpatient palliative care programs have begun to address these gaps in care.⁵⁰ Comprehensive palliative care programs are quickly becoming an important resource for FPs to help address transitional care issues.

CASE › When you ask Mr. and Mrs. T about his goals for treatment, they say are getting tired of the “back and forth” to the hospital. After discussing his lengthy history of worsening CHF and diabetes, you raise the idea of palliative care, including hospice, with the couple. They acknowledge that they have had family members get hospice care, and they are open to it—just not yet. In a "teamlet" model, health coaches meet with patients before and after the physician, and contact patients between visits.The 3 of you craft an “if-then” plan of care to use at home. You schedule a 2-week follow-up visit and remind Mr. T and his wife of your office’s 24-hour on-call service.

CORRESPONDENCE
Danielle Snyderman, MD, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut Street, Suite 401, Philadelphia, Pa 19107; danielle.snyderman@jefferson.edu