Sunday, April 6, 2014

Schafer: New Blue Cross leader wants to move faster

Michael Guyette said he came to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota as president and CEO in January of last year expecting to take over a “broken” organization.
His predecessor had lasted only six months, during which time several top-level executives left. As for market conditions, no one in the health insurance business had ever seen it so chaotic, with implementation of the sweeping Affordable Care Act reform law really getting underway.
Now, about 15 months into the job, Guyette reports that he is “having the time of my life.”
As health care delivery and how we pay for it continues to evolve, Blue Cross is clearly ambitious about its role. The vision statement on top of Guyette’s strategic plan summary reads “We will be Minnesota’s health care leader.”
Whether that describes Blue Cross right now is certainly debatable. It doesn’t have as many people enrolled in its plans as it did in 2008, although with a true statewide presence and annual revenue of $10 billion it’s not exactly an also-ran.
Among health benefits brokers and other market observers in the Twin Cities, Blue Cross is known for being a step or two slow in its marketing and plan design.
Guyette said he doesn’t disagree with that. But he also pointed out that picking up the pace of innovation and adaptation to change isn’t the only priority he’s discussed with the board. With three CEOs in three years, restoring a sense of stability also was a concern.
When Guyette started, he made a point within the first couple of months to at least shake the hand of all of Blue Cross’ more than 3,000 employees. The biggest change in its leadership team was removing the chief operating officer position.
He wanted the organization to be flatter. And to move faster.
“Decisionmaking here was focused on getting 100 percent or 110 percent of the information before making a decision, he said. “We are instilling a culture here where we’re saying go ahead and try new things, pilot [a project], that 80 percent of the information is good enough to make a decision.
“We are trying to move faster. We are piloting more. We are partnering more. We think — we know — that will help us transform health care going forward.”
Guyette’s last job before coming to Eagan to take over at Blue Cross was as president of national accounts for Connecticut-based Aetna, a publicly held, traditional health insurer. He was responsible for the bottom line of a multi­billion-dollar health insurance business that covered about 9 million people who worked for big, ­household-name companies.
Of the “strategic pillars” built into the plan Guyette’s Blue Cross team put together, one he talks about the most is consumer focus. This may sound unremarkable for any business, but by consumer he means the individual in a Blue Cross plan, not necessarily a “customer” like the benefits manager at a big employer who picks an insurer.
More and more of the decisionmaking in health care is falling to the consumer, he said. It’s more than choosing between two different options for insurance based on annual deductibles, but also means making more informed choices for medical care.
“We know how to reach out to those members, we know how to give them information, we know how to connect to them,” he said of the role for Blue Cross. “And, we understand the actuarial risk side very well. We’ve been doing it what, 80 years? That’s not something you can just pick up off the shelf.”
The focus on the consumer is what led to the creation of what Guyette called a “war room” at Blue Cross headquarters with staffers working with providers throughout the state on finding ways to eliminate barriers to effective care. It’s everything from transportation to making sure the Blue Cross member sees the right health care professional the first time.
One example is helping Southern Prairie Community Care (SPCC), a 12-county collaborative in southwest Minnesota that is trying to improve care coordination for people on Medicaid. Blue Cross, through its HMO Blue Plus, is working with SPCC and other stakeholders in the area to identify gaps in the coordination of care in this large rural area.
Asked who is more likely to be an innovation leader in the coming years, a health plan provider like Blue Cross or an integrated clinic and hospital system like Allina Health, Guyette said, “maybe it’s together.”
Minneapolis investor and Blue Cross board chairman Vance Opperman said the executive team under Guyette “is as strong as it’s ever been, certainly as energetic as it’s ever been.” But it’s too soon to tell if the quicker Blue Cross that Guyette described is succeeding in the marketplace.
The just-announced results for 2013 demonstrated stability, and Guyette said he was “pleasantly surprised” by growth in individual plans in January. In the acutely competitive group market in the Twin Cities there was “some slippage,” although he added that those purchase decisions were mostly made last year and he’s confident going into the next cycle.

“We should talk again in a year or two,” he said. “I’d love to know what you are hearing about us then.”

New clinic offers storefront health care

Corvallis’ latest medical practice is not a traditional doctor’s office in a quiet professional center. It’s a storefront clinic in a busy commercial strip, wedged between a coffeehouse and a Mexican restaurant.
CareNow, the latest venture from The Corvallis Clinic, is billed as a “convenience care clinic,” and it’s the first facility of its kind between Salem and Eugene.
The 1,200-square-foot location will open for business Monday in the University Center at 2001 N.W. Monroe Ave., just across the street from the Oregon State University campus.
It will be open seven days a week, including evenings, with 15-minute appointment windows designed to get people in and out quickly. An interactive calendar allows patients to schedule their visits online at the clinic’s website, carenoworegon.com.
The new clinic will be staffed by nurse practitioners and certified medical assistants rather than physicians, which limits the types of care available on-site. CareNow will be able to treat mild illnesses and minor injuries, do checkups and physicals and provide immunizations.
It will also be able to do some quick-turnaround lab tests and fill some patient prescriptions, and patients will check themselves in using touch-screen tablet computers linked into The Corvallis Clinic’s electronic medical records system.
“It’s an opportunity for organizations to provide lower-cost care in a more convenient arrangement,” said Andrew Perry, The Corvallis Clinic’s CEO.
“Our goal is no waiting,” added Norma Soffa, one of two nurse practitioners on staff.
The staffing model also helps to keep costs relatively low. A standard office visit will cost $120, compared to $200 or more for a trip to most Corvallis-area physicians. A sports physical is $50, and a general physical checkup is $180 for an adult or $120 for a child. Prices are posted on the website, and CareNow accepts most insurance plans.
Medical consultation and oversight will be provided by Dr. Robin Lannan, who will act as CareNow’s medical director, as well as Dr. Dennis Regan, the medical director for The Corvallis Clinic.
If a patient comes in with symptoms of a serious health condition such as chest pain, significant shortness of breath or broken bones, they’ll be referred to an urgent care clinic or the hospital emergency room.
CareNow is intended to treat non-emergency cases that come up suddenly and can be handled without stitches, a cast or surgery.
“The best way to think of it,” Soffa said, “is you’re sick and you want to go to the doctor, but your regular doctor can’t see you for a week — that kind of thing.”
While CareNow is the first convenience care clinic in the Corvallis-Albany area, the idea is not new. Similar operations — also known as retail clinics or mini clinics — have popped up rapidly across the country in recent years, with about 1,600 nationwide, many located inside pharmacies or grocery stores.
Among the biggest operations are MinuteClinic, owned by the CVS Caremark pharmacy chain; Healthcare Clinic, affiliated with Walgreens; and the Little Clinic, a subsidiary of Kroger supermarkets.
“It’s all about convenience,” said Ateev Mehrotra, a Harvard professor who has studied the retail clinic phenomenon for Rand Health, a public policy institute of the nonprofit Rand Corp. “People know where the grocery store is.”
And with their more affordable price point, it’s also about filling a niche in the medical marketplace. Mehrotra said his research shows as many as 100 million patient visits a year could be shifted from doctors’ offices and hospital emergency departments to retail clinics with annual cost savings of about $4.5 billion.
“There’s a growing number of people in the United States who have high-deductible health plans,” Mehrotra pointed out. “These clinics offer an alternative to the emergency room.”
Ed Howard, executive director of the nonprofit think tank Alliance for Health Reform, said retail clinics also serve as a kind of relief valve for a health care system already strained by a shortage of primary care doctors. And combined with federally qualified health centers, which have also grown rapidly in recent years, they may also provide some downward pressure on health care costs.
“People have been looking for a more effective, efficient, economical way to deliver care,” Howard said.
Samaritan Health Services, the largest health care provider in the mid-valley, operates several walk-in urgent care sites but has no plans for now to get into the retail clinic business, though it isn’t ruling out the possibility. (The Corvallis Clinic also has one immediate care center in north Corvallis.)
“With health care reform and the increasing demand for health care services, Samaritan is always exploring ways to enhance patient care, whether that be new locations or different delivery models that provide timely and cost-effective care,” said Samaritan spokeswoman Evonne Walls.
But the Corvallis Clinic is betting local residents will respond to CareNow’s combination of convenient location, no-waiting scheduling and low price point. If the experiment is successful, expect to see more CareNow locations popping up around the mid-valley.
“This is our entry into this type of market and setting, and we want to make sure we did it effectively before we decided to expand,” Perry said.
“(But) we also see this as the first of a couple of these kinds of locations we could do in our service area.”

10 Questions: The Healthcare Debate with Zeke Emanuel

BY DAVID GREGORY

1) The success of the Affordable Care Act is partly based on how many young people signed up – As of February, 27 percent of enrollees selecting a marketplace plan are under age 35. Are you worried that premiums will go up next year because not enough young people have signed up?

No. To the extent premiums rise next year, it will be because of health care inflation, not the number of young people in the exchange. Let’s remember that from 2000 to 2009, premiums went up 84% with no exchanges. The key for the future is not to eradicate premium increases entirely; it is to make sure they aren't excessive.
The whole issue of “young invincibles” in the exchanges is a bit of a red herring. The important factor is health, not age. About 10% of people use about 67% of all health care resources. Thus in order for the exchanges to be viable, they need to include enough healthy people to balance the 10% who might need a lot of medical services. Young age is only a proxy for good health. There are plenty of 40 year olds who are just as healthy as the typical 25 year old.
We can expect the proportion of young enrollees to increase as the final data are tallied because we know from Massachusetts that young people tend to be among the last to enroll. But even if the 27% figure doesn’t budge, premiums in the exchange will be stable. The insurance companies expected the percentage of young people to be in the high 20s or low 30s. As the CEO of Aetna indicated, they are more than happy with the age distribution of enrollments so far.
Furthermore, since there was uncertainty about who would enroll in the first few years of the exchanges, the ACA built in protections, such as risk adjustment, risk corridors, and reinsurance, to protect insurance companies who might have too many high cost enrollees. Companies that disproportionately enroll young and healthy people have to compensate companies that disproportionately enroll older and sicker people, which levels the playing field and guards against cherry picking.
For all these reasons, I’m really not worried about the percentage of young invincibles enrolled for year one. The exchanges are stable. Premiums are likely to rise a little but not excessively.

2) Will all those who did not sign up for health insurance be penalized? Will we see the IRS pursuing people who don’t pay penalties?

Funny, the Republicans said such modest penalties were not enough to get people to sign up. I guess 7.1 million people did not agree.
If you don’t sign up for health insurance you will be penalized. The penalties phase in slowly, so they are only $95 or 1% of income (whichever is higher initially) but rise to $695 per adult or 2.5% of income by 2016. But they will be and should be enforced.

3) Should the government disclose how many have started to pay premiums?

They already have. This is not a mystery. The latest data show that between 80 and 85% of enrollees nationwide have started to pay premiums. In Connecticut, it’s actually 92% at last count. And it will rise as insurance companies and exchanges contact people to remind them to pay the premium. Refusal to pay is another red herring issue.
Close to 3 million individuals bought policies in the last month of open enrollment, and some of those policies don’t start until May. People are signing up for coverage because they really want health insurance. And they understand they need to pay their premiums in order to get that coverage.

4) What’s the next test for the law now that the enrollment period is up?

The ACA is designed to improve a $3 trillion sector of our economy. So there will be many “next tests.” It is a never-ending process. Companies that launch e-commerce web sites don’t just put them up and walk away. They require constant attention. The same is true for healthcare.gov and the state exchange web sites.
The two biggest “to-do’s” are to improve the exchanges and concentrate on implementing more cost control measures.
The administration pulled off an incredible feat fixing the website as quickly as they did and exceeding the CBO enrollment projection. But the victory cannot make them complacent. That would be a huge mistake. I would like to see a private-sector style management structure erected to run the federal exchanges, complete with a CEO who has experience in the health insurance industry, and a tech savvy team of e-commerce veterans. Going forward, the exchanges should look like Zappos or REI. That means they need to have a relentless focus on customer service and improving the user experience—reducing the shopping time to 30 minutes, having less than 1 minute wait times for answers from the call center, better tools to help people compare insurance plans, etc.
The second test is sustaining the slowdown in health care inflation. For the past three years, health care has grown at roughly the same rate as the economy overall, which is an historic achievement. The ACA has helped by reducing excessive prices for Medicare managed care plans, home health care agencies, and hospitals. We need to keep this going but we also have to begin transforming how we deliver care. That requires changing the way we pay doctors so that we reward value, not volume. We need to give doctors the right tools and incentives to redesign care so that they keep people healthy, not simply care for them when they are sick.

5) Polling data shows this law is unpopular. Will the fact the White House hit their 7 million target mean Democrats will stop being afraid to be associated with the President and the law in the mid-terms?

I am not the political brother. I do not know how this achievement will influence races in individual states. Let’s just say it is a victory for health reform and it indicates there is plenty of pent up demand for health insurance across the country.

6) Republicans have constantly been trying to amend and repeal the law. Are any of their alternatives plans viable?

Let’s be serious: There has never been a Republican replacement plan. Every plan that Republicans put out, such as the most recent Coburn-Burr-Hatch plan, disappears within 24 hours. They do not comprehensively address cost, quality and access. And when you analyze them just a little bit, it turns out they would significantly increase costs for average Americans. As I pointed out in the New York Times a few months ago, the Coburn-Burr-Hatch plan would have increased costs over $1400 for the average family without guaranteeing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions or improving quality.
The problem for Republicans is that the Affordable Care Act is their health care reform. It adopts a market-based approach—creating exchanges in which private sector health insurance companies compete to offer the best products and individual Americans decide what plan they want. Sounds pretty Republican to me. But if they aren’t happy with the ACA, and they think they can craft another market-based reform that can pass both houses of Congress, they are welcome to do so. I’d be interested to see what they come up with.

7) The US still spends more than two and a half times more than the average for developed countries on healthcare. Will the Affordable Health Care act do anything to reduce this?

The Affordable Care Act is already doing a lot. For the last 3 years health care cost growth has dramatically slowed and is just about even with growth in the economy. Some of this is due to lingering effects of the recession in 2008. But a part of it is undoubtedly due to the ACA. The ACA reduced excessive prices for Medicare managed care plans, home health care agencies, and hospitals. It has also begun to incentivize changes in how care is delivered. Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are groups of physicians and hospitals that provide coordinated care to patients. They are incentivized to reduce wasteful tests and treatments and deliver high-quality, lower cost care. There are over 400 ACOs; some working with Medicare and some with private insurance companies. Many are making tremendous strides in driving efficiency in medicine. As we learn the “secret sauce” to high quality-lower cost care, those lessons will spread.
In addition, the ACA creates new incentives for hospitals to reduce costly errors and duplication. The 30-day hospital readmission rate for Medicare patients was over 19% in 2009. Since the ACA began penalizing hospitals that fail to reduce readmissions, that number has dropped below 18%. That translates in to billions in savings. And in 2015, similar penalties will be imposed on hospitals that fail to lower preventable infections.
Make no mistake; more will have to be done. But the ACA has made a good start in helping with cost control.

8) The health website was riddled with glitches in the beginning, and still had issues even until the last day of enrollment. How should the federal government fix their Web infrastructure issues with the law?

The health insurance exchanges aren’t just a new federal program or a website; they are a giant tech start-up. They need to be operated as such. Luckily, there are plenty of good examples of how to run a successful, start-up-like exchange. Probably the best example is the exchange in Connecticut. It starts with bringing in the right people and empowering them to succeed. In Connecticut, they hired a CEO with insurance experience and surrounded him with other C-suite executives with tech experience. They also instilled a culture of entrepreneurialism that led to the creation of avatars and apps, they kept their web developers on a very short leash, and they created feedback loops designed to identify and fix problems quickly. Nearly everything that was done in Connecticut can be done at the federal level. This isn’t rocket science—and I’d be very surprised if open enrollment wasn’t smoother in November 2014.

9) There’s a lot of talk about improving the law, what do you think needs to be done to make it better?

In my book Reinventing American Health Care, I lay out a strategy for what I call Health Care Reform 2.0. We are reforming a $3 trillion industry—almost 20% of the economy—and we need to constantly be thinking about how to improve it. Here is a short list of to-do items:
  1. Raise the cigarette tax 50 cents per package. This will lower smoking rates by 15-20%. And that will have a huge impact—preventing lung diseases such as asthma and emphysema as well as lung and other cancers. This is something both Democrats and Republicans should be able to get behind; it’s a good to promote health and CBO has shown it would be a money saver.
  2. More competitive bidding. Nobody wants the government setting prices in health care. The ACA required competitive bidding for wheel chairs, oxygen equipment, hospital beds at home and other items. The early efforts have reduced prices for these items by roughly 40%, saving Medicare and seniors billions. We should expand competitive bidding to more health care goods and services. Why not bid out laboratory tests and X-rays, too? And let’s get a committee of private sector procurement specialists to run the competitive bidding process.
  3. More administrative simplification. No one likes paperwork. The ACA contained provisions to encourage the use of electronic claims and payment. But it did not go far enough. Physicians and hospitals should be required to transmit health information and bill insurers electronically, and all quality measures and credentialing should be electronic as well. And we should create a new position in the executive branch whose sole job it is to try to simplify and eliminate health care paperwork—and thus save a lot of money.
  4. More payment reform. We need to push Medicare harder to change how it pays for health care. One of the biggest cost drivers in the U.S. health care system is the fee-for-service payment system that rewards physicians for ordering more tests and treatments and making mistakes that require more services. We need to shift off the fee-for-service system in an orderly way. The government needs to establish a timeline so everyone knows the change. Next it needs to implement alternatives to fee-for-service that already work. There is a program that pays bundled payments for orthopedic and cardiac procedures that has shown to improve quality and save some money. Let’s roll that out over the next few years to more and more physicians. Then let’s start creating bundles for expensive diseases like cancer. Getting more payment reform fast is key.

10) The president and his team went everywhere to market the ACA – even doing “Between Two Ferns” and talking to writers to have them insert “get signed up” lines in their TV shows and movies. Your brother is in the entertainment business, was this proof that Hollywood is a liberal town?

I am not the Hollywood brother either. But I think this makes no sense. There are lots of people in Hollywood who aren’t Democrats. That is just superficial. Just like the media being liberal. Ever hear of Fox?


Friday, April 4, 2014

NHS England attempts (another) digital overhaul with £230m investment in IT


 | On April 4, 2014
The UK’s Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, made a rather bold statement last year. He declared that by 2018 he wants the National Health Service (NHS) transformed into a paperless organisation supported by new digital technologies – which if successful, could save taxpayers a whopping £4.4 billion a year. This gives an organisation that is now over 65 years old and which is sprawled across the country just four years to overhaul legacy systems and hop on the digital bandwagon.
A key milestone in this paperless agenda was revealed this week – NHS England pushed out a strategy document that outlines how it nhsplans to invest £230 million in ‘high quality’ IT systems for General Practices. Something it hopes will go a long way to achieving Hunt’s vision. But, before we get too excited about this, let’s just remind ourselves that the government’s last attempt to overhaul IT in the NHS was a complete and utter disaster. Not only did it waste billions of pounds with suppliers, which frankly have failed to deliver bugger all, but UK taxpayer is still set to dish out hundreds of millions of pounds despite the project having being ‘canned’.
Not only this, but more recently the NHS has faced a backlash over controversial plans to extract, store and sell on ‘unidentifiable’ patient data from GP systems – a subject that Stuart has been following closely for a while now. Needless to say, health IT in the UK has a chequered past and the government has a lot riding on getting it right this time round.

Aim: Bettering the patient experience

The plan, or the ‘operating model’ as NHS England puts it, states that the money is going to be used to improve the quality of GP care by enhancing patients’ experience of services, support and encourage greater integration of care and provide efficiency benefits for practices by reducing paperwork, freeing up more time for the patients. All good in theory.
The general idea is that the £230 million GP funding for IT will be distributed to Clinical Commissioning Groups based on patient population size (CCGs are groups of Practices that work together to plan and design local services across England). NHS England claims that this will ensure “equity across all parts of England based on a core IT service offer”. Alongside this, there will be a range of ‘add-on IT services’ which can be tailored and implemented to fit with local service improvement strategies – but more on that later.
Beverly Bryant, director of strategic systems and technology at NHS England said:
“Digital systems are the foundation upon which to build a modern, efficient and responsive health service. Enabling information to flow between care providers and between providers and patients will help achieve a safe, convenient and personalised health service for all.”
It is hoped that the investment will create online transactions for patients that include booking appointments, ordering repeat prescriptions and accessing individual health records online. It also supports the aim of implementing integrated digital care records across the NHS – the main stumbling block with previous projects – which should give health professionals access to patient information they need, without patients having to provide the same details to multiple agencies.

A push for localisation? 

One of the most interesting points to be taken from this announcement was highlighted by Tracey Grainger, programme head of Primary Care IT at NHS England. She said:
“These arrangements will continue to give general practice providers a choice of high quality clinical IT systems that are tailored to local requirements while enabling the flexibility and innovation we recognise the service needs. This is underpinned by an on-going commitment from NHS England to continue to support and encourage the development of a world class IT infrastructure across health and care.”
The salient point here being one of localisation. The strategy plan outlines that the IT investment will be split into ‘core’ IT services, which includes things like infrastructure, disaster recovery, service desk, training support, and ‘add-on GP IT services’ – which are discretionary and to be aligned with local CCG strategies. For me, this is the smartest thing I have heard so far.
One of the biggest mistakes from the previous National Programme for IT (the multi-billion pound disaster) was that the Health practitioner hold laptop on drawn chalkboardgovernment tried to implement a monolithic, standardised system from the top down, with complete disregard for local requirements. Although all Practices and health services fundamentally provide similar care, they are also bound to have different business processes, capabilities and needs – as is the same with any other sector.
In fact, former NHS chief executive Sir David Nicholson said exactly this to a group of MPs last year when questioned on whether he thought it was possible procure a national IT project for health. His exact words were:
“The idea of ruthless standardisation has proved illusionary…the idea of managing change of that nature, from the top, centrally, simply is not possible.”

Verdict

  1. Although I’m wary of being too optimistic – given that this is an IT health project in the UK – there are some things I like about this. Distributing money based on population size makes sense. Giving the money to CCGs to spend based on local requirements makes sense. Splitting the services into core and add-on makes sense.
  2. However, I do think that the Health Secretary’s 2018 target for a paperless NHS is unrealistic. This is an organisation that is incredibly unique and incredibly complex. Not to say that good work can’t be done in the next four years, but let’s not rush it and let’s learn from mistakes of the past. The last thing we need is another few hundred million pounds of taxpayer money down the drain.


HHS Releases HIPAA Compliance Assessment Tool


By Katie Wike, contributing writer
HIPAA Compliance Assessment Tool
New HHS tool helps providers assess security risks to HIPAA compliance
According to HealthIT.gov, “ONC, in collaboration with the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the HHS Office of the General Counsel (OGC), developed a downloadable Security Risk Assessment Tool (SRA Tool) to help guide” providers through the HIPAA-required assessment.
The Security Risk Assessment (SRA) Tool is meant to help providers in small to medium offices conduct risk assessments and, a HIPAA regulations require providers to regularly examine the way protected health information is handled, this new tool is a valuable asset to those looking for a way to meet the requirement.
“By conducting these risk assessments, healthcare providers can uncover potential weaknesses in their security policies, processes and systems. Risk assessments also help providers address vulnerabilities, potentially preventing health data breaches or other adverse security events. A vigorous risk assessment process supports improved security of patient health data,” wrote HHS in a press release.
"Protecting patients' protected health information is important to all healthcare providers and the new tool we are releasing today will help them assess the security of their organizations," said Karen DeSalvo, M.D., national coordinator for health information technology. "The SRA tool and its additional resources have been designed to help healthcare providers conduct a risk assessment to support better security for patient health data."
"We are pleased to have collaborated with the ONC on this project," said Susan McAndrew, deputy director of OCR's Division of Health Information Privacy. "We believe this tool will greatly assist providers in performing a risk assessment to meet their obligations under the HIPAA Security Rule."


Humana’s latest digital health pilot will test remote patient monitoring for Type 2 diabetes

Over the last nine months, Humana (NYSE:HUM) has undertaken a series of pilot projects aimed at testing the potential of remote patient monitoring in reducing hospital readmissions, improving health outcomes and cut costs.
Its latest program, called Activities in Daily Living, will utilize an engagement platform from Pharos Innovations to help its Medicare Advantage members better manage their Type 2 diabetes at home.
Humana said that select members in Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Texas who have diabetes and take insulin or another diabetes medication will use Pharos’ Tel-Assurance platform to self-report health information like blood sugar levels, symptoms, diet and medication adherence daily. They can use a cellphone, telephone or internet to report the information, which will be reviewed by Tel-Assurance nurses. The nurses who will reach out to the member if any of the data indicates complications or cause for concern.
“We’re expecting to reduce unnecessary inpatient admissions and to improve self-care management,” a Humana rep said in an email.

This is the fourth remote monitoring pilot Humana has launched recently. It partnered with home health monitoring Valued Relationships Inc. and Healthsense on two separate pilots aimed at using sensors and medical alert systems to reduce serious long-term effects of falls and emergencies, and cut unnecessary emergency room visits. The insurer is also working with AMC Health on a pilot program using remote monitoring to improve congestive heart failure outcomes.As health insurers adapt to consumer-driven health and accountable care models, they’re making moves to do a better job of proactively engaging members in their health.
The diabetes pilot will run for six months and include 500 members.


Read more: http://medcitynews.com/2014/04/humanas-latest-digital-health-pilot-will-test-remote-patient-monitoring-type-2-diabetes/#ixzz2xugY0AEI

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Burnt Out Primary Care Docs Are Voting With Their Feet

This KHN story was produced in collaboration with wapo
Janis Finer, 57, a popular primary care physician in Tulsa, Okla., gave up her busy practice two years ago to care full time for hospitalized patients. The lure? Regular shifts, every other week off and a 10 percent increase in pay.
Illustration by Doug Chayka
Lawrence Gassner, a Phoenix internist, was seeing four patients an hour. Then he pared back his practice to those who agreed to pay a premium for unhurried visits and round the clock access to him.  "I always felt rushed," said the 56-year-old. "I always felt I was cutting my patients off."
Tim Devitt, a family physician in rural Wisconsin, took calls on nights and weekends, delivered babies and visited his patients in the hospital. The stress took a toll, though: He retired six years ago, at 62.
Physician stress has always been a fact of life.  But anecdotal reports and studies suggest a significant increase in the level of discontent-especially among primary care doctors who serve at the frontlines of medicine and play a critical role in coordinating patient care.
Just as millions of Americans are obtaining insurance coverage through the federal health law, doctors like Finer, Gassner and Devitt are voting with their feet. Tired of working longer and harder because of discounted insurance payments and frustrated by stagnating pay and increasing oversight, many are going to work for large groups or hospitals, curtailing their practices and in some cases, abandoning primary care or retiring early.
"I was thinking of leaving medicine; I didn't think I could maintain the pace," Gassner said about why he switched to a concierge-style practice with the help of consultant MDVIP.  "I went to bed many nights lying awake, worrying that I missed something."
The timing couldn't be worse. "The lack of an adequate primary care infrastructure in the U.S. is a huge obstacle to creating a high-performing health care system," said David Blumenthal, president of The Commonwealth Fund, a health care research foundation.
A 2012 Urban Institute study of 500 primary-care doctors found that 30 percent of those aged 35 to 49 planned to leave their practices within five years. The rate jumped to 52 percent for those over 50.
Stressed doctors, meanwhile, often mean anxious, dissatisfied patients. Many consumers report feeling shortchanged after waiting weeks or even months for an appointment, only to get a quick once-over and be told there isn't time to address all their complaints in one visit.
"Your actual one-on-one with the doctor is getting to be less and less," said Christine Miserandino, 36, of Valley Stream, N.Y., who sees many doctors to manage her lupus.
Unhappy Doctors, Unhappy Patients

There are no hard national data on physician burnout. But nearly half of more than 7,200 doctors responding to a survey published in 2012 by the Mayo Clinic reported at least one symptom of burnout that indicated a loss of enthusiasm about medicine or cynicism about it. That's up from 10 years ago, when one quarter of doctors reported burnout symptoms in another survey.
A RAND study for the American Medical Association last year found that nearly half of surveyed physicians called their jobs "extremely stressful" and more than one-quarter said they were either "burning out," experiencing burnout symptoms "that won't go away," or "completely burned out" and wondering if they "can go on."  Nonetheless, many described themselves as satisfied with their profession.
But should the happiness of physicians - a fairly privileged lot - be of concern to their patients? Experts answer with a resounding 'yes,' saying that unhappy doctors can make for unhappy patients.
Indeed, one of the drivers of physician dissatisfaction is their sense they are shortchanging patients: that they are too rushed, don't have enough time to listen and aren't always providing good care.
"Being a doctor is a bit like being a parent, where they say you're only as happy as your least happy child," said Martin Kanovsky, 61, an internist in Chevy Chase, Md., who reduced the number of patients he is seeing from 1,200 to 400 last December when he switched to an MDVIP concierge practice. "At the end of the day, if you have one patient who's unhappy, you're unhappy."
Research shows that patients of satisfied doctors are more likely to show up for their appointments and adhere to treatment for diabetes and high blood pressure. Another survey found dissatisfied physicians reporting more difficulty than other doctors in caring for patients.
And in another study, burned-out surgeons were more likely to report having made a major medical error, in the past three months. 
"What drives physician satisfaction is also what patients and payers want - delivering good care. And we're less and less able to do that," said Christine Sinsky, an internist in Dubuque, Iowa, who is working with the AMA to try to improve physician satisfaction. "You spend less time listening to patients, getting to know them, and thinking more deeply about their care." 
'I Knew I Had To Be Able To Sleep At Night'
That was the situation that confronted Janis Finer, who loved - but ultimately left -primary care to work with hospital patients.
Like many physicians, she did not want to be bothered with the business of medicine -dealing with insurers, hiring staff and making bank deposits -and sold her practice to a hospital.
But hospital administrators dictated the pace, telling her she needed to see 22 to 28 patients a day.  "At one point, we were scheduled to see patients every 11 minutes," Finer said.
She was supposed to suggest they schedule another visit if they had more than one or two medical complaints. But Finer worried they wouldn't come back.
"I knew I had to be able to sleep at night," she said. "I was trained to dot every 'i,' and cross every 't' and leave no stone unturned."
If a patient had anemia, for example, she could simply prescribe iron, but she wanted to find out what was causing it. 
But she found she was unable to do such things while seeing so many patients.
At the same time, her income lagged far behind that of her peers in specialties, a pay disparity that irked her more over time. Salaries of primary care physicians were around $220,000 in 2012, according to the 2013 Medical Group Management Association's compensation survey, while specialists were averaging close to $400,000, with cardiologists and orthopedic surgeons earning over half a million dollars.
Efforts to boost compensation for primary care doctors have been largely unsuccessful. Specialists' pay is based largely on procedures, but primary care doctors are usually paid per visit, and not reimbursed for managing their patients' care outside of visits, which can consume a lot of their time.
Richard J. Baron, president of the American Board of Internal Medicine, set out to document how much time a doctor spends managing care and discovered that on a typical day, he or she handles 18.5 phone calls; reads 16.8 e-mails; processes a dozen prescription refills (not counting those written during a visit); interprets 19.5 lab reports; reviews 11 imaging reports; and reads and follows up on 13.9 reports from specialists.
"This is not just busy work -- this is about meeting the patients' needs," Baron said.  "But … it doesn't generate revenue."
'I Used To Be A Doctor; Now I'm A Clerk'

Perhaps the single greatest source of frustration for many physicians is a tool that was supposed to make their lives easier: electronic medical records.
Many do not merely dislike electronic health records - they despise them. "We were surprised by the intensity of their reports," said Mark Friedberg, a physician and co-author of last year's RAND study.
In 2009, President Obama committed billions of dollars to help defray providers' costs of going digital. The goal was to boost coordination of care and to reduce errors and rampant duplication. Most primary care doctors got financial help from the federal government and also face potential penalties beginning next year if they don't use the new systems.
But many physicians say that instead of speeding things up, digital records have slowed them down. They say the designs often frustrate patients and providers -with the doctor's face often turned to the computer screen while the patient is talking.
Digital records often contain numerous, repetitive information fields but leave little room for the kind of personal, nuanced observation that was captured in an old-fashioned doctor's note. And restrictions on who is allowed to input the data have shifted many administrative tasks from medical assistants and nurses to physicians.
Using electronic medical records is often more time-consuming for primary-care physicians than for specialists, because they are often taking more comprehensive medical histories, tracking more tests and lab results and filling in more fields.
"Many physicians said to us, 'I used to be a doctor, now I'm a clerk,'" said Dr. Jay Crosson, a pediatrician and vice president of professional satisfaction for the AMA.
Worsening Shortage Forecast
Meanwhile, the promise of electronic health care records to reduce errors and duplication and facilitate communication has so far gone largely unfulfilled, as far as many doctors are concerned.
John Schumann, a primary care doctor who teaches at the University of Oklahoma's School of Community Medicine in Tulsa, sees patients at three different hospitals, with three different record systems. "They're all different and none of them talk to each other," he said. "That's the kind of thing that drives doctors' nuts."
To ease the burden, some physicians have started using scribes - laptop-carrying assistants who follow them in and out of the exam room.
Scribing is one of several proposals to provide greater support to physicians by giving more responsibility to nurses, health coaches and health educators. But adding personnel involves additional costs, which worries physicians trying to limit their overhead.
The trend line, meanwhile, is troubling. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates the United States will be short 45,000 primary-care doctors in 2020, when 268,000 are projected to be practicing. That compares to a shortfall of 9,000 in 2010, with 254,800 practicing.
Even a recent uptick in medical students who are electing primary care is not enough to avert the projected shortage. Meanwhile, experienced doctors are joining large groups or becoming hospital employees, which some argue reduces clinical autonomy and discretion -such as deciding how much time to spend with patients -and which may potentially drive up health-care costs because hospitals may tack on additional fees to their bills.
"They want a place to shelter from the storm," Blumenthal said.