Published this week in the Harvard Business Review, this intriguing case study tells the story of how Hawaii Pacific Health, a four-hospital system based in Honolulu, worked with its providers to reduce the deluge of needless or low-value administrative tasks required each day by the system’s electronic health record (EHR) platform.
The system’s “Get Rid of Stupid Stuff” (GROSS) initiative created a simple, accessible submission form that allowed providers to flag EHR prompts and workflows ranging from inefficient (printing and scanning discharge papers patients had already signed electronically) to nonsensical (affirming adolescent patients had received proper care for their non-existent umbilical cords). Around 10 percent of suggestions submitted were for prompts that could be immediately eliminated, 15 percent caught gaps in communication and workflow, and the remaining 75 percent identified more complex opportunities for redesign. The GROSS initiative not only freed thousands of labor hours, but also boosted morale by engaging clinicians in the system’s efforts to improve operations.
The Gist: While Hawaii Pacific Health is far from the only system to have successfully engaged its providers in the mission of reducing administrative busywork, this case study provides an example of how sometimes the simplest approaches can be the most effective.
As systems now look to generative AI as the next frontier of bureaucratic efficiency, they will need to optimize workflow processes before automating them in order to avoid ingraining today’s inefficiencies.
On Tuesday, San Francisco, CA-based healthcare navigation company Transcarent announced ten health systems that will form the initial network for its new direct contracting offering for self-insured employers. The participating health systems include prominent systems like Advocate Health, Intermountain Healthcare, Baylor Scott & White Health, and Mass General Brigham, among others.
Transcarent plans to supplement these care delivery networks with virtual care offerings and digital wraparound services, supported by its recent acquisition of virtual care provider 98point6’s physician portfolio. Transcarent CEO Glen Tullman, who launched the company after selling Livongo to Teladoc in 2020, says the new network’s direct contracting package will guarantee same-day payments to providers and also include value-based incentives.
The Gist: Transcarent was founded with the stated goal of lowering healthcare costs for employers, so it’s notable that the company is launching this direct contracting network with a group of big-name systems that aren’t all known for being value-oriented or low-cost.
But these highly sought-after systems may end up forming an appealing “string of pearls” that attracts large employers and consumers to the product. More employers may be enticed to take a look at Transcarent’s direct contracting model, given employer healthcare costs are projected to rise another 7 percent in 2024, after a similar hike in 2023, and competition for talent has begun to soften
—but the ability of the product to deliver value will depend on the incentives and structure of the offering, about which public details are scarce.
This week, all eyes will be on the U.S. Congress as the clock ticks toward a potential government shutdown. Whether lawmakers reach agreement on a continuing resolution to extend funding for30 to 60 days or the government shuts down at midnight this Saturday, it will have direct negative impact on consumer activities and spending in healthcare.
Background:
A shutdown alone is not apocalyptic for consumers: they’ve weathered 20 shutdowns averaging 8 days each since 1976 and recovered productivity shortfalls within 3-6 months. What’s complicating and most problematic for healthcare is its concurrence with equally threatening events and trends inside and outside healthcare:
The resumption of Student Loan debt payments starting in October 1 impacting 900,000 Americans– 90% say they can’t!
The probability the Federal Reserve will increase its federal borrowing rate by 25 basis points to 5.50 thus increasing interest costs and consumer prices.
The slowdown in GDP growth and increase in fuel costs projected by economists and regulators.
Increased workforce-management tension resulting in strikes, walkouts and slowdowns in labor-intense settings like auto manufacturing, nursing homes and hospitals.
Medical inflation: technological advancements, increased demand, rising drug prices, expensive medical equipment, and increased administrative costs are contributors. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for medical care are 5,274.47% higher in 2023 vs. 1935 (a $52,744.67 difference in value). Between 1935 and 2023, medical care experienced an average inflation rate of 4.63% per year, but in that period, working-age consumers who are privately insured paid a disproportionate and growing share projected to exceed 10% in 2023.
The health system’s economics are partially protected from shutdowns since funding for the Medicare and Medicaid is somewhat protected. That’s the status quo.
But the confluence of growing bipartisan Congressional antipathy toward the industry vis a vis regulatory reforms (i.e. price transparency, site neutral payments, DOJ-FTC consolidation constraints et al), high profile congressional investigations (i.e. PBMs and drug prices, role of private equity ownership), administrative orders from the White House and Governors (i.e.medical debt, value initiatives, organ procurement et al) and negative publicity challenging community benefits, CEO compensation and fraudulent activities erode the industry’s good will and expose it to unprecedented consumer risks.
Evidence in support of this assessment is substantial as illustrated in the sections that follow. There are no easy solutions. The U.S. health industry status quo is a B2B2P2C (business to business to physician to consumer) industry in which most decisions impacting what consumers ultimately spend for healthcare products and services are made for them, not by them. The direct costs associated with supply chain, technologies, facilities and R&D are closely guarded secrets. Indirect costs, administrative overhead, off balance sheet activities, partnerships and alliances even more.
What’s clear is that every sector in healthcare will be subject to scrutiny through an uncomfortable lens—the consumer. Prices matter. Service matters. Integrity matters. Transparency matters. Ownership matters. Purpose matters. And whether accurate or not, fair or not, comfortable or not, information accessible to consumers is readily accessible.
The shutdown over the debt limit might happen or be diverted. What will not be diverted is growing discontent with the medical system that the majority of consumers believe wasteful, expensive and self-serving. How the status quo is impacted is anyone’s guess, but it’s a good bet its future is not a cut-and-paste version of its past.
Saturday, Congress voted overwhelming (House 335-91, Senate 88-9) to keep the government funded until Nov. 17 at 2023 levels. No surprise. Congress is supposed to pass all 12 appropriations bills before the start of each fiscal year but has done that 4 times since 1970—the last in 1997. So, while this chess game plays out, the health system will soldier on against growing recognition it needs fixing.
In Wednesday night’s debate, GOP Presidential aspirant Nicki Haley was asked what she would do to address the spike in personal bankruptcies due to medical debt. Her reply:
“We will break all of it [down], from the insurance company, to the hospitals, to the doctors’ offices, to the PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers], to the pharmaceutical companies. We will make it all transparent because when you do that, you will realize that’s what the problem is…we need to bring competition back into the healthcare space by eliminating certificate of need systems… Once we give the patient the ability to decide their healthcare, deciding which plan they want, that is when we will see magic happen, but we’re going to have to make every part of the industry open up and show us where their warts are because they all have them”
It’s a sentiment widely held across partisan aisles and in varied degrees among taxpayers, employers and beyond. It’s a system flaw and each sector is complicit.
What seems improbable is a solution that rises above the politics of healthcare where who wins and loses is more important than the solutions themselves.
Perhaps as improbable as the European team’s dominating performance in the 44th Ryder Cup Championship played in Rome last week especially given pre-tournament hype about the US team.
While in Rome last week, I queried hotel employees, restaurant and coffee shop owners, taxi drivers and locals at the tournament about the Italian health system. I saw no outdoor signage for hospitals and clinics nor TV ads for prescriptions and OTC remedies. Its pharmacies, clinics and hospitals are non-descript, modest and understated. Yet groups like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development (OECD) rank Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN), the national system authorized in December 1978, in the top 10 in the world (The WHO ranks it second overall behind France).
“It covers all Italian citizens and legal foreign residents providing a full range of healthcare services with a free choice of providers. The service is free of charge at the point of service and is guided by the principles of universal coverage, solidarity, human dignity, and health. In principle, it serves as Italy’s public healthcare system.” Like U.S. ratings for hospitals, rankings for the Italian system vary but consistently place it in the top 15 based on methodologies comparing access, quality, and affordability.
The U.S., by contrast, ranks only first in certain high-end specialties and last among developed systems in access and affordability.
Like many systems of the world, SSN is governed by a national authority that sets operating principles and objectives administered thru 19 regions and two provinces that deliver health services under an appointed general manager. Each has significant independence and the flexibility to determine its own priorities and goals, and each is capitated based on a federal formula reflecting the unique needs and expected costs for that population’s health.
It is funded throughnational and regional taxes, supplemented by private expenditure and insurance plans and regions are allowed to generate their own additional revenue to meet their needs. 74% of funding is public; 26% is private composed primarily of consumer out-of-pocket costs. By contrast, the U.S. system’s funding is 49% public (Medicare, Medicaid et al), 24% private (employer-based, misc.) and 27% OOP by consumers.
Italians enjoy the 6th highest life expectancy in the world, as well as very low levels of infant mortality. It’s not a perfect system: 10% of the population choose private insurance coverage to get access to care quicker along with dental care and other benefits. Its facilities are older, pharmacies small with limited hours and hospitals non-descript.
But Italians seem satisfied with their system reasoning it a right, not a privilege, and its absence from daily news critiques a non-concern.
Issues confronting its system—like caring for its elderly population in tandem with declining population growth, modernizing its emergency services and improving its preventive health programs are understood but not debilitating in a country one-fifth the size of the U.S. population.
My take:
Italy spends 9% of its overall GDP on its health system; the $4.6 trillion U.S spends 18% in its GDP on healthcare, and outcomes are comparable. Our’s is better known but their’s appears functional and in many ways better.
Should the U.S.copy and paste the Italian system as its own? No. Our societies, social determinants and expectations vary widely. Might the U.S. health system learn from countries like Italy? Yes.
Questions like these merit consideration:
Might the U.S. system perform better if states had more authority and accountability for Medicare, CMS, Veterans’ health et al?
Might global budgets for states be an answer?
Might more spending on public health and social services be the answer to reduced costs and demand?
Might strict primary care gatekeeping be an answer to specialty and hospital care?
Might private insurance be unnecessary to a majority satisfied with a public system?
Might prices for prescription drugs, hospital services and insurance premiums be regulated or advertising limited?
Might employers play an expanded role in the system’s accountability?
Can we afford the system long-term, given other social needs in a changing global market?
Comparisons are constructive for insights to be learned. It’s true in healthcare and professional golf. The European team was better prepared for the Ryder Cup competition. From changes to the format of the matches, to pin placements and second shot distances requiring precision from 180-200 yards out on approach shots: advantage Europe. Still, it was execution as a team that made the difference in its dominating 16 1/2- 11 1/2 win —not the celebrity of any member.
The time to ask and answer tough questions about the sustainability of the U.S. system and chart a path forward. A prepared, selfless effort by a cross-sector Team Healthcare USA is our system’s most urgent need. No single sector has all the answers, and all are at risk of losing.
Team USA lost the Ryder Cup because it was out-performed by Team Europe: its data, preparation and teamwork made the difference.
Today, there is no Team Healthcare USA: each sector has its stars but winning the competition for the health and wellbeing of the U.S. populations requires more.
Two pioneers of mRNA research — the technology that helped the world tame the virus behind the Covid-19 pandemic — won the 2023 Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology on Monday.
Overcoming a lack of broader interest in their work and scientific challenges, Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman made key discoveries about messenger RNA that enabled scientific teams to start developing the tool into therapies, immunizations, and — as the pandemic spread in 2020 — vaccines targeting the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech partnership unveiled their mRNA-based Covid-19 shots in record time thanks to the foundational work of Karikó and Weissman, helping save millions of lives.
Karikó, a biochemist, and Weissman, an immunologist, performed their world-changing research on the interaction between mRNA and the immune system at the University of Pennsylvania, where Weissman, 64, remains a professor in vaccine research. Karikó, 68, who later went to work at BioNTech, is now a professor at Szeged University in her native Hungary, and is an adjunct professor at Penn’s Perelman School of Medicine.
The duo will receive 11 million Swedish kronor, or just over $1 million. Their names are added to a list of medicine or physiology Nobel winners that prior to this year included 213 men and 12 women.
The award was announced by Thomas Perlmann, secretary general of Nobel Assembly, in Stockholm. Perlmann said he had spoken to both laureates, describing them as grateful and surprised even though the pair has won numerous awards seen as precursors and had been tipped as likely Nobel recipients at some point.
Every year, the committee considers hundreds of nominations from former Nobel laureates, medical school deans, and prominent scientists from fields including microbiology, immunology, and oncology. Members try to identify a discovery that has altered scientists’ understanding of a subject. And according to the criteria laid out in Alfred Nobel’s will, that paradigm-shifting discovery also has to have benefited humankind.
The Nobel committee framed Karikó and Weissman’s work as a prime example of complementary expertise, with Karikó focused on RNA-based therapies and Weissman bringing a deep knowledge about immune responses to vaccines.
But it was not an easy road for the scientists. Karikó encountered rejection after rejection in the 1990s while applying for grants. She was even demoted while working at Penn, as she toiled away on the lower rungs of academia.
But the scientists persisted, and made a monumental discovery published in 2005 based on simply swapping out some of the components of mRNA.
With instructions from DNA, our cells make strands of mRNA that are then “read” to make proteins. The idea underlying an mRNA vaccine then is to take a piece of mRNA from a pathogen and slip it into our bodies. The mRNA will lead to the production of a protein from the virus, which our bodies learn to recognize and fight should we encounter it again in the form of the actual virus.
It’s an idea that goes back to the 1980s, as scientific advances allowed researchers to make mRNA easily in their labs. But there was a problem: The synthetic mRNA not only produced smaller amounts of protein than the natural version in our cells, it also elicited a potentially dangerous inflammatory immune response, and was often destroyed before it could reach target cells.
Karikó and Weissman’s breakthrough focused on how to overcome that problem. mRNA is made up of four nucleosides, or “letters”: A, U, G, and C. But the version our bodies make includes some nucleosides that are chemically modified — something the synthetic version didn’t, at least until Karikó and Weissman came along. They showed that subbing out some of the building blocks for modified versions allowed their strands of mRNA to sneak past the body’s immune defenses.
While the research did not gain wide attention at the time, it did catch the attention of scientists who would go on to found Moderna and BioNTech. And now, nearly 20 years later, billions of doses of mRNA vaccines have been administered.
For now, the only authorized mRNA products are the Covid-19 shots. But academic researchers and companies are exploring the technology as a potential therapeutic platform for an array of diseases and are using it to develop cancer vaccines as well as immunizations against other infectious diseases, from flu to mpox to HIV. An mRNA vaccine is highly adaptable compared to earlier methods, which makes it easier to alter the underlying recipe of the shot to keep up with viral evolution.
As she gained global fame, Karikó has been open about the barriers she encountered in her scientific career, which raised broader issues about the challenges women and immigrants can face in academia. But she’s said she always believed in the potential of her RNA research.
“I thought of going somewhere else, or doing something else,” Karikó told STAT in 2020, recalling the moment she was demoted. “I also thought maybe I’m not good enough, not smart enough. I tried to imagine: Everything is here, and I just have to do better experiments.”
HENRY KOTULA 