WHY HEALTH SYSTEMS SHOULD WORRY ABOUT WALGREENS AND CVS

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/strategy/why-health-systems-should-worry-about-walgreens-and-cvs

 

There’s a building threat from the nation’s two retail drugstore giants to hospitals and health systems as providers move toward value-based care and lower-cost outpatient services.

Even with Amazon threatening to compete with retail drugstore chains CVS Health and Walgreens with its own online pharmacy, these retailers aren’t giving up on brick-and-mortar as a way to attract more patients into their stores.

And that’s bad news for the nation’s hospitals and health systems.

There’s a building threat from the nation’s two retail drugstore giants to hospitals and health systems as medical care providers move away from fee-for-service medicine to value-based care and lower-cost outpatient services.

Walgreens and CVS are looking to healthcare as a way to keep customers coming into their stores, particularly in an era where consumers are fleeing brick-and-mortar to shop online via Amazon.

As front-end retail sales have fallen in recent years, CVS and Walgreens are moving more rapidly into healthcare from simply their historic role of filling prescriptions beyond the pharmacy counter and treating routine maladies with nurse practitioners in their retail centers to more services.

They are partnering more closely with health insurance companies that will work harder to funnel more patients to outpatient healthcare services inside the stores that will make them direct competitors of U.S. hospitals and health systems.

CVS has more than 1,100 retail MinuteClinics compared to 800 five years ago and 400 a decade ago.

CVS was opening 100 clinics per year 10 years ago, and that has slowed because they are now focusing on expanding healthcare services in the clinics as well as their stores generally. The same goes for Walgreens.

Walgreens has increased the services in its retail clinics, advertising the ability of nurse practitioners to conduct routine exams and student physicals and has been aggressively lobbying states across the country to change scope-of-practice laws to allow pharmacists to administer an array of vaccines.

“Why not use those locations as a strategy for healthcare?” Walgreens Chief Medical Officer Dr. Patrick Carroll says of the drugstore chain’s nearly 10,000 locations across the country. “We have the space. We should use it.”

To be sure, Walgreens is looking to provide more physician services like x-rays and procedures by partnering with UnitedHealth Group’s Optum to connect its MedExpress brand urgent care centers to an adjacent Walgreens. Like most retailers, Walgreens’ sales of general merchandise in the front end of the store is falling just as pharmacy sales, personal healthcare, and wellness revenues rise.

In the first such ventures, the Walgreens store and the MedExpress center each have their own entrance with a door inside connecting the urgent care center with the drugstore. It’s designed for a medical provider to guide a patient to either facility depending on their prescription or other needs.

For now, there are 15 locations in six states that have MedExpress urgent care centers connected to Walgreens stores as part of the pilot. The markets include Las Vegas; Dallas; Minneapolis; Omaha, Nebraska; two cities in West Virginia; and Martinsville, Virginia.

“We’re working closely with a number of partners in the healthcare community to bring services closer to our customers,” Carroll said. “With our stores serving as more of a neighborhood health destination, we can best meet the changing needs of our customers, while also complementing our expanded pharmacy services.”

Meanwhile, CVS plans to offer more healthcare services inside its stores after its merger with Aetna closes. CVS executives say they aren’t ruling out developing urgent care centers as well.

CVS’ network of nearly 10,000 pharmacies and over 1,000 retail clinics, and Optum’s growing network of ambulatory facilities like the MedExpress urgent care centers are emerging as a model health insurers want to do business with as fee-for-service medicine gives way to value-based care that keeps patients out of the hospital.

And in CVS’ case, the pharmacy will soon own Aetna, a health plan with more than 20 million members. That combination, which is currently wending its way through the regulatory process, is expected to lead to more narrow network health plans that encourage patients to use providers in the Aetna-CVS network over other health systems’ facilities.

Health systems should be concerned, healthcare analysts say.

“CVS and Aetna, in their own words, are promising to reinvent the front door of American healthcare,” says Kenneth Kaufman, managing director and chair of the consulting firm Kaufman Hall. “That promise should be of serious concern for legacy hospital providers since those providers have occupied that front door for the past 75 years.”

CVS Health President and CEO Larry Merlo is beginning to offer some details to their strategies.

While cautioning that it’s “very early” in the development of new programs the combined company will develop, Merlo has said the larger company plans to first focus on three primary patient populations: those patients with any of five chronic diseases: diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, asthma, and depression.

CVS and Aetna will also focus on “patients undergoing transitions in care,” and a third “broader focus on managing high-risk patients,” Merlo told analysts on the company’s second quarter earnings call in May.

“By extending our new health care model more broadly in the marketplace, patients will benefit from earlier interventions and better connected care leading to improved health outcomes,” Merlo said on September 20 at a CVS Health town hall meeting in Los Angeles.

“Think again about that senior leaving the hospital, knowing that the care plan prescribed by her doctor is being seamlessly coordinated by CVS and her caregiver. By fully integrating Aetna’s medical information and analytics with CVS Health’s pharmacy data and our 10,000 community locations, we can enable more effective treatment of the whole patient,” he says.

 

What’s Driving Health Care Costs?

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180625.872430/full/?utm_term=Read%20More%20%2526gt%3B%2526gt%3B&utm_campaign=Health%20Affairs%20Sunday%20Update&utm_content=email&utm_source=2018-06-24&utm_medium=email&cm_mmc=Act-On%20Software-_-email-_-ACA%20Round-Up%3B%20Health%20Care%20Costs%3B%20Medicaid%20Expansion%3B%20Prescription%20Drug%20Monitoring%20Programs-_-Read%20More%20%2526gt%3B%2526gt%3B

Value-based payment (VBP) models are an effort to rein in the growth of health care costs and improve quality. However, it’s unclear what overall impact VBP models are having on health care costs. Even though health care is provided at the local level, most evaluations examine health care spending at the national level. To address this disconnect, we conducted quantitative and qualitative market-level assessments. Our goals were to examine the impact of population-based, value-based care within a market; identify what measurable factors were associated with differing costs; and understand how business leaders are thinking about value-based care and cost reduction.

Leavitt Partners, the Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA), and McManis Consulting, with participation from Mark McClellan at Duke University, conducted three mixed-methods studies:

  1. Growth of Population-Based Payments Is Not Associated with a Decrease in Market-Level Cost Growth, Yet” examined the impact of population-based VBP on per-beneficiary-per-year (PBPY) health care spending and quality of care. The study used growth curve modeling and fixed-effects regression analyses of Medicare and commercial claims data.
  2. Market Factors Associated with Medicare Costs and Cost Growth” examined which market factors are correlated with PBPY health care costs and cost growth within a market using growth curve modeling. The study used and aggregated multiple data sets from public and private sources.
  3. What Is Driving Total Cost of Care? An Analysis of Factors Influencing Total Cost of Care in U.S. Health Care Markets” combined qualitative interviews conducted during site visits of nine markets and the quantitative findings from the studies above to understand factors that may be influencing total cost of care in US health care markets.

Key findings from the studies include:

  • Based on data from 2015, there was no association between an increase in population-based VBP and slowing of health care costs in a given market. Our study did not include episode-based payments.
  • Health care leaders across markets believe further changes to payment and delivery models are coming. Less clear is what, or who, will be the catalyst to push further change.
  • Some stakeholders expressed stronger support for other types of VBP models, including episode-based models and models that address the needs of specific patient groups.
  • The question of “what type of competition” in a market may be more important than “how much” competition. Lower-cost markets featured competition among a few health systems with well-aligned physician practices and geographic coverage across their market.
  • Lower-cost markets appear to benefit from organized mechanisms, including state-sponsored or endorsed reporting agencies, for more transparent sharing of information on provider quality and costs.Based on quantitative and qualitative evidence, the studies contribute to our understanding of the dynamics of competition, integration, and transparency on health care costs in a market. Below, we summarize findings from the three mixed-method studies and provide some policy implications.

Population-Based VBP Models Are Not Lowering Market-Level Health Care Costs … Yet

VBP dates back to 2005 with the Physician Group Practice Demonstration. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) significantly accelerated the proliferation of VBP models with the creation of the Medicare Shared Savings Program(MSSP) and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, which was tasked with developing and testing innovative new models. Commercial VBP arrangements have also taken hold in the years since the ACA’s passage.

Given the growth of VBP, we wanted to examine whether, in the first few years following the ACA, these models were influencing the total cost of care. We used Medicare data from 2012 to 2015 and commercial data from 2012 to 2014 to assess the early impact of these models. We restricted our study to population-based VBPs, which included models with upside risk only (shared savings), both upside and downside risk, and global budgets, but excluded episode-based (bundled) payments.

We did not find a statistical relationship between the level of penetration of population-based VBPs in a market and a decline in health care costs for Medicare or commercial payers. Nor did we find an improvement in quality. When we limited our analysis to just those markets with higher levels of population-based VBP penetration (at least 30 percent), our results suggested a very modest, not statistically significant, market-level decrease in cost growth. Despite this null finding, our results provide an important baseline for future research.

Possible Explanations

There are several potential explanations for the null findings. For one, our study period (2012–15) may simply have been too early to see signs of population-based VBP lowering health care costs. Although today 561 MSSP accountable care organizations (ACOs) (the largest of Medicare’s ACO programs) cover 10.5 million beneficiaries, at the beginning of our study period in 2012 and 2013, only 220 MSSP ACOs covered 3.2 million beneficiaries. Many interviewees told us not enough lives were covered under VBP. Indeed, in some markets, less than 1 percent of lives were part of a VBP arrangement.

Second, although participation in population-based VBP models is growing, few models involve the provider taking on downside risk. As of 2018, the majority (82 percent) of MSSP ACOs were in the non-risk-bearing Track 1, which means they share in savings if they spend less money than their assigned benchmark, but they will not incur financial losses if they spend more than the benchmark. Our site visits found that although different markets had varying levels of population-based VBP activity, no market had significant numbers of providers participating in downside risk. Several interviewees stressed the need to take incremental steps to more risk.

Fee-for-service payment remains quite profitable for many providers and health systems. Even for those that have begun to take on risk-based contracts, fee-for-service payment represents the majority of total revenue. As long as the status quo remains lucrative, it’s difficult to make the business case for why a provider should undertake the effort to switch to a value-based focus that may lead to a reduction in use and total revenue.

Still, several interviewees said they believed the move toward paying for value would continue, even if there’s some uncertainty over whether Medicare or private payers will lead the movement. It’s possible that when VBP models outweigh fee-for-service payments in a market, we’ll reach a “tipping point” and health care cost growth will decline. Many interviewees expressed enthusiasm for other VBP models, such as those based on episodes of care (bundled payments) and those designed for specific populations (for example, the frail elderly). These models may make more sense for specialty providers who perform a certain type of procedure or care for a certain type of patient.

Other Market Factors

If these initial population-based VBPs results don’t show a relationship to health care cost growth, then which market-level factors do correlate? For our second quantitative analysis, we used a variety of public and private data sources to examine the relationship among several market-level factors beyond value-based payment and Medicare costs and cost growth between 2007 and 2015. All the factors together explained 82 percent of variation in baseline Medicare costs (Exhibit 1). 

The prevalence of chronic diseases was the most influential predictor of market costs, accounting for 41.5 percent of the variance. Hospital quality metrics, market socioeconomic status, and the concentration of hospitals and insurers also helped explain market-level costs.

Using these same factors to predict Medicare cost growth was less fruitful, explaining only 27 percent of the variation in Medicare cost growth—substantially less than the 82 percent of baseline costs. As Exhibit 2 shows, a much weaker association exists between chronic disease prevalence and Medicare cost growth. Significant additional research should be done to identify factors that predict cost growth.

These findings matter for several reasons. First, they reinforce efforts currently underway to contain costs, including strategies to prevent and better manage chronic conditions, reduce hospital readmissions, and reduce the number of individuals without insurance. Second, although we know less about what drives health care cost growth in a market, meaningfully reducing spending in a market relies on developing strategies that target cost growth, instead of baseline costs. More research that focuses on what’s driving cost growth is needed.

The Role Of Competition And Transparency On Costs

The interviews we conducted add insights into these market-level findings. We identified two distinguishing characteristics of higher- and lower-cost markets: type of competition in the market and degree of transparency in the market. We recognize that while there are some common lessons, health care markets differ significantly and their approaches to care, costs, and VBP models will vary.

Competition

We know competition can help drive down costs and increase quality in health care markets. However, how much competition, and what type, seems to make a difference. For example, we found that the lower-cost markets in our nine site visits had at least one integrated delivery system. Consolidation in these markets had resulted in two to four health systems with geographic coverage across the market. In these markets, physicians were generally employed by the health system or worked in close alignment with it. Health plan competition matters as well, particularly with respect to innovation in new payment and care delivery models. Portland, Oregon, and Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, two of the lowest-cost markets, both had competitive health plan landscapes.

Conversely, the markets we visited with less integration and seemingly more provider competition actually had higher costs. These included Los Angeles, California (which had higher Medicare costs only), Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. One reason for this may be that there is less focus on addressing unnecessary use in these markets.

Transparency

Transparency is often cited as a strategy that will help contain costs. Similar to competition, the type of transparency effort matters. We found that some lower-cost markets seemed to benefit from organized transparency mechanisms, including state-sponsored or endorsed reporting agencies and employer coalitions that made information on provider quality and costs publicly available. For example, in 2005, the Minnesota Medical Association and health plans in the state together formed MN Community Measure, a nonprofit organization tasked with the collection and dissemination of data on the quality and cost of providers across the state. Today, providers are required to submit data to the organization. Our interviewees expressed optimism but acknowledged more work is needed to optimize consumer-oriented transparency tools, which research has so far shown to have had only minimal use.

Policy Recommendations

Our research led us to three primary policy recommendations to help improve health care quality and lower costs (for additional ones, see the fullstudies).

  1. Continue movement toward payment models that increase financial incentives to manage total cost of care and closely monitor the impact of doing so because our findings show that the majority of payments in a market continue to flow through fee-for-service, instead of value-based arrangements. Experiments should continue with population-based VBP models but should not be confined exclusively to these models. Episode-based payment models, for example, may be better suited to certain types of providers who perform a certain procedure (for example, a knee replacement) instead of care for a general population of patients.
  2. Balance the benefits of competition with the benefits of integration. The lower-cost markets we studied had competition among two and four systems with well-organized provider networks that had been developed through vertical integration or strong alignment of physician practices. Most of the lower-cost markets also had an integrated delivery system—with vertically integrated health plan, hospital, and physician capabilities—as a competitor in the market.
  3. Support more transparent sharing of information on health care cost and quality within markets. Lower-cost markets in the qualitative study had organized mechanisms for the sharing of information on health care cost and quality, whether through employer coalitions, statewide reporting agencies, or both.

Although differences exist among each health care market, all markets can act to improve quality and reduce costs. Our studies suggest several actions different stakeholders in each market can take to improve care for their populations.

 

 

Bill Gates thinks an infectious disease outbreak could kill 30 million people at some point in the next decade — here’s how worried you should be

http://www.businessinsider.com/pandemic-risk-to-humanity-2017-9

http://www.globalgoals.org/goalkeepers/datareport/

bill gates

As hurricanes and other natural disasters ravage the world and the threat of nuclear war looms, it’s hard to assess which risks for humanity are really the scariest right now.

But one of the biggest threats out there is one of the oldest: infectious disease, which can emerge naturally or be human-made, as in a case of bioterrorism.

As Bill and Melinda Gates wrote in their recently released “Goalkeepers” report, disease — both infectious and chronic — is the biggest public health threat the world faces in the next decade. And although Gates said on a press call that “you can be pretty hopeful there’ll be big progress” on chronic disease, we are still unprepared to deal with the infectious variety.

Gates has repeatedly stated that he sees a pandemic as the greatest immediate threat to humanity on the planet.

“Whether it occurs by a quirk of nature or at the hand of a terrorist, epidemiologists say a fast-moving airborne pathogen could kill more than 30 million people in less than a year,” Gates wrote in an op-ed for Business Insider earlier this year. “And they say there is a reasonable probability the world will experience such an outbreak in the next 10-15 years.”

Gates is right about the gravity of that threat, according to experts in the field.

George Poste is an ex officio member of the Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense, a group created to assess the state of biodefense in the US,.

“We are coming up on the centenary of the 1918 influenza pandemic,” he told Business Insider. “We’ve been fortunately spared anything on that scale for the past 100 years, but it is inevitable that a pandemic strain of equal virulence will emerge.”

The 1918 pandemic killed approximately 50 million people around the globe, making it one of the deadliest events in human history.

David Rakestraw, a program manager overseeing chemical, biological and explosives security at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Tom Slezak, the laboratory’s associate program leader for bioinformatics, also agree with Gates.

“Both natural and intentional biological threats pose significant threats and merit our nation’s attention to mitigate their impact,” they told Business Insider in an email.

It’s possible that a major outbreak could be intentionally created as the result of a biological weapon, but Poste thinks a serious bioterrorism attack is unlikely due to the complexity of pulling something like that off.

It’s very likely, however, that a highly dangerous disease would naturally emerge — and the consequences of that pandemic would be just as severe.

Regardless of how a disease starts to spread, preparedness efforts for pandemics are the same, according to Poste. And the recent outbreaks of Zika and Ebola have highlighted the need for more heightened disease surveillance capabilities. We’re still getting a handle on the health effects of Zika — and it seems like the mosquito-borne disease may be even more severe than we thought.

Experts have long advocated for better ways to recognize emerging threats before they become epidemics or pandemics. Poste also said we need to improve rapid diagnostic tests and get better at developing new therapeutics and vaccines — something Gates highlighted as a weakness in the “Goalkeepers” report as well.

Until that happens, that threat remains far more real than many of us realize.

 

Health Law Coverage Has Helped Many Chronically Ill — But Has Still Left Gaps

Health Law Coverage Has Helped Many Chronically Ill — But Has Still Left Gaps

Insulin injection pen

As President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress devise a plan to replace the 2010 health law, new research suggests a key component of the law helped people with chronic disease get access to health care — though, the paper notes, it still fell short in meeting their medical needs.

Research published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that the number of chronically ill Americans with insurance increased by about 5 percentage points — around 4 million people — in 2014, the first year the law required Americans to have coverage, set up marketplaces for people to buy coverage and allowed for states to expand eligibility for Medicaid, the federal-state insurance plan for low-income people. If states opted into the Medicaid expansion, people with chronic illnesses such as heart disease, diabetes, depression and asthma were more likely to see those gains.

Still, the study suggests, the law fell short in terms of guaranteeing those people could get medical treatment, see a doctor and afford medications.

Diagnosing why innovation hasn’t stopped healthcare productivity declines

Diagnosing why innovation hasn’t stopped healthcare productivity declines

search,

Autonomous vehicles. Augmented reality. Artificial Intelligence.

The world is undergoing radical transformation via technological innovation. Healthcare is not immune to this trend and has lately unleashed its own wonders from CRISPR to 3D-printed prosthesis to sensor-enabled pills. We can truly transform lives in ways unimaginable even just 10 years ago.

In other ways, however, healthcare lags.

In transportation, Google’s first “driverless” Street View cars were on the road a scant few years after the DARPA Grand Challenges of the mid-2000s that paved the way for them, and Uber become a verb in the same amount of time it takes to implement a current EHR system. Furthermore, Amazon’s chatty Alexa now interacts with you in your home, having arrived just a short time after Siri became the personal assistant in your pocket.

Healthcare innovation has been incapable of gaining similar traction even with profound technological advances.

There is an unmentionable dark side of healthcare innovation.

Advances in productivity via utilization of new tools and technologies has been anemic. Healthcare is struggling to keep pace with other industries. In fact, in a recent McKinsey study, healthcare is one of only two industries (construction is the other) that has shown a productivity decline. Read that again: Despite IT spending growth increasing by over 5 percent per year over the last 10 years, we’ve actually seen the healthcare labor pool and service environment become less efficient!

Addressing Health In America To Build Wealth

Addressing Health In America To Build Wealth

Blog_paperwork calculator

Briefing Recap: Barriers To Care For Patients With Complex Health Needs

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/12/14/briefing-recap-barriers-to-care-for-patients-with-complex-health-needs/

Blog_ArnonAfek_briefing

The need to bolster primary care in the United States is critical. Among the 10 countries in this survey, the United States has the youngest population, yet it has the highest incidence of chronic disease and spends 50-150 percent more on health care per capita than the other nine countries in the survey. This survey highlights another unwanted distinction: US primary care doctors felt among the least prepared to treat people with multiple chronic conditions and reported being among the least prepared to manage conditions associated with aging outside of hospital or nursing home settings.