Atrium Health releases 92 physicians looking to break away

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-physician-relationships/atrium-health-releases-92-physicians-looking-to-break-away.html

Hospital-Physician Relationships

Charlotte, N.C.-based Atrium Health said April 25 it will grant the request of a group of physicians looking to separate and end their employment agreements with the health system Sept. 1, according to The Charlotte Observer.

In an emailed statement to Becker’s Hospital Review April 25, Atrium confirmed it will release a group of roughly 92 Mecklenburg Medical Group physicians from their noncompete agreements, effective Sept. 1. The physicians will continue practicing as part of the health system until Aug. 31.

“While we were hopeful that our many months of discussions would lead to an acceptable solution for everyone involved, we will not seek to prevent these physicians from forming a standalone practice,” the health system told Becker’s.

Atrium said it will also offer the physicians new employment agreements “in the hopes they remain at Atrium Health and their MMG practice … and join the other 1,900 physicians who provide care for our patients,” the health system told Becker’s.

The group of roughly 92 Mecklenburg Medical Group physicians filed a lawsuit against Atrium April 2, arguing the health system engaged in monopolistic and anticompetitive behavior. Atrium said the same day it would allow the physicians to leave the organization. On April 16, the physicians filed a complaint against the health system with the North Carolina Medical Board, alleging the health system violated board regulations by intentionally misleading patients.

Atrium acquired Mecklenburg Medical Group in 1993, according to The Charlotte Observer. In a statement to the publication, the physicians said their attorneys will meet with Atrium’s lawyers to further assess the situation.

Atrium Health CEO Eugene Woods told The Charlotte Observer the health system is in the process of hiring roughly 20 physicians to help fill the vacant positions left by physicians planning to leave Mecklenburg Medical Group. The health system also previously offered to give employees who choose to say a bonus of up to 10 percent of their salary if they remain through the end of the year.

“We feel for our staff, and our first concern was making sure that they feel that we’re with them,” Mr. Woods told the publication. “We offered them retention bonuses because some of them were scared about what the future is going to be.”

 

 

What creates a toxic hospital culture?

https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2015/10/what-creates-a-toxic-hospital-culture.html

Image result for toxic culture

 

Hospital culture is largely influenced by the relationship between administrative and clinical staff leaders. In the “old days” the clinical staff (and physicians in particular) held most of the sway over patient care. Nowadays, the approach to patient care is significantly constricted by administrative rules, largely created by non-clinicians. An excellent description of what can result (i.e., disenfranchisement of medical staff, burn out, and joyless medical care) is presented by Dr. Robert Khoo.

Interestingly, a few hospitals still maintain a power shift in the other direction — where physicians have a stranglehold on operations, and determine the facility’s ability to make changes. This can lead to its own problems, including unchecked verbal abuse of staff, inability to terminate bad actors, and diverting patients to certain facilities where they receive volume incentive remuneration. Physician greed, as Michael Millenson points out, was a common feature of medical practice pre-1965. And so, when physicians are empowered, they can be as corrupt as the administrations they so commonly despise.

As I travel from hospital to hospital across the United States (see more about my “living la vida locum” here), I often wonder what makes the pleasant places great. I have found that prestige, location, and generous endowments do not correlate with excellent work culture. It is critically important, it seems, to titrate the balance of power between administration and clinical staff carefully — this is a necessary part of hospital excellence, but still not sufficient to insure optimal contentment.

In addition to the right power balance, it has been my experience that hospital culture flows from the personalities of its leaders. Leaders must be carefully curated and maintain their own balance of business savvy and emotional IQ.  Too often I find that leaders lack the finesse required for a caring profession, which then inspires others to follow suit with bad behavior. Unfortunately, the tender hearts required to lead with grace are often put off by the harsh realities of business, and so those who rise to lead may be the ones least capable of creating the kind of work environment that fosters collaboration and kindness. I concur with the recent article in Forbes magazine that argues that poor leaders are often selected based on confidence, not competence.

The very best health care facilities have somehow managed to seek out, support and respect leaders with virtuous characters. These people go on to attract others like them. And so a ripple effect begins, eventually culminating in a culture of carefulness and compassion. When you find one of these gems, devote yourself to its success because it may soon be lost in the churn of modern work schedules.

Perhaps your hospital work environment is toxic because people like you are not taking on management responsibilities that can change the culture. Do not shrink from leadership because you’re a kind-hearted individual. You are desperately needed. We require emotionally competent leaders to balance out the financially driven ones. It’s easy to feel helpless in the face of a money-driven, heavily regulated system, but now is not the time to shrink from responsibility.

Be the change you want to see in health care.

 

Discipline based on arrest records upheld for health are professionals

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Discipline-based-on-arrest-records-upheld-for-12792563.php

Image result for medical license

Doctors and other health professionals in California can be disciplined or lose their licenses for criminal conduct such as possession of illegal drugs even if they complete a pretrial treatment program and have the case erased from their record, under a ruling that has now become final.

The state Supreme Court unanimously refused Wednesday to take up a physician’s appeal of a ruling that said a licensing agency, such as the California Medical Board, can rely on arrest records as evidence that a license-holder committed professional misconduct, even if the underlying criminal case no longer exists.

That ruling, by a San Francisco appellate panel, is now a binding precedent for all trial courts in California. Besides doctors, it applies to other licensed medical professionals such as nurses and pharmacists.

The case involved a Southern California physician, Brandon Erdle, who was arrested in September 2013 on suspicion of possessing cocaine. His lawyer, Mitchell Green, said Erdle was actually arrested for an unrelated minor crime and was carrying bags with small amounts of the drug that he was about to drop into a medical disposal unit.

One DeLand police officer was fired and two others disciplined after losing meth during an arrest.

The case never went to trial, and the drug charge was dismissed in January 2016 after Erdle went through a treatment program known as pretrial diversion. In the meantime the Medical Board, citing his arrest report, accused Erdle of unprofessional conduct, then issued him a public reprimand in 2016 and placed him on probation.

 

 

At Some California Hospitals, Fewer Than Half Of Workers Get The Flu Shot

At Some California Hospitals, Fewer Than Half Of Workers Get The Flu Shot

How well are doctors, nurses and other workers at your local hospital vaccinated against the flu?

That depends on the hospital.

According to data from the California Department of Public Health, flu vaccination rates among health care staffers at the state’s acute care hospitals range from a low of 37 percent to 100 percent.

Overall, flu vaccination rates among hospital workers climbed significantly in the past several years — from an average of 63 percent during the 2010-11 influenza season to 83 percent during the 2016-17 season, according to the California Department of Public Health. Vaccination rates for the current season won’t be determined until later this year.

But that general increase masks some big variations. Monrovia Memorial Hospital in Los Angeles, Los Robles Hospital and Medical Center, East Campus and Thousand Oaks Surgical Center in Ventura each reported that fewer than 40 percent of their health care workers received the flu vaccine last year. Representatives from those hospitals did not return repeated calls for comment.

On the other end of the spectrum, Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego reported that every single person working there got the vaccine.

California’s flu vaccination policies for hospital workers, and those of many other states, are far from uniform or ironclad. In various states, health care workers have legally challenged hospital requirements for vaccination on religious and seculargrounds. And some unions in California and elsewhere oppose a legal mandate, partly for civil rights reasons.

Public health officials themselves have different takes on the legal requirements for hospital workers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists California and Massachusetts among the handful of states where the flu vaccination is mandated for health care workers. But the states’ laws allow health care workers to opt out by signing a form declining the vaccine. For that reason, officials from those two states said they do not actually consider the vaccine mandatory.

Colorado law requires hospital health care workers to provide proof of immunization or a doctor’s note providing for a medical exemption, and requires that non-immunized workers wear masks. Hospitals that achieve a 90 percent or higher flu vaccination rate are exempt from these rules, however.

In California, state law requires that hospitals offer the vaccine free of charge. Many hospitals offer vaccines to personnel in the cafeteria, and during day and night shifts. “The key to getting more people vaccinated is to make it more easily accessible for people,” said Lynn Janssen, chief of the California Department of Public Health’s associated infections branch.

She also said many California counties and hospitals have required health care workers to either get the flu vaccine or wear a mask, which can help prevent spreading illness to others.

Partly as a result, nearly a third of the state’s hospitals now have flu vaccination rates above 90 percent.

Vaccination rates vary significantly among different categories of hospital workers, however. Hospital employees had an average vaccination rate of 87 percent statewide in 2016-17, while licensed independent practitioners — including some physicians, advance practice nurses and physician assistants who do not receive paychecks from the hospital — had a rate of just 67 percent.

The CDC recommends that health workers get one dose of influenza vaccine annually, and cites data showing the vaccine in recent years has been to up 60 percent effective — though it was far less so this year. Dr. Bill Schaffner, an infectious diseases professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn., says there are three principal reasons to get vaccinated: to prevent workers from infecting patients, to keep them healthy in order to care for patients and to spare them a bout with the flu.

A 2017 Canadian study, however, suggests that the benefits of health care worker vaccinations have been overstated.

In any case, just because experts say health care personnel should get the vaccine doesn’t mean they will choose to do so.

“In the studies, and also in our experience, it turns out — to everyone’s great surprise — that health care workers are human beings,” Schaffner said. “Some are too busy, some don’t think the flu vaccine is worth it, some don’t like shots. Some are not convinced they can’t get flu from the flu vaccine.” (Experts say they can’t.)

Because of this, Schaffner said, it’s up to hospital leadership to push staffers to get vaccinated. At Vanderbilt University Medical Center, vaccination rates increased from 70 percent to 90 percent once leaders there effectively made the flu vaccine “mandatory,” he said, requiring noncompliant hospital personnel to present vaccine exemption requests to a hospital committee.

Health officials also encourage patients to ask whether their caregivers are vaccinated.

Jan Emerson-Shea, spokeswoman for the California Hospital Association, said her organization would like the flu vaccine to be mandatory for all health care personnel. Independent physicians have proven an especially challenging group to motivate, she said, since hospitals hold little sway over them.

“I, for the life of me, can’t imagine why a physician wouldn’t want to be vaccinated,” she said. “But they make that choice.”

Yet the California Nurses Association strongly opposes making flu vaccines mandatory, said Gerard Brogan, a registered nurse and spokesman for the union.

He said the union does recommend that providers get the vaccine, but it objects to making vaccination a condition of employment. He said some employees have religious issues or safety concerns about the vaccines and “we think that should be respected as a civil rights issue,” he said.

He also called rules requiring unvaccinated providers to wear a face mask “punitive.”

“It’s almost like the scarlet letter to shame you,” he said.

He said the masks can frighten patients — a contention made by a New York union as well. In any case, he said, wearing the masks is not especially effective in stopping the spread of flu (although some researchers say otherwise). Instead, he said, employees should be encouraged to wash hands and to stay home when they are sick.

Too often, he said, nurses are asked to come in to work when they are ill. He said he was not able to find any nurses willing to discuss their decision not to get the flu shot.

 

 

Are Payers the Leading Cause of Death in the United States?

https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/revolutionandrevelation/68935?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%202017-11-07&utm_term=Daily%20Headlines%20-%20Active%20User%20-%20180%20days

Related image

Milton Packer wonders if people suffer and die because it is cost effective.

As everyone knows, we are in the midst of a horrific opioid addiction epidemic. Physicians are prescribing opiates for pain relief, and patients are becoming addicted to them. One-fifth of patients who receive an initial 10-day prescription for opioids will still be using opiates a year later. That is simply extraordinary.

Physicians are prescribing opiate formulations that are highly addictive. But they do not need to do that.

There are several newer formulations that relieve pain and are far less addictive than older agents. But they are prescribed uncommonly. Why is that?

It is not because physicians are uninformed.

It is because payers will not pay for the alternatives. The less-addictive opiates are more expensive, so payers have declined to support them. Patients get addicted because paying for highly addictive opiates saves the payers money.

The New York Times also noted that the treatment of opiate addiction is expensive. It is far cheaper for payers if physicians continue to prescribe opiates than if physicians enrolled a person into a drug addiction program.

What does that look like? Patients get more prescriptions for opiates instead of getting the help they need.

The Payers Are in Charge

If you are looking for someone to blame for the opioid epidemic, you can certainly blame physicians. You can blame pharmaceutical companies. But while you are at it, don’t forget to include payers.

This conclusion should not be surprising. We live in a world where payers — not physicians — determine what drugs and treatments patients receive.

If patients have a life-threatening condition, it is not unusual for a payer to demand that a physician first prescribe a cheaper and less effective alternative. Physicians know that the drugs they are allowed to use may not work very well, but frequently, payers demand that they be tried first anyway.

What happens if the patient doesn’t respond to the cheap drug?

Often, the physician continues to prescribe it, because — to gain access to the more effective drug — physicians need to go through a painful process of preauthorization. For many practitioners, it isn’t worth it.

Don’t patients eventually get the drugs that they need?

No. All too often, physicians stop trying. Or patients get frustrated and give up. Often, payers says “No!” no matter how many times they are asked. And if the drug is for a life-threatening illness and enough time passes by, then the patient may no longer be alive to demand that they get the right drug.

So we spend more for healthcare than any other country in the world, but Americans do not get the care they need. There is a simple reason. Treatment decisions are not being driven based on a physician’s knowledge or judgment. They are being driven by what payers are willing to pay for.

How many people are affected by all of this?

Everyone.

That includes me and my family. That includes everyone that I know.

Medicine has made incredible progress in the last 20-30 years. But you are not likely to benefit from it.

Do you want to blame the high cost of drugs? You can do that, but if you do, you will be missing the point. We should expect better drugs to be more expensive than less effective ones. But we do not expect to have a company decide that we will get the inferior drug simply because they want to make a profit.

Are payers the leading cause of death in the United States? If you think this is a crazy question, please think again.

Health-Care Transactions Update: Deals Significantly Up in Third Quarter

https://www.bna.com/healthcare-transactions-update-n73014471384/?utm_campaign=LEGAL_NWSLTR_Health%20Care%20Update_102717&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua&elqTrackId=25bb35a21f7f4ee09f31a5e908020cf8&elq=3924f09b80454e158ead21b0e1788481&elqaid=9961&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=7532

Image result for merger and acquisition

Stay ahead of developments in federal and state health care law, regulation and transactions with timely, expert news and analysis.

July, August, and September have been the most active deal months in 2017 so far, with over 299 recorded deals. That can be contrasted with the same quarter in 2016, during which only 167 deals were recorded, making it the slowest quarter that year.

The three most active sectors in summer 2017 were long-term care, health-care information technology, and physician practices, as strategic and financial buyers continued to actively shop for assets. The much-discussed market uncertainty—stemming from the political environment, regulatory uncertainty, and other factors—doesn’t seem to be hindering transaction activity.

Long-Term Care Has Been Most Active

Long-term care, including home health, continues to outpace the industry, with 215 transactions year to date. The sector remains attractive for many investors looking to position their portfolios for future growth, predominantly due to demand fundamentals such as an aging U.S. population and shifting preferences of seniors.

It is estimated that 10,000 U.S. residents turn 65 each day, adding to an already sizable population demographic that historically utilizes the vast majority of health-care spending. In particular, as the U.S. health-care system increasingly places emphasis on efficient outcomes and lowering cost of care, long-term care will offer a critical value proposition as an effective means of reducing the number of acute-care hospital visits and maintaining the overall health of seniors.

Of note in the third quarter was BlueMountain’s $700 million purchase of skilled nursing and assisted living assets from Kindred Healthcare. Continued interest and heightened activity are expected in this sector.

Physicians Have More Buyer Options for Transactions

Historically, large independent physician networks looking to partner with either a strategic or financial sponsor were limited in their options—mainly larger physician groups and local health systems. The landscape has quickly evolved as more organizations are seeing the value in controlling large patient populations.

Private equity buyers and insurance giants are increasingly interested in physician groups and are willing to purchase partial or complete interests at a premium. In the third quarter, Ares Capital invested $1.45 billion in DuPage Medical Group, a multi-specialty practice in Illinois previously owned by the private equity group Summit Partners.

Financial sponsors see an opportunity to leverage size and scale through acquisition and de novo growth, to increase patient populations and capture added revenues in a changing reimbursement environment. In April, Optum, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, purchased American Health Network, a 300-physician practice in Indiana for $184 million. The insurer’s strategy is to control the delivery and cost of health care in all settings outside of the hospital.

Strategic buyers such as hospitals continue to actively recruit independent physicians, but are increasingly disadvantaged when forced to compete with the deep pockets of private equity investors and large insurers. Further compounding the problem for hospitals are the fair market value requirements that, by regulation, limit physician compensation options.

The single specialty provider space has experienced some of the highest activity in all of health-care services. With over 100 single specialty practices completing or announcing a transaction so far in 2017, independent physician groups are viewing an active mergers and acquisitions marketplace as an opportunity to secure future growth and viability.

A growing shift away from a hospital setting has increased the negotiating power of private practitioners and many are turning to private equity partners as a way to further increase their geographic footprint through aggressive growth strategies.

More and more groups are expected to pursue partnership and sale options as physicians continue to witness these large transaction values.

Size Is Attractive for Hospital Buyers

Bigger isn’t always better, but when it comes to hospital transactions, there is a market for sizable assets. In this quarter, Ascension Health, the country’s largest health system, emerged as the buyer of the struggling Presence Health in the Chicago area.

Despite Presence’s poor operations, it was able to align with a financially strong provider because it offered immediate scale in the Chicago market. With this transaction, Ascension, through its Amita Health joint venture with Adventist, vaulted up the market-share list from number four (8.1 percent) to number one (18.8 percent), according to Presence Health’s 2016 official statement. Acquiring and maintaining strong market share will continue to be a significant driver of financial success, thus the opportunity to immediately acquire scale through an acquisition will always be attractive.

Health-Care IT Remains Active

For many years, experts have thought that technology would be the key to driving value (high quality at a low cost). The activity in this space demonstrates the truth of that belief as there have been 133 transactions year to date. Notably, large private equity players have been active.

Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Inc., a private equity firm, acquired Carestream Dental in the third quarter, purchasing the dental imaging and practice management company with an eye toward growth, and expecting to leverage the technological expertise to grow the business.

Final Thoughts

While the summer months remained active, we believe the market will stay strong through the end of the year. Activity spawns more activity, and sellers are undoubtedly attracted to the high valuation multiples offered by buyers with tremendous access to capital and few investment options more attractive than health care.

Independence Is Not a Strategy for Health Systems

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/leadership/independence-not-strategy-health-systems?spMailingID=11725844&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1221639238&spReportId=MTIyMTYzOTIzOAS2#

Image result for john gribbin centrastate

There are ways to keep going it alone in the face of massive consolidation, says one health system’s CEO. It’s not a strategy, but a means to end, he says.

Afraid your hospital or health system can’t compete because you lack size and scale?

A merger might help, but it’s not the only possible answer to your problems. Freehold, NJ-based CentraState Healthcare System’s top leader is certain it’s not the best solution for his organization.

Consolidation continues to upend the acute and post-acute healthcare industry. In fact, in a recent HealthLeaders Media survey, some 87% of respondents said that their organization is exploring potential deals, completing deals already under way, or both.

But CentraState isn’t among them, says John Gribbin, its president and CEO.

On a continuum basis, CentraState is already diversified. That’s one of the potential selling points of an M&A deal.

Anchored by the 248-bed CentraState Medical Center in Freehold, NJ, the 2,300-employee organization also contains three senior care facilities—one assisted living, one skilled-nursing facility, and a continuing care retirement community.

It can be argued that CentraState may not possess the scale to compete with multifacility, multistate large health systems that can take advantage of a hub-and-spoke strategy for referrals. Nor may it be able to afford expensive interconnected IT systems.

But there ways other than mergers to achieve scale and collaboration, says Gribbin.

Means to an End

Gribbin insists that he and CentraState’s board, which supports and encourages independence, are not dogmatic about it.

“Independence is not a strategy,” he says. “It’s a means to an end. The moment that ceases to be worthwhile is the moment we’ll consider another way to achieve our mission.”

Change is part of that strategy, he says, adding that healthcare in 2017 needs to be far more collaborative, not only with patients and family, but with other healthcare organizations. That’s a big difference from previous generations.

“Our real strategy is scale and relevancy,” he says.

And there are ways to create scale short of taking on all the legacy costs and “baggage,” as Gribbin calls it, inherent in any merger.

“There’s a lot of costs involved in merging… and while mergers work in some instances, they don’t work in all, and in many communities, they are increasing costs to the consumer,” he says.

In addition to the commonly stated goals of improving the community’s health and wellness, patient costs are extremely important in fulfilling CentraState’s mission, Gribbin argues.

Many mergers involve replacing hospitals and adding patient towers and high-cost equipment. That adds to their cost structure means they have to extract higher pricing, says Gribben.

“That’s the vicious circle you find yourself in. I prefer to create scale in a different manner.”

Focus on the Mission

Gribbin, who has led CentraState for 17 years, prefers to solve that challenge in part through a strong network of physicians unburdened by excessive administrative overhead.

He says the health system has to increasingly take on value-based contracting and financial risk. To be successful under such value-based reimbursement, partnerships with physicians are increasingly important, as is a redefinition of the relationship with the patient.

“We used to look at our relationship with the patient as a typical hospital stay,” says Gribbin. “What we’re preaching now is that hospital stay is a temporary interruption in our relationship. What happens before or after defines the relationship’s success.”

With its physician alliance and clinically integrated network in place, CentraState, unlike many hospitals, has been able to avoid, in large part, expensive physician practice acquisitions that can be a financial challenge.

“I’ve done it in the past, and may do it again, but we’ve tried to avoid it,” he says. Instead, contracts define the relationships and incentives.

As an example of those relationships, CentraState partners with a major patient-centered medical home primary care practice on four performance and three utilization measures.

As a result of the shared savings generated in the first year, which came largely from hospital-based savings, the physicians in that group referred 59% of their patients to CentraState.

This year they’ve referred 71% of their patients to CentraState because of its low costs, which help drive financial reward for both parties under the contract.

“On one hand, we’re keeping people appropriately out of acute care, but on the other hand, they’re sending [more] people here. So we’re experiencing higher but more appropriate volume. In this scenario, everyone wins,” Gribbin says.

A New Deal with Physicians

In order to avoid the need to acquire physician practices, Gribbin says it helps to have a suite of services to offer them as a starting point.

“Most don’t want to sell their practice, but they feel like they have to, he says. “If you give them the opportunity to stay independent, they’ll take it.”

Helping them with access to better revenue cycle management, malpractice insurance, and risk management, and helping them create the ability to enter into risk-based contracts is another big help with defining a new relationship based on shared goals with physicians that ultimately benefit the patient, he says.

Physicians can establish a relationship with CentraState through its independent practice association, or a physician hospital association, and avoid surrendering their autonomy, he says.

“The physicians got paid better, the payer saved money even including the bonus, the hospital won because it’s high value care, and the patient’s winning too,” he says. “It’s a microcosm of what we’re trying to accomplish.”

As a small organization, both Gribbin and the board worry about being frozen out of narrow networks. Much of the energy they’ve expended in being a low-cost organization is wasted, he says, if they can’t get the big payers to include them in contracting.

“As long as the market isn’t rigged against us, we’re OK, because we’re a high-value organization.”

Economists propose paying physicians salary over fee-for-service method to avoid conflicts of interest

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/conflicting-jama-reports-highlight-debate-over-reality-pending-physician-shortage

In a Journal of the American Medical Association Viewpoint article, a pair of behavioral economists contend that doctors should be paid by salary, rather than the fee-for-service arrangements under which most of them now operate.

While most conflict of interest research and debate in medicine tends to focus on physicians interacting with pharmaceutical and device companies, how doctors are paid is one important source of conflict that’s largely ignored in medical literature, they said.

Fee-for-service compensation arrangements, they propose, create incentives for physicians to order more, and different, services than are best for patients.

“Paying doctors to do more leads to over-provision of tests and procedures, which cause harms that go beyond the monetary and time costs of getting them,” said George Loewenstein, the Herbert A. Simon University professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University, in a statement. “Many if not most tests and procedures cause pain and discomfort, especially when they go wrong.”

He and Ian Larkin, an assistant professor of strategy at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management, said that a commonly proposed solution to the problem involves requiring physicians to disclose their financial interest for a given procedure. But disclosure of conflicts has been found to have limited, or even negative, effects on patients.

Loewenstein and Larkin argue that the simplest and most effective way to deal with conflicts caused by fee-for-service arrangements is to pay physicians on a straight salary basis. Several health systems well-known for high quality of care, such as the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic and the Kaiser group in California, pay physicians salaries without incentives for volume of services performed.

Moving more physicians to straight salary-based compensation might have benefits not only for patients, but also for physicians themselves, they said.

“The high levels of job dissatisfaction reported by many physicians may result, in part, from the need to navigate the complexities of the fee-for-service arrangements,” said Larkin. “Instead of focusing on providing patients with the best possible medical care, physicians are forced to consider the ramifications of their decisions for their own paychecks.”

58% of Physicians ‘Strongly Negative’ on AHCA

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/physician-leaders/58-physicians-strongly-negative-ahca?spMailingID=11059722&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1161579213&spReportId=MTE2MTU3OTIxMwS2

Image result for physician health policy

Survey data suggests that physicians dislike the GOP’s American Health Care Act even more than they disliked the Affordable Care Act.

Two-thirds of physicians do not like the American Health Care Act, the Republican House bill to unwind Obamacare, while only about a quarter support it, a new survey indicates.

The survey of 1,112 physicians by the Dallas-based physician search firm Merritt Hawkins found that 66% of doctors have a negative impression of the AHCA, 26% have a positive impression, and 7% are neutral.

“Physicians have consistently expressed dissatisfaction with government-sponsored healthcare legislation in the past, and the AHCA does not reverse this trend,” Mark Smith, president of Merritt Hawkins, said in a media release. “So far, the bill rates a strongly negative diagnosis from physicians.”

In a 2016 survey of 17,236 physicians that Merritt Hawkins conducted for The Physicians Foundation, 23% of physicians gave the Affordable Care Act a grade of A or B, 28% gave it an average grade of C, while 48% gave it a D or F.

The AHCA, now being considered by the Senate, gets an even higher negative rating in the new Merritt Hawkins survey. Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed have a strongly negative impression of the bill, 8% have a somewhat negative impression, while 7% are neutral.

At the other end, 27% of physicians favor full repeal and replacement, while only 7% of respondents say keep it as it is, indicating the extent of dissatisfaction with the ACA, the HealthLeaders Media survey showed.

The Merritt Hawkins survey findings are in line with a HealthLeaders Media survey published in January, which showed that healthcare industry leaders support changes to the ACA rather than replacing it. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) said the best option for the healthcare industry regarding the ACA would be to make some changes but otherwise retain it.

Physicians Groups Denounce AHCA

Opposition to the AHCA among practicing physicians is reflected by the nation’s major physicians associations, all of which have come out against the repeal and replace proposal.

The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest physicians’ association, made clear its strong opposition to the ACHA in a March 7 letter to Congress, and again on April 27. Of course, the AMA has a long history of railing against government-sponsored healthcare.

The Merritt Hawkins survey was sent by email to about 80,000 physicians randomly selected from Merritt Hawkins’ database and has an error rate of +/- 2.87% as determined by experts in statistical response at the University of Tennessee.

Outcomes for High-Needs Patients: Practices with a Higher Proportion of These Patients Have an Edge

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/in-the-literature/2017/mar/outcomes-high-need-patients?omnicid=EALERT1177058&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Synopsis

Patients with high health care needs enrolled in Michigan primary care practices that treat a large proportion of such patients had lower health care costs, fewer hospital admissions, and fewer emergency department visits than those enrolled in practices serving smaller proportions of high-need patients. Small practices—those with one or two physicians—exhibited lower overall spending for high-risk patients, though not lower utilization of services, compared with larger practices.

The Big Picture

The finding that practices with a large proportion of high-need patients had lower levels of spending was surprising given that these patients require more time, resources, and expertise to manage their conditions effectively. The authors suggest that practices treating more high-need patients might have structural advantages over other practices or specific approaches developed over time that position them to provide better care. “It may be that practices with a greater proportion of complex patients reach a ‘tipping point’ where they have gained the experience and economies of scale necessary to effectively target care processes to this population’s unique needs,” they write. As to why smaller practices and practices with more high-need patients had lower quality-of-care scores, the authors posit that the quality measures may have been targeted toward adherence to best care practices for healthy patients or those with only one health condition rather than capture the distinct care needs of more complex patients.

The study’s results have important policy implications. Efforts to direct high-need patients to specialized sites of care that serve a high proportion of these patients have shown early promise and could be bolstered with support from policymakers and payers. In addition, there is a consistent trend toward consolidation of primary care to large practices, but these results and others affirm the value of smaller practices. Policymakers should find ways to support and preserve small primary care practices across the country.