Health Care Price Growth Plummets To Lowest Rate In Almost Two Years

https://altarum.org/about/news-and-events/health-care-price-growth-plummets-to-lowest-rate-in-almost-two-years

Image result for Health Care Price Growth Plummets To Lowest Rate In Almost Two Years

Fueled by health policy uncertainty and structural health sector changes, health care price growth in August rose by only 1.2% compared to a year earlier. This is the lowest health price growth rate recorded in almost 2 years, and just slightly above the all-time low, according to Altarum’s latest Health Sector Economic Indicators Briefs. Contributing to overall slow price growth is a historically low Medical Consumer Price Index growth rate, a possible signal of relief for health care consumers with substantial out-of-pocket expenditures.

Despite an upward revision to recent estimates, health spending growth in August 2017 was only a modest 4.3% higher than a year earlier. Per Charles Roehrig, founding director of Altarum’s Center for Sustainable Health Spending, this moderation in spending growth is in response to a leveling-off in insurance coverage.

Health care job growth also remained modest, with 22,500 new jobs added in September 2017, slightly less than the 2017 average of 25,000. “Slower growth in health care utilization is reflected in slower growth in health jobs, particularly in the hospital sector,” said Roehrig. “This relatively good news should be tempered by a serious look at whether even this moderate growth is sustainable in the longer term.”

Health Care Spending

In August, the health share of gross domestic project (GDP) fell to 18.0%, but spending at an annual rate was 4.3% higher than August 2016, exceeding $3.5 trillion. Spending growth in August 2017 increased in all major categories, led by home health care at 6.5%. Hospital spending continues to grow slowly, at a 2.3% rate.

Health Care Employment

Hospitals added 4,500 jobs and ambulatory care settings added an above-average 24,700 jobs in August, but these gains were offset by the loss of 6,700 jobs in nursing and residential care. Slow hospital job growth in 2017 is a primary force behind the health sector growing at about three-quarters the pace of 2015 and 2016.

Health Care Prices

The 12-month moving average of the Health Care Price Index (HCPI) fell to 1.8% growth after being at 1.9% for 6 straight months, dousing any expectations of a return to a 2.0% growth rate range in the near term. Year-over-year hospital price growth fell to from 1.5% to 1.3%, and physician and clinical services price growth fell one-tenth to 0.5%. Annual drug price growth fell to a 2.7% rate, its lowest reading since growing by 2.4% in December 2015.

Why Major Hospitals Are Losing Money By The Millions

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2017/11/07/hospitals-losing-millions/#67f501c67b50

Related image

 

A strange thing happened last year in some the nation’s most established hospitals and health systems. Hundreds of millions of dollars in income suddenly disappeared.

This article, part two of a series that began with a look at primary care disruption, examines the economic struggles of inpatient facilities, the even harsher realities in front of them, and why hospitals are likely to aggravate, not address, healthcare’s rising cost issues.

According to the Harvard Business Review, several big-name hospitals reported significant declines and, in some cases, net losses to their FY 2016 operating margins. Among them, Partners HealthCare, New England’s largest hospital network, lost $108 million; the Cleveland Clinic witnessed a 71% decline in operating income; and MD Anderson, the nation’s largest cancer center, dropped $266 million.

How did some of the biggest brands in care delivery lose this much money? The problem isn’t declining revenue. Since 2009, hospitals have accounted for half of the $240 billion spending increase among private U.S. insurers. It’s not that increased competition is driving price wars, either. On the contrary, 1,412 hospitals have merged since 1998, primarily to increase their clout with insurers and raise prices. Nor is it a consequence of people needing less medical care. The prevalence of chronic illness continues to escalate, accounting for 75% of U.S. healthcare costs, according to the CDC.

Part Of The Problem Is Rooted In The Past

From the late 19th century to the early 20th, hospitals were places the sick went to die. For practically everyone else, healthcare was delivered by house call. With the introduction of general anesthesia and the discovery of powerful antibiotics, medical care began moving from people’s homes to inpatient facilities. And by the 1950s, some 6,000 hospitals had sprouted throughout the country. For all that expansion, hospital costs remained relatively low. By the time Medicare rolled out in 1965, healthcare consumed just 5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Today, that number is 18%.

Hospitals have contributed to the cost hike in recent decades by: (1) purchasing redundant, expensive medical equipment and generating excess demand, (2) hiring highly paid specialists to perform ever-more complex procedures with diminishing value, rather than right-sizing their work forces, and (3) tolerating massive inefficiencies in care delivery (see “the weekend effect”).

How Hospital CEOs See It

Most hospital leaders acknowledge the need to course correct, but very few have been able to deliver care that’s significantly more efficient or cost-effective than before. Instead, hospitals in most communities have focused on reducing and eliminating competition. As a result, a recent study found that 90% of large U.S. cities were “highly concentrated for hospitals,” allowing those that remain to increase their market power and prices.

Historically, such consolidation (and price escalation) has enabled hospitals to offset higher expenses. As of late, however, this strategy is proving difficult. Here’s how some leaders explain their recent financial struggles:

“Our expenses continue to rise, while constraints by government and payers are keeping our revenues flat.”

Brigham Health president Dr. Betsy Nabel offered this explanation in a letter to employees this May, adding that the hospital will “need to work differently in order to sustain our mission for the future.”

A founding member of Partners HealthCare in Boston, Brigham & Women’s Hospital (BWH) is the second-largest research hospital in the nation, with over $640 million in funding. Its storied history dates back more than a century. But after a difficult FY 2016, BWH offered retirement buyouts to 1,600 employees, nearly 10% of its workforce.

Three factors contributed to the need for layoffs: (1) reduced reimbursements from payers, including the Massachusetts government, which limits annual growth in healthcare spending to 3.6%, a number that will drop to 3.1% next year, (2) high capital costs, both for new buildings and for the hospital’s electronic health record (EHR) system, and (3) high labor expenses among its largely unionized workforce.

“The patients are older, they’re sicker … and it’s more expensive to look after them.”

That, along with higher labor and drug costs, explained the Cleveland Clinic’s economic headwinds, according to outgoing CEO Dr. Toby Cosgrove. And though he did not specifically reference Medicare, years of flat reimbursement levels have resulted in the program paying only 90% of hospital costs for the “older,” “sicker” and “more expensive” patients.

Of note, these operating losses occurred despite the Clinic’s increase in year-over-year revenue. Operating income is on the upswing in 2017, but it remains to be seen whether the health system’s new CEO can continue to make the same assurances to employees as his predecessor that, “We have no plans for workforce reduction.”

“Salaries and wages and … and increased consulting expenses primarily related to the Epic EHR project.”

Leaders at MD Anderson, the largest of three comprehensive cancer centers in the United States, blamed these three factors for the institution’s operational losses. In a statement, executives attributed a 77% drop in adjusted income last August to “a decrease in patient revenues as a result of the implementation of the new Epic Electronic Health Record system.”

Following a reduction of nearly 1,000 jobs (5% of its workforce) in January 2017, and the resignation of MD Anderson’s president this March, a glimmer of hope emerged. The institution’s operating margins were in the black in the first quarter of 2017, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Making Sense Of Hospital Struggles

The challenges confronting these hospital giants mirror the difficulties nearly all community hospitals face. Relatively flat Medicare payments are constraining revenues. The payer mix is shifting to lower-priced patients, including those on Medicaid. Many once-profitable services are moving to outpatient venues, including physician-owned “surgicenters” and diagnostic facilities. And as one of the most unionized industries, hospitals continue to increase wages while drug companies continue raising prices – at three times the rate of healthcare inflation.

Though these factors should inspire hospital leaders to exercise caution when investing, many are spending millions in capital to expand their buildings and infrastructure with hopes of attracting more business from competitors. And despite a $44,000 federal nudge to install EHRs, hospitals are finding it difficult to justify the investment. Digital records are proven to improve patient outcomes, but they also slow down doctors and nurses. According to the annual Deloitte “Survey of US Physicians,” 7 out of 10 physicians report that EHRs reduce productivity, thereby raising costs.

Harsh Realities Ahead For Hospitals

Although nearly every hospital talks about becoming leaner and more efficient, few are fulfilling that vision. Given the opportunity to start over, our nation would build fewer hospitals, eliminate the redundancy of high-priced machines, and consolidate operating volume to achieve superior quality and lower costs.

Instead, hospitals are pursuing strategies of market concentration. As part of that approach, they’re purchasing physician practices at record rates, hoping to ensure continued referral volume, regardless of the cost.

Today, commercial payers bear the financial brunt of hospital inefficiencies and high costs but, at some point, large purchasers will say “no more.” These insurers may soon get help from the nation’s largest purchaser, the federal government. Last month, President Donald Trump issued an executive order with language suggesting the administration and federal agencies may seek to limit provider consolidation, lower barriers to entry and prevent “abuses of market power.”

With pressure mounting, hospital administrators find themselves wedged deeper between a rock and a hard place. They know doctors, nurses, and staff will fight the changes required to boost efficiency, especially those that involve increasing productivity or lowering headcount. But at the same time, their bargaining power is diminishing as health-plan consolidation continues. The four largest insurance companies now own 83% of the national market.

What’s more, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced last week a $1.6 billion cut to certain Medicare Part B drug payments along with reduced reimbursements for off-campus hospital outpatient departments in 2018. CMS said these moves will “provide a more level playing field for competition between hospitals and physician practices by promoting greater payment alignment.”

The American healthcare system is stuck with investments that made sense decades ago but that now result in hundreds of billions of dollars wasted each year. Hospitals are a prime example. That’s why we shouldn’t count on hospital administrators to solve America’s cost challenges.

Change will need to come from outside the traditional healthcare system. The final part of this series explores three potential solutions and highlights the innovative companies leading the effort.

 

Use of Paid and Unpaid Personal Help by Medicare Beneficiaries Needing Long-Term Services and Supports

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2017/nov/paid-unpaid-help-medicare-ltss?omnicid=EALERT1312698&mid=henrykotula@yahoo.com

Abstract

  • Issue: Older adults who reside in communities, as opposed to nursing homes or other residential institutions, are largely dependent on family and unpaid caregivers for assistance with daily activities, like preparing meals or laundry, and self-care tasks like bathing or dressing. For low-income older adults, assistance with such activities, also known as long-term services and supports (LTSS), can also come from Medicaid. These sources of support will be increasingly inadequate as the population ages.
  • Goals: To examine the extent of paid and unpaid personal care assistance used by community-residing people who require LTSS; and to analyze how this differs by demographics and the economic status of Medicare beneficiaries.
  • Methods: Descriptive analyses of the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), 2015.
  • Findings and Conclusions: Medicare beneficiaries needing LTSS rely predominantly on unpaid care. Hours of unpaid care are not substantially lower when paid care is also received. Findings suggest that public financing of LTSS would not replace but rather supplement the contribution of family and unpaid caregivers to support individuals living independently in the community.

Introduction

Despite the increasing number of adults with functional disabilities and cognitive impairments, financing for long-term services and supports (LTSS) has made little policy progress in the past few decades.1 One possible reason for the impasse is policymakers’ concern about the cost of undertaking such an initiative. Currently, financing for LTSS is split between the federal and state governments through the Medicaid program, which accounts for two-thirds, and private sources, which pay the other one-third. Of the $211 billion spent on LTSS in 2011, $45.5 billion (22%) was paid out of pocket.2 For low-income Medicare beneficiaries who meet income and asset eligibility, as well as the institutional level of need requirement, Medicaid covers some LTSS, although availability and accessibility vary greatly across states.3 As estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), family caregivers contribute the most care, at an estimated economic value of $234 billion in 2011.4 Many policymakers fear that providing public financial support for LTSS will replace the care that is currently being provided for free by family caregivers. This issue brief uses data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) from 2015 to examine use of paid and unpaid care among community-residing people who need LTSS.

Availability of Help for Older Medicare Beneficiaries Who Need Long-Term Services and Supports

In this first part of our analysis, we focused on the people with probable dementia (see How This Study Was Conducted) or those who have difficulty with activities of daily living (ADLs) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). ADLs are also known as “self-care activities” and include eating, bathing, dressing, transferring in and out of bed, toileting, and walking across the room. IADLs are higher-level activities that allow an individual to continue living independently, such as medication management, meal preparation, grocery shopping, finances, and laundry.

Two of five older adults in this population report not receiving any help. Older men were more likely to report not receiving any help than were older women (49% vs. 37%) (Exhibit 1). Rates of not receiving help were particularly high among blacks and other minority groups (41% and 52% respectively), as well as those who lived alone (50%). Even among those who lived with their spouse, two-fifths of respondents reported not receiving any help.

Conclusion

Long-term services and supports are not covered under Medicare despite many beneficiaries reporting needing help with self-care activities.8 The resistance to a public financing option for LTSS is based largely on the costs of such a program and the concern that it would substitute for care that is already being provided by family caregivers.9 This issue brief confirms that older adults who need LTSS rely heavily on family caregivers. However, this method of providing care is unsustainable, given the increasing numbers of older adults who will require LTSS as well as the declining availability of family caregivers.10 In addition, study results find that significant numbers of community-residing older adults with a need for LTSS do not receive help.

This analysis shows that the amount of unpaid care provided varies little between those who receive both paid and unpaid support and those who receive unpaid support only, suggesting that paid care does not replace unpaid care, but supplements it. Addressing and supporting the need for LTSS can result in savings to individuals and the government through delayed nursing home and Medicaid entry.11 A public LTSS financing solution, like Medicare Help at Home,12 that supports individuals and family caregivers would improve the supply of long-term services and supports and allow for their quality to be monitored to ensure older adults can live safely in the community.

 

A hospital without patients

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/11/08/virtual-hospital-mercy-st-louis-000573

Nurse Veronica Jones speaks with patient Richard Alfermann, who suffers from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, during a video call on Thursday, Nov. 2, 2017, at the Mercy Virtual Care Center in Chesterfield, Mo. Jones says that she and other nurses who work with homebound patients like Alfermann feel like they have “50 grandparents.”

 

Located off a superhighway exit in suburban St. Louis, nestled among locust, elm and sweetgum trees, the Mercy Virtual Care Center has a lot in common with other hospitals. It has nurses and doctors and a cafeteria, and the staff spend their days looking after the very sick―checking their vital signs, recording notes, responding to orders and alarms, doing examinations and chatting with them.

There’s one thing Mercy Virtual doesn’t have: beds.

Instead, doctors and nurses sit at carrels in front of monitors that include camera-eye views of the patients and their rooms, graphs of their blood chemicals and images of their lungs and limbs, and lists of problems that computer programs tell them to look out for. The nurses wear scrubs, but the scrubs are very, very clean. The patients are elsewhere.

Mercy Virtual is arguably the world’s most advanced example of something gaining momentum in the health care world: A virtual hospital, where specialists remotely care for patients at a distance. It’s the product of converging trends in health care, including hospital consolidation, advances in remote-monitoring technology and changes in the way medicine is paid for. The result is a strange mix of hospital and office: Instead of bright fluorescent lighting, beeping alarms and the smell of chlorine, Mercy Virtual Care has striped soft rugs, muted conversation and a fountain that spills out one drop a minute. The mess and the noise are on screens, visible in the hospital rooms the staffers peer into by video—in intensive care units far away, where patients are struggling for their lives, or in the bedrooms of homebound patients, whose often-tenuous existence they track with wireless devices.

The virtual care center started as an office in Mercy’s flagship St. Louis hospital in 2006, but got its own building and separate existence two years ago. It is built on many of the new ideas gaining traction in U.S. health care, such as using virtual communication to keep chronically ill patients at home as much as possible, and avoiding expensive hospitalizations that expose patients to more stress, infections and other dangers.

But perhaps the most important factor driving Mercy Virtual isn’t technology or new thinking but new payment systems. In the near future, the hospital’s administrators believe, instead of earning fees for each treatment administered, insurers and the government will pay Mercy Virtual to keep patients well. A visit to the hushed carrels and blinking monitors is a glimpse into a future in which hospital systems are paid more when their patients are healthy, not sick.

Even now, Mercy Virtual is in the black, because of existing Medicare payment reforms that have already converted some of the agency’s payments into lump sums for treating specific illnesses. Mercy can get its patients out of the hospital much faster than average, so it pockets the money it doesn’t need for longer stays, says Mercy Virtual President Randy Moore.

The hospital is well placed, he adds, for the full transition to a payment system based on efficiency and preserving wellness. “Our idea is to deliver better patient care and outcomes at lower cost, so we can say to an insurer, ‘You expect to spend $100 million on this population this year. We can do it for $98 million with fewer hospitalizations, fewer deaths and everyone’s happy,’” says Moore. “It’s a very strong future business model.”

One weird thing about thinking this way is that it radically reimagines traditional notions of medical care—not just how it’s delivered, but when. Most hospitals wait for a sick person to walk through the doors or come into the ER. Mercy Virtual reaches out to patients before they’re even aware of symptoms. It uses technology to sense changes in hospitalized patients so subtle that bedside nurses often haven’t picked up on them. When the computer notes irregularities, nurses can turn a series of knobs that allow them to “camera in” on the patient; they can get close enough to check the label on an IV bag, or to observe a patient struggling for breath or whose skin is turning gray.

There are those who say that even an intensive care unit could, in principle, be brought to a patient’s home. But for now, the future looks like this: Hospitals will keep doing things like deliveries, appendectomies and sewing up the victims of shootings and car wrecks. They’ll also have to care for people with diseases like diabetes, heart failure and cancer when they take bad turns. But in the future, the mission of the hospital will be to keep patients from coming through their doors in the first place.

Racing the Symptoms

On a recent Monday morning, nurse Veronica Jones touched a button on a screen in front of her to make a video call with Richard Alfermann, a retired 75-year-old banker living on a wooded acre outside Washington, Missouri, 50 miles west of the center. A lifelong smoker until 10 years ago, Alfermann suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD. He has trouble breathing and even slight exertion can floor him. The most minor illness, in the past, was enough to force him into the hospital.

Seated on a couch in his home, Alfermann happily greets Jones, with whom he has spoken through video at least twice a week since entering the virtual care program in August 2016. The previous year, he was hospitalized three times. Since then, Alfermann has managed to stay in his home.

One paradox of care at home is this: Monitoring patients from afar with regularity can create more intimacy between patient and his caregivers than a sporadic, once-every-three-months visit in person. Jones and the other nurses on the virtual ward say they feel like “we have 50 grandparents now,” she says. In addition to the touchless warmth, regular interactions enable more individualized care. For example, many COPD patients have such high pulse rates on a good day that an unsuspecting doctor might immediately send them to an ICU. A tele-doctor in regular contact, however, can distinguish a true crisis from a baseline reading that might seem alarming but is normal for that patient.

In Alfermann’s case, if he shows signs of failing health, his physician―Carter Fenton, an emergency medicine doctor with 450 patients under his care—can call in home health care nurses, who can examine Alfermann more closely, take X-rays and EKGs and blood samples if necessary. In a sense, Mercy has given Alfermann his own hospital, a home hospital.

And that’s the main purpose of the “engagement at home” program—to keep very sick patients out of the hospital, where their care runs up enormous bills and is laced with dangers to the patient, ranging from nasty bacterial infections to misplaced drug orders to the disorientation of constant alarms, tests and injections. “A telemedicine visit is never going to be as good as having a doctor and his or her team at your bedside,” says Moore. “But 99 percent of the time we can’t make that happen. With virtual we can at least see any patient just like that―rather than tomorrow or next week. And that can be a life or death thing.”

One major aspect of the hospital of the future, it seems, is “less hospital, more future,” says Robin Cook, a former ophthalmologist and the best-selling author of medical thrillers that feature things like roboticized hospitals and killer apps that actually kill their patients. People will continue to go to hospitals—or, increasingly, outpatient surgical centers―to get operations, but their stays will be shorter. “It’s going to be progressively more procedure-oriented, with a lot less parking people to monitor them,” says Cook.

As Alfermann, his nose fitted with a cannula bringing him 100 percent oxygen, pops up on the monitor in front of her, Jones is examining his vital signs, which include blood pressure, pulse, temperature and blood oxygen readings that feed wirelessly into the system from devices that Alfermann attaches to himself at home.

Most medical interventions take place when a patient presents himself at a doctor’s office or an emergency room. Because “frequent flyers” hate going to the hospital—often a traumatic place for the old and infirm–they’re often in denial about any symptoms they may have, which, ironically, raises the risk that things will get to a critical point if no medical staff are watching.

“A lot of times they’ll say, ‘I feel fine,’ but I can see on the monitor that they are struggling to breathe,” says Fenton. “I remind them that this is how things got started the last time they were hospitalized. There’s a trust factor at first. Sometimes it takes a trip to the ER to vindicate us.”

Today, the concern is Alfermann’s pulse. It’s been above 100 beats per minute twice the last three mornings, from its usual level around 85. Pulse is “a big clue that he may not know what’s happening but something may be about to happen,” Fenton says. He and Jones worry that with cooler weather and drier air, Alfermann might be developing a cold that could exacerbate his COPD.

“Any shortness of breath or changes in your cough?” Jones asks. “Any fever or chills?”

“I don’t think so,” responds Alfermann, a fan of bowling, fishing, and the St. Louis Cardinals. “Yeah. Nothing better, nothing worse. Same old shit.”

“If anything changes with that you know you got to call me right way.”

Jones and Fenton monitor Alfermann carefully over the next several days to make sure there’s no incipient problem. But by Wednesday his pulse is back to normal. Until the next time. “I don’t feel super, but I’m OK,” he tells Fenton. “I haven’t felt good in so long I don’t know what good is.”

Reassured for the moment, Fenton knows there’s always an escape valve. “We always tell the patients, if you feel like you’re getting worse, you need to just go to the hospital,” he said.

Virtual ICU
On the other end of the second floor at Mercy Virtual Care, which is a maze of desks and computer screens, nurses and doctors have their fingers deep in the business of colleagues at hospitals across the country, from North Carolina to Oklahoma. They run a series of programs —TeleICU, TeleStroke, TeleSepsis and TeleHospitalist — all aimed at keeping hospitalized patients from growing sicker and at getting them home faster.

In part, the virtual ICU is dealing with a problem that technology created. All the beeping monitors in the patient’s hospital room crank out massive amounts of information, presented in too cumbersome a way for nurses and doctors on site—at least in typically understaffed hospitals―to deal with quickly. So Mercy Virtual provides nurses and doctors who can focus on monitoring and digesting these data streams, looking for signs of trouble. That way the nurses and doctors on site can pay more attention to the patients and less to the machines.

Electronic health records, which most hospitals started using over the past decade, “inundated us with data,” says Chris Veremakis, who runs Mercy’s TeleICU program. “The EHR has become a thing of its own, and you find people spending so much time in front of the EHR instead of spending time with the patient.”

A layer of backstopping colleagues, watching the data roll in in real time, can improve the quality of treatment by making sure good care standards are being met and catching signs that a patient is going downhill, Veremakis says: “We let the nurses on the floor do their regular work and not be pulled in a million different directions.”

One of the intense professionals doing this is Tris Wegener, who was an ICU nurse for 22 years before a snowmobiling accident wrecked her arm and led her to virtual nursing. Now she spends most of her days at Mercy seated in front of a bank of computer screens. She’s waiting for the appearance of a little red flower icon, which means that a computer program, after taking in data from the monitors in the patient’s room, is warning of a danger of sepsis, an immune response to a bacterial bloodstream infection that is the No. 1 hospital killer.

Sepsis can be hard to spot, manifesting itself in irregular symptoms. It’s on the increase among chronically ill patients who are living longer than before―about 1.5 million people get sepsis in the U.S. every year, and 1 in 6 die. When one of the red sepsis flowers pops up, Wegener makes a series of inquiries to rule out false positives. If the patient meets all the criteria—typically very low blood pressure, high fever, infection and high levels of lactic acid—she calls the nurse or doctor on duty. The hospital might be in High Point, North Carolina, Joplin, Missouri, or a dozen other places.

“I get the data as soon as it enters the system,” she says. “The nurse on duty might have three other patients. Is she aware of the problem? Sometimes, sometimes not. She might have another patient who’s coding in the emergency room. They don’t have time to check out this patient whose X-ray looks clear, but we know that tomorrow, if this isn’t taken care of, he’s going to code with pneumonia.”

It’s not unusual for the entire staff of a small ICU to rush into a patient’s room when a patient crashes. When that happens and Mercy is watching, its remote nurses can keep an eye on the other patients while those at the scene take care of the most critical case.

Working on a single shift not long ago, Wegener and two other virtual nurses had to sort through 136 sepsis alerts from hospitals around the country. Each one takes as long as 40 minutes to resolve. “It keeps your mind going,” she said.

“The job isn’t physically demanding but mentally, oh gosh,” says Lindsey Langley, whose expertise is in diagnosing and ordering treatment for stroke—a condition in which speedy diagnosis and treatment can be the difference between a minor tic and death, or a grave, lifelong disability. “You go home every day exhausted. You are tapped out.”

Most of Mercy’s telehealth and remote monitoring covers patients and hospitals inside the small Catholic hospital system, which has facilities in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas. But it also partnered with hospital systems at the University of North Carolina and Penn State. Part of the attraction is the backup Mercy provides to hospitals that serve uninsured or low income patients and can’t afford to staff up to levels that might be desirable.

“Mercy runs 24/7 in the background collecting analytics on our patient population,” said Dale Williams, chief medical officer at 351-bed High Point Regional hospital in North Carolina, which is part of the UNC system. As they gather vital signs, EKG data and so on, the Mercy staff can alert brick-and-mortar staff to any significant changes. If there isn’t a nurse or doctor in the room, they intervene.

Of course, a nurse in St. Louis can’t fill an IV fluid bag in North Carolina, but she can use a camera in the room to see that an IV bag is almost empty—then call and instruct a nurse on the floor to refill it. The telemedicine cameras are powerful enough to detect a patient’s skin color; microphones can pick up coughs and gasps and groans.

Making that order from far-off St. Louis can be a delicate matter until the virtual nurses and doctors establish good working relationships with their partners in the flesh-and-blood world. Unsurprisingly, when Mercy starts its virtual relationships with these hospitals, the professionals on site often aren’t exactly enthused to be getting instructions from afar.

“People just think that they can put the technology in place and get amazing results,” said Moore, who estimated that Mercy had spent $300 million to create the virtual care center. But acculturation is key to the process. At most ICUs and other hospital services, physicians and nurses already think they are operating at top capability. It takes work to convince them that their services would be better with help from outside.

“We’ll spend time with them and say, ‘This isn’t Big Brother looking over your shoulders: We’re partners,’” he said. “But doctors don’t necessarily want other doctors writing their orders, and if they won’t accept it, it doesn’t work. If a nurse ignores our team because she’s too busy and not used to TeleICU, nothing happens.”

Sometimes the cultural shifts required may be a bit too much to work. Tampa General Hospital piloted a TeleICU relationship with Mercy Virtual for six months, but ended the agreement Nov. 15. The hospital gave no explanation for the decision.

Longer term partners, however, seem to have converted to the concept. “A decade ago I would have said, ‘I don’t know that that can work,’” said Williams, who has been working with Mercy Virtual for about two years. “I’ve been convinced. It would be ideal to have a doctor in each unit 24/7, but even then they can’t be looking at the analytics the way these people do. They have critical care-trained nurses and doctors looking at this stuff all the time. They can camera in and count the pores on someone’s nose.”

Williams’ hospital has two critical care doctors who take care of the 28-bed intensive care unit from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. each day, with “Mercy running in the background,” he said. After 6 p.m., nurses on the ward continue to do their thing, but Mercy is in charge.

“This allows our guys to go home on backup call,” he said. If needed, the doctor can always drive back to the hospital, but most nights Mercy’s intensivists take care of problems. “This allows us the best of both worlds. We have constant analytics and if something is changing that’s not seen by nursing staff, they’re right there monitoring it in St. Louis.”

The relationship has improved outcomes at High Point, Williams said. Doctors who used to get burned out and quit after a year or two tend to leave less often. And the hospital’s care has improved year after year—fewer hospital infections, fewer patient days on ventilators, fewer readmissions and better patient survival, he said.

For now, Mercy and its partners have one foot in the old payment system and the other in the new world, where best outcomes and money align. But there are still administrators at Mercy hospitals who see fewer admissions and days in the hospital and “aren’t particularly happy about it,” Veremakis said. “There is an awkwardness in this time. But enough people with vision recognize this is the right way to go.”

Mercy Virtual’s ICU nurses, most of whom had years of experience before coming here, are sometimes a bit nostalgic for the bedside, with its immediacy and adrenaline. “You’re used to being in charge. Here you’re part of a team,” said Wegener. “If you think something is not being done you have to be polite.

“And there’s no way I can put a price on being able to put my hand on a patient and say, ‘My name is Tris.’”

The case against hospital beds

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/11/08/the-case-against-hospital-beds-000575

Oped-Shah-Lede-PoliticoIllustration-iStock.jpg

Two summers ago, I opened The New York Times Magazine and saw a startling centerfold ad that seemed to foretell the future: a sweeping panoramic image of people relaxing and strolling in Central Park, overlaid with large block text that read, “IF OUR BEDS ARE FILLED, IT MEANS WE’VE FAILED.” You could hardly have guessed it was a hospital ad. The logo for the Mount Sinai Health System was stamped in the upper corner, almost like an afterthought.

Around the same time, I was beginning a project funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to examine whether hospitals and health care facilities are well designed for their modern purposes—to produce more health, rather than just deliver more health care. And it became clear that one of the most important challenges for hospitals to address will be a simple one: the association of hospitals with beds.

When the health care industry talks about hospitals, it tends to use the language of facility planners—one in which “patients” and “beds” are equivalent. This is the legacy of a very different era in medicine. Modern hospitals are historically rooted in the sanatoria and asylums of the mid-19th century, originally conceived to isolate patients with conditions such as tuberculosis and lunacy from the community, not to protect their rights. The move from open wards to closed rooms was perhaps the first major reform in hospital design—motivated by a need for isolation as our understanding of communicable diseases and infection control became more sophisticated.

Today, hospitals are struggling with the next reform—how to move on from an era when bedrest was the default medical therapy. When President Dwight Eisenhower had a heart attack in 1955—before we had beta blockers, angiograms and stents—his White House physician recommended prolonged bedrest. Today, bedrest is still the default treatment for stomach bugs and colds, certain types of musculoskeletal injuries and pregnancy conditions. And indeed, convalescing in bed has value for some conditions. But increasingly, we’re learning that even relatively short bed confinement can be unhelpful for many patients—and prolonged bedrest can be dangerous at worst. Getting up and walking, even after hip surgery, has been shown to improve circulation, prevent blood clots and promote wound healing.

However, this isn’t how hospitals are built. Currently, very few hospital spaces are designed with the assumption that most of our patients need to walk to be healthier. The patient in a gown staggering down a cluttered hospital hallway, IV pole in hand, is as comically out of place in real life as it is on TV. A patient canwalk, but it’s awkward. Patients are frequently required to dodge bustling clinicians, carts and stretchers along the way.

To fix the immediate challenge of letting patients walk in a building built around beds, some hospitals have begun investing in walking tracks or trails, as well as indoor and outdoor nonclinical-appearing “healing gardens.”

But our changing understanding of how people get healthier raises bigger design questions for hospitals—as well as the broader question of when hospitals are even the right place to get healthier. In my own specialty, obstetrics, there’s evidence that the current design of labor and delivery units may be associated with avoidable, and frankly harmful, C-sections. With colleagues at Boston’s Ariadne Labs and the MASS Design Group, we compared childbirth facilities across the country and found that there are no standards for how many labor rooms or operating rooms a hospital needs to have based on the number of babies it delivers. As a result, the capacity of hospitals to care for patients varied widely. Hospitals that had relatively more operating rooms and relatively fewer labor rooms tended to do more surgery.

Part of the reason may be that many of these units are retrofitted from spaces that were not originally intended to support normal labor. Indeed, for pregnant women, walking regularly throughout labor, particularly during the early phases, is thought to promote progress toward delivery.

Some corners of the health care world are already starting to embrace new, less bed-focused models of care. Ambulatory surgical centers have latched on to a strong business model for the growing number of operations for which several days in bed are neither required nor recommended. A venture-capital based birthing center franchise is currently aiming to do the same—birthing families are often admitted and discharged on the same day, and beds are in the corner of the room (for resting and breastfeeding after the baby is born), rather than in the center; the idea is to encourage the mom to use movement as much as possible to support her labor by literally sidelining the bed. Health systems are increasingly investing in other types of spaces where bedrest is not the default, including skilled nursing and rehabilitation facilities, as well as home visiting nurses and health coaches to help high-need patients with acute and chronic conditions stay out of the hospital.

It’s not just keeping patients in bed that could use a rethink—it’s keeping them all closed off. In 2017, both community and hospital-acquired infections are still a clinical concern, but the dominant threats to human health—heart disease and cancer, for instance—no longer require isolation. In fact, with the exception of a few acute instances in our lives, most of us benefit from the opposite. Former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has recently characterized loneliness as the most common “pathology” he encountered in medical practice—insidious but present on an epidemic scale. Future hospitals may find opportunity to intentionally forge connections. A community hospital in Massachusetts recently created an early labor lounge for patients who did not yet need a labor and delivery room, but could not return home. Rather than curtaining her off, the lounge was set up to let mothers socialize with their families and with one another in a relaxing and comfortable setting. Anecdotally, the lounge seemed to be most effective at preventing premature hospital admission when it was full.

They may also get a boost from new payment models, in which health systems have an incentive to take on the challenge of population health management. Rather than getting paid by the procedure, which creates an incentive to put more patients in more beds and offer larger amounts of care, they’re opting for models in which they get paid for producing larger amounts of health—which requires considering where patients really get healthier, whether that’s at the hospital or in homes or in community settings. The future demands this shift, as year after year, the costs of care continue to rapidly outstrip the benefits.

Michael Murphy, a visionary architect who has pushed his field to consider ways that hospitals can better promote human health, claims that design is never neutral. He says design either hurts or it heals. The more we know about healing, the more it appears that health care spaces will need a different approach—one that sometimes looks more like a park than a long fluorescent hallway full of beds.

 

Population Health Advisors

Click to access Translating_Data_Analytics_into_Population_Health_Insights_BSW.pdf

Related image

 

Special Report—How to fix the Affordable Care Act

Click to access FierceHealthcare-HowtofixtheAffordaleCareAct.pdf

Image result for aca

As Congress prepares to get back to business, the industry is holding its collective breath to see if healthcare reform will fall off the agenda. It’s pretty clear that rushing through repeal, replace or repair legislation or letting the Affordable Care Act fail isn’t the answer. In this special report, FierceHealthcare’s editors—experts on the business of healthcare—outline ways to fix the nation’s healthcare system.

Building a ‘nimble’ multi-state health system: 5 questions with Ascension CEO Dr. Anthony Tersigni

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/building-a-nimble-multi-state-health-system-5-questions-with-ascension-ceo-dr-anthony-tersigni.html

Image result for ascension health system

With 2,500 sites of care — including 141 hospitals and 30 senior living facilities that sprawl across 23 states and Washington, D.C. — St. Louis-based Ascension may not seem well-suited to make sudden business changes. But Ascension President and CEO Anthony Tersigni, EdD, aims to make the nation’s largest nonprofit health system into one of America’s most agile hospital networks.

Here, Dr. Tersigni discusses the system’s recent national rebrand, how he instills a spirit of risk-taking and innovation and the issues he is focusing on over the next five years, despite uncertainty on Capitol Hill.

Question: What prompted the decision to rebrand Ascension’s healthcare facilities? What effect has the rebranding had within the organization and outside in the communities it serves since being implemented in 2016?

Dr. Anthony Tersigni: In 1999 we decided not to brand Ascension because the brand equity was in the local entities. But since then, we believe we’ve made enough inroads in safety, quality and high-reliability that we felt Ascension has developed a reputation of its own. How do we combine the national reputation with the local reputation? Since co-branding the Ascension name with the names of our hospitals in our communities in advertising and on the web, the results have been outstanding. It’s about making it easier for the people we serve to navigate our system within a particular community because they now understand we’re all connected. We’re going to roll this out throughout the country, but we’re doing it in a sequential way because it’s very costly. But we believe now is the time to position ourselves as the national system that we are.

Q: What are your primary goals for the organization for the next five years?

AT: We want to continue to grow our primary care, expand access and continue to move toward value-based care. We want to be able to take on risk in a way where we can move into first-dollar coverage so we can move the patient through the continuum of care. We promise healthcare that works, that is safe and that leaves no one behind — for life. For us to do that, we need to be able to put patients in the right setting for the right care at the right time. If we can take on risk and walk with our patients and their families through our clinically integrated systems of care, we believe we can keep them well.

When it comes to population health management, the mindset is we need to change the way we look at our current business. We are moving from fee-for-service, where we get paid for doing things, to fee-for-value, or how to keep people well. We’ve been so successful as a hospital company under fee-for-service, and now we have to change the mindset and culture of all of these stakeholders. We have to go in a different direction. It’s like changing a flat tire on a car while it’s moving. No one has figured out yet how to do it, but you’re going to have to figure it out.

Another priority is mental and behavioral health. That’s very important to us. It’s a core part of our mission, and we want to be partners with whoever else sees that as a key component.

Q: What are the most important management practices when leading such a vast system with thousands of employees?

AT: In the 18 years since we created Ascension, we’ve been trying to have a culture that’s transparent, candid and nonpunitive. That’s a dramatic departure from the healthcare industry of old. I like to think I surround myself with really bright individuals and subject matter experts, and I try to empower everyone to do what’s in the best interest of those we serve. That’s what this is really all about. I like to think I hire people who are brighter than I am and give them the resources to do their jobs. Then I get out of the way.

That’s one of the principles we try to instill in our Leadership Academy — a program where we take high-potential employees for two to three years and help them develop. They focus on spiritual health to better understand their inner self. The second thing is leadership development. Everyone comes to us with certain gifts. We want them to hone those gifts and develop other skills. And the other piece, which people don’t talk about often, is personal health and vitality management. We expect our executives to work eight, 10 or 12 hours per day at optimal performance level. That’s virtually impossible unless you understand the physiology of your body.

Q: How would people describe you personally as a boss?

AT: My job is to allow leaders across the country to do what they are capable of doing. I like to think I am the supporting cast to what they do, and therefore I want to give them as much leeway and support as possible, and I want them to take risks. I am a risk-taker. As long as you don’t hurt people, that’s how we learn — through making mistakes. So take that risk.

Q: How do you plan for the future amid the current uncertainty surrounding healthcare policy?

AT: We need to be the highest-quality, lowest-cost, best-outcome provider in every market that we’re in. Then regardless of what happens in Washington D.C., we are going to be there for our patients and they’re going to want to seek us out.

We are working to do our part to reduce costs and cut waste in healthcare. But at the other end of what we do are human beings whose lives can either be helped or ruined by our actions or inactions. We are constantly advocating as a voice for the voiceless because many of those folks don’t get a chance to have this kind of conversation. I feel compelled to represent them because we are at ground zero in terms of healthcare. We see the pain and suffering that’s happening in society. They are in our clinics; they’re in our emergency rooms; they’re in our hospitals; they’re in our nursing homes.

I spent a couple weeks on Capitol Hill meeting with every senator I could meet and say, “Look, we want to be a resource. If you have a policy idea, let us know what that is and we will tell you the practical implications of that policy on the people we serve.”

We will continue to advocate for the poor and vulnerable. Last year we provided $1.8 billion of community care, community benefit and charity care. Given where this is going, I believe that number is going to go up next year. Because we are a faith-based, Catholic organization, we are going to continue to serve those people. If it ends up being over $2 billion, we’re going to figure out a way to serve them. We have to do so until we find a national solution here.

Needle vending machines are the future of helping drug users, Las Vegas bets

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article145112354.html

Needle exchange programs help drug users prevent disease.

Most vending machines are full of things — like soda and candy — that can contribute to health problems. But Las Vegas is hoping its new vending machines can help its drug using-population avoid additional ones.

By the end of May, Las Vegas will have debuted three new vending machines that dispense clean needles. They hope to keep drug users who get their fix via syringe from contracting diseases by reusing needles that could carry bloodborne infections. HIV, hepatitis C and other diseases can be transmitted when needles are used repeatedly.

The machines resemble an average vending machine but will instead dispense kits of clean needles and disposal containers for used ones. There will also be wound cleaning and safe sex kits. The machines will be available in three separate organizations that all work with drug users.

“Having access to clean syringes is a harm-reduction approach that’s going to allow people to protect themselves against getting communicable diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C,” Chelsi Cheatom, program manager for Trac-B Exchange, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Trac-B Exchange provides community consulting focused on preventing infectious diseases and safer alternatives to syringe use and disposal.

To gain access to the needle vending machines, users will register to receive a card that will allow them two kits each week.

According to the Harm Reduction Coalition, needle exchange programs lower health care costs. A sterile syringe costs as little as 97 cents and could save between $3,000 and $5,000 per HIV infection prevented. Intravenous drug users have also seen a decrease in hepatitis C infection following the spread of needle exchanges. Treatment for that disease can cost $25,000 to $30,000 per person. Programs that provide sterile needles can also provide other healthcare services and counseling to a population that can be uninsured.

Last year, Congress partially lifted the federal ban on funds for syringe exchange programs. It had orginally been repealed in 2009 after being in place for more than 20 years, but the Republican House put it back in place in 2011. Currently, federal funds can’t be used for needles themselves but can be used for other aspects of needle exchange programs, like staff salaries and counseling services.

How Should We Measure The Distribution Of Health In A Population?

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/03/17/how-should-we-measure-the-distribution-of-health-in-a-population/

Population health has been defined as “the health outcomes of a group of individuals, including the distribution of such outcomes within the group.” Measuring population health and its distribution can unite groups across sectors around a set of clear, defined goals. However, no one metric can capture the intricate and complex nature of population health. Instead, we need a matrix of indicators to gain a full picture of health and how it is changing. (see Figure 1). For example, rather than measuring only end-of-the-line health outcomes such as mortality, we need to measure a range of metrics across the health pathway, including the determinants of health, risk factors, prevention and treatment.

In addition, to understand the distribution of health in a population and address inequalities, we need to measure health across different subpopulations.

Yet there is little evidence on which sub-population groups should be considered. Commonly used segmentations are based on socioeconomic status, geography, gender and ethnicity. However, population health can also be explored across different disease or age groups. In addition, risk factors play an important part in determining population health, and could provide a basis to segment the population. There also exist specific societal or clinical groups that carry particular relevance to policymakers, such as employees, prisoners, homeless people, disabled people or people with drug dependencies.

While all these population groups are important to population health, it is not practically possible, or desirable, to measure and present health outcomes across all possible dimensions. Therefore, we conducted an expert Delphi study, which uses several rounds of questionnaires, where the results from earlier rounds feed into the next in order to reach a consensus among participants. Our goal was to prioritize population segmentation approaches, and guide both the collection and presentation of population health data.

Implications For Policymakers

There exists a clear consensus among health care experts around the need for population segmentation in order to measure population health and health equity. However, there is no single way to do this. All ten population segmentation approaches were considered important by the panel. These results highlight the value of considering the wide range of different population groups that may influence health outcomes.

The results of this study can help researchers and policymakers prioritize the way they analyze and present population health data. In addition, these results should guide the collection of data. For example, the panel considered socioeconomic status and risk factors to be very important, but administrative datasets collect information on these issues in different ways and according to different definitions. Standardizing the collection of segmentation variables would allow population-wide analysis of the distribution of health.

Policymakers should also consider using a data-driven approach to identify population segments, rather than a priori defined population groups. Big data and data mining techniques can help quantify the distribution of outcomes in a population and identify the factors driving these differences.

It is important to note that measuring the distribution of health is only one of the many steps we can and should take to create healthier populations. We must continue to explore how population health will benefit from emerging innovations in technology, service model design and big data and analytics.