Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation最新文献

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased use of telephone and video encounters in the Veterans Health Administration and many other healthcare systems. One important difference between these virtual modalities and traditional face-to-face encounters is the different cost-sharing, travel costs, and time costs that patients face. Making the full costs of different visit modalities transparent to patients and their clinicians can help patients obtain greater value from their primary care encounters. From April 6, 2020 to September 30, 2021 the VA waived all copayments for Veterans receiving care from the VA, but since this policy was temporary it is important that Veterans receive personalized information about their expected costs so they can obtain the most value from their primary care encounters.

To test the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of this approach, our team conducted a 12 week pilot project at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System from June–August 2021 in which we made personalized estimates of out-of-pocket, travel, and time costs available and transparent to patients and clinicians in advance of scheduled encounters and at the point of care. We found that it was feasible to generate and deliver personalized cost estimates in advance of visits, that this information was acceptable to patients, and that patients who used cost estimates during a visit with a clinician found this information helpful and would want to receive it again in the future. To achieve greater value in healthcare, systems must continue to pursue new ways to provide transparent information and needed support to patients and clinicians. This means ensuring clinical visits provide the highest levels of access, convenience, and return on patients’ healthcare-associated spending while minimizing financial toxicity.

Background

Transitional care (TC) involves multiple organizations as patients transition from hospitals. Collaboration to reduce readmissions has been encouraged by government initiatives. As part of Project ACHIEVE, a comparative TC study, we sought provider perspectives on TC improvement efforts.

Methods

We aimed to identify perceived problems that drove improvement efforts, influences on interventions implemented, facilitators or barriers to desired outcomes, and sustainability. Investigators interviewed 63 representatives from collaborative improvement efforts across 13 states in 2015. Directed content analysis was performed, with inductive coding as insights emerged. Data was also analyzed for differences in participant perceptions, such as the organization represented, geographic characteristics, and source of funding for interventions.

Results

Participants in semi-structured interviews included physicians, nurses, care navigators, and administrators from hospitals, nursing facilities, community-based organizations, and medical practices. Participants reported that changing reimbursement practices and readmissions penalties drove TC efforts, and common problems they sought to address included insufficient inter-provider communication, medication management, and challenges related to chronic condition management. Solutions implemented were often adapted according to community and setting characteristics and population factors. Findings also suggest differences in the types of interventions implemented according to funding sources, which also impacted the ability to sustain these interventions.

Conclusions

Cross-site collaboration, communication, and partnership among stakeholders is essential to effective transitional care. Collaboration led to shared understanding among stakeholders of health care and support services available in the community. Coalition-based work also facilitated trust among partners which led to expansion and sustainment of TC efforts. Unmet social needs of patients are a barrier.

Implications

Opportunities exist for increased and improved collaboration among clinical providers with community-based and social services organizations. Increased involvement of primary care providers in such collaborations would improve communication with both the patient and involved providers. Communities with external funding were more likely to implement evidence-based interventions, while those relying on institutional support addressed identified problems with more targeted interventions.

Background

Fragmented care and misaligned payment across Medicare and Medicaid lower care quality for dually eligible beneficiaries with mental illness. Accountable care organizations aim to improve the quality and value of care.

Methods

Using Medicare fee-for-service Part A and B claims data from 2009 to 2017 and a difference-in-differences design, we compared the spending and utilization of dually eligible beneficiaries with mental illness that were and were not attributed to Medicare ACO providers before and after ACO contract entry.

Results

Dually eligible beneficiaries with mental illness (N = 5,157,533, 70% depression, 22% bipolar, 27% schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders) had average annual Medicare spending of $17,899. ACO contract participation was generally not associated with spending or utilization changes. However, ACO contract participation was associated with higher rates of follow-up visits after mental health hospitalization: 1.17 and 1.30 percentage points within 7 and 30 days of discharge, respectively (p < 0.001). ACO-attributed beneficiaries with schizophrenia, bipolar, or other psychotic disorders received more ambulatory visits (393.9 per 1000 person-years, p = 0.002), while ACO-attributed beneficiaries with depression experienced fewer emergency department visits (−29.5 per 1000 person-years, p = 0.003) after ACO participation.

Conclusions

Dually eligible beneficiaries served by Medicare ACOs did not have lower spending, hospitalizations, or readmissions compared with other beneficiaries. However, ACO participation was associated with timely follow-up after mental health hospitalization, as well as more ambulatory care and fewer ED visits for certain diagnostic groups.

Implications

ACOs that include dually eligible beneficiaries with mental illness should tailor their designs to address the distinct needs of this population.

Bi-directional communication and referral pathways (BCRPs) between clinics and community-based organizations could promote well-being among vulnerable populations with complex and overlapping health and social needs. While BCRPs are promising, establishing them is complex, involving system and process changes across diverse organizational settings. To date, few models have been implemented or empirically tested.

This article describes an innovation and planning project to build a BCRP, linking patients in safety net primary care clinics to a comprehensive suite of community-based health and wellness supports in Los Angeles. During a year-long process, a multi-sector team iteratively engaged data to facilitate learning and improvement. The project proceeded through three distinct, but overlapping, phases: (1) Discovery, (2) Systems Mapping, and (3) BCRP Re-design and Testing, which were coordinated through frequent collaborative meetings. By using a stepwise systems-informed approach to collect and examine data, the team was able to generate new change ideas, dispel assumptions, and make transparent and informed decisions.

It was critical to have engagement from both internal partners with knowledge of “on-the-ground” practice realities, and external stakeholders with the fresh perspective needed to identify opportunities and define an improvement agenda. These efforts represent first steps towards implementing sustainable BCRPs and realizing their full potential to dynamically bridge the community-clinic divide and improve population health. Other jurisdictions can learn from and adapt the practical data-driven approach used in Los Angeles to build BCRPs that will be thoroughly operationalized, consistently implemented, and optimized within their own unique contexts.

Background

In 2018, Medicare implemented a successor to its Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program, BPCI Advanced, with stricter participation rules and new financial incentives to reduce spending.

Methods

Using claims-based episode data from thirteen participants, we compared spending and utilization in the first fifteen months of the new program (October 2018 to December 2019) to hospital- and episode-specific target prices, with a deep dive into clinical correlates for the most commonly-selected clinical episodes, sepsis and congestive heart failure.

Results

Twelve out of thirteen participants in a collaborative of teaching hospitals achieved shared savings for both Medicare and their own institution. Aggregate hospital shared savings were 5.8% of benchmark prices across 6,131 patients in 16 clinical episodes (p<0.001), appreciably higher than the reference savings rates reported after the first period of Medicare’s predecessor BPCI program. Differences in shared savings across hospitals for sepsis and congestive heart failure correlated with reductions in patients’ use of post-acute care, including reductions in skilled nursing facility, readmission, and home health rates. Evidence is presented showing reductions in patient utilization for cost-intensive post-acute settings accompanied increases in the proportion of patients exclusively utilizing non-institutional care after discharge from an anchor stay or procedure.

Conclusions

These findings provide an example of the fulfillment of a core promise of bundled payments to uncover new opportunities for reduced spending.

Level of evidence

Non-random cohort of hospitals.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare systems rapidly responded to challenges in healthcare delivery with innovation. Innovations developed during the COVID-19 pandemic have filled needed gaps in medical care and many may be sustained long term. The unique conditions and processes that facilitated such rapid, successful, and collective innovation should be explored to support future change in healthcare. Decentralized decision making, crowdsourcing, and nontraditional information sharing may be valuable for ongoing innovation in healthcare delivery. Shared, collective purpose in solving challenges in healthcare appear critical to this work. Health care systems aiming to sustain rapid healthcare delivery innovation should consider these processes and focus on facilitating shared purpose to sustain ongoing innovation.