Issue brief (Center for Studying Health System Change)最新文献

Faced with double-digit annual increases in the use of advanced imaging services, health plans are stepping up efforts to manage imaging utilization, maintain imaging quality and ensure patient safety, according to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) 2007 site visits to 12 nationally representative metropolitan communities. Plan strategies range from informing physicians about evidence-based imaging guidelines to requiring prior authorization of services to credentialing physicians and imaging equipment. Mindful of the physician backlash against managed care in the 1990s, plans are instituting requirements they perceive to be less intrusive and burdensome for physicians. Some physicians, however, view the requirements as administratively onerous and obstacles to patient care. Depending on the experience with imaging, plans may expand utilization management to other services with rapid volume increases.

The sensitivity of state budgets to economic cycles contributes to fluctuations in health coverage, eligibility, benefits and provider payment levels in public programs, as well as support for safety net hospitals and community health centers (CHCs). The aftershocks of the 2001 recession on state budgets were felt well into 2004. More recently, the economic recovery allowed many states to restore cuts and, in some cases, expand health services for low-income people, according to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) 2007 site visits to 12 nationally representative metropolitan communities. Along with bolstering support of safety net providers and raising Medicaid payments for private physicians, some states advanced even more ambitious health reform proposals. Yet across communities, safety net systems face mounting challenges of caring for more uninsured patients, and these pressures will likely increase given the current economic downturn.

As key providers of preventive and primary care for underserved people, including the uninsured, community health centers (CHCs) are the backbone of the U.S. health care safety net. Despite significant federal funding increases, community health centers are struggling to meet rising demand for care, particularly for specialty medical, dental and mental health services, according to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) 2007 site visits to 12 nationally representative metropolitan communities. Health centers are responding to these pressures by expanding capacity and adding services but confront staffing, resource and other constraints. At the same time, CHCs are facing other demands, including increased quality reporting expectations, addressing racial and ethnic disparities, developing electronic medical records, and preparing for public health emergencies.

The nation's community hospitals face increasing problems obtaining emergency on-call coverage from specialist physicians, according to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) 2007 site visits to 12 nationally representative metropolitan communities. The diminished willingness of specialist physicians to provide on-call coverage is occurring as hospital emergency departments confront an ever-increasing demand for services. Factors influencing physician reluctance to provide on-call coverage include decreased dependence on hospital admitting privileges as more services shift to non-hospital settings; payment for emergency care, especially for uninsured patients; and medical liability concerns. Hospital strategies to secure on-call coverage include enforcing hospital medical staff bylaws that require physicians to take call, contracting with physicians to provide coverage, paying physicians stipends, and employing physicians. Nonetheless, many hospitals continue to struggle with inadequate on-call coverage, which threatens patients' timely access to high-quality emergency care and may raise health care costs.

Little has changed in local health care markets since 2005 to break the cycle of rising costs, falling insurance coverage and widening access inequities, according to initial findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) 2007 site visits to 12 nationally representative metropolitan communities. As intense competition among hospitals and physicians for profitable specialty services continues, employers and health plans are looking to consumers to take more responsibility for medical costs, lifestyle choices and treatment decisions. While consumer-directed health plans have not gained widespread adoption, other developments-including a heightened emphasis on prevention and wellness, along with nascent provider cost and quality information-are advancing health care consumerism. However, concerns exist about whether these efforts will slow cost growth enough to keep care affordable or whether the growing problem of affordability will derail efforts to decrease the rising number of uninsured Americans and stymie meaningful health care reform.

As Massachusetts' landmark effort to reach nearly universal health coverage unfolds, the state is now focusing on employers to take steps to increase coverage. All employers--except firms with fewer than 11 workers--face new requirements under the 2006 law, including establishing Section 125, or cafeteria, plans to allow workers to purchase insurance with pre-tax dollars and paying a $295 annual fee if they do not make a "fair and reasonable" contribution to the cost of workers' coverage. Through interviews with Massachusetts health care leaders (see Data Source), the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) examined how the law is likely to affect employer decisions to offer health insurance to workers and employee decisions to purchase coverage. Market observers believe many small firms may be unaware of specific requirements and that some could prove onerous. Moreover, the largest impact on small employers may come from the individual mandate for all residents to have a minimum level of health insurance. This mandate may add costs for firms if more workers take up coverage offers, seek more generous coverage or pressure employers to offer coverage. Despite reform of the individual and small group markets, including development of new insurance products, concerns remain about the affordability of coverage and the ability to stem rising health care costs.

Efforts to improve the efficiency and quality of health care are unlikely to be successful if physicians and hospitals incur steep financial losses from success in accomplishing these goals, according to a new study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). Currently, most efforts to improve efficiency for a specific medical condition usually reduce the number of services per patient that can be billed, posing financial challenges for providers. These challenges are often magnified by the current fee-for-service payment structure, where some services are highly profitable and others are unprofitable, further undermining the case for redesigning care delivery to improve quality and efficiency. These dynamics are seen in the collaboration between Virginia Mason Medical Center (VMMC) and Aetna in Seattle to improve care for four common conditions. Although Aetna and participating self-insured employers have agreed to pay higher rates for certain unprofitable services if reductions in use of profitable services are achieved, VMMC still faces a financial challenge from applying more efficient care practices to patients covered by other insurers.

Health plans have introduced high-performance networks to encourage use of network providers--predominantly physician specialists--deemed high performing on efficiency and quality measures. Early adopters of these networks are large national employers, and, while other employers are interested, actual adoption has lagged, according to a study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). Enrollment in products using high-performance networks is limited, and objective evidence on the impact on service use, costs and quality is lacking. Early lessons learned indicate the need for effective communication between plans and providers, use of both efficiency and quality measures, industry standards of provider performance, and employer support.

Health plans increasingly use physician performance ratings, but some physicians are concerned that measurement inaccuracies may jeopardize their reputations and livelihoods. Absent from the debate thus far are consumer views about how accurate physician ratings need to be for various uses. Consumer tolerance for inaccuracy in physician performance ratings varies widely, according to a new national study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). At least one-third of adults have a low tolerance for inaccuracy (5 percent or less), but more than one of every five adults would tolerate ratings that were 20 percent-50 percent inaccurate. Consumers' relatively higher tolerance for inaccuracy when used for public reporting and tiered networks may speed these uses of physician performance ratings by health plans. However, consumers' lower tolerance for inaccurate ratings when choosing their own physicians and paying physicians for performance may hinder such uses.

Current health insurance benefit designs that simply rely on higher, one-size-fits-all patient cost sharing have limited potential to curb rapidly rising costs, but innovations in benefit design can potentially make cost sharing a more effective tool, according to a new study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). Innovative benefit designs include incentives to encourage healthy behaviors; incentives that vary by service type, patient condition or enrollee income; and incentives to use efficient providers. But most applications of these innovative designs are not widespread, suggesting that any significant cost impact is many years off. Moreover, regulations governing high-deductible, consumer-directed health plans eligible for health savings accounts (HSAs) preclude some promising benefit design innovations and dilute the incentives in others. A movement away from a one-size-fits-all HSA benefit structure toward a more flexible design might broaden the appeal of HSA plans and enable them to incorporate features that promote cost-effective care.