User login
Ongoing hospital mergers, acquisitions, and closings demonstrate that reimbursement maximization and cost reduction are the twin sisters of health-care system reform. This focus is not going to change in the foreseeable future, as most experts now view “health system reform” as “health financing reform.”
Reports document that more than 50% of acute care hospitals in the United States experienced negative operating margins for the federal fiscal year ending September 30, 2017. Equally alarming is the increasing number of organizations either reducing or eliminating the roles of medical directors for clinical departments. Hospital and health system executives are increasingly engaging external consultants to find ways to decrease operating costs, with the caveat of maintaining or improving quality, safety, and patient satisfaction and engagement.
Given these cost reduction pressures, what can respiratory therapy medical directors and administrative directors do to ensure that quality and safety are ensured?
We believe that quality and safety can be maintained and improved in this bottom-line-focused environment if we collaborate with stakeholders and communicate the value of respiratory care services. Following are some examples of how to reinvigorate this collaboration. The list is far from complete, but we believe it is a good starting point for making a significant difference.
Science
We recognize that much of our practice is based on levels of evidence, and we must use this evidence as a basis for our services.
In talking and working with RT administrative directors across the country, we continue to see non-value-added “treatments” being provided, such as incentive spirometry and aerosolized acetylcysteine. Not only is this a waste of resources, but, because of it, our clinical RTs are not providing therapy.
One of the best opportunities to decrease cost is to eliminate waste. These services must be eliminated. For those patients who require secretion clearance/lung expansion, we can provide evidence-based services such as oscillating positive expiratory pressure.
Protocols
Respiratory care protocols have been around for decades, but surveys indicate that only half of all RT departments utilize them. Under the guidance of NAMDRC, the AARC has been educating RTs to transition from “treatments” to evidence-based protocols. Various barriers remain, and our challenge remains to implement proven care plans in every department.
Quality Assurance
The health-care industry made the transition from “Quality Control” to “Quality Assurance” several decades ago. However, many RT administrative directors lack the knowledge and/or resources necessary to create a comprehensive QA program, much less participate in clinical research. We suggest creating a standardized model to be adopted by RT departments across the country that would measure and communicate the value of respiratory care services.
Productivity/Staffing
An area where consultants and executives often focus their cost-saving efforts is staffing. Given that 50% to 60% of operating costs are personnel, this is to be expected.
Many organizations, however, are using the wrong metrics—such as procedures, CPT codes , and billables—to project staffing FTEs. Physicians and RTs understand that these metrics are not useful and must convince consultants and executives of this. The AARC Uniform Reporting Manual, which is currently being updated, is the best guide for determining appropriate staffing.
Education
Another common step in cost control has been the significant reduction or total elimination of education budgets.
During the past 5 years, RT leaders attending the AARC Summer Forum have been polled regarding whether they received financial assistance to attend the Management Section program. Sadly, the number attending on their own dime far surpasses those receiving financial assistance.
Additionally, the RT profession is witnessing more department-based education, which, in some cases, is not education at all, but marketing, cleverly packaged in the form of CEUs.
We fully understand these changes and recognize why they have occurred. However, we suggest the need to work together to differentiate marketing from education and ensure that clinical staff receive what is needed to ensure quality care.
It is vital for us to educate our physician leaders and pulmonary and critical care fellows on the science of respiratory care. There is a significant knowledge gap, and we have a great opportunity to improve the training of fellows. It is difficult to attract active medical directors if they don’t understand the science. We believe NAMDRC can play an important role by addressing these knowledge deficits.
Ongoing hospital mergers, acquisitions, and closings demonstrate that reimbursement maximization and cost reduction are the twin sisters of health-care system reform. This focus is not going to change in the foreseeable future, as most experts now view “health system reform” as “health financing reform.”
Reports document that more than 50% of acute care hospitals in the United States experienced negative operating margins for the federal fiscal year ending September 30, 2017. Equally alarming is the increasing number of organizations either reducing or eliminating the roles of medical directors for clinical departments. Hospital and health system executives are increasingly engaging external consultants to find ways to decrease operating costs, with the caveat of maintaining or improving quality, safety, and patient satisfaction and engagement.
Given these cost reduction pressures, what can respiratory therapy medical directors and administrative directors do to ensure that quality and safety are ensured?
We believe that quality and safety can be maintained and improved in this bottom-line-focused environment if we collaborate with stakeholders and communicate the value of respiratory care services. Following are some examples of how to reinvigorate this collaboration. The list is far from complete, but we believe it is a good starting point for making a significant difference.
Science
We recognize that much of our practice is based on levels of evidence, and we must use this evidence as a basis for our services.
In talking and working with RT administrative directors across the country, we continue to see non-value-added “treatments” being provided, such as incentive spirometry and aerosolized acetylcysteine. Not only is this a waste of resources, but, because of it, our clinical RTs are not providing therapy.
One of the best opportunities to decrease cost is to eliminate waste. These services must be eliminated. For those patients who require secretion clearance/lung expansion, we can provide evidence-based services such as oscillating positive expiratory pressure.
Protocols
Respiratory care protocols have been around for decades, but surveys indicate that only half of all RT departments utilize them. Under the guidance of NAMDRC, the AARC has been educating RTs to transition from “treatments” to evidence-based protocols. Various barriers remain, and our challenge remains to implement proven care plans in every department.
Quality Assurance
The health-care industry made the transition from “Quality Control” to “Quality Assurance” several decades ago. However, many RT administrative directors lack the knowledge and/or resources necessary to create a comprehensive QA program, much less participate in clinical research. We suggest creating a standardized model to be adopted by RT departments across the country that would measure and communicate the value of respiratory care services.
Productivity/Staffing
An area where consultants and executives often focus their cost-saving efforts is staffing. Given that 50% to 60% of operating costs are personnel, this is to be expected.
Many organizations, however, are using the wrong metrics—such as procedures, CPT codes , and billables—to project staffing FTEs. Physicians and RTs understand that these metrics are not useful and must convince consultants and executives of this. The AARC Uniform Reporting Manual, which is currently being updated, is the best guide for determining appropriate staffing.
Education
Another common step in cost control has been the significant reduction or total elimination of education budgets.
During the past 5 years, RT leaders attending the AARC Summer Forum have been polled regarding whether they received financial assistance to attend the Management Section program. Sadly, the number attending on their own dime far surpasses those receiving financial assistance.
Additionally, the RT profession is witnessing more department-based education, which, in some cases, is not education at all, but marketing, cleverly packaged in the form of CEUs.
We fully understand these changes and recognize why they have occurred. However, we suggest the need to work together to differentiate marketing from education and ensure that clinical staff receive what is needed to ensure quality care.
It is vital for us to educate our physician leaders and pulmonary and critical care fellows on the science of respiratory care. There is a significant knowledge gap, and we have a great opportunity to improve the training of fellows. It is difficult to attract active medical directors if they don’t understand the science. We believe NAMDRC can play an important role by addressing these knowledge deficits.
Ongoing hospital mergers, acquisitions, and closings demonstrate that reimbursement maximization and cost reduction are the twin sisters of health-care system reform. This focus is not going to change in the foreseeable future, as most experts now view “health system reform” as “health financing reform.”
Reports document that more than 50% of acute care hospitals in the United States experienced negative operating margins for the federal fiscal year ending September 30, 2017. Equally alarming is the increasing number of organizations either reducing or eliminating the roles of medical directors for clinical departments. Hospital and health system executives are increasingly engaging external consultants to find ways to decrease operating costs, with the caveat of maintaining or improving quality, safety, and patient satisfaction and engagement.
Given these cost reduction pressures, what can respiratory therapy medical directors and administrative directors do to ensure that quality and safety are ensured?
We believe that quality and safety can be maintained and improved in this bottom-line-focused environment if we collaborate with stakeholders and communicate the value of respiratory care services. Following are some examples of how to reinvigorate this collaboration. The list is far from complete, but we believe it is a good starting point for making a significant difference.
Science
We recognize that much of our practice is based on levels of evidence, and we must use this evidence as a basis for our services.
In talking and working with RT administrative directors across the country, we continue to see non-value-added “treatments” being provided, such as incentive spirometry and aerosolized acetylcysteine. Not only is this a waste of resources, but, because of it, our clinical RTs are not providing therapy.
One of the best opportunities to decrease cost is to eliminate waste. These services must be eliminated. For those patients who require secretion clearance/lung expansion, we can provide evidence-based services such as oscillating positive expiratory pressure.
Protocols
Respiratory care protocols have been around for decades, but surveys indicate that only half of all RT departments utilize them. Under the guidance of NAMDRC, the AARC has been educating RTs to transition from “treatments” to evidence-based protocols. Various barriers remain, and our challenge remains to implement proven care plans in every department.
Quality Assurance
The health-care industry made the transition from “Quality Control” to “Quality Assurance” several decades ago. However, many RT administrative directors lack the knowledge and/or resources necessary to create a comprehensive QA program, much less participate in clinical research. We suggest creating a standardized model to be adopted by RT departments across the country that would measure and communicate the value of respiratory care services.
Productivity/Staffing
An area where consultants and executives often focus their cost-saving efforts is staffing. Given that 50% to 60% of operating costs are personnel, this is to be expected.
Many organizations, however, are using the wrong metrics—such as procedures, CPT codes , and billables—to project staffing FTEs. Physicians and RTs understand that these metrics are not useful and must convince consultants and executives of this. The AARC Uniform Reporting Manual, which is currently being updated, is the best guide for determining appropriate staffing.
Education
Another common step in cost control has been the significant reduction or total elimination of education budgets.
During the past 5 years, RT leaders attending the AARC Summer Forum have been polled regarding whether they received financial assistance to attend the Management Section program. Sadly, the number attending on their own dime far surpasses those receiving financial assistance.
Additionally, the RT profession is witnessing more department-based education, which, in some cases, is not education at all, but marketing, cleverly packaged in the form of CEUs.
We fully understand these changes and recognize why they have occurred. However, we suggest the need to work together to differentiate marketing from education and ensure that clinical staff receive what is needed to ensure quality care.
It is vital for us to educate our physician leaders and pulmonary and critical care fellows on the science of respiratory care. There is a significant knowledge gap, and we have a great opportunity to improve the training of fellows. It is difficult to attract active medical directors if they don’t understand the science. We believe NAMDRC can play an important role by addressing these knowledge deficits.