User login
The Hospitalist only
CMS launches advanced APM focused on bundled payments
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is launching a new voluntary bundled payment demonstration project that for the first time will qualify as an advanced alternative payment model under the Quality Payment Program.
The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI Advanced) “builds on the earlier success of bundled payment models and is an important step in the move away from fee-for-service and towards paying for value,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “Under this model, providers will have an incentive to deliver high-quality care.”
Both categories of participants may enter into agreements with individual physicians and nonphysician providers to furnish care under the bundled payment model.
It will cover 29 in-patient episodes and three outpatient clinical episodes. Payment will be tied to performance on quality measures.
The 29 in-patient clinical episodes cover a range of conditions, including liver disorders (excluding malignancy, cirrhosis, and alcoholic hepatitis); various cardiac conditions; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchitis, and asthma; spinal fusion; joint replacements; femur, hip, or pelvis fractures; gastrointestinal hemorrhage or obstruction; renal failure; sepsis; simple pneumonia and respiratory infections; stroke; and urinary tract infections.
The three outpatient clinical episodes include percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac defibrillator implantation, and back and neck surgery except spinal fusion.
Seven quality measures will be tracked as part of the payment. For all clinical episodes, measurement of all-cause hospital readmissions and advance care plan will be required.
The other five will be applied to the payment when appropriate, as follows:
- Perioperative care: selection of prophylactic antibiotic: first- or second-generation cephalosporin.
- Hospital-level risk-standardized complication rate following elective primary total hip arthroplasty and/or total knee arthroplasty.
- Hospital 30-day, all-cause, risk-standardized mortality rate following coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
- Excess days in acute care after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction; and AHRQ patient safety indicators.
CMS has scheduled an open-door forum for those interested in participating in BPCI Advanced on Jan. 30.
Applications for participation will be accepted through March 12.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is launching a new voluntary bundled payment demonstration project that for the first time will qualify as an advanced alternative payment model under the Quality Payment Program.
The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI Advanced) “builds on the earlier success of bundled payment models and is an important step in the move away from fee-for-service and towards paying for value,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “Under this model, providers will have an incentive to deliver high-quality care.”
Both categories of participants may enter into agreements with individual physicians and nonphysician providers to furnish care under the bundled payment model.
It will cover 29 in-patient episodes and three outpatient clinical episodes. Payment will be tied to performance on quality measures.
The 29 in-patient clinical episodes cover a range of conditions, including liver disorders (excluding malignancy, cirrhosis, and alcoholic hepatitis); various cardiac conditions; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchitis, and asthma; spinal fusion; joint replacements; femur, hip, or pelvis fractures; gastrointestinal hemorrhage or obstruction; renal failure; sepsis; simple pneumonia and respiratory infections; stroke; and urinary tract infections.
The three outpatient clinical episodes include percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac defibrillator implantation, and back and neck surgery except spinal fusion.
Seven quality measures will be tracked as part of the payment. For all clinical episodes, measurement of all-cause hospital readmissions and advance care plan will be required.
The other five will be applied to the payment when appropriate, as follows:
- Perioperative care: selection of prophylactic antibiotic: first- or second-generation cephalosporin.
- Hospital-level risk-standardized complication rate following elective primary total hip arthroplasty and/or total knee arthroplasty.
- Hospital 30-day, all-cause, risk-standardized mortality rate following coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
- Excess days in acute care after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction; and AHRQ patient safety indicators.
CMS has scheduled an open-door forum for those interested in participating in BPCI Advanced on Jan. 30.
Applications for participation will be accepted through March 12.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is launching a new voluntary bundled payment demonstration project that for the first time will qualify as an advanced alternative payment model under the Quality Payment Program.
The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI Advanced) “builds on the earlier success of bundled payment models and is an important step in the move away from fee-for-service and towards paying for value,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in a statement. “Under this model, providers will have an incentive to deliver high-quality care.”
Both categories of participants may enter into agreements with individual physicians and nonphysician providers to furnish care under the bundled payment model.
It will cover 29 in-patient episodes and three outpatient clinical episodes. Payment will be tied to performance on quality measures.
The 29 in-patient clinical episodes cover a range of conditions, including liver disorders (excluding malignancy, cirrhosis, and alcoholic hepatitis); various cardiac conditions; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchitis, and asthma; spinal fusion; joint replacements; femur, hip, or pelvis fractures; gastrointestinal hemorrhage or obstruction; renal failure; sepsis; simple pneumonia and respiratory infections; stroke; and urinary tract infections.
The three outpatient clinical episodes include percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac defibrillator implantation, and back and neck surgery except spinal fusion.
Seven quality measures will be tracked as part of the payment. For all clinical episodes, measurement of all-cause hospital readmissions and advance care plan will be required.
The other five will be applied to the payment when appropriate, as follows:
- Perioperative care: selection of prophylactic antibiotic: first- or second-generation cephalosporin.
- Hospital-level risk-standardized complication rate following elective primary total hip arthroplasty and/or total knee arthroplasty.
- Hospital 30-day, all-cause, risk-standardized mortality rate following coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
- Excess days in acute care after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction; and AHRQ patient safety indicators.
CMS has scheduled an open-door forum for those interested in participating in BPCI Advanced on Jan. 30.
Applications for participation will be accepted through March 12.
Phoenix Children’s Hospital integrates care from ground up
About 4 years ago, officials at Phoenix Children’s Hospital stopped and took a look around. The adult health care landscape was zooming toward value-based models and integrating care so that previously separate components were now working together. The health of whole populations mattered more than ever.
But their hospital, they found, accounted for just 9% of the “care touches” – interactions between a patient and a doctor – of their half-million pediatric population. They were not working closely with primary care doctors and independent specialists. Patients would come to the hospital, get treated, and then – poof, they were gone. The hospital came to a realization that there was a better way to provide care.
They began a process that led to what appears to be a “first-of-its-kind” model, an integrated care network created from the ground up by a hospital venturing out into the community and actively recruiting private primary care doctors and specialists. Now, more than 1,000 physicians from more than 100 practices in the Phoenix metro area are part of the network, joined with the hospital through contracts laden with incentives for meeting care and wellness goals. When good care is being given, the network gets paid, and everyone benefits financially.
“It’s amazing the difference we’re able to provide when we start linking together what used to be very disparate systems,” Mr. Johnson said.
Here are some features of the network:
Every group and practice, including the hospital, is now sharing their data. When a child shows up at the ER, the ER doctor can quickly see things like who the primary care doctor is, allergies, medications, and care history.
- Targets such as asthma control, providing basic wellness exams, and following patients appropriately, are tied to financial rewards.
- Children with complex or special health care needs, and patients who are high utilizers, have a care coordinator assigned to look more closely at their cases.
- A corporate entity created by the hospital and its independent community physician partners has a doctor-heavy board of directors composed of community primary care physicians, specialists, hospital-employed physicians, and hospital administrators.
Some of the care improvements have been dramatic, Mr. Johnson said. One teenager had made 55 ER visits and 21 inpatient visits over 9 months, but the pattern went unnoticed. With new tools – reports drawn from hospital records, insurance records, and records from other doctor visits – the problem became apparent. A care coordinator found that the mother didn’t quite understand how to administer the boy’s medication, prompting repeated medical crises and hundred of thousands of dollars in unnecessary costs. The teenager has since re-enrolled in school and has had no more hospital admissions, Johnson said.
He said that, at first, many community doctors had a “real skepticism” of being too closely tied to a hospital financially, but now doctors are getting in touch with the network about joining.
“There’s a leap of faith that has to happen in the initial stages,” he said. “When you get the insurance companies at the table to really work with you to build the right incentives around truly impactful and quality care, you can really start to move the needle. When you see – with data – that what you’re doing is having success, and they see the additional money coming from the incentives, that really helps.”
Amy Knight, MHA, chief operating officer of the Washington-based Children’s Hospital Association, said that, while other children’s hospitals have migrated toward more integrated care, they either haven’t needed to recruit community physicians as they have in Phoenix, because they already employed many primary care physicians, or market conditions have been such that they haven’t expanded as quickly.
“Phoenix saw a huge opportunity and was very smart about how they approached their own market,” she said. “They are definitely on the front end, the cutting edge of doing that.”
Since its network has expanded, Phoenix Children’s has hosted visitors who hope to draw lessons from their experience, she said.
“I think what most people go away with is: ‘Very interesting, very cool – not sure it would work in our market,’” she said. Still, lessons on thinking about risk and building a governance structure are widely applicable, she said.
“The house may look a little bit different, but some of the things you’re doing inside it may actually all look the same,” Ms. Knight said.
She expects a continued move toward more integrated care networks, despite the on-again, off-again political talk about repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act.
“There’s probably some people stepping back in hesitancy, but I don’t think that the political discourse right now will necessarily change the trajectory that we’re on.”
About 4 years ago, officials at Phoenix Children’s Hospital stopped and took a look around. The adult health care landscape was zooming toward value-based models and integrating care so that previously separate components were now working together. The health of whole populations mattered more than ever.
But their hospital, they found, accounted for just 9% of the “care touches” – interactions between a patient and a doctor – of their half-million pediatric population. They were not working closely with primary care doctors and independent specialists. Patients would come to the hospital, get treated, and then – poof, they were gone. The hospital came to a realization that there was a better way to provide care.
They began a process that led to what appears to be a “first-of-its-kind” model, an integrated care network created from the ground up by a hospital venturing out into the community and actively recruiting private primary care doctors and specialists. Now, more than 1,000 physicians from more than 100 practices in the Phoenix metro area are part of the network, joined with the hospital through contracts laden with incentives for meeting care and wellness goals. When good care is being given, the network gets paid, and everyone benefits financially.
“It’s amazing the difference we’re able to provide when we start linking together what used to be very disparate systems,” Mr. Johnson said.
Here are some features of the network:
Every group and practice, including the hospital, is now sharing their data. When a child shows up at the ER, the ER doctor can quickly see things like who the primary care doctor is, allergies, medications, and care history.
- Targets such as asthma control, providing basic wellness exams, and following patients appropriately, are tied to financial rewards.
- Children with complex or special health care needs, and patients who are high utilizers, have a care coordinator assigned to look more closely at their cases.
- A corporate entity created by the hospital and its independent community physician partners has a doctor-heavy board of directors composed of community primary care physicians, specialists, hospital-employed physicians, and hospital administrators.
Some of the care improvements have been dramatic, Mr. Johnson said. One teenager had made 55 ER visits and 21 inpatient visits over 9 months, but the pattern went unnoticed. With new tools – reports drawn from hospital records, insurance records, and records from other doctor visits – the problem became apparent. A care coordinator found that the mother didn’t quite understand how to administer the boy’s medication, prompting repeated medical crises and hundred of thousands of dollars in unnecessary costs. The teenager has since re-enrolled in school and has had no more hospital admissions, Johnson said.
He said that, at first, many community doctors had a “real skepticism” of being too closely tied to a hospital financially, but now doctors are getting in touch with the network about joining.
“There’s a leap of faith that has to happen in the initial stages,” he said. “When you get the insurance companies at the table to really work with you to build the right incentives around truly impactful and quality care, you can really start to move the needle. When you see – with data – that what you’re doing is having success, and they see the additional money coming from the incentives, that really helps.”
Amy Knight, MHA, chief operating officer of the Washington-based Children’s Hospital Association, said that, while other children’s hospitals have migrated toward more integrated care, they either haven’t needed to recruit community physicians as they have in Phoenix, because they already employed many primary care physicians, or market conditions have been such that they haven’t expanded as quickly.
“Phoenix saw a huge opportunity and was very smart about how they approached their own market,” she said. “They are definitely on the front end, the cutting edge of doing that.”
Since its network has expanded, Phoenix Children’s has hosted visitors who hope to draw lessons from their experience, she said.
“I think what most people go away with is: ‘Very interesting, very cool – not sure it would work in our market,’” she said. Still, lessons on thinking about risk and building a governance structure are widely applicable, she said.
“The house may look a little bit different, but some of the things you’re doing inside it may actually all look the same,” Ms. Knight said.
She expects a continued move toward more integrated care networks, despite the on-again, off-again political talk about repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act.
“There’s probably some people stepping back in hesitancy, but I don’t think that the political discourse right now will necessarily change the trajectory that we’re on.”
About 4 years ago, officials at Phoenix Children’s Hospital stopped and took a look around. The adult health care landscape was zooming toward value-based models and integrating care so that previously separate components were now working together. The health of whole populations mattered more than ever.
But their hospital, they found, accounted for just 9% of the “care touches” – interactions between a patient and a doctor – of their half-million pediatric population. They were not working closely with primary care doctors and independent specialists. Patients would come to the hospital, get treated, and then – poof, they were gone. The hospital came to a realization that there was a better way to provide care.
They began a process that led to what appears to be a “first-of-its-kind” model, an integrated care network created from the ground up by a hospital venturing out into the community and actively recruiting private primary care doctors and specialists. Now, more than 1,000 physicians from more than 100 practices in the Phoenix metro area are part of the network, joined with the hospital through contracts laden with incentives for meeting care and wellness goals. When good care is being given, the network gets paid, and everyone benefits financially.
“It’s amazing the difference we’re able to provide when we start linking together what used to be very disparate systems,” Mr. Johnson said.
Here are some features of the network:
Every group and practice, including the hospital, is now sharing their data. When a child shows up at the ER, the ER doctor can quickly see things like who the primary care doctor is, allergies, medications, and care history.
- Targets such as asthma control, providing basic wellness exams, and following patients appropriately, are tied to financial rewards.
- Children with complex or special health care needs, and patients who are high utilizers, have a care coordinator assigned to look more closely at their cases.
- A corporate entity created by the hospital and its independent community physician partners has a doctor-heavy board of directors composed of community primary care physicians, specialists, hospital-employed physicians, and hospital administrators.
Some of the care improvements have been dramatic, Mr. Johnson said. One teenager had made 55 ER visits and 21 inpatient visits over 9 months, but the pattern went unnoticed. With new tools – reports drawn from hospital records, insurance records, and records from other doctor visits – the problem became apparent. A care coordinator found that the mother didn’t quite understand how to administer the boy’s medication, prompting repeated medical crises and hundred of thousands of dollars in unnecessary costs. The teenager has since re-enrolled in school and has had no more hospital admissions, Johnson said.
He said that, at first, many community doctors had a “real skepticism” of being too closely tied to a hospital financially, but now doctors are getting in touch with the network about joining.
“There’s a leap of faith that has to happen in the initial stages,” he said. “When you get the insurance companies at the table to really work with you to build the right incentives around truly impactful and quality care, you can really start to move the needle. When you see – with data – that what you’re doing is having success, and they see the additional money coming from the incentives, that really helps.”
Amy Knight, MHA, chief operating officer of the Washington-based Children’s Hospital Association, said that, while other children’s hospitals have migrated toward more integrated care, they either haven’t needed to recruit community physicians as they have in Phoenix, because they already employed many primary care physicians, or market conditions have been such that they haven’t expanded as quickly.
“Phoenix saw a huge opportunity and was very smart about how they approached their own market,” she said. “They are definitely on the front end, the cutting edge of doing that.”
Since its network has expanded, Phoenix Children’s has hosted visitors who hope to draw lessons from their experience, she said.
“I think what most people go away with is: ‘Very interesting, very cool – not sure it would work in our market,’” she said. Still, lessons on thinking about risk and building a governance structure are widely applicable, she said.
“The house may look a little bit different, but some of the things you’re doing inside it may actually all look the same,” Ms. Knight said.
She expects a continued move toward more integrated care networks, despite the on-again, off-again political talk about repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act.
“There’s probably some people stepping back in hesitancy, but I don’t think that the political discourse right now will necessarily change the trajectory that we’re on.”
Sexual harassment
Question: A medical assistant alleged that Dr. Y sexually harassed her by sending anonymous gifts and messages such as, “you’re gorgeous,” and “I love your figure.” It was a repeat of Dr. Y’s previous behavior pattern directed at a different worker, who had lodged a complaint with the human resources department. The medical assistant now files a sexual harassment action under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the health care institution, alleging a hostile work environment.
Which of the following is false?
A. Sexual harassment is a form of sexual misconduct regulated by state medical boards.
B. Mere words, without physical action, may suffice to be deemed sexual harassment.
C. A hostile environment arises when offensive conduct is so severe and pervasive as to amount to job discrimination.
D. Sexual harassment is a civil rights violation unique to the workplace.
E. Liability may attach to the supervisor, institution, or the harasser.
Answer: D. This hypothetical is modified from an actual Connecticut case that was recently decided in favor of the plaintiff.1 In that case, which involved a dentist, the federal Second Circuit unanimously rejected the University of Connecticut Health Center’s appeal against a jury’s verdict holding it responsible for its employee’s sexual harassment of a coworker, who was awarded $125,000. It ruled that the health center should have known of its employee’s harassing behavior.
Sexual harassment, a current hot topic, is pervasive, affecting a diversity of individuals in the fields of media, sports, politics, judiciary, education, entertainment, and others. The medical profession is no exception, and studies indicate that sexual harassment affects patients and physicians alike, occurring in hospitals, private offices, and academic centers.
In a large questionnaire study involving 4,501 female physicians, the authors found a prevalence rate of 47.7%. Harassment was more common while in medical school or during internship, residency, or fellowship than in practice.2 Patients may be the harassers. In 599 of the 1,064 licensed female family physicians in Ontario, more than 75% reported sexual harassment by patients at some time during their careers, either in their own offices by their own patients, or in settings such as emergency departments and clinics, where unknown patients presented an even higher risk.3
When physicians sexually harass fellow workers such as nurses, they distract their victims from providing attentive and competent care. In a review of the subject, researchers cited a study of 188 critical care nurses in hospitals, where nearly half (46%) reported experiencing sexual harassment that included “offensive sexual remarks, unwanted physical contact, unwanted nonverbal attention, requests for unwanted dates, sexual propositions, and physical assault.”4 To this list must now be added misconduct via the use of social media. In the study, physicians (82%), coworkers (20%), and immediate supervisors (7%) accounted for most of the incidents.
Neglecting to look seriously into complaints or to monitor and remedy the situation may create a hostile environment and trigger liability.
An example is the recent well-publicized case of Olympics team physician Dr. Larry Nassar, who was also a faculty member at Michigan State University. Olympic gold medalist McKayla Maroney named both the university and the U.S. Olympic Committee as codefendants in a lawsuit alleging that the institutions failed to properly investigate the team doctor’s criminal sexual conduct.
In Anania v. Daubenspeck Chiropractic, two employees of a chiropractor alleged that his patients sexually harassed them, but he did not remedy the situation.5 The trial court initially dismissed their lawsuit, holding that Ohio law did not recognize a cause of action for sexual harassment by a nonemployee patient, and that liability for sexual harassment can only exist in the context of respondeat superior (employer-employee) liability.
However, the court of appeals held that so long as the chiropractor knew or should have known of the harassment, and failed to take corrective action, he could be liable for allowing a hostile environment to exist.
Negligent supervision is another favorite plaintiff’s cause of action. In Doe v. Borromeo, a patient sought to hold the hospital liable for sexual assault by a physician during a medical exam.6 The lower state court had summarily dismissed the case, which was based on vicarious liability, but the state court of appeals reversed, finding the patient’s complaint against the hospital included a negligent supervision claim.
The appeals court reasoned that this was distinguishable from one based upon vicarious liability, so long as the supervising entity had a duty to protect the victim – and such a duty can only be established if the supervising entity knew or should have known of the existence of the harasser’s propensities, if any, to commit criminal and tortious acts.
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The commission’s website explains the law in clear and simple language:
“It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include ‘sexual harassment’ or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex.
“For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general. Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.
“Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted). The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a coworker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.”7
For sexual harassment to occur, the aggrieved party must either show a “hostile environment” or “quid pro quo” situation.
In a hostile environment case, the harassment is serious and persistent, creating unacceptable and offensive work conditions. The plaintiff has to show that the employer knew or should have known of the situation but failed to remedy it.
The “quid pro quo” type of case requires a showing that a person in authority conditioned some aspect of the employee’s employment, such as promotion or retention, upon a sexual favor or relationship.
The U.S. Supreme Court has both clarified and muddied the law’s position on these two previously distinct types of sexual harassment.
In the landmark case of Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, the plaintiff, who was a salesperson, alleged that a supervisor made advances to her and threatened to deny her certain job benefits if she did not cooperate.8 The threats were never carried out, and she was in fact promoted; but her lawsuit alleged that the harassment caused her resignation and amounted to a “constructive” discharge.
Likewise, in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, the plaintiff, employed as a lifeguard, alleged that her work environment was riddled with crude remarks and obscenities.9 One of the two supervisors reportedly once said to Faragher, “Date me or clean toilets for a year.” Another lifeguard had previously lodged similar complaints. The plaintiff ultimately resigned and brought suit.
The U.S. Supreme Court characterized both of these as “hostile environment” rather than “quid pro quo” cases, because the plaintiffs did not suffer any direct adverse job action. In its decisions, the court defined the scope of liability and affirmative defenses, holding that employers can be subject to vicarious liability when supervisors create actionable hostile work environments.
In other cases, the Supreme Court has ruled for the use of “the reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position” standard in judging the severity of sexual harassment. The court has also held that the genders of the harasser and the harassed employee are not material in determining whether sexual harassment has occurred.
A physician can be accused of harassing an employee, a nurse, an assistant, a fellow worker, a third party, or a patient. Focusing on misconduct within the doctor-patient relationship, the Federation of State Medical Boards adopted in May 2006 a policy entitled “Addressing Sexual Boundaries: Guidelines for State Medical Boards.”10
Although it did not use the term sexual harassment, the policy emphasized that physician sexual misconduct may include behavior that is verbal or physical, and may include expressions of thoughts and feelings or gestures that are sexual. It used the term “sexual impropriety” to denote behavior, gestures, or expressions that are seductive, sexually suggestive, disrespectful of patient privacy, or sexually demeaning to a patient. Together with “sexual violation,” a term the FSMB used when referring to physical sexual contact, they form the basis for disciplinary action by a state medical board.
Caveat: When performing a physical exam, physicians should always use good judgment and sensitivity, relying on the presence of a medical assistant to ensure patient comfort and to alleviate possible embarrassment or anxiety.
Under the federal EEOC rules, the employer rather than the harasser is the defendant. But there are other legal recourses, including tort and criminal actions, that directly target the harasser. Successful plaintiffs may be awarded lost wages, as well as damages for emotional distress, medical expenses, and punitive damages. They may also recover attorney fees.
In one case, a psychiatric nurse was awarded $1.2 million (later reduced to $850,000); in another, a nurse successfully sued a physician’s medical practice and received $150,000 in damages.4 And in an unusual case, a plaintiff was awarded only $1 in damages, but her counsel was paid $41,598 in fees.11 For the practicing doctor, medical board sanction, notoriety, and loss of professional standing and privileges constitute additional costs.
The medical profession is as susceptible as any other – perhaps more so – to allegations of sexual harassment. The magic words for actionable sexual harassment are severe, pervasive, and unwelcome. Although laws in the workplace generally do not prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or minor isolated incidents, the line separating these behaviors from bona fide sexual harassment is thin.
Erring on the side of strict and sober professional propriety seems prudent, given the current climate of zero tolerance.
References
1. MacCluskey v. University of Connecticut Health Center, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, No. 17-0807-cv, Dec. 19, 2017.
2. Arch Intern Med. 1998 Feb 23;158(4):352-8.
3. N Engl J Med. 1993 Dec 23;329(26):1936-9.
4. J Nurs Care Qual. 2004 Jul-Sep;19(3):234-41.
5. Anania v. Daubenspeck Chiropractic, 718 N.E. 2d 480 (Ohio 1998).
6. Doe v. Borromeo, Nos. 305162, 305163 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2012).
7. Available at https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm.
8. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 US 742 (1998).
9. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
10. Federation of State Medical Boards, “Addressing Sexual Boundaries: Guidelines for State Medical Boards.”
11. J Healthc Risk Manag. 1999 Summer;19(3):14-25.
Question: A medical assistant alleged that Dr. Y sexually harassed her by sending anonymous gifts and messages such as, “you’re gorgeous,” and “I love your figure.” It was a repeat of Dr. Y’s previous behavior pattern directed at a different worker, who had lodged a complaint with the human resources department. The medical assistant now files a sexual harassment action under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the health care institution, alleging a hostile work environment.
Which of the following is false?
A. Sexual harassment is a form of sexual misconduct regulated by state medical boards.
B. Mere words, without physical action, may suffice to be deemed sexual harassment.
C. A hostile environment arises when offensive conduct is so severe and pervasive as to amount to job discrimination.
D. Sexual harassment is a civil rights violation unique to the workplace.
E. Liability may attach to the supervisor, institution, or the harasser.
Answer: D. This hypothetical is modified from an actual Connecticut case that was recently decided in favor of the plaintiff.1 In that case, which involved a dentist, the federal Second Circuit unanimously rejected the University of Connecticut Health Center’s appeal against a jury’s verdict holding it responsible for its employee’s sexual harassment of a coworker, who was awarded $125,000. It ruled that the health center should have known of its employee’s harassing behavior.
Sexual harassment, a current hot topic, is pervasive, affecting a diversity of individuals in the fields of media, sports, politics, judiciary, education, entertainment, and others. The medical profession is no exception, and studies indicate that sexual harassment affects patients and physicians alike, occurring in hospitals, private offices, and academic centers.
In a large questionnaire study involving 4,501 female physicians, the authors found a prevalence rate of 47.7%. Harassment was more common while in medical school or during internship, residency, or fellowship than in practice.2 Patients may be the harassers. In 599 of the 1,064 licensed female family physicians in Ontario, more than 75% reported sexual harassment by patients at some time during their careers, either in their own offices by their own patients, or in settings such as emergency departments and clinics, where unknown patients presented an even higher risk.3
When physicians sexually harass fellow workers such as nurses, they distract their victims from providing attentive and competent care. In a review of the subject, researchers cited a study of 188 critical care nurses in hospitals, where nearly half (46%) reported experiencing sexual harassment that included “offensive sexual remarks, unwanted physical contact, unwanted nonverbal attention, requests for unwanted dates, sexual propositions, and physical assault.”4 To this list must now be added misconduct via the use of social media. In the study, physicians (82%), coworkers (20%), and immediate supervisors (7%) accounted for most of the incidents.
Neglecting to look seriously into complaints or to monitor and remedy the situation may create a hostile environment and trigger liability.
An example is the recent well-publicized case of Olympics team physician Dr. Larry Nassar, who was also a faculty member at Michigan State University. Olympic gold medalist McKayla Maroney named both the university and the U.S. Olympic Committee as codefendants in a lawsuit alleging that the institutions failed to properly investigate the team doctor’s criminal sexual conduct.
In Anania v. Daubenspeck Chiropractic, two employees of a chiropractor alleged that his patients sexually harassed them, but he did not remedy the situation.5 The trial court initially dismissed their lawsuit, holding that Ohio law did not recognize a cause of action for sexual harassment by a nonemployee patient, and that liability for sexual harassment can only exist in the context of respondeat superior (employer-employee) liability.
However, the court of appeals held that so long as the chiropractor knew or should have known of the harassment, and failed to take corrective action, he could be liable for allowing a hostile environment to exist.
Negligent supervision is another favorite plaintiff’s cause of action. In Doe v. Borromeo, a patient sought to hold the hospital liable for sexual assault by a physician during a medical exam.6 The lower state court had summarily dismissed the case, which was based on vicarious liability, but the state court of appeals reversed, finding the patient’s complaint against the hospital included a negligent supervision claim.
The appeals court reasoned that this was distinguishable from one based upon vicarious liability, so long as the supervising entity had a duty to protect the victim – and such a duty can only be established if the supervising entity knew or should have known of the existence of the harasser’s propensities, if any, to commit criminal and tortious acts.
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The commission’s website explains the law in clear and simple language:
“It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include ‘sexual harassment’ or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex.
“For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general. Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.
“Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted). The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a coworker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.”7
For sexual harassment to occur, the aggrieved party must either show a “hostile environment” or “quid pro quo” situation.
In a hostile environment case, the harassment is serious and persistent, creating unacceptable and offensive work conditions. The plaintiff has to show that the employer knew or should have known of the situation but failed to remedy it.
The “quid pro quo” type of case requires a showing that a person in authority conditioned some aspect of the employee’s employment, such as promotion or retention, upon a sexual favor or relationship.
The U.S. Supreme Court has both clarified and muddied the law’s position on these two previously distinct types of sexual harassment.
In the landmark case of Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, the plaintiff, who was a salesperson, alleged that a supervisor made advances to her and threatened to deny her certain job benefits if she did not cooperate.8 The threats were never carried out, and she was in fact promoted; but her lawsuit alleged that the harassment caused her resignation and amounted to a “constructive” discharge.
Likewise, in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, the plaintiff, employed as a lifeguard, alleged that her work environment was riddled with crude remarks and obscenities.9 One of the two supervisors reportedly once said to Faragher, “Date me or clean toilets for a year.” Another lifeguard had previously lodged similar complaints. The plaintiff ultimately resigned and brought suit.
The U.S. Supreme Court characterized both of these as “hostile environment” rather than “quid pro quo” cases, because the plaintiffs did not suffer any direct adverse job action. In its decisions, the court defined the scope of liability and affirmative defenses, holding that employers can be subject to vicarious liability when supervisors create actionable hostile work environments.
In other cases, the Supreme Court has ruled for the use of “the reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position” standard in judging the severity of sexual harassment. The court has also held that the genders of the harasser and the harassed employee are not material in determining whether sexual harassment has occurred.
A physician can be accused of harassing an employee, a nurse, an assistant, a fellow worker, a third party, or a patient. Focusing on misconduct within the doctor-patient relationship, the Federation of State Medical Boards adopted in May 2006 a policy entitled “Addressing Sexual Boundaries: Guidelines for State Medical Boards.”10
Although it did not use the term sexual harassment, the policy emphasized that physician sexual misconduct may include behavior that is verbal or physical, and may include expressions of thoughts and feelings or gestures that are sexual. It used the term “sexual impropriety” to denote behavior, gestures, or expressions that are seductive, sexually suggestive, disrespectful of patient privacy, or sexually demeaning to a patient. Together with “sexual violation,” a term the FSMB used when referring to physical sexual contact, they form the basis for disciplinary action by a state medical board.
Caveat: When performing a physical exam, physicians should always use good judgment and sensitivity, relying on the presence of a medical assistant to ensure patient comfort and to alleviate possible embarrassment or anxiety.
Under the federal EEOC rules, the employer rather than the harasser is the defendant. But there are other legal recourses, including tort and criminal actions, that directly target the harasser. Successful plaintiffs may be awarded lost wages, as well as damages for emotional distress, medical expenses, and punitive damages. They may also recover attorney fees.
In one case, a psychiatric nurse was awarded $1.2 million (later reduced to $850,000); in another, a nurse successfully sued a physician’s medical practice and received $150,000 in damages.4 And in an unusual case, a plaintiff was awarded only $1 in damages, but her counsel was paid $41,598 in fees.11 For the practicing doctor, medical board sanction, notoriety, and loss of professional standing and privileges constitute additional costs.
The medical profession is as susceptible as any other – perhaps more so – to allegations of sexual harassment. The magic words for actionable sexual harassment are severe, pervasive, and unwelcome. Although laws in the workplace generally do not prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or minor isolated incidents, the line separating these behaviors from bona fide sexual harassment is thin.
Erring on the side of strict and sober professional propriety seems prudent, given the current climate of zero tolerance.
References
1. MacCluskey v. University of Connecticut Health Center, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, No. 17-0807-cv, Dec. 19, 2017.
2. Arch Intern Med. 1998 Feb 23;158(4):352-8.
3. N Engl J Med. 1993 Dec 23;329(26):1936-9.
4. J Nurs Care Qual. 2004 Jul-Sep;19(3):234-41.
5. Anania v. Daubenspeck Chiropractic, 718 N.E. 2d 480 (Ohio 1998).
6. Doe v. Borromeo, Nos. 305162, 305163 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2012).
7. Available at https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm.
8. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 US 742 (1998).
9. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
10. Federation of State Medical Boards, “Addressing Sexual Boundaries: Guidelines for State Medical Boards.”
11. J Healthc Risk Manag. 1999 Summer;19(3):14-25.
Question: A medical assistant alleged that Dr. Y sexually harassed her by sending anonymous gifts and messages such as, “you’re gorgeous,” and “I love your figure.” It was a repeat of Dr. Y’s previous behavior pattern directed at a different worker, who had lodged a complaint with the human resources department. The medical assistant now files a sexual harassment action under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the health care institution, alleging a hostile work environment.
Which of the following is false?
A. Sexual harassment is a form of sexual misconduct regulated by state medical boards.
B. Mere words, without physical action, may suffice to be deemed sexual harassment.
C. A hostile environment arises when offensive conduct is so severe and pervasive as to amount to job discrimination.
D. Sexual harassment is a civil rights violation unique to the workplace.
E. Liability may attach to the supervisor, institution, or the harasser.
Answer: D. This hypothetical is modified from an actual Connecticut case that was recently decided in favor of the plaintiff.1 In that case, which involved a dentist, the federal Second Circuit unanimously rejected the University of Connecticut Health Center’s appeal against a jury’s verdict holding it responsible for its employee’s sexual harassment of a coworker, who was awarded $125,000. It ruled that the health center should have known of its employee’s harassing behavior.
Sexual harassment, a current hot topic, is pervasive, affecting a diversity of individuals in the fields of media, sports, politics, judiciary, education, entertainment, and others. The medical profession is no exception, and studies indicate that sexual harassment affects patients and physicians alike, occurring in hospitals, private offices, and academic centers.
In a large questionnaire study involving 4,501 female physicians, the authors found a prevalence rate of 47.7%. Harassment was more common while in medical school or during internship, residency, or fellowship than in practice.2 Patients may be the harassers. In 599 of the 1,064 licensed female family physicians in Ontario, more than 75% reported sexual harassment by patients at some time during their careers, either in their own offices by their own patients, or in settings such as emergency departments and clinics, where unknown patients presented an even higher risk.3
When physicians sexually harass fellow workers such as nurses, they distract their victims from providing attentive and competent care. In a review of the subject, researchers cited a study of 188 critical care nurses in hospitals, where nearly half (46%) reported experiencing sexual harassment that included “offensive sexual remarks, unwanted physical contact, unwanted nonverbal attention, requests for unwanted dates, sexual propositions, and physical assault.”4 To this list must now be added misconduct via the use of social media. In the study, physicians (82%), coworkers (20%), and immediate supervisors (7%) accounted for most of the incidents.
Neglecting to look seriously into complaints or to monitor and remedy the situation may create a hostile environment and trigger liability.
An example is the recent well-publicized case of Olympics team physician Dr. Larry Nassar, who was also a faculty member at Michigan State University. Olympic gold medalist McKayla Maroney named both the university and the U.S. Olympic Committee as codefendants in a lawsuit alleging that the institutions failed to properly investigate the team doctor’s criminal sexual conduct.
In Anania v. Daubenspeck Chiropractic, two employees of a chiropractor alleged that his patients sexually harassed them, but he did not remedy the situation.5 The trial court initially dismissed their lawsuit, holding that Ohio law did not recognize a cause of action for sexual harassment by a nonemployee patient, and that liability for sexual harassment can only exist in the context of respondeat superior (employer-employee) liability.
However, the court of appeals held that so long as the chiropractor knew or should have known of the harassment, and failed to take corrective action, he could be liable for allowing a hostile environment to exist.
Negligent supervision is another favorite plaintiff’s cause of action. In Doe v. Borromeo, a patient sought to hold the hospital liable for sexual assault by a physician during a medical exam.6 The lower state court had summarily dismissed the case, which was based on vicarious liability, but the state court of appeals reversed, finding the patient’s complaint against the hospital included a negligent supervision claim.
The appeals court reasoned that this was distinguishable from one based upon vicarious liability, so long as the supervising entity had a duty to protect the victim – and such a duty can only be established if the supervising entity knew or should have known of the existence of the harasser’s propensities, if any, to commit criminal and tortious acts.
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The commission’s website explains the law in clear and simple language:
“It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include ‘sexual harassment’ or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex.
“For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general. Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.
“Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted). The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a coworker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.”7
For sexual harassment to occur, the aggrieved party must either show a “hostile environment” or “quid pro quo” situation.
In a hostile environment case, the harassment is serious and persistent, creating unacceptable and offensive work conditions. The plaintiff has to show that the employer knew or should have known of the situation but failed to remedy it.
The “quid pro quo” type of case requires a showing that a person in authority conditioned some aspect of the employee’s employment, such as promotion or retention, upon a sexual favor or relationship.
The U.S. Supreme Court has both clarified and muddied the law’s position on these two previously distinct types of sexual harassment.
In the landmark case of Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, the plaintiff, who was a salesperson, alleged that a supervisor made advances to her and threatened to deny her certain job benefits if she did not cooperate.8 The threats were never carried out, and she was in fact promoted; but her lawsuit alleged that the harassment caused her resignation and amounted to a “constructive” discharge.
Likewise, in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, the plaintiff, employed as a lifeguard, alleged that her work environment was riddled with crude remarks and obscenities.9 One of the two supervisors reportedly once said to Faragher, “Date me or clean toilets for a year.” Another lifeguard had previously lodged similar complaints. The plaintiff ultimately resigned and brought suit.
The U.S. Supreme Court characterized both of these as “hostile environment” rather than “quid pro quo” cases, because the plaintiffs did not suffer any direct adverse job action. In its decisions, the court defined the scope of liability and affirmative defenses, holding that employers can be subject to vicarious liability when supervisors create actionable hostile work environments.
In other cases, the Supreme Court has ruled for the use of “the reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position” standard in judging the severity of sexual harassment. The court has also held that the genders of the harasser and the harassed employee are not material in determining whether sexual harassment has occurred.
A physician can be accused of harassing an employee, a nurse, an assistant, a fellow worker, a third party, or a patient. Focusing on misconduct within the doctor-patient relationship, the Federation of State Medical Boards adopted in May 2006 a policy entitled “Addressing Sexual Boundaries: Guidelines for State Medical Boards.”10
Although it did not use the term sexual harassment, the policy emphasized that physician sexual misconduct may include behavior that is verbal or physical, and may include expressions of thoughts and feelings or gestures that are sexual. It used the term “sexual impropriety” to denote behavior, gestures, or expressions that are seductive, sexually suggestive, disrespectful of patient privacy, or sexually demeaning to a patient. Together with “sexual violation,” a term the FSMB used when referring to physical sexual contact, they form the basis for disciplinary action by a state medical board.
Caveat: When performing a physical exam, physicians should always use good judgment and sensitivity, relying on the presence of a medical assistant to ensure patient comfort and to alleviate possible embarrassment or anxiety.
Under the federal EEOC rules, the employer rather than the harasser is the defendant. But there are other legal recourses, including tort and criminal actions, that directly target the harasser. Successful plaintiffs may be awarded lost wages, as well as damages for emotional distress, medical expenses, and punitive damages. They may also recover attorney fees.
In one case, a psychiatric nurse was awarded $1.2 million (later reduced to $850,000); in another, a nurse successfully sued a physician’s medical practice and received $150,000 in damages.4 And in an unusual case, a plaintiff was awarded only $1 in damages, but her counsel was paid $41,598 in fees.11 For the practicing doctor, medical board sanction, notoriety, and loss of professional standing and privileges constitute additional costs.
The medical profession is as susceptible as any other – perhaps more so – to allegations of sexual harassment. The magic words for actionable sexual harassment are severe, pervasive, and unwelcome. Although laws in the workplace generally do not prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or minor isolated incidents, the line separating these behaviors from bona fide sexual harassment is thin.
Erring on the side of strict and sober professional propriety seems prudent, given the current climate of zero tolerance.
References
1. MacCluskey v. University of Connecticut Health Center, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, No. 17-0807-cv, Dec. 19, 2017.
2. Arch Intern Med. 1998 Feb 23;158(4):352-8.
3. N Engl J Med. 1993 Dec 23;329(26):1936-9.
4. J Nurs Care Qual. 2004 Jul-Sep;19(3):234-41.
5. Anania v. Daubenspeck Chiropractic, 718 N.E. 2d 480 (Ohio 1998).
6. Doe v. Borromeo, Nos. 305162, 305163 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2012).
7. Available at https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm.
8. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 US 742 (1998).
9. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
10. Federation of State Medical Boards, “Addressing Sexual Boundaries: Guidelines for State Medical Boards.”
11. J Healthc Risk Manag. 1999 Summer;19(3):14-25.
Analysis: Hospital pay for performance not significantly improving Medicare outcomes
for Medicare beneficiaries, according to an analysis of Medicare claims data.
“No evidence that hospitals [that were] operating under pay for performance programs for more than a decade had better process scores or lower mortality than other hospitals was found,” Igna Bonfrer, PhD, of Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote in a study published Jan. 4, 2018, in BMJ.
Researchers looked at Medicare claims data from nearly 1.4 million patients aged 65 years and older across 1,189 hospitals. That total included 214 hospitals that were early adopters of pay for performance (PFP) programs, including the Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (HQID) and the current Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program, and 975 hospitals that adopted the programs at a later date. The study authors examined clinical process scores and 30-day mortality rates from 2003 to 2013.
Hospitals that were early adopters of a PFP program typically started from a higher baseline process measure score (91.5), compared with late adopters (89.9).
However, improvements among the early adopters “were smaller during the HQID period, although early adopters continued to perform at a slightly higher level than the late adopters during the pre-HVBP period,” the researchers explained. “Over the HVBP period, early and late adopters no longer differed in their clinical process scores.”
Indeed, a ceiling was ultimately reached, with early and late adopters approaching the same level (98.5 vs. 98.2).
For the 30-day mortality rates, both groups “started from a similar baseline (14.9% and 14.8% for the early and late adopters in the fourth quarter of 2003) and ended at the same rate of 9.9% for both groups in the fourth quarter of 2013,” Dr. Bonfrer and colleagues wrote.
The researchers suggested that the programs did not yield better results because of small financial incentives, coupled with program complexities that made it “difficult for hospitals to meaningfully engage in the program.” They also suggested that having to wait until year end to receive any financial incentives could have limited the impact.
“We found that hospitals that have been under financial incentives for more than a decade have not been able to reduce patient mortality more than late adopters, which had only been under financial incentives for less than 3 years,” the researchers concluded. “Given its cost, policymakers in the [United States] should consider one of two things: revise the current program or potentially end it.”
The changes suggested include increasing financial incentives and focusing on process measures that matter most to patients (mortality, patient experience, and functional status), rather than the current measure set that is larger and more difficult to track.
The researchers did not report any financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Dr. Igna Bonfrer et al. BMJ 2018;360:j5622.
for Medicare beneficiaries, according to an analysis of Medicare claims data.
“No evidence that hospitals [that were] operating under pay for performance programs for more than a decade had better process scores or lower mortality than other hospitals was found,” Igna Bonfrer, PhD, of Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote in a study published Jan. 4, 2018, in BMJ.
Researchers looked at Medicare claims data from nearly 1.4 million patients aged 65 years and older across 1,189 hospitals. That total included 214 hospitals that were early adopters of pay for performance (PFP) programs, including the Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (HQID) and the current Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program, and 975 hospitals that adopted the programs at a later date. The study authors examined clinical process scores and 30-day mortality rates from 2003 to 2013.
Hospitals that were early adopters of a PFP program typically started from a higher baseline process measure score (91.5), compared with late adopters (89.9).
However, improvements among the early adopters “were smaller during the HQID period, although early adopters continued to perform at a slightly higher level than the late adopters during the pre-HVBP period,” the researchers explained. “Over the HVBP period, early and late adopters no longer differed in their clinical process scores.”
Indeed, a ceiling was ultimately reached, with early and late adopters approaching the same level (98.5 vs. 98.2).
For the 30-day mortality rates, both groups “started from a similar baseline (14.9% and 14.8% for the early and late adopters in the fourth quarter of 2003) and ended at the same rate of 9.9% for both groups in the fourth quarter of 2013,” Dr. Bonfrer and colleagues wrote.
The researchers suggested that the programs did not yield better results because of small financial incentives, coupled with program complexities that made it “difficult for hospitals to meaningfully engage in the program.” They also suggested that having to wait until year end to receive any financial incentives could have limited the impact.
“We found that hospitals that have been under financial incentives for more than a decade have not been able to reduce patient mortality more than late adopters, which had only been under financial incentives for less than 3 years,” the researchers concluded. “Given its cost, policymakers in the [United States] should consider one of two things: revise the current program or potentially end it.”
The changes suggested include increasing financial incentives and focusing on process measures that matter most to patients (mortality, patient experience, and functional status), rather than the current measure set that is larger and more difficult to track.
The researchers did not report any financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Dr. Igna Bonfrer et al. BMJ 2018;360:j5622.
for Medicare beneficiaries, according to an analysis of Medicare claims data.
“No evidence that hospitals [that were] operating under pay for performance programs for more than a decade had better process scores or lower mortality than other hospitals was found,” Igna Bonfrer, PhD, of Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote in a study published Jan. 4, 2018, in BMJ.
Researchers looked at Medicare claims data from nearly 1.4 million patients aged 65 years and older across 1,189 hospitals. That total included 214 hospitals that were early adopters of pay for performance (PFP) programs, including the Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (HQID) and the current Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program, and 975 hospitals that adopted the programs at a later date. The study authors examined clinical process scores and 30-day mortality rates from 2003 to 2013.
Hospitals that were early adopters of a PFP program typically started from a higher baseline process measure score (91.5), compared with late adopters (89.9).
However, improvements among the early adopters “were smaller during the HQID period, although early adopters continued to perform at a slightly higher level than the late adopters during the pre-HVBP period,” the researchers explained. “Over the HVBP period, early and late adopters no longer differed in their clinical process scores.”
Indeed, a ceiling was ultimately reached, with early and late adopters approaching the same level (98.5 vs. 98.2).
For the 30-day mortality rates, both groups “started from a similar baseline (14.9% and 14.8% for the early and late adopters in the fourth quarter of 2003) and ended at the same rate of 9.9% for both groups in the fourth quarter of 2013,” Dr. Bonfrer and colleagues wrote.
The researchers suggested that the programs did not yield better results because of small financial incentives, coupled with program complexities that made it “difficult for hospitals to meaningfully engage in the program.” They also suggested that having to wait until year end to receive any financial incentives could have limited the impact.
“We found that hospitals that have been under financial incentives for more than a decade have not been able to reduce patient mortality more than late adopters, which had only been under financial incentives for less than 3 years,” the researchers concluded. “Given its cost, policymakers in the [United States] should consider one of two things: revise the current program or potentially end it.”
The changes suggested include increasing financial incentives and focusing on process measures that matter most to patients (mortality, patient experience, and functional status), rather than the current measure set that is larger and more difficult to track.
The researchers did not report any financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Dr. Igna Bonfrer et al. BMJ 2018;360:j5622.
FROM BMJ
How will SNF readmissions penalties affect hospitalists?
Starting in 2018, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), like acute care hospitals before them, will be subject to a penalty of up to 2% of their Medicare reimbursement for posting higher-than-average rates of hospital readmissions.
The Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 established a value-based purchasing component for SNFs, including incentives for high-performing facilities and a measure for all-cause, all-condition readmissions to any hospital from the SNF within 30 days following hospital discharge – designed to recognize and reward, or punish, facilities’ performance on preventing unnecessary readmissions. Public reporting of SNF quality data, including readmission rates, started in October 2017. Penalties follow a year later. Some patients’ readmissions could trigger penalties for both the hospital and the SNF.
According to 2010 data, 23.5% of patients discharged from acute care hospitals to SNFs were readmitted to the hospital within 30 days, at a financial cost of $10,362 per readmission or $4.34 billion per year.1 Seventy eight percent of these readmissions were labeled avoidable. More recent evidence suggests that hospitalization rates for dual-eligible patients living in long-term care facilities decreased by 31% between 2010 and 2015.2As increasing numbers of hospitalists spend some or all of their work week in post-acute care settings, how will the SNF readmission penalty affect their relationships with post-acute facilities?
Experts say SNFs – as with hospitals before them – lack the ability to allocate rewards or penalties for readmission rate performance to individual doctors. But increasingly close collaborative relationships between post-acute facilities and the hospitalists who work in post-acute care mean that the hospitalist has an important role in helping the SNF to manage its readmissions exposure.
“Hospitals and hospitalists want to keep good relationships with the SNFs they partner with, for a variety of reasons,” Dr. Frizner said. “We believe that the best way to reduce readmissions and unplanned transfers from the SNF is for the doctor to know the patient. We need dedicated doctors in the facility. We want hospitalists who already know the patient to come to the facility and see the patient there.”
The hospitalist’s role in post-acute care
Hospitalists who work in post-acute care typically make scheduled, billable medical visits to patients in long-term care facilities, and may also take on roles such as facility medical director or contribute to quality improvement. Relationships may be initiated by a facility seeking more medical coverage, by a hospitalist group seeking additional work or an ability to impact on the post-acute care delivered to hospital patients discharged to the facility, or by health systems, health plans, or accountable care organizations seeking to better manage the quality of care transitions for their beneficiaries.
“What I’m seeing is that with opportunities for bundled payments, we all have new incentives for moving patients along and reducing waste,” Dr. Boutwell said. “For hospitalists practicing in SNFs, it’s going to be a much bigger phenomenon. They’ll be called to reevaluate patients and make more visits than they have been accustomed to.” She hopes SNFs are studying what happened with hospitals’ readmission penalties, and will respond more quickly and effectively to their own penalty exposure.
“What we are seeing is an effort to shift folks to lower cost – but still clinically appropriate – levels of care,” he said. “These dynamics will force SNFs to reevaluate and improve their clinical competencies, to accept patients and then treat them in place. It’s no longer acceptable for the medical director to make rounds in person twice a month and do the rest by telephone.”
Instead, someone needs to be on site several times a week, working with nursing staff and developing protocols and pathways to control variability, Dr. Harrington said. “And in many cases that will be a hospitalist. Hospitalists are finding ways to partner and provide that level of care. I believe good hospitalist groups can change the facility for the better, and fairly quickly.”
What happens in post-acute care
Cari Levy, MD, PhD, who does hospital coverage and post-acute care for a number of facilities and home health agencies in the Denver area, calls the changes coming to SNFs a thrilling time for post-acute care.
“Suddenly medical professionals care about what happens in the post-acute world,” she said. “Everyone is now looking at the same measures. If this works the way it should, there would be a lot more mutual respect between providers.”
SNFs that are concerned about their readmissions rates will want to do root cause analysis to figure out what’s going on, Dr. Levy said. “Maybe the doctor didn’t do a good assessment. Maybe it was just a tough case. Once you start talking, you’ll develop systems to help everyone responsible. Hospitalists can be part of that conversation,” she said.
“You can have a good outcome at Shady Oaks and a terrible outcome at Whispering Pines, for all sorts of reasons. The hospital wants to make sure we’re sending patients to facilities that produce good outcomes,” he explained. “But there has to be communication between providers – the SNF medical director, the hospitalists, and the emergency department.”
A TeamHealth doctor in Phoenix has convened a consortium of providers from different care settings to meet and talk about cases and how they could have gone better. “The reality is, these conversations are going on all over,” Dr. Wilborn said. “What’s driving them is the realization of what we all need to do in this new environment.”
Opportunities from reforms
Robert Burke, MD, FHM, assistant chief of Hospital Medicine at the Denver VA Medical Center, is lead author of a study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine highlighting implications and opportunities from reforms in post-acute care.3 Hospitalists may not appreciate that post-acute care is poised to undergo transformative change from the recently legislated reforms, opening opportunities for hospitalists to improve health care value by improving transitions of care, he noted.
“My sense is that payment reform will put pressure on physicians to use home health care more often than institutional care, because of the cost pressures. We know that hospitalists choose long-term care facility placements less often when participating in bundled payment,” Dr. Burke said. “I think few hospitalists really know what happens on a day-to-day basis in SNFs – or in patients’ homes, for that matter.”
According to Dr. Burke, there’s just not enough data currently to guide these decisions. He said that, based on his research, the best thing hospitalists can do is try to understand what’s available in post-acute spaces, and build relationships with post-acute facilities.
“Find ways to get feedback on your discharge decisions,” he said. “Here in Colorado, we met recently with the local chapter of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, also known as AMDA. It’s been revealing for everyone involved.”
He recommends AMDA’s learning modules – which are designed for doctors who are new to long-term care – to any hospitalist who is entering the post-acute world.
References
1. Mor V et al. The revolving door of rehospitalization from skilled nursing facilities. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Jan-Feb;29(1):57-64.
2. Brennan N et al. Data Brief: Sharp reduction in avoidable hospitalizations among long-term care facility residents. The CMS Blog, 2017 Jan 17.
3. Burke RE et al. Post-acute care reform: Implications and opportunities for hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2017 Jan;12(1);46-51.
Starting in 2018, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), like acute care hospitals before them, will be subject to a penalty of up to 2% of their Medicare reimbursement for posting higher-than-average rates of hospital readmissions.
The Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 established a value-based purchasing component for SNFs, including incentives for high-performing facilities and a measure for all-cause, all-condition readmissions to any hospital from the SNF within 30 days following hospital discharge – designed to recognize and reward, or punish, facilities’ performance on preventing unnecessary readmissions. Public reporting of SNF quality data, including readmission rates, started in October 2017. Penalties follow a year later. Some patients’ readmissions could trigger penalties for both the hospital and the SNF.
According to 2010 data, 23.5% of patients discharged from acute care hospitals to SNFs were readmitted to the hospital within 30 days, at a financial cost of $10,362 per readmission or $4.34 billion per year.1 Seventy eight percent of these readmissions were labeled avoidable. More recent evidence suggests that hospitalization rates for dual-eligible patients living in long-term care facilities decreased by 31% between 2010 and 2015.2As increasing numbers of hospitalists spend some or all of their work week in post-acute care settings, how will the SNF readmission penalty affect their relationships with post-acute facilities?
Experts say SNFs – as with hospitals before them – lack the ability to allocate rewards or penalties for readmission rate performance to individual doctors. But increasingly close collaborative relationships between post-acute facilities and the hospitalists who work in post-acute care mean that the hospitalist has an important role in helping the SNF to manage its readmissions exposure.
“Hospitals and hospitalists want to keep good relationships with the SNFs they partner with, for a variety of reasons,” Dr. Frizner said. “We believe that the best way to reduce readmissions and unplanned transfers from the SNF is for the doctor to know the patient. We need dedicated doctors in the facility. We want hospitalists who already know the patient to come to the facility and see the patient there.”
The hospitalist’s role in post-acute care
Hospitalists who work in post-acute care typically make scheduled, billable medical visits to patients in long-term care facilities, and may also take on roles such as facility medical director or contribute to quality improvement. Relationships may be initiated by a facility seeking more medical coverage, by a hospitalist group seeking additional work or an ability to impact on the post-acute care delivered to hospital patients discharged to the facility, or by health systems, health plans, or accountable care organizations seeking to better manage the quality of care transitions for their beneficiaries.
“What I’m seeing is that with opportunities for bundled payments, we all have new incentives for moving patients along and reducing waste,” Dr. Boutwell said. “For hospitalists practicing in SNFs, it’s going to be a much bigger phenomenon. They’ll be called to reevaluate patients and make more visits than they have been accustomed to.” She hopes SNFs are studying what happened with hospitals’ readmission penalties, and will respond more quickly and effectively to their own penalty exposure.
“What we are seeing is an effort to shift folks to lower cost – but still clinically appropriate – levels of care,” he said. “These dynamics will force SNFs to reevaluate and improve their clinical competencies, to accept patients and then treat them in place. It’s no longer acceptable for the medical director to make rounds in person twice a month and do the rest by telephone.”
Instead, someone needs to be on site several times a week, working with nursing staff and developing protocols and pathways to control variability, Dr. Harrington said. “And in many cases that will be a hospitalist. Hospitalists are finding ways to partner and provide that level of care. I believe good hospitalist groups can change the facility for the better, and fairly quickly.”
What happens in post-acute care
Cari Levy, MD, PhD, who does hospital coverage and post-acute care for a number of facilities and home health agencies in the Denver area, calls the changes coming to SNFs a thrilling time for post-acute care.
“Suddenly medical professionals care about what happens in the post-acute world,” she said. “Everyone is now looking at the same measures. If this works the way it should, there would be a lot more mutual respect between providers.”
SNFs that are concerned about their readmissions rates will want to do root cause analysis to figure out what’s going on, Dr. Levy said. “Maybe the doctor didn’t do a good assessment. Maybe it was just a tough case. Once you start talking, you’ll develop systems to help everyone responsible. Hospitalists can be part of that conversation,” she said.
“You can have a good outcome at Shady Oaks and a terrible outcome at Whispering Pines, for all sorts of reasons. The hospital wants to make sure we’re sending patients to facilities that produce good outcomes,” he explained. “But there has to be communication between providers – the SNF medical director, the hospitalists, and the emergency department.”
A TeamHealth doctor in Phoenix has convened a consortium of providers from different care settings to meet and talk about cases and how they could have gone better. “The reality is, these conversations are going on all over,” Dr. Wilborn said. “What’s driving them is the realization of what we all need to do in this new environment.”
Opportunities from reforms
Robert Burke, MD, FHM, assistant chief of Hospital Medicine at the Denver VA Medical Center, is lead author of a study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine highlighting implications and opportunities from reforms in post-acute care.3 Hospitalists may not appreciate that post-acute care is poised to undergo transformative change from the recently legislated reforms, opening opportunities for hospitalists to improve health care value by improving transitions of care, he noted.
“My sense is that payment reform will put pressure on physicians to use home health care more often than institutional care, because of the cost pressures. We know that hospitalists choose long-term care facility placements less often when participating in bundled payment,” Dr. Burke said. “I think few hospitalists really know what happens on a day-to-day basis in SNFs – or in patients’ homes, for that matter.”
According to Dr. Burke, there’s just not enough data currently to guide these decisions. He said that, based on his research, the best thing hospitalists can do is try to understand what’s available in post-acute spaces, and build relationships with post-acute facilities.
“Find ways to get feedback on your discharge decisions,” he said. “Here in Colorado, we met recently with the local chapter of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, also known as AMDA. It’s been revealing for everyone involved.”
He recommends AMDA’s learning modules – which are designed for doctors who are new to long-term care – to any hospitalist who is entering the post-acute world.
References
1. Mor V et al. The revolving door of rehospitalization from skilled nursing facilities. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Jan-Feb;29(1):57-64.
2. Brennan N et al. Data Brief: Sharp reduction in avoidable hospitalizations among long-term care facility residents. The CMS Blog, 2017 Jan 17.
3. Burke RE et al. Post-acute care reform: Implications and opportunities for hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2017 Jan;12(1);46-51.
Starting in 2018, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), like acute care hospitals before them, will be subject to a penalty of up to 2% of their Medicare reimbursement for posting higher-than-average rates of hospital readmissions.
The Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 established a value-based purchasing component for SNFs, including incentives for high-performing facilities and a measure for all-cause, all-condition readmissions to any hospital from the SNF within 30 days following hospital discharge – designed to recognize and reward, or punish, facilities’ performance on preventing unnecessary readmissions. Public reporting of SNF quality data, including readmission rates, started in October 2017. Penalties follow a year later. Some patients’ readmissions could trigger penalties for both the hospital and the SNF.
According to 2010 data, 23.5% of patients discharged from acute care hospitals to SNFs were readmitted to the hospital within 30 days, at a financial cost of $10,362 per readmission or $4.34 billion per year.1 Seventy eight percent of these readmissions were labeled avoidable. More recent evidence suggests that hospitalization rates for dual-eligible patients living in long-term care facilities decreased by 31% between 2010 and 2015.2As increasing numbers of hospitalists spend some or all of their work week in post-acute care settings, how will the SNF readmission penalty affect their relationships with post-acute facilities?
Experts say SNFs – as with hospitals before them – lack the ability to allocate rewards or penalties for readmission rate performance to individual doctors. But increasingly close collaborative relationships between post-acute facilities and the hospitalists who work in post-acute care mean that the hospitalist has an important role in helping the SNF to manage its readmissions exposure.
“Hospitals and hospitalists want to keep good relationships with the SNFs they partner with, for a variety of reasons,” Dr. Frizner said. “We believe that the best way to reduce readmissions and unplanned transfers from the SNF is for the doctor to know the patient. We need dedicated doctors in the facility. We want hospitalists who already know the patient to come to the facility and see the patient there.”
The hospitalist’s role in post-acute care
Hospitalists who work in post-acute care typically make scheduled, billable medical visits to patients in long-term care facilities, and may also take on roles such as facility medical director or contribute to quality improvement. Relationships may be initiated by a facility seeking more medical coverage, by a hospitalist group seeking additional work or an ability to impact on the post-acute care delivered to hospital patients discharged to the facility, or by health systems, health plans, or accountable care organizations seeking to better manage the quality of care transitions for their beneficiaries.
“What I’m seeing is that with opportunities for bundled payments, we all have new incentives for moving patients along and reducing waste,” Dr. Boutwell said. “For hospitalists practicing in SNFs, it’s going to be a much bigger phenomenon. They’ll be called to reevaluate patients and make more visits than they have been accustomed to.” She hopes SNFs are studying what happened with hospitals’ readmission penalties, and will respond more quickly and effectively to their own penalty exposure.
“What we are seeing is an effort to shift folks to lower cost – but still clinically appropriate – levels of care,” he said. “These dynamics will force SNFs to reevaluate and improve their clinical competencies, to accept patients and then treat them in place. It’s no longer acceptable for the medical director to make rounds in person twice a month and do the rest by telephone.”
Instead, someone needs to be on site several times a week, working with nursing staff and developing protocols and pathways to control variability, Dr. Harrington said. “And in many cases that will be a hospitalist. Hospitalists are finding ways to partner and provide that level of care. I believe good hospitalist groups can change the facility for the better, and fairly quickly.”
What happens in post-acute care
Cari Levy, MD, PhD, who does hospital coverage and post-acute care for a number of facilities and home health agencies in the Denver area, calls the changes coming to SNFs a thrilling time for post-acute care.
“Suddenly medical professionals care about what happens in the post-acute world,” she said. “Everyone is now looking at the same measures. If this works the way it should, there would be a lot more mutual respect between providers.”
SNFs that are concerned about their readmissions rates will want to do root cause analysis to figure out what’s going on, Dr. Levy said. “Maybe the doctor didn’t do a good assessment. Maybe it was just a tough case. Once you start talking, you’ll develop systems to help everyone responsible. Hospitalists can be part of that conversation,” she said.
“You can have a good outcome at Shady Oaks and a terrible outcome at Whispering Pines, for all sorts of reasons. The hospital wants to make sure we’re sending patients to facilities that produce good outcomes,” he explained. “But there has to be communication between providers – the SNF medical director, the hospitalists, and the emergency department.”
A TeamHealth doctor in Phoenix has convened a consortium of providers from different care settings to meet and talk about cases and how they could have gone better. “The reality is, these conversations are going on all over,” Dr. Wilborn said. “What’s driving them is the realization of what we all need to do in this new environment.”
Opportunities from reforms
Robert Burke, MD, FHM, assistant chief of Hospital Medicine at the Denver VA Medical Center, is lead author of a study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine highlighting implications and opportunities from reforms in post-acute care.3 Hospitalists may not appreciate that post-acute care is poised to undergo transformative change from the recently legislated reforms, opening opportunities for hospitalists to improve health care value by improving transitions of care, he noted.
“My sense is that payment reform will put pressure on physicians to use home health care more often than institutional care, because of the cost pressures. We know that hospitalists choose long-term care facility placements less often when participating in bundled payment,” Dr. Burke said. “I think few hospitalists really know what happens on a day-to-day basis in SNFs – or in patients’ homes, for that matter.”
According to Dr. Burke, there’s just not enough data currently to guide these decisions. He said that, based on his research, the best thing hospitalists can do is try to understand what’s available in post-acute spaces, and build relationships with post-acute facilities.
“Find ways to get feedback on your discharge decisions,” he said. “Here in Colorado, we met recently with the local chapter of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, also known as AMDA. It’s been revealing for everyone involved.”
He recommends AMDA’s learning modules – which are designed for doctors who are new to long-term care – to any hospitalist who is entering the post-acute world.
References
1. Mor V et al. The revolving door of rehospitalization from skilled nursing facilities. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Jan-Feb;29(1):57-64.
2. Brennan N et al. Data Brief: Sharp reduction in avoidable hospitalizations among long-term care facility residents. The CMS Blog, 2017 Jan 17.
3. Burke RE et al. Post-acute care reform: Implications and opportunities for hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2017 Jan;12(1);46-51.
Hospitals will feel the squeeze of DSH payment changes
Earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finalized fundamental changes to how it reimburses hospitals for uncompensated care costs. When first proposed, the move raised alarm among physicians, hospitals, health systems, state health departments, and others around the country, and even prompted a lawsuit in New Hampshire.
In the months since the official adoption by the CMS, it remains unclear how the change will affect hospitals around the country, particularly the safety net hospitals that rely on these payments most.
In its final rule issued in April 2017 and finalized on August 2, 2017, the federal agency said the intent of the change is to more fairly distribute a fixed amount of DSH funds to the hospitals most in need. It also argued the change is a more consistent interpretation of the existing statute [Section 1923(g)], provides clarification around language that has been the subject of inquiry over the last decade, and promotes what it calls “fiscal integrity.”
“These allotments essentially establish a finite pool of available federal DSH funds that states use to pay the federal portion of payments to all qualifying hospitals in each state,” the final rule reads. “As states often use most or all of their federal DSH allotment, in practice, if one hospital gets more DSH funding, other DSH-eligible hospitals in the state may get less.”
This is not, however, the way all parties see it. For instance, in a comment submitted to the CMS in September 2016, the National Association of Urban Hospitals expressed its concern that DSH payments already are inadequate to cover the financial burden associated with providing care in low-income communities, such as translation services and the costs of employing physicians to practice in more challenged settings.2
In a letter to the CMS, the Minnesota Department of Human Services said it agrees with the agency that DSH payments should not be used to “subsidize costs that have been paid by Medicare and other insurers” but disagrees with the agency’s approach. Its argument includes a challenge to the CMS’ statutory authority to change the formula based on existing language.3
“I think the reason it’s contentious is because when you’re dealing with a fixed dollar amount and you’re talking about redistributing dollars, someone is going to lose,” said John McHugh, PhD, professor of health management at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University. “A facility receiving DSH payments is already dealing with high levels of uncompensated care; the hospitals are operating on very thin margins. They are very often getting by because of these payments.”
Despite the CMS’ seemingly good intentions, Bradley Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM, a hospitalist at Geisinger Health System and member of the SHM Public Policy Committee, remains skeptical that the hospitals that need and deserve DSH payments will actually see more redistributed in their favor.
If hospitals in need see fewer DSH dollars, Dr. McHugh noted, they will feel the squeeze.
“It’s not easy to operate safety net hospitals,” he said. “And on top of that, hospitals have been operating under a certain assumption and it’s changing, and it takes time to incorporate those changes. There will probably be some fallout for the first couple of years as hospitals are adapting their practices. It could mean loss of services. It could mean the loss of quality physicians and quality staffing, and that can impact patient care.”
How will hospitals adapt?
The CMS did not give hospitals transition time. The reinterpretation became effective in June 2017, just 60 days after the agency issued the final rule. Dr. McHugh said he is not sure why the agency did not build in time for hospitals to adapt, particularly given the uncertainty around the national uninsured rate going forward, with so many potential changes to the American health care system under a new administration.
How any of these changes trickle down to hospitalists remains to be seen, said Dr. Flansbaum. Dr. McHugh believes it could lead to increased patient loads, higher turnover and churn, and fewer experienced physicians in safety net hospitals as younger doctors are hired and burn out. “At the end of the day, that feeds into patient care and patient satisfaction and quality,” he said.
However, hospitals across the country have been living with this “slow burn” for a long time, said Dr. Flansbaum, though not necessarily due to inadequate DSH payments. At least in some areas, reimbursements have gone down, hospital occupancy rates have declined, rural hospitals have closed, hospitals have consolidated, and people have been laid off.
It’s important to ensure the hospitals providing care for high levels of uninsured or underinsured patients receive the help they need, he said, and it’s also important to examine the role hospitals play as a whole in the American health care system.
“It’s an expensive system,” he said. “We have we created a system where, unlike other countries that have developed more vigorous primary or outpatient care, we have created an inpatient health system.”
With the CMS’ change, the government is the only entity that seems to win across the board, Dr. McHugh said. He said he would not be surprised if analysts looked to see how hospitals were affected by it in coming months.
But, he remains optimistic. In fact, the final rule also came with an $800 million increase in the amount of uncompensated care payments for acute care hospitals in fiscal year 2018, the CMS says.4
“Hospitals are adaptable,” Dr. McHugh said. “I think what you’ll see is this will spur some innovation in terms of patient care maybe a few years down the road. It may hit some stumbling blocks in the early going but there may be some positive changes in the future.”
References
1. Medicaid Program; Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments –Treatment of Third Party Payers in Calculating Uncompensated Care Costs. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services final rule. Citation 82 FR 16114. Published April 3, 2017. Last accessed August 14, 2017. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/04/03/2017-06538/medicaid-program-disproportionate-share-hospital-payments-treatment-of-third-party-payers-in
2. Kugler E. 2016-09-14 NAUH Medicaid Program DSH Payments – Treatment of Third Party Payer in Calculating Uncompensated Care Costs. September 14, 2016. Last accessed August 14, 2017. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CMS-2016-0144-0020
3. Berg A. Proposed Rule on Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments – Treatment of Third Party Payers in Calculating Uncompensated Care Costs, CMS-2399-P. September 14, 2016. Last accessed August 14, 2017. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CMS-2016-0144-0046
4. CMS finalizes 2018 payment and policy updates for Medicare hospital admissions. Published August 2, 2017. Last accessed August 14, 2017. https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Press-releases/2017-Press-releases-items/2017-08-02.html
Earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finalized fundamental changes to how it reimburses hospitals for uncompensated care costs. When first proposed, the move raised alarm among physicians, hospitals, health systems, state health departments, and others around the country, and even prompted a lawsuit in New Hampshire.
In the months since the official adoption by the CMS, it remains unclear how the change will affect hospitals around the country, particularly the safety net hospitals that rely on these payments most.
In its final rule issued in April 2017 and finalized on August 2, 2017, the federal agency said the intent of the change is to more fairly distribute a fixed amount of DSH funds to the hospitals most in need. It also argued the change is a more consistent interpretation of the existing statute [Section 1923(g)], provides clarification around language that has been the subject of inquiry over the last decade, and promotes what it calls “fiscal integrity.”
“These allotments essentially establish a finite pool of available federal DSH funds that states use to pay the federal portion of payments to all qualifying hospitals in each state,” the final rule reads. “As states often use most or all of their federal DSH allotment, in practice, if one hospital gets more DSH funding, other DSH-eligible hospitals in the state may get less.”
This is not, however, the way all parties see it. For instance, in a comment submitted to the CMS in September 2016, the National Association of Urban Hospitals expressed its concern that DSH payments already are inadequate to cover the financial burden associated with providing care in low-income communities, such as translation services and the costs of employing physicians to practice in more challenged settings.2
In a letter to the CMS, the Minnesota Department of Human Services said it agrees with the agency that DSH payments should not be used to “subsidize costs that have been paid by Medicare and other insurers” but disagrees with the agency’s approach. Its argument includes a challenge to the CMS’ statutory authority to change the formula based on existing language.3
“I think the reason it’s contentious is because when you’re dealing with a fixed dollar amount and you’re talking about redistributing dollars, someone is going to lose,” said John McHugh, PhD, professor of health management at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University. “A facility receiving DSH payments is already dealing with high levels of uncompensated care; the hospitals are operating on very thin margins. They are very often getting by because of these payments.”
Despite the CMS’ seemingly good intentions, Bradley Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM, a hospitalist at Geisinger Health System and member of the SHM Public Policy Committee, remains skeptical that the hospitals that need and deserve DSH payments will actually see more redistributed in their favor.
If hospitals in need see fewer DSH dollars, Dr. McHugh noted, they will feel the squeeze.
“It’s not easy to operate safety net hospitals,” he said. “And on top of that, hospitals have been operating under a certain assumption and it’s changing, and it takes time to incorporate those changes. There will probably be some fallout for the first couple of years as hospitals are adapting their practices. It could mean loss of services. It could mean the loss of quality physicians and quality staffing, and that can impact patient care.”
How will hospitals adapt?
The CMS did not give hospitals transition time. The reinterpretation became effective in June 2017, just 60 days after the agency issued the final rule. Dr. McHugh said he is not sure why the agency did not build in time for hospitals to adapt, particularly given the uncertainty around the national uninsured rate going forward, with so many potential changes to the American health care system under a new administration.
How any of these changes trickle down to hospitalists remains to be seen, said Dr. Flansbaum. Dr. McHugh believes it could lead to increased patient loads, higher turnover and churn, and fewer experienced physicians in safety net hospitals as younger doctors are hired and burn out. “At the end of the day, that feeds into patient care and patient satisfaction and quality,” he said.
However, hospitals across the country have been living with this “slow burn” for a long time, said Dr. Flansbaum, though not necessarily due to inadequate DSH payments. At least in some areas, reimbursements have gone down, hospital occupancy rates have declined, rural hospitals have closed, hospitals have consolidated, and people have been laid off.
It’s important to ensure the hospitals providing care for high levels of uninsured or underinsured patients receive the help they need, he said, and it’s also important to examine the role hospitals play as a whole in the American health care system.
“It’s an expensive system,” he said. “We have we created a system where, unlike other countries that have developed more vigorous primary or outpatient care, we have created an inpatient health system.”
With the CMS’ change, the government is the only entity that seems to win across the board, Dr. McHugh said. He said he would not be surprised if analysts looked to see how hospitals were affected by it in coming months.
But, he remains optimistic. In fact, the final rule also came with an $800 million increase in the amount of uncompensated care payments for acute care hospitals in fiscal year 2018, the CMS says.4
“Hospitals are adaptable,” Dr. McHugh said. “I think what you’ll see is this will spur some innovation in terms of patient care maybe a few years down the road. It may hit some stumbling blocks in the early going but there may be some positive changes in the future.”
References
1. Medicaid Program; Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments –Treatment of Third Party Payers in Calculating Uncompensated Care Costs. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services final rule. Citation 82 FR 16114. Published April 3, 2017. Last accessed August 14, 2017. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/04/03/2017-06538/medicaid-program-disproportionate-share-hospital-payments-treatment-of-third-party-payers-in
2. Kugler E. 2016-09-14 NAUH Medicaid Program DSH Payments – Treatment of Third Party Payer in Calculating Uncompensated Care Costs. September 14, 2016. Last accessed August 14, 2017. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CMS-2016-0144-0020
3. Berg A. Proposed Rule on Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments – Treatment of Third Party Payers in Calculating Uncompensated Care Costs, CMS-2399-P. September 14, 2016. Last accessed August 14, 2017. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CMS-2016-0144-0046
4. CMS finalizes 2018 payment and policy updates for Medicare hospital admissions. Published August 2, 2017. Last accessed August 14, 2017. https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Press-releases/2017-Press-releases-items/2017-08-02.html
Earlier this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finalized fundamental changes to how it reimburses hospitals for uncompensated care costs. When first proposed, the move raised alarm among physicians, hospitals, health systems, state health departments, and others around the country, and even prompted a lawsuit in New Hampshire.
In the months since the official adoption by the CMS, it remains unclear how the change will affect hospitals around the country, particularly the safety net hospitals that rely on these payments most.
In its final rule issued in April 2017 and finalized on August 2, 2017, the federal agency said the intent of the change is to more fairly distribute a fixed amount of DSH funds to the hospitals most in need. It also argued the change is a more consistent interpretation of the existing statute [Section 1923(g)], provides clarification around language that has been the subject of inquiry over the last decade, and promotes what it calls “fiscal integrity.”
“These allotments essentially establish a finite pool of available federal DSH funds that states use to pay the federal portion of payments to all qualifying hospitals in each state,” the final rule reads. “As states often use most or all of their federal DSH allotment, in practice, if one hospital gets more DSH funding, other DSH-eligible hospitals in the state may get less.”
This is not, however, the way all parties see it. For instance, in a comment submitted to the CMS in September 2016, the National Association of Urban Hospitals expressed its concern that DSH payments already are inadequate to cover the financial burden associated with providing care in low-income communities, such as translation services and the costs of employing physicians to practice in more challenged settings.2
In a letter to the CMS, the Minnesota Department of Human Services said it agrees with the agency that DSH payments should not be used to “subsidize costs that have been paid by Medicare and other insurers” but disagrees with the agency’s approach. Its argument includes a challenge to the CMS’ statutory authority to change the formula based on existing language.3
“I think the reason it’s contentious is because when you’re dealing with a fixed dollar amount and you’re talking about redistributing dollars, someone is going to lose,” said John McHugh, PhD, professor of health management at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University. “A facility receiving DSH payments is already dealing with high levels of uncompensated care; the hospitals are operating on very thin margins. They are very often getting by because of these payments.”
Despite the CMS’ seemingly good intentions, Bradley Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM, a hospitalist at Geisinger Health System and member of the SHM Public Policy Committee, remains skeptical that the hospitals that need and deserve DSH payments will actually see more redistributed in their favor.
If hospitals in need see fewer DSH dollars, Dr. McHugh noted, they will feel the squeeze.
“It’s not easy to operate safety net hospitals,” he said. “And on top of that, hospitals have been operating under a certain assumption and it’s changing, and it takes time to incorporate those changes. There will probably be some fallout for the first couple of years as hospitals are adapting their practices. It could mean loss of services. It could mean the loss of quality physicians and quality staffing, and that can impact patient care.”
How will hospitals adapt?
The CMS did not give hospitals transition time. The reinterpretation became effective in June 2017, just 60 days after the agency issued the final rule. Dr. McHugh said he is not sure why the agency did not build in time for hospitals to adapt, particularly given the uncertainty around the national uninsured rate going forward, with so many potential changes to the American health care system under a new administration.
How any of these changes trickle down to hospitalists remains to be seen, said Dr. Flansbaum. Dr. McHugh believes it could lead to increased patient loads, higher turnover and churn, and fewer experienced physicians in safety net hospitals as younger doctors are hired and burn out. “At the end of the day, that feeds into patient care and patient satisfaction and quality,” he said.
However, hospitals across the country have been living with this “slow burn” for a long time, said Dr. Flansbaum, though not necessarily due to inadequate DSH payments. At least in some areas, reimbursements have gone down, hospital occupancy rates have declined, rural hospitals have closed, hospitals have consolidated, and people have been laid off.
It’s important to ensure the hospitals providing care for high levels of uninsured or underinsured patients receive the help they need, he said, and it’s also important to examine the role hospitals play as a whole in the American health care system.
“It’s an expensive system,” he said. “We have we created a system where, unlike other countries that have developed more vigorous primary or outpatient care, we have created an inpatient health system.”
With the CMS’ change, the government is the only entity that seems to win across the board, Dr. McHugh said. He said he would not be surprised if analysts looked to see how hospitals were affected by it in coming months.
But, he remains optimistic. In fact, the final rule also came with an $800 million increase in the amount of uncompensated care payments for acute care hospitals in fiscal year 2018, the CMS says.4
“Hospitals are adaptable,” Dr. McHugh said. “I think what you’ll see is this will spur some innovation in terms of patient care maybe a few years down the road. It may hit some stumbling blocks in the early going but there may be some positive changes in the future.”
References
1. Medicaid Program; Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments –Treatment of Third Party Payers in Calculating Uncompensated Care Costs. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services final rule. Citation 82 FR 16114. Published April 3, 2017. Last accessed August 14, 2017. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/04/03/2017-06538/medicaid-program-disproportionate-share-hospital-payments-treatment-of-third-party-payers-in
2. Kugler E. 2016-09-14 NAUH Medicaid Program DSH Payments – Treatment of Third Party Payer in Calculating Uncompensated Care Costs. September 14, 2016. Last accessed August 14, 2017. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CMS-2016-0144-0020
3. Berg A. Proposed Rule on Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments – Treatment of Third Party Payers in Calculating Uncompensated Care Costs, CMS-2399-P. September 14, 2016. Last accessed August 14, 2017. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CMS-2016-0144-0046
4. CMS finalizes 2018 payment and policy updates for Medicare hospital admissions. Published August 2, 2017. Last accessed August 14, 2017. https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Press-releases/2017-Press-releases-items/2017-08-02.html
Reducing outpatient medication costs
For many patients, paying for medication presents a serious challenge. Studies show that up to 45% of Americans do not fill prescriptions secondary to cost, and medication nonadherence leads to morbidity and mortality, with costs from $100 billion to $300 billion annually.
One way to address the problem is by empowering clinicians to reduce patient outpatient medication costs – the goal described in a recent abstract.
Initial testing was promising. One patient, admitted for the fourth time in 14 months for hypertriglyceridemia-induced pancreatitis secondary to medication nonadherence, was able to reduce 90-day outpatient medication cost by 95%, from $1,287.00 to $61.79. By reducing his readmissions, the institution saved more than $20,000 a year.
The researchers secured internal grant funding to develop an automated version of the tool. “We currently have technology that can dramatically reduce the cost of many medications with early promising results for patient outcomes, readmissions rates and overall systemic cost,” Dr. Kubey said. “We are working rapidly to further develop and study our tool and, if prospective results confirm our initial findings, we will seek to provide this tool to clinicians broadly.”
Such tools are a true win-win. Hospitalists using them help ensure that discharged patients are able to afford the often life-saving medications that will keep them healthy and out of the hospital, improve readmission rates, patient satisfaction metrics, total system cost, and, most important, do right by our patients in need for whom we are charged to care, Dr. Kubey said.
“Hospitalists first must be aware that savings of 90% or more are possible for many medications and that medication nonadherence because of cost is a serious issue affecting nearly half the patients we see,” he said. “The first step is simply asking patients if medication cost is proving troublesome – we cannot address what we do not see. The second step is to use current discount tools such as GoodRx, NeedyMeds, and the like – and, we hope, in the not too distant future, our tool, which we plan to integrate into EHR prescribing to make it easy and nearly instantaneous for hospitalists to prescribe the most high-value, low-cost medication regimen for each individual patient at discharge.”
Reference
Kubey A et al. Expensive free hospitalizations – A novel approach to reducing outpatient medication cost [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2017; 12 (suppl 2). Accessed Aug. 7, 2017.
For many patients, paying for medication presents a serious challenge. Studies show that up to 45% of Americans do not fill prescriptions secondary to cost, and medication nonadherence leads to morbidity and mortality, with costs from $100 billion to $300 billion annually.
One way to address the problem is by empowering clinicians to reduce patient outpatient medication costs – the goal described in a recent abstract.
Initial testing was promising. One patient, admitted for the fourth time in 14 months for hypertriglyceridemia-induced pancreatitis secondary to medication nonadherence, was able to reduce 90-day outpatient medication cost by 95%, from $1,287.00 to $61.79. By reducing his readmissions, the institution saved more than $20,000 a year.
The researchers secured internal grant funding to develop an automated version of the tool. “We currently have technology that can dramatically reduce the cost of many medications with early promising results for patient outcomes, readmissions rates and overall systemic cost,” Dr. Kubey said. “We are working rapidly to further develop and study our tool and, if prospective results confirm our initial findings, we will seek to provide this tool to clinicians broadly.”
Such tools are a true win-win. Hospitalists using them help ensure that discharged patients are able to afford the often life-saving medications that will keep them healthy and out of the hospital, improve readmission rates, patient satisfaction metrics, total system cost, and, most important, do right by our patients in need for whom we are charged to care, Dr. Kubey said.
“Hospitalists first must be aware that savings of 90% or more are possible for many medications and that medication nonadherence because of cost is a serious issue affecting nearly half the patients we see,” he said. “The first step is simply asking patients if medication cost is proving troublesome – we cannot address what we do not see. The second step is to use current discount tools such as GoodRx, NeedyMeds, and the like – and, we hope, in the not too distant future, our tool, which we plan to integrate into EHR prescribing to make it easy and nearly instantaneous for hospitalists to prescribe the most high-value, low-cost medication regimen for each individual patient at discharge.”
Reference
Kubey A et al. Expensive free hospitalizations – A novel approach to reducing outpatient medication cost [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2017; 12 (suppl 2). Accessed Aug. 7, 2017.
For many patients, paying for medication presents a serious challenge. Studies show that up to 45% of Americans do not fill prescriptions secondary to cost, and medication nonadherence leads to morbidity and mortality, with costs from $100 billion to $300 billion annually.
One way to address the problem is by empowering clinicians to reduce patient outpatient medication costs – the goal described in a recent abstract.
Initial testing was promising. One patient, admitted for the fourth time in 14 months for hypertriglyceridemia-induced pancreatitis secondary to medication nonadherence, was able to reduce 90-day outpatient medication cost by 95%, from $1,287.00 to $61.79. By reducing his readmissions, the institution saved more than $20,000 a year.
The researchers secured internal grant funding to develop an automated version of the tool. “We currently have technology that can dramatically reduce the cost of many medications with early promising results for patient outcomes, readmissions rates and overall systemic cost,” Dr. Kubey said. “We are working rapidly to further develop and study our tool and, if prospective results confirm our initial findings, we will seek to provide this tool to clinicians broadly.”
Such tools are a true win-win. Hospitalists using them help ensure that discharged patients are able to afford the often life-saving medications that will keep them healthy and out of the hospital, improve readmission rates, patient satisfaction metrics, total system cost, and, most important, do right by our patients in need for whom we are charged to care, Dr. Kubey said.
“Hospitalists first must be aware that savings of 90% or more are possible for many medications and that medication nonadherence because of cost is a serious issue affecting nearly half the patients we see,” he said. “The first step is simply asking patients if medication cost is proving troublesome – we cannot address what we do not see. The second step is to use current discount tools such as GoodRx, NeedyMeds, and the like – and, we hope, in the not too distant future, our tool, which we plan to integrate into EHR prescribing to make it easy and nearly instantaneous for hospitalists to prescribe the most high-value, low-cost medication regimen for each individual patient at discharge.”
Reference
Kubey A et al. Expensive free hospitalizations – A novel approach to reducing outpatient medication cost [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2017; 12 (suppl 2). Accessed Aug. 7, 2017.
Using “design thinking” to improve health care
Health care workers creating innovations by applying “design thinking” – “a human-centered approach to innovation” that comes from the business world – is a growing trend, according to a recent New York Times article.
“With design thinking, the innovations come from those who actually work there, providing feedback to designers to improve the final product,” wrote author Amitha Kalaichandran, MD, MHS.
“Health providers ... are uniquely positioned to come up with fresh solutions to health care problems,” Dr. Kalaichandran wrote. An example at her own hospital: The leader of the trauma team now wears an orange vest, clearly identifying who’s in charge in a potentially chaotic situation. It was an idea created by a hospital nurse.
“A 2016 report that looked at ways in which a health system can implement design thinking identified three principles behind the approach: empathy for the user, in this case a patient, doctor or other health care provider; the involvement of an interdisciplinary team; and rapid prototyping of the idea,” she wrote. “To develop a truly useful product, a comprehensive understanding of the problem the innovation aims to solve is paramount.”
In design thinking, described as creative, multidisciplinary thinking around a problem, groups naturally coalesce to find such solutions. The article cites examples such as Clinicians for Design, an international group of providers focused on improving hospital layouts, and Health Design by Us, a collaborative group that supports health care innovations such as a mobile system for diabetes management, designed by a patient.
Reference
Kalaichandran A. Design thinking for doctors and nurses. The New York Times. Aug. 3, 2017. Accessed Aug. 7, 2017.
Health care workers creating innovations by applying “design thinking” – “a human-centered approach to innovation” that comes from the business world – is a growing trend, according to a recent New York Times article.
“With design thinking, the innovations come from those who actually work there, providing feedback to designers to improve the final product,” wrote author Amitha Kalaichandran, MD, MHS.
“Health providers ... are uniquely positioned to come up with fresh solutions to health care problems,” Dr. Kalaichandran wrote. An example at her own hospital: The leader of the trauma team now wears an orange vest, clearly identifying who’s in charge in a potentially chaotic situation. It was an idea created by a hospital nurse.
“A 2016 report that looked at ways in which a health system can implement design thinking identified three principles behind the approach: empathy for the user, in this case a patient, doctor or other health care provider; the involvement of an interdisciplinary team; and rapid prototyping of the idea,” she wrote. “To develop a truly useful product, a comprehensive understanding of the problem the innovation aims to solve is paramount.”
In design thinking, described as creative, multidisciplinary thinking around a problem, groups naturally coalesce to find such solutions. The article cites examples such as Clinicians for Design, an international group of providers focused on improving hospital layouts, and Health Design by Us, a collaborative group that supports health care innovations such as a mobile system for diabetes management, designed by a patient.
Reference
Kalaichandran A. Design thinking for doctors and nurses. The New York Times. Aug. 3, 2017. Accessed Aug. 7, 2017.
Health care workers creating innovations by applying “design thinking” – “a human-centered approach to innovation” that comes from the business world – is a growing trend, according to a recent New York Times article.
“With design thinking, the innovations come from those who actually work there, providing feedback to designers to improve the final product,” wrote author Amitha Kalaichandran, MD, MHS.
“Health providers ... are uniquely positioned to come up with fresh solutions to health care problems,” Dr. Kalaichandran wrote. An example at her own hospital: The leader of the trauma team now wears an orange vest, clearly identifying who’s in charge in a potentially chaotic situation. It was an idea created by a hospital nurse.
“A 2016 report that looked at ways in which a health system can implement design thinking identified three principles behind the approach: empathy for the user, in this case a patient, doctor or other health care provider; the involvement of an interdisciplinary team; and rapid prototyping of the idea,” she wrote. “To develop a truly useful product, a comprehensive understanding of the problem the innovation aims to solve is paramount.”
In design thinking, described as creative, multidisciplinary thinking around a problem, groups naturally coalesce to find such solutions. The article cites examples such as Clinicians for Design, an international group of providers focused on improving hospital layouts, and Health Design by Us, a collaborative group that supports health care innovations such as a mobile system for diabetes management, designed by a patient.
Reference
Kalaichandran A. Design thinking for doctors and nurses. The New York Times. Aug. 3, 2017. Accessed Aug. 7, 2017.
Consider ‘impactibility’ to prevent hospital readmissions
With the goal of reducing 28-day or 30-day readmissions, some health care teams are turning to predictive models to identify patients at high risk for readmission and to efficiently focus resource-intensive prevention strategies. Recently, there’s been a rapid multiplying of these models.
Many of these models do accurately predict readmission risk, according to a recent BMJ editorial. “Among the 14 published models that target all unplanned readmissions (rather than readmissions for specific patient groups), the ‘C statistic’ ranges from 0.55 to 0.80, meaning that, when presented with two patients, these models correctly identify the higher risk individual between 55% and 80% of the time,” the authors wrote.
But, the authors suggested, the real value is not in simply making predictions but in using predictive models in ways that improve outcomes for patients.
“This will require linking predictive models to actionable opportunities for improving care,” they wrote. “Such linkages will most likely be identified through close collaboration between analytical teams, health care practitioners, and patients.” Being at high risk of readmission is not the only consideration; the patient must also be able to benefit from interventions being considered – they must be “impactible.”
“The distinction between predictive risk and impactibility might explain why practitioners tend to identify quite different patients for intervention than predictive risk models,” the authors wrote.
But together, predictive models and clinicians might produce more effective decisions than either does alone. “One of the strengths of predictive models is that they produce objective and consistent judgments regarding readmission risk, whereas clinical judgment can be affected by personal attitudes or attentiveness. Predictive risk models can also be operationalised across whole populations, and might therefore identify needs that would otherwise be missed by clinical teams (e.g., among more socioeconomically deprived neighbourhoods or groups with inadequate primary care). On the other hand, clinicians have access to a much wider range of information regarding patients than predictive risk models, which is essential to judge impactibility.”
The authors conclude, “The predictive modelling enterprise would benefit enormously from such collaboration because the real goal of this activity lies not in predicting the risk of readmission but in identifying patients at risk for preventable readmissions and ‘impactible’ by available interventions.”
Reference
Steventon A et al. Preventing hospital readmissions: The importance of considering ‘impactibility,’ not just predicted risk. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Oct;26(10):782-5. Accessed Oct. 9, 2017.
With the goal of reducing 28-day or 30-day readmissions, some health care teams are turning to predictive models to identify patients at high risk for readmission and to efficiently focus resource-intensive prevention strategies. Recently, there’s been a rapid multiplying of these models.
Many of these models do accurately predict readmission risk, according to a recent BMJ editorial. “Among the 14 published models that target all unplanned readmissions (rather than readmissions for specific patient groups), the ‘C statistic’ ranges from 0.55 to 0.80, meaning that, when presented with two patients, these models correctly identify the higher risk individual between 55% and 80% of the time,” the authors wrote.
But, the authors suggested, the real value is not in simply making predictions but in using predictive models in ways that improve outcomes for patients.
“This will require linking predictive models to actionable opportunities for improving care,” they wrote. “Such linkages will most likely be identified through close collaboration between analytical teams, health care practitioners, and patients.” Being at high risk of readmission is not the only consideration; the patient must also be able to benefit from interventions being considered – they must be “impactible.”
“The distinction between predictive risk and impactibility might explain why practitioners tend to identify quite different patients for intervention than predictive risk models,” the authors wrote.
But together, predictive models and clinicians might produce more effective decisions than either does alone. “One of the strengths of predictive models is that they produce objective and consistent judgments regarding readmission risk, whereas clinical judgment can be affected by personal attitudes or attentiveness. Predictive risk models can also be operationalised across whole populations, and might therefore identify needs that would otherwise be missed by clinical teams (e.g., among more socioeconomically deprived neighbourhoods or groups with inadequate primary care). On the other hand, clinicians have access to a much wider range of information regarding patients than predictive risk models, which is essential to judge impactibility.”
The authors conclude, “The predictive modelling enterprise would benefit enormously from such collaboration because the real goal of this activity lies not in predicting the risk of readmission but in identifying patients at risk for preventable readmissions and ‘impactible’ by available interventions.”
Reference
Steventon A et al. Preventing hospital readmissions: The importance of considering ‘impactibility,’ not just predicted risk. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Oct;26(10):782-5. Accessed Oct. 9, 2017.
With the goal of reducing 28-day or 30-day readmissions, some health care teams are turning to predictive models to identify patients at high risk for readmission and to efficiently focus resource-intensive prevention strategies. Recently, there’s been a rapid multiplying of these models.
Many of these models do accurately predict readmission risk, according to a recent BMJ editorial. “Among the 14 published models that target all unplanned readmissions (rather than readmissions for specific patient groups), the ‘C statistic’ ranges from 0.55 to 0.80, meaning that, when presented with two patients, these models correctly identify the higher risk individual between 55% and 80% of the time,” the authors wrote.
But, the authors suggested, the real value is not in simply making predictions but in using predictive models in ways that improve outcomes for patients.
“This will require linking predictive models to actionable opportunities for improving care,” they wrote. “Such linkages will most likely be identified through close collaboration between analytical teams, health care practitioners, and patients.” Being at high risk of readmission is not the only consideration; the patient must also be able to benefit from interventions being considered – they must be “impactible.”
“The distinction between predictive risk and impactibility might explain why practitioners tend to identify quite different patients for intervention than predictive risk models,” the authors wrote.
But together, predictive models and clinicians might produce more effective decisions than either does alone. “One of the strengths of predictive models is that they produce objective and consistent judgments regarding readmission risk, whereas clinical judgment can be affected by personal attitudes or attentiveness. Predictive risk models can also be operationalised across whole populations, and might therefore identify needs that would otherwise be missed by clinical teams (e.g., among more socioeconomically deprived neighbourhoods or groups with inadequate primary care). On the other hand, clinicians have access to a much wider range of information regarding patients than predictive risk models, which is essential to judge impactibility.”
The authors conclude, “The predictive modelling enterprise would benefit enormously from such collaboration because the real goal of this activity lies not in predicting the risk of readmission but in identifying patients at risk for preventable readmissions and ‘impactible’ by available interventions.”
Reference
Steventon A et al. Preventing hospital readmissions: The importance of considering ‘impactibility,’ not just predicted risk. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Oct;26(10):782-5. Accessed Oct. 9, 2017.