Validating Health Care Performance

Brian Klepper

Posted 8/20/18 in Valid Points, the Newsletter of The Validation Institute

The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their true names. – Confucius

BKlepperFor purchasers, health care is the Wild West. Vendors of all types – disease managers, wellness companies, care navigation firms, ambulatory surgery centers, benefits advisors, worksite clinic firms, and on and on – have a long history of making exuberant claims about their outcomes and savings. Purchasers – self-funded employers and unions – generally have no alternative but to take those promises at face value, assuming they’re grounded in solid data and hard math. They may be more resigned than surprised when the expected results don’t materialize.

The propensity of vendors in the population health management sector to over-promise and under-deliver became so pronounced that Al Lewis, a nationally prominent health care outcomes analyst, wrote an entertaining book about it, called Why Nobody Believes the Numbers. Why Nobody Believes tells how 12 companies cooked their numbers, and how they mostly thrived despite a flow of bogus results. Anyone familiar with corporate health benefit plans over the past couple decades is aware of the immense popularity of wellness and disease management programs despite skinny evidence showing that they’re effective.

In 2010, Sean Slovenski, then CEO of an Intel-GE subsidiary called Care Innovations (and now Walmart’s SVP & President of Health and Wellness) created a new organization, The Validation Institute, to evaluate the calculation methods of health care organizations making claims about their performance. If their data sources and data are credible, if their math makes sense and if the evaluator find that the intervention has produced the promised results elsewhere, then the product/service would be “validated.” If not, the evaluators provide guidance on how to do the calculations properly.

This approach – independent, objective, highly capable third party review and evaluation – was the right solution, providing a fresh, straightforward way for responsible vendors to be accountable.

For purchasers, validation represents a significant advantage. They can be confident that vendors’ performance will approximate what they promised. By reducing this uncertainty, an increasing number of purchasers, Walmart included, now give validated vendors preferred status in the bidding process.

With rapidly growing momentum and increasing influence, the Validation Institute is poised to close a glaring gap in health care purchasing. Accordingly, every purchaser should insist that every health care vendor become validated and build the validation requirement into its Request for Proposal process. Likewise, the validation process should become a critical step in every vendor’s go-to-market plan.

In a health system awash with excess and opacity, an important first step is a rigorous process that gets to transparent outcomes. In health care, that step starts at The Validation Institute.

Brian Klepper is a health care analyst.

Why Does The FDA Approve Cancer Drugs That Don’t Work

BRIAN KLEPPER

Posted 10/23/15 on The Health Care Blog

A new study in JAMA Internal Medicine finds that two-thirds of cancer drugs considered by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the past five years were approved without evidence that they improve health outcomes or length of life. (This study closely corroborates and acknowledges the findings published last year by John Fauber of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Elbert Chu of MedPage Today.) Follow-up studies showed that 86 percent of the drugs approved with surrogate endpoints (or measures) and more than half (57%) of the cancer drugs approved by the FDA “have unknown effects on overall survival or fail to show gains in survival.” In other words, the authors write, “most cancer drug approvals have not been shown to, or do not, improve clinically relevant end points.”

Continue reading “Why Does The FDA Approve Cancer Drugs That Don’t Work”

Will Specialty Drug Pricing Be The Straw?

Published 5/27/15 in Employee Benefit News

ALP_H_BK_0010Over the next few years, drug manufacturers will release a host of new drugs that are more complex and, in many cases, more effective than we’ve had access to in the past. There will be better solutions for common problems, and new solutions for uncommon ones. Specialty drugs, many of them “precision therapies,” will offer tremendous promise for better health outcomes across the breadth of human health and treatment.

Not surprisingly, most of these drugs will have breathtaking price tags, often a high multiple of conventional drugs. Specialty drugs are an exploding growth industry, with spending rising almost 20 times as fast as conventional drugs. Unless something changes, in just another five years we’ll likely spend more on specialty than non-specialty drugs. Or, for that matter, on doctors.

Continue reading “Will Specialty Drug Pricing Be The Straw?”

Developing a Coordinated, Considered Response to Predatory Health Care

Brian Klepper

Posted 9/21/14 on the NBCH Newsletter Blog

ALP_H_BK_0010In today’s New York Times, Elizabeth Rosenthal describes the growing and egregious over-treatment and overpricing practices by physicians and health systems, abetted by health plans.

The excesses detailed in this article are at the core of our national health care quality and cost crisis. The best solutions are collaborative, considered actions by group purchasers, potentially the most empowered of health care’s stakeholders.

When predatory anecdotes like these come to light, the benefits managers – or better yet, the CFOs – of local employers, unions and governmental agencies should immediately call the health plan and demand that the health systems, physicians and other providers involved be removed from the provider panel. (Small communities held hostage by a few dominant health care players are a separate topic that I’ll address soon.)

As Tom Emerick, former VP Human Resources at Walmart has stated repeatedly, health care will not improve until purchasers demand different behaviors from health care vendors, focusing business on organizations that facilitate high quality care at reasonable cost, and publicly avoiding those that do not.

This is a serious issue that demands a coordinated response. It is at the top of NBCH’s agenda. Join with us on this.

Brian Klepper is the CEO of the National Business Coalition on Health.

How Business Can Save America from Health Care

Brian Klepper

Published 6/09/14 in Employee Benefit News

ALP_H_BK_0010One of America’s most enduring mysteries is why the organizations that pay for most health care don’t work together to force better value from the health care industry.

We pay double for health care what our competitors in other developed nations do, but studies show that more than half of our annual health care spend – equal to 9% of GDP or our 2012 budget deficit – provides zero value. Every health care sector has devised mechanisms that allow it to extract much more money than it is legitimately entitled to. Health plans contract for and pass through the costs of products and services at high multiples of what any volume-based purchaser can buy them for in the market. Medical societies campaign for excessive medical service values that Medicare and commercial payers base their payments on. Hospitals routinely over-treat and have egregious unit pricing. There are scores of examples.

Decades of these behaviors have made health care cost growth the most serious threat to America’s national economic security. Medicare and Medicaid cost growth remains the primary driver of federal budget deficits. Over the past decade, 79% of the growth in household income has been absorbed by health care. Health care’s relentless demand for an ever-increasing percentage of total resources compromises other critical economic needs, like education and infrastructure replenishment.

Health care costs have been particularly corrosive to business competitiveness. Three-fourths of CFOs now report that health care cost is their most serious business concern. Commercial health plan premiums have grown almost five times overall inflation over the past 14 years. Businesses in international markets must overcome a 9+ percent health care cost disadvantage, just to be on a level playing field with their competitors in Australia, Korea or Germany.

The health care industry’s efforts to maximize revenues have been strengthened by its lobby, which spins health policy to favor its interests. In 2009, as the Affordable Care Act was formulated, health care organizations fielded eight lobbyists for every Congressional representative, providing an unprecedented $1.2 billion in campaign contributions to Congress in exchange for influence over the shape of the law. These activities go on continuously behind the scenes and ensure that nearly every health care law and rule is structured to the industry’s advantage and at the expense of the common interest.

Health care is now America’s largest and most influential industry, consuming almost one dollar in five. Only one group is more powerful, and that’s everyone else. Only if America’s non-health care business community mobilizes on this problem, becoming a counterweight to the health care industry’s influence over markets and policy, can we bring health care back to rights.

In every community, employers represent loose groupings of lives covered by health benefits, each with different approaches and results on health outcomes and cost. There are few standards and divergent opinions – mostly based on ideology rather than evidence – on plan structure, service offerings, cost sharing, incentives and many other variables.

Business health coalitions represent the opportunity for health care purchasers to collaborate and become more consistent. They can move collectively toward best practice and market-based leverage, with better health outcomes at lower cost. Coalitions like those in Savannah, Ga.  and Madison, Wisc., have shown impressive, measurable impacts. Many others could benefit from shared access to advanced risk management capabilities that can change how benefits and health care work.

Another critical missing component has been the direct involvement of business leaders. Many senior executives may not fully appreciate health care’s often blatant inappropriateness, and possibly haven’t thought through the scale of financial impact on their own businesses and the larger economy.

It will take businesses collaborating, harnessing their immense purchasing power, to disrupt health care’s institutionalized mechanisms of excess. By leveraging their collective strength, purchasers can convey that health care profiteering will no longer be tolerated, and that America’s economic success is dependent on the right care at much fairer pricing.

These goals are worth pursuing for our employees and their families, our businesses and the country. And we call on America’s employers to join us.

Brian Klepper, PhD, is chief executive officer, National Business Coalition on Health, a non-profit membership organization of purchaser-led business and health coalitions, representing over 7,000 employers and 35 million employees and their dependents across the United States.

Predatory Health Care

Brian Klepper

Posted 11/17/13 on Medscape Connect’s Care and Cost Blog

ALP_H_BK_0010Recently I was asked to intervene on behalf of a patient who, trapped by circumstance, was paying off an enormous bill for a lithotripsy procedure. What I uncovered wasn’t news, but it drove home how egregious the current system can be, why it so badly needs to be fixed, and how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) helps move us in the right direction.

The patient had health insurance through her husband’s job. But it was cancelled just after the hospital validated it, because the employer failed to pay the premium. The procedure was performed, and the patient was charged as “self-pay.”

Continue reading “Predatory Health Care”

Facilitating Interoperability

October 18th, 2013

Cross-Posted 10/18/13 from The Health Affairs Blog

BK 711Health Affairs report on health information interoperability by staffers of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) provides a good enough summary of the situation. But it also is not news, and falls under the Bob Dylan Rule: You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. From the article: “In general, limited interoperability across vendors, low motivation to share information in a fee-for-service payment environment, and the high cost of interfaces remain substantial barriers to widespread health information sharing.”

Two difficult but solvable structural problems block our exchange of health care information. The first is the “transport protocol.” Most health care data transport approaches lack the strong privacy and security safeguards that other industries now consider essential. The same industry that is moving toward clinical applications of mobile health, genomics, and nanotechnology still primarily relies on cumbersome, expensive faxes to transmit clinical information between organizations.

Continue reading “Facilitating Interoperability”