Posted 1/24/12 on Healthcare Transparency Now
CalPERS – the California Public Employees’ Retirement System – covers 1.3 million retirees, managing both their retirement and health benefits. It recently introduced a program for knee and hip surgeries that effectively tells beneficiaries that it will pay up to a specified amount for hospital reimbursement. If the beneficiary elects a hospital for which its reimbursement is higher, the beneficiary is 100% liable for additional charges.
CalPERS has brought two essential ingredients into play – both transparency in price and “skin in the game.”
Continue reading “CalPERS Innovative Program for Hip and Knee Surgeries”
Posted 1/08/12 on Not Running a Hospital
A recent report from the Office of Inspector General at the US Department of Health and Human Services finds, unsurprisingly, that hospital incident reporting systems do not capture most patient harm. A summary of major points:
All 189 sampled hospitals had incident reporting systems to capture events, and administrators we interviewed rely heavily on these systems to identify problems.
Continue reading “Tracking Adverse Events”
Wendy Lynch, Ian Beren, Justin Shaneman and Nathan Kleinman
Posted 12/30/11 on the HCMS Blog
It’s not surprising news that inpatient healthcare costs vary from hospital to hospital; large differences in price for the same procedure are common. But the reasons for variation are less clear. Some hospitals have consistently more expensive fees for identical treatments. However, these differences do not necessarily reflect better care: a recent study found that some high-cost hospitals rank low in quality scores and some high-quality hospitals are relatively low-cost (1). Plus, evidence shows that spending more does not produce better outcomes, higher satisfaction, or more appropriate care (2, 3).
Some plausible reasons for price differences include higher negotiated rates with health plans, delivery of additional or unnecessary services, poor efficiency or management of hospital stays, or several other possible causes. Yet, the most common assumption most of us make when we see price differences among hospitals is that some hospitals have patients that are simply sicker.
A recent HCMS analysis of hospital use by employees of a large, regional employer refutes that assumption.+ The graphic below shows cost per admission at ten different hospitals in the same geographic region according to the severity of illness burden of the patients the hospital treated. Most hospitals fall along this expected cost trend, with a median cost of $2,300 per increasing unit of illness. However, a few had costs above that expected rate of $15,000 to $20,000 per admission.
Continue reading “High-Cost Hospitals: Because Patients are Sicker? Think Again.”
Posted 12/1/11 on e-CareManagement Blog
We need to be far more explicit in asking a subtle but critical question
What are acceptable bases of competition in health care?
My sense is that the distinctions here are not well understood and often go undiscussed, so I’ll quickly get to the point:
It’s OK for care providers to compete on the bases of quality, price, patient satisfaction, and many other factors
Continue reading “Getting An EPIC Opinion Off My Chest”
Posted 11/13/11 on Not Running a Hospital
A quality-driven physician colleague writes with frustration about two problems in his academic medical center. I often hear similar comments from nurses and doctors, and so I present the examples for your consideration.
This hospital has a poor record with regard to hand hygiene (in the 30% range), and my colleague suggested at an infection control meeting suggested that the rates be publicly posted in the hospital to provide an impetus for improvement. “I suggested that instead of being embarrassed, maybe we should OWN the data.” This, of course, is a standard and accepted approach in quality improvement. S/he was told that the “the lawyers will not let us do this.” S/he wonders, “Who, exactly, is our primary concern?”
Continue reading “Mr. Ness, Everyone Knows Where The Booze Is”
Posted 10/13/11 on MedInnovations Blog
One man’s words are another man’s poison.
We were reasonably calculating in our approach. We consciously began using the language of the marketplace, rather than the language of medicine. We began talking in terms of “providers and consumers” instead of “doctors and patients,” for example. This, of course, was and still is highly offensive to many people in medicine, and we felt the old language was almost like the language of religion, and, thus, harder to use when trying to affect widespread change.
Paul Ellwood, MD, 1985, “Life on the Cutting Edge,“ Twin Cities Magazine, 1985
1n 1988 in Who Shall Care for The Sick: The Corporate Transformation of Medicine in Minnesota, I said that words matter in health reform, that use of “providers and consumers” signaled a transformation in American medicine, and that these words a “Grand Finesse” of American physicians, effectively distracting them from what was really happening.
I predicted physicians would become serfs of payers, physicians would be disillusioned , and ultimately, a doctor shortage would ensue.
Continue reading “The Great Finesse in Health Reform- Changing The Language”