Search

Background: As healthcare systems around the world are facing increasing physician shortages, more physicians are migrating from low to high income countries. As an illustrative case of international migration of physicians, we evaluated the current number and historical trends of Lebanese medical graduates (LMG) in the US, and compared their characteristics to those of US medical graduates (USMG) and other international medical graduates (IMG). Methods: We evaluated the number of LMG using the 2004 the American Medical Association Physicians' Professional Data (AMA-PPD) and then compared it to the number of graduates of other countries. We evaluated the historical trends using the 1978-2004 historical files of the AMA-PPD. We analyzed the characteristics of all LMG and compared them to a random sample of 1000 USMG and a random sample of 1000 IMG using the 2004 AMA-PPD. Results: In 2004, there were 2,796 LMG in the US, constituting 1.3% of all IMG. Compared to other foreign countries contributing to the US physician workforce, Lebanon ranked 2nd after adjusting for country population size (about 4 million) and 21st overall. About 40% of those who graduated from Lebanese medical schools in the last 25 years are currently active physicians in the US. Since 1978, the number of LMG in the US showed a consistent upward trend at a rate of approximately 71 additional graduates per year. Compared with USMG and IMG, LMG were more likely to work in medical research (OR = 2.31; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.21; 4.43 and OR = 2.63; 95% CI = 1.34; 5.01, respectively) and to be board certified (OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.14; 1.78 and OR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.65;2.53, respectively) and less likely to be in family practice (OR = 0.14; 95% CI = 0.10; 0.19 and OR = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.12; 0.26, respectively). Conclusion: Given the magnitude and historical trends of migration of LMG to the US, further exploration of its causes and impact is warranted. High income countries should consider the consequences of their human resources policies on both low income countries' and their own healthcare systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Travel burden is a key element in conceptualizing geographic access to health care. Prior research has shown that both rural and minority populations bear disproportionate travel burdens. However, many studies are limited to specific types of patient or specific locales. The purpose of our study was to quantify geographic and race-based differences in distance traveled and time spent in travel for medical/dental care using representative national data. Methods: Data were drawn from 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), a nationally representative, cross-sectional household survey conducted by the US Department of Transportation. Participants recorded all travel on a designated day; the overall response rate was 41%. Analyses were restricted to households reporting at least one trip for medical and/or dental care; 3,914 trips made by 2,432 households. Dependent variables in the analysis were road miles traveled, minutes spent traveling, and high travel burden, defined as more than 30 miles or 30 minutes per trip. Independent variables of interest were rural residence and race. Characteristics of the individual, the trip, and the community were controlled in multivariate analyses. Results: The average trip for care in the US in 2001 entailed 10.2 road miles (16.4 kilometers) and 22.0 minutes of travel. Rural residents traveled further than urban residents in unadjusted analysis (17.5 versus 8.3 miles; 28.2 versus 13.4 km). Rural trips took 31.4% longer than urban trips (27.2 versus 20.7 minutes). Distance traveled did not vary by race. African Americans spent more time in travel than whites (29.1 versus 20.6 minutes); other minorities did not differ. In adjusted analyses, rural residence (odds ratio, OR, 2.67, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.39 5.1.5) was associated with a trip of 30 road miles or more; rural residence (OR, 1.80, CI 1.09 2.99) and African American race/ethnicity (OR 3.04. 95% CI 2.0 4.62) were associated with a trip lasting 30 minutes or longer. Conclusion: Rural residents and African Americans experience higher travel burdens than urban residents or whites when seeking medical/dental care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Development of managed care, characterized by limited provider choice, is believed to undermine trust. Provider choice has been identified as strongly associated with physician trust. Stakeholders in a competitive healthcare market have competing agendas related to choice. The purpose of this study is to analyze variables associated with consumer's satisfaction that they have enough choice when selecting their primary care provider (PCP), and to analyze the importance of these variables on provider trust. Methods: A 1999 randomized national cross-sectional telephone survey conducted of United States residential households, who had a telephone, had seen a medical professional at least twice in the past two years, and aged = 20 years was selected for secondary data analyses. Among 1,117 households interviewed, 564 were selected as the final sample. Subjects responded to a core set of questions related to provider trust, and a subset of questions related to trust in the insurer. A previously developed conceptual framework was adopted. Linear and logistic regressions were performed based on this framework. Results: Results affirmed 'satisfaction with amount of PCP choice' was significantly (p < .001) associated with provider trust. 'PCP's care being extremely effective' was strongly associated with 'satisfaction with amount of PCP choice' and 'provider trust'. Having sought a second opinion(s) was associated with lower trust. 'Spoke to the PCP outside the medical office,' 'satisfaction with the insurer' and 'insurer charges less if PCP within network' were all variables associated with 'satisfaction with amount of PCP choice' (all p < .05). Conclusion: This study confirmed the association of 'satisfaction with amount of PCP choice' with provider trust. Results affirmed 'enough PCP choice' was a strong predictor of provider trust. 'Second opinion on PCP' may indicate distrust in the provider. Data such as 'trust in providers in general' and 'the role of provider performance information' in choice, though import in PCP choice, were not available for analysis and should be explored in future studies. Results have implications for rethinking the relationships among consumer choice, consumer behaviors in making trade-offs in PCP choice, and the role of healthcare experiences in 'satisfaction with amount of PCP choice' or 'provider trust.' [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is widespread interest in measuring healthcare provider attitudes about issues relevant to patient safety (often called safety climate or safety culture). Here we report the psychometric properties, establish benchmarking data, and discuss emerging areas of research with the University of Texas Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. Methods: Six cross-sectional surveys of health care providers (n = 10,843) in 203 clinical areas (including critical care units, operating rooms, inpatient settings, and ambulatory clinics) in three countries (USA, UK, New Zealand). Multilevel factor analyses yielded results at the clinical area level and the respondent nested within clinical area level. We report scale reliability, floor/ceiling effects, item factor loadings, inter-factor correlations, and percentage of respondents who agree with each item and scale. Results: A six factor model of provider attitudes fit to the data at both the clinical area and respondent nested within clinical area levels. The factors were: Teamwork Climate, Safety Climate, Perceptions of Management, Job Satisfaction, Working Conditions, and Stress Recognition. Scale reliability was 0.9. Provider attitudes varied greatly both within and among organizations. Results are presented to allow benchmarking among organizations and emerging research is discussed. Conclusion: The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire demonstrated good psychometric properties. Healthcare organizations can use the survey to measure caregiver attitudes about six patient safetyrelated domains, to compare themselves with other organizations, to prompt interventions to improve safety attitudes and to measure the effectiveness of these interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Future of Family Medicine Report calls for a fundamental redesign of the American family physician workplace. At the same time, academic family practices are under economic pressure. Most family medicine departments do not have self-supporting practices, but seek support from specialty colleagues or hospital practice plans. Alternative models for academic family practices that are economically viable and consistent with the principles of family medicine are needed. This article presents several "experiments" to address these challenges. Methods: The basis of comparison is a traditional academic family medicine center. Apart of the faculty practice plan, our center consistently operated at a deficit despite high productivity. A number of different practice types and alternative models of service delivery were therefore developed and tested. They ranged from a multi-specialty office arrangement, to a community clinic operated as part of a federally-qualified health center, to a team of providers based in and providing care for residents of an elderly public housing project. Financial comparisons using consistent accounting across models are provided. Results: Academic family practices can, at least in some settings, operate without subsidy while providing continuity of care to a broad segment of the community. The prerequisites are that the clinicians must see patients efficiently, and be able to bill appropriately for their payer mix. Conclusion: Experimenting within academic practice structure and organization is worthwhile, and can result in economically viable alternatives to traditional models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the U.S. small-area health services research studies are often based on the hospital service areas (HSAs) defined by the Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare project. These areas are based on the geographic origins of Medicare Part A hospital patients, the great majority of whom are seniors. It is reasonable to question whether the geographic system so defined is appropriate for health services research for all ages, particularly for children, who have a very different system of healthcare financing and provision in the U.S. Methods: This article assesses the need for a unique system of HSAs to support pediatric small-area analyses. It is a cross-sectional analysis of California hospital discharges for two age groups -- non-newborns 0-17 years old, and seniors. The measure of interest was index of localization, which is the percentage of HSA residents hospitalized in their home HSA. Indices were computed separately for each age group, and index agreement was assessed for 219 of the state's HSAs. We examined the effect of local pediatric inpatient volume and pediatric inpatient resources on the divergence of the age group indices. We also created a new system of HSAs based solely on pediatric patient origins, and visually compared maps of the traditional and the new system. Results: The mean localization index for pediatric discharges was 20 percentage points lower than for Medicare cases, indicating a poorer fit of the traditional geographic system for children. The volume of pediatric cases did not appear to be associated with the magnitude of index divergence between the two age groups. Pediatric medical and surgical case subgroups gave very similar results, and both groups differed substantially from seniors. Location of children's hospitals and local pediatric bed supply were associated with Medicare-pediatric divergence. There was little visual correspondence between the maps of traditional and pediatric-specific HSAs. Conclusion: Children and seniors have significantly different geographic patterns of hospitalization in California. Medicare-based HSAs may not be appropriate for all age groups and service types throughout the U.S. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary care providers (PCPs) are typically the first to screen and evaluate patients for neurocognitive disorders (NCDs), including mild cognitive impairment and dementia. However, data on PCP attitudes and evaluation and management practices are sparse. Our objective was to quantify perspectives and behaviors of PCPs and neurologists with respect to NCD evaluation and management.Methods: A cross-sectional survey with 150 PCPs and 50 neurologists in the United States who evaluated more than 10 patients over age 55 per month. The 51-item survey assessed clinical practice characteristics, and confidence, perceived barriers, and typical practices when diagnosing and managing patients with NCDs.Results: PCPs and neurologists reported similar confidence and approaches to general medical care and laboratory testing. Though over half of PCPs performed cognitive screening or referred patients for cognitive testing in over 50% of their patients, only 20% reported high confidence in interpreting results of cognitive tests. PCPs were more likely to order CT scans than MRIs, and only 14% of PCPs reported high confidence interpreting brain imaging findings, compared to 70% of specialists. Only 21% of PCPs were highly confident that they correctly recognized when a patient had an NCD, and only 13% were highly confident in making a specific NCD diagnosis (compared to 72 and 44% for neurologists, both p < 0.001). A quarter of all providers identified lack of familiarity with diagnostic criteria for NCD syndromes as a barrier to clinical practice.Conclusions: This study demonstrates how PCPs approach diagnosis and management of patients with NCDs, and identified areas for improvement in regards to cognitive testing and neuroimaging. This study also identified all providers' lack of familiarity with published diagnostic criteria for NCD syndromes. These findings may inform the development of new policies and interventions to help providers improve the efficacy of their decision processes and deliver better quality care to patients with NCDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Overuse is a leading contributor to the high cost of health care in the United States. Overuse harms patients and is a definitive waste of resources. The Johns Hopkins Overuse Index (JHOI) is a normalized measure of systemic health care services overuse, generated from claims data, that has been used to describe overuse in Medicare beneficiaries and to understand drivers of overuse. We aimed to adapt the JHOI for application to a commercially insured US population, to examine geographic variation in systemic overuse in this population, and to analyze trends over time to inform whether systemic overuse is an enduring problem.Methods: We analyzed commercial insurance claims from 18 to 64 year old beneficiaries. We calculated a semiannual JHOI for each of the 375 Metropolitan Statistical Areas and 47 rural regions of the US. We generated maps to examine geographic variation and then analyzed each region's change in their JHOI quintile from January 2011 to June 2015.Results: The JHOI varied markedly across the US. Across the country, rural regions tended to have less systemic overuse than their MSA counterparts (p < 0.01). Regional systemic overuse is positively correlated from one time period to the next (p < 0.001). Between 2011 and 2015, 53.7% (N = 226) of regions remained in the same quintile of the JHOI. Eighty of these regions had a persistently high or persistently low JHOI throughout study duration.Conclusions: The systemic overuse of health care resources is an enduring, regional problem. Areas identified as having a persistently high rate of systemic overuse merit further investigation to understand drivers and potential points of intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite progress towards achieving UNAIDS 90-90-90 goals, barriers persist in laboratory systems in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) restricting scale up of early infant diagnosis (EID) and viral load (VL) test monitoring of patients on antiretroviral therapy. If these facilities and system challenges persist, they may undermine recorded gains and appropriate management of patients. The aim of this review is to identify Public Private Partnerships (PPP) in SSA that have resolved systemic barriers within the VL and EID treatment cascade and demonstrated impact in the scale up of VL and EID.Methods: We queried five HIV and TB laboratory databases from 2007 to 2017 for studies related to laboratory system strengthening and PPP. We identified, screened and included PPPs that demonstrated evidence in alleviating known system level barriers to scale up national VL and EID testing programs. PPPs that improved associated systems from the point of viral load test request to the use of the test result for patient management were deemed eligible.Results: We identified six PPPs collaborations with multiple activities in select countries that are contributing to address challenges to scale up national viral load programs. One of the six PPPs reached 14.5 million patients in remote communities and transported up to 400,000 specimens in a year. Another PPP enabled an unprecedented 94% of specimens to reach national laboratory through improved sample referral network and enabled a cost savings of 62%. Also PPPs reduced cost of reagents and enabled 300,000 tested infants to be enrolled in care as well as reduced turnaround time of reporting results by 50%.Conclusions: Our review identified the benefits, enabling factors, and associated challenges for public and private sectors to engage in PPPs. PPP contributions to laboratory systems strengthening are a model and present opportunities that can be leveraged to strengthen systems to achieve the UNAIDS 90-90-90 treatment targets for HIV/AIDS. Despite growing emphasis on engaging the private sector as a critical partner to address global disease burden, PPPs that specifically strengthen laboratories, the cornerstone of public health programs, remain largely untapped. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients seek care from physical therapists for neck pain but it is unclear what the association of the timing of physical therapy (PT) consultation is on 1-year healthcare utilization and costs. The purpose of this study was to compare the 1-year healthcare utilization and costs between three PT timing groups: patients who consulted a physical therapist (PT) for neck pain within 14 days (early PT consultation), between 15 and 90 days (delayed PT consultation) or between 91 and 364 days (late PT consultation).Methods: A retrospective cohort of 308 patients (69.2% female, ages 48.7[±14.5] years) were categorized into PT timing groups. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each group. In adjusted regression models, 1-year healthcare utilization of injections, imaging, opioids and costs were compared between groups.Results: Compared to early PT consultation, the odds of receiving an opioid prescription (aOR = 2.79, 95%CI: 1.35-5.79), spinal injection (aOR = 4.36, 95%CI:2.26-8.45), undergoing an MRI (aOR = 4.68, 95%CI:2.25-9.74), X-ray (aOR = 2.97, 95%CI:1.61-5.47) or CT scan (aOR = 3.36, 95%CI: 1.14-9.97) were increased in patients in the late PT consultation group. Similar increases in risk were found in the delayed group (except CT and Opioids). Compared to the early PT consultation group, mean costs were $2172 ($557, $3786) higher in the late PT contact group and $1063 (95%CI: $ 138 - $1988) higher in the delayed PT consultation group.Discussion: There was an association with the timing of physical therapy consultation on healthcare utilization and costs, where later consultation was associated with increases costs and healthcare utilization. This study examined the association of timing of physical therapy consultation on costs and healthcare utilization, but not the association of increased access to physical therapy consultation. Therefore, the findings warrant further investigation to explore the effects of increased access to physical therapy consultation on healthcare utilization and costs in a prospective study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Partnerships between clinicians and researchers could increase the generalizability of research findings and increase uptake of research results across populations. Yet engaging clinicians in research is challenging. Clinical Data Research Networks (CDRNs) provide access to a broad array of clinical data, patients, clinicians and health systems by building on existing health records (EHRs) to facilitate multi-site community engaged research (CEnR).Methods: A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design was employed. Sixty semi-structured interviews with clinicians from various disciplines and healthcare settings were conducted using five open-ended questions. Inductive content analysis was used to identify emerging themes in the data.Results: We identified the following emerging themes: 1) Research with relevance and benefits to clinics and provider's patient population; 2) Difficulties of engaging in research with existing patient care demands; 3) Clear and continuous two-way communication about research, coordinated with provider and clinic needs; 4) Tailored compensation approaches meet provider preferences; 5) Increasing clinician awareness about Clinical Data Research Networks (CDRNs).Conclusion: Our interview study provides insight into community clinician perspectives on Clinical Data Research Networks, indicating motivations and challenges to research involvement including consequences of time spent on research participation, barriers to expanding research and meaningful involvement in research governance. Findings can be used to guide the development of strategies to better engage providers in research in clinical settings, which could ultimately improve patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The US health care system uses diagnostic codes for billing and reimbursement as well as quality assessment and measuring clinical outcomes. The US transitioned to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) on October, 2015. Little is known about the impact of ICD-10-CM on internal medicine and medicine subspecialists.Methods: We used a state-wide data set from Illinois Medicaid specified for Internal Medicine providers and subspecialists. A total of 3191 ICD-9-CM codes were used for 51,078 patient encounters, for a total cost of US $26,022,022 for all internal medicine. We categorized all of the ICD-9-CM codes based on the complexity of mapping to ICD-10-CM as codes with complex mapping could result in billing or administrative errors during the transition. Codes found to have complex mapping and frequently used codes (n = 295) were analyzed for clinical accuracy of mapping to ICD-10-CM. Each subspecialty was analyzed for complexity of codes used and proportion of reimbursement associated with complex codes.Results: Twenty-five percent of internal medicine codes have convoluted mapping to ICD-10-CM, which represent 22% of Illinois Medicaid patients, and 30% of reimbursements. Rheumatology and Endocrinology had the greatest proportion of visits and reimbursement associated with complex codes. We found 14.5% of ICD-9-CM codes used by internists, when mapped to ICD-10-CM, resulted in potential clinical inaccuracies.Conclusions: We identified that 43% of diagnostic codes evaluated and used by internists and that account for 14% of internal medicine reimbursements are associated with codes which could result in administrative errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite several studies that have estimated the economic impact of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) in infants, limited data are available on healthcare resource use and costs attributable to RSV across age groups. The aim of this study was to quantify age-specific RSV-related healthcare resource use and costs on the US healthcare system.Methods: This retrospective case-control study identified patients aged ≥1 year with an RSV event in the Truven Health Marketscan® Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental and Coordination of Benefits databases between August 31, 2012 and August 1, 2013. RSV patients were matched 1:1 with non-RSV controls for age, gender, region, healthcare plan and index date (n = 11,432 in each group). Stratified analyses for healthcare resource use and costs were conducted by age groups. RSV-attributable resource use and costs were assessed based on the incremental differences between RSV cases and controls using multivariate analysis.Results: RSV patients had a higher healthcare resource use (hospital stays, emergency room/urgent care visits, ambulatory visits and outpatient visits) than non-RSV matched controls for all age groups (all p < 0.0001), particularly in the elderly age groups with RSV (1.9 to 3 days length of stay, 0.4 to 0.5 more ER/UC visits, 0.7 to 2.7 more ambulatory visits, 12.1 to 18.6 more outpatient visits and 9.5 to 14.6 more prescriptions than elderly in the control groups). The incremental difference in adjusted mean annual costs between RSV and non-RSV controls was higher in elderly (≥65; $12,030 to $23,194) than in those aged < 65 years ($2251 to $5391). Among children, adjusted costs attributable to RSV were higher in children aged 5-17 years ($3192), than those 1-4 years ($2251 to $2521).Conclusions: Our findings showed a substantial annual RSV-attributable healthcare resource use and costs in the US across age groups, with the highest burden in those aged ≥65 years. These data can be used in cost-effectiveness analyses, and may be useful for policymakers to guide future RSV vaccination and other prevention programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare organizations increasingly are focused on providing care which is patient-centered rather than disease-focused. Yet little is known about how best to transform the culture of care in these organizations. We sought to understand key organizational factors for implementing patient-centered care cultural transformation through an examination of efforts in the US Department of Veterans Affairs.Methods: We conducted multi-day site visits at four US Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers designated as leaders in providing patient-centered care. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 108 employees (22 senior leaders, 42 middle managers, 37 front-line providers and 7 staff). Transcripts of audio recordings were analyzed using a priori codes based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We used constant comparison analysis to synthesize codes into meaningful domains.Results: Sites described actions taken to foster patient-centered care in seven domains: 1) leadership; 2) patient and family engagement; 3) staff engagement; 4) focus on innovations; 5) alignment of staff roles and priorities; 6) organizational structures and processes; 7) environment of care. Within each domain, we identified multi-faceted strategies for implementing change. These included efforts by all levels of organizational leaders who modeled patient-centered care in their interactions and fostered willingness to try novel approaches to care amongst staff. Alignment and integration of patient centered care within the organization, particularly surrounding roles, priorities and bureaucratic rules, remained major challenges.Conclusions: Transforming healthcare systems to focus on patient-centered care and better serve the "whole" patient is a complex endeavor. Efforts to transform healthcare culture require robust, multi-pronged efforts at all levels of the organization; leadership is only the beginning. Challenges remain for incorporating patient-centered approaches in the context of competing priorities and regulations. Through actions within each of the domains, organizations may begin to truly transform to patient-driven care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Over the past four to five years, the focus in casemix-based payment systems in the United States has shifted more and more towards "value-based-purchasing" and "pay-for- performance" measures. The reporting of pre-set quality indicators is now fundamentally in place for both the inpatient prospective-payment system, based on Medicare- Severity Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRGs), and, more recently, the outpatient prospective-payment system, based on Ambulatory Payment Classifications (APCs). For hospitals to receive their full casemix MS-DRG or APC payment, whether for inpatient services or outpatient services, all required quality indicators must be reported. Reporting pre-determined quality indicators is important for data collection and monitoring, but the simple act of reporting data does not, and should not, be used as a proxy to talk about the delivery of "high-quality" healthcare services. In fact, critics in the U.S. consider the current "pay-for-performance" system simply a "pay-for-reporting" system which does little to measure true quality, or the lack of it. Additional quality-of-care concepts have been introduced more recently. These focus on the reporting of specific diagnoses that may influence final DRG assignment and, thus, final payment in the inpatient setting. These concepts focus on whether reported diagnoses were "Present on Admission" (POA), or whether they were "Hospital Acquired Conditions" (HACs) that surfaced during the patient's hospitalization. Examining such data begins to tell a different story about the patient's disease state upon arrival to the hospital versus conditions, often considered preventable, that might have occurred during the stay. The practice of flagging diagnoses that are POA, versus those that are HACs, is one method the U.S. Medicare program uses to provide an incentive to hospitals to offer high-quality treatment while a patient is in their care. If certain preventable conditions, including Never Events, occur during the patient's stay, then Medicare believes that these secondary diagnoses should not influence grouping, nor the final MS-DRG payment calculation. This link between the reporting of specific data, the assumption made about the quality-of-care rendered, and the final impact on payment is quite new, and to some extent controversial. It will be reviewed during this session. Methods This session will provide a review of the required inpatient and outpatient quality indicators that hospitals, under the Medicare program, must report in order to receive their full casemix payment. In addition, it will cover current requirements related to flagging certain diagnoses as POA, versus those that are considered HACs, and Never Events, as defined by Medicare. Finally, this session will provide a preview of Medicare's future plans related to measuring quality and typing it to payment. Results Much of the discussion focusing on quality and casemix has centered on reducing payments, rather than offering incentives, or extra payment, for hospitals that are truly innovative in their approach to offering high levels of patient safety, quality and access. Creating incentives that promote the delivery of high-quality healthcare is different from implementing mechanisms that withhold payment from hospitals deemed to provide "poor-quality" care. Understanding this nuance is critical to creating the "right" set of incentives for both efficiency and quality. Whether this can be done effectively by reducing, or withholding, casemix payment to hospitals that fail to report quality indicators, or that fail to provide quality healthcare (as defined by the list of HACs and Never Events), remains to be seen. Conclusion Measuring quality-of-care has always been difficult, and the fact that there is no one "right" answer complicates the discussion.… [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Johns Hopkins HealthCare contracts with the US Department of Defense (DOD) to provide fully capitated healthcare services to 28,000 DOD beneficiaries. The health plan is known as the US Family Health Plan (USFHP). In order to understand and meet the healthcare needs of the USFHP population, Johns Hopkins HealthCare uses The ACG® (Adjusted Clinical Group) Casemix System to perform a population health analysis. It then targets patients for a variety of population health-management interventions. Programs such as Health Coaching, Disease Management and Case Management have been developed and implemented to help this population improve health, and reduce healthcare expenditures. The purpose of this presentation is to: 1) Present the results of the population analyses 2) Review the process for identifying and stratifying appropriate patients for interventions 3) Describe the management programs employed at Johns Hopkins HealthCare 4) Review the results of an intensive case-management program, Guided Care (GC), for patients with multimorbidity Methods Population analyses were performed annually to assess changes in population morbidity over time, and to create a population-management plan. Additionally, the ACG diagnostic and pharmacy predictive models were run monthly to identify and stratify individuals for a variety of population health-management programs. Health education and promotion, via books and web-based access to materials, were offered to patients with the lowest ACG risk scores. Patients with moderate risk scores, or a single chronic disease, were offered health-coaching resources for lifestyle management to improve their health behaviors. Members with multiple chronic conditions, and high ACG risk scores, participated in GC, a nurse-led, patient-centered, comprehensive chronic-care program delivered in both the primary-care setting and the patient's home. Results Annual population analyses showed demographic and morbidity characteristics of the 28,000 patients. Mean ACG risk scores by primary care site, number of chronic conditions, and prevalence of chronic disease compared to national US benchmarks showed that morbidity is high in the US Family Health Plan population. In 2006, we began a cluster-randomized, controlled trial of Guided Care in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. This study was designed to measure the effects of GC on the quality of care for a multi-morbid population with high-risk scores on the outcomes of care for patients, families, primary-care practices, physicians, nurses, and healthcare insurers. We hypothesized that 1) GC would improve patients' quality of care and physicians' satisfaction with care within 6 months, and 2) better quality of care would secondarily lead to improvements in patients' quality of life and efficiency of resource use - as well as to desirable outcomes for other stakeholders in chronic care. Preliminary data indicated that Guided Care: 1) Improves the quality of patients' care. (After six months, GC patients were twice as likely as regularcare patients to rate the quality of their care highly. After 20 months, GC patients were more than twice as likely as regular-care patients to rate the quality of their care highly). 2) Reduces the use and cost of expensive services. (After the first eight months of the study, GC patients experienced, on average, 24% fewer hospitals days, 37% fewer skilled nursing facility days, 15% fewer emergency department visits, and 29% fewer home healthcare episodes. GC patients also experienced 9% more specialist visits; however, this is not considered statistically significant. Based on current Medicare payment rates, and GC costs, these differences in utilization produce net savings for healthcare payors.) 3) Reduces family caregiver strain.… [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]