Search

The patient-centered medical home model of primary care has received considerable attention for its potential to improve outcomes and reduce health care costs. Yet little information exists about the model's ability to achieve these goals for Medicaid patients. We sought to evaluate the effect of patient-centered medical home certification of Louisiana primary care clinics on the quality and cost of care over time for a Medicaid population. We used a quasi-experimental pre-post design with a matched control group to assess the effect of medical home certification on outcomes. We found no impact on acute care use and modest support for reduced costs and primary care use among medical homes serving higher proportions of chronically ill patients. These findings provide preliminary results related to the ability of the patient-centered medical home model to improve outcomes for Medicaid beneficiaries. The findings support a case-mix-adjusted payment policy for medical homes going forward.

Medical school deanship in the US has evolved during the past 200 years as the complexity of the US health care system has evolved. With the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid and the growth of the National Institutes of Health, the 19th-century and first half of the 20th-century role of the medical school dean as guild master transformed into that of resource allocator as faculty practice plans grew in scope and grew as an important source of medical school and university revenue. By 2000, the role of the medical school dean had transformed into that of CEO, with the dean having control over school mission and strategy, faculty practice plans, education, research dollars, and philanthropy. An alternative path to the Dean/CEO model has developed-the System Dean, who functions as a team player within a broader health system that determines the mission for the medical school and the related clinical enterprise. In this paper, the authors discuss the evolution of the medical school dean with respect to scope of authority and role within the health care system.

Object This study analyses inappropriate use of emergency department (ED) services among type 2 diabetics under an evidence-based management programme. Methods Using 1999-2006 databases of Louisiana Health Care Services Division (HCSD) eight public hospitals ED visits among the uninsured and other patients in Louisiana, we termed urgent ED visits appropriate and less-urgent visits inappropriate. Eliminating weekend ED visits, 17 458 urgent and 22 395 less-urgent visits by 8596 patients were analysed, using generalized estimating equation methods. Results Caucasians were 0.82 times (95% CI: 0.751–0.889) less likely to use the ED inappropriately compared with African Americans. Patients with commercial insurance, Medicaid and Medicare used the ED more inappropriately than uninsured, with odds ratios of 1.28, 1.32 and 1.28, respectively. Patients hospitalized the prior year were 0.84 times (95% CI: 1.08–1.31) less likely for inappropriate. Patients in larger hospitals used the ED more inappropriately, with an odds ratio of 1.44 (95% CI: 1.32–1.56). Conclusions The study suggests that inappropriate use of the ED among diabetic patients in an evidence-based management programme is more likely to occur among African American, patients with insurance coverage and those seeking care in larger hospitals. Reinforcing the regular use of clinic services for diabetes management, providing clinic access in off-hours, and engaging the health plans in providing incentives for more appropriate use of the ED might reduce inappropriate ED visits. Notably, uninsured patients with diabetes from HCSD were more efficient users of the ED.

Objective Determine the degree of congruence between several measures of adverse events. Design Cross-sectional study to assess frequency and type of adverse events identified using a variety of methods. Setting Mayo Clinic Rochester hospitals. Participants All inpatients discharged in 2005 ( n = 60 599). Interventions Adverse events were identified through multiple methods: (i) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-defined patient safety indicators (PSIs) using ICD-9 diagnosis codes from administrative discharge abstracts, (ii) provider-reported events, and (iii) Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool with physician confirmation. PSIs were adjusted to exclude patient conditions present at admission. Main outcome measure Agreement of identification between methods. Results About 4% (2401) of hospital discharges had an adverse event identified by at least one method. Around 38% (922) of identified events were provider-reported events. Nearly 43% of provider-reported adverse events were skin integrity events, 23% medication events, 21% falls, 1.8% equipment events and 37% miscellaneous events. Patients with adverse events identified by one method were not usually identified using another method. Only 97 (6.2%) of hospitalizations with a PSI also had a provider-reported event and only 10.5% of provider-reported events had a PSI. Conclusions Different detection methods identified different adverse events. Findings are consistent with studies that recommend combining approaches to measure patient safety for internal quality improvement. Potential reported adverse event inconsistencies, low association with documented harm and reporting differences across organizations, however, raise concerns about using these patient safety measures for public reporting and organizational performance comparison.

The objective was to investigate the effect of admission health status on hospital adverse events and added costs. Secondary data were from merged administrative and clinical sources for Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota hospital discharges in 2005 (N = 60,599). This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of the effect of demographics, diagnosis group, comorbidity, and admission illness severity on adverse events, incremental costs, and length of stay (LOS) using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators and provider-reported events with harm. Estimates are derived from generalized linear models. Admission severity increased the likelihood of all types of adverse events (7.2% per unit acute physiology score for any event); 7 specific comorbidities were associated with increased events and 2 with decreased events. High admission severity increased incremental costs and LOS. Selected comorbidities increased incremental LOS but had no significant effect on incremental costs. Adverse event reporting should incorporate comorbidity and admission severity. Reimbursement incentives to improve patient safety should consider adjustment for admission health status.

Board accountability for quality and patient safety is widely accepted but the science for how to measure it is immature, and differences between measuring performance, identifying hazards, and monitoring progress are often misunderstood. Hospital leaders often provide scorecards to assist boards with their oversight role yet, in the absence of national standards, little evidence exists regarding which measures are valid and useful to boards to assess quality improvement. The authors describe results of a cross-sectional board study, identifying the measures used to monitor quality. The measures varied widely and many were of uncertain validity, generally identifying hazards rather than measuring rates. This article identifies some important policy implications regarding boards' oversight of quality and acknowledges existing limits to how we can measure quality and safety progress on the national or hospital level. If boards and their hospitals are to monitor progress in improving quality, they need more valid outcome measures.

The voluntary hospital trustee has traditionally seen issues of medical care, including those of patient safety, as falling within the delegated sphere of the medical staff. This customary distancing of the trustee from direct involvement in patient safety issues is now challenged by unprecedented scrutiny of hospital safety results through voluntary disclosure or mandatory public reporting. This new climate, fostered by the Institute of Medicine's To Err is Human and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's 100,000 Lives campaign, has complicated the role of the trustee in satisfying the traditional “prudent person” test for meeting fiduciary obligation as the trustee's breadth of involvement expands. Viewed theoretically, Mintzberg models the hospital as a case of a professional bureaucracy, in which the professional staff is responsible for standard setting and regulation. This traditional role of the professional staff is potentially assumed by others lacking technical background. Trustees are now asked to examine reports identifying physician compliance in attaining safety standards without education in the practice supporting those standards. Physician board members, whose numbers have increased in the past decade, are often sought to take the lead on interpretation of patient safety standards and results. The very public nature of patient safety reporting and its reflection on the reputation of the organization for which the trustee is ultimately accountable create a new level of tension and workload that challenges the dominant voluntary model of trusteeship in the United States health system.

Today's competitive health care markets demand innovation and risk taking on the part of organizations. However, increased government regulation and stiffer penalties enacted in the wake of recent high-profile corporate scandals and the resulting Sarbanes–Oxley legislation, may render boards less willing to undertake entrepreneurial ventures. This article extends the typology of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) developed by Covin and Miles (1999) by extending the CE types to address governance activities in the health care sector. Four case studies are presented that illustrate each of the typology's forms. In addition, the implications of the typology for health care executives and trustees are discussed and areas for future research are recommended.

Changes in the organization, financing, and delivery of health care services have prompted medical school leaders to search for new organizational models for linking medical schools, faculty practice groups, affiliated hospitals, and insurers-models that better meet the contemporary challenges of governance and decision making in academic medicine. However, medical school leaders have relatively little information about the range of organizational models that could be adopted, the extent to which particular organizational models are actually used, the conditions under which different organizational models are appropriate, and the ramifications of different organizational models for the academic mission. In this article, the authors offer a typology of eight organizational models that medical school leaders might use to understand and manage their relationships with physicians, hospitals, and other components of clinical delivery systems needed to support and fulfill the academic mission. In addition to illustrating the models with specific examples from the field, the authors speculate about their prevalence, the conditions that favor one over another, and the benefits and drawbacks of each for medical schools. To conclude, they discuss how medical school and clinical enterprise leaders could use the organizational typology to help them develop strategy and manage relationships with each other and their other partners.

This study compares the perspectives of eighteen managed care executives and twenty-four faculty practice executives on critical policy issues related to the managed care marketplace. Market sites studied in 1994 included four major metropolitan areas: Minneapolis–St. Paul, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Atlanta. These markets were selected as being representative of communities with descending degrees of managed care involvement, but with significant market activity. Study participants from both managed care systems and faculty practices examined five policy issues: (1) the importance of including academic medical centers in current and future health care plans for marketing purposes; (2) the provision of clinical services that are unique to the academic medical center, that is, unavailable elsewhere in the community; (3) the degree of financial supplement that employers might pay for including an academic medical center; (4) future restructuring of organizations to sustain the educational mission of academic faculty within a viable delivery system; (5) satisfaction of managed care providers with graduates of academic medical centers, as measured by the clinical skills of graduate physicians. The study findings showed little support among managed care plans for paying supplements to include faculty practices in a health care network. Most study participants from managed care systems and academic faculty practices identified limited competencies that are unique to academic centers. Moreover, managed care organizations were only willing to undertake limited restructuring at best to include faculty practices within their networks. General concern about the preparation of resident physicians (especially those in primary care disciplines) for practice within contemporary managed care organizations existed among managed care informants. The results of the study indicate that as traditional funding sources for medical education are reduced, schools require greater integration with managed care plans to enable academic medical centers and their faculties to continue promoting clinical enterprise.

Background This study analyzed the likelihood of less-urgent emergency department (ED) visits among type 2 diabetic patients receiving care under a diabetes disease management (DM) program offered by the Louisiana State University Health Care Services Division (LSU HCSD). Methods All ED and outpatient clinic visits made by 6,412 type 2 diabetic patients from 1999 to 2006 were extracted from the LSU HCSD Disease Management (DM) Evaluation Database. Patient ED visits were classified as either urgent or less-urgent, and the likelihood of a less-urgent ED visit was compared with outpatient clinic visits using the Generalized Estimating Equation methodology for binary response to time-dependent variables. Results Patients who adhered to regular clinic visit schedules dictated by the DM program were less likely to use the ED for less urgent care with odds ratio of 0.1585. Insured patients had 1.13 to 1.70 greater odds of a less-urgent ED visit than those who were uninsured. Patients with better-managed glycated hemoglobin (A1c or HbA1c) levels were 82 times less likely to use less-urgent ED visits. Furthermore, being older, Caucasian, or a longer participant in the DM program had a modestly lower likelihood of less-urgent ED visits. The patient's Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), gender, prior hospitalization, and the admitting facility showed no effect. Conclusion Patients adhering to the DM visit guidelines were less likely to use the ED for less-urgent problems. Maintaining normal A1c levels for their diabetes also has the positive impact to reduce less-urgent ED usages. It suggests that successful DM programs may reduce inappropriate ED use. In contrast to expectations, uninsured patients were less likely to use the ED for less-urgent care. Patients in the DM program with Medicaid coverage were 1.3 times more likely to seek care in the ED for non-emergencies while commercially insured patients were nearly 1.7 times more likely to do so. Further research to understand inappropriate ED use among insured patients is needed. We suggest providing visit reminders, a call centre, or case managers to reduce the likelihood of less-urgent ED visit use among DM patients. By reducing the likelihood of unnecessary ED visits, successful DM programs can improve patient care.