Search

Objective: To determine how the capacity and viability of local health care safety nets changed over the last six years and to draw lessons from these changes.Data Source: The first three rounds (May 1996 to March 2001) of Community Tracking Study site visits to 12 communities.Study Design: Researchers visited the study communities every two years to interview leaders of local health care systems about changes in the organization, delivery, and financing of health care and the impact of these changes on people. For this analysis, we collected data on safety net capacity and viability through interviews with public and not-for-profit hospitals, community health centers, health departments, government officials, consumer advocates, academics, and others. We asked about the effects of market and policy changes on the safety net and how the safety net responded, as well as the impact of these changes on care for the low-income uninsured.Principal Findings: The safety net in three-quarters of the communities was stable or improved by the end of the study period, leading to improved access to primary and preventive care for the low-income uninsured. Policy responses to pressures such as the Balanced Budget Act and Medicaid managed care, along with effective safety net strategies and supportive conditions, helped reinforce the safety net. However, the safety net in three sites deteriorated and access to specialty services remained inadequate across the 12 sites.Conclusions: Despite pessimistic predictions and some notable exceptions, the health care safety net grew stronger over the past six years. Given considerable community variation, however, this analysis indicates that policymakers can apply a number of lessons from strong and improving safety nets to strengthen those that are weaker, particularly as the current economy poses new challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe how the organization and dynamics of health systems changed between 1999 and 2001, in the context of expectations from the mid-1990s when managed care was in ascendance, and assess the implications for consumers and policymakers.Data Sources/study Setting: Data are from the Community Tracking Study site visits to 12 communities that were randomly selected to be nationally representative of metropolitan areas with 200,000 people or more. The Community Tracking Study is an ongoing effort that began in 1996 and is fielded every two years.Study Design: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 50-90 stakeholders and observers of the local health care market in each of the 12 communities every two years. Respondents include leaders of local hospitals, health plans, and physician organizations and representatives of major employers, state and local governments, and consumer groups. First round interviews were conducted in 1996-1997 and subsequent rounds of interviews were conducted in 1998-1999 and 2000-2001. A total of 1,690 interviews were conducted between 1996 and 2001. DATA ANALYSIS METHODS: Interview information was stored and coded in qualitative data analysis software. Data were analyzed to identify patterns and themes within and across study sites and conclusions were verified by triangulating responses from different respondent types, examining outliers, searching for disconfirming evidence, and testing rival explanations.Principal Findings: Since the mid-1990s, managed care has developed differently than expected in local health care markets nationally. Three key developments shaped health care markets between 1999 and 2001: (1) unprecedented, sustained economic growth that resulted in extremely tight labor markets and made employers highly responsive to employee demands for even fewer restrictions on access to care; (2) health plans increasingly moved away from core strategies in the "managed care toolbox"; and (3) providers gained leverage relative to managed care plans and reverted to more traditional strategies of competing for patients based on services and amenities.Conclusions: Changes in local health care markets have contributed to rising costs and created new access problems for consumers. Moreover, the trajectory of change promises to make the goals of cost-control and quality improvement more difficult to achieve in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To develop a novel technique for left paralumbar laparoscopic bilateral ovariectomy in standing, sedated mares., Study Design: Prospective descriptive clinical study., Animals: Twelve client-owned mares., Methods: Healthy mares with normal ovarian palpation and ultrasonographic appearance were enrolled. Horses were restrained in standing stocks and administered a variable rate infusion of sedation. A left paralumbar bilateral ovariectomy was performed with 1 laparoscopic and 3 instrument portals. Access to the right ovary was facilitated by retracting the descending colon and associated mesentery with a fan retractor. Ovaries were removed with traumatic forceps, and a blunt tip vessel sealing device. A laparoscopic portal within the 17th intercostal space provided good visualization of the right ovary and reduced interference between instrumentation. Complications were recorded during hospitalization. In addition, an owner follow-up questionnaire was used to determine complications after discharge from the hospital., Results: Left paralumbar bilateral ovariectomy was successful in all 12 mares, with a mean surgical time of 76 ± 8 minutes. Postoperative complications occurred in 4/12 (33%) mares and included fever, mild colic, incisional swelling, and azotemia. Complications resolved and mares returned to full activity, with complete owner satisfaction., Conclusions: Bilateral ovariectomy can be successfully achieved with minimal morbidity in standing mares with normal ovarian ultrasonographic appearance via left paralumbar laparoscopy., (© 2017 The American College of Veterinary Surgeons.)

Background: In recent years, there has been increased focus on the importance of professionalism among medical students, residents and practising physicians, as well as the interaction between individual behaviours and the practice environment., Methods: Recognising the need to better understand how organisations advance professional behaviours, the authors undertook an exploratory, qualitative study. This study consisted of screening interviews with 30 organisations. Staff and an expert advisory committee developed criteria to select 10 organisations for further study. The authors then conducted in-depth interviews with two leaders from each of the 10 organisations., Results and Discussion: Qualitative analysis revealed several key findings, including diversity in the language that organisations used regarding professionalism, and the professional behaviours that they chose to promote. Despite this diversity, all organisations shared a common strategy of clearly articulating their values and reinforcing these values. This reinforcement occurred through the provision of aligned organisational systems and structures, and the cultivation of strong interpersonal relationships. To better illustrate these findings, the authors provide several examples that demonstrate how organisational leaders use values to cultivate professional behaviour in their organisations.

Professionalism may not be sufficient to drive the profound and far-reaching changes needed in the US health care system, but without it, the health care enterprise is lost. Formal statements defining professionalism have been abstract and principle based, without a clear description of what professional behaviors look like in practice. This article proposes a behavioral and systems view of professionalism that provides a practical approach for physicians and the organizations in which they work. A more behaviorally oriented definition makes the pursuit of professionalism in daily practice more accessible and attainable. Professionalism needs to evolve from being conceptualized as an innate character trait or virtue to sophisticated competencies that can and must be taught and refined over a lifetime of practice. Furthermore, professional behaviors are profoundly influenced by the organizational and environmental context of contemporary medical practice, and these external forces need to be harnessed to support--not inhibit--professionalism in practice. This perspective on professionalism provides an opportunity to improve the delivery of health care through education and system-level reform.

The phrase "patient-centered care" is in vogue, but its meaning is poorly understood. This article describes patient-centered care, why it matters, and how policy makers can advance it in practice. Ultimately, patient-centered care is determined by the quality of interactions between patients and clinicians. The evidence shows that patient-centered care improves disease outcomes and quality of life, and that it is critical to addressing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in health care and health outcomes. Policy makers need to look beyond such areas as health information technology to shape a coordinated and focused national policy in support of patient-centered care. This policy should help health professionals acquire and maintain skills related to patient-centered care, and it should encourage organizations to cultivate a culture of patient-centeredness.

Growing enthusiasm about patient-centered medical homes, fueled by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's emphasis on improved primary care, has intensified interest in how to deliver patient-centered care. Essential to the delivery of such care are patient-centered communication skills. These skills have a positive impact on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence, and self-management. They can be effectively taught at all levels of medical education and to practicing physicians. Yet most physicians receive limited training in communication skills. Policy makers and stakeholders can leverage training grants, payment incentives, certification requirements, and other mechanisms to develop and reward effective patient-centered communication.

Policy makers and payers understand that physician payment reform will be central to driving improvements in the efficiency and quality of health care. We describe principles to inform physician payment reform developed by a multistakeholder group under the auspices of the ABIM Foundation. Among other ideas, the principles emphasize team-oriented practice, evidence-based care, continuous quality improvement, and a focus on total costs and outcomes to achieve greater value in our health care system. The goal is to inform physician payment redesign to produce a health care system that reflects contemporary societal values more accurately than do those inherent in existing payment methodologies, such as fee-for-service.

Drawing on observations from tracking changes in local health care markets over the past ten years, this article critiques two Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice recommendations to enhance price and quality competition. First, we take issue with the notion that consumers, acting independently, will drive greater competition in health care markets. Rather we suggest an important role remains for trusted agents who can analyze inherently complex price and quality information and negotiate on consumers' behalf. With aggregated information identifying providers who deliver cost-effective care, consumers would be better positioned to respond to financial incentives about where to seek care and thereby drive more meaningful competition among providers to reduce costs and improve quality. Second, we take issue with the FTC/DOJ recommendation to provide more direct subsidies to prevent distortions in competition. In the current political environment, it is not practical to provide direct subsidies for all of the unfunded care that exists in health care markets today; instead, some interference with competition may be necessary to protect cross subsidies. Barriers can be reduced, though, by revising pricing policies that have resulted in marked disparities in the relative profitability of different services.

Many developments in local health care markets appear to be setting the stage for additional health care cost increases and access-to-care problems, according to initial findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) 2005 site visits to 12 nationally representative communities. Hospitals and physicians are competing more broadly and intensely for profitable specialty services, making costly investments to expand capacity and offer the latest medical technologies, especially in more affluent areas with well-insured populations. Employers and health plans have launched few initiatives to control rising costs beyond increasing patient cost sharing. As rapidly rising costs continue to push private health insurance out of reach for more people, state and local governments are struggling to meet the needs of low-income people and an increasing number of uninsured people.

Over the last 25 years, national Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) and hospital firms attempted to enter local markets, either by acquiring formerly independent, locally based HMOs and hospitals or by directly entering local markets. While national HMOs have been relatively successful, national hospital firms have had much less success. This paper explores the reasons for this difference. It reviews changes in presence of national HMO and hospital firms in markets, discusses common conceptual lenses through which national entry into local markets typically has been viewed, and shows how social network theory can be used to develop a better understanding of why the entry experience of national HMO and hospital firms varies across markets. The paper concludes with a research agenda that addresses issues raised by social network theory and its application to national firm entry into local markets.

Continued high-cost trends are threatening the affordability of health insurance and many consumers' access to care. Early findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) 2002-03 site visits to 12 nationally representative communities show the retreat from tightly managed care continues to shape local health care markets. Employers are aggressively shifting higher health costs to workers, and absent tight managed care controls to limit the use of care and slow payment rate increases, hospitals and physicians in many markets are competing fiercely for profitable specialty services. These developments have sparked growing skepticism about the potential for market-led solutions to the cost, quality and access problems facing the health care system today.

Rising premiums and a weak economy are generating questions about the potential erosion of health insurance coverage, particularly for the more than 46 million Americans who work for small firms. People working in small firms typically have less access to coverage than those in large firms. In 2000 and early 2001, the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) conducted its third round of site visits to 12 nationally representative metropolitan areas and found that while few small employers actually dropped coverage, many increased the employee share of premiums, raised copayments and deductibles, switched products and carriers and/or reduced benefits. With the U.S. economy now in rougher shape, small employers may pare back coverage even more, putting affordable health care further out of the reach of workers and their families.

Despite large premium increases, employers made only modest changes to health benefits in the past two years. By increasing copayments and deductibles and changing their pharmacy benefits, employers shifted costs to those who use services. Employers recognize these changes as short-term fixes, but most have not developed strategies for the future. Although interested in "defined-contribution" benefits, employers do not agree about what this entails and have no plans for moving to defined contributions in the near future. While dramatic changes in health benefits are unlikely in the short term, policymakers may want to watch for future erosions in health coverage.

Managed care plans--pressured by a variety of marketplace forces that have been intensifying over the past two years--are making important shifts in their overall business strategy. Plans are moving to offer less restrictive managed care products and product features that respond to consumers' and purchasers' demands for more choice and flexibility. In addition, because consumers and purchasers prefer broad and stable networks that require plans to include rather than exclude providers, plans are seeking less contentious contractual relationships with physicians and hospitals. Finally, to the extent that these changes erode their ability to control costs, plans are shifting from an emphasis only on increasing market share to a renewed emphasis on protecting profitability. Consequently, purchasers and consumers face escalating health care costs under these changing conditions.

Emergency room (ER) diversions-when ambulances are redirected from one hospital emergency room to another-are becoming common in communities across the country, raising concern that critically ill patients are increasingly confronting obstacles to timely medical care. Although hospitals have long diverted patients during the winter flu season, recent site visits conducted by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) reveal that ER overflows are now a year-round problem. As this Issue Brief describes, difficulty obtaining emergency services may be just the most visible evidence of deeper problems facing many hospitals as they struggle to meet growing demand for services at a time of increasing capacity constraints.

Every two years, researchers at the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) interview health care leaders in 12 nationally representative communities to assess changes in local health care markets. The third round of site visits is under-way, and early findings from 2000-2001 indicate significant changes in health care financing and delivery are taking place across the country. This Issue Brief discusses developments in managed care, hospital consolidation, physician-hospital tensions, risk contracting and health plan premiums. State and federal policy makers charged with balancing cost, coverage, access and quality of health care should consider these emerging trends in their decision making.

A major component of the Community Tracking Study is biennial site visits to twelve communities randomly selected to be representative of metropolitan areas. In the second round of visits, conducted in 1998 and 1999, we found an intensification of an earlier trend toward looser forms of managed care to be causing enormous turmoil, as health care organizations stumbled over and often abandoned strategies conceived for more tightly managed care. Communities' health care systems are not evolving as many anticipated but rather have focused increasingly on horizontal consolidation and regional scope.

Risk contracting and capitation are two widely used financial mechanisms that give incentives to health care providers to control costs. Risk-bearing arrangements have failed in a number of communities, however. This has shaken local markets, disrupting consumers' access to health care services and triggering losses for physicians and hospitals. It also has raised questions about the adequacy of related regulatory oversight, which holds important implications for local and national policy makers. This Issue Brief provides case studies of failed risk-contracting arrangements in two of the 12 communities that the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) tracks intensively--Northern New Jersey and Orange County, Calif.--and examines implications for policy makers.

A number of communities in the United States are adopting a managed care approach to caring for low-income uninsured individuals. This Issue Brief focuses on such programs in five of the 12 communities that the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) is tracking intensively. It describes the local market factors that motivated the creation and varying design of these initiatives, all of which seek to increase access to primary and preventive care while managing the use of more costly inpatient and emergency care. The Issue Brief also discusses the long-term viability of these programs as they attempt to simultaneously expand access to services and contain costs for this growing population.

Context: Health system changes may be affecting the ability of physicians to provide care with little or no compensation from patients who are uninsured and under-insured and may result in decreased access to physicians for uninsured persons., Objective: To examine the association between managed care and physicians' provision of charity care., Design: The 1996-1997 Community Tracking Study physician survey., Setting and Participants: A nationally representative sample of 10881 physicians from 60 randomly selected communities., Main Outcome Measure: The number of hours in the month prior to the interview that the physician provided care for free or at reduced fees because of the financial need of the patient., Results: Overall, 77.3% of respondents provided an average of 10.3 hours of charity care per month [corrected]. Physicians who derive at least 85% of their practice revenue from managed care plans were considerably less likely to provide charity care and spend fewer hours providing charity care than physicians with little involvement in managed care plans (P = .01). In addition, physicians who practice in areas with high managed care penetration provided fewer hours of charity care than physicians in other areas, regardless of their own level of involvement with managed care (P<.01). Differences in charity care provision were also shown for other important factors, including ownership of the practice and practice arrangements (more charity care occurred in solo and 2-physician practices; P<.01)., Conclusion: Physicians involved with managed care plans and those who practice in areas with high managed care penetration tend to provide less charity care.