Defining Value-Based Care in Cardiac and Vascular Anesthesiology: The Past, Present, and Future of Perioperative Cardiovascular Care

Value-Based Health Care in Perioperative Medicine: Process Maps and Costing to Determine Best Practices

Perioperative care in the United States is largely based on current fee-for-service models. Fee-for-service models are not based on the true cost of services provided, charges do not equal costs, and reimbursement varies based on insurer. Value-based health care is defined as patient-centered outcomes over cost of providing these services. Process mapping and time-driven activity-based costing can be used to define actual cost of services provided. Outcomes after discharge can be measured, so that the overall value of care provided can be assessed and improved based on the outcomes and costs identified.

Value-Based Care and Anesthesiology in the USA

Value-based care, prioritizing patient outcomes over service volume, is steering a transformative course in anesthesiology in the United States. With the rise of this patient-centric approach, anesthesiologists are adopting dynamic roles to meet the demands of medical institutions, insurers, and patients for high-quality, cost-effective care. The urgency for this transition is accentuated by persistent challenges in reducing postoperative mortality rates and surgical complications, further spotlighted by the coronvirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Anesthesiologists engage in preoperative optimization, personalized care delivery, and evidence-based practices, bolstering their influence in the perioperative environment. Their collaboration with perioperative stakeholders propels the shift toward a value-driven healthcare landscape. This review analyzes the implementation of value-based care in American anesthesiology, assesses the significance of technology in enhancing its delivery, and outlines potential strategies for improving its application.

Securing the Future for a Major Academic Cardiovascular Program: Hardwiring a Referral Network and Preparing for a Transition to Value-Based Reimbursement

The University of Kentucky College of Medicine and Albert B. Chandler Hospital opened over 50 years ago to serve Kentucky. After initial growth and expansion, both were struggling clinically, academically, and financially in the early 2000s. Difficulties were apparent in cardiovascular (CV) services, which captured only 11% of the regional patients hospitalized for cardiac disease. Over the next 15 years, CV services dynamically transformed to become the leading provider with a large network of regional partners, garnering 42% of market share. This article describes strategic plans and initiatives leading to clinical and academic growth. Future value-based initiatives are also described.

An Electronic Medical Record-Derived Individualized Performance Metric to Measure Risk-Adjusted Adherence with Perioperative Prophylactic Bundles for Health Care Disparity Research and Implementation Science

BACKGROUND

Health care disparity persists despite vigorous countermeasures. Clinician performance is paramount for equitable care processes and outcomes. However, precise and valid individual performance measures remain elusive.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to develop a generalizable, rigorous, risk-adjusted metric for individual clinician performance (MIP) derived directly from the electronic medical record (EMR) to provide visual, personalized feedback.

METHODS

We conceptualized MIP as risk responsiveness, i.e., administering an increasing number of interventions contingent on patient risk. We embedded MIP in a hierarchical statistical model, reflecting contemporary nested health care delivery. We tested MIP by investigating the adherence with prophylactic bundles to reduce the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), retrieving PONV risk factors and prophylactic antiemetic interventions from the EMR. We explored the impact of social determinants of health on MIP.

RESULTS

We extracted data from the EMR on 25,980 elective anesthesia cases performed at Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center between June 3, 2018 and March 31, 2019. Limiting the data by anesthesia Current Procedural Terminology code and to complete cases with PONV risk and antiemetic interventions, we evaluated the performance of 83 anesthesia clinicians on 2,211 anesthesia cases. Our metric demonstrated considerable variance between clinicians in the adherence to risk-adjusted utilization of antiemetic interventions. Risk seemed to drive utilization only in few clinicians. We demonstrated the impact of social determinants of health on MIP, illustrating its utility for health science and disparity research.

CONCLUSION

The strength of our novel measure of individual clinician performance is its generalizability, as well as its intuitive graphical representation of risk-adjusted individual performance. However, accuracy, precision and validity, stability over time, sensitivity to system perturbations, and acceptance among clinicians remain to be evaluated.

Quo Vadis PCA? A Review on Current Concepts, Economic Considerations, Patient-Related Aspects, and Future Development with respect to Patient-Controlled Analgesia

This review assesses four interrelating aspects of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), a long-standing and still widely used concept for postoperative pain management. Over the years, anaesthesiologists and patients have appreciated the benefits of PCA alike. The market has seen new technologies leveraging noninvasive routes of administration and, thus, further increasing patient and staff satisfaction as well as promoting safety aspects. Pharmaceutical research focuses on the reduction or avoidance of opioids, side effects, and adverse events although influence of these aspects appears to be minor. The importance of education is still eminent, and new educational formats are tested to train healthcare professionals and patients likewise. New PCA technology can support the implementation of efficient processes to reduce workload and human errors; however, these new products come with a cost, which is not necessarily reflected through beneficial budget impact or significant improvements in patient outcome. Although first steps have been taken to better recognize the importance of postoperative pain management through the introduction of value-based reimbursement, in most western countries, PCA is not specifically compensated. PCA is still an effective and valued technique for postoperative pain management. Although there is identifiable potential for future developments in various aspects, this potential has not materialized in new products.