Transitioning From Volume to Value: One Academic Medical Center's Approach to Improving Population Health

Understanding the factors that affect the appropriateness of rheumatology referrals

BACKGROUND

Reducing inappropriate referrals to specialists is a challenge for the healthcare system as it seeks to transition from volume to value-based healthcare. Given the projection of a severe shortage of rheumatologists in the near future, innovative strategies to decrease demand for rheumatology services may prove more fruitful than increasing the supply of rheumatologists. Efforts to increase appropriate utilization through reductions in capacity may have the unintended consequence of reducing appropriate care as well. This highlights the challenges in increasing the appropriate use of high cost services as the health system transitions to value based care. The objective of this study was to analyze factors affecting appropriateness of rheumatology services.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of patients receiving Rheumatology services between November 2013 and October 2019. We used a proxy for "appropriateness": whether or not there was any follow-up care after the first appointment. Results from regression analysis and physicians' chart reviews were compared using an inter-rater reliability measure (kappa). Data was drawn from the EHR 2013-2019.

RESULTS

We found that inappropriate referrals increased 14.3% when a new rheumatologist was hired, which increased to 14.8% after wash-out period of 6 months; 15.7% after 12 months; 15.5% after 18 months and 16.7% after 18 months. Other factors influencing appropriateness of referrals included severity of disease, gender and insurance type, but not specialty of referring provider.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the projection of a severe shortage of rheumatologists in the near future, innovative strategies to decrease demand for rheumatology services may prove more fruitful than increasing the supply of rheumatologists. Innovative strategies to decrease demand for rheumatology services may prove more fruitful than increasing the supply of rheumatologists. These findings may apply to other specialties as well. This study is relevant for health care systems that are implementing value-based payment models aimed at reducing inappropriate care.

Community and Academic Physicians Working Together in Integrated Health Care Systems

Objective

To examine best practices and policies for effectively merging community and academic physicians in integrated health care systems.

Methods

Deans of US allopathic medical schools were systematically interviewed between February and June 2017 regarding growth in their faculty practice plan (FPP), including logistics and best practices for integration of community physicians.

Results

The survey was completed by 107 of 143 (74.8) of US medical school deans approached. Of these institutions, 73 met criteria for final analysis (research-based medical schools with FPPs of >300 physicians). Most academic medical center–based FPPs have increased in size over the last 5 years, with further growth anticipated via adding community physicians (85%). Because of disparate practice locations, integration of community and academic physicians has been slow. When fully integrated, community physicians predominantly have a clinical role with productivity incentives. Deans report that cultural issues must be addressed to avoid conflict. Consensus exists that transparent clinical work requirements for all FPP members, clearly defined productivity incentives, additional promotion tracks, and early involvement of department chairs and other leaders enhances trust and creates better synergy among all physician providers.

Conclusion

Findings from this study should help guide FPPs, academic medical center leaders, chief medical officers, and professional and trade organizations in working toward positive physician synergy in consolidated health care organizations. Work and cultural considerations must be addressed to honor distinct talents of each physician group, facilitating smooth transition from disparate groups to healthy synergy.

Redesign of US Medical Schools: A Shift from Health Service to Population Health Management

The integration of medical schools and clinical partners is effectively established through the formation of academic medical centers (AMCs). The tripartite mission of AMCs emphasizes the importance of providing critical clinical services, medical innovation through research, and the education of future health care leaders. Although AMCs represent only 5% of all hospitals, they contribute substantially to serving disadvantaged populations of patients, including an estimated 37% of all charity care and 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations. Currently, most AMCs use a business model centered upon revenue generated from hospital services and/or practice plans. In the last decade, mounting financial demands have placed significant pressure on AMC finances because of the rising costs associated with complex clinical care and operating diverse graduate medical education programs. A shift toward population health-centric health care management strategies will profoundly influence the predominant forms of health care delivery in the United States in the foreseeable future. Health systems are increasingly pursuing new strategies to manage financial risk, such as forming Accountable Care Organizations and provider-sponsored plans to provide value-based care. Refocusing research and operational capacity toward population health management fosters collaboration and enables reintegration with hospital and clinical partners across care networks, and can potentially create new revenue streams for AMCs. Despite the benefits of population health integration, current literature lacks a blueprint to guide AMCs in the transformation toward sustainable population health management models. The purpose of this paper is to propose a modern conceptual framework that can be operationalized by AMCs in order to achieve a sustainable future.

Transitioning From Volume to Value: Lessons Learned From the Dissolution of a Population Health Partnership

In 2017, the authors published an article describing the experiences of Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) as it adapted to new challenges of changing payment models, the imperative to manage the health of populations, and the desire to compete for statewide contracts. The authors described Propel Health, a multi-institution partnership created in 2013 to deliver the tools, methods, and support necessary for population health management. In the ensuing two years there were considerable changes to the structure and mission of Propel Health, ultimately resulting in its dissolution in January 2018. Using the organizational framework from the original publication, this article shares a number of lessons learned with other academic medical centers as they make the journey toward value-based care and population health management. Examples of lessons learned include ensuring that clinical and administrative leadership are aligned and that shared partnership goals are not eclipsed by local strategic needs. The potential for shared data remains a powerful motivation to partner; however, technology integration can be costly and complex. Once data are available, the ability to respond quickly is a key competency. Understanding individual sites' needs and capabilities is critical before embarking on shared clinical programs. Best practices from industry-specific experts should be employed. Lastly, it is essential for partners to determine how shared gains/losses will be attributed, and how aggressively risk should be required. Next steps for OHSU, including new, local partnerships, are shared.

Advancing Population Health at Academic Medical Centers: A Case Study and Framework for an Emerging Field

The Triple Aim framework for advancing health care transformation elevated population health improvement as a central goal, together with improving patient experiences and reducing costs. Though population health improvement is often viewed in the context of clinical care delivery, broader-reaching approaches that bridge health care delivery, public health, and other sectors to foster area-wide health gains are gathering momentum. Academic medical centers (AMCs) across the United States are poised to play key roles in advancing population health and have begun to structure themselves accordingly. Yet, few frameworks exist to guide these efforts. Here, the authors offer a generalizable approach for AMCs to promote population health across the domains of research, education, and practice. In 2012, NYU School of Medicine, a major AMC dedicated to high-quality care of individual patients, launched an academic Department of Population Health with a strongly applied approach. A rigorous research agenda prioritizes scalable initiatives to improve health and reduce inequities in populations defined by race, ethnicity, geography, and/or other factors. Education targets population-level thinking among future physicians and research leadership among graduate trainees. Four key mission-bridging approaches offer a framework for population health departments in AMCs: engaging community, turning information into insight, transforming health care, and shaping policy. Challenges include tensions between research, practice, and evaluation; navigating funding sources; and sustaining an integrated, interdisciplinary approach. This framework of discipline-bridging, partnership-engaging inquiry, as it diffuses throughout academic medicine, holds great promise for realigning medicine and public health.

How should costs and cost-effectiveness be considered in prenatal genetic testing?

In January 2017, a group of experts in prenatal genetics attended a workshop at the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine meeting to review the evidence behind the costs and cost-effectiveness of prenatal genetic testing. Over the past decade, prenatal genetic testing options have dramatically expanded to include additional options with cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening, as well as increased diagnostic abilities through chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), gene panels, whole exome sequencing, and other tests. With these expanding technologies, it is important to consider the options available as well as the cost effectiveness of their use. Other important considerations are the effects of movements toward value-based health care; the role of professional societies, commercial laboratories, and insurers; disparities that exist in prenatal genetic testing; and outcomes for both patients and health care systems. Workshop participants identified key areas of research to advance our understanding of the costs and cost-effectiveness of prenatal genetic testing, which include (1) understanding the short- and long-term costs to patients and to health care systems with prenatal genetic tests; (2) elucidating the short- and long-term health outcomes for parents and children that are important to consider when comparing one testing strategy to another; (3) understanding the value underlying prenatal genetic testing to individuals and health care systems; and (4) identifying disparities in prenatal genetic testing, reasons for these disparities, and how to minimize them.