Disruptive Innovation in Health Care - Has It Arrived At Last?

The authors of the 2000 Harvard Business Review article Will Disruptive Innovations Cure Health Care? suggested that organizational delivery models were in need of  modernization, or as they put it, "the health care industry is trying to preserve outmoded institutions". New organizations to "do the disrupting" need to be created, the authors went on. 

 What few could have predicted was the timing of the modernization. Organizational structures to deliver health care have largely remained static over the past decade, outside the ascendancy of  stand-alone ambulatory surgery centers. If Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) do little else, they will be considered as successful because the spectre of their implementation has brought parties together who likely would have otherwise remained apart.

In future posts, we'll take a closer look at the role of one of those parties - palliative
medicine -  in a post-acute network.

Challenges of Expanding Palliative Care

Why are we not likely to see the influence of palliative care advanced during the health reform period? Two reasons leap to mind.
One, hospitals and hospices are the most prominent, and frequent, sponsors of palliative care programs, and we know what’s happening to their reimbursement (it's getting squeezed, with no end in sight). So, as these provider organizations are forced to tighten their belts, is it reasonable to expect (especially in light of the heightened priority on patient safety ) hospitals to increase their financial support of palliative care services? Furthermore, it’s unlikely that the financial performance of hospices will dramatically improve anytime soon. So, we shouldn’t expect a legion of hospices across the nation committing greater resources to palliative care services. It’s not that hospital and hospice executives are tone-deaf to palliative care. It’s just that these executives are faced with budgetary trade-offs and palliative care is not (yet) a high priority.
Two, primary care continues to be undervalued within the American medical system. Will these prevailing views change? Of course. Anytime soon? Unlikely. American primary care is in shambles, and it is now clear that it will not be viable in the future unless significant changes occur in our national attitude about its value and in the way we pay for it. While in other developed nations, 70-80 percent of all physicians are generalists and 20-30 percent are specialists, in America the ratio is reversed, the result of a payment system that has evolved to reward expensive care and penalize proactive management, even though the data are unequivocal that more palliative care (according to the Dartmouth Medical Atlas) within a community results in lower costs and better late-life care.
The result of our studies into the compensation of palliative medicine physicians is revealing. Specialists typically take home at least double the income of the palliative medicine practitioner. Medicare’s payment system, which is the basis for most commercial payment as well, favors specialists in two ways. It pays them a higher rate for their time (implying that what they do is more difficult and more valuable), and it allows them to earn money through procedures that are unavailable in primary or palliative care.The career-choice implications of these financial dynamics are not lost on medical students, who have been diverted in droves away from what many apparently see as an unrewarding primary care office existence. Between 2000 and 2005, the percentage of medical school graduates choosing Family Medicine dropped from a low 14% to an abysmal 8%. Among Internal Medicine residents, an astonishing 75% now end up as hospitalists or sub-specialists rather than office-based general internists. By the way, average salaries for hospitalists are nearly 30% higher than those for palliative medicine physicians.
What I find discouraging is that the reform discussions and proposals have not addressed the issue of reimbursement for primary care . Tell me, please, that I’m missing something here. More on this conundrum of primary/palliative care to follow in future posts.

Palliative Medicine - Undercapitalized and Overcommitted

The practice of palliative care, by physicians and advanced practice nurses, has gradually moved into the mainstream of American health care. While there is little debate over the need to improve late-life care, especially within acute and long-term care institutions, there continues considerable discussion over how to best improve it. Unlike most other medical specialties, palliative care is not reliant upon the effective formation of physical capital (diagnostic and therapeutic equipment using advanced technology) for its practice –to the contrary, it is totally reliant upon the effective formation of intellectual capital. Its effective formation is integral to the success of palliative medicine practices.
You’re thinking that palliative care is the lengthened shadow of a practitioner’s knowledge of clinical best practices. And, you’d be on the right track, for the provision of palliative care is based upon one component of intellectual capital, the know-how, skills, and competencies of the practitioners. Whether a practice or program has sufficient number of practitioners to render this knowledge-based care, first-hand, throughout the community, is a critical decision whose studied deliberation can tip the scales in a program’s outcome.
Two other components make up a program’s intellectual capital: one, structural capital (or infrastructure) - those workflow processes (automated or manual), revenue cycle practices, databases, and routines that enable effective day-to-day operations. The other is customer capital - or goodwill to many - the program’s relationship with its referring, and non-referring medical community, payers, partners, and, of course, its patients. The effective formation of these three components leads to the desired result – development and sustainability of the practice, and its affiliated programs.
So, what’s my point about being undercapitalized, you’re likely wondering? Most programs, and by extension the practices that support them, are subsidized by hospitals, hospices, or grants and philanthropy. This support is often renewed annually, thus demanding of the program’s managers a yearly impact statement of the program’s results. Long-term sustainability depends upon revenue generation, a business process oft shortchanged, at best, or neglected, at worst. This structural capital is often borrowed from the parent organization, whose resources, no matter how well intentioned, rarely offer the sharp focus, attention, and insider know-how so necessary to effective revenue capture.
OK, there may be a shortage of intellectual capital, but overcommitted? Palliative care specialists, were they to be queried, would remark that they don’t have sufficient time to develop the program. Programs report either of two situations – that palliative care has been widely adopted as the standard for late-life care in the community, and that there aren’t sufficient qualified staff to respond to referrals, or that palliative care has not sufficiently diffused throughout the community and a stronger referral base needs to be built. In either instance, what's lacking is a critical mass. Hospices provide part ofthe answer. So do hospital-based palliative services. Only Accountable Palliative Care Organizations (APCOs), through their effective formation of intellectual capital, have the capability of providing the entire answer.

Why Intellectual Capital Matters to Growth of Palliative Care Programs

Our experience and research within palliative care have shown that "program champions" have been successful not so much because of what they bring to the role, but what the organizational program sponsor brings to the program champion. Certainly, a multi-talented physician champion increases the chances of success, but we've found it is the tools (intellectual capital) that she/he has to work with that are the primary determinants of success. The physician starting a practice (which is essentially what the program champion will be doing) needs to have strong clinical skills and knowledge, to be sure, but will need also to create goodwill (to build solid referral patterns), establish business processes, workflow, and databases, and generate revenue to produce a sustainable program. Organizational sponsors typically don't possess this intellectual capital specific to palliative care, and so, champions often find themselves stretched to produce results with little "infrastructure". As a result, the program champion finds her/himself spending time toward "marshalling" resources, at the expense of "deploying" those resources to grow the program.

Advanced Palliative Care Communities (APCCs) - What Distinguishes Them?

What is it about Advanced Palliative Care Communities (APCCs) read here that distinguishes them from other communities (or regions) when it comes to providing care to those with end-stage disease? One is the presence of an organized provider network collaborating on the delivery of palliative care in many settings of care throughout the community. Another is the documentation of, and adherence to, patient preferences. Think POLST or similar tools. Surely, these attributes do not come about on their own. We’ve looked more closely at the deployment of palliative medicine specialists in these communities (APCCs) and have found greater numbers (than in other similar communities) of physicians practicing palliative medicine and greater use of those physicians in clinical consultative roles in multiple settings throughout the community. What does not matter, we've found, is the organizational sponsor (or employer) of these palliative medicine physicians.

Showcasing Advanced Palliative Care Communities

To detractors of health reform, universal health care is code for rationing, or "less care". And for those detractors, palliative care is associated with less care. Reform opponents use the argument of rationing because they know that there is little political will to provide "less care".
Yet this argument falls short on two counts. Less care ,or rationing, takes place in the current system, for those who are uninsured, or underinsured. And less care does not have to mean substandard care, as data from the Dartmouth Medical Atlas has shown. Interestingly, those opposing health reform are the same who oppose comparative effectiveness studies, and their deployment to guide clinical practice.
The promises to contain costs advanced recently by the coalition of hospitals, physicians, and pharmaceutical manaufacturers, among others, are surely commendable. But one has to wonder what can these providers and organizations do that hasn't already been tried? Their promises were surely short on details.
When it's time to fill in the specifics, it will be time to take a close look at Advanced Palliative Care Communities (APCCs) see here and here , and how palliative medicine physicians in those communities practice their specialty to produce better outcomes at lower costs.

Reducing Hospital Readmissions: A Role for Palliative Medicine Physicians

Rehospitalizations among Medicare beneficiaries are prevalent and costly. So concluded a recent study published in the April 2, 2009 issue of NEJM - excellent synopsis here from the Commonwealth Fund. The study found that 20% of Medicare beneficiaries who had been discharged from a hospital were rehospitalized within 30 days, and 34.0% were rehospitalized within 90 days; 67.1% of patients who had been discharged with medical conditions and 51.5% of those who had been discharged after surgical procedures were rehospitalized or died within the first year after discharge. Is there a role for palliative medicine physicians? Th experience of Advanced Palliative Care Communities(APCCs), with lower than average rates of hospital readmission and percentage of deaths in a hospital, suggests indeed there is. As does the modest study (abstract cited) below:


Increased Satisfaction with Care and Lower Costs: Results of a Randomized Trial of In-Home Palliative Care
Richard Brumley, MD * , Susan Enguidanos, PhD, MPH † , Paula Jamison, BA † , Rae Seitz, MD ‡ , Nora Morgenstern, MD § , Sherry Saito, MD ‡ , Jan McIlwane, MSW § , Kristine Hillary, RNP * , and Jorge Gonzalez, BA †
* Kaiser Permanente Southern California Medical Group, Downey, California; † Partners in Care Foundation, San Fernando, California; ‡ Kaiser Permanente Hawaii Medical Group, Honolulu, Hawaii; § Kaiser Permanente Colorado Medical Group, Aurora, Colorado.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an in-home palliative care intervention for terminally ill patients can improve patient satisfaction, reduce medical care costs, and increase the proportion of patients dying at home.
DESIGN: A randomized, controlled trial.
SETTING: Two health maintenance organizations in two states.
PARTICIPANTS: Homebound, terminally ill patients (N=298) with a prognosis of approximately 1 year or less to live plus one or more hospital or emergency department visits in the previous 12 months.
INTERVENTION: Usual versus in-home palliative care plus usual care delivered by an interdisciplinary team providing pain and symptom relief, patient and family education and training, and an array of medical and social support services.
MEASUREMENTS: Measured outcomes were satisfaction with care, use of medical services, site of death, and costs of care.
RESULTS: Patients randomized to in-home palliative care reported greater improvement in satisfaction with care at 30 and 90 days after enrollment (P<.05) and were more likely to die at home than those receiving usual care (P<.001). In addition, in-home palliative care subjects were less likely to visit the emergency department (P=.01) or be admitted to the hospital than those receiving usual care (P<.001), resulting in significantly lower costs of care for intervention patients (P=.03).

In APCCs, we've found that Palliative Medicine physicians assume a major role in the care (in any setting) of older patients with a hospitalization. What makes these APCCs different? They structure care for those advanced illnesses around the principles of palliative care, rather than hospice eligibility.

Palliative Care and the Stimulus Bill

Those interested in how palliative care makes out in health reform (and stimulus bill) discussions should keep an eye on a small (relatively, at $1.1 billion) item in the House version related to effectiveness comparison research.

The $1.1 billion in research funding would be doled out primarily to the National Institutes of Health. President Obama supported research into comparative effectiveness during his campaign. He could launch a new federal Comparative Effectiveness Institute along the lines of the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Surely, palliative care would be viewed favorably in this context, would it not?

Meanwhile, the drug and medical-device industries are mobilizing to gut this provision in the stimulus bill, portraying it as the first step to government rationing. Interesting, because discussions around "best" end-of-life care inevitably get around to "rationing", as if palliative care were merely a stripped-down version of full-fledged medical care.

Reminds me of the "effectiveness research" done in the mid-90s, when the government's Agency for Health Research Quality suggested that there were too many unnecessary back surgeries. Of course, certain industry groups attacked the conclusion, and Congress at the time slashed the agency's budget and stripped its authority to make Medicare-payment recommendations.