An APCO Developing in Asheville?

In a recent post (read here), I commented about the exemplary results of Asheville, North Carolina in the DAI Community Palliative Performance Profile. To learn more, we interviewed Janet Bull, MD, VP of Medical Services for a not-for-profit hospice (Four Seasons) serving the Asheville area.

Some excerpts:

"We are very heavy in physician staffing, and think that is a good real positive," with the physicians mainly out making billable visits to hospice patients and serving as attendings or consultants on about 80 percent of patients enrolled in hospice care, she explains. "They actually paid for themselves last year."

Essential to the palliative care program's success was being clear on what kinds of patients it would see -- or not see. Dr. Bull continues, "We learned early on that we can't be all things to all people. We didn't want to be a chronic pain service or post-acute, post-surgical consultants. We wanted to stay focused on serious, advanced illness, generally for patients with three years or less to live. At Four Seasons, we are all about delivering quality care and looking at measurable outcomes. We take our patient and family satisfaction surveys very seriously.The program emphasizes continuity of care across care settings. From the get-go, we saw patients where they were, and we followed them from one setting to the next."

Integrating the hospice and palliative care departments was also a priority. "Many organizations bump up against the problem of palliative care being viewed as a step-child to hospice. Here we value the great things palliative care brings, and how it complements hospice," Dr. Bull says."We consider ourselves one big team, whether palliative care or hospice, with a lot of interface between the two. Patients can flow both ways between these programs. We used an explicit strategy of building the connections between the two. Some employees serve both programs, and we share resources and administrative tasks, integrating them whenever we can," she reports. "Often at staff meetings we'll have presentations by palliative care leadership or providers, explaining their work to hospice staff. We focus on education, both internally and externally, explaining the differences between hospice and palliative care, and how they complement each other. We inform patients that hospice offers many more services than palliative care."

Seems to me that what we're seeing in Asheville is the early development of an Accountable Palliative Care Organization, led by a chief palliative care officer for the community. Surely, there are other factors contributing to Asheville's performance, but just as surely one cannot underestimate the value of a strong and well-developed medical staff of HPM specialists.

Improvisational Nature of Palliative Care , and APCOs

I'm often asked why the Accountable Palliative Care Organization (APCO) model is vital to the success of palliative care programs. There are many reasons, of course, but here's one at or near the top of my list. Currently, there is no third-party reimbursement specific to the provision of palliative care, although palliative services are often billed in other reimbursement categories, most frequently, the hospice or home health benefit, and physician or nurse practitioner consultation services (in the hospital, long-term care, or home settings). In addition, there is no regulatory structure or standard-setting body for palliative care (although JCAHO has recently introduced proposed regulations and the National Quality Forum compiled in 2006 a compendium of 38 preferred Practices in Hospital Palliative Care). (http://www.qualityforum.org/publications/reports/palliative.asp ).

The absence of targeted reimbursement and regulation is reflected nationally in the improvisational nature of palliative programs. The Accountable Palliative Care Organization (APCO) offers a structural model that improves the odds for success for a program’s sponsor. Improvisation does not have to mean trial and error, or fitful starts in a program's development.

An APCO provides the structure that brings together professionals to transfer knowledge across settings and disciplines, and the technical capacities through which staff across disciplines and settings are trained in palliative care- specific techniques and tools.APCOs have been successful models for improving delivery of chronic and end-of-life care because their characteristics encourage processes of care that are:
Timely – delivered to the right patient at the right time (early identification of patients)
Patient-centered – based on the goals and preferences of the patient and family, articulated in goals of care conversations
Beneficial and effective – demonstrably influencing important patient outcomes (place of death, intensive care utilization, transitions between settings and providers)
Accessible - available to all who are in need and who could benefit (multiple entry points into palliative care continuum, and absence of barriers related to reimbursement and prognosis).

After all, aren't these processes of care all program sponsors strive for. Yet, so many of us struggle in developing successful programs. I'd like to learn your thoughts.

Palliative Care Grand Rounds - March MMX

Read here for this month's Palliative Care Grand Rounds, a round-up of the best from the blogosphere. This month's host is Larry Beresford, who has written extensively over the years on hospice and palliative care matters.

Palliative Care - 1996 and 2010

More than 13 years ago, Philadephia Inquirer reporter Michael Vitez wrote a series about end-of-life care which won a Pulitzer Prize - see here for the first installment of that five-part series.

Some excerpts from that piece:

"Medicine has gotten so good at keeping people alive that Americans increasingly must decide how and when they will die. They must choose if death will come in a hospital room with beeping machines and blinking monitors or if it will come at home, with hospice workers blunting the fear and pain that so often accompany the final hours."
"The intensive-care unit offers a hope for recovery, but the price can be a miserable death. Deciding when to surrender can be a torture all its own."
"Advocates for change believe doctors are too optimistic, too sparing in what they tell patients. They say that families would be more willing to accept death earlier if doctors were more honest, more realistic. Reformers want to make sure that patients get the care they need, but not unnecessary or unwanted treatment. The key to humane and cost-effective intensive care is to treat those who will benefit, but not squander precious resources and impose futile treatments on those who will not. But often it is impossible to know who will live and who won't."

In today's Philadelphia Inquirer appears an article by Michael Vitez (read here), as part one of an occasional series on the dilemmas facing today's hospitals. The subject is how hospitals are addressing end-of-care issues, and in his article Mr. Vitez follows the work of the palliative care team, led by palliative medicine physician Dr. Diane Dietzen, at Abington Memorial Hospital, a large, suburban Philadelphia hospital. An insightful article, one that lays out in very personal stories the challenges faced by families and providers alike. In Mr. Vitez' words: "My goal is to spend a year at Abington, writing stories that show how one hospital deals with the biggest issues in health care today and also the changes that are coming fast and furious - regardless of what Congress and the President do - to hospitals and health care.
This first story looks at how the palliative care movement is medicine's response to the dismal way people have died. I try to show, up close, how the team works, the agony that families feel, the immense costs involved. "

Has much changed around end-of-life care in those 13 years? Surely, a patient in an ICU with a poor prognosis is more likely today than 1996 to be consulted by a palliative medicine physician such as Dr. Dietzen. But how much more likely, and if a consult is requested, is the timing appropriate? Just as surely, large variations in late-life care continue to persist among hospitals and communities, still raising questions about the appropriate role for acute hospital care in the management of patients with advanced illnesses.

As one of the doctors in the 1997 article stated ," America wants to offer the most advanced technology and treatments to everyone, yet keep health-care costs down."
How to balance those desires, the doctor added, "is a discussion nobody wants to have." Thirteen years later, when one considers the discussions taking place in the name of health reform, one must wonder how far have we advanced.

Rational Discussion, or Discussion about Rationing?

In a recent post on the Health Beat blog, Naomi Freundlich comments that although life-expectancy is increasing, so is the incidence of multiple medical problems and chronic disease in the elderly. Which, once again, raises the question of how Medicare costs could possibly be tamed?

The author goes on to say that "we also face a more personal, moral challenge as life expectancy continues its relentless march forward: We must begin to separate new treatments that will help older people age better—avoiding long-term disability, dementia and frailty—from those that merely extend life at any cost. We can only do this by having honest conversations about end-of-life issues; in medical schools, among families and between doctors and patients. "

The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research center, found in a 2009 report that the government could save $90.8 billion over 10 years by better managing end-of-life care. And, the Institute further concluded that much end-of-life spending isn’t sought by patients and goes against their families’ expressed preferences.

$90 BILLION dollars. Makes me wonder who would be receiving that money if it were spent. Surely, much of it would go to hospitals. And some of it to physicians. Makes me wonder also if this subject can be discussed rationally, rather than it being a discussion about rationing.

Can Hospice and Palliative Care Escape the R Word?

The question Why are Referrals to Hospice Slowing? seems to be making the rounds these days.
Misconceptions about hospice and palliative care have abounded well before the latest efforts to refrom the health care system. How else to explain the persistent and continuing reticence to refer to, and accept hospice services, in most US communities. What's different today is that the skeptics of hospice and palliative medicine are more vitriolic than their predecessors, and their talking points (arguments) are more vivid - "death panels, socialized medicine".
I served as the chief executive of a hospice affiliated with a highly-regarded academic health center in the 90s, and the reasons then were abundant for the low referral rate to hospice: patients were referred to academic health centers because they wanted to avail themselves of the most sophisticated medical care for cure; the attending physicians were providing palliative care; the patients' religious/cultural beliefs made them unready for hospice, etc. We've all heard them before, and we still hear these reasons now.
It's just that now, in the context of health reform, palliative care, for some, is considered 'rationing."
And it gains credence because there is so much money in late-life care.