The economic recession: early impacts on health care safety net providers.

While the recession increased demands on the health care safety net as Americans lost jobs and health insurance, the impact on safety net providers has been mixed and less severe--at least initially--than expected in some cases, according to a new study of five metropolitan communities by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). Even before the recession, many safety net providers reported treating more uninsured patients and facing tighter state and local funding. Federal expansion grants for community health centers during the past decade, however, have increased capacity at many health centers. And, programs to help direct people to primary care providers may have helped stem the expected surge in emergency department use by the uninsured during the downturn. Federal stimulus funding--the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--has assisted hospitals and health centers in weathering the economic storm, helping to offset reductions in state, local and private funding. And, the economic downturn has generated some potential benefits, including lower rents and broader employee applicant pools. While safety net providers have adopted strategies to stay financially viable, many believe they have not yet felt the full impact of the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

Individual insurance: health insurers try to tap potential market growth.

Individual insurance is the only source of health coverage for people without access to employer-sponsored insurance or public insurance. Individual insurance traditionally has been sought by older, sicker individuals who perceive the need for insurance more than younger, healthier people. The attraction of a sicker population to the individual market creates adverse selection, leading insurers to employ medical underwriting--which most states allow--to either avoid those with the greatest health needs or set premiums more reflective of their expected medical use. Recently, however, several factors have prompted insurers to recognize the growth potential of the individual market: a declining proportion of people with employer-sponsored insurance, a sizeable population of younger, healthier people forgoing insurance, and the likelihood that many people receiving subsidies to buy insurance under proposed health insurance reforms would buy individual coverage. Insurers are pursuing several strategies to expand their presence in the individual insurance market, including entering less-regulated markets, developing lower-cost, less-comprehensive products targeting younger, healthy consumers, and attracting consumers through the Internet and other new distribution channels, according to a new study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). Insurers' strategies in the individual insurance market are unlikely to meet the needs of less-than-healthy people seeking affordable, comprehensive coverage. Congressional health reform proposals, which envision a larger role for the individual market under a sharply different regulatory framework, would likely supersede insurers' current individual market strategies.

Does telemonitoring of patients--the eICU--improve intensive care?

Intensive care units are an essential and costly component in most U.S. hospitals. However, little is actually known about what staffing and work-process interventions produce the best balance of quality and costs. We explore the reasons hospitals chose to either adopt or reject an innovative telemedicine approach to supporting delivery of intensive care. Hospital clinical leaders hold strong views but have little objective information on which to judge the worthiness of this innovation. We argue that comparative effectiveness initiatives should emphasize delivery-system and work-process innovations, which are relatively understudied compared to specific drugs, devices, and services.

General hospitals, specialty hospitals and financially vulnerable patients.

In the past decade, the rapid growth of specialty hospitals focused on profitable service lines, including cardiac and orthopedic care, has prompted concerns about general hospitals' ability to compete. Critics contend specialty hospitals actively draw less-complicated, more-profitable patients with Medicare and private insurance away from general hospitals, threatening general hospitals' ability to cross-subsidize less-profitable services and provide uncompensated care. A contentious debate has ensued, but little research has addressed whether specialty hospitals adversely affect the financial viability of general hospitals and their ability to care for low-income, uninsured and Medicaid patients. Despite initial challenges recruiting staff and maintaining service volumes and patient referrals, general hospitals were generally able to respond to the initial entry of specialty hospitals with few, if any, changes in the provision of care for financially vulnerable patients, according to a new study by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) of three markets with established specialty hospitals--Indianapolis, Phoenix and Little Rock, Arkansas. In addition, safety net hospitals--general hospitals that care for a disproportionate share of financially vulnerable patients--reported limited impact from specialty hospitals since safety net hospitals generally do not compete for insured patients.

Hospital-physician relations: two tracks and the decline of the voluntary medical staff model.

Data from the most recent Community Tracking Study (CTS) interviews in twelve nationally representative metropolitan areas indicate that hospitals are increasingly employing physicians, particularly specialists. Nonemployed physicians are separating from hospitals passively by refusing to serve on medical staff committees or take emergency department call, and actively by creating specialized facilities, such as ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), to compete for hospitals' most profitable services. Employment is more common and physician-owned ASCs are less common in consolidated hospital markets. The interviews also suggest other factors motivating physician employment by, or separation from, hospitals, and likely consequences of these trends.

Creating sustainable local health information exchanges: can barriers to stakeholder participation be overcome?

Local health information exchanges (HIEs) hold the promise of collecting patient clinical data across sites of care to provide more complete and timely information for treatment, as well as supporting quality improvement and reporting, public health activities, and clinical research. Findings from a study of stakeholder perspectives on participation in four HIEs by the Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) and the National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM) Foundation suggest, however, that barriers to achieving data exchange remain high. Concerns about loss of competitive advantage and data misuse impede provider and health plan willingness to contribute patient data. Additionally, uncertainty about who benefits from HIEs is affecting stakeholder willingness to fund the exchanges. The more mature exchanges--Cincinnati-based HealthBridge and the Indiana Health Information Exchange (IHIE)--have achieved some viability by meeting a specific business need--more efficient delivery of hospital test results to physicians. The newer exchanges--CareSpark, serving northeast Tennessee and southwest Virginia, and the Tampa Bay Regional Health Information Organization (RHIO)--have struggled to identify and finance initial services without a similar critical mass of hospital participation. While narrow data exchange efforts that improve transaction efficiency may be a pragmatic first step to overcome barriers to stakeholder participation, expanding HIEs to achieve the broad-based data exchange necessary for quality reporting and pay-for-performance (P4P) activities raises more challenges.