Vital Directions for Health and Health Care: Priorities From a National Academy of Medicine Initiative.

Importance: Recent discussion has focused on questions related to the repeal and replacement of portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, issues central to the future of health and health care in the United States transcend the ACA provisions receiving the greatest attention. Initiatives directed to certain strategic and infrastructure priorities are vital to achieve better health at lower cost. Objectives: To review the most salient health challenges and opportunities facing the United States, to identify practical and achievable priorities essential to health progress, and to present policy initiatives critical to the nation's health and fiscal integrity. Evidence Review: Qualitative synthesis of 19 National Academy of Medicine-commissioned white papers, with supplemental review and analysis of publicly available data and published research findings. Findings: The US health system faces major challenges. Health care costs remain high at $3.2 trillion spent annually, of which an estimated 30% is related to waste, inefficiencies, and excessive prices; health disparities are persistent and worsening; and the health and financial burdens of chronic illness and disability are straining families and communities. Concurrently, promising opportunities and knowledge to achieve change exist. Across the 19 discussion papers examined, 8 crosscutting policy directions were identified as vital to the nation's health and fiscal future, including 4 action priorities and 4 essential infrastructure needs. The action priorities-pay for value, empower people, activate communities, and connect care-recurred across the articles as direct and strategic opportunities to advance a more efficient, equitable, and patient- and community-focused health system. The essential infrastructure needs-measure what matters most, modernize skills, accelerate real-world evidence, and advance science-were the most commonly cited foundational elements to ensure progress. Conclusions and Relevance: The action priorities and essential infrastructure needs represent major opportunities to improve health outcomes and increase efficiency and value in the health system. As the new US administration and Congress chart the future of health and health care for the United States, and as health leaders across the country contemplate future directions for their programs and initiatives, their leadership and strategic investment in these priorities will be essential for achieving significant progress.

Value of primary care diabetes management: long-term cost impacts.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate long-term cost savings associated with patients' exposure to an all-or-none bundle of measures for primary care management of diabetes. STUDY DESIGN: In 2006, Geisinger's primary care clinics implemented an all-or-none diabetes system of care (DSC). Claims data from Geisinger Health Plan were used to identify those who met Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set criteria for diabetes and had 2 or more diabetes-related encounters on different dates before 2006. A cohort of 1875 members exposed to the DSC was then compared against a propensity score matched non-DSC comparison cohort from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2013. METHODS: A set of generalized linear models with log link and gamma distribution was estimated. The key explanatory variable was each member's bundle exposure measured in months. The dependent variables were inpatient and outpatient facility costs, professional cost, and total medical cost excluding prescription drugs measured on a per-member-per-month basis. RESULTS: Over the study period, the total medical cost saving associated with DSC exposure was approximately 6.9% (P < .05). The main source of the saving was reductions in inpatient facility cost, which showed approximately 28.7% savings (P < .01) over the study period. During the first year of the DSC exposure, however, there were significant increases in outpatient (13%; P < .05) and professional (9.7%; P < .05) costs. CONCLUSIONS: A system of care with an all-or-none bundled measure used in primary care for patients with diabetes may reduce long-term cost of care while improving health outcomes.

Reduced acute inpatient care was largest savings component of Geisinger Health System's patient-centered medical home.

Early evidence suggests that the patient-centered medical home has the potential to improve patient outcomes while reducing the cost of care. However, it is unclear how this care model achieves such desirable results, particularly its impact on cost. We estimated cost savings associated with Geisinger Health System's patient-centered medical home clinics by examining longitudinal clinic-level claims data from elderly Medicare patients attending the clinics over a ninety-month period (2006 through the first half of 2013). We also used these data to deconstruct savings into its main components (inpatient, outpatient, professional, and prescription drugs). During this period, total costs associated with patient-centered medical home exposure declined by approximately 7.9 percent; the largest source of this savings was acute inpatient care ($34, or 19 percent savings per member per month), which accounts for about 64 percent of the total estimated savings. This finding is further supported by the fact that longer exposure was also associated with lower acute inpatient admission rates. The results of this study suggest that patient-centered medical homes can lead to sustainable, long-term improvements in patient health outcomes and the cost of care.

Primary care diabetes bundle management: 3-year outcomes for microvascular and macrovascular events.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a system of care with an all-or-none bundled measure for primary-care management of diabetes mellitus reduced the risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications compared with usual care. STUDY DESIGN: A parallel pre-post observational design was used. In 2006, a system of care for diabetes was implemented for some members of the Geisinger Health Plan. A total of 4095 primary-care patients were in the Diabetes System of Care group (DS) and compared with a propensity score-matched cohort of 4095 primary care patients not in the system of care (non-Diabetes System of Care [NDS]). METHODS: Cumulative hazard rate was measured over a 3-year period for retinopathy, amputation, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI). RESULTS: The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for MI (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65- 0.90), stroke (HR, 0.79; CI, 0.65-0.97), and retinopathy (HR, 0.81; CI, 0.68-0.97) were all significantly lower among DS patients. The adjusted HR for major amputations (HR, 1.32; CI, 0.45-3.85) did not differ between groups, but only 17 major amputations occurred during the follow-up period. The necessary number of patients to treat in order to prevent 1 event over 3 years was 82 for MI, 178 for stroke, and 151 for retinopathy. CONCLUSIONS: A system of care with an all-or-none bundled measure used in primary care for patients with diabetes may reduce the risk of MI, stroke, and retinopathy over a 3-year period.

Leveraging data to systematically improve care: coronary artery disease management at Geisinger.

Coronary artery disease is complex chronic disease best managed by a team empowered by actionable data and a comprehensive approach, the ability to improve intermediate outcomes was dramatically enhanced after Geisinger created a system of care to do so. Continuous measurement of critical data elements of process and intermediate outcome measures allows the delivery of actionable information to the most appropriate team member, including the patients and family as team members. Continuous monitoring of the overall program looking for trends and opportunities across sites and regions allows for program enhancements. The comprehensive "all-or-none" bundled approach to care, which has already realized a 300% improvement, will be further enhanced by incorporating additional "Big Data" flows.

Ten strategies to lower costs, improve quality, and engage patients: the view from leading health system CEOs.

Patient-centeredness--the idea that care should be designed around patients' needs, preferences, circumstances, and well-being--is a central tenet of health care delivery. For CEOs of health care organizations, patient-centered care is also quickly becoming a business imperative, with payments tied to performance on measures of patient satisfaction and engagement. In A CEO Checklist for High-Value Health Care, we, as executives of eleven leading health care delivery institutions, outlined ten key strategies for reducing costs and waste while improving outcomes. In this article we describe how implementation of these strategies benefits both health care organizations and patients. For example, Kaiser Permanente's Healthy Bones Program resulted in a 30 percent reduction in hip fracture rates for at-risk patients. And at Virginia Mason Health System in Seattle, nurses reorganized care patterns and increased the time they spent on direct patient care to 90 percent. Our experiences show that patient-engaged care can be delivered in ways that simultaneously improve quality and reduce costs.

How Geisinger structures its physicians' compensation to support improvements in quality, efficiency, and volume.

The movement of US physicians toward working as employees rather than working as private practitioners is increasing interest in compensation systems that drive improved quality and efficiency without compromising the productivity of existing fee-for-service payment systems. We describe the approach of Geisinger Health System, an integrated delivery system in Pennsylvania that assigns about 20 percent of total expected physician compensation to incentives that support improvements in quality and efficiency along with growth in clinical volume. We believe that dedicating a moderate portion of physician compensation to achieving strategic goals, such as maximizing quality and efficiency, is improving the value of care provided at Geisinger. At the same time, because most of Geisinger's clinical care is still delivered and paid for on a fee-for-service basis, the incentives for clinical volume are enabling Geisinger to achieve the financial viability to pursue its mission.

Reengineering acute episodic and chronic care delivery: the Geisinger Health System experience.

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) represents an evolution in clinical decision-making research that allows for the study of heterogeneous groups of patients with complex diseases processes. It has foundations in decision science, reliability science, and health care policy research. Health care finance will increasingly rely on CER for guidance in the coming years. There is increasing awareness of the importance of decreasing unwarranted variation in health care delivery. In the past 7 years, Geisinger Health System has performed broad reengineering of its acute episodic and chronic care delivery models utilizing macrosystem-level application of CER principles. These provider-driven process initiatives have resulted in significant improvement across all segments of care delivery, improved patient outcomes, and notable cost containment. These programs have led to the creation of novel pricing models, and when "hardwired" throughout a care delivery system, they can lead to correct medical decision making by 100% of providers in all patient encounters. Neurosurgery as a specialty faces unique challenges and opportunities with respect to broad adoption and application of CER techniques.

Reducing long-term cost by transforming primary care: evidence from Geisinger's medical home model.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate cost savings associated with ProvenHealth Navigator (PHN), which is an advanced model of patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) developed by Geisinger Health System, and determine whether those savings increase over time. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective claims data analysis of 43 primary care clinics that were converted into PHN sites between 2006 and 2010. The study population included Geisinger Health Plan's Medicare Advantage plan enrollees who were 65 years or older treated in these clinics (26,303 unique members). METHODS: Two patient-level multivariate regression models (with and without interaction effects between prescription drug coverage and PHN exposure) with member fixed effects were used to estimate the effect of members' exposure to PHN on per-member per-month total cost, controlling for member risk, seasonality, yearly trend, and a set of baseline clinic characteristics. RESULTS: In both models, a longer period of PHN exposure was significantly associated with a lower total cost. The total cumulative cost savings over the study period was 7.1% (95% confi dence interval [CI] 2.6-11.6) using the model with the prescription drug coverage interaction effects and 4.3% (95% CI 0.4-8.3) using the model without the interaction effects. Corresponding return on investment was 1.7 (95% CI 0.3-3.0) and 1.0 (95% Cl -0.1 to 2.0), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding suggests that PCMHs can lead to significant and sustainable cost savings over time.

ProvenCare lung cancer: a multi-institutional improvement collaborative.

Geisinger's ProvenCare™ Program (for elective coronary artery bypass surgery, total hip replacement, and others) has shown that the principles of reliability science, facilitated by a robust electronic health record and institutional commitment, allow the re-engineering of complicated clinical processes. This eliminates unwarranted variation and promotes the completion of evidence-based elements of care. It has not been established that ProvenCare can be generalized to other institutions. Now, under the auspices of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer, ProvenCare has been adapted to a multi-institutional collaborative for the care of the patient with resectable lung cancer.

How Geisinger's advanced medical home model argues the case for rapid-cycle innovation.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 provides for a number of major payment and delivery system initiatives. These potential changes need to be tested, scaled, and adapted with an urgency not evident in previous demonstration projects of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We discuss lessons learned from our iterative tests of care reengineering at Geisinger--specifically, through our advanced medical home model, ProvenHealth Navigator, and the way we continuously modified the model to improve quality and value. We hypothesize that the most important ingredient in our model has been the embedding of nurse case managers into our community practices and the real-time feedback of data on the use of health services by the most complex patients.

A validated value-based model to improve hospital-wide perioperative outcomes: adaptability to combined medical/surgical inpatient cohorts.

OBJECTIVES: Authors hypothesized that building safe hospital systems to improve value-based surgical outcomes is predicated on workflow redesign for dynamic risk stratification, coupled with "real-time" mitigation of risk. We developed a comanagement model for hospitalized surgical cohort, and determined whether this iterative process redesign for surgery will be adaptable to disparate hospital systems and will be beneficial for combined medical/surgical adult inpatients. CONTEXT: Concerns about preventable harm in hospitalized patients have generated a plethora of both, process-driven and outcome-based strategies in US Healthcare. Although comparison between hospitals is a common mechanism to drive quality, other innovative approaches are needed for real-time risk mitigation to improve outcomes. METHODS: Prospective implementation of Surgical Continuum of Care (SCoC) model in hospitals initially for surgery patients; subsequently Continuum of Care (CoC) for medical/surgical population. Redesign of hospital care delivery model: patient cohorting, floor-based team building, and intensivist/hospitalist staffing of progressive care unit (PCU). Work flow redesign for clinical effectiveness: multidisciplinary team rounds, acuity stratified care rounding based on dynamic risk assessment into a novel HAWK (high risk)/DOVE (low risk) patient grouping, intensivist/hospitalist comanagement of surgical patients, and targeted response. STUDY: Pre- and postintervention with concurrent cohort control design. SETTING: Academic medical centers for SCoC and integrated health system hospital for CoC. PATIENT GROUPS: SCoC Pilot Study-Campus A: Preintervention control group 1998-2000, Intervention Group 2001-2004; Campus B: Comparator Control Group 1998-2004. SCoC Validation Study-Campus C: Preintervention Group 2001-2005; Intervention Group 2006-2008. CoC Study-Campus D: Hospital-wide Group 2009. METRICS: Mortality, length of stay (LOS): overall, surgical intensive care unit and PCU, readmission rates, and cost. Case mix index for risk adjustment. RESULTS: Total >100,000 admissions. There was a significant reduction in overall surgical mortality in both, pilot (P < 0.002) and validation (P < 0.02) SCoC studies and overall hospital mortality in the medical/surgical CoC study (risk-adjusted mortality index progressively declined in CoC study from 1.16 pre-CoC to 0.77 six months post-CoC implementation; significant at 75% confidence level). Case mix index was unchanged during study period in each campus. Nested study in validation cohort of hospital-wide versus surgery alone (observed/expected mortality index) demonstrated significant benefit to SCoC in intervention group. The mortality benefit was primarily derived from risk-stratified rounding and actively managing risk prone population in the PCU. Surgical intensive care unit, PCU, and total hospital patient-days significantly decreased in SCoC pilot study (P < 0.05), reflecting enhanced throughput. LOS reduction benefit persisted in SCoC validation and CoC studies. In addition to decreased LOS, cost savings were in PCU (range, $851,511-2,007,388) and top diagnosis-related groups, for example, $452 K/yr for diagnosis-related group 148. CONCLUSIONS: SCoC is patient-centered, outcomes-driven, value-based approach for hospital-wide surgical patient safety. The principles of this value paradigm are adaptable to other hospitals as demonstrated in our longitudinal study in 3 hospital systems, and the initial experience of CoC suggests that this model will have benefit beyond surgical hospital cohort.

Continuous innovation in health care: implications of the Geisinger experience.

To achieve the diverse health care goals of the United States, health care value must increase. The capacity to create value through innovation is facilitated by an integrated delivery system focused on creating value, measuring innovation returns, and receiving market rewards. This paper describes the Geisinger Health System's innovation strategy for care model redesign. Geisinger's clinical leadership, dedicated innovation team, electronic health information systems, and financial incentive alignment each contribute to its innovation record. Although Geisinger's characteristics raise serious questions about broad applicability to nonintegrated health care organizations, its experience can provide useful insights for health system reform.

Local excision of distal rectal cancer: an update of cancer and leukemia group B 8984.

PURPOSE: The efficacy of local excision in the treatment of some early-stage distal rectal cancers is still being debated, because few high-quality, long-term prospective data on outcomes are available. METHODS: Fifty-nine patients with T1 lesions were treated with local excision alone, whereas 51 patients with T2 lesions received external beam irradiation (5,400 cGY) and 5-fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2) intravenously Days 1-3, Days 29-31) after local excision. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the primary outcomes. The log-rank test and Cox's proportional hazards model were used to compare subgroups relative to these outcomes. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 7.1 (range, 2.1-11.4) years, ten-year rates of overall survival were 84 percent for patients with T1 and 66 percent for T2 rectal cancer. Disease-free survival was 75 percent for T1 and 64 percent for T2 disease. Local recurrence rates for patients with T1 and T2 lesions were 8 and 18 percent, respectively, and rates of distant metastases were 5 percent for T1 and 12 percent for T2 lesions. T stage was a statistically significant predictor of overall survival (P = 0.04) and approached statistical significance as a predictor of disease-free survival (P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Local excision alone for T1 rectal adenocarcinomas is associated with low recurrence and good survival rates that remain durable with long-term follow-up. T2 lesions treated via local excision and adjuvant therapy are associated with higher recurrence rates.

"ProvenCareSM": a provider-driven pay-for-performance program for acute episodic cardiac surgical care.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether an integrated delivery system could successfully implement an evidence-based pay-for-performance program for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: The program consisted of 3 components: (1) establishing implementable best practices; (2) developing risk-based pricing; (3) establishing a mechanism for patient engagement. Surgeons reviewed all class I and IIa "2004 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guidelines for CABG Surgery" and translated them into 40 verifiable behaviors. These were imbedded within a new ProvenCareSM program and "hardwired" within the electronic health record system, including order sets, templates, and "time outs". Concurrently preoperative, inpatient, and postoperative care within 90 days was packaged into a fixed price. A Patient Compact was developed to highlight the importance of patient activation. All elective CABG patients treated between February 2, 2006 and February 2, 2007 were included (ProvenCareSM Group) and compared with 137 patients treated in 2005 (Conventional Care Group). RESULTS: Initially, only 59% of patients received all 40 best practice components. At 3 months, program compliance reached 100%, but fell transiently to 86% over the next 3 months. Reliability subsequently increased to 100% and was sustained for the remainder of the study period. The overall trend in reliability was significant at P=0.001. Thirty-day clinical outcomes showed improved trends () but only the likelihood of discharge to home reached statistical significance. Length of stay decreased by 16% and mean hospital charges fell 5.2%.(Table is included in full-text article.) CONCLUSION: A provider-driven pay-for-performance process for CABG, enabled by an electronic health record system, can reliably deliver evidence-based care, fundamentally alter reimbursement incentives, and may ultimately improve outcomes and reduce resource use.