Barriers to using clinical decision support in ambulatory care: Do clinics in health systems fare better?

OBJECTIVE: We quantify the use of clinical decision support (CDS) and the specific barriers reported by ambulatory clinics and examine whether CDS utilization and barriers differed based on clinics' affiliation with health systems, providing a benchmark for future empirical research and policies related to this topic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Despite much discussion at the theoretic level, the existing literature provides little empirical understanding of barriers to using CDS in ambulatory care. We analyze data from 821 clinics in 117 medical groups, based on in Minnesota Community Measurement's annual Health Information Technology Survey (2014-2016). We examine clinics' use of 7 CDS tools, along with 7 barriers in 3 areas (resource, user acceptance, and technology). Employing linear probability models, we examine factors associated with CDS barriers. RESULTS: Clinics in health systems used more CDS tools than did clinics not in systems (24 percentage points higher in automated reminders), but they also reported more barriers related to resources and user acceptance (26 percentage points higher in barriers to implementation and 33 points higher in disruptive alarms). Barriers related to workflow redesign increased in clinics affiliated with health systems (33 points higher). Rural clinics were more likely to report barriers to training. CONCLUSIONS: CDS barriers related to resources and user acceptance remained substantial. Health systems, while being effective in promoting CDS tools, may need to provide further assistance to their affiliated ambulatory clinics to overcome barriers, especially the requirement to redesign workflow. Rural clinics may need more resources for training.

Are health systems redesigning how health care is delivered?

OBJECTIVE: To explore why and how health systems are engaging in care delivery redesign (CDR)-defined as the variety of tools and organizational change processes health systems use to pursue the Triple Aim. STUDY SETTING: A purposive sample of 24 health systems across 4 states as part of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Comparative Health System Performance Initiative. STUDY DESIGN: An exploratory qualitative study design to gain an "on the ground" understanding of health systems' motivations for, and approaches to, CDR, with the goals of identifying key dimensions of CDR, and gauging the depth of change that is possible based on the particular approaches to redesign care being adopted by the health systems. DATA COLLECTION: Semi-structured telephone interviews with health system executives and physician organization leaders from 24 health systems (n = 162). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identify and define 13 CDR activities and find that the health systems' efforts are varied in terms of both the combination of activities they are engaging in and the depth of innovation within each activity. Health system executives who report strong internal motivation for their CDR efforts describe more confidence in their approach to CDR than those who report strong external motivation. Health system leaders face uncertainty when implementing CDR due to a limited evidence base and because of the slower than expected pace of payment change. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to validly and reliably measure CDR activities-particularly across varying organizational contexts and markets-is currently limited but is key to better understanding CDR's impact on intended outcomes, which is important for guiding both health system decision making and policy making.

Understanding how health systems facilitate primary care redesign.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how health systems are facilitating primary care redesign (PCR), examine the PCR initiatives taking place within systems, and identify barriers to this work. STUDY SETTING: A purposive sample of 24 health systems in 4 states. STUDY DESIGN: Data were systematically reviewed to identify how system leaders define and implement initiatives to redesign primary care delivery and identify challenges. Researchers applied codes which were based on the theoretical PCR literature and created new codes to capture emerging themes. Investigators analyzed coded data then produced and applied a thematic analysis to examine how health systems facilitate PCR. DATA COLLECTION: Semi-structured telephone interviews with 162 system executives and physician organization leaders from 24 systems. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Leaders at all 24 health systems described initiatives to redesign the delivery of primary care, but many were in the early stages. Respondents described the use of centralized health system resources to facilitate PCR initiatives, such as regionalized care coordinators, and integrated electronic health records. Team-based care, population management, and care coordination were the most commonly described initiatives to transform primary care delivery. Respondents most often cited improving efficiency and enhancing clinician job satisfaction, as motivating factors for team-based care. Changes in payment and risk assumption as well as community needs were commonly cited motivators for population health management and care coordination. Return on investment and the slower than anticipated rate in moving from fee-for-service to value-based payment were noted by multiple respondents as challenges health systems face in redesigning primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Given their expanding role in health care and the potential to leverage resources, health systems are promising entities to promote the advancement of PCR. Systems demonstrate interest and engagement in this work but face significant challenges in getting to scale until payment models are in alignment with these efforts.

The importance of understanding and measuring health system structural, functional, and clinical integration.

OBJECTIVE: We explore if there are ways to characterize health systems-not already revealed by secondary data-that could provide new insights into differences in health system performance. We sought to collect rich qualitative data to reveal whether and to what extent health systems vary in important ways across dimensions of structural, functional, and clinical integration. DATA SOURCES: Interviews with 162 c-suite executives of 24 health systems in four states conducted through "virtual" site visits between 2017 and 2019. STUDY DESIGN: Exploratory study using thematic comparative analysis to describe factors that may lead to high performance. DATA COLLECTION: We used maximum variation sampling to achieve diversity in size and performance. We conducted, transcribed, coded, and analyzed in-depth, semi-structured interviews with system executives, covering such topics as market context, health system origin, organizational structure, governance features, and relationship of health system to affiliated hospitals and POs. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Health systems vary widely in size and ownership type, complexity of organization and governance arrangements, and ability to take on risk. Structural, functional, and clinical integration vary across systems, with considerable activity around centralizing business functions, aligning financial incentives with physicians, establishing enterprise-wide EHR, and moving toward single signatory contracting. Executives describe clinical integration as more difficult to achieve, but essential. Studies that treat "health system" as a binary variable may be inappropriately aggregating for analysis health systems of very different types, at different degrees of maturity, and at different stages of structural, functional, and clinical integration. As a result, a "signal" indicating performance may be distorted by the "noise." CONCLUSIONS: Developing ways to account for the complex structures of today's health systems can enhance future efforts to study systems as complex organizations, to assess their performance, and to better understand the effects of payment innovation, care redesign, and other reforms.

Tests, surgical masks, hospital beds, and ventilators: add big data to the list of tools to fight the coronavirus that are in short supply.

Big data could help identify potential clues about the immediate (and future) impact of coronavirus disease 2019, but it is in short supply.

Consumer Use of Provider Quality Report Cards: The Role of Dissemination and Media Coverage.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to measure the dissemination of comparative provider quality information (CPQI) and evaluate its impact on consumers' awareness and use of CPQI. DATA SOURCES: Two-period, random-digit-dial panel survey of chronically ill consumers residing in 14 regions of the United States; summaries of CPQI dissemination activities of regional multistakeholder alliances; and the LexisNexis Academic and Access World News databases. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS: Fixed effects regression to isolate the effect of CPQI producers' dissemination activities and the print media's CPQI coverage on chronically ill consumers' self-reported awareness and use of CPQI. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Direct CPQI dissemination had no overall effect on either awareness or use of CPQI. One unit increase in the media coverage of an Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) multistakeholder alliance report increased consumer awareness and use of CPQI by 1.4 percentage points (P=0.049) and 1.1 percentage points (P=0.009), respectively. Similar increases for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) CPQI and for the nonalliance, non-CMS CPQI improved CPQI use by 1.6 percentage points (P<0.001) and 0.2 percentage points (P=0.041), respectively. CONCLUSION: Even though CPQI producers' direct dissemination efforts had little impact, the small but significant consumer impacts of CPQI's limited press coverage suggests that limited use of media in the dissemination of report cards may be a significant factor behind low consumer awareness and use.

Landscape of Health Systems in the United States.

Despite the prevalence of vertical integration, data and research focused on identifying and describing health systems are sparse. Until recently, we lacked an enumeration of health systems and an understanding of how systems vary by key structural attributes. To fill this gap, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed the Compendium of U.S. Health Systems, a data resource to support research on comparative health system performance. In this article, we describe the methods used to create the Compendium and present a picture of vertical integration in the United States. We identified 626 health systems in 2016, which accounted for 70% of nonfederal general acute care hospitals. These systems varied by key structural attributes, including size, ownership, and geographic presence. The Compendium can be used to study the characteristics of the U.S. health care system and address policy issues related to provider organizations.

Opioid misuse, labor market outcomes, and means-tested public expenditures: a conceptual framework.

As the opioid epidemic has drawn increased attention, many researchers are attempting to estimate the financial burden of opioid misuse. These estimates have become particularly relevant as state and local governments have begun to take legal action against pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, and others who are identified as being potentially responsible for the worsening epidemic. An important category of costs includes those related to the effect of opioid misuse on labor market outcomes and productivity. Most published estimates of opioid-attributable productivity losses estimate the financial burden borne by society, failing to distinguish between costs internalized by individuals and those that spill over to third parties, such as state and federal governments. This article provides an overview and a conceptual framework for 2 types of labor market-related costs borne by state and federal governments that typically have not been incorporated into existing estimates, which may represent important categories of expenditures. Because detailed estimates of lost tax revenue are available elsewhere, this article focuses largely on whether, and how, to incorporate opioid-related expenses incurred by means-tested government programs into more general estimates of the economic harm created by the opioid epidemic.

Revenue Losses to State and Federal Government From Opioid-related Employment Reductions.

OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this study was to estimate the tax revenue lost by state and federal governments as a result of adverse labor market outcomes attributable to opioid misuse. METHODS: We pair existing, plausibly causal estimates of the effect of opioid misuse on the decline in the labor force from 2000 to 2016 with a variety of data sources to compute tax revenues lost by state and federal governments using the online TAXSIM calculator. RESULTS: We find that between 2000 and 2016, opioid misuse cost state governments $11.8 billion, including $1.7 billion in lost sales tax revenue and $10.1 billion in lost income tax revenue. In addition, the federal government lost $26.0 billion in income tax revenue. CONCLUSIONS: By omitting lost tax revenue due to labor force exits, prior studies have missed an important component of opioid-related costs borne by state and federal governments. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: As more states and the federal government contemplate litigation for opioid-related damages, lost tax revenue represents an important cost that could be recouped and allocated to opioid prevention and treatment programs.

Why Do So Few Consumers Use Health Care Quality Report Cards? A Framework for Understanding the Limited Consumer Impact of Comparative Quality Information.

Despite growing investment in producing and releasing comparative provider quality information (CQI), consumer use of CQI has remained poor. We offer a framework to interpret and synthesize the existing literature's diverse approaches to explaining the CQI's low appeal for consumers. Our framework cautions CQI stakeholders against forming unrealistic expectations of pervasive consumer use and suggests that they focus their efforts more narrowly on consumers who may find CQI more salient for choosing providers. We review the consumer impact of stakeholder efforts to apply the burgeoning knowledge of consumers' cognitive limitations to the design and dissemination of the new generation of report cards; we conclude that while it is too limited to draw firm conclusions, early evidence suggests consumers are responding to the novel design and dissemination strategies. We find that consumers continue to have difficulty accessing reliable report cards, while the media remains underused in the dissemination of report cards.

Creating Unidimensional Global Measures of Physician Practice Quality Based on Health Insurance Claims Data.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the extent to which commonly used claims-based process quality indicators can be used to create an internally valid global composite measure of physician practice quality. DATA SOURCES: Health insurance claims data (October 2007-May 2010) from 134 physician practices in Seattle, WA. STUDY DESIGN: We use confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis to develop theory- and empirically driven internally valid composite measures based on 19 quality indicators. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Health insurance claims data from nine insurance companies and self-funded employers were collected and aggregated by third-party organization. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our results did not support a single global measure using the entire set of quality indicators. We did identify an acceptable multidimensional model (RMSEA = 0.059; CFI = 0.934; TLI = 0.910). The four dimensions in our data were diabetes, depression, preventive care, and generic drug prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that commonly used process indicators can be used to create a small set of useful composite measures. However, the lack of an internally valid single unidimensional global measure has important implications for policy approaches meant to improve quality by rewarding "high-quality physicians."

Is Anyone Paying Attention to Physician Report Cards? The Impact of Increased Availability on Consumers' Awareness and Use of Physician Quality Information.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the release of health care report cards focused on physician practice quality measures leads to changes in consumers' awareness and use of this information. PRIMARY DATA SOURCES: Data from two rounds of a survey of the chronically ill adult population conducted in 14 regions across the United States, combined with longitudinal information from a public reporting tracking database. Both data were collected as part of the evaluation for Aligning Forces for Quality, a nationwide quality improvement initiative funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. STUDY DESIGN: Using a longitudinal design and an individual-level fixed effects modeling approach, we estimated the impact of community public reporting efforts, measured by the availability and applicability of physician quality reports, on consumers' awareness and use of physician quality information (PQI). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The baseline level of awareness was 12.6 percent in our study sample, drawn from the general population of chronically ill adults. Among those who were not aware of PQI at the baseline, when PQI became available in their communities for the first time, along with quality measures that are applicable to their specific chronic conditions, the likelihood of PQI awareness increased by 3.8 percentage points. For the same group, we also find similar increases in the uses of PQI linked to newly available physician report cards, although the magnitudes are smaller, between 2 and 3 percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: Specific contents of physician report cards can be an important factor in consumers' awareness and use of PQI. Policies to improve awareness and use of PQI may consider how to customize quality report cards and target specific groups of consumers in dissemination.

Evaluating a complex, multi-site, community-based program to improve healthcare quality: the summative research design for the Aligning Forces for Quality initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative was the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's (RWJF's) signature effort to increase the overall quality of healthcare in targeted communities throughout the country. In addition to sponsoring this 16-site complex program, RWJF funded an independent scientific evaluation to support objective research on the initiative's effectiveness and contributions to basic knowledge in 5 core programmatic areas. The research design, data, and challenges faced during the summative evaluation phase of this near decade-long program are discussed. STUDY DESIGN: A descriptive overview of the summative research design and its development for a multi-site, community-based, healthcare quality improvement initiative is provided. METHODS: The summative research design employed by the evaluation team is discussed. RESULTS: The evaluation team's summative research design involved a data-driven assessment of the effectiveness of the AF4Q program at large, assessments of the impact of AF4Q in the specific programmatic areas, and an assessment of how the AF4Q alliances were positioned for the future at the end of the program. CONCLUSION: The AF4Q initiative was the largest privately funded community-based healthcare improvement initiative in the United States to date and was implemented at a time of rapid change in national healthcare policy. The implementation of large-scale, multi-site initiatives is becoming an increasingly common approach for addressing problems in healthcare. The summative evaluation research design for the AF4Q initiative, and the lessons learned from its approach, may be valuable to others tasked with evaluating similarly complex community-based initiatives.

The Aligning Forces for Quality initiative: background and evolution from 2005 to 2015.

OBJECTIVE: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's (RWJF's) Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) program was the largest privately funded, community-based quality improvement initiative to date, providing funds and technical assistance (TA) to 16 multi-stakeholder alliances located throughout the United States. This article describes the AF4Q initiative's underlying theory of change, its evolution over time, and the key activities undertaken by alliances. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive overview of a multi-site, community-based quality improvement initiative. METHODS: We summarized information from program documents, program meetings, observation of alliance activities, and interviews with RWJF staff, TA providers, and AF4Q alliance stakeholders. RESULTS: The AF4Q program was a dynamic initiative, expanding and evolving over time. The underlying theory of change was based on the notion that an aligned, multi-stakeholder approach is superior to independent siloed efforts by stakeholders. Participating alliances developed or strengthened programming to varying degrees in 5 main programmatic areas: (1) measurement and public reporting of healthcare quality, patient experience, cost, and efficiency for ambulatory physician practices and hospitals; (2) efforts to engage consumers in health, healthcare, and alliance governance (consumer engagement); (3) adoption and spread of effective strategies to improve care delivery; (4) advancing healthcare equity; and (5) integration of alliance activities with payment reform initiatives. CONCLUSION: The AF4Q initiative was an ambitious program affecting multiple leverage points in the healthcare system. AF4Q alliances were provided a similar set of expectations, and given financial support and access to substantial TA. There was considerable variation in how alliances addressed the AF4Q programmatic areas, given differences in their composition, market structure, and history.

Summative evaluation results and lessons learned from the Aligning Forces for Quality program.

OBJECTIVE: To report summative evaluation results from the Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's (RWJF's) signature effort to improve quality of care from 2005 to 2015. METHODS: This was a longitudinal mixed methods program evaluation (ie, multiphase triangulated evaluation) of 16 grantee "alliances" from across the country, funded by RWJF as part of the AF4Q initiative. Grantees were selected in a nonexperimental manner and were charged with deploying interventions in 5 main programmatic areas to improve health and healthcare in their communities. RESULTS: Except for a small proportion of outcomes, there were no major differences in the rate of longitudinal improvement in AF4Q communities, compared with control communities, on quantitative outcomes related to the Triple Aim. Although the majority of the measures improved in both AF4Q and non-AF4Q communities, there were some exceptions to this improving trend, most noticeably in the cost of care and population health. There was also considerable heterogeneity across communities in terms of programmatic areas and the scale and scope of interventions in these areas. Although a number of AF4Q alliances implemented robust interventions in specific areas, often advancing strategies useful for others in the field, no AF4Q alliance pursued and aligned all 5 AF4Q programmatic areas in a robust way. In addition, whereas all alliances were able to garner the participation of multiple stakeholders initially, sustaining this participation and securing new sources of funding after RWJF support ended proved challenging for many alliances. Conclusion and Policy and Practice Implications: While the AF4Q program did not attain the ambitious community-level changes predicted by its sponsor at the program's outset, it did produce pockets of success on some dimensions for particular alliances. A number of factors explain the less-than-expected impact of the AF4Q initiative on community health and the observed variation in alliance sustainability and intervention strength. These include differing acceptance of the AF4Q initiative's theory of change, variation in the experience and capacity of the alliance communities selected for the program, differences in alliances' local healthcare market context, and the changing programmatic requirements for alliances participating in the AF4Q initiative. The variation in AF4Q program outcomes offers important lessons for those engaged in regional health improvement work.

The longitudinal impact of Aligning Forces for Quality on measures of population health, quality and experience of care, and cost of care.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the results from the quantitative analyses conducted during the summative evaluation of the Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) initiative. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal design using linear difference-in-difference (DD) regression models with fixed effects. Outcomes were selected based on the AF4Q program logic model and organized according to the categories of the Triple Aim: improving population health, improving quality and experience of care, and reducing the cost of care. DATA: Two primary data sources: the AF4Q Consumer Survey and the National Study of Physician Organizations (NSPO); and 4 secondary data sources: the Dartmouth Atlas Medicare claims database, the Truven Health MarketScan commercial claims database, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS). RESULTS: In total, 144 outcomes were analyzed, 27 were associated with improving population health, 87 were associated with improving care quality and experience, and 30 were associated with reducing the cost of care. Based on the estimated DD coefficients, there is no consistent evidence that AF4Q regions, over the life of the program, showed greater improvement in these measures compared with the rest of the United States. For less than 12% of outcomes (17/144), the AF4Q initiative was associated with a significant positive impact (P ≤.05), although the magnitude of the impact was often small. Among the remaining outcomes, with some exceptions, similarly improving trends were observed in both AF4Q and non-AF4Q areas over the period of intervention. Conclusion and Policy and Practice Implications: Our quantitative findings, which suggest that the AF4Q initiative had less impact than expected, are potentially due to the numerous other efforts to improve healthcare across the United States, including regions outside the AF4Q program over the same period of time. The limited overall impact may also be due to the variability in the "dose" of the interventions across AF4Q regions. However, these results should not be interpreted as a conclusive statement about the AF4Q initiative. More nuanced discussions of the implementation of interventions in the specific AF4Q programmatic areas and their potential success (or lack thereof) in the participating communities are included in other articles in this supplement.

Reporting provider performance: what can be learned from the experience of multi-stakeholder community coalitions?

OBJECTIVES: This analysis assessed the evolution of public reporting of provider performance in Aligning Forces for Quality (AF4Q) alliances, contrasted alliances that stopped reporting with those that plan to continue, and drew insights from alliance public reporting efforts for the national transparency movement. METHODS: Combined with document review, qualitative research methods were used to analyze interview data collected, over a nearly 10-year period, from the 16 participating alliances. RESULTS: AF4Q alliances made their greatest contributions to provider transparency in reporting ambulatory quality and patient experience measures. However, reporting ambulatory cost/efficiency/utilization measures was more challenging for alliances. Alliances contributed the least with respect to measures of inpatient performance. Six alliances ceased reporting at the end of the AF4Q program because of their inability to develop stable funding sources and overcome stakeholder skepticism about the value of public reporting. Insights provided by alliance leaders included the need to: focus on provider, rather than consumer, responses to public reports as the most likely avenue for improving quality; address the challenge of funding the reporting infrastructure from the beginning; explore collaborations with other entities to increase public reporting efficiency; and develop a strategy for responding to efforts at the national level to increase the availability of information on provider performance. CONCLUSION: The AF4Q initiative demonstrated that a wide variety of voluntary stakeholder coalitions could develop public reports with financial and technical support. However, the contents of these reports varied considerably, reflecting differences in local environments and alliance strategies. The challenges faced by alliances to maintain their reporting efforts were substantial, and not all alliances chose to report. Nevertheless, there are potential roles for alliances going forward in contributing to the national transparency movement.