Prepared for the Foundation of the American College of Healthcare Executives
Session 70X An Evidence-Based Approach for
Sustainable Physician-Hospital Engagement, Alignment, and
Integration
Presented by: Richard J. Priore, ScD, FACHE John P. Harding, FACHE Robert E. Kelly Jr., MD
1
An Evidence-Based Approach for Sustainable Physician-Hospital Engagement, Alignment, andIntegration (70X)
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
4:15 – 5:45 pm
Disclosure of RelevantFinancial RelationshipsThe following faculty of this continuing education activity have no relevant financial relationships with commercial interests to disclose
RICHARD J. PRIORE | ScD, MHA, FACHE
JOHN P. HARDING | MBA, FACHE
The following faculty of this continuing education activity has financial relationships with commercial interests to disclose
ROBERT E. KELLY, JR. | MD, FACS, FAAPZimmer Biomet – Product Development Consultant
2
2
Faculty
RICHARD J. PRIOREScD, MHA, FACHE
President,Excelsior HealthCare Group
Associate Professor andSenior Research FellowUniversity of Minnesota
ROBERT E. KELLY, JR.MD, FACS, FAAP
Surgeon-in-Chief and Vice President for Surgical Affairs
Professor of Clinical Surgery and Pediatrics and
Chief, Division of Pediatric Surgery
JOHN P. HARDINGMBA, FACHE
Chief Operating Officer
3
Agenda
The changing world and need for tighter physician-hospital alignment
1
What is physician-hospital alignment?
2
Evidence-based approach (case study)
3
Q&A
4
4
3
Learning Objectives
Discuss the need for and key approaches to tighter physician-hospital alignment
Apply an evidence-based best practice model to close the gap in creating sustainable physician-hospital relations
5
Physician-Hospital ImperativeSymbiotic Relationship
…we must all hang together or we shallmost assuredly all hang separately.
Benjamin Franklin
6
4
Top Issues Confronting HospitalsAnnual Survey (2014-2016)
Link between finance, safety, quality, patient satisfaction and physician-hospital relations
Issue 2016 2015 2014
Financial challenges 2.7 3.2 2.5
Governmental mandates 4.2 4.5 4.6
Patient safety and quality 4.6 4.2 4.7
Personal shortages 4.8 5.1 7.4
Patient satisfaction 5.5 5.3 5.9
Access to care 5.8 6.2 …
Physician-hospital relations 5.9 5.7 5.9
Population health management 6.6 6.3 7.8
Technology 7.1 7.3 7.3
Reorganization (e.g., mergers, acquisitions, restructuring, partnerships)
7.8 7.4 …
Note: The average rank given to each issue was used to place the issue in order of how pressing they are to hospital CEOs, with the lowestnumbers indicating the highest concerns.
Source: American College of Healthcare Executives. (2017, Jan.31). Survey: Healthcare Finance, Safety and Quality Cited by CEOs as Top Issues Confronting Hospitals in 2016.
7
Rising Cost of U.S. Health CareAfter Several Years of Slowed Growth
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
$3.2 trillion
8
5
Rising Cost of U.S. Health CarePrimary Underlying Causes
1
2
3
4
5
Increasing prevalence of chronic diseases
Costly medical technology
Increasing per capita incomes
Poorly aligned physician and hospital reimbursement structures and financial incentives
Unwarranted practice variation
Sources: Wennberg, Barnes, & Zubkoff (1982); Mark, Evans, Schur, & Guterman (1998); Goldsmith (2006); Thompson & Bishop (2007);Trybou, Gemmel, & Annemans (2011)
9
Rising Cost of U.S. Health CarePrimary Underlying Causes
1
2
3
4
5
Increasing prevalence of chronic diseases
Costly medical technology
Increasing per capita incomes
Poorly aligned physician and hospital reimbursement structures and financial incentives
Unwarranted practice variation
Sources: Wennberg, Barnes, & Zubkoff (1982); Mark, Evans, Schur, & Guterman (1998); Goldsmith (2006); Thompson & Bishop (2007);Trybou, Gemmel, & Annemans (2011)
10
6
Practice variation is oneof the greatest problems we face in controlling costs, but we believe thatit is something we can do something about.
Dwayne Davis, MDMedical Director
xG Health SolutionsGeisinger Health Care
Unwarranted VariationCan It Be Reduced?
11
It’s the Physician Culture…
“Solo practice mentality”
“Physician independence and autonomy”
“Not adhering to evidence-based guidelines”
“No fiscal accountability”
12
7
…With a Costly CatchPhysician Influence on Total Cost of Care
U.S. Population: 320 million U.S. GDP: $18 trillion
Active Physicians: 900,000 0.3% Physician Influence: $2.5 trillion 14%
Healthcare GDP
Physicians Influence
13
Physician Impact on Total CostThe Pen is the Most Expensive Piece of Medical Equipment
Clinical resource management
• Length of stay
• Diagnostic testing
• Specialty consults
Coding and documentation• Charting
• Op reports
Physician preference• Implants
• Supplies
• Capital equipment
14
8
Unwarranted VariationPhysician Attribution and Internal Best Practice
Source: Sutter, R., Waterman, B & Udwin, M. (2013).
0
0
3.1
3.8
5.4
6.2
8.6
15.7
17
20
25.3
38.6
41.2
62
64.7
77.8
93.7
Cardiac Arrhythmia
Asthma
Rehablitation
Newborn
Pneumonia
COPD
Cellulitis
Gynecology Procedures
Seizures
Metabolic Disorders
Respiratory Failure
RBC Disorders
Sepsis
Infectious Disease
Appendectomy
Circulatory Disorders
Back & Neck Procedures
• Variation attributed to physician practice patterns
Variability in risk-adjusted LOS attributed to physicians
• Driving improvement through peer-driven internal ‘best practice’
Example: Diabetes risk-adjusted LOS variance
15
Rising Cost of U.S. Health CarePrimary Underlying Causes
1
2
3
4
5
Increasing prevalence of chronic diseases
Costly medical technology
Increasing per capita incomes
Poorly aligned physician and hospital reimbursement structuresand financial incentives
Unwarranted practice variation
Sources: Wennberg, Barnes, & Zubkoff (1982); Mark, Evans, Schur, & Guterman (1998); Goldsmith (2006); Thompson & Bishop (2007); Trybou, Gemmel, & Annemans (2011)
16
9
Moving From Volume to ValueValue-Based Care: The ‘Second Curve’
• CMS moving quickly from fee-for-service volume-based reimbursement (fee for service) to value-based, linking quality and payment
• By 2018, CMS goals
‒ 90% of reimbursement tiedto quality
‒ 50% tied to alternative payment models(ACO, bundled payments)
Source: CMS (Jan. 26.2015).
Target percentage of Medicare FFS payments linked to quality and alternative payment
models in 2016 and 2018
85%
30%
90%
50%
All Medicare FFS
2016 2018
All Medicare FFS (Categories 1-4)
FFS linked to quality (Categories 2-4)
Alternative payment models (Categories 3-4)
17
Bundled Payment InitiativesUncertainty with CMS…Gaining Ground With Commercial
• Total joint mandated April 2016 in 60 markets‒ Pre-op, post-acute, complications < 30
days pre-surgery, < 90 days post-surgery
• Reimbursement cut (up to 2%)
• Forced collaboration to reduce total cost of care
• Significant investment and effort
• 2/3 total joint hospitals losing money
• Uncertain future of CMS initiative
• Commercial carriers moving ahead
Source: HealthLeaders Media. (2016, Apr. 24).
18
10
Moving Ahead with BundlesThe Way Forward
UnitedHealth Group to expand hip, knee, and spine bundled payments
Anthem Blue Cross pilots bundled payments on breast cancer treatment
Cigna’s latest creation caters to value-based providers, and plans
Aetna can’t escape fee-for-service medicine ‘fast’ enough; increasing appetite for value-based care contracts
Humana expands knee, hip, replacement bundled payment models
Value-based care here to stay, may invest in new growth
19
Does Employment Equal Alignment?Potential Downside of Physician Employment
For Physicians
• Lack of job security
• Compensation changes
• Burdensome call
• Lack of business control
• Loss of clinical autonomy
• Tyranny of non-compete clauses
For Hospitals
• Economic losses‒ Productivity
‒ Referral leakage
‒ Increased capital needs
• Political‒ Disenfranchised independents
‒ ‘Have’ and ‘have nots’
‒ Different incentives
Source: Terry, K J. (2011).
20
11
Engage, Align, Integrate or Disintegrate?Taxonomy of the Physician-Hospital Relationship
Physician-Hospital Relationship
Degree of emotional involvement in and commitment to the organization’s long-
term success
Conglomeration of previously disparate entities of a multi-
function production process (vertical or
horizontal) along the value chain
ENGAGEMENT INTEGRATIONALIGNMENT
Degree of unity of purpose and existence of mutually beneficial goals
between physicians and the hospital
21
Alignment Survey and IndexIf You Can’t Measure It, You Can’t Improve It – Drucker
0102030405060708090
100
Rulemaking CommunicatingPerformance
Supported Change Governance andLeadership
Structural Model Risk and Reward Sociological-Cultural
Top Performer Median Performer
Physician-Hospital Alignment Index Survey
Physicians are involved in establishing evidence‐based clinical practice guidelines.
Physicians are provided with actionable data to improve clinical outcomes benchmarked against internal ‘best practices’.
The organization invests in ongoing training and education for physicians to address identified opportunities for improvement.
Physician and administrative leaders share decision‐making authority across all levels of the organization.
Collaborative structures equally engage members of the ‘mixed medical staff’ (e.g., employed and independent physicians) to support achieving organizational goals.
Total physician compensation is tied to achieving organizational goals.
There is a high degree of trust and collaboration between physicians and administrators.
22
12
Alignment Survey and IndexBest Practices of Top-performing Organizations
EMREMR
Data and information
Data and information
EducationEducation
Board memberBoard
member
PHOPHO
Pay-for-performance
Pay-for-performance
TrustTrust
Standard order setStandard order set
Physician dashboardPhysician dashboard
TrainingTraining
Chief medical officer
Chief medical officer
MSOMSO
At-risk contractAt-risk
contract
Mutual respectMutual respect
Preference cards
Preference cards
One-on-one review
One-on-one review
CoachingCoaching
Medical directorMedical director
Co-management
Co-management
CollaborationCollaboration
FormularyFormulary
MentoringMentoring
Rulemaking
Communicating Performance
Supported Change
Governance and Leadership
Risk and Reward
Sociological-Cultural
StructuralModel
Advocate HealthData transparency
USF Health Business case for quality
Mayo Clinic Leadership dyad
Allina HealthAlignment partnership criteria
UVM Health NetworkValue-based incentive program
Examples Best Practices
23
Structure Drives CultureTransforming the “Physician Culture”
• Find common ground for unity of purpose and mutually beneficial goals
• Share power and control
• Create ownership and accountability
• Enable transparency of accurate and actionable data
24
13
Case Study
Children’s Hospital of The King’s Daughters
About CHKD
• Established in 1961, not-for-profit
• Virginia’s only free-standing pediatric hospital
• 206 staffed beds, 50% intensive care
• 17 primary care pediatric practices
• 30+ pediatric medical and surgical practices
• 7 ambulatory care centers
• 2 ambulatory surgery centers
• Teaching hospital – Eastern Virginia Medical School’s Department of Pediatrics
26
14
Need for Improved Collaboration
An 8 is faster than a 4 because there are more people pulling at the oars
Effort and time are required to develop strength and to coordinate strokes
27
Co-management Goals for CHKD
Improve quality, patient safety, patient experience, access, efficiency, and new programdevelopment by engaging and supporting providers as ‘co-managers’
Focus on sustainable resultsthrough continuous performance improvement
Improve transparency and accuracy of data for timely and effective decision-making
Offer fair market value compensationfor achieving pre-determined goals
28
15
Governance Structure
Steering Committee provides for oversight by key stakeholder representatives
Participating physicians and staff are assigned to an Operations team focused on 2-3 performance indicators
Quality & Patient Safety
Efficiency & Effectiveness
Experience& Access
StrategicDevelopment
Steering Committee
OPERATIONS TEAM
Meets monthly to provide oversight and support, approve indicators, and monitor overall performance
Comprised of representatives from ‘mixed’ medical staff
29
Performance Measures
• Established by Steering Committee and reviewed or confirmed by each Operations Team
• Baseline established through data collection and validation
• Re-calibrated based on validation
30
16
Co-management StructureOperations (Work) Teams
• 2-3 physicians and 3-4 hospital staff
• Rotating membership
– Initially, each physician asked to participate on at least 1 team per year
• In second year, physician participation voluntary
• Meet as required to achieve performance measure goals
• Coaching support provided, as needed
31
DAY 100
Structure of Four-Month Cycles
45-DayStructured
Review
Focus on making meaningful changes starting at kick-off
Monthly progressupdates through team leaders reporting at Steering Committee meeting
45-Day Formal Review at mid-point
CHANGES
Kick-off Summation and Kick-off
DAY 1
32
17
Rapid Change MethodologyFour-Month Cycles
Developan idea
Test theidea (RCT)
Implement,sustain, andreplicate
Focus on implementation versus analysis
Leverage current information and knowledge
Execute multiple incremental changes vs. ‘silver bullet’
Rapid Cycle Test (RCT) changes
Overcome impediments to change and increase speed to implementation
33
Pay-for PerformancePhysician Incentive Compensation Model1
(1) Compensation model subject to legal and regulatory limitations. Payment of any incentive compensation dependent upon meeting specific quality thresholds.
20-30% physician co-managers paid fixed
fair market hourly rate to perform
administrative duties
Steering Committee
Participation
Operations Team Meetings
Ad-hoc Performance Improvement
WorkPerformance Dashboard
Management
Day-to-Day OperationsOversight
70-80% distributed as performance bonus
based on achieving of pre-set indicators with
threshold targets, including stretch goals
Quality and Patient Safety
Efficiency and Effectiveness
Patient Experience and
AccessPhysician and
Staff Engagement
New Program Development
FIXED MANAGEMENT FEE
VARIABLE COMPENSATION
Separate hospital staff compensation incentive model based on composite score
34
18
Performance Measures and Results Year 1 – Cycle 1
Team Performance Measure Results
Team 1Specialty: Adherence to SSI prevention bundle, spine 90%
General: Release time compliance 81%
Team 2Specialty: Adherence to SSI prevention bundle, VP shunts 81%
General: Patient satisfaction (Waiting time before surgery began?) 84.5
Team 3Specialty: Adherence to SSI prevention bundle, cardiac 88%
General: First case on time start percentage at Main OR 76%
Team 4
Specialty: Anesthesiologist education on IV infiltrates in perioperative patients(100% = All 25 providers trained)
100%
Pathology specimen handling (reduce mislabeling errors) 12
Team 5Wound class discrepancy (Appendectomy) 21.8%
Patient satisfaction (Degree to which your pain was controlled?) 94.7
Team 6Cost per procedure: Supply/labor cost of T&A procedures $316.39
Turnover Time (ENT, Ophthalmology & Plastics) 19.8
Team 7Cost per procedure: Supply/labor cost of Orchiopexy procedures $292.95
Block Utilization – Oyster Point ASC 59%
OVERALL RESULTSStaff Cumulative % of Target Score (All Measures) 93%
Physician Cumulative % of Target Score (General Measures) 69%
35
Surgical Site Infection (SSI)Performance Improvement Example
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Aug
-15
Sep
-15
Oct
-15
No
v-15
De
c-15
Jan-
16
Feb
-16
Ma
r-16
Apr
-16
Ma
y-16
Jun-
16
Jul-
16
SS
I Pro
cess
Re
liab
ility
(Ro
llin
g 1
2 M
on
th A
vera
ge
)
SS
I Rol
ling
12 M
onth
s R
ate
SSI
SSI Rolling 12 Month SSI Process Reliability
Cycle 1
Network Avg.1.705
Cycle 2 Cycle 3
36
19
Performance Measures and ResultsYear 1 – Cycle 2
Team Domain Performance Measure Results
Team 1Outcomesand NationalMeasures
Specialty: GI quality measure development 120%
General: Pathology specimen handling (reduce mislabeled) 3
Team 2Efficiency and Effectiveness
Specialty: Supply cost of cleft procedure 28.1%
General: Employee satisfaction 120%
Team 3Patient Access and Experience
General: Patient transport time from ED and floor to OR 51
General: Accessibility for add-on cases 65%
Team 4Program Development
Specialty: 1st two case on-time start: OMFS 87%
General: Ambulatory Surgery Center Development (Peninsula) 100%
OVERALL RESULTSStaff Cumulative % of Target Score (All Measures) 88%
Physician Cumulative % of Target Score (General Measures) 68%
37
Performance Measures and Results Year 1 – Cycle 3
Team Domain Performance Measure Results
Team 1Outcomesand NationalMeasures
Specialty (Anesthesia): Reduce IV infiltrates
General: Unplanned Returns to the OR
Team 2Efficiency and Effectiveness
Specialty (Dental): Reduce rate of cancelled cases
General: Inventory and streamline surgical trays
Team 3Outcomes and National Measures
Specialty: Ophthalmology Patient Experience & Outcomesa. 120%b. 0%
General: Main OR Turnover Time Improvement
Team 4Patient Access and Experience
General: Implement Employee Engagement Plans
General: Patient Satisfaction (Wait/delays, Privacy)
OVERALL RESULTSStaff Cumulative % of Target Score (All Measures) 87%
Physician Cumulative % of Target Score (General Measures) 108%
38
20
Calculating ROI
• Hard vs. soft savings
– Value analysis process
– Imputed cost of waste
– Patient safety misses
– Enhanced operating efficiency
• Top-line growth
– Increased throughput and capacity
– Reduced referring provider “leakage”
– Patient experience
39
Annual Improvement PlanYear 2
CYCLE 1
Annual Improvement Plan
CYCLE 2 CYCLE 3
Structure Process Outcome0-4 months 4-8 months 8-12 months
1. Identify stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities
2. Gather stakeholder input to improvement opportunities
3. Collect and validate baseline data4. Define opportunity project scope5. Establish realistic goals6. Develop and implement project
Action Plan7. Measure, monitor, and manage
performance
1. Develop process maps2. Perform root cause analysis3. Verify proper metrics to gauge
success of improvements4. Develop and implement action
plans and conduct Rapid Cycle Test (RCT)
1. Monitor improvements (RCT)2. Hardwire improvements and
map to other areas
Time-Phased Four-month Cycle
Pre Kick-off Planning-30 to 0 Days
Develop Plans1-30 Days
Implement Plans31-60 Days
Monitor/Modify61-90 Days
Kick-Off (KO) 45-Day Review Summation/KO
40
21
Successes
• Teams have made measurable improvements in patient experience, workforce engagement, quality/patient safety, and efficiency
• Physicians have more ownershipof operational issues and are heavily engaged in leading projects
• Most results sustained beyond the Four-month cycle in which they were addressed; if not sustained, the Steering Committee addresses
41
Challenges
• Single four-month cycles have been too short to address some complex problems
• Some teams have year-long initiatives with results still measured each cycle
• Continue to work to synchronize the Surgery Co-management projects with broader organizational initiatives(including external collaborations)
42
22
Summary
• Culture eats strategy…
– Unwarranted variation
– Poorly aligned reimbursement models and incentives
• Right structure drives culture
– Co-management promising alignment model
• Providing ‘skin in the game’
• Bias toward action and results
• Measurable and sustainable performance improvement
43
Contact Information
RICHARD J. PRIOREScD, MHA, FACHE
ROBERT E. KELLY, JR.MD, FACS, FAAP
JOHN P. HARDINGMBA, FACHE
44
23
RICHARD J. PRIOREScD, MHA, FACHE
Dr. Richard Priore is a leading national expert on physician-hospital alignment and clinical integration and was a principal architect for the successful CMS Acute Care Episode (ACE) Demonstration project that led to the Shared Savings and Bundled Payment models. His leadership experience spans 20+ years with executive roles in integrated and academic health systems, physician-owned specialty hospitals, and large multispecialty group practices.
Rich is founder and President of Excelsior HealthCare Group focused on assessment, execution, and speed of measurable results in physician engagement, alignment, and integration. He is an Associate Professor for the University of Minnesota’s top-ranked graduate program in health administration and frequent national speaker, including the ACHE Cluster Seminar Physician Leadership Essentials. He earned a Doctorate in Health Systems Management from Tulane University and a Masters in Healthcare Administration from Baylor University.
45
ROBERT E. KELLY, JR.MD, FACS, FAAP
Dr. Robert E. Kelly, Jr. is Vice President for Surgical Affairs at Children’s Hospital of The King’s Daughters in Norfolk, Virginia, and Professor of Clinical Surgery at Eastern Virginia Medical School. Since 1994, he has introduced new surgical techniques with Dr. Donald Nuss, developer of the minimally invasive correction of chest wall deformity. He pioneered research collaborations, including development of a virtual reality simulator for teaching the Nuss procedure, leading to recognition as Adjunct Professor of Engineering at Old Dominion University. Dr. Kelly has been Program Director for CHKD’s annual pectus workshop. In 2016, as president of the Chest Wall International Group, he led that meeting in Norfolk, Virginia.
He received his medical degree from Johns Hopkins University, and trained in General Surgery Residency at Vanderbilt and Pediatric Surgery at SUNY/Buffalo. Dr. Kelly also completed a Surgical Research Fellowship at UCLA School of Medicine.
46
24
JOHN P. HARDINGMBA, FACHE
Mr. John Harding is the Chief Operating Officer for the Children’s Health System in Norfolk, Virginia, which includes the Children’s Hospital of The King’s Daughters (CHKD), the Children’s Medical Group, the Children’s Surgical Specialty Group, and other related entities. As Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Harding oversees patient care services, ancillary services, physician practice management, human resources, and facilities and support services. Prior to joining CHKD, Mr. Harding was the Vice President of Operations at Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida.
John received his Bachelor's degree in Psychology from Georgetown University and his Master's in Business Administration from Loyola University Maryland. He is a Fellow of the American College of Healthcare Executives. He was recently elected to serve as the Regent for Virginia-Central, and has served in various other ACHE volunteer leadership roles in the past.
47
Bibliography/References
• American College of Healthcare Executives. (2017, Jan.31). Survey: Healthcare Finance, Safety and Quality Cited by CEOs as Top Issues Confronting Hospitals in 2016.
• CMS (Jan. 26.2015). Better Care. Smarter Spending. Healthier People: Paying Providers for Value, Not Volume. CMS Press Release.
• Goldsmith, J. (2006). Hospitals and physicians: Not a pretty picture. Health Affairs, 26(1), w72-w75 (published online December 5, 2006, 10.1377/hlthaff.26.1.w72).
• HealthLeaders Media. (2016, Apr. 24). Majority of hospitals eyes losses in CJR.
• Mark, T. L., Evans, W. N., Schur, C. L., & Guterman, S. (1998). Hospital-physician arrangements and hospital financial performance. Medical Care, 36(1), 67-78.
• Sutter, R., Waterman, B & Udwin, M. (2013). An analytical approach to improving physician performance. Physician Executive Journal, May/June: 26-36.
• Terry, K J. (2011). Six biggest gripes of employed doctors. Medscape Business of Medicine.
• Thompson, R. C. & Bishop, J. R. (2007). Controlling costs: Opportunities for physician-hospital collaboration and ventures. SPINE, 115, S27-S32.
• Trybou, J., Gemmell, P., & Annemans, L. (2011). The ties that bind: An integrative framework of physician-hospital alignment. BMC Health Services Research, 11(36), 1-5.
• Wennberg, J. E., Benjamin A. Barnes, B. A., & Zubkoff, M. (1982). Professional uncertainty and the problem of supplier-induced demand. Social Science & Medicine, 16(7), 811–824.
48