ryerson university home - ryerson university - driving value with a patient-centred health … ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Leveraging the Culture of Performance Excellence in Ontario’s Health SystemHSPRN is an inter-organization Network funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care
High Cost Users
Driving Value with a Patient-Centred Health System
Walter P Wodchis June 20, 2013
Health Links and Beyond: The Long and Winding Road to Person-Centred Care
Acknowledgments
• Institute for Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto
• Health System Performance Research Network • Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences • The Commonwealth Fund • The Toronto Rehabilitation Research Institute, UHN
2
THE COMMONWEALTH
FUND
Collaborators
• Geoff Anderson • Peter Austin • Susan Bronskill • Ksenia Bushmeneva • Andrew Calzavara • Ximena Camacho • Eyal Cohen • Ashley Corallo • Irfan Dhalla
• David Henry • Sudeep Gill • Andrea Grunier • Astrid Guttmann • Betty Lin • Alice Newman • Milica Nitikovic • Jeff Poss
3
Overview
1. Government spending on high cost health care users.
2. Target populations for health system improvement.
3. What outcomes matter?
4. Risk for adverse outcomes: hospital and Long Term Care admissions.
5. Summative thoughts. 4
Most people are healthy throughout their lives and incur their highest costs later in life. This is borne out in higher average
costs for just about every sequential age.
*note increase at age 65 in spending attributable to ODB coverage at age 65
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000
$10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000
0 4 8 12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
Average Annual Total Health System Cost by Age & Sex Ontario 2008
Male Female
Average Annual Government Health Spending in Ontario
5
Total Annual Government Health Spending in Ontario
Total spending is a composite of both average spending for a given population (here by age) and the number of people in that group.
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
0 4 8 12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
Total Annual Health System Cost by Age Ontario 2008 ($Millions)
6
Forecasted Annual Government Health Spending in Ontario
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Tota
l Hea
lth S
pend
ing
in M
illio
ns
Age
2008 and estimated 2031 Total Annual Health System by projecting population and using 2008 spending
patterns
2008 2031 7
Implications for Sustainability
1. Most of the projected spending increase is for older persons (mostly with complex medical needs)
2. Future spending will be about 80% higher if we don’t change the way that we care for older adults (in today’s dollars)
8
Ontario High Cost Users
Using administrative databases at ICES we identified all Ontarians in 2007 with a valid health card.
We measured and summed (for all health
sectors) the total health system cost for everyone and ranked 13.7 million individual’s data in order of total health system cost.
We identified groups representing 1%, 5%, 10%
and 50% of the total population with the highest health care spending.
9
On average, health care spending is highly concentrated with the top 5% of the population (ranked by cost) accounting for 66% of expenditure
1%
34%
5%
66%
10%
79%
50%
99%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ontario Population Health Expenditure
Distribution of health expenditure for the Ontario population, by magnitude of expenditure, 2007/08
$33,335
$6,216
$3,041
$181
Threshold (2007
Dollars)
The Concentration of Healthcare Spending in Ontario
10
Update !
We fixed $7Billion from gaps in data (inpatient mental health, primary care capitation payments, ED docs, Outpatient oncology and dialysis)…
…and updated the analysis to 2010/11
• The stability of cost concentration is remarkable !
11
The Concentration of Healthcare Spending in Ontario
1%
$39,294 $40,236 $41,526
5%
$7,408 $7,721 $7,597
10%
$3,620 $3,764 $3,668
50%
$282 $300 $307
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% Ontario Population Health Expenditure 2008 Health Expenditure 2009 Health Expenditure 2010
Annual Concentration of Health Spending
34%
66%
78%
98%
Expenditure Threshold
(2008 Dollars)
Expenditure Threshold
(2009 Dollars)
Expenditure Threshold
(2010 Dollars)
12
Condi4ons among the top 1% users:
• Mostly Chronic Disease: w Heart Failure, Chronic Obstruc8ve Pulmonary Disease, Myocardial Infarc8on, General Signs and Symptoms
• Infec4on (Pneumonia & Urinary Tract) • Stroke & Hip Fracture • End of Life • Cancer
What condi8ons do they have?
13
Implications
• This is largely an actuarial exercise and clarifies the need for insurance (we don't know when or how much health care we're going to need).
• It doesn't really help us manage costs though. Managing costs requires attention to the ways in which there might be opportunities to: w better manage and coordinate physician care, w reduce or avoid unnecessary acute hospital admissions in
hospital (but not reduce necessary treatments), w avoid/delay LTC admissions.
• Interventions should be targeted to specific identifiable populations.
14
• We need to beRer manage the health of 13.2 Million Ontarians
• But we don’t need to beRer manage the health care of 13.2 Million Ontarians.
• 50% of the popula4on or 6.7 Million Ontarians used $307 or less in 2010 health care dollars, totalling 2% of all spending
We do need to beRer manage the care of complex older adults • Top 1% spenders in the popula4on is about 132,000 people • ~ 110,000 of these are aged 65+ • 5% of the popula4on aged 65+ is about 92,000 people
Implica8on for Sustainability: It’s not that many people
15
16
Target Populations for System Improvement
In order to improve patient experience and population health while containing costs it is important to define populations that can be linked to potentially effective interventions or system redesign strategies.
Among Older Adults…
17
Target Populations for System Improvement
Among Older Adults: 1. Identify the Ontario prevalence of populations that
have been included in prior care transition interventions (From acute to home).
2. We examined three different patient populations of older people at hospital discharge: patients with multiple ambulatory care sensitive conditions (MACSC), cardiac arrhythmia, and hip fracture patients.
3.
4. Examine the treatment and follow-up patterns of care for these patients.
5. Examine health system costs associated with total 1- year care for this population.
18
Target Populations for System Improvement
Acute Diagnosis Prevalence Cardiac Arrhythmia 14,976 ACSC (>1 diagnosis) 7,351 Hip Fracture 5,749
Chronic ACSC conditions include: Angina, Asthma, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Epilepsy, Heart Failure, Hypertension
Patients discharged from acute care in Ontario in 2007/08 with select diagnoses
Some Ontario Data
19
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
ACSC ARRHYTHMIA HIPFRACT
Pharma MD HC LTC CCC Rehab ED Acute care
Average 1-year costs after discharge from acute care in 2007/08 for 3 target populations: Different Trajectories
High cost population
How well do we manage care? … for the high cost population? Focus for a moment on those with 2 or more Ambulatory Care Sensitive chronic Conditions.
20
21
The Continuum of Care
Acute (ED, IP, SDS)
LTC
Rehab / CCC / Sub-acute Care
CCAC
Patient Flow
Patient Rebound
Home Care
Specialist Care
Primary Care
Pharmacy
Patients see different providers
22
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Perc
ent
of P
atie
nts
Number of Different Providers
Percent of (2+) ACSC by Number of Different Providers in One Year
Some patients have many encounters
23
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1-4
10-1
4 20
-24
30-3
4 40
-44
50-5
4 60
-64
70-7
4 80
-84
90-9
4 10
0-10
4 11
0-11
4 12
0-12
4 13
0-13
4 14
0-14
4 15
0-15
4 16
0-16
4 17
0-17
4 18
1-18
5 18
5-18
9 19
5-19
9 20
5-20
9 21
5-22
0 22
0-22
4 23
0-23
4 24
0-24
4 25
0-25
4 26
0-26
4 23
0-23
4 28
0-28
4
'300
+
Num
ber
of P
atie
nts
Number of Visits/Encounters with different healthcare providers in 1 year
Number of visits among (2+) ACSC patients
Burden is High, Care is Sub-Optimal
• Seniors with three or more reported chronic conditions account for 40% of reported health care use among seniors
• Gaps exist in preventive and collaborative care for seniors
• Though most seniors have access to PHC: w fewer than half (48%) reported talking at least
some of the time to a health professional about their treatment goals.
• Source: Canadian Institute for Health Information: Seniors and the Health Care System: What Is the Impact of Multiple Chronic Conditions? July 2001. Based on data from the Statistics Canada Canadian Survey of Experiences With Primary Health Care, 2008. Canadian Institute for Health Information
24
What Outcome Measures Matter?
Independence (76%)
Pain Relief (46%)
Symptom Relief (32%)
Staying Alive (11%)
Independence (66%)
Pain Relief (31%)
Pain Relief (7%)
Independence (57%)
Symptom Relief (39%)
Symptom Relief (6%)
Independence (66%)
Staying Alive (19%)
25 Fried TR, MD; Tinetti ME, Iannone L, O’Leary JR, Towle V, Van Ness PH, Health Outcome Prioritization as a Tool for Decision Making Among Older Persons With Multiple Chronic Conditions Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(20):1854-1856
26
What to do ?
• Many good intervention ideas
• How to identify “service package” for different clients
• Targeting may be key: w Who is at risk for what outcome ? w What is the best intervention to avoid that outcome ?
• For example: We have found important differences in risk of acute readmission (medical) and LTC placement (functional)
Risk: Acute Care versus LTC
27
70ICESHealth System Use by Frail Ontario Seniors: CHAPTER 5 / Medically Complex Home Care Clients
Medically Complex Home Care ClientsProfiling risk following acute care hospitalization
Lead Authors Walter P. Wodchis Ximena Camacho
Contributors Susan E. Bronskill Andrea Gruneir
INTRODUCTION Advancing age is often associated with
an increase in chronic conditions and sometimes a decline in cognitive functioning (as shown throughout this report). In turn, both developments are met with more trips to the doctor, more visits to the emergency department, more prescribed medications and more hospital admissions.1 Among Canadians identified with chronic conditions, nearly half of those aged 65–79 and almost 60% of those 80 and older reported having at least two high-prevalence or high-impact health conditions.2 Treating multiple chronic conditions often means that older people must seek the services of different health care providers, with treatment itself often challenged by inadequate service coordination and continuity of care. Appropriately targeting services to reach those with complex, continuous and considerable care needs may play an important role in optimizing their health trajectory and in easing the total care burden on and costs to the health system.
As the population ages, older people are increasingly being admitted to and discharged from hospital ‘quicker and sicker.’ When transitioning from hospital to home, older people typically require community-based follow-up care from primary care, pharmacy
and home care services to help stabilize their medical condition and ensure that the resources are in place that will enable them to remain in the community. Yet gaps in care and poor communication between service providers during transitions remain a concern. Uncoordinated transitions are associated with preventable complications, medication errors and inappropriate or insufficient follow-up care.3 Common and costly consequences of poor care transitions include the needless duplication of tests and services, re-hospitalization, admission to long-term care (LTC) and even death—outcomes which studies suggest can be improved by designating a specific health care provider to be responsible for individuals during care transitions and by providing individuals with comprehensive outpatient or community care.4
Efforts to improve care transitions and contain the associated system costs require an understanding of the complexity and frequency of these transitions, allowing those who are at heightened risk of adverse outcomes to experience transitions that are client-centred, comprehensive and evidence-informed.5 There are many examples of the types of interventions and care that individuals need as they transition from acute hospitalization to home care. However, new care models are
Methods – Study Popula8on
• Long-‐stay home care clients with RAI-‐HC assessments admiLed to acute care in 2007/08 with condi4ons that were iden4fied in past trials of care transi4on interven4ons: Acute Diagnoses: w 2 or more chronic ACSC diagnoses (angina, heart failure,
hypertension, asthma, COPD, diabetes, grand mal or epilep4c convulsions, pulmonary edema)
w Or any one of: Cardiac arrhythmias, stroke, hip fracture, spinal stenosis, deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism, peripheral vascular disease.
28
Methods – Measures/Analysis
• We compared acute care readmission rates at 30 and 90 days and compared LTC admission rates at 365 days according to risk: w LACE (medical care-‐driven risk score for readmission or
death within 30 days) w MAPLe (func4onally driven risk score for admission to LTC within 365
days)
29
30 MAPLe Measures Function; LACE measures medical complexity
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
LACE Low LACE
High LACE Low LACE
High MAPLe Low MAPLe High
Complex Adults Discharged from Acute care in 2007/08 :
Disease Predicts Acute; Function for LTC
LTC 365 admit rate 30 day readmit rate 90 day readmit rate
Risk: Acute Care versus LTC
Implications
• Acute care admissions were predicted primarily by diagnostic and utilization information
• Long term care admissions were predicted primarily by functional impairment information
• There was little or no overlap or additional contribution of functional or diagnostic information for the alternative outcome.
• Targeting services to those who may benefit the most is important to increase value in the health system.
31
We need to know more about opportunity for improvements
• There needs to be an appreciation that there are different types of issues presenting within the
‘High Cost Users’ including for example: w Multiple Chronic Conditions w Mental Illness w End of Life/Palliative w Complex Children
• These different populations require different responses on the part of policy and providers.
32
33
High Cost Users: Children, Adults and Senior Populations
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$50,000
$55,000
$60,000
1 4 7 10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
43
46
49
52
55
58
61
64
67
70
73
76
79
82
85
88
91
94
97
100
Ann
ual H
ealt
h Sy
stem
Cos
t
Age
Average Annual Health System Cost Population and HSPRN Cohorts Ontario 2007-08
Older Adults
Mental Health
Pediatrics
Avg cost per person in Ontario
34
Patient-centered strategies
Acute (ED, IP, SDS) CCAC
Home Care Specialist
Care
Primary Care
Pharmacy Shared Patient-Centered Care Plan
Community Support Services
35
Measurement that follows patients
Acute (ED, IP, SDS)
LTC
Rehab / CCC / Sub-acute Care
CCAC
Patient Flow
Patient Rebound
Home Care
Specialist Care
Primary Care
Pharmacy
Summative Comments
• Health system spending is highly concentrated among a few.
• These are generally individuals with many health concerns and who currently have many encounters/visits with the health system and many different providers.
• Care for these individuals is complex, most have multiple conditions and a series of uncoordinated disease management programs are not going to be very helpful.
36
Summative Comments
• We need to learn from positive deviance (not deviants). Some high risk populations have very good outcomes – how did that happen?
• All providers need to work differently to ensure continuity of information, relationships and coordinated care management with other health system providers.
37
38
What to do ?
• Many good intervention ideas
• How to identify “service package” for different clients
• Targeting may be key: w Who is at risk for what outcome ? w What is the best intervention to avoid that
outcome ?
39
Patient-centered strategies
Acute (ED, IP, SDS) CCAC
Home Care Specialist
Care
Primary Care
Pharmacy Shared Patient-Centered Care Plan
Community Support Services
• It’s about popula4on-‐based health
And... • it’s about person-‐centered health care for (par4cular) popula4ons
What’s it all about ?
40