Friday, January 27, 2012

Patient-Centered Care: What It Means And How To Get There

Patient-Centered Care: What It Means And How To Get There



January 24th, 2012 
At a recent symposium concerning both saving money and improving patient care, Health Affairs Editor-in Chief Susan Dentzer stated, “It is well established now that one can in fact improve the quality of health care and reduce the costs at the same time.”  This is exactly the principle behind the growing movement toward patient-centered care.  Physicians practicing patient-centered care improve their patients’ clinical outcomes and satisfaction rates by improving the quality of the doctor-patient relationship, while at the same time decreasing the utilization of diagnostic testing, prescriptions, hospitalizations, and referrals.  Patient-centered practitioners focus on improving different aspects of the patient-physician interaction by employing measurable skills and behaviors. This type of care can be employed by physicians in any specialty, and it is effective across disease types.
Patient-centered care replaces our current physician centered system with one that revolves around the patient.  Effective care is generally defined by or in consultation with patients rather than by physician dependent tools or standards.  As an example, orthopedic surgeons employ the Harris Hip Score to judge the success of total hip replacements.  It was designed solely by physicians and does not even ask patients to rate their satisfaction with the procedure; it answers questions important to doctors and thought to be important to patients; however, it is unknown whether almost any physician derived tools, such as the Harris Hip Score, accurately reflect the patient experience with a hip replacement or other aspects of their medical care.
Determining What Matters To Patients
This tool, like most common measures of outcome, has never been studied to quantify how well it reflects overall patient satisfaction or outcome from the viewpoint of the patient.  I once cared for a young man who required revision of a total hip replacement due to an infection; a revision in this setting requires multiple staged procedures and results in months of repeat hospitalizations, disability, and pain.  When reviewing the previous surgeon’s records, I was surprised by the excellent result that had been scored on the Harris Hip Score. While the score seemed reasonably accurate, it, obviously, in no way correlated with the experience of this patient.  Therefore, one of the basic tenets of patient-centered care is the idea that patients know best how well their health providers are meeting their needs, and it is the patient’s view of his or her health care delivery that correlates with outcome or satisfaction.
This fundamental tenet of patient-centered care was tested by Stewart, et.al. in 2000.  Experts studied audio taped doctor-patient interactions while patients also rated these same interactions.  Expert opinion could not be correlated with positive results, but patient-perceived patient-centered care correlated with “better recovery from their discomfort and concern, better emotional health 2 months later, and fewer diagnostic tests and referrals.” This same phenomenon can be seen when studying physician empathy.  Researchers at Thomas Jefferson University developed the Jefferson Scale to test physician empathy.  Physicians rated their own empathy, and the scale could not be correlated with improvements in patient care.  However, researchers then changed it to the Jefferson Scale of Patient’s Perceptions of Physician Empathy and administered it to patients.  Suddenly, the tool was useful for predicting patient outcomes.
Therefore, the first step in understanding patient-centered care is an understanding that patients must be asked to rate or judge their health care; providers often believe that we know everything about our patients and their care, but we are simply unable to accurately assess our patients’ perceptions of their care–what is important to them, how well we are delivering care, what factors in our patient care improve outcomes.  We need to attempt to move from “what’s the matter” with our patients to “what matters” to our patients.
What Patients Want From Their Physicians: A Personal Relationship, Communication, And Empathy
The second fundamental tenet of patient-centered care concerns the relationship between health providers and their patients.  A young well-educated, insured woman recently asked for my help in treating a metastatic lesion of her femur.  Her primary malignancy was lung cancer.  During the course of treatment, she related to me that she had, early on, seen a pulmonologist for her symptoms.  He had performed pulmonary function tests, prescribed inhalers, and told her to return if her symptoms did not improve.  She never went back, and the cancer was later found by her family doctor, by which time it was metastatic.
In such situations, patient advocates tend to blame the doctor for his treatment and inability to diagnose the problem while physicians and their advocates point to the patient’s not following up despite instructions.  However, the underlying problem in this tragic example is the lack of a relationship between the patient and her doctor.  This patient never felt any personal connection with her doctor; from her point of view, the visit was an expensive waste of time, and, therefore, she did not return for further treatment.  This lack of relationship significantly influenced her health decisions in the same way it impacts all patients.
In point of fact, the relationship between a patient and his/her doctor greatly determines both treatment outcomes and a patient’s satisfaction with his/her care.  Any attempt to ignore this relationship when measuring the effects of care is necessarily artificial and results in spurious results.  Patients want apersonal relationship with their doctor, good communication and empathy.  Saultz and Lauchner have shown an association between patients who generally see the same doctor and better outcomes, better preventive care and fewer hospitalizations.  Little et.al. demonstrated that a personal relationship between patient and doctor and a feeling of partnership led to patients who were more satisfied, more enabled, and had a lower symptom burden and lower rates of referral.
The power of physician empathy has been demonstrated by Kim, et. al. By studying several hundred patients’ care, they concluded that patient-perceived physician empathy was correlated with a perception of physician expertise, trust, and information exchange, and that such empathy was associated with improved levels of patient satisfaction and compliance. Treatment by empathic and communicative physicians has also been correlated with improved outcomes such as better control of diabetes.  No new expensive oral antiglycemics or new sophisticated monitoring devices are required for this improvement; rather, it appears that when given a better relationship with their care givers, patients responded with better compliance, and, hence, better diabetes control.
Doctors not engaged in patient-centered care often order expensive tests or referrals as a poor substitute for connecting well with their patients. Several studies document higher utilization rates for diagnostic tests, hospitalizations, prescriptions, and referrals among doctors who are poor communicators.  This phenomenon has been explicitly studied in a randomized study of over 500 patients, and patient-centered care correlated with fewer hospitalizations, fewer diagnostic tests and specialty referrals, and lower overall medical costs.
In addition, Charles Vega, in his well named 2010 article, The Satisfied Patient, Overprescribed and Costly, reviews two studies that both show the power of good patient-physician communication.  The first, by Paterniti, et. al. concluded that effective communication “may be used to communicate appropriate care plans, to reduce provision of medically inappropriate services, and to preserve the physician-patient relationship.”  These researchers were looking at strategies to tell patients “no” to inappropriate medicines—a skill very useful in our era of direct-to-patient pharmaceutical marketing.  The second study by Jackson and Kroenke examined 750 patients and concluded:
But tests and prescription medications were not the most common expectations; instead, patients were more interested in information on their diagnosis and prognosis. In fact, failure of physicians to address diagnosis and prognosis was the most common cause of unmet patient expectations, and patients who received adequate information on diagnosis and prognosis experienced better symptom relief and functional outcomes.”
In point of fact, patients most want good communication, and they report reduced symptoms and better outcomes when they receive it.
Finally, Doctors practicing patient-centered care have systems in place to continually measure patient perceptions.  On-line tools are often used and questions are related to patient satisfaction and other care parameters.  Moore and Wasson, in their study, The Ideal Medical Practice Model: Improving Efficiency, Quality and the Doctor-Patient Relationship, document improved patient satisfaction and education using a simple on-line tool. It is important to remember that patient-centered care revolves around continually questioning patients to assess their needs and the effectiveness of the care they are receiving.
In summary, patient-centered care is a method of care that relies upon effective communication, empathy, and a feeling of partnership between doctor and patient to improve patient care outcomes and satisfaction, to lessen patient symptoms, and to reduce unnecessary costs.  Doctors are able to help their patients become more compliant with treatment and active in the management of their diseases.  Patients also feel more satisfied with the care that they are receiving.  This is all achieved while reducing the need for expensive prescriptions, testing, referrals, and hospitalizations.  It is a low-tech humanistic approach to medicine with the option of using high tech medicine when necessary, but not as a substitute for the fundamental bond between patient and doctor.  In many ways, it is the cure for what ails our health care system.
Obstacles To Patient-Centered Care
Unfortunately, current reimbursement and physician practice models limit the availability of patient-centered care.  First, primary care physicians are paid relatively poorly per patient encounter; certainly, their reimbursement is in no way correlated to the importance of the relationships and care they give their patients.  This usually drives private practice PCPs to increase their patient volumes, reducing the time they can spend with individual patients, and, thereby, degrading the patient experience.  Hurried and stressed physicians order tests or referrals and prescribe medicines in an attempt to appease and give the illusion of high quality care.
Second, primary care physicians who join multispecialty groups or are employed by hospitals or other entities are prized for the patients that they bring to the enterprise, rather than for the actual care that they give their patients.  Even among the best providers, the quality of actual care such doctors provide is usually secondary to the volume of patients seen and the resulting referrals they generate, lab tests they order, or sophisticated imaging studies they prescribe.  These are the criteria that organizations use to derive the financial benefit that they accrue from employing PCPs and, ultimately, these benchmarks determine primary care salaries. Again, by rewarding higher volume, this payment model incentivizes shorter, less interactive patient-physician, encounters reducing the quality of the patient experience while the institutions are, ironically, financially rewarded by the resulting higher rates of referrals, lab tests, and sophisticated imaging that result from lower quality care.
Third, entities often hire generalists to provide care for patients with goals that run contrary to patient centrism.  A good example of this phenomenon is the growing use of hospitalists.  Hospitalists have no long term relationship with the patients for whom they are caring, and they provide this care during critical times in patients’ lives.  In addition to the fragmentation which hospitalists bring to patient care,one of the reasons hospitals hire them is for the express purpose of reducing patient days per admission.  While this may be a worthy goal, and it is certainly financially beneficial to hospitals, it may or may not improve the care which patients receive, and it is antithetical to patient centrism, which puts patient concerns at its center.  It may in fact be a step not toward patient-centered care from our current physician-centered system, but instead toward a hospital- or health care system-centered approach that puts institutional needs above those of the patients for whom such systems exist.
The Potential Of Accountable Care Organizations To Promote Patient-Centered Care
One increasingly likely answer to the problem of encouraging more patient-centered care is the formation of ACOs.  While there have been, and will continue to be, growing pains in their development, ACOs, by their nature, hold the promise of encouraging patient-centered care and further developing the patient-centered care model.  For this reason alone, Medicare and other insurers should be doing everything possible to push the formation of workable ACOs, and patient advocates should be clamoring for their implementation.  After all, doesn’t every patient deserve empathic, trusted doctors with whom they feel they have a personal relationship, and who are working hard for no reason other than the care of the patient at hand?
Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post

The Independent Payment Advisory Board

DECEMBER 15, 2011

The Independent Payment Advisory Board

Starting in 2013, a new entity will have authority to curb Medicare spending if growth exceeds targets. Should it?
What's the issue?
The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a new executive-branch entity created by the Affordable Care Act, will have significant authority to curb rising Medicare spending if per beneficiary growth in that spending exceeds target growth rates.
In a process that begins in 2013, recommendations made by the 15-member board will go to Congress for rapid consideration; Congress must adopt these or enact savings of similar size in Medicare. If Congress doesn't act within a specified timetable, the secretary of health and human services (HHS) must implement the board's recommendations. The board is not allowed by law to recommend changes in premiums, benefits, eligibility, or taxes, or other changes that would result in "rationing" of care to Medicare beneficiaries.
Proponents of IPAB say that the board is a vital mechanism for controlling Medicare spending, since Congress and the executive branch have historically been unwilling or unable to make many tough decisions about controlling rising Medicare outlays. Opponents, including an array of health-sector stakeholders, argue that the law cedes too much authority to an appointed panel and that its cuts could lead to dramatic reductions in the quantity or quality of health care services. This policy brief reviews why IPAB was created and the arguments pro and con.
What's the background?
Medicare is the federal health program that provides insurance coverage for the aged and the disabled. In 2012 Medicare will cover more than 48 million Americans at a projected cost of nearly $566 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 authorized major reductions in the growth of Medicare spending. Even so, Medicare spending is expected to rise to nearly $916 billion by 2020. Without additional changes, Medicare spending is projected to increase from 3.6 percent of the nation's gross domestic product in 2010 to 5.2 percent by 2030 (Exhibit 1).
NO AGREEMENT ON REDUCTIONS: Historically, Congress has found it extremely challenging to enact policies to curtail the growth of Medicare spending. Reasons include a lack of consensus over how to reduce Medicare spending and strong political pressure from those who would be affected by cuts-beneficiaries as well as hospitals, physicians, other types of health care providers, and suppliers.
Frustrated by this gridlock, some policy makers over the years have explored other approaches that might lead to reductions in the rate of growth of Medicare spending. In the debate leading up to passage of the Affordable Care Act, much concern was expressed that expanding coverage to millions of Americans would drive up health spending in the absence of offsetting measures to rein in that spending. A number of ideas were discussed, including creation of a Federal Health Board that would have broad powers to hold spending in check within both public and private health care programs. That proposal was ultimately rejected as too extensive, however.
The proposal that did emerge from the debate, and that was enacted into law, called for creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. IPAB was designed to be a souped-up version of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an advisory body that makes recommendations to Congress about Medicare payment policies and related issues. But because MedPAC's recommendations have often been ignored, IPAB was given greater stature and more far-reaching authority, as discussed below.
What's in the law?
The Affordable Care Act specifies that IPAB will comprise 15 members appointed by the president and subject to confirmation by the Senate. For 12 of the members, the president will consult with the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate; those four individuals will thus have a role in choosing three members each. The president will then appoint three additional members and also appoint the chair. The HHS secretary and the administrators of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) will serve ex officio as nonvoting members of the board.
The 15 panel members with voting authority will be considered executive-branch officers, and the panel will be housed in the executive branch, not Congress. Members will serve up to two six-year terms and receive an annual salary at level two of the executive schedule ($165,300 in 2011).
Panel members are expected to have diverse backgrounds as physicians and other health professionals, employers, third-party payers, and representatives of consumers and the elderly. They are also expected to have recognized expertise in areas such as health finance, economics, and biomedical health services. However, panel members are prohibited from any other business or employment during the time of their service on the board. A majority of panel members cannot have been directly involved in providing or managing Medicare-related services prior to their appointment to the board.
HOW IPAB WILL WORK: The main driver of IPAB's work will be projections of future Medicare spending. Here's how the new system will work.
By April 30 of every year, beginning in 2013, the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will be required to provide a calculation known as the projected Medicare growth rate. This measure is defined as the average federal spending for Medicare Parts A, B, and D, after subtracting the premiums that are projected to be collected for those years, divided by the number of Medicare enrollees. (This per enrollee calculation will in effect assume that Medicare spending will grow as more people become eligible for the program and will focus only on how fast Medicare spending is growing for reasons other than enrollment growth.)
Next, the CMS chief actuary will calculate the target growth rate of Medicare for the same future period. For the years 2015 through 2019, the target growth rate will be the midpoint of two projected rates of inflation: first, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, known as the CPI-U, and second, the medical care expenditures category of the CPI-U, which includes changes in the prices of professional and hospital services and medical supplies. This target growth rate will be the midpoint of the projected average growth rates in these prices over five years.
For 2020 and later years, the target for Medicare spending per enrollee will be linked not to growth in prices but rather to the rate of growth of the overall economy. Specifically, the target will be the increase in the national gross domestic product plus one percentage point. In effect, then, Medicare per enrollee spending growth will be measured against a projected growth rate that is somewhat faster than overall economic growth.
If the chief actuary finds that projected Medicare growth rate will not exceed the projected annual target, IPAB will not have to issue any recommendations for savings. However, if the chief actuary finds that the growth rate will exceed the target, the actuary must determine how much Medicare spending growth should be reduced. IPAB will then have to recommend specific steps that will curb the rate of growth in Medicare spending.
The panel must submit a draft proposal to MedPAC and the Department of Health and Human Services for consultation by September 1 of the same year. A final proposal must go to Congress and the president by January 15 of the following year.
LIMITED OPTIONS: The total amount of the Medicare savings IPAB can propose, and the type of savings, are both limited by law. The total amount of these savings cannot exceed 0.5 percent of total Medicare outlays in 2015; 1 percent of outlays in 2016; 1.25 percent in 2017; and 1.5 percent in 2018 and thereafter.
IPAB cannot propose any recommendation to "ration" care; raise revenues; increase beneficiary premiums or cost sharing; restrict benefits; or alter rules for Medicare eligibility. The law directs the panel to give priority to measures that extend the solvency of the program, improve beneficiaries' access to care, and improve the health delivery system and health outcomes, among others.
IPAB can propose savings in any part of Medicare, except hospital payments in the short run. Because hospitals had already agreed to restraints on growth in their payments as part of the financing of the Affordable Care Act, they lobbied for and obtained protection from any additional hospital payment cuts proposed by IPAB until 2018.
IPAB's savings recommendations will be in the form of proposed legislation. The law sets firm deadlines for committee and Senate floor consideration of the proposal, as well as limits on the amendment process. Congress has the option of passing alternative legislation, but it must achieve the same results in terms of the magnitude of savings. If Congress does not act, the secretary of HHS is required to implement IPAB's proposals by August 15. By law, the secretary's actions cannot be reviewed or reversed by anyone else in the executive branch, or by the courts.
What's the debate?
Arguments for and against IPAB hinge on several key issues--including the degree to which decisions about saving money in Medicare are so political that they should be made outside the context of the day-to-day operations of Congress. The arguments don't necessarily correspond with divisions between the political parties, because Democrats are divided on their support for IPAB.
ARGUMENTS FOR IPAB: Proponents of IPAB say the board is needed because Congress has a record of ignoring or voting down many proposals to save money in Medicare, such as those suggested by MedPAC. Often, this is because lawmakers are lobbied hard by health-sector stakeholders resistant to any cuts. Therefore, it's appropriate to transfer authority to propose savings in Medicare to a panel outside of Congress, where decisions will be more insulated from stakeholder politics. In fact, IPAB proponents contend, the existence of IPAB may prompt members of Congress to undertake needed steps to save money on Medicare.
What's more, in the context of the Affordable Care Act, having a backstop such as IPAB is sorely needed, proponents say. The law calls for sharp slowdowns in the rate of growth of payment to hospitals and other providers, but it contains relatively few other measures that will reliably slow the growth of spending. IPAB will thus constitute an important mechanism for slowing Medicare growth if these other measures fail.
Proponents also point to appropriate limits that have been set on IPAB's powers. As noted, IPAB can't propose rationing care or making major Medicare changes that directly affect beneficiaries. Finally, proponents note that, at present, the existence of IPAB is not likely to make much difference. The Congressional Budget Office currently projects that growth in per beneficiary Medicare spending will be below target rates of growth for fiscal years 2015-21. Therefore, for that period, IPAB is not likely to have to propose additional savings in Medicare above and beyond those already in law.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST IPAB: Opponents of IPAB include many segments of the health care industry. In June 2011, for example, 270 health care and business organizations sent a letter to congressional leadership asking that the board be abolished. Clearly, many worry that any Medicare savings effectively mandated by IPAB will affect their own financial well-being.
Other objections fall along two basic lines. First, opponents argue that the existence of the board will place too much control in the hands of unelected individuals, whose recommendations will lead to actions that cannot even be reviewed by the courts.
Second, opponents say that the consequences of exacting savings from Medicare will effectively limit beneficiaries' access to care. If IPAB is forced to find savings in Medicare, they say, it will have little choice but to cut or sharply restrain the growth of payments to providers. Physicians already facing Medicare reimbursement cuts for other reasons would then encounter additional reductions. The fear is that many doctors would stop treating Medicare patients, at the very time that larger numbers of baby boomers became eligible for Medicare.
Even groups or individuals not necessarily opposed to IPAB have raised concerns about some constraints imposed by the legislation. Under the law, IPAB has to make recommendations that would achieve savings in a single year, rather than over a longer period of time. The result will be that IPAB has less leeway to propose major health care delivery system reforms that could take years to play out, because such reforms would be unlikely to produce "scoreable" one-year savings.
What's next?
Several members of Congress have proposed legislation to abolish IPAB. In the House of Representatives, a bill introduced by Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN) has attracted bipartisan support, while a similar measure introduced in the Senate by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) has gained only Republican backing. In July, two House committees held hearings to discuss eliminating IPAB, but no further action has since occurred in either chamber.
In contrast, President Barack Obama is committed to retaining IPAB and has proposed several measures to broaden its scope. In September 2011 he proposed tightening the target for Medicare spending from 2020 onward. Instead of a target growth rate equal to the rate of gross domestic product growth plus 1 percent, the target would fall to gross domestic product growth plus 0.5 percent.
The president also proposed giving IPAB the authority to consider other approaches for saving money in Medicare, such as "value-based" benefit designs, which could reduce beneficiaries' cost sharing for services deemed most effective and could raise cost sharing for other services. An additional proposal would create some enforcement mechanism, such as an automatic sequester, that could dictate Medicare savings and serve as a backstop to IPAB.
Any such changes would require congressional approval, however, and given the extent of opposition in Congress, are not likely to be enacted. By the same token, repealing IPAB would require revisiting the Affordable Care Act, which is unlikely to occur as long as Obama is president. It is not known if President Obama will recommend appointments to IPAB before the November 2012 elections. If he does, it is likely that opponents in the Senate will attempt to block their confirmation. And given that the Supreme Court has agreed to rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, IPAB's fate may well be bound up with that larger decision.
The bottom line is that, as with much that surrounds the Affordable Care Act, IPAB's fate is unclear for now. It may rise or fall with the Supreme Court decision or with the outcome of the November 2012 elections.
Resources
Ebeler, Jack, Tricia Neuman, and Juliette Cubanski, "The Independent Payment Advisory Board: A New Approach to Controlling Medicare Spending," Kaiser Family Foundation, April 2011.
Newman, David and Christopher M. Davis, "The Independent Payment Advisory Board," Congressional Research Service, November 30, 2010.
Pear, Robert, "Obama Panel to Curb Medicare Finds Foes in Both Parties,"New York Times, April 19, 2011.
About Health Policy Briefs
Written by
Jennifer Haberkorn
(Haberkorn is a staff writer for
Politico specializing in health care
reform issues.)
Editorial review by
Joseph Antos
Resident Scholar
American Enterprise Institute
Robert D. Reischauer
President
Urban Institute
Ted Agres
Senior Editor for Special Content
Health Affairs
Anne Schwartz
Deputy Editor
Health Affairs
Susan Dentzer
Editor-in-Chief
Health Affairs
Health Policy Briefs are produced under a partnership of Health Affairs and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Cite as:
"Health Policy Brief: The Independent Payment Advisory Board," Health Affairs, December 15, 2011.
Sign up for free policy briefs at:
www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs