David P. Lind Benchmark Archives | Page 2 of 4 | Heartland Health Research Institute

The Illusion of Getting ‘Bigger’

Posted on: 06.30.15 By: David P. Lind

American culture is all about the belief that “bigger is better.” Heck, just stop by the local convenience store and you will find patrons walking away from the cash register with a ‘Big Gulp’ beverage. (No wonder obese Americans now outnumber overweight Americans.)

We seem obsessed with having the biggest ‘something’ – whether it is a city, town square, tallest building, largest (and most expensive) house or maybe a huge bicycle fortress crossing the state during late July. No doubt, it can be enticing to claim something enormous.

In both the hospital and health insurance industries, the fixation on growth is being taken to a whole new level. Nowadays, growth does not necessarily occur organically, such as through offering newly-innovative products and services that provide added value to customers. As customarily assumed, growth is intended to drive down costs, increase negotiating leverage and ultimately boost profits.

Controlled, organic growth seems to be much too slow for investors and today’s conventional wisdom of doing business. Enter acquisitions and mergers of competitors.

Insurance companies are making headlines with eye-popping takeover bids. For example, UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest health carrier, with expected revenue this year of $143 billion, has made a move to acquire Aetna, the nation’s third largest health carrier. The second largest carrier, Anthem, Inc., is pursuing Cigna Corp. They just made a takeover offer of $47.5 billion – which was subsequently rejected as being too cheap. If this isn’t enough, Aetna is reportedly interested in buying Humana, the fourth-largest carrier in the country. Big is better, right? After all, lobbying does matter a great deal in healthcare.

The impact on various markets across the country will most certainly affect local competition, and because of this, such takeovers will face rigorous antitrust scrutiny by the U.S. Justice Department for anti-competitive reasons. The reality is that healthcare markets are local, so unless a larger carrier gains a larger percentage of insureds in a given market, certain markets will not be impacted.

Hospitals have also made a myriad of moves in the recent past through mergers and acquisitions. Physician practices are gobbled up in Pac-Man fashion. Hospitals are concerned that larger insurance oligopolies will gain more clout by keeping provider payments lower – yet increase prices of insurance products to purchasers – employers and individuals. It appears the new arms race is not so much about nuclear bombs, but rather, healthcare purchasing clout. The hunger to grow escalates when the other side expands – a never-ending treadmill of activity.

So what does this mean for healthcare customers like you and me? Through sleight-of-hand, carriers and providers provide the illusion that patients are the focus in this post-ACA environment. But unfortunately, due primarily to the complexities inherent in healthcare, the public continues to buy into this perpetual illusion that care will somehow get better and become less expensive because our best interests are the center of this activity. The illusion continues.

Let’s be honest, it’s about the bottom line – healthcare is in the money business.

Third parties develop websites on price information coming from aged-claims data that usually are at least two years removed from the unknown prices now being used. Patient engagement is critical within healthcare, yet, according to research conducted by Nielsen/Harris Interactive Strategic Health Perspectives, patients with chronic conditions who have significant out-of-pocket exposure are increasingly feeling disillusioned by our healthcare ‘system.’

As mentioned in previous blogs, gaining the ‘public trust’ is the fundamental business in which the health provider community should be operating. But customers who feel hopeless about their healthcare most likely will not have the trust to use transparency tools to make optimal healthcare decisions – even when more relevant tools eventually become available.

Growth by acquisition and mergers will not gain public trust. If consumerism has a chance to work in healthcare, we must allow it to work by agreeing that, when seeking non-emergency care, consumers are entitled to receive accurate cost information about their out-of-pocket exposure. This information can be provided through the collaboration of providers and carriers. If they are unwilling or unable, other third parties can fill this role. Without a doubt, the healthcare and health insurance worlds are in a full state of disruption – complacency is NOT an option for those who wish to survive.

Further, consumers must have access to quality metrics about the provider care they seek. Gaining a consensus on quality metrics will be no easy task, but it is the right course to take when rewarding those providers who perform the care we assumed we were receiving in the past.

Mergers and acquisitions may be great for owners, stockholders, corporate executives and the M&A consultants who promote such activities. But it only prolongs the REAL work that is needed for healthcare to become safe and affordable to all.

Bigger is not better. Smarter is better.

To stay abreast of employee benefits and healthcare issues, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.

Medical-Error Fatalities in Iowa? Here’s a Calculated Guess – Up to 4,300 Iowans Annually

Posted on: 04.15.15 By: David P. Lind

…Yes, an’ how many deaths will it take until he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.
Bob Dylan, Blowin’ in the Wind

In healthcare, we have oceans of data but only puddles of useful information. The data comes in various forms, typically from healthcare providers who care for us and from the insurance vendors who enroll and cover us. Without question, the data generated within our healthcare system is abundantly voluminous.

During the last year, I have spent time writing and presenting about preventable medical errors. I recently was asked by two individuals (one representing the insurance industry and the other employed within the healthcare provider community) to render a guess about specific medical error data within Iowa borders – relating to the number of patients who were lethally harmed. I assured them that I could not find anything local – only national estimates were available. With this said, national patient safety experts, such as Dr. Ashish K. Jha, Dr. Peter Pronovost, Dr. Don Berwick and Rosemary Gibson, among many others, confirm that patients harmed in our country is nothing short of a national epidemic.

In a strange way, this request was similar to the Wizard of Oz being asked to provide a heart, brain and invoke courage. But in this particular case, I was asked to unearth local data about the medical errors found in Iowa. I suspect not even the Wizard could provide this treasure trove of critical public information!

But, out of curiosity, what IF we backed into these numbers using national estimates? After all, national data on medical errors are estimations that emanate from available (but imperfect) empirical knowledge.

Yes, many types of national and local organizations are working diligently to make our healthcare delivery system safer. But until we have a true measurement on the actual prevalence of medical errors to serve as a starting point on a local and national basis, how can we possibly improve or assume progress is being made? For example, are we measuring ‘process’ rather than ‘outcomes’? Are study methods rigorously evaluating improved care in a transparent way? To legitimately improve quality outcomes, we must measure what matters most, not just what is most convenient. Easier said than done, but many times we confuse activity with progress, which only prolongs egregious results.

From information found in past studies, reports and evidence, we do know that about 25 percent of all patients are harmed in our country by medical mistakes. The Institute For Healthcare Improvement estimated 15 million medical mistakes occur in our hospitals each year. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released ‘To Err is Human,’ suggesting that perhaps as many as 98,000 Americans die in our hospitals each year as a result of preventable medical errors. In 2013, another report was published in the Journal of Patient Safety conveying that up to 440,000 Americans die in our hospitals due to these mistakes.

So which number is most accurate – 98,000 or 440,000? We simply don’t know. Dr. Lucian Leape, a physician and professor at Harvard School of Public Health and a pioneer on patient safety, was a key contributor to the IOM estimates. Dr. Leape has since acknowledged the 440,000 estimate is more likely to be accurate.

Using federal and state data from the Kaiser Family Foundation website, total hospital admissions in the U.S. during 2012 was 34.8 million. Of this, Iowa had about 340,000 total facility admissions, a number substantiated by Iowa Hospital Facts.

By calculating the death per admissions nationally, using 98,000, 440,000 and an arbitrarily-selected mid-point of 250,000 lives, we can then use each ‘conversion’ factor to determine what the estimated fatalities are for individual states based on each national estimate.*

The slide below illustrates the estimated number of medical error fatalities for Iowa and five neighboring states, using the three national estimates. When factoring the 98,000 fatalities as reported by the IOM, Iowa would have an estimated 959 lives lost annually within our hospitals due to preventable medical errors. This number is similar to the population of the city of Lansing, Iowa. If national fatalities are about 250,000 lives annually, a calculation of 2,444 patients die annually within Iowa, or about the size of the city of Kalona. Finally, the 440,000 estimate equates to about 4,300 Iowans dying annually due to hospital medical errors – roughly the size of the city of Jefferson.

Within the slide, due to the larger populations of Minnesota, Missouri and Illinois, Iowa compares favorably with lower-estimated fatalities. However, the estimated fatality numbers found in Iowa are greater than those found in the less-populated states of Nebraska and South Dakota.

If any of the guesstimates are correct in the next 10 years, Lansing becomes the size of Norwalk, Kalona the size of Marshalltown and Jefferson the size of Ankeny. Isn’t it time to start reporting, measuring and documenting ‘actual’ data and stop guessing and theorizing? Unfortunately, we live with faceless statistics when it comes to medical errors.

Bob Dylan had it right. How many more lives have to be lost before we do the right thing?

To stay abreast of employee benefits and healthcare issues, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.

*CAUTIONARY NOTE: Using the same national factor for every state assumes that outcomes from each state are equal to one another, which is a BIG assumption. Thanks largely to the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care, we do know that care-quality varies wildly in different parts of our country, state and even across town. Healthcare, like politics, is all local, but we don’t know whether using a national norm is better or worse than the Iowa ‘norm’ because fatality metrics due to medical errors within each state are elusive. Therefore, quality-adjusted care was not baked into these estimates.

Healthcare Patients Want ‘Good Value’ for the Money

Posted on: 04.08.15 By: David P. Lind

…we are now entering into a new era in healthcare that appears to alter our behaviors toward the care we are receiving…

Similar to national data, Iowa spending on healthcare and insurance premiums has risen at historically lower rates in the last three years. However, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, only three percent of Americans said health costs are “going up slower than usual,” and 52 percent said costs are “growing faster than usual.” The other 35 percent say costs are about the same.

The amount that Iowans with employer-based health insurance pay for premiums has risen 167% in the last 14 years, while Iowa weekly wages have risen about 40%* and general inflation 43 percent. As we know, our incomes are suppressed by increasing health premiums, which certainly impact take-home pay and, ultimately, our capability of making consumption trade-offs for other priorities, such as food, shelter, education and retirement savings.

In addition to the premium cost, Americans are asked to pay increasingly more of the medical care they seek, through higher deductibles, copayments and out-of-pocket maximums. With lower-relative income, finding the financial resources to pay is problematic for many employees, causing them to put off receiving care or incur more medical debt.

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, wrote that Americans with health coverage care about:

Their premium costs, or the share of premiums they pay if they have employer coverage;
Their deductibles and other forms of cost-sharing, especially when deductibles have been rising steadily;
Their drug costs;
Whether they can go to the doctor or hospital they want without having to pay more;
The hassle and red tape in healthcare and health insurance. People care about getting information to be informed about their health and make smarter insurance and healthcare decisions;
Seniors care a lot about Medicare and sometimes vote on this issue.

Most people would agree to this list.

However, Mr. Altman then mentioned that “Americans don’t care as much as experts do about improving quality and eliminating unnecessary care. In general, people think that quality is good and they want more care not less.”

Perhaps this was true in the past, but we are now entering into a new era in healthcare that appears to alter our behaviors toward the care we are receiving. One prime example is a recent study that says cost is not the most important determinant of the care we seek – it is quality. From this report, when patients are provided hospital safety score grades and cost information together, they will choose safer hospitals 97 percent of the time, REGARDLESS OF COST.

Of course, this may also depend on WHO pays…the patient or a third party.

Making sure that such report cards reflect the most relevant performance measurements will be extremely important – if not critical – to the patient. Unfortunately, we don’t have this luxury at the present time. A March article on the Johns Hopkins Medicine website reports that national rating systems on the quality and safety of hospitals are too confusing because each will stress different measures from each other – sometimes providing a wide variation of grades on the same hospital (study source: Health Affairs).

In my blog last August, I wrote that the Urology Department at Cleveland Clinic received a top score by the U.S. News & World Report, yet received the lowest possible score by Healthgrades for prostatectomy outcomes. This type of reporting will only serve to confuse the general public before seeking care.

As healthcare delivery and payment initiatives continue to morph, look for quality and safety measurements to emerge with the cost component. The convergence of reliable safety and quality information with ‘real-time’ cost information can eventually catapult the healthcare industry into the 21^st century.

Until then, many hurdles must be successfully cleared in order to achieve the desired value we all want.

To stay abreast of employee benefits and healthcare issues, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.

*2014 data from the Iowa Workforce Development is not yet available, and therefore, excluded.

Provider Incentives – From Pacifiers to Training Wheels

Posted on: 02.11.15 By: David P. Lind

Imagine boarding a plane to take a trip. Your expectations are to land safely and on time at your final destination. After all, you’ve already paid the ticket price with that particular airline.

Further imagine that AFTER you have arrived safely and on-time, your selected airline requires a bonus – or incentivized payment – from you because they performed their work to your expectations. Perhaps you provide a ‘tip’ upon arrival at the gate, or promptly receive an ‘add-on’ fee to your credit card.

What if this new type of payment approach also occurred within other industries? For example, you take your car in for routine maintenance and servicing. In this scenario, you pay the vendor not only the cost for the work but also a small incentive bonus because it was performed to your satisfaction.

Or, consider the employer who works with a benefit consultant and pays the contractual fee charged by the consultant. At the end of the contract period, the employer is invoiced a ‘bonus incentive’ because it was somehow determined that he/she received quality ‘outcomes’ throughout the contract period.

Wait! Under the aforementioned scenarios, the airline, auto-mechanic and benefits consultant are ALREADY getting paid to provide ‘presumed’ quality services to their customer. Why should these vendors be paid an incentive – don’t they have ample motivation to fulfill their promises to customers? That motivation can be in the form of repeat business, enhanced reputation, customer referrals and a host of other incentives – including business survival! Shouldn’t the inclusion of quality service be part of the ‘base’ price paid to the vendor?

Absolutely! Quality should be included, and, in most industries, it is the minimum threshold in which the vendors perform their services to the public.

But in today’s healthcare world, we are frantically searching for payment incentives to boost care-quality based on several factors that include disease management, patient satisfaction and safety, along with hospital re-admission rates. Such incentives are provided through the Medicare Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program, in addition to new payment deals arranged through private accountable care organizations around the country.

One may reasonably ask this simple question:
“Why do we need to incentivize provider behaviors to do things they SHOULD already be doing?” These incentives are touted to be ‘cost saving’ or ‘cost neutral’, but shouldn’t quality and safety already be baked into the existing bloated prices for the care we receive?

Great question!

Revenue earned by today’s health providers is largely derived from third-party payers, such as government and private insurers. Because of this, provider revenue and subsequent behaviors are insulated from the end user – you and me – who seek care. By default, you and I are merely sideline spectators watching others determine how a nice chunk of our economy will eventually become priced for the services we seek. By not having a marketplace that allows for a true transactional buyer-seller relationship, incentives to push the ‘right’ provider motivations are in-vogue.

A huge trend in this country is to replace traditional fee-for-service reimbursement with incentive-based payments that encourage higher quality care and lower costs. Medicare, due to its sheer size, is taking the lead by boldly moving half of all Medicare payments in this direction by 2018. Private payers are also following with various experimental reimbursement methods.

Understanding the true motivations and behaviors of healthcare providers is obviously important to ensure that proper incentives are given. It does, however, seem quite paradoxical that we spend so much time, effort and resources to develop new toys to either motivate or pacify one-fifth of our economy to do what they should have been doing for years.

The reimbursement process has become a perpetual cat-and-mouse game between the payers and providers. And, you can be assured that ‘innovative’ payment incentives will proliferate into the unforeseeable future. Unfortunately, as the past has proven many times, unintended consequences eventually erupt from well-intentioned incentives, resulting in rather nefarious outcomes.

Perhaps someday, this mature sector can graduate from pacifiers to training wheels?

To learn more, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.

What is Your Cultural ‘Pie?’

Posted on: 10.22.14 By: David P. Lind

Full Disclosure: This particular strawberry rhubarb pie was NOT made by Deb.

My wife, Deb, makes a scrumptious strawberry rhubarb pie. In fact, I really think she could win a blue ribbon at the Iowa State Fair with her recipe. OK, I must admit that I am just a tad bias – but it’s true!

Carefully measured sugar, flour, salt, butter and eggs are added to freshly-harvested rhubarb and strawberries. The pie crust is prepared to ensure the quality and appearance of the pie will not be compromised. How can the tartness of rhubarb and the sweetness of sugar make this pie so delectable to one’s palate? I have come to the realization that my taste buds must be suffering some sort of culinary schizophrenia – especially when a scoop of vanilla ice cream is added on top!

Using consistent ingredients, coupled with the desire to make the same tasting pie each time is a great recipe for success. Unique and positive experiences eventually result in an ongoing trust that the pie will be equally pleasing to the palate in future interactions.

What a powerful and priceless combination – creating a positive experience for the consumer and, consequently, earning their trust.

Developing and maintaining an organizational culture designed to elicit trust is similar to baking a consistently-prepared strawberry rhubarb pie. It takes the right ingredients and level of determination and commitment to use the same tried-and-true process without compromise.

The idea for this particular blog originated after I finished reading a recently published book, “Think Big, Start Small, Move Fast.” Written by three insiders from Mayo Clinic’s Center for Innovation, this excellent book is about developing and implementing a new culture of transformative innovation for not only healthcare organizations but for any organization that desires to adapt to, and possibly disrupt, the future environments and markets in which they operate.

According to former Mayo CEO Dr. Glenn Forbes, a desired culture must be imbedded into the DNA of the ENTIRE organization. “If you’ve communicated a value but you haven’t driven it into the policy, into the decision making, into the allocation of resources, and ultimately into the culture of the organization, then it’s just words.”

Of all health care organizations, one would think that Mayo could rest on their laurels and continue down the path of excellent care to their patients. After all, Mayo is all about the effective care experience for their patients. Simply put, Mayo practices that the patient comes first – at all times.

It started 150 years ago with William Worrall Mayo and his two sons, Will and Charlie. It continues today because of the consistent ingredients the organization has passed down generation-to-generation, with the same passion to serve each patient today and tomorrow. Similar to the pie, each slice is consistently processed and delivered. Each bite allows the customer to trust that the next slice will be no different.

Mayo continues to search for new ways to accentuate their tried-and-true culture so that they will be prepared to address the needs of the future. This never-ending quest serves as a great lesson for other organizations, both inside and outside of healthcare. When the public sees and feels that the organizational values are consistently customer-centric and baked within the culture of that organization, trust will inevitably endure.

So what beliefs, values and behaviors are reflected in your organization? What are the desired attitudes and behaviors that you wish to seek in the people you hire? Does your organization desire creativity, safety, collaboration or innovation?

Whatever the desired culture is for your organization, hopefully it is a positive one that permeates beyond the workplace setting and soundly resonates with the public.

Just like Deb’s strawberry rhubarb pie!

To learn more, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.

Fixing Core Issues ‘Upstream’ will help Reduce Healthcare Costs

Posted on: 10.01.14 By: David P. Lind

I’m far from being a political junkie. In fact, watching sausage being made is more gratifying than watching the legislative process in Washington D.C. – especially when it comes to health policy issues.

In late July, I attended a healthcare symposium arranged by the Iowa Association of Health Underwriters. Jesse Patton and his team did a wonderful job of mixing local with prominent national presenters. One particular speaker, Grace-Marie Turner, president of the conservative-leaning Galen Institute, gave an informative presentation and followed up with this question to the audience: “What fresh ideas and a new vision might you have for lawmakers to consider regarding healthcare reform (presumably following the 2014 and 2016 elections)?”

Grace-Marie asked an interesting question, and this one got me thinking.

Regardless of our political leanings, we can all agree that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is very complex and the long-term outcomes are uncertain. We can agree that the path we are on is unsustainable for many caustic reasons. We have little systematic health policies, just band-aid approaches that mask symptoms of gigantic problems undermining our economic (and physical) well-being.

In addition to covering more Americans, the ACA has attempted to address the ‘downstream’ activities of ‘Our Health Care River,’ basically determining who should pay and by how much. This discussion is extremely divisive because it becomes muddled by partisan philosophies so toxic that any potential progress is quickly thwarted. As a result, the common good of all U.S. citizens becomes a pawn within the political playground. We have been down this road countless times and it is extremely difficult to accomplish anything of great substance. It is so much easier to disagree than to agree. And, as a consequence, we all lose.

We have become so fixated on cost (and access) issues that we lose sight of the primary source of this cost — the healthcare we receive from those providing it.

Unfortunately, very little policy-making attention has been spent ‘upstream,’ which is the primary reason we are drowning in high healthcare costs (and insurance premiums) in the first place. Upstream problems should be a non-partisan issue. Because of this, we must agree on some fundamental issues that impact what we eventually pay downstream. So what are the core issues that will allow both political parties to find common ground and begin the change process? Here are a few…

We must:

Have complete transparency in medical costs and outcomes.
Address poor coordination of care among providers.
Identify and fix the reasons why recommended care is alarmingly low.
Remove the waste and inefficiency baked within our healthcare costs that we eventually pay “downstream.” When you factor in the loss of productivity due to medical errors, this equates to at least a trillion dollars annually – at least 40 percent of all health costs!
Develop and implement approaches to unmask and eliminate the medical mistakes that occur each year in our hospitals – which result in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. In addition, 10-to-20 fold more are seriously harmed due to medical mistakes – in just our hospitals. Eradicating simple medical mistakes from our healthcare delivery system will provide safer care while eroding medical malpractice claims.
Identify and resolve the misalignment of payment to healthcare providers. This has created perverse incentives that result in overtreatment, undertreatment, and other unintended consequences that we can no longer afford. We can all agree that fee-for-service payment measures must be replaced with sensible payment policies that promote incentives for performing the right care at all times.
Address our unhealthy lifestyles which create additional pressure on an already dysfunctional healthcare ‘system.’ I know, this is easier said than done – but it is the truth. Developing a ‘social conscience’ about living healthier is a good start.
Not allow lawmakers to be unduly influenced by lobbyists who compromise the well-being of our citizens. Washington (and state) lobbyists have perpetuated the ‘medical industrial complex’ that continues to eat up more of our gross domestic product.

Does this sound impossible to you? Perhaps, but maybe not. For heaven’s sake, we put a man on the moon 45 years ago – and we did it by using technology from the 1960’s! We just need to have the political will, and frankly, a backbone to confront the brutal facts.

There are many other core issues that might be considered, but the above list is a good beginning on finding common ground. By addressing these issues, the cost to our system will drop markedly, making the political decisions downstream more manageable, and consequently, more favorable for agreement from both sides of the aisle. In fairness, the ACA attempts to address a few of these initiatives upstream, but most health experts agree that such programs will most likely have marginal consequences to the real problems occurring upstream.

Because our spotty health outcomes do not discriminate between classes of people within our country, policymakers must ‘think more like a patient’ and engage their efforts into reforming the core topics above. After all, policymakers are patients too. Carefully-derived factual data can guide and persuade policymakers to address these core issues. But it may take a “patient-like” mentality to properly motivate elected officials to do the right thing for all citizens.

If we continue our past practices in healthcare ‘policy’, we will replicate what baseball-great Yogi Berra was credited for saying: “It’s like deja-vu, all over again.” Our nation can no longer afford to continue down this dangerous road.

To learn more, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.

Seriously…Cleveland Clinic?

Posted on: 08.20.14 By: David P. Lind

Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford – all are very prestigious universities.

Likewise, the Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins and Cleveland Clinic – are all are very prestigious medical facilities, right?

Having a stellar reputation takes years (and generations) to build, whether it’s institutions of higher learning, healthcare organizations or law firms, etc. Being ‘prestigious’ comes with many flattering adjectives like: celebrated, trusted, respected, prominent, great, important, imposing, influential, renowned, and exalted.

The Cleveland Clinic has enjoyed this elevated stature for years. But, unfortunately in healthcare, it may be easier (and cheaper) to ‘buy’ an image of quality than it is to consistently perform quality care practices day in and day out – especially when the image is protected by suppressing information from state and federal authorities regarding safety practices.

Believe it or not, Cleveland Clinic was on a “termination track” with Medicare between 2010 and 2013 (19 total months) for more than a dozen inspections that occurred due to patient complaints. Cleveland Clinic was threatened to lose its almost $1 billion annual Medicare reimbursements – quite a hit, even for a multi-billion dollar organization. After repeated Cleveland Clinic violations, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) took the unusual step to personally cite CEO Toby Cosgrove and the Cleveland Clinic Governing Board.

In June, Modern Healthcare reported that retired Air Force Col. David Antoon had accused Cleveland Clinic of withholding documents from federal authorities while the Clinic was being investigated for substituting Antoon’s authorized surgeon with a medical resident that resulted in a gross medical mistake. Mr. Antoon suffered serious disabling injuries resulting in the loss of his job as an airline pilot.

According to this article, and based on my correspondence with Mr. Antoon, the Cleveland Clinic hid important documentation from federal inspectors to avoid responsibility (and liability) for their derelict actions. If this can happen at a prestigious institution, you can be confident that it can happen anywhere.

As mentioned in previous blogs, Rosemary Gibson, senior advisor at The Hastings Center, did a splendid job of explaining in her book, “Wall of Silence,” how the ‘medical industrial complex’ in this country is conspicuously silent when it comes to medical mistakes that kill and injure millions of Americans.

U.S News & World Report recently published the ‘Best Hospitals Rankings’ and placed the Cleveland Clinic in the top position for Urology. In contrast, Healthgrades ranked Cleveland Clinic with the lowest possible score for prostatectomy outcomes; CMS data for Hospital Acquired Conditions (HACs) placed Cleveland Clinic in the bottom 7% of all hospitals with a score of 8.7 (scores ranging from 1- 10, with ten being the worst); and the independent Leapfrog Group gave the first ever “D” grade to Cleveland Clinic for patient safety. WDAF-TV (Kansas City, MO) recently reported that hospitals must pay US News to use the “Best Hospitals” logo in advertising. Many rating organizations charge hospitals to market their grades. So what can the public believe: “pay to play” advertising or independent reviews?

The Cleveland Clinic will continue to pay US News to market itself as evidence that they are a ‘prestigious’ medical organization, and yet quietly sweep the CMS action, and other independent negative reviews, under the rug.

Again, my point is simple. If this happens to the prestigious Cleveland Clinic, it can happen anywhere – and it does. Unfortunately, the Cleveland Clinic story is only the tip of the proverbial medical iceberg. The medical industry is unwilling and, quite frankly, unable to reform itself from within. Because of this reluctance, it is now time for the public to apply transparency measures. Our own lives may depend on it.

As the saying goes: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” I think this easily applies to all of us who continue to allow the medical establishment to self-regulate with secrecy – resulting in unnecessary harm to unsuspecting patients.

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

To learn more, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.

Voices on Hospitals: Cost Transparency and Keeping Cost Reasonable

Posted on: 08.13.14 By: David P. Lind

In early 2013, I developed an infographic to help ‘mask the complexity’ of our complicated healthcare ‘system.’ The infographic portrays an overview of ‘Our Health Care River’ that illustrates how upstream activity can adversely impact what happens downstream.

We all know the health insurance premiums we pay are nothing more than a derivative of healthcare costs plus administration fees. Employers have spent enormous energy, time and money, downstream trying to ‘fix’ the symptoms of major pollutants found upstream, as depicted in ‘Our Health Care River.’ Major ‘chemicals’ found upstream include a ‘Fragmented Delivery System‘ and ‘Unhealthy Lifestyles.’

Year-after-year, employers tweak their health plans to keep them affordable. They do this by increasing deductibles, out-of-pocket maximums, office and Rx copayments, employee contributions, limiting provider networks, etc. However, we can only do so much downstream because combating just the symptoms of the core problem will only prolong the annual frustrations that we all will continue to face.

Below are the final two performance indicators on hospitals as perceived by employers: ‘Cost Transparency’ and ‘Keeping Cost Reasonable.’

Indicator #11: Cost Transparency

How can patients and payers discern the ‘value of care’ delivered when cost is not commonly known at the time the procedure is being delivered? For ‘value’ to be accurately determined, providers must measure costs at the medical condition level, which requires a true understanding of all the resources used in the patient’s care.

By having this information, the cost of providing care to a patient per episode-of-care can be compared to the outcomes achieved for that particular condition. It must begin with understanding the true cost of care. The transparency of this cost to the public is crucial.

Statewide, Iowa employers rated hospitals a score of 5.8 on a 10-point scale. In other words, employers gave hospitals an un-weighted ‘D+’ on cost transparency. When segmented into five regions using size-weighted scores, three regions ‘fail’ while the southwest region (5.1 score) was a whisker away from failing. Only the northwest region was safely graded above failing, grading in at a ‘mid-D.’

Indicator #12: Keeping Cost Reasonable

Our 12th indicator – ‘Keeping Cost Reasonable’ – is a cousin to ‘Cost Transparency.’ This indicator is extremely frustrating to Iowa employers and earned the lowest grade when compared to the other 11 performance indicators. Increasing value requires either improving the outcomes without raising costs or lowering costs without compromising outcomes. From our past 15 years of research, Iowa employers have seen health insurance premiums increase by 171 percent for single coverage and 158 percent for family – clearly an unsustainable pace.

Statewide, Iowa hospitals received an abysmal score of 5.1, or a grade of ‘D-minus’ for their efforts on keeping costs reasonable. When segmented into five regions using size-weighted scores, four regions ‘fail’ while only the northwest region received a ‘mid-D’ grade. Polk County hospitals received an extremely low score of 3.4, based on 144 employers within that county.

Within their respective communities, employers must lead the discussion about healthcare ‘value’ – for one major reason: they own the problem. The path that we are all on is unsustainable AND unacceptable. Unilaterally, providers are unable to develop ‘solutions’ to the cost problem. Employers must be part of the solution by moving upstream to help find approaches to prevent the harmful ‘chemicals’ from polluting ‘Our Health Care River.’

To learn more, we invite you to download our free white paper: ‘Voices for Value: Iowa Employer Perceptions of the Iowa Healthcare Provider Community.’ This document provides a comprehensive overview on our current status and establishes a baseline in which to measure future changes made in Iowa’s healthcare system.

To be part of this important healthcare discussion, please subscribe to our blog.

Voices on Hospitals: Efficiency and Coordination of Care among Providers

Posted on: 07.30.14 By: David P. Lind

Evidence remains strong that the U.S. healthcare ‘system’ is not efficient. In fact, according to the Institute of Medicine, about one-third of the $2.6 trillion spent on healthcare in the U.S. in 2010 was identified as being wasteful and inefficient.

In healthcare, cost and quality do not correlate with one another. Some lower-cost physicians (and hospitals) can produce high-quality care, while some high-cost health providers produce low-quality care. As stated in our ‘Voices for Value’ white paper, rewarding and making transparent cost, quality and safety measures will lead to improved efficiency without adversely affecting quality.

Indicator #8: Efficiency

When assessing the efficiencies of hospitals within their communities, Iowa employers give statewide hospitals an un-weighted score of 6.5, or a grade of ‘C.’ When segmented into five regions using size-weighted scores, four regions received ‘D’ grades, while the northwest region received a ‘mid-C’ grade.

Indicator #9: Coordination of Care among Providers

If there is one performance indicator that can be very frustrating to patients, care coordination among providers might be the one most widely criticized.

According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ):
“Care coordination involves deliberately organizing patient care activities and sharing information among all of the participants concerned with a patient’s care to achieve safer and more effective care. This means that the patient’s needs and preferences are known ahead of time and communicated at the right time to the right people, and that this information is used to provide safe, appropriate, and effective care to the patient.”

Within the five Iowa regions, employers view ‘coordination of care’ efforts similar to ‘efficiency’ standards – in other words, no ringing endorsements from employers. Employers give statewide hospitals an un-weighted score of 6.4, or a grade of ‘C.’ When segmented into five regions using size-weighted scores, the northwest region scored a ‘mid-C’ while the other regions received ‘Ds.’

Interestingly, hospitals in Polk County received a failing grade (‘F’) when graded by 144 Iowa employers within that county. Needless to say, key hospitals in Polk County have plenty of room for improvement in this category.

When Iowa employers experience annual premium increases that exceed the overall inflation rate, it is reasonable to expect health outcomes delivered to be at least commensurate with the inflated premiums they pay. Achieving high value for patients must become the overarching goal of our healthcare delivery system, with value simply being defined as “the health outcomes achieved per dollar spent.”

Without question, Iowa employers do not believe they are receiving top value healthcare for what they are expected to pay.

Next week, we will review how Iowa employers graded hospitals on ‘Transparency in Medical Outcomes’ – performance indicator #10 in our “Voices on Hospital” series.

To learn more, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.

Voices on Hospitals: Ability to Engage Patients and Focus on Wellness & Health Promotion

Posted on: 07.23.14 By: David P. Lind

Statistics continue to show that patients who are actively involved in their own health and healthcare achieve better outcomes and have lower health costs than those patients who are not actively engaged.

Being able to engage patients and provide wellness offerings presents a big challenge for healthcare providers. Since engagement is really about improving understanding, communication, delivery, consumption, retention and compliance, it becomes the responsibility of – everyone involved in the individual’s well-being – the patient and his or her healthcare provider.

Indicator #6: Ability to Engage Patients

‘Ability to Engage Patients’ is our sixth performance indicator. Overall, Iowa employers give statewide hospitals an un-weighted score of 6.7, or a grade of ‘C’ when assessing their ability to engage patients. When segmented into five regions using size-weighted scores, four regions received ‘D’ grades, with the southeast region scoring lowest at 5.3. The northwest region received a ‘C’ grade, outpacing the other four regions within Iowa.

Indicator #7: Focus on Wellness & Health Promotion

A major trend within the employer community, both in Iowa and nationally, is workplace health and wellness promotion. Having a healthy and productive workforce requires a renewed focus to ensure a supportive environment for the safety, physical and mental well-being of employees and family members.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is directing hospitals to focus on getting and keeping people well or face serious financial penalties. As a result, hospitals must look to expand the continuum of care in the future, which includes developing and maintaining wellness offerings within their communities.

Similar to ‘engaging patients,’ Iowa employers have graded statewide hospitals an identical grade of ‘C’ for this seventh performance indicator. When looking at the five regions, the map below is virtually a mirror of the map above. Despite the burgeoning wellness trend in Iowa, employers feel hospitals are falling short in providing them this important resource.

Being able to engage patients to be more active in their health and offering wellness resources go hand-in-hand. These two latest performance indicators reveal that improvements are, indeed, necessary. They can help hospitals identify new opportunities to provide valuable resources to community populations.

As we continue our “Voices on Hospitals” series, next week we’ll review our ‘Efficiency’ and ‘Coordination of Care’ performance indicators.

To learn more, we invite you to subscribe to our blog.