Health care reform. Pan American Uni-Care Health Insurance Plan

Something is definitely wrong with the American health care system. Too many citizens are denied health care, and health care costs continue to rise at an uncomfortable and intolerable rate. Ensuring care for all is a paramount goal. There is no way to simultaneously cover everyone; leave the reimbursement of physicians unrestrained; ensure instantaneous access to every imaginable high-technology service; subsidize the world's costliest and least efficient health bureaucracy; and contain costs. Widespread dissatisfaction in all quarters--physicians, hospitals, third-party payers, regulators and consumers--has led to an avalanche of reform proposals. Rapidly changing social, political, and economic environments; rising fiscal pressure; and an evolving understanding of the major determinants of health have also created pressure for changes. There are some new and hopeful signs that America is facing up to the need for changes in the health care delivery system. The Pan American Uni-Care Health Plan that is described in this article may serve as a reasonable balance among these competing priorities.     

Hospital-physician relations: overcoming barriers to cooperation.

In the September-October 1986 issue of Physician Executive, we discussed the application of strategic business units (SBUs) to health care. SBUs are those corporate entities that market similar products to one or more target populations with similar characteristics. Examples of SBUs in health care are obstetrics, cardiology, orthopedics, etc. When the services within each SBU are linked together, they might resemble a vertically integrated health care system. In the case of obstetrics, a woman may have contact with physicians, a hospital, home care nurses, house-cleaning services, birthing teachers, and maternity clothing boutiques. Each of these are products/services within the SBU of obstetrics. Strategy development by SBU implies an external focus on the marketplace in terms of the specific mission of the SBU (clinical specialty). It also implies responding to the needs of consumers for whom the historical and present divisiveness between hospitals and physicians is immaterial and irrelevant. In this article, we will focus on ways to stabilize the relationship between hospitals and physicians within an SBU context in order to compete more successfully as a team in today's health care environment.     

Capitation and informatics

When physicians, hospitals, and allied health professionals bill for services they render, their information processing requirements are relatively simple, at least compared to those of capitated organizations. When payers (insurers or employers) accept financial risk for the health care services of beneficiaries, they have usually invested in claims processing, membership tracking, and, under managed care, utilization review and provider profiling systems. But payers, for the most part, have not invested in electronic collection of clinical information about beneficiaries, nor have they tended to keep all claims they have processed in electronic form for study after accounts are settled and payments disbursed. In this article, we will explore why informatics is so important to capitated organizations and why payers that have traditionally taken financial risk for insuring the health care costs of populations are also learning about the importance of informatics.     

Strategically integrating hospital/home care services for improved profitability

Because hospitals and home health agencies have been predominantly separate organizations, coordination of their efforts has not been optimized. However, with the recent proliferation of hospital-based home health agencies, opportunities to integrate these health care service delivery systems have increased. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Boynton Beach, Fla., is a 362-bed not-for-profit community hospital with a Medicare-certified home health agency organized as a department of the hospital. Until recently, the home health agency was generally perceived as a separate entity whose services were distinct from hospital services. Progress toward integration of hospital and home care services was given impetus through collaboration of the home health agency administrator and a newly appointed director of medical affairs who was given the responsibility as medical director of the home health agency. A prime responsibility of the director of medical affairs was to reduce length of stay and hospital costs through appropriate resource management.     

Primary care networks: choose your physicians wisely

As hospitals and health care systems maneuver for a position in the integrated health care delivery system, no initiative is more important than building an effective and competitive primary care network. Yet this critical initiative is fraught with potential pitfalls. In their haste to develop primary care networks, hospitals and health care systems may fail to thoroughly evaluate network participants and in turn create large, inclusive, and inefficient primary care networks that don't come close to breaking even, much less repay practice acquisition costs. In an effort to become more efficient, practitioners often find themselves in the unenviable position of "de-selecting" peers retrospectively. The author presents criteria for evaluating and selecting network physicians.     

Legal issues in accepting capitation

The effort to reduce the cost of medical, hospital, and ancillary services increasingly focuses on shifting the financial risk for the cost of these services to those who provide them. Shifting arrangements include capitation for physicians classified as "primary care" physicians; capitation arrangements that include primary and specialty services; risk shifting to medical groups, IPAs, and other physician organizations; as well as the packaging of physician and hospital services on a "full risk," "per case," or other basis. Accepting financial risk for the cost of medical and other health care services, as well as the responsibility for managing the provision of services, may very well be the only remaining opportunity for providers to maximize reimbursement and maintain administrative and clinical self-direction. However, physicians must work with managed care organizations (MCOs) through negotiation of contracts and throughout the relationship to make sure: Unnecessary financial and legal risks to the MCO and physicians are eliminated. Risks that cannot be eliminated are apportioned between the MCO and physicians. All risks are managed in a coordinated fashion between the MCO and physicians.     

The Future of Labour Relations in the Public Service

Abstract. During the last decade, labour relations in the public service have been subject to pressures for change, less direct, given their protected character, than in the private sector, but not less strong. The main factors of change are (only) in part common to those operating in private sector labour relations: economic constraints and budgetary restrictions, coupled with a general reaction toward the ‘public’ in general have put pressure on employment whose costs represent the major part of public expenditures; the need for greater productivity and efficiency has been increasing in order to reduce labour costs and (possibly) meet the growing demand for (social) services; technological innovations (office automation. computerization and the like) are spreading; the impact of the international competition has begun to be felt not only indirectly via constraints on the state budgets but directly in those sectors of public services which can be somehow ‘transportable’ across borders and hence exposed to foreign initiatives (public works, TLC, to some extent health services. All these factors are emphasized by the European unification process which has already introduced limits in the monetary and financial autonomy of the member states.     

The role of the coordinator of care

Regardless of the specific outcome of the current health reform debate in Washington, it is likely that major changes to the health care system are in the offering. These changes, many of which are already in place or imminent in some locations, will have a major impact on the evolving relationships between physicians and hospitals. Most expect that these changes will accelerate the development of integrated health care delivery systems that will compete in the marketplace for a mixture of public and private health insurance dollars. In this system of "managed competition," health care dollars will flow to those systems that can ensure the best clinical outcomes while using the least economic resources. In this scenario, competing collaborative health networks that can manage the continuum of care will be central to the health care delivery system. The economic and political ties between physicians and hospitals will become more closely linked as government and private payers of health care services foster the development of these integrated, value-based health care delivery systems.     

Competition and The Operational Performance of Hospitals: The Role of Hospital Objectives

We examine the effect of a hospital's objective (i.e., non‐profit vs. for‐profit) in hospital markets for elective care. Using game‐theoretic analysis and queueing models to capture the operational performance of hospitals, we compare the equilibrium behavior of three market settings in terms of such criteria as waiting times and patient costs from waiting and hospital payments. In the first setting, a monopoly, patients are served exclusively by a single non‐profit hospital; in the second, a homogeneous duopoly, patients are served by two competing non‐profit hospitals. In our third setting, a heterogeneous duopoly, the market is served by one non‐profit hospital and one for‐profit hospital. A non‐profit hospital provides free care to patients, although they may have to wait; for‐profit hospitals charge a fee to provide care with minimal waiting. A comparison between the monopolistic and each of the duopolistic settings reveals that the introduction of competition can hamper a hospital's ability to attain economies of scale and can also increase waiting times. Moreover, the presence of a for‐profit sector may be desirable only when the hospital market is sufficiently competitive. A comparison across the duopolistic settings indicates that the choice between homogeneous and heterogeneous competition depends on the patients' willingness to wait before receiving care and the reimbursement level of the non‐profit sector. When the public funder is not financially constrained, the presence of a for‐profit sector may allow the funder to lower both the financial costs of providing coverage and the total costs to patients. Finally, our analysis suggests that the public funder should exercise caution when using policy tools that support the for‐profit sector—for example, patient subsidies—because such tools may increase patient costs in the long run; it might be preferable to raise the non‐profit sector's level of reimbursement.     

Why will physicians in this new environment replace MHAs?

The competitive forces of managed care, capitated payment, cost constraints, and the formation of health networks are among the major precipitating factors leading to the employment of additional executives and middle managers with clinical backgrounds. These factors will require our health leaders to know how to cut costs without seriously impinging on the accessibility and quality of patient care. Physicians with leadership and management skills, and with prior hands-on patient care expertise, will continue to be sought after in the foreseeable future by various types of health organizations. With this scenario, health services management generalists are predicted to experience increasing difficulties to secure senior positions in the health industry,     

The hidden competitive weapon supporting innovation in health care

It is trite to say health care is experiencing an era of unprecedented change. However, with the preoccupation with reimbursement and economic reform, it is easy to focus on this single dimension and lose sight of the pervasiveness of the need for continuous change throughout the entire health care organization. Health care organizations that will emerge as leaders within the industry will have incorporated not only radical changes to deal with new patterns of reimbursement, but also simultaneous changes in core medical services--changes that not only incorporate new technology, but also push down costs. They will also have to cope with radical changes in information and quality systems. Physical facilities will look less like citadels, and new flexible architectures will emerge. Coping with transportation logistics and remote site service provision will be part of the new industry. Patients will become full partners in ?health,? requiring very different approaches to patient education and involvement in prevention, not simply treatment. Indeed, without belaboring the almost endless list, it is impossible to think of a single dimension of health care that will be untouched.     

Transfer of ownership: antidote to closure

In the 1990s, many hospitals will continue to be confronted with financial, regulatory, and medical staff issues that threaten their survival. Inadequate reimbursement, HCFA certification problems, and aging medical staffs are just a few examples of the many difficult issues health care institutions face today and that have contributed to the phenomenal number of failing hospitals. Failing hospitals must consider all their options, such as turnaround process, modification of service mix, change to a specialty hospital, transfer to a new owner, or closure. Selection of the most appropriate option hinges on the hospital's goals and mission, its need in the community, and its owner's and sponsor's desire or ability to continue in the health care business. This article will discuss the transfer of ownership option.     

Public hospitals: an assessment and plan for the future.

We are currently living in very difficult times for most health care providers. Even though we have always known it, the fact that resources for health care are limited is now abundantly apparent to consumers, health care providers, fiscal intermediaries, government (local, state, and federal), health care planners, and policy makers. Hospitals, especially, are being severely pressured to reduce resource consumption and costs. Conditions that are difficult for nonpublic hospitals are critical for public hospitals in general and nearly fatal for rural public hospitals. Fortunately, nonpublic hospitals are beginning to realize for the first time that their future depends, to a significant degree, on a strong and financially healthy public hospital system. If the public hospital, the hospital of last resort, closes, medically indigent patients will have to be treated in nonpublic hospitals, with the resultant medical, financial, economic, political, and social consequences. Therefore, the importance of public hospitals has to be even better recognized and appreciated and these institutions actively supported in order for the private and total health care systems to be successful.     

Major impact of HMOs still in future.

HMOs and PPOs will still have a cost-reducing impact on the health care field, but their day for maximum effectiveness will come later in the decade. Until then, hospitals have a few incentives for bringing costs under control. As long as third-party payers, particularly insurers, insist on paying for empty beds, health care will consume a disproportionate part of the Gross National Product.     

How should managed care physicians be paid?

When paying a physician for medical or surgical services, most patients expect the traditional bill or charge for that encounter or visit. While most people also pay health insurance premiums, few patients expect to prepay for their health care. But that is the foundation of most managed health care systems-prepaid medicine. PPOs, IPAs, and HMOs are typically health care providers linked together to provide services to a set population for a specific prepaid fee or "capitation" payment. Other providers contract with these managed care insurers to receive a predetermined and often "discounted" professional fee for services. These managed care organizations have already gone through a number of stages in determining how physicians are to be compensated for their services, and further changes loom on the horizon.     

Re-forming the traditional organization medical staff

The traditional, two-bylaws-model organized medical staff was created in another age (1919) to serve a simple health care system, controlled by physicians, in which the only players were patients, doctors, nurses, and small hospitals. This medical staff model does not meet the needs of the U.S. health care system of the 1990s. The purpose of this article is to provide the physician executive with a resource to use when he or she is called on to help determine what, if any, changes are needed in his or her organization to make the role of physician leaders more effective. Finding the right answer to this question is part of discovering ways to reduce health care costs without reducing the funds available to pay for direct delivery of health care services. Maintaining traditional, bureaucratic, legalistic organized medical staff activities is a very expensive game that we can no longer afford to play.     

Credentialing in managed care

Through the use of managed care techniques in recent years, the insurance industry has tried to bring the runaway costs of medical care under control. The result of this control effort is system access limitations, compared to the full choice indemnity plans of the past. This limited system access has now clearly moved HMOs and other managed care organizations into the category of "potentially liable health care entities," based on patient steerage, economic disincentives, and limited choices of the plan's participating providers and facilities. Just as hospitals have had to exercise rigorous care in the credentialing of members of their medical staffs, managed care organizations will have to ensure that the providers they use meet acceptable standards of competence.     

New challenges for medical directors

Much of the future success of managed care organizations will depend on the quality of the direction provided by medical directors. The increasing complexity of the health care industry, manifested by intense competition for patients and reduced levels of reimbursement, will necessitate that HMOs, PPOs, IPAs, and utilization review firms begin to differentiate their services according to clinical protocols and outcome measures.     

New model helps find missing link between financial and clinical health care management.

U.S. health care is missing a link between the financial managers and clinical health managers of defined patient populations. Utilization and cost management try to bridge the gap by focusing on restricted access to care or tightly managed provider reimbursement to control costs. But frequently, they do not take clinical outcomes or health status into consideration. Take a look at another method based on the science of epidemiology that brings a more balanced knowledge of the clinical world to financial managers and more financial insight to clinicians.