The changing academic health center. The death of the traditional academic physician

Organizational change is required if academic health centers (AHCs) are to survive the decreased societal commitment to them. The changes will generate significant emotional responses in the physicians employed by such institutions. This article presents an analogy between the reactions of academic physicians to the changes they are experiencing, and the stages of grief that Dr. Kübler Ross described in terminally ill patients. By placing physician responses in this context, emotional responses to organizational changes can be more easily understood and managed, allowing academic physicians to devote more energy to facing the threats to AHCs in an innovative and constructive manner.     

Practicing managed care in the academic medical center

The purpose of this article is to outline the contrasts between the traditional AMC and an organization oriented toward the delivery of population-based managed care. Academic medical centers differ from one another considerably in the extent to which they serve as quaternary care community resources, the degree to which they emphasize primary care in training and care delivery, and the amount of research undertaken. Nor is there a single organizational structure for managed care; successful managed care is practices in IPAs, multispecialty groups, PHOs, and staff-model HMOs. Nonetheless, the contrasts outlined here between AMCs and managed care organizations (MCOs) are valid in most cases.     

New market forces are special challenge to academic health centers

New market forces--insurer integration into the provider business, "mega-mergers, price and premium reductions, a scramble to create specialty carve-out networks, and the like--have emerged that are placing significant pressure on academic medical centers. All of these forces are accelerating the pace of managed care market maturation. In order to effectively compete in this new marketplace, academic health centers have substantial barriers to overcome. To do so will require the creation of a system to manage the health care of populations while minimizing system costs and maximizing quality. This will require the establishment of a unified medical center approach to markets and value management. Academic health centers will by necessity develop strategies to include strong primary care-based network affiliations in order to accomplish these tasks.     

In-house recruiters: on the inside looking out

Few smaller hospitals or managed care companies have in-house physician recruiting departments. Their low hiring volume simply doesn't support such an operation. But most health systems and large managed care organizations say they literally couldn't afford to be without an internal system for the recruitment of physician executives and other health care professionals. They also claim they can find a better candidate faster than their counterparts on the outside. A number of them explain why.     

The appointment-keeping habits of managed care patients

Among the controversies surrounding the provision of health care in a managed care environment is the belief that patients, because they have no particular allegiance to a single physician, are more casual in regard to their keeping appointments. To test this proposition, the authors conducted a study at a California independent practice association, comparing the habits of managed care patients with those of other types of patients. The findings, although based on a limited sample, suggest that managed care patients do indeed have a greater tendency to be appointment no-shows.     

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.     

A guide to evaluating managed care companies

Managed care has gradually been replacing the traditional way in which doctors and patients interact. These changes are taking place at an increasing pace, which strongly suggests there will be a dramatic trend to managed care programs. It has become imperative to understand the business of medicine beyond the traditional "business manager" tasks of setting fees, analyzing tax consequences, and balancing the check book. Providers may be hard pressed to maintain the quality of care they feel comfortable giving as the regulations of managed care exert their pressures. A rational, systematic approach to evaluate managed care firms is presented in this article. Additional criteria will have to be added as new ideas for managed care evolve. Physicians and practices must make decisions concerning the level of their participation, depending on a variety of factors, some more sensible than others.     

Purchasers and the impact of managed care on physicians

In much the same way that demands by managed care organizations are shaping the way physicians practice, health care purchasers impact how managed care organizations operate. Corporations purchase managed health care through their employee benefits programs, and understanding the language, objectives, and limitations of these purchasers is essential to grasping the forces influencing managed care organizations and the modern practice of medicine. The emergence of value-based purchasing as a strategic corporate approach to health benefits programs will dictate the forces on physicians, hospitals, and managed care organizations for years to come. These forces have already led to price reductions, health plan accreditation, employee-directed report cards, outcomes management, and organized systems of care, and they will determine the broad outlines of the emerging U.S. health care system.     

The five stages of managed care. Strategies for physicians in health care's market revolution

What are the five stages of managed care? From "Can't Spell HMO" to Managed Cooperation, each stage has predictable market events and strategic responses. At every stage, a new set of relationships evolves among the major players, including physicians and hospitals, HMOs and insurers, and employers and government. At each higher level of managed care penetration, the players restructure their relationships as they seek to control their market and their destiny.     

Preparing for managed competition

Without the demands of managed competition or economic incentives to control costs, providers have little reason to invest in systematic data analysis about their patients. Information technologies in the hands of health care managers and physician executives primarily are tools for cost control, and, if cost control is not an important issue for them, they do not learn how to do it. The rules of the game have already changed for providers where managed care dominates the medical community and will change for the entire nation under managed competition. Managed competition gives providers strong incentives to identify the costs of care and unnecessary variations in those costs, to introduce new processes of care to reduce unnecessary administrative and clinical costs, to implement practice guidelines to reduce variations in outcomes of care, and to document statistics indicating excellent quality.     

Success in managed care: improving clinical quality

What are the economic elements for success in managed care? Although they are quite simple, achieving them can be difficult. The criteria for success in the fee-for-service medical delivery system, generally characterized as "see more--do more--get more," are no longer valid for delivering care in a managed care system. This article identifies the economic elements for success in managed care, and offers a disciplined approach to achieving them, combining both actuarial and clinical expertise.     

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.     

Patient bill of rights 2001

Breaking gridlock on managed care reform, a bipartisan coalition in Congress introduced the newest version of a patient bill of rights. Unlike last year's ill-fated Norwood-Dingell bill, the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act of 2001 has strong bipartisan support; concern remains, however, on the provisions that allow patients to sue their managed care plan. The debate now focuses on the type of liability reform that Congress and the White House can agree on. If they are able to agree, a patient bill of rights may soon become law.     

Herding stats: the quality measurement dilemma

All over the country, millions of research dollars are being spent to devise an effective way of measuring quality that could be standardized in health care, and hospitals and managed care companies are experimenting with a variety of quality tools, trying to document what they now can only perceive as improvement. Experts are divided on what works best, but all applaud and embrace the efforts. In this special report, several of them discuss their views on what works, and what doesn't work, in the exploding field of health care quality measurement.     

Managed care information needs: a summary perspective

The key to survival in managed care is management of financial risk. You need to know what is in your contract and what you are obligated to do for which population during which period. Information systems can be an enormous help in managing managed care contracts and the financial risks they entail, but poorly selected and configured information systems will do little good for the organization that licenses them. The most important activity of a physician executive who is moving his or her organization into managed care contracting is to lead the process to define the functional requirements for information the organization will need to manage managed care contracts successfully.     

Partnerships in health care: creating a strong value chain

The health care climate is one of stormy relations between various entities. Employers, managed care organizations, hospitals, and physicians battle over premiums, inpatient rates, fee schedules, and percent of premium dollars. Patients are angry at health plans over problems with access, choice, and quality of care. Employers dicker with managed care organizations over prices, benefits, and access. Hospitals struggle to maintain operations, as occupancy rates decline and the shift to ambulatory care continues. Physicians strive to assure their patients get quality care while they try to maintain stable incomes. Businesses, faced with similar challenges in the competitive marketplace, have formed partnerships for mutual benefit. Successful partnerships are based upon trust and the concept of "win-win." Communication, ongoing evaluation, long-term relations, and shared values are also essential. In Japan, the keiretsu contains the elements of a bonafide partnership. Examples in U.S. businesses abound. In health care, partnerships will improve quality and access. When health care purchasers and providers link together, these partnerships create a new value chain that has patients as the focal point.     

The future of medical practice

Managed care of some kind will dominate the future of health care, but the unresolved crucial question concerns ownership of the managed care plans. An investor-owned managed care industry now holds sway, but I do not expect it to last very long. In the long run, physicians must be in charge of medical care, but they must live within budgets and be accountable to payers and to their patients. The only solution that makes sense to me is one based on multiple local physician networks, organized on a not-for-profit basis. I predict that staff and group-model HMOs will be the mainstay of the medical care delivery system within a few decades.     

Physician glut. Physicians--the next victims of "downsizing?"

Should physicians really be polishing up their CVs or preparing to enter another line of work? In a word: No. What a recent survey makes clear is that, while managed care is driving physicians from some markets, jobs are still available in other markets traditionally underserved by physicians. This is not to suggest that the physician employment market has gone unchanged. Many physicians, particularly specialists, have taken income hits, and some specialists truly are in need of work. Primary care physicians, however, have seen their stars rise and are now in a position to work wherever they want. Physicians may no longer be able to practice within 50 miles of where they were raised or where they were trained, as has been their wont. Instead, they will have to do what other professionals have long done--go where job opportunities take them. In short, they will have to add a career strategy to their scientific mindset, and that means an aggressive job search, coupled with a strong consumer orientation.     

Quality. A tightrope for the '90s

How accurately can you measure quality of care in health care? Recently, HMOs and other types of managed care organizations have been in the process of defining quality in quantitative terms. Physicians who utilize fewer resources and who care for more patients per-unit-of-time are valued as providing better care than colleagues who may work at a slower (more expensive?) pace. The pressure to evaluate or treat greater numbers of patients in shorter periods of time can produce adverse consequences. And numbers do not necessarily take into account the quality of the care delivered. There is clearly a middle road. Physicians must take care of a sufficient number of patients with a given problem to gain and maintain expertise and mastery. But they must also guard against the insidious pressure for the procedure to become the end in itself.