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 Role of Clinical and Process Quality in Achieving Patient Satisfaction in Hospitals

Managers constantly struggle with where to allocate their resources and efforts in managing the complex service delivery system called a hospital. In the broadest sense, their decisions and actions focus on two important aspects of health care—clinical or technical medical care that emphasizes “what” the patient receives and process performance that emphasizes “how” health care services are delivered to patients. Here, we investigate the role of leadership, clinical quality, and process quality on patient satisfaction. A causal model is hypothesized and evaluated using structural equation modeling for a sample of 202 U.S. hospitals. Statistical results support the idea that leadership is a good exogenous construct and that clinical and process quality are good intermediate outcomes in determining patient satisfaction. Statistical results also suggest that hospital leadership has more influence on process quality than on clinical quality, which is predominantly the doctors' domain. Other results are discussed, such as that hospital managers must be mindful of the fact that process quality is at least as important as clinical quality in predicting patient satisfaction. The article concludes by proposing areas for future research.     

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.     

A new perspective on quality

The U.S. health care sector consumes nearly 13 percent of our nation's gross national product, $800 billion annually. Our nation allocates the highest amount per capita to health care in the world. Yet many measures of health care outcomes from these expenditures are inferior to other developed nations. The American health care system costs too much, excludes too many, fails too often, contains much excessive and inappropriate care, and knows too little about the effectiveness of the things it does. The purpose of this article is to discuss current payers' perspectives on the potential for quality improvement in the U.S. health care system.     

Sustainability as the lynch pin of public policy and industry initiatives

Does managed care have a sustainable future? So far, managed care has not lived up to its promises and potential. Admittedly, the health care system prior to managed care was a non-system. But its features included committed health care professionals, caring local institutions, freedom of choice, and laws reflecting public confidence. And it was based on the assumption that needed health care services are a customary, moral, and implied legal right of U.S. citizens. In contrast, today's version of managed care is characterized by financial and legal manipulation, "choice" constricted by provider selection of physician panels, and laws reflecting lack of public trust. Managed care can survive its initial foolish years, if it heeds the voices of those urging that two priorities be reflected in public policy, legislative efforts, and business practices. One of these priorities is accountability for today's actions. The other is preserving this country's health care resources. This article explored the concept of sustainability--the need to strike a balance between seeking immediate profit and preserving available resources.     

Reducing health care costs: a case for quality

Today, it is not quality or access but cost that has become the primary motivator for change in the U.S. health care delivery system. Cost, as the driver, has created a frenzy of nationwide activity, searching, examining, and testing any and all ways that offer promise of financial health care stability. And cost, not quality or access, is the principal motivator for the ever accelerating national health care policy debate. But there is a relationship between costs and quality that has to be addressed if quality is to be maintained.     

Defining the health care product to ensure quality and manage costs

The frenzy of health care reform activity now led by the Clinton Administration's American Health Security Act of 1993 might end in the worst of all possible outcomes: a new government entitlement program financed by business and a global budget. Unbridled entitlement could drive utilization of benefits to the maximum and, with a budget cap, guarantee rationing. So far, the administration has talked about expanding access and controlling costs--not about the health care product. Given the threat that change poses for vested interests, time will undoubtedly lapse before final implementation of a new system. Unless physicians involved in health management seize the opportunity during this window of opportunity to help shape the future of health care delivery, the likelihood of preserving the U.S. health care delivery system as we know it will be dim indeed.     

Health care enters the real world.

The U.S. health care system is undergoing restructuring as a result of a complex interplay of social, political, and economic forces. Where once the medical profession had a monopoly position in the health care system, its position has been challenged by the Federal Trade Commission under the Sherman Antitrust Act. More and more, the health care field is characterized by entrepreneurialism, a concept that is at odds with the traditional tenets of the medical profession. The restructuring of health care in the U.S. has the potential to allow the entrepreneur to function to the benefit of patients, despite the fact that this is a change resisted by those providing health care services.     

25 Health care trends. What's hot,what's not,and what does the future hold

As we usher in 2003, America's health care system remains in a chaotic state. Will managed care live or die? Will quality improvement efforts pay off? Are we ready for the next bioterrorism attack? Will the shortage of physician soon rival the shortage of nurses? To help gauge where health care stands today and what the future holds, The Physician Executive asked doctors who serve on ACPE's peer review panel to list the hottest health care trends in the U.S right now. Then, we took the list to three respected health care futurists -- Leland Kaiser, PhD, Jeff Goldsmith, PhD, and Russel Coile, MBA -- and asked them for their insights on the trends. Yes, Kaiser, Goldsmith and Coile are opinionated. Yes, they're controversial. But no matter whether you agree or disagree with their views, the three health care futurists' comments could spark discussions that will help shape U.S. health care this year and beyond. The trends are presented in no particular order.     

Constitutional guarantees to health care in Spain

This analysis of the Spanish health care system is one in a series of such studies undertaken by the author, following a grid of factors that influence the delivery and financing of health care. The purpose of the national analyses is to facilitate a comparison of the United States' and other health care systems in terms of anticipated reform of the U.S. system. Analyses of the U.S. and nine other national systems are included in a book that has just been published by the College. Spain and nine additional countries will be studied in a book due for publication later this year. A final book with ten additional national analyses will appear in 1996.     

Strategic issues requiring public accountability: food for thought

Although the exact outline of U.S. health reform has become fuzzy because of political events, it seems clear that major changes in the manner in which health care is delivered and financed are under way. The initiative for the most part has been assumed by state government and by the health care field itself, as managed care becomes ever more entrenched and the health care system becomes ever more integrated. An expected outcome of these changes will be demands for greater public accountability on the part of health care providers and organizations. In this article, the author discusses some of the issues--professional compensation, documenting community service, ensuring public input into planning efforts, economic credentialing and quality of care, and managing ethics under managed competition--that will have to be addressed at the local level as these shifts take place.     

Canada Wide Standard for Particulate Matter and Ozone: Cost-Benefit Analysis Using a Life Quality Index

The adverse impacts of particulate air pollution and ground-level ozone on public health and the environment have motivated the development of Canada Wide Standards (CWS) on air quality. In cost-benefit analysis of air-quality options, valuation of reduction in mortality is a critical step as it accounts for almost 80% of the total benefits and any bias in its evaluation can significantly skew the outcome of the analysis. The overestimation of benefits is a source of concern since it has the potential of diverting valuable resources from other needs to support broader health care objectives, education, and social services that contribute to enhanced quality of life. We have developed a framework of reasoning for the assessment of risk-reduction initiatives that would support the public interest and enhance safety and quality of life. This article presents the Life Quality Index (LQI) as a tool to quantify the level of expenditure beyond which it is no longer justifiable to spend resources in the name of safety. It is shown that the LQI is a compound social indicator comprising societal wealth and longevity, and it is also equivalent to a utility function consistent with the basic principles of welfare economics and decision analysis. The LQI approach overcomes several shortcomings of the method used by the CWS Development Committee and provides guidance on the compliance costs that can be justified to meet the Standards.     

Cooperation, cost control and consumer focus are critical challenges for health care.

As we move into the 21st Century, the U.S. health care system faces tremendous challenges such as care for an aging and increasingly diverse population, escalating costs and limited resources. Government, consumers, hospitals and the insurance industry are positioning themselves for the future. Physicians need to do the same. Physicians must come to the table and assert leadership by working collaboratively with major stakeholders. Examine some steps that need to be taken to help shape the future of medicine.     

Maximizing Health Benefits and Minimizing Inequality: Incorporating Local‐Scale Data in the Design and Evaluation of Air Quality Policies

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency undertook a case study in the Detroit metropolitan area to test the viability of a new multipollutant risk‐based (MP/RB) approach to air quality management, informed by spatially resolved air quality, population, and baseline health data. The case study demonstrated that the MP/RB approach approximately doubled the human health benefits achieved by the traditional approach while increasing cost less than 20%—moving closer to the objective of Executive Order 12866 to maximize net benefits. Less well understood is how the distribution of health benefits from the MP/RB and traditional strategies affect the existing inequalities in air‐pollution‐related risks in Detroit. In this article, we identify Detroit populations that may be both most susceptible to air pollution health impacts (based on local‐scale baseline health data) and most vulnerable to air pollution (based on fine‐scale PM_2.5 air quality modeling and socioeconomic characteristics). Using these susceptible/vulnerable subpopulation profiles, we assess the relative impacts of each control strategy on risk inequality, applying the Atkinson Index (AI) to quantify health risk inequality at baseline and with either risk management approach. We find that the MP/RB approach delivers greater air quality improvements among these subpopulations while also generating substantial benefits among lower‐risk populations. Applying the AI, we confirm that the MP/RB strategy yields less PM_2.5 mortality and asthma hospitalization risk inequality than the traditional approach. We demonstrate the value of this approach to policymakers as they develop cost‐effective air quality management plans that maximize risk reduction while minimizing health inequality.     

The American health system: a contentious environment in the 21st Century

In the 21st Century, the American public and its elected officials will be unable to reach any overall consensus on our nation's health policies and priorities. With greater demands for health services and fewer fiscal resources, a more contentious environment in the health industry will ensue. As the American health system in the next 100 years continues to behave with an amalgam of competitive and regulatory approaches, it will be difficult to ensure that all Americans will receive universal access, equity, comprehensive benefits, and a high quality of care. For these reasons, the health system is predicted later on to swing away from market-driven to more state-oriented regulatory strategies as the United States attempts to blend such concepts as pluralism, regionalization of resources, and enforcing cost containment.     

National health insurance--to be or not to be

It has been pointed out by advocates of change in the U.S. health care delivery system that, with the exception of the Republic of South Africa, the United States is the only industrialized nation without a system of national health care. Rising costs and an increasing percentage of Americans without insurance and with limited access to health care services has heightened interest in the development of a mechanism for payment for health care services in this country.     

Hospitals' newest challenge: designing in quality

The job of producing high-quality products is even more difficult for health care providers than it is for those in manufacturing, where the quality movement began. As a part of the service industry, health care providers are in the position of producing products and delivering services at the moment of sale. Our task is to improve the quality of all of these simultaneous and interrelated processes. Traditionally, health care providers have made efforts to improve their products and services without realizing the impact that could be made by also improving resources, processes, and outcomes. This article is an overview of the new direction we have been taking: Retrospective review. Critical pathways. Building quality into all areas (resources, processes, products and services, and outcomes). Focused study of outcomes). We foresee a further evolution that will lead to exciting new methods for understanding and delivering high-quality care.     

The evolving role of the primary care physician

In today's climate of health care reform, the title of this article might more appropriately be "Is the Role of the Primary Care Physician Evolving or Going the Way of the Dinosaur?" According to Koop, primary care is in trouble. Whereas only 29 percent of U.S. physicians are primary care physicians, in Great Britain, 72 percent of physicians are primary care physicians and in Europe and Canada the average is 50 percent. Many U.S. primary care physicians are in the later stages of their careers and nearing retirement age. Unless the supply increases, this number will dwindle further. However, in 1992, only 14 percent of U.S. medical school graduates were headed for primary care careers. Even if the supply of primary care graduates were increased to 50 percent of the graduating medical school class, it would be well into the next century before the ratio of primary care physicians to specialists would be equal. Primary care is at a critical juncture and the next few years will decide the fate of the primary care physician. Given the state of primary care today, I believe that a fundamental look at the assumptions regarding the role of primary care physicians is in order. The current health reform movement has placed a major responsibility on primary care to solve many of the problems in health care delivery today, such as cost, utilization, and prevention. Many health care organizations are planning strategies involving primary care providers, and physician executives can play a key role in these decisions.     

A Look at State‐Level Risk Assessment in the United States: Making Decisions in the Absence of Federal Risk Values

State environmental agencies in the United States are charged with making risk management decisions that protect public health and the environment while managing limited technical, financial, and human resources. Meanwhile, the federal risk assessment community that provides risk assessment guidance to state agencies is challenged by the rapid growth of the global chemical inventory. When chemical toxicity profiles are unavailable on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System or other federal resources, each state agency must act independently to identify and select appropriate chemical risk values for application in human health risk assessment. This practice can lead to broad interstate variation in the toxicity values selected for any one chemical. Within this context, this article describes the decision‐making process and resources used by the federal government and individual U.S. states. The risk management of trichloroethylene (TCE) in the United States is presented as a case study to demonstrate the need for a collaborative approach among U.S. states toward identification and selection of chemical risk values while awaiting federal risk values to be set. The regulatory experience with TCE is contrasted with collaborative risk science models, such as the European Union's efforts in risk assessment harmonization. Finally, we introduce State Environmental Agency Risk Collaboration for Harmonization, a free online interactive tool designed to help to create a collaborative network among state agencies to provide a vehicle for efficiently sharing information and resources, and for the advancement of harmonization in risk values used among U.S. states when federal guidance is unavailable.