The coming alliance revolution in health care

Like it or not, the health care profession is being "shifted" into a revolutionary new world. The question is not will it change but rather how will it change? Who will determine its fate? What form will these changes take? What are the best alternatives for physicians, institutions, health care workers, insurers, employers, and, most importantly, patients? Some of the changes will come from government mandate, others from market forces. To understand what the future might bring, we should look at both the driving forces behind the changes and how other industries have responded to similar forces. An important consideration for health care professionals will be how, if at all, the concepts of collaboration and cooperation that are inherent in networking and alliances will guide their planning.     

The future of American health care in the "post-reform" era

"As the debate over health care reform rages in Washington, the market is reforming itself. For any given market, it's a question of 'How soon will it hit?', not 'Will it hit?'" Health care reform and market restructuring are ushering in a new era of integrated health care. Although the future is not fully clear, there are at least three competing models for the creation of regional and statewide health systems that will integrate the financing and delivery of services to large enrolled populations of consumers: Payer-driven networks. Provider-sponsored systems. Partnership models. Whatever the future scenario, physician executives will play a larger, more dominant role. Research on integrated health systems has identified three critical success factors for future success: physician-hospital integration, clinical integration and information integration. For managed care to be successful, there must be clinical leadership. The essence of managing care is clinical efficiency, based on "critical-path" treatment protocols and real-time patient care management, supported by integrated information systems.     

The coming globalization of health care

In Phase One of the global economy, international marketing of goods was paramount. In Phase Two, the marketing of services is becoming an increasingly important force. And one of the industries best positioned to profit from the globalization of services is U.S. health care. For years, a small number of providers with international reputations has catered to foreign patients. But the competition for this potentially lucrative market is on the verge of exploding. It's been estimated that the number of foreign patients visiting the U.S. for health care will quadruple in the next few years. How is this new global phenomenon unfolding, who are the potential players in the market, and what obstacles and opportunities exist? Is it so preposterous to imagine Egyptians undergoing heart bypasses in Boston? The fact is, it's already starting to happen.     

Self-directed health plans: alternatives to managed care enabled by new technologies

Few people believed the Internet would have much impact on the delivery of health care services. However, combined with technological advances in how computer systems are structured and implemented and knowing what doesn't work in managed care from bitter experience, the Internet is being used to create a new paradigm of alternative health insurance products. These products hold the potential to change for the better the face of health care as we know it. Self-directed health plans will be less expensive than managed care programs and offer greater predictability in health care spending. For health care providers, SDHPs' reliance upon episode allowances will create a new market for packaged or bundled services. Providers will be paid to provide solutions, not just treatment. This could represent a new model in which physicians accept a risk-adjusted payment and provide a warranty that they will do whatever necessary until the patient has reached the reasonably expected health status. This is a radical departure from the fee-for-service or capitation system.     

Strategic positioning. Part 1: The sources of value under managed care

Part 1 of this series organizes and discusses the sources of value against a background of an evolving managed care market. Part 2 will present, in more detail, the marketing and financial challenges to organizational positioning and performance across the four stages of managed care. What are the basic principles or tenets of value and how do they apply to the health care industry? Why is strategic positioning so important to health care organizations struggling in a managed care environment and what are the sources of value? Service motivated employees and the systems that educate them represent a stronger competitive advantage than having assets and technology that are available to anyone. As the health care marketplace evolves, organizations must develop a strategic position that will provide such value and for which the customer will be willing to pay.     

Leading in a chaotic health care environment

How can physician executives be effective leaders during a time of such upheaval in health care? How does anyone lead in a confusing environment where planning seems impossible? Is effective leadership even possible when no one seems to understand what is going on? These important questions are addressed in this article. Health care is a confusing field. But it still needs effective leadership. Even though nobody really knows what is going on, physician leaders can play a beneficial role by encouraging everyone they work with to experiment and innovate with ways to make health care work better for patients. Physician executives can insist on accountability and on implementing what really works in their given context, rather than what the latest theory states should work.     

The foundation for future health care.

In the March-April issue of Physician Executive, Thomas Ainsworth, MD, provided his view of the current status of health promotion within the health care delivery system. The potential, he wrote, is far greater than the realization to date, and physicians can have a significant role in the development of health promotion programs. In this article, the theory is posited that the prime factor in the failure of health promotion to achieve a more significant position in the health care field is inertia. The forces for the status quo have simply been too great to be overcome. However, consumers, providers, and payers are almost certain to be involved in a health promotion strategy that will revolutionize the health care industry.     

The consumer and provider: pillars of the new health care system

Managed care has suffered a public backlash, with complaints increasing across the nation from unhappy patients. The physician community despises the current system and is wrestling for control of clinical decision-making. A health care system that is disliked by the public and is despised by the physician community can never succeed. No health care system or reform is possible without willing or even enthusiastic physician participation because only they can control costs, quality of care, and consumer satisfaction. A successful health care system recognizes that only providers can control quality of care and costs--and will create appropriate incentives that allow physicians to do so without losing the public's trust. The author advocates a new system, where consumers choose provider organizations based on disease expertise and purchase insurance through Internet accessible brokers. Provider organizations assume economic risk and have the detailed know-how to treat a specific disease spectrum better and cheaper. Consumers purchase this new "product" in a competitive market and are the principal benefactors of this market-driven, unmanaged care system.     

From managing access to managing care: the impact of primary care on health care delivery organizations.

Professional "revenge of the nerds" is currently taking place, as managed care evolves generalist physicians into new professional prominence. Primary care physicians are finding themselves at the center of health care market reform as health plans, insurers, and other financing organizations turn to them as the key to cost control. In short supply, they are prospering financially from the demand. As the source of patients, they are gaining in prestige from specialists and hospitals who once demeaned them. But these newfound roles are only the initial steps in the transformation of the primary care practitioner. The change that the generalists are experiencing is essentially managing access to care, not truly managing care itself. There are large and crucial differences between managing access to care and actually managing care. These differences are, in many ways, a higher calling for primary care practitioners as they refocus attention on patient outcomes, which will in itself result in a lower resource utilization above and beyond the crude controlling of access. What those differences are, what new roles they require, and what impact they will have on organizations that either house or contract with primary care physicians will be the focus of this article.     

Strategic positioning. Part 2: Positioning challenges in an evolving health care marketplace

Why is strategic positioning so important to health care organizations struggling in a managed care environment and what are the sources of value? In Part 1 of this article, entitled "The Sources of Value under Managed Care," the authors presented four sources of value relative to the evolution of the market from fee-for-service to managed care. These value sources are: (1) assets, (2) price/performance, (3) distribution, and, ultimately, (4) capabilities and brand equity. In this article, the authors further elaborate on the sources of value as the market moves beyond the historical fee-for-service position to a managed care marketplace. Part 2 presents the marketing and financial challenges to organizational positioning and performance across the four stages of managed care.     

The health care system should produce health

Reform of the U.S. health care system along the lines to be proposed by the Clinton Administration will not be an easy task, and it will not be accomplished quickly. A fundamental objective of the changes should be a health system whose purpose is improvement in the health of U.S. citizens, and not just the provision of services to all. This column is jointly edited by Kevin M. Fickenscher, MD, and David A. Kindig, MD, PhD, chair and member, respectively, of the College's Forum on National Health Policy. Dr. Fickenscher is participating in various advisory capacities on health care in the Clinton Administration, and Dr. Kindig is Senior Advisor to HHS Secretary Donna Shalala.     

Reporting quality of health care to the board

The reporting of quality of health care to the governing board has long been an enigma. Now we are in the midst of a revolution in health care, as we shift our focus from solely the clinical performance of individuals to a broader scope of assessing and improving all activities around patient services and patient care--i.e., management outcomes integrated with clinical outcomes to help identify opportunities to improve patient care. In addition, apprised of corporate liability for the quality of care provided in health care organizations, governing boards are raising questions and demanding more information. To maintain this high degree of interest in quality of health care, information should be restricted to what the board needs to know. This article will be confined to the hospital's organizationwide quality system of monitoring and evaluating. While medical staff credentialing and privileging are also board responsibilities and quality management activities should be used in the privileging and credentialing process, they will not be addressed in this article.     

Health care futures, Part 1. The emergence of the new health care consumer. Panel discussion

In Part 1 of this second annual panel discussion, six experts examine the new health care consumer. The whole concept of the patient as consumer still makes people uneasy when it's applied to health care. Whether you prefer consumer, customer, purchaser, end-user, ultimate buyer, or beneficiary, one thing's for sure: Many of us are as different from the bygone patient as an HMO is from the general practitioner who made house calls. One of the reasons for many Americans' new interest, knowledge, attitudes, and expectations about health and health care is the Internet, the second topic in this discussion. In Part 2, physician executives from the three leading physician practice management companies (PPMCs) join Jeff Goldsmith, Barbara LeTourneau, and Uwe Reinhardt for a spirited exchange about this burgeoning new industry in the American health care sector. They will tackle questions such as: Are PPMCs delivering what they promise? What will separate successful PPMCs from the rest? Can PPMCs meet Wall Street's earnings expectations and also help physicians deliver better care? When PPMCs win, who loses? And, what roles will physician executives play in PPMCs?     

The high point of efforts to improve access to health care by "documentation"

The set of articles of which this article is a part has documented the tension between the advocates and the opponents of government intervention in the American health care system. This article will focus on a chapter of American health care history that is almost forgotten and has still never been told in its entirety. The story of the Committee on the Costs of Medical Care (CCMC), which existed from 1927 to 1933, represents the apogee of the factual approach effort to changing health care delivery in America.     

The health care system has an eating disorder

The health care system crisis has been proclaimed and analyzed so much by economists, policy analysts, politicians, business executives, and journalists that the key statistics and phrases are becoming as familiar as the lyrics of a popular song-14 percent of the GNP goes to health care, 37 million Americans lack health insurance, too many specialists and not enough primary care physicians, etc. What I have not found is a comprehensive assessment of how the health care system got so sick. The different social science specialists focus on their respective symptoms or organs, but do not propose therapies to treat the entire organism. Ilya Prigogine's Theory of Dissipative Structures (now old hat since he won the Nobel Prize in 1977) demonstrated that self-organizing systems, be they health care systems or individual patients, respond in similar ways to the demands of illness and growth. Therefore, a clinical correlation for the health care system may have more than poetic appeal. I would like to offer the following clinical analogy for what ails our health care system.     

The consumer choice model: a humane reconstruction of the U.S. health care system

"Consumer choice," "defined contribution health programs," "voucher systems," and "health marts" are variations on a theme: employees buying their own health care. This new approach to health care purchasing, which is designed to minimize the role of employers, is being proposed by an array of economists and by both Republican and Democratic legislators as the best way to address the nation's health care ills. Although enabling national legislation is unlikely to pass soon, the debate will nevertheless change the face of health care in America. The prospect is reminiscent of the debate over "Clinton Care" in 1993--although legislation was never passed, managed care rapidly came to dominate the U.S. health care system. As this reform takes hold, beneficiaries will make their own health plan selections but will have more responsibility and may bear more cost. Providers will have to adapt to new, customer-driven requirements for performance, accountability, and communications but will also find opportunities in a marketplace that they will have a major role in shaping. Physicians, health plans, and insurers should understand how these proposals will transform their role in health care.     

The impact of health care reform on group practice

Just two years ago, it would have been very difficult to imagine that reform of the health care system would today be a national domestic priority and that Congress would be considering one of the most significant and far-reaching pieces of legislation in the past 50 years. The issue is still in doubt, but it seems clear that, in this session of Congress or the next, legislation of far-reaching consequences will likely be passed. In fact, change on a widespread scale has already begun. During 1993, every state legislature except those of Nevada and Wyoming considered measures that would alter the way medical care is financed and delivered. Of the states that acted, both last year and in recent legislative sessions, eight have passed laws with the ultimate objective of ensuring access to medical care for all citizens. Government, at both the state and federal level, is clearly taking on the health care issue. The impact of reform on physicians, and thus on group practices, will be substantial. This article outlines the current course of health care reform and addresses its specific implications for the management of group practices.     

The Clinton health care proposal: reform squandered again!

Unlike the other articles in this series on efforts to reform the American health care system, this article is necessarily somewhat personal. I lived through it--not as a participant in the process but as a very interested bystander. To President Clinton's credit, his proposal was the first comprehensive proposal from a President since at least President Nixon and strictly speaking since President Truman. Yet, in the final analysis, the results were extremely depressing, not merely because of the obvious failure of the effort, but, even more important, because of the impact it has had on Americans' belief in the possibility for significant government role/responsibility in health care or, for that matter, in any significant domestic initiative. This article will trace portions of the failed Clinton health care initiative proposal--not the myriad other proposals that percolated through Congress. Realistically, only a proposal that had the support of the President had any chance of legislative success. This article will trace the development of the proposal and, while focusing on the universal coverage aspect, point to critical decisions that led to its legislative demise.     

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.     

Ethics in the management of health care organizations

This article introduces the topic of ethics in the management of health care institutions and provides a glimpse at how issues of ethics have grown in recent years and are apt to be applied in the future. Ethics and some of its basic conceptual and practical tools are defined. A brief history of the ethics of managing health care institutions, a crucial context for understanding the contemporary ethics of health care institutions, is provided. What has changed in the past 10 years and how those changes have resulted in the ethical heterogeneity of contemporary health care institutions is discussed. Finally, some preventive ethics strategies for the management of health care institutions are suggested.