The Commonwealth Fund Keeps Score on U.S. Healthcare: Less Here Than Meets the Eye

YOU are in last place!

According to news reports on the Commonwealth Fund's comparison of the United States' healthcare to other developed countries, we are the sick man, on a losing streak and dead last. 

Ugh.

Just when the U.S. prevailed against Ghana in the World Cup, we have to deal with being called a loser.

Naturally, the Population Health Blog decided to investigate.  It discovered that the Commonwealth Fund ranked the U.S. against 10 other countries using a combination of multiple outcome measures. 

Here's the complete report. 

What does it actually say?  Rather than attempt to summarize the report's findings, the PHB provides some telling quotes:

Quality:

"The United Kingdom ranks first and Norway last on quality, based on averages of the scores in these four areas. The U.S. falls in the midrange on this domain of performance."

Preventive Care:

"The U.S. does well in providing preventive care for its population. Respondents in the U.S. were more likely than those in most other countries to receive preventive care reminders and advice from their doctors on diet and exercise."

Effective Care:

"The U.S. is third on effective care overall, performing relatively well on prevention but average in comparison to other industrialized nations on quality of chronic care management."

Safety:

"These findings indicate that the United States has improved on safety indicators.... For example, the U.S. now leads all nations with a relatively low number of sicker patients reporting an infection during a hospital stay or shortly after."

Care Coordination:

"Eighty-three percent of American patients had arrangements for follow-up visits with a doctor or other health care professional made for them when leaving the hospital, second only to the United Kingdom."

Patient Centeredness:

"The U.S. ranks fourth. All countries could improve substantially in this area."

Engagement and patient preferences:

"The United States did well on most indicators."

So, since the United States is doing well on quality, preventive care, effective care, safety, care coordination, patient centeredness as well as engagement and patient preferences, what's the problem? 

Again, some quotes:

Americans .... reported negative insurance surprises and the highest rates of serious problems paying medical bills.... On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. scores last overall with poor performance on the two measures of national health expenditures, as well as on measures of administrative hassles, timely access to records and test results, duplicative tests, and rehospitalization.

Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs.

The U.S. ranks last on mortality amenable to health care, last on infant mortality, and second-to-last on healthy life expectancy at age 60.

Plus this tidbit.....

Disparities in access to services signal the need to expand insurance to cover the uninsured and to ensure that all Americans have an accessible medical home.

The PHB's take?  There is less to this than meets the eye:

1.  The United States performs well on a majority of overall quality measures.

2.  The United States suffers from high overall costs. 

3.  The Commonwealth Fund's ranking system faults the U.S. on two levels:  value (our high quality comes at a very high price) and equity (persons with lower incomes cannot afford to access our high quality system).  Add up the points in this scoring system, and the U.S. is last.

4.  The Commonwealth Fund uses data from prior to the 2014 implementation of Obamacare, which was specifically designed to address the United States' shortfalls by subsidizing commercial insurance and increasing Medicaid enrollment.

5. By the way, despite little evidence in the report that cost, value or access are necessarily increased by the U. S. version of the medical home, the Commonwealth Fund included it anyway.

How well will all those high out-of-pocket "bronze plans," Medicaid, Accountable Care Organizations and the medical home truly reduce cost inflation, enhance value and increase access? 

Stay tuned.  The PHB is looking forward to seeing how they'll rank Obamacare's impact in 2015.

Warning: Health Insurance is Hard

As a former commercial medical director, the Disease Management Care Blog has wrangled with a number of physician colleagues in the population health, medical home and accountable care business on the basics of health insurance .

Many are afflicted with two "insurance-is-easy" conceits:

1. Insurers take in premium money, pay claims and keep what's left over, and

2. Quality health care means more money is left over.

Both have fueled the Accountable Care Organization (ACO) gold rush. Since insurers are supposedly fat with money, it's a no-brainer to want to get a piece of the action, especially since "stuff" like mammograms and the electronic record will save even more bucks.

Win-win, right?

Not so fast.  Insurers' ROI is not huge, quality costs and the EHR's money-saving potential is just that.

Which is why the DMCB likes the short American Journal of Managed Care manuscript on ACOs that asks "Is the Deal Any Good?"

Author François De Brantes reminds readers that 1) a lot of patients are needed to dampen the individual impact of costly outliers, and 2) certain assumptions must be made about cost trends.  Get either wrong and you could lose money.

The author also asks readers to consider the achievable savings rate. To the DMCB, this speaks to the assumption that quality and prevention automatically add to the bottom line. That's not necessarily true and could make you lose even more money.

Says the author:

Over a decade ago, the ability of providers to understand the uncertainty of the financial risks eventually led to the demise of many and a significant setback for the country in our collective ability to rein in runaway medical costs. We cannot allow the same mistakes to happen again, and both providers and payers need to understand whether or not the deal is any good.

In other word, insurance is hard.  Stay tuned on whether the ACOs have figured that out.

The Good and the Bad of Risk-Based Contracting: Large Integrated Groups Are Adapting Another Form of Managed Care with Limited Consumer Choice and Restricted Networks?

"Should I refer out of network?"

What is the secret health reform sauce of those famous large integrated medical groups?  Come to think of it, do they even have secret sauce?

To better understand the apparent success of household names like Dean, Geisinger, Group Health, and Mayo, Rob Mechanic and Darren Zinner surveyed and then interviewed the CEO or the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of 21 famous large provider groups to understand their operational approach to risk based contracting.
 
That's important because emerging payment public and private insurer reform will include "bundled payments," upside risk-sharing and forms of capitation.  In these kinds of arrangements, the financial "risk" from high overhead, overutilization or excess costs will be the provider groups' problem, not the insurers'.

In other words, if ACO wannabes want to succeed when it comes to risk-based contracting, they may learn about the good and the bad of the large integrated group business model.

The authors discovered that about half of these groups had less than a third of their income coming from risk-based contracting (RBC).  In these ten groups, an average 88% of income was fee-for-service.

The other half (eleven) had more than a third of their income coming from risk based contracting.  In these groups, 71% of income was risk-based.

The authors then compared the approaches of the "low" risk and "high" risk groups.

While Disease Management Care Blog readers will be very familiar with elements making up the "good" secret sauce of risk-based contracting, they may be surprised at the reemergence of two bad downsides.

The good ingredients included 1) blunted physician financial incentives to "churn" patient visits, 2) a slight but significant increased emphasis on using quality measures to reward physicians and 3) a significant investment in data warehousing, analytics, patient registries and point-of-care patient-tracking.

In particular:

9 out of 10 low risk contracting groups based the "majority" of physician income on productivity. In contrast, five of the capitated groups paid 80% of their PCPs with a salary, while the other half paid 80% of income based on productivity

"Quality" measures drove a small percent of PCP income in both groups, though it was higher in the capitated groups (5% vs. 12%)

85% of all groups had invested in electronic health records; 100% of the capitated groups had invested in data warehouses with analytic software and two thirds had patient registries.  Only one of the FFS groups had those capabilities. While both types of groups had a low rate of "patient engagement" programs, the high risk groups were more likely to have care management programs in place. 

And the bad? 

The DMCB was surprised to read that the risk-based groups were far more likely to have mechanisms in place to limit their patients' out of network utilization (90 vs. 20%) and 2/3 vs. 1/3 had preferred relationships with "efficient" hospitals and providers.  In other words, these role-model and state-of-the-art organizations could be limiting patient choice and economically credentialing their provider groups.

Much depends on the details.  Insurers have probably not forgotten the abuses and resulting backlash that arose from unfettered capitation.  Good risk contracting typically includes quality and satisfaction metrics side by side with utilization targets and specifically prohibits windfall profits. Modern consumer protections at the state and federal oversight level are also far more rigorous.

That being said, the DMCB points out that it's no accident that this study shows risk-based contracting is associated with limits on choice and restricted networks.  We may not call it "managed care," but in many respects it is.