Designing Effective Payer Models to Improve Serious Illness Care.

Improving care for patients with serious illness requires building reliable supports across settings and over time. Consistency of approach by payers can simplify and accelerate provider-based solutions. Early attention to predictable challenges and shared principles can help guide design to more sustainable solutions.

Dissemination of a successful dementia care program: Lessons to facilitate spread of innovations.

BACKGROUND: Despite the effectiveness of innovations to improve the care of persons with dementia, there has been limited diffusion of these into widespread clinical practice. We aimed to identify common barriers and address them directly in the initial phase of dissemination of a successful dementia care program. METHODS: Description of and early experience with a dissemination strategy of the UCLA Alzheimer's and Dementia Care Program to health care systems nationwide. We measured site-identified goals for the program and indicators of success, number of adopting sites, and participants in their programs. RESULTS: From January 2019 to December 2021, 80 sites expressed interest in adopting the program, 14 (18%) sites adopted it, and 10 of these sites have begun caring for patients. Another 4 sites have implemented the program as part of a randomized clinical trial. To date, over 1690 persons living with dementia and their caregivers have received Alzheimer's and Dementia Care (ADC) care at 14 adopting sites. Key lessons from the early dissemination efforts include the importance of identifying a strong product champion at the adopting site, creating a business case for adoption, training of clinical staff and adapting the model to fit local cultures and workflow, as well as recognizing the likely long length of time needed for the decision to adopt and implementation process. CONCLUSIONS: Despite many obstacles to dissemination, with local champions and technical assistance, successful innovations in dementia care can be implemented in diverse health systems. The ability to adopt sites to bring the program to full scale and achieve comparable outcomes to the original program remains to be determined.

Dissemination of a successful dementia care program: Lessons from early adopters.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based models for providing effective and comprehensive care for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias exist but have yet to be successfully implemented at scale. The Alzheimer's and Dementia Care Program (ADC Program) is an effective comprehensive dementia care model that is being disseminated across the United States. This qualitative study examines barriers and facilitators to implementing the model among early adopting sites. METHODS: This study included semi-structured interviews with a total of 21 clinical site leaders and Dementia Care Specialists from a total of 11 sites across the US. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded using Dedoose qualitative analysis software. Coding scheme development and data interpretation were informed by Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations framework. RESULTS: Key themes are organized in line with Rogers' framework. These include: the innovation-decision process, implementation and characteristics of the innovation, and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Across the three overarching themes presented in this manuscript, the importance of engagement from site leaders, the multifaceted nature of the dementia care specialist role, and the value of technical assistance from qualified experts are apparent. However, for this work to continue to be successful, there needs to be more appropriate payment to cover needed services and a mechanism for supporting comprehensive dementia care over time.

Recommendations to Improve Payment Policies for Comprehensive Dementia Care.

Access to comprehensive dementia care is limited. Recent changes in billing for professional services, including new physician fee schedule codes, encourage clinicians to provide new services; however, current reimbursement does not cover costs for all needed elements of dementia care. The Payment Model for Comprehensive Dementia Care Conference convened more than 50 national experts from diverse perspectives to review promising strategies for payment reform including ways to accelerate their adoption. Recommendations for reform included payments for services to family caregivers; new research to determine success metrics; education for consumers, providers, and policymakers; and advancing a population health model approach to tier coverage based on risk and need within a health system.

Cost to primary care practices of responding to payer requests for quality and performance data.

PURPOSE: We wanted to determine how much it costs primary care practices to participate in programs that require them to gather and report data on care quality indicators. METHODS: Using mixed quantitative-qualitative methods, we gathered data from 8 practices in North Carolina that were selected purposively to be diverse by size, ownership, type, location, and medical records. Formal practice visits occurred between January 2008 and May 2008. Four quality-reporting programs were studied: Medicare's Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI), Community Care of North Carolina (CCNC), Bridges to Excellence (BTE), and Improving Performance in Practice (IPIP). We estimated direct costs to the practice and on-site costs to the quality organization for implementation and maintenance phases of program participation. RESULTS: Major expenses included personnel time for planning, training, registry maintenance, visit coding, data gathering and entry, and modification of electronic systems. Costs per full-time equivalent clinician ranged from less than $1,000 to $11,100 during program implementation phases and ranged from less than $100 to $4,300 annually during maintenance phases. Main sources of variation included program characteristics, amount of on-site assistance provided, experience and expertise of practice personnel, and the extent of data system problems encountered. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of a quality-reporting program vary greatly by program and are important to anticipate and understand when undertaking quality improvement work. Incentives that would likely improve practice participation include financial payment, quality improvement skills training, and technical assistance with electronic system troubleshooting.

The National Palliative Care Registry: A Decade of Supporting Growth and Sustainability of Palliative Care Programs.

Background: Palliative care program service delivery is variable, and programs often lack data to support and guide program development and growth. Objective: To review the development and key features of the National Palliative Care Registry™ ("the Registry") and describe recent findings from its surveys on hospital palliative care. Description: Established in 2008, the Registry data elements align with National Consensus Project (NCP) guidelines related to palliative care program structures and operations. The Registry provides longitudinal and comparative data that palliative care programs can use to support programmatic growth. Results: As of 2018, >1000 hospitals and 120 community sites have submitted data on their palliative care programs to the Registry. Over the past decade, the percentage of hospital admissions seen by palliative care teams (penetration) has increased from 2.5% to 5.3%. Higher penetration is correlated with teaching hospital status, having a palliative care trigger, and hospital size (p < 0.05). Although overall staffing has expanded, only 42% of Registry programs include the recommended four key disciplines: physician, advanced practice or other registered nurse, social worker, and chaplain. Compliance with NCP guidelines on key structures and processes vary across adult and pediatric programs. Conclusions: The Registry allows palliative care programs to optimize core structures and processes and understand their performance relative to their peers.

Clinical and economic impact of palliative care consultation.

Palliative care consultation is the most common model of hospital-based services in the United States, but few studies examine the impact of this model. In a prospective study, we describe the impact of palliative care consultation on symptoms, treatment, and hospital costs. Patients receiving interdisciplinary palliative care consultations from 2002 to 2004 were approached for enrollment; 304 of 395 (77%) patients participated. Measures included diagnosis, treatment decisions, and symptom scores. To test impact on costs, a one-year subset of cases with lengths of stay >4 days (n=104) was compared to all available controls (n=1,813) matched on the 3Mtrade mark All Patients Refined Diagnosis Related Group, Version 20, and mortality risk scores. Half of the patients were younger than 65 years, 28% were African American, and 61% had cancer. Median Palliative Performance score was 20 (range, 10-100). Recommendations were implemented in 88% of cases; new "do not resuscitate/do not intubate" orders were written for 34% of patients, new comfort care orders for 44%, and 27% were referred for hospice care. Symptom scores improved from Day 1 to Day 3, with greatest improvement in pain (2.6-1.4, P<0.001). Compared to matched controls without palliative care consultation, palliative care cases had lower cost per day ($897 vs. $1004, P=0.03). Per diem variable costs were 10.7% less for all palliative care cases and 20.5% less for those with >50% hospital days with palliative care consultation. Palliative care consultation is followed by decisions to forego costly treatment and improved symptom scores, and earlier palliative care intervention results in greater cost-savings.

Palliative Care Leadership Centers Are Key To The Diffusion Of Palliative Care Innovation.

Between 2000 and 2015 the proportion of US hospitals with more than fifty beds that had palliative care programs tripled, from 25 percent to 75 percent. The rapid adoption of this high-value program, which is voluntary and runs counter to the dominant culture in US hospitals, was catalyzed by tens of millions of dollars in philanthropic support for innovation, dissemination, and professionalization in the palliative care field. We describe the dissemination strategies of the Center to Advance Palliative Care in the context of the principles of social entrepreneurship, and we provide an in-depth look at its hallmark training initiative, Palliative Care Leadership Centers. Over 1,240 hospital palliative care teams have trained at the Leadership Centers to date, with 80 percent of them instituting palliative care services within two years. We conclude with lessons learned about the role of purposeful technical assistance in promoting the rapid diffusion of high-value health care innovation.

Building the business case for clinical quality.

Following are key findings of VHA Inc.'s Transformation of the ICU collaborative: Instead of improving patient outcomes, focusing too much on reducing costs as a performance improvement strategy only lays the groundwork for increased quality problems and higher costs. Improving quality can improve the bottom line, as long as there is patient demand. As a type, hospitals are organizations that characteristically have high fixed costs. The more customers such organizations can serve with the same investment, the greater their profits.

Impact of Staffing on Access to Palliative Care in U.S. Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade over two-thirds of U.S. hospitals have established palliative care programs. National data on palliative care program staffing and its association with operational outcomes are limited. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this report is to examine the impact of palliative care program staffing on access to palliative care in U.S. hospitals. METHODS: Data from the National Palliative Care Registry™ for 2014 were used to calculate staffing levels, palliative care service penetration, and time to initial palliative care consultation for 398 palliative care programs operating across 482 U.S. hospitals. RESULTS: Hospital-based palliative care programs reported an average service penetration of 4.4%. Higher staffing levels were associated with higher service penetration; higher service penetration was associated with shorter time to initial palliative care consultation. DISCUSSION: This report demonstrates that operational effectiveness, as measured by staffing and palliative care service penetration, is associated with shorter time to palliative care consultation.

Moving upstream: a review of the evidence of the impact of outpatient palliative care.

BACKGROUND: There is good evidence for the efficacy of inpatient palliative care in improving clinical care, patient and provider satisfaction, quality of life, and health care utilization. However, the evidence for the efficacy of nonhospice outpatient palliative care is less well known and has not been comprehensively reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To review and assess the evidence of the impact of outpatient palliative care. METHODS: Our study was a review of published, peer-reviewed outcomes research, including both observational studies and controlled trials of nonhospice outpatient palliative care services. We assessed patient, family caregiver, and clinician satisfaction; clinical outcomes including symptom management, quality of life, and mortality; and heath care utilization outcomes including readmission rates, hospice use, and cost. RESULTS: Four well-designed randomized interventions as well as a growing body of nonrandomized studies indicate that outpatient palliative care services can: 1) improve patient satisfaction, 2) improve symptom control and quality of life, 3) reduce health care utilization, and 4) lengthen survival in a population of lung cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence supports the ongoing expansion of innovative outpatient palliative care service models throughout the care continuum to all patients with serious illness.

The diverse landscape of palliative care clinics.

BACKGROUND: Many health care organizations are interested in instituting a palliative care clinic. However, there are insufficient published data regarding existing practices to inform the development of new programs. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to obtain in-depth information about palliative care clinics. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 20 outpatient palliative care practices in diverse care settings. The survey included both closed- and open-ended questions regarding practice size, utilization of services, staffing, referrals, services offered, funding, impetus for starting, and challenges. RESULTS: Twenty of 21 (95%) practices responded. Practices self-identified as: hospital-based (n=7), within an oncology division/cancer center (n=5), part of an integrated health system (n=6), and hospice-based (n=2). The majority of referred patients had a cancer diagnosis. Additional common diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, neurologic disorders, and congestive heart failure. All practices ranked "pain management" and "determining goals of care" as the most common reasons for referrals. Twelve practices staffed fewer than 5 half-days of clinic per week, with 7 operating only one half-day per week. Practices were staffed by a mixture of physicians, advanced practice nurses or nurse practitioners, nurses, or social workers. Eighteen practices expected their practice to grow within the next year. Eleven practices noted a staffing shortage and 8 had a wait time of a week or more for a new patient appointment. Only 12 practices provide 24/7 coverage. Billing and institutional support were the most common funding sources. Most practices described starting because inpatient palliative providers perceived poor quality outpatient care in the outpatient setting. The most common challenges included: funding for staffing (11) and being overwhelmed with referrals (8). CONCLUSIONS: Once established, outpatient palliative care practices anticipate rapid growth. In this context, outpatient practices must plan for increased staffing and develop a sustainable financial model.

Rapid reengineering of acute medical care for Medicare beneficiaries: the Medicare innovations collaborative.

In 2009 we described a geriatric service line or "portfolio" model of acute care-based models to improve care and reduce costs for high-cost Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions. In this article we report the early results of the Medicare Innovations Collaborative, a collaborative program of technical assistance and peer-to-peer exchange to promote the simultaneous adoption of multiple complex care models by hospitals and health systems. We found that organizations did in fact adopt and implement multiple complex care models simultaneously; that these care models were appropriately integrated and adapted so as to enhance their adoptability within the hospital or health care system; and that these processes occurred rapidly, in less than one year. Members indicated that the perceived prestige of participation in the collaborative helped create incentives for change among their systems' leaders and was one of the top two reasons for success. The Medicare Innovations Collaborative approach can serve as a model for health service delivery change, ultimately expanding beyond the acute care setting and into the community and often neglected postacute and long-term care arenas to redesign care for high-cost Medicare beneficiaries.

How eight primary care practices initiated and maintained quality monitoring and reporting.

BACKGROUND: Primary care medical practices increasingly are asked by payers, employers, and government agencies to report quality data, but the process of doing so is not well delineated. METHODS: Providers and office staff in a diverse sample of eight primary care practices in North Carolina comprised this study population. Interviews were conducted and self-administered questionnaires were disseminated in practices that were successfully reporting data to one or more of 4 reporting programs. Our measures included responses to open-ended and Likert scale questions about experiences and potential facilitators and barriers, as well as subscales of the Practice Assessment tool and the Culture of Group Practices instrument. RESULTS: Study practices had stronger change histories, higher information and quality emphases, and lower business emphases than historical comparison practices. Motivation to participate, a leader who catalyzes the process, and establishment of new systems characterized successful practices. Staff time, information technology challenges, and resistance from some providers were common barriers. Practices achieve a sustainability state when numerous barriers have been successfully overcome and tangible results achieved from the process. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing and sustaining quality reporting requires a complex set of motivators, facilitators, and strategies to overcome inherent barriers that can present themselves in practices that seek to implement changes in this direction.

Hospital mortality rates: how is palliative care taken into account?

CONTEXT: Using mortality rates to measure hospital quality presumes that hospital deaths are medical failures. To be a fair measure of hospital quality, hospital mortality measures must take patient-level factors, such as goals of care, into account. OBJECTIVES: To answer questions about how hospital mortality rates are computed and how the involvement of hospice or palliative care (PC) are recognized and handled. METHODS: We analyzed the methods of four entities: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services "Hospital Compare;" U.S. News & World Report "Best Hospitals;" Thomson-Reuters "100 TopHospitals;" and HealthGrades. RESULTS: All entities reviewed rely on Medicare data, compute risk-adjusted mortality rates, and use "all-cause" mortality. They vary considerably in their recognition and handling of cases that involved hospice care or PC. One entity excludes cases with prior hospice care and another excludes those discharged to hospice at the end of the index hospitalization. Two entities exclude some or all cases that were coded with the V66.7 "Palliative Care Encounter" International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code. CONCLUSION: Proliferation of, and variability among, hospital mortality measures creates a challenge for hospital administrators. PC and hospice leaders need to educate themselves and their hospital administrators about the extent to which these mortality rates take end-of-life care into account. At the national level, PC and hospice leaders should take advantage of opportunities to engage these mortality raters in conversation about possible changes in their methods and to conduct further research on this topic.

The ironic business case for chronic care in the acute care setting.

The U.S. health care system provides acute care tools to deal with the problems of chronic disease, and strategies are needed to engage hospitals in chronic care innovations. Acute care-based models that improve chronic care have been developed, but their diffusion is limited by the absence of a business case for adoption. Yet a financial case for improving chronic care is possible by aggregating previously tested models into a service line that can be customized to local circumstances. Beyond benefits to hospitals, patients and payers could benefit from improved patient outcomes and costs; society could benefit from more appropriate deployment of resources.

Center to Advance Palliative Care palliative care consultation service metrics: consensus recommendations.

The need to standardize the prospective collection and analysis of data has been a cornerstone of education and technical assistance provided by the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC). Data analysis is vital for strategic planning, quality improvement, and demonstration of program impact to hospital administrators, private funders, and policymakers. To develop a set of core measures, CAPC convened a consensus panel in 2008 to focus on the topic of operational metrics for consultation services. Operational metrics, as distinct from clinical, customer and financial metrics, describe the characteristics of patients seen on the consultation service, such as age, disease, location, referring service and disposition. The panel arrived at 12 metric domains, all but one of which can be used for either internal programmatic use or for external comparisons of service characteristics/impact between different hospitals. In an effort to ensure access to reliably high-quality palliative care data throughout the nation, hospital palliative care consultation teams are encouraged to collect and report outcomes for each of the twelve metric domains described here.

Cost savings associated with US hospital palliative care consultation programs.

BACKGROUND: Hospital palliative care consultation teams have been shown to improve care for adults with serious illness. This study examined the effect of palliative care teams on hospital costs. METHODS: We analyzed administrative data from 8 hospitals with established palliative care programs for the years 2002 through 2004. Patients receiving palliative care were matched by propensity score to patients receiving usual care. Generalized linear models were estimated for costs per admission and per hospital day. RESULTS: Of the 2966 palliative care patients who were discharged alive, 2630 palliative care patients (89%) were matched to 18,427 usual care patients, and of the 2388 palliative care patients who died, 2278 (95%) were matched to 2124 usual care patients. The palliative care patients who were discharged alive had an adjusted net savings of $1696 in direct costs per admission (P = .004) and $279 in direct costs per day (P < .001) including significant reductions in laboratory and intensive care unit costs compared with usual care patients. The palliative care patients who died had an adjusted net savings of $4908 in direct costs per admission (P = .003) and $374 in direct costs per day (P < .001) including significant reductions in pharmacy, laboratory, and intensive care unit costs compared with usual care patients. Two confirmatory analyses were performed. Including mean costs per day before palliative care and before a comparable reference day for usual care patients in the propensity score models resulted in similar results. Estimating costs for palliative care patients assuming that they did not receive palliative care resulted in projected costs that were not significantly different from usual care costs. CONCLUSION: Hospital palliative care consultation teams are associated with significant hospital cost savings.