Functional Status Outperforms Comorbidities in Predicting Acute Care Readmissions in Medically Complex Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To examine functional status versus medical comorbidities as predictors of acute care readmissions in medically complex patients. DESIGN: Retrospective database study. SETTING: U.S. inpatient rehabilitation facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects included 120,957 patients in the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation admitted to inpatient rehabilitation facilities under the medically complex impairment group code between 2002 and 2011. INTERVENTIONS: A Basic Model based on gender and functional status was developed using logistic regression to predict the odds of 3-, 7-, and 30-day readmission from inpatient rehabilitation facilities to acute care hospitals. Functional status was measured by the FIM(®) motor score. The Basic Model was compared to six other predictive models-three Basic Plus Models that added a comorbidity measure to the Basic Model and three Gender-Comorbidity Models that included only gender and a comorbidity measure. The three comorbidity measures used were the Elixhauser index, Deyo-Charlson index, and Medicare comorbidity tier system. The c-statistic was the primary measure of model performance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We investigated 3-, 7-, and 30-day readmission to acute care hospitals from inpatient rehabilitation facilities. RESULTS: Basic Model c-statistics predicting 3-, 7-, and 30-day readmissions were 0.69, 0.64, and 0.65, respectively. The best-performing Basic Plus Model (Basic+Elixhauser) c-statistics were only 0.02 better than the Basic Model, and the best-performing Gender-Comorbidity Model (Gender+Elixhauser) c-statistics were more than 0.07 worse than the Basic Model. CONCLUSIONS: Readmission models based on functional status consistently outperform models based on medical comorbidities. There is opportunity to improve current national readmission risk models to more accurately predict readmissions by incorporating functional data.

Transforming healthcare delivery: Why and how accountable care organizations must evolve.

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) have shown promise in reducing healthcare spending growth, but have proven to be financially unsustainable for many healthcare organizations. Even ACOs with shared savings have experienced overall losses because the shared savings bonuses have not covered the costs of delivering population health. As physicians and former ACO leaders, we believe in the concept of accountable care, but ACOs need to evolve if they are to have a viable future. We propose the novel possibility of allowing ACOs to bill fee-for-service for their population health interventions, a concept we call population health billing. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:658-661. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Disruptive innovation in academic medical centers: balancing accountable and academic care.

Numerous academic medicine leaders have argued that academic referral centers must prepare for the growing importance of accountability-driven payment models by adopting population health initiatives. Although this shift has merit, execution of this strategy will prove significantly more problematic than most observers have appreciated. The authors describe how successful implementation of an accountable care health strategy within a referral academic medical center (AMC) requires navigating a critical tension: The academic referral business model, driven by tertiary-level care, is fundamentally in conflict with population health. Referral AMCs that create successful value-driven population health systems within their organizations will in effect disrupt their own existing tertiary care businesses. The theory of disruptive innovation suggests that balancing the push and pull of academic and accountable care within a single organization is achievable. However, it will require significant shifts in resource allocation and changes in management structure to enable AMCs to make the inherent difficult choices and trade-offs that will ensue. On the basis of the theories of disruptive innovation, the authors present recommendations for how academic health systems can successfully navigate these issues as they transition toward accountability-driven care.

Creating a network of high-quality skilled nursing facilities: preliminary data on the postacute care quality improvement experiences of an accountable care organization.

Postacute care (PAC) is an important source of cost growth and variation in the Medicare program and is critical to accountable care organization (ACO) and bundled payment efforts to improve quality and value in the Medicare program, but ACOs must often look outside their walls to identify high-value external PAC partners, including skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). As a solution to this problem, the integrated health system, Partners HealthCare System (PHS) and its Pioneer ACO launched the PHS SNF Collaborative Network in October 2013 to identify and partner with high-quality SNFs. This study details the method by which PHS selected SNFs using minimum criteria based on public scores and secondary criteria based on self-reported measures, describes the characteristics of selected and nonselected SNFs, and reports SNF satisfaction with the collaborative. The selected SNFs (n = 47) had significantly higher CMS Five-Star scores than the nonselected SNFs (n = 93) (4.6 vs 3.2, P < .001) and were more likely than nonselected SNFs that met the minimum criteria (n = 35) to have more than 5 days of clinical coverage (17.0% vs 2.9%, P = .02) and to have a physician see admitted individuals within 24 (38.3% vs 17.1%, P = .02) and 48 hours (93.6% vs 80.0%, P = .03). A survey sent to collaborative SNFs found high satisfaction with the process (average satisfaction, 4.6/5, with 1 = very dissatisfied and 5 = very satisfied, n = 19). Although the challenges of improving care in SNFs remain daunting, this approach can serve as a first step toward greater clinical collaboration between acute and postacute settings that will lead to better outcomes for frail older adults.

Perspective: A framework for career paths in health systems improvement.

The difference between the U.S. health care system's potential and the outcomes it delivers is vast and well documented. Fortunately, many medical trainees recognize this challenge and aspire to careers that will enable them to help close this gap by improving the systems of care around them. However, the career paths in health systems improvement are not well defined, and interested trainees are frequently left without clear direction. The circuitous and often serendipitous routes that many current leaders in health systems improvement--including medical researchers, health system managers, and policy experts--have navigated to reach their positions of influence do not provide consistent road maps for the trainees who wish to follow in their footsteps.The authors of this Perspective propose a framework to guide career development in health systems improvement. The framework is designed to help medical trainees and their mentors critically analyze various career options in three core focus areas (research, policy, management) and the intersections where those areas overlap (policy advising, implementation science, policy translation).The authors provide examples of the types of work done in each focus area and each intersection to help trainees make explicit decisions concerning skill development and to select opportunities that best fit their interests and strengths. In all, the authors intend the framework to support the development of a generation of physician leaders equipped to drive the improvement that the U.S. heath care system requires.

Perspective: global medicine: opportunities and challenges for academic health science systems.

Globalization is having a growing impact on health and health care, presenting challenges as well as opportunities for the U.S. health care industry in general and for academic health science systems (AHSSs) in particular. The authors believe that AHSSs must develop long-term strategies that address their future role in global medicine. AHSSs should meet global challenges through planning, engagement, and innovation that combine traditional academic activities with entrepreneurial approaches to health care delivery, research, and education, including international public-private partnerships. The opportunities for U.S.-based AHSSs to be global health care leaders and establish partnerships that improve health locally and globally more than offset the potential financial, organizational, politico-legal, and reputational risks that exist in the global health care arena. By examining recent international activities of leading AHSSs, the authors review the risks and the critical factors for success and discuss external policy shifts in workforce development and accreditation that would further support the growth of global medicine.

Training the next generation of physician-executives: an innovative residency pathway in management and leadership.

The rapidly changing field of medicine demands that future physician-leaders excel not only in clinical medicine but also in the management of complex health care enterprises. However, many physicians have become leaders "by accident," and the active cultivation of future leaders is required. Addressing this need will require multiple approaches, targeting trainees at various stages of their careers, such as degree-granting programs, residency and fellowship training, and career and leadership development programs. Here, the authors describe a first-of-its-kind graduate medical education pathway at Duke Medicine, the Management and Leadership Pathway for Residents (MLPR). This program was developed for residents with both a medical degree and management training. Created in 2009, with its first cohort enrolled in the summer of 2010, the MLPR is intended to help catalyze the emergence of a new generation of physician-leaders. The program will provide physicians-in-training with rigorous clinical exposure along with mentorship and rotational opportunities in management to accelerate the development of critical leadership and management skills in all facets of medicine, including care delivery, research, and education. To achieve this, the MLPR includes 15 to 18 months of project-based rotations under the guidance of senior leaders in many disciplines including finance, patient safety, health system operations, strategy, and others. Developing both clinical and management skill sets during graduate medical education holds the promise of engaging future leaders of health care at an early career stage, keeping more MD-MBA graduates within health care, and creating a bench of talented future physician-executives.

Economic content in medical journal advertisements for medical devices and prescription drugs.

Previous studies of economic content in medical journal advertisements have not examined all types of economic content and have not included advertisements for medical devices. To examine trends in the economic content of medical device and pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals. Three reviewers examined pharmaceutical and medical device advertisements in six leading medical journals from 1997 through 2006. Product characteristics, economic claims and evidence to support those claims were evaluated. Economic content appeared in 23.5% (561/2389) of pharmaceutical and device advertisements; 11.9% made market share claims and 12.7% made other economic claims. From 1997 through 2006, the percentage of medical device advertisements containing economic content declined from 26.7% to 6.7% (p = 0.02), whereas the percentage of pharmaceutical advertisements containing economic content remained stable (21.6-22.0%; p = 0.99). For pharmaceuticals, price claims declined significantly (15.7-4.2%; p < 0.01) and market share claims increased (2.8-11.5%; p = 0.09), and both consistently presented evidence (83% and 98%, respectively) while other types did not (e.g. 13.5% of formulary claims). Medical device economic claims differed from pharmaceutical economic claims; they made fewer market share claims (1.1% vs 12.8%) but more cost-effectiveness (6.5% vs 0.6%) and reimbursement (4.9% vs 0.8%) claims. Fewer than 2% of device advertisements with economic claims provided supporting evidence. The prevalence and type of economic content in pharmaceutical and device advertisements changed between 1997 and 2006, which may reflect evolving market dynamics, such as changes in reimbursement systems. Furthermore, the lack of supporting evidence in medical device advertisements and pharmaceutical formulary claims are potential areas of concern that require additional scrutiny by regulators and journal editors.

Fueling innovation in medical devices (and beyond): venture capital in health care.

Innovation in health care requires new ideas and the capital to develop and commercialize those ideas into products or services. The necessary capital is often "venture capital," but the link between public policy and the venture capital industry has not been well examined. In this paper we explore the link between venture capital and innovation in health care, and we present new descriptive data from a survey of health care venture capital fund managers. Respondents generally viewed policy levers (for example, reimbursement and regulations) as important risks to venture capital investments, potentially affecting their ability to raise capital for early-stage investment funds.