Payer-provider collaboration in accountable care reduced use and improved quality in Maine Medicare Advantage plan.

Patient-centered, accountable care has garnered increased attention with the passage of the Affordable Care Act and new Medicare regulations. This case study examines a care model jointly developed by a provider and a payer that approximates an accountable care organization for a Medicare Advantage population. The collaboration between Aetna and NovaHealth, an independent physician association based in Portland, Maine, focused on shared data, financial incentives, and care management to improve health outcomes for approximately 750 Medicare Advantage members. The patient population in the pilot program had 50 percent fewer hospital days per 1,000 patients, 45 percent fewer admissions, and 56 percent fewer readmissions than statewide unmanaged Medicare populations. NovaHealth's total per member per month costs across all cost categories for its Aetna Medicare Advantage members were 16.5 percent to 33 percent lower than costs for members not in this provider organization. Clinical quality metrics for diabetes, ischemic vascular disease, annual office visits, and postdischarge follow-up for patients in the program were consistently high. The experience of developing and implementing this collaborative care model suggests that several components are key, including robust data sharing and information systems that support it, analytical support, care management and coordination, and joint strategic planning with close provider-payer collaboration.

A chart-based method for identification of delirium: validation compared with interviewer ratings using the confusion assessment method.

OBJECTIVES: To validate a chart-based method for identification of delirium and compare it with direct interviewer assessment using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). DESIGN: Prospective validation study. SETTING: Teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Nine hundred nineteen older hospitalized patients. MEASUREMENTS: A chart-based instrument for identification of delirium was created and compared with the reference standard interviewer ratings, which used direct cognitive assessment to complete the CAM for delirium. Trained nurse chart abstractors were blinded to all interview data, including cognitive and CAM ratings. Factors influencing the correct identification of delirium in the chart were examined. RESULTS: Delirium was present in 115 (12.5%) patients according to the CAM. Sensitivity of the chart-based instrument was 74%, specificity was 83%, and likelihood ratio for a positive result was 4.4. Overall agreement between chart and interviewer ratings was 82%, kappa=0.41. By contrast, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, administrative codes, the sensitivity for delirium was 3%, and specificity was 99%. Independent factors associated with incorrect chart identification of delirium were dementia, severe illness, and high baseline delirium risk. With all three factors present, the chart instrument was three times more likely to identify patients incorrectly than with none of the factors present. CONCLUSION: A chart-based instrument for delirium, which should be useful for patient safety and quality-improvement programs in older persons, was validated. Because of potential misclassification, the chart-based instrument is not recommended for individual patient care or diagnostic purposes.