AI Alone Will Not Reduce the Administrative Burden of Health Care.

This Viewpoint considers AI's limits in solving the medical billing quagmire and argues that standardizing health insurance claim forms and simplifying billing must occur before AI can shoulder the load.

Electronic Health Records as Biased Tools or Tools Against Bias: A Conceptual Model.

Policy Points Electronic health records (EHRs) are subject to the implicit bias of their designers, which risks perpetuating and amplifying that bias over time and across users. If left unchecked, the bias in the design of EHRs and the subsequent bias in EHR information will lead to disparities in clinical, organizational, and policy outcomes. Electronic health records can instead be designed to challenge the implicit bias of their users, but that is unlikely to happen unless incentivized through innovative policy. CONTEXT: Health care delivery is now inextricably linked to the use of electronic health records (EHRs), which exert considerable influence over providers, patients, and organizations. METHODS: This article offers a conceptual model showing how the design and subsequent use of EHRs can be subject to bias and can either encode and perpetuate systemic racism or be used to challenge it. Using structuration theory, the model demonstrates how a social structure, like an EHR, creates a cyclical relationship between the environment and people, either advancing or undermining important social values. FINDINGS: The model illustrates how the implicit bias of individuals, both developers and end-user clinical providers, influence the platform and its associated information. Biased information can then lead to inequitable outcomes in clinical care, organizational decisions, and public policy. The biased information also influences subsequent users, amplifying their own implicit biases and potentially compounding the level of bias in the information itself. The conceptual model is used to explain how this concern is fundamentally a matter of quality. Relying on the Donabedian model, it explains how elements of the EHR design (structure), use (process), and the ends for which it is used (outcome) can first be used to evaluate where bias may become embedded in the system itself, but then also identify opportunities to resist and actively challenge bias. CONCLUSIONS: Our conceptual model may be able to redefine and improve the value of technology to health by modifying EHRs to support more equitable data that can be used for better patient care and public policy. For EHRs to do this, further work is needed to develop measures that assess bias in structure, process, and outcome, as well as policies to persuade vendors and health systems to prioritize systemic equity as a core goal of EHRs.

Bridging the divide between physicians and administrators during COVID-19.

This article describes the tension that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought up between administrators and physicians and offers a potential set of solutions to deal with it.

Could COVID-19 become a policy tipping point? a Q&A with Kavita K. Patel, MD, MS.

To mark the 25th anniversary of the journal, each issue in 2020 will include an interview with a health care thought leader. The October issue features a conversation with Kavita K. Patel, MD, MS, nonresident fellow at The Brookings Institution and editorial board member of AJMC®.

Physician-initiated payment reform: a new path toward value.

OBJECTIVES: In the move toward value-based payment, new payment models have largely been designed by payers and focused on the role of primary care providers. We examine a new phase of payment reform wherein providers, mostly specialists, are designing alternative payment models (APMs) for their own practices through a task force, called the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee, created by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015. Although it is a potentially notable shift in payment reform, little is known about the content of these proposals to date. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative systematic review of physician-focused payment model proposals submitted to CMS. METHODS: We analyzed the first wave of new payment models proposed. For each of the 24 proposals submitted by physicians and physician groups, we assessed the models on their 10 key dimensions and evaluated underlying themes across all or many of the models to gain insights into what providers are looking for in APMs within the constraints of the rules established by the HHS secretary. RESULTS: Key features of the models and our analysis include bearing financial risk, a reliance on case management, embrace of new technologies, and consideration of legal barriers. CONCLUSIONS: We discuss how specialists may help lead in the evolving payment landscape and recommend how these models might be improved. Payers and policy makers could benefit from our findings, which reflect how providers view financial risk in APMs and provide guidance on the types of payment reforms that they may embrace in the journey toward value.

Understanding and improving value frameworks with real-world patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To provide recommendations that will improve approaches to measuring the value of new medical technologies to patients. STUDY DESIGN: Informed discussion by experts after literature review. METHODS: A working group was formed, and participants discussed how value frameworks should incorporate key features important to patients in evaluating new medical technologies, particularly for chronic diseases. RESULTS: The working group suggests that new value frameworks should integrate real-world evidence to complement randomized controlled trials, incorporate the ways in which real-world behavior mediates outcomes, and explicitly discuss how therapies affect real-world equity and disparities in care. CONCLUSIONS: Collective stakeholders that include key decision makers within our healthcare system need to recognize the importance of implementing real-world evidence and devote resources to further research into the chronic disease areas in which the impact of human behavior is amplified by the duration of disease and treatment.

Insights on site-of-care cancer research: both quality and cost information are necessary to guide policy.

The implementation of alternative payment models that successfully capture clinical heterogeneity-without adding unacceptable levels of administrative complexity-may be equally (if not more) important than site-neutral payment policies.

Preparing for Value-Based Payment: A Stepwise Approach for Cancer Centers.

Most cancer centers are ill-equipped to pursue value-based payment (VBP) because of limited information on their population's cost of care. Herein, we outline the stepwise approach used by Smilow Cancer Hospital at Yale-New Haven in our pursuit of better value care. First, we addressed institutional barriers. A move toward value required demonstration to Yale-New Haven Health System leadership that OCM would improve patient care, fund new infrastructure, and provide the opportunity to gain experience with VBP without a major threat to the financial stability of the health system. We evaluated patterns of care and found that of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED), 88% were admitted, 62% arrived during the workday, and 50% could have been stabilized with urgent care services. Within 30 days of death, 27% were admitted to the intensive care unit, 38% presented to the ED, and 52% were admitted. To quantify total cost of care, we accessed the 5% Medicare Limited Data Set to map out total cost of care for patients receiving chemotherapy at Smilow Cancer Hospital. Costs increased as patients moved through 6-month episodes, used the ED (patients with two or more visits were twice as expensive as those with one or fewer), or died during an episode (costs were twice as high as episodes in which the patient lived). To determine strategic interventions to improve value, we targeted investments in urgent care to reduce ED utilization, care management to prevent hospital admissions, and referral to palliative care for clarification of goals of care and avoidance of costly futile treatment. Developing internal metrics to evaluate success will require monitoring our interventions by having utilization measures for each site of care and individual provider.

Improving Rural Health: How system-level innovation and policy reform can enhance health outcomes across the United States.

The United States is hailed as providing the most advanced health care the world has to offer. With cutting-edge medical devices, groundbreaking procedures, and innovative technologies, our hospitals and medical centers define what the global community sees as modern biomedicine. Engineers and clinicians continue to push and reshape this standard with new inventions enabled by a rapidly developing knowledge base. However, the fruit of this advancement has not benefited Americans equally. Millions still face significant obstacles to access health care, and our rural communities in particular have been left behind (see also "The Challenge of Rural Health Care").

Fully Capitated Payment Breakeven Rate for a Mid-Size Pediatric Practice.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Payers are implementing alternative payment models that attempt to align payment with high-value care. This study calculates the breakeven capitated payment rate for a midsize pediatric practice and explores how several different staffing scenarios affect the rate. METHODS: We supplemented a literature review and data from >200 practices with interviews of practice administrators, physicians, and payers to construct an income statement for a hypothetical, independent, midsize pediatric practice in fee-for-service. The practice was transitioned to full capitation to calculate the breakeven capitated rate, holding all practice parameters constant. Panel size, overhead, physician salary, and staffing ratios were varied to assess their impact on the breakeven per-member per-month (PMPM) rate. Finally, payment rates from an existing health plan were applied to the practice. RESULTS: The calculated breakeven PMPM was $24.10. When an economic simulation allowed core practice parameters to vary across a broad range, 80% of practices broke even with a PMPM of $35.00. The breakeven PMPM increased by 12% ($3.00) when the staffing ratio increased by 25% and increased by 23% ($5.50) when the staffing ratio increased by 38%. The practice was viable, even with primary care medical home staffing ratios, when rates from a real-world payer were applied. CONCLUSIONS: Practices are more likely to succeed in capitated models if pediatricians understand how these models alter practice finances. Staffing changes that are common in patient-centered medical home models increased the breakeven capitated rate. The degree to which team-based care will increase panel size and offset increased cost is unknown.

Variation in Specialty Outpatient Care Patterns in the Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Multiple payment reform efforts are under way to improve the value of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, yet few directly address the interface between primary and specialty care. OBJECTIVE: To describe regional variation in outpatient visits for individual specialties and the association between specialty physician-specific payments and patient-reported satisfaction with care and health status. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. PATIENTS: A 20 % random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in 2012. MAIN MEASURES: Regions were grouped into quartiles of specialist index, defined as the observed/expected regional likelihood of having an outpatient visit to a specialist, for ten common specialties, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Outcomes were per capita specialty-specific physician payments and Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey responses. KEY RESULTS: The proportion of beneficiaries seeing a specialist varied the most for endocrinology and gastroenterology (3.7- and 3.9-fold difference between the highest and lowest quartiles, respectively) and least for orthopedics and urology (1.5- and 1.7-fold difference, respectively). Multiple analyses suggested that this variation was not explained by prevalence of disease. Average specialty-specific payments were strongly associated with the likelihood of visiting a specialist. Differences in per capita payments from lowest (Q1) to highest quartiles (Q4) were greatest for cardiology ($89, $135, $172, $251) and dermatology ($46, $64, $82, $124). Satisfaction with overall care (median [interquartile range] across specialties: Q1, 93.3 % [92.6-93.7 %]; Q4, 93.1 % [92.9-93.2 %]) and self-reported health status (Q1, 37.1 % [36.9-37.7 %]; Q4, 38.2 % [37.2-38.4 %]) was similar across quartiles. Satisfaction with access to specialty care was consistently lower in the lowest quartile of specialty index (Q1, 89.7 % [89.2-91.1 %]; Q4, 94.5 % [94.4-94.8 %]). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial regional variability in outpatient specialist visits is associated with greater payments with limited benefits in terms of patient-reported satisfaction with care or reported health status. Reducing outpatient physician visits may represent an important opportunity to improve the efficiency of care.

Shifting Away From Fee-For-Service: Alternative Approaches to Payment in Gastroenterology.

Fee-for-service payments encourage high-volume services rather than high-quality care. Alternative payment models (APMs) aim to realign financing to support high-value services. The 2 main components of gastroenterologic care, procedures and chronic care management, call for a range of APMs. The first step for gastroenterologists is to identify the most important conditions and opportunities to improve care and reduce waste that do not require financial support. We describe examples of delivery reforms and emerging APMs to accomplish these care improvements. A bundled payment for an episode of care, in which a provider is given a lump sum payment to cover the cost of services provided during the defined episode, can support better care for a discrete procedure such as a colonoscopy. Improved management of chronic conditions can be supported through a per-member, per-month (PMPM) payment to offer extended services and care coordination. For complex chronic conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease, in which the gastroenterologist is the principal care coordinator, the PMPM payment could be given to a gastroenterology medical home. For conditions in which the gastroenterologist acts primarily as a consultant for primary care, such as noncomplex gastroesophageal reflux or hepatitis C, a PMPM payment can support effective care coordination in a medical neighborhood delivery model. Each APM can be supplemented with a shared savings component. Gastroenterologists must engage with and be early leaders of these redesign discussions to be prepared for a time when APMs may be more prevalent and no longer voluntary.

Health Literacy Research and Practice: A Needed Paradigm Shift.

As a field of research, a viable approach to improving health outcomes, and an important area of policy, health literacy has experienced significant growth and considerable evolution since its broad introduction in the 1990s. Despite that history, far too many practitioners, researchers, and policymakers focusing on clinical medicine, health systems, public health, and health policy remain unaware of and unaffected by the best practices of health literacy. While the inherent promise of health literacy is improved health and well-being, the bulk of research has focused on identifying the negative effects of a lack of health literacy. This strategy is a hindrance to further identifying the utility and increasing the uptake of lessons learned about health literacy in government, business, health care systems, and society. The field needs to reverse direction away from that deficit model of health literacy and focus collective efforts on a positive model of how health literacy can and should be prioritized and utilized to improve health at lower costs. This shift from framing health literacy as a problem to proving the viability and strength of health literacy as a solution will present to policymakers a clear choice to either adopt and promote the best practices of health literacy or suffer the consequences of being the leader who ignored a proven, viable solution to the currently unsustainable health care expenditures and ever-increasing burden of preventable disease, disability, and early death.

Wide variation in payments for Medicare beneficiary oncology services suggests room for practice-level improvement.

In recent years many policy makers have recommended alternative payment models in medical oncology in order to reduce costs and improve patient outcomes. Yet information on how oncology practices differ in their use of key service categories is limited. We measured annual payments for key service categories delivered to fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries receiving care from 1,534 medical oncology practices in 2011-12. In 2012, differences in payments per beneficiary at the seventy-fifth-percentile practice compared to the twenty-fifth-percentile practice were $3,866 for chemotherapy (including administration and supportive care drugs), $1,872 for acute medical hospitalizations, and $439 for advanced imaging. Supportive care drugs, bevacizumab, and positron-emission tomography accounted for the greatest percentage of variation. Average practice payments for service categories were highly correlated across years but not correlated with each other, which suggests that service categories may be affected by different physician practice characteristics. These differences, even when clinical guidelines exist, demonstrate the potential for quality improvement that could be accelerated through alternative payment models.