Integrating network theory into the study of integrated healthcare.

Healthcare policy in the United States (U.S.) has focused on promoting integrated healthcare to combat fragmentation (e.g., 1993 Health Security Act, 2010 Affordable Care Act). Researchers have responded by studying coordination and developing typologies of integration. Yet, after three decades, research evidence for the benefits of coordination and integration are lacking. We argue that research efforts need to refocus in three ways: (1) use social networks to study relational coordination and integrated healthcare, (2) analyze integrated healthcare at three levels of analysis (micro, meso, macro), and (3) focus on clinical integration as the most proximate impact on patient outcomes. We use examples to illustrate the utility of such refocusing and present avenues for future research.

Hospital-based health systems 20 years later: A taxonomy for policy research and analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Building on the original taxonomy of hospital-based health systems from 20 years ago, we develop a new taxonomy to inform emerging public policy and practice developments. DATA SOURCES: The 2016 American Hospital Association's (AHA) Annual Survey; the 2016 IQVIA Healthcare Organizations and Systems (HCOS) database; and the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS). STUDY DESIGN: Cluster analysis of the 2016 AHA Annual Survey data to derive measures of differentiation, centralization, and integration to create categories or types of hospital-based health systems. DATA COLLECTION: Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation generating the factors used in the cluster algorithms. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Among the four cluster types, 54% (N = 202) of systems are decentralized (-0.35) and relatively less differentiated (-0.37); 23% of systems (N = 85) are highly differentiated (1.28) but relatively decentralized (-0.29); 15% (N = 57) are highly centralized (2.04) and highly differentiated (0.65); and approximately 9 percent (N = 33) are least differentiated (-1.35) and most decentralized (-0.64). Despite differences in calculation, the Highly Centralized, Highly Differentiated System Cluster and the Undifferentiated, Decentralized System Cluster were similar to those identified 20 years ago. The other two system clusters contained similarities as well as differences from those 20 years ago. Overall, 82 percent of the systems remain relatively decentralized suggesting they operate largely as holding companies allowing autonomy to individual hospitals operating within the system. CONCLUSIONS: The new taxonomy of hospital-based health systems bears similarities as well as differences from 20 years ago. Important applications of the taxonomy for addressing current challenges facing the healthcare system, such as the transition to value-based payment models, continued consolidation, and the growing importance of the social determinants of health, are highlighted.

Landscape of Health Systems in the United States.

Despite the prevalence of vertical integration, data and research focused on identifying and describing health systems are sparse. Until recently, we lacked an enumeration of health systems and an understanding of how systems vary by key structural attributes. To fill this gap, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed the Compendium of U.S. Health Systems, a data resource to support research on comparative health system performance. In this article, we describe the methods used to create the Compendium and present a picture of vertical integration in the United States. We identified 626 health systems in 2016, which accounted for 70% of nonfederal general acute care hospitals. These systems varied by key structural attributes, including size, ownership, and geographic presence. The Compendium can be used to study the characteristics of the U.S. health care system and address policy issues related to provider organizations.

The influence of leadership facilitation on relational coordination among primary care team members of accountable care organizations.

BACKGROUND: Teamwork is a central aspect of integrated care delivery and increasingly critical to primary care practices of accountable care organizations. Although the importance of leadership facilitation in implementing organizational change is well documented, less is known about the extent to which strong leadership facilitation can positively influence relational coordination among primary care team members. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the association of leadership facilitation of change and relational coordination among primary care teams of accountable care organization-affiliated practices and explore the role of team participation and solidarity culture as mediators of the relationship between leadership facilitation and relational coordination among team members. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Survey responses of primary care clinicians and staff (n = 764) were analyzed. Multilevel linear regression estimated the relationships among leadership facilitation, team participation, group solidarity, and relational coordination controlling for age, time, occupation, gender, team tenure, and team size. Models included practice site random effects to account for the clustering of respondents within practices. RESULTS: Leadership facilitation (ß = 0.19, p < .001) and team participation (ß = 0.18, p < .001) were positively associated with relational coordination, but solidarity culture was not associated. The association of leadership facilitation and relational coordination was only partially mediated (9%) by team participation. CONCLUSIONS: Leadership facilitation of change is positively associated with relational coordination of primary care team members. The relationship is only partially explained by better team participation, indicating that leadership facilitation has a strong direct effect on relational coordination. Greater solidarity was not associated with better relational coordination and may not contribute to better team task coordination. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Leadership facilitation of change may have a positive and direct impact on high relational coordination among primary care team members.

Medical Group Structural Integration May Not Ensure That Care Is Integrated, From The Patient's Perspective.

Structural integration is increasing among medical groups, but whether these changes yield care that is more integrated remains unclear. We explored the relationships between structural integration characteristics of 144 medical groups and perceptions of integrated care among their patients. Patients' perceptions were measured by a validated national survey of 3,067 Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions across six domains that reflect knowledge and support of, and communication with, the patient. Medical groups' structural characteristics were taken from the National Study of Physician Organizations and included practice size, specialty mix, technological capabilities, and care management processes. Patients' survey responses were most favorable for the domain of test result communication and least favorable for the domain of provider support for medication and home health management. Medical groups' characteristics were not consistently associated with patients' perceptions of integrated care. However, compared to patients of primary care groups, patients of multispecialty groups had strong favorable perceptions of medical group staff knowledge of patients' medical histories. Opportunities exist to improve patient care, but structural integration of medical groups might not be sufficient for delivering care that patients perceive as integrated.

Assessing Differences between Early and Later Adopters of Accountable Care Organizations Using Taxonomic Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare early and later adopters of the accountable care organization (ACO) model, using the taxonomy of larger, integrated system; smaller, physician-led; and hybrid ACOs. DATA SOURCES: The National Survey of ACOs, Waves 1 and 2. STUDY DESIGN: Cluster analysis using the two-step clustering approach, validated using discriminant analysis. Wave 2 data analyzed separately to assess differences from Wave 1 and then data pooled across waves. FINDINGS: Compared to early ACOs, later adopter ACOs included a greater breadth of provider group types and a greater proportion self-reported as integrated delivery systems. When data from the two time periods were combined, a three-cluster solution similar to the original cluster solution emerged. Of the 251 ACOs, 31.1 percent were larger, integrated system ACOs; 45.0 percent were smaller physician-led ACOs; and 23.9 percent were hybrid ACOs-compared to 40.1 percent, 34.0 percent, and 25.9 percent from Wave 1 clusters, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: While there are some differences between ACOs formed prior to August 2012 and those formed in the following year, the three-cluster taxonomy appears to best describe the types of ACOs in existence as of July 2013. The updated taxonomy can be used by researchers, policy makers, and health care organizations to support evaluation and continued development of ACOs.

Innovation in the safety net: integrating community health centers through accountable care.

BACKGROUND: Safety net primary care providers, including as community health centers, have long been isolated from mainstream health care providers. Current delivery system reforms such as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) may either reinforce the isolation of these providers or may spur new integration of safety net providers. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the extent of community health center involvement in ACOs, as well as how and why ACOs are partnering with these safety net primary care providers. DESIGN: Mixed methods study pairing the cross-sectional National Survey of ACOs (conducted 2012 to 2013), followed by in-depth, qualitative interviews with a subset of ACOs that include community health centers (conducted 2013). PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and seventy-three ACOs completed the National Survey of ACOs. Executives from 18 ACOs that include health centers participated in in-depth interviews, along with leadership at eight community health centers participating in ACOs. MAIN MEASURES: Key survey measures include ACO organizational characteristics, care management and quality improvement capabilities. Qualitative interviews used a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, then coded for thematic content using NVivo software. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 28% of ACOs include a community health center (CHC). ACOs with CHCs are similar to those without CHCs in organizational structure, care management and quality improvement capabilities. Qualitative results showed two major themes. First, ACOs with CHCs typically represent new relationships or formal partnerships between CHCs and other local health care providers. Second, CHCs are considered valued partners brought into ACOs to expand primary care capacity and expertise. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of ACOs include CHCs. These results suggest that rather than reinforcing segmentation of safety net providers from the broader delivery system, the ACO model may lead to the integration of safety net primary care providers.

Organizational leadership for building effective health care teams.

The movement toward accountable care organizations and patient-centered medical homes will increase with implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA will therefore give further impetus to the growing importance of teams in health care. Teams typically involve 2 or more people embedded in a larger social system who differentiate their roles, share common goals, interact with each other, and perform tasks affecting others. Multiple team types fit within this definition, and they all need support from leadership to succeed. Teams have been invoked as a necessary tool to address the needs of patients with multiple chronic conditions and to address medical workforce shortages. Invoking teams, however, is much easier than making them function effectively, so we need to consider the implications of the growing emphasis on teams. Although the ACA will spur team development, organizational leadership must use what we know now to train, support, and incentivize team function. Meanwhile, we must also advance research regarding teams in health care to give those leaders more evidence to guide their work.

Interpretations of integration in early accountable care organizations.

CONTEXT: It is widely hoped that accountable care organizations (ACOs) will improve health care quality and reduce costs by fostering integration among diverse provider groups. But how do implementers actually envision integration, and what will integration mean in terms of managing the many social identities that ACOs bring together? METHODS: Using the lens of the social identity approach, this qualitative study examined how four nascent ACOs engaged with the concept of integration. During multiday site visits, we conducted interviews (114 managers and physicians), observations, and document reviews. FINDINGS: In no case was the ACO interpreted as a new, overarching entity uniting disparate groups; rather, each site offered a unique interpretation that flowed from its existing strategies for social-identity management: An independent practice association preserved members' cherished value of autonomy by emphasizing coordination, not "integration"; a medical group promoted integration within its employed core, but not with affiliates; a hospital, engaging community physicians who mistrusted integrated systems, reimagined integration as an equal partnership; an integrated delivery system advanced its careful journey towards intergroup consensus by presenting the ACO as a cultural, not structural, change. CONCLUSIONS: The ACO appears to be a model flexible enough to work in synchrony with whatever social strategies are most context appropriate, with the potential to promote alignment and functional integration without demanding common identification with a superordinate group. "Soft integration" may be a promising alternative to the vertically integrated model that, though widely assumed to be ideal, has remained unattainable for most organizations.

Relationship between quality improvement processes and clinical performance.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between performance on clinical process measures and intermediate outcomes and the use of chronic care management processes (CMPs), electronic medical record (EMR) capabilities, and participation in external quality improvement (QI) initiatives. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of linked 2006 clinical performance scores from the Integrated Healthcare Association's pay-for-performance program and survey data from the 2nd National Study of Physician Organizations among 108 California physician organizations (POs). METHODS: Controlling for differences in PO size, organization type (medical group or independent practice association), and Medicaid revenue, we used ordinary least squares regression analysis to examine the association between the use of CMPs, EMR capabilities, and external QI initiatives and performance on the following 3 clinical composite measures: diabetes management, processes of care, and intermediate outcomes (diabetes and cardiovascular). RESULTS: Greater use of CMPs was significantly associated with clinical performance: among POs using more than 5 CMPs, we observed a 3.2-point higher diabetes management score on a performance scale with scores ranging from 0 to 100 (P <.001), while for each 1.0-point increase on the CMP index, we observed a 1.0-point gain in intermediate outcomes (P <.001). Participation in external QI initiatives was positively associated with improved delivery of clinical processes of care: a 1.0-point increase on the QI index translated into a 1.4-point gain in processes-of-care performance (P = .02). No relationship was observed between EMR capabilities and performance. CONCLUSION: Greater investments in CMPs and QI interventions may help POs raise clinical performance and achieve success under performance-based accountability schemes.

How the center for Medicare and Medicaid innovation should test accountable care organizations.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act establishes a national voluntary program for accountable care organizations (ACOs) by January 2012 under the auspices of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The act also creates a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation in the CMS. We propose that the CMS allow flexibility and tiers in ACOs based on their specific circumstances, such as the degree to which they are or are not fully integrated systems. Further, we propose that the CMS assume responsibility for ACO provisions and develop an ordered system for learning how to create and sustain ACOs. Key steps would include setting specific performance goals, developing skills and tools that facilitate change, establishing measurement and accountability mechanisms, and supporting leadership development.

Integrated health systems.

Before meaningful gains in improving the value of health care in the US can be achieved, the fragmented nature in which health care is financed and delivered must be addressed. One type of healthcare organization, the Integrated Delivery System (IDS), is poised to play a pivotal role in reform efforts. What are these systems? What is the current evidence regarding their performance? What are the current barriers to their establishment and how can these barriers be removed? This chapter addresses these important questions. Although there are many types of IDS' in the US healthcare landscape, the chapter begins by identifying the necessary healthcare components that encompass an IDS and discusses the levels of integration that are important to improving health care quality and value. Next, it explores the recent evidence regarding IDS performance which, while generally positive, is less than what it could be if there were greater focus on clinical integration. To highlight, the chapter discusses the efficacy of system engineering initiatives in two examples of large, fully integrated systems: Kaiser-Permanente and the Veterans Health Administration. The evidence here is strong that the impact of system engineering methods is enhanced through the integration of processes, goals and outcomes. Reforms necessary to encourage the development of IDS' include: 1) the development of payment mechanisms designed to increase greater inter-dependency of hospitals and physicians; 2) the modification or removal of several regulatory barriers to greater clinical integration; and 3) the establishment of a more robust data collection and reporting system to increase transparency and accountability. The chapter concludes with a framework for considering these reforms across strategic, structural, cultural, and technical dimensions.

Higher health care quality and bigger savings found at large multispecialty medical groups.

The belief that integrated delivery systems offer better care at lower cost has contributed to growing interest in accountable care organizations. These provider-led delivery systems would accept responsibility for their primary care populations and would have financial incentives for improving care and reducing costs. We investigated this belief by comparing the costs and quality of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries in twenty-two health care markets by physicians who did and did not work within large multispecialty group practices affiliated with the Council of Accountable Physician Practices. In most markets, and after adjustment for patient factors, group physicians affiliated with the council provided higher-quality care at a 3.6 percent lower annual cost ($272 per patient).

'Redefining health care': medical homes or archipelagos to navigate?

This paper provides an analysis of the structure of the health care delivery system, emphasizing physician group practices. The authors argue for comprehensive integrated delivery systems (IDSs). The jumping-off point for their analysis is the recently published Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results, by Michael Porter and Elizabeth Teisberg. The authors focus on the book's core idea that competitors should be freestanding integrated practice units (or "islands in archipelagos") versus IDSs (or "medical homes"). In any case, the authors contend that this issue should be resolved by competition to attract and serve informed, cost-conscious, responsible consumers on a level playing field.

Organizational culture and physician satisfaction with dimensions of group practice.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which the organizational culture of physician group practices is associated with individual physician satisfaction with the managerial and organizational capabilities of the groups. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Physician surveys from 1997 to 1998 assessing the culture of their medical groups and their satisfaction with six aspects of group practice. Organizational culture was conceptualized using the Competing Values framework, yielding four distinct cultural types. Physician-level data were aggregated to the group level to attain measures of organizational culture. Using hierarchical linear modeling, individual physician satisfaction with six dimensions of group practice was predicted using physician-level variables and group-level variables. Separate models for each of the four cultural types were estimated for each of the six satisfaction measures, yielding a total of 24 models. SAMPLE STUDIED: Fifty-two medical groups affiliated with 12 integrated health systems from across the U.S., involving 1,593 physician respondents (38.3 percent response rate). Larger medical groups and multispecialty groups were over-represented compared with the U.S. as a whole. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our models explain up to 31 percent of the variance in individual physician satisfaction with group practice, with individual organizational culture scales explaining up to 5 percent of the variance. Group-level predictors: group (i.e., participatory) culture was positively associated with satisfaction with staff and human resources, technological sophistication, and price competition. Hierarchical (i.e., bureaucratic) culture was negatively associated with satisfaction with managerial decision making, practice level competitiveness, price competition, and financial capabilities. Rational (i.e., task-oriented) culture was negatively associated with satisfaction with staff and human resources, and price competition. Developmental (i.e., risk-taking) culture was not significantly associated with any of the satisfaction measures. In some of the models, being a single-specialty group (compared with a primary care group) and a group having a higher percent of male physicians were positively associated with satisfaction with financial capabilities. Physician-level predictors: individual physicians' ratings of organizational culture were significantly related to many of the satisfaction measures. In general, older physicians were more satisfied than younger physicians with many of the satisfaction measures. Male physicians were less satisfied with data capabilities. Primary care physicians (versus specialists) were less satisfied with price competition. CONCLUSION: Some dimensions of physician organizational culture are significantly associated with various aspects of individual physician satisfaction with group practice.

Reexamining organizational configurations: an update, validation, and expansion of the taxonomy of health networks and systems.

OBJECTIVES: To (a) assess how the original cluster categories of hospital-led health networks and systems have changed over time; (b) identify any new patterns of cluster configurations; and (c) demonstrate how additional data can be used to refine and enhance the taxonomy measures. DATA SOURCES; 1994 and 1998 American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey of Hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: As in the original taxonomy, separate cluster solutions are identified for health networks and health systems by applying three strategic/structural dimensions (differentiation, integration, and centralization) to three components of the health service/product continuum (hospital services, physician arrangements, and provider-based insurance activities). DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: Factor, cluster, and discriminant analyses are used to analyze the 1998 data. Descriptive and comparative methods are used to analyze the updated 1998 taxonomy relative to the original 1994 version. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The 1998 cluster categories are similar to the original taxonomy, however, they reveal some new organizational configurations. For the health networks, centralization of product/service lines is occurring more selectively than in the past. For the health systems, participation has grown in and dispersed across a more diverse set of decentralized organizational forms. For both networks and systems, the definition of centralization has changed over time. CONCLUSIONS: In its updated form, the taxonomy continues to provide policymakers and practitioners with a descriptive and contextual framework against which to assess organizational programs and policies. There is a need to continue to revisit the taxonomy from time to time because of the persistent evolution of the U.S. health care industry and the consequent shifting of organizational configurations in this arena. There is also value in continuing to move the taxonomy in the direction of refinement/expansion as new opportunities become available.