Overall Cost Comparison of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures With Endoscopist- or Anesthesia-Supported Sedation by Activity-Based Costing Techniques.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic/colonoscopic procedures are either done with gastroenterologist-administered conscious sedation or with anesthesia-administered sedation with propofol. There are potential benefits to anesthesia-administered sedation, but the concern has been the associated increased cost. METHODS: To perform this study, we used the time-derived activity-based costing (TDABC) technique to accurately assess the true cost of gastrointestinal procedures done with gastroenterologist-administered conscious sedation vs anesthesia-administered sedation in 2 areas of our practice that use predominantly conscious sedation or anesthesia-administered sedation. This type of study has never been reported using such an integrated approach. This study was performed on 2 different days in June 2015. RESULTS: The true cost associated with anesthesia-administered sedation in our practice was associated with only 9% to 24% greater cost when the TDABC technique was applied. CONCLUSION: Gastrointestinal procedures with anesthesia-administered sedation are not as costly when all factors are considered. Using novel approaches to cost measurement, such as the TDABC, allows a total cost measurement approach across an episode of care that existing cost measurements in health care are incapable of.

Looking Under the Streetlight? A Framework for Differentiating Performance Measures by Level of Care in a Value-Based Payment Environment.

The majority of quality measures used to assess providers and hospitals are based on easily obtained data, focused on a few dimensions of quality, and developed mainly for primary/community care and population health. While this approach supports efforts focused on addressing the triple aim of health care, many current quality report cards and assessments do not reflect the breadth or complexity of many referral center practices.In this article, the authors highlight the differences between population health efforts and referral care and address issues related to value measurement and performance assessment. They discuss why measures may need to differ across the three levels of care (primary/community care, secondary care, complex care) and illustrate the need for further risk adjustment to eliminate referral bias.With continued movement toward value-based purchasing, performance measures and reimbursement schemes need to reflect the increased level of intensity required to provide complex care. The authors propose a framework to operationalize value measurement and payment for specialty care, and they make specific recommendations to improve performance measurement for complex patients. Implementing such a framework to differentiate performance measures by level of care involves coordinated efforts to change both policy and operational platforms. An essential component of this framework is a new model that defines the characteristics of patients who require complex care and standardizes metrics that incorporate those definitions.

The business case for health-care quality improvement.

The business case for health-care quality improvement is presented. We contend that investment in process improvement is aligned with patients' interests, the organization's reputation, and the engagement of their workforce. Four groups benefit directly from quality improvement: patients, providers, insurers, and employers. There is ample opportunity, even in today's predominantly pay-for-volume (that is, evolving toward value-based purchasing) insurance system, for providers to deliver care that is in the best interest of the patient while improving their financial performance.

The Mayo Clinic Value Creation System.

The authors present Mayo Clinic's Value Creation System, a coherent systems engineering approach to delivering a single high-value practice. There are 4 tightly linked, interdependent phases of the system: alignment, discovery, managed diffusion, and measurement. The methodology is described and examples of the results to date are presented. The Value Creation System has been demonstrated to improve the quality of patient care while reducing costs and increasing productivity.

Quality: the Mayo Clinic approach.

Developing highly reliable care for patients requires changes in some traditional beliefs of medical practice, an evolution toward a "system" of health care, the disciplined application of scientific principles, modifications in the way all future providers are trained, and a fundamental understanding by leadership that quality must become a business strategy and core work, not an expense or regulatory requirement. Quality at Mayo is defined as a composite of outcomes, safety, and service. A 4-part strategic construct focusing on Culture, Infrastructure, Engineering, and Execution has been developed to guide improvement activities and to ensure a comprehensive approach to better patient care. The Mayo Clinic experience has led to a greater understanding of the leadership commitment, organizational challenges, and the breadth of initiatives necessary to achieve highly reliable care.

Quality improvement in radiology: white paper report of the Sun Valley Group meeting.

The Sun Valley Group is an informal assembly of individuals interested in improving quality in radiology. Its first meeting was held in September 2005. The purposes of the meeting was to share quality improvement experiences, consider a strategy for promoting quality improvement initiatives across the radiology profession, and initiate quality benchmarking efforts. Representatives from private practice, academia, national quality programs, and international societies were in attendance. Four main themes were presented: the sharing of leading quality activities in radiology, the future of pay-for-performance systems, programs and future initiatives of professional radiology societies, and health services research guidelines for developing outcome metrics. This white paper summarizes information presented in each of these thematic areas and concludes with the group's plans for future activities. Among these is a formal educational program for all radiologists interested in implementing a quality improvement program within their practice, to be hosted by the ACR.