Organizational capacity among hospitals in Medicare and commercial bundled payments.

OBJECTIVES: Hospitals must strategically build organizational capacities to succeed in bundled payment arrangements. Given differences between Medicare and commercial arrangements, capacities may vary between hospitals in Medicare vs both Medicare and commercial bundled payment programs. This study compared organizational capacities between these 2 hospital groups. STUDY DESIGN: National survey of American Hospital Association (AHA) member hospitals with experience in bundled payment programs. METHODS: We analyzed data from October 31, 2017, to April 30, 2018, collected from AHA member hospitals with bundled payment experience in only Medicare (Medicare-only hospitals) or in both Medicare and commercial insurers (multipayer hospitals). Survey questions examined capacity in 4 areas: (1) physician performance feedback, (2) care management, (3) postacute care provider utilization, and (4) health information technology. RESULTS: Our sample included 114 hospitals reporting experience in Medicare or commercial bundled payment programs. Both Medicare-only and multipayer hospitals reported high organizational capacities in performance measurement of physician-level quality and cost feedback and in incorporation of health information technology. More multipayer hospitals reported high capacity for coordinating hospital to postacute care settings (88% vs 52%). Although nearly all hospitals in both groups reported formalized relationships with skilled nursing facilities (98%), fewer hospitals reported such relationships with long-term acute care hospitals (83%) and inpatient rehabilitation facilities (80%). CONCLUSIONS: Although they have similar capacity in a number of areas, Medicare-only and multipayer hospitals differed with respect to other aspects of organizational capacity.

Organizational Capacity of Hospitals Co-Participating in Accountable Care Organizations and Bundled Payments.

Building organizational capacity is critical for hospitals participating in payment models such as bundled payments and accountable care organizations, particularly "co-participant" hospitals with experience in both models. This study used a national survey of American Hospital Association member hospitals with bundled payment experience, with (co-participant hospitals) or without (bundled payment hospitals) accountable care organization experience. Questions examined capacity in 4 domains: performance feedback, postacute care provider utilization, care management, and health information technology. Of 424 hospitals, 38% responded. Both co-participant and bundled payment hospitals reported high capacity for performance feedback and risk stratification and predictive risk assessment using health information technology systems. The hospital groups did not differ in care management capacity, but bundled payment hospitals reported higher postacute care provider utilization capacity. Experience with multiple payment models may prompt hospitals to make different investments or adopt different strategies than hospitals with experience in a single model.

Small, nonteaching, and rural hospitals continue to be slow in adopting electronic health record systems.

To achieve the goal of comprehensive health information record keeping and exchange among providers and patients, hospitals must have functioning electronic health record systems that contain patient demographics, care histories, lab results, and more. Using national survey data on US hospitals from 2011, the year federal incentives for the meaningful use of electronic health records began, we found that the share of hospitals with any electronic health record system increased from 15.1 percent in 2010 to 26.6 percent in 2011, and the share with a comprehensive system rose from 3.6 percent to 8.7 percent. The proportion able to meet our proxy criteria for meaningful use also rose; in 2011, 18.4 percent of hospitals had these functions in place in at least one unit and 11.2 percent had them across all clinical units. However, gaps in rates of adoption of at least a basic record system have increased substantially over the past four years based on hospital size, teaching status, and location. Small, nonteaching, and rural hospitals continue to adopt electronic health record systems more slowly than other types of hospitals. In sum, this is mixed news for policy makers, who should redouble their efforts among hospitals that appear to be moving slowly and ensure that policies do not further widen gaps in adoption. A more robust infrastructure for information exchange needs to be developed, and possibly a special program for the sizable minority of hospitals that have almost no health information technology at all.

Progress toward meaningful use: hospitals' adoption of electronic health records.

OBJECTIVES: To update the status of electronic health record (EHR) adoption in US hospitals and assess their readiness for "Meaningful Use" (MU). STUDY DESIGN: We used data from the 2010 American Hospital Association Annual Information Technology Survey. The survey was first conducted in 2007 and is made available both online and through the mail to all non-federal acute-care hospitals in the United States. METHODS: We measure the percentages of applicable hospitals that have adopted "basic" and "comprehensive" EHRs as defined in previous literature. Additionally, we report the percentage of hospitals planning to apply for MU in the near term, and assess hospitals' readiness for the program and how readiness varies by key characteristics. RESULTS: We received responses from 2902 hospitals (64% of all non-federal acute-care hospitals). More than 15% have adopted at least a "basic" EHR, representing nearly 75% growth since 2008. Approximately two-thirds plan to apply for MU before 2013; however, only 4.4% had implemented each of the "core" MU functionalities we measured. Hospitals closer to achieving MU are more likely to be larger non-profits (P <.001) and vary by other key characteristics. Certain functionalities included in MU, such as computerized provider order entry, electronic generation of quality measures, and electronic access to records for patients are proving more challenging to implement for all hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Broad enthusiasm exists among hospitals for participation in MU. However, adoption will have to accelerate above its current pace for readiness to match intention. Gaps in adoption show bringing all hospitals along is the key policy challenge.

A progress report on electronic health records in U.S. hospitals.

Given the substantial federal financial incentives soon to be available to providers who make "meaningful use" of electronic health records, tracking the progress of this health care technology conversion is a policy priority. Using a recent survey of U.S. hospitals, we found that the share of hospitals that had adopted either basic or comprehensive electronic records has risen modestly, from 8.7 percent in 2008 to 11.9 percent in 2009. Small, public, and rural hospitals were less likely to embrace electronic records than their larger, private, and urban counterparts. Only 2 percent of U.S. hospitals reported having electronic health records that would allow them to meet the federal government's "meaningful use" criteria. These findings underscore the fact that the transition to a digital health care system is likely to be a long one.

The status of hospital medicine groups in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalists, defined as hospital-based physicians who take responsibility for managing the medical needs of inpatients, represent a significant trend in physician specialization. However, only limited anecdotal data quantifying the status of hospital medicine groups around the country is available. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the extent and nature of the hospitalist movement, utilizing data from the 2003 Annual Survey of the American Hospital Association (AHA). STUDY POPULATION: 4895 acute care hospitals in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: Number and percentage of hospitals with hospital medicine groups; mean number of hospitalists per group; hospitalists per average daily census (ADC) of 100 patients; distribution of groups by employment model. DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES: Census region; rural/urban status; number of beds; organizational control; teaching status. RESULTS: There are approximately 1415 hospital medicine groups and 11,159 hospitalists in the United States. The overall penetration of hospital medicine groups at hospitals is 29% (55% at hospitals with 200 or more beds), and the in-hospital impact at hospitals with hospital medicine groups is 3.93 hospitalists per 100 ADC. The average hospital medicine group has 7.9 hospitalists. There is a fairly equal distribution among the 3 major employment models for hospital medicine groups: hospital employees, independent provider groups, and physician groups. All these measures can vary substantially, depending on the characteristics of individual hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital medicine appears to have become part of the mainstream delivery of health care in the United States. No employment model of hospital medicine group appears to dominate this specialty. We expect there will continue to be growth and diversity in the implementation of hospital medicine groups.

The growth of palliative care programs in United States hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care programs are becoming increasingly common in U.S. hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the growth of hospital based palliative care programs from 2000-2003 and identify hospital characteristics associated with the development of a palliative care program. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS: Data were obtained from the 2001-2004 American Hospital Association Annual Surveys which covered calendar years 2000-2003. We identified all programs that self-reported the presence of a hospital-owned palliative care program and acute medical and surgical beds. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify characteristics significantly associated with the presence of a palliative care program in the 2003 survey data. RESULTS: Overall, the number of programs increased linearly from 632 (15% of hospitals) in 2000 to 1027 (25% of hospitals) in 2003. Significant predictors associated with an increased likelihood of having a palliative care program included greater numbers of hospital beds and critical care beds, geographic region, and being an academic medical center. Compared to notfor- profit hospitals, VA hospitals were significantly more likely to have a palliative care program and city, county or state and for-profit hospitals were significantly less likely to have a program. Hospitals operated by the Catholic Church, and hospitals that owned their own hospice program were significantly more likely to have a palliative care program than non- Catholic Church-operated hospitals and hospitals without hospice programs respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that although growth in palliative care programs has occurred throughout the nation's hospitals, larger hospitals, academic medical centers, not-for-profit hospitals, and VA hospitals are significantly more likely to develop a program compared to other hospitals.

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.