The association between opioid use disorder and skilled nursing facility acceptances: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Prior single-hospital studies have documented barriers to acceptance that hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) face when referred to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of OUD on the number of SNF referrals and the proportion of referrals accepted. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of hospitalizations with SNF referrals in 2019 at two academic hospitals in Baltimore, MD. EXPOSURE: OUD status was determined by receipt of medications for OUD during admission, upon discharge, or the presence of a diagnosis code for OUD. KEY RESULTS: The cohort included 6043 hospitalizations (5440 hospitalizations of patients without OUD and 603 hospitalizations of patients with OUD). Hospitalizations of patients with OUD had more SNF referrals sent (8.9 vs. 5.6, p < .001), had a lower proportion of SNF referrals accepted (31.3% vs. 46.9%, p < .001), and were less likely to be discharged to an SNF (65.6% vs. 70.3%, p = .003). The effect of OUD status on the number of SNF referrals and the proportion of referrals accepted remained significant in multivariable analyses. Our subanalysis showed that reduced acceptances were driven by the hospitalizations of patients discharged without medications for OUD and those receiving methadone. Hospitalizations of patients discharged on buprenorphine were accepted at the same rates as hospitalizations of patients without OUD. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study found that hospitalizations of patients with OUD had more SNF referrals sent and fewer referrals accepted. Further work is needed to address the limited discharge options for patients with OUD.

Preventing Avoidable Rehospitalizations through Standardizing Management of Chronic Conditions in Skilled Nursing Facilities.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the impact of standardized care protocols, as a part of a quality improvement initiative (J10ohns Hopkins Community Health Partnership, J-CHiP), on hospital readmission rates for patients with a diagnosis of congestive heart failure (CHF) and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) after being discharged to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). DESIGN: A retrospective study comparing 30-day hospital readmission rates the year before and 2 years following the implementation of the care protocol interventions. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients discharged from Johns Hopkins Hospital or Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center to the participating SNFs diagnosed with CHF and/or COPD. METHODS: The standardized protocols included medical provider or nurse assessments on SNF admission, multidisciplinary care planning, and medication management to avoid unplanned readmissions to the hospital. Descriptive analyses were conducted to illustrate the 30-day readmission rates before and after protocol implementation. RESULTS: There were 1128 patients in the pre-J-CHiP cohort and 2297 patients in the J-CHiP cohort. About half of the patients with a recorded diagnosis of CHF without COPD had the standardized protocol initiated, whereas 47% of the patients with a recorded diagnosis of COPD without CHF had the standardized protocol initiated. Of patients with recorded diagnoses of COPD and CHF, 49% had both protocols initiated. A reduction in the readmission rate was observed for patients with COPD protocols, from 23.5% in 2011 to 12.1% in 2015. However, fluctuations in the readmission rates were observed for patients who initiated the CHF protocols. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There were improvements in the readmission rates in this study, especially for patients who had initiated standardized care protocols in the SNFs. Our findings demonstrate great value in standardizing care management and strengthening collaboration with chronic care settings to facilitate a smooth transition of medically complex patients discharged from large health care systems. Future interventions could consider assessing nonclinical factors that may impact preventable hospital readmissions.

Planning for the future of population health: the Johns Hopkins Medicine experience.

Johns Hopkins Medicine underwent a significant evolution with a new Office of Population Health (OPH), inclusive of a hybrid clinical and administrative structure, to optimally align expertise with care delivery functions. Initial priorities included identification of high-risk patients to receive care management, integrated behavioral health, and wraparound supports to address social determinants of health. A cross-functional care team provides multidisciplinary support for primary care practice patient needs, and efforts through the Baltimore Metropolitan Diabetes Regional Partnership have helped accelerate scaling of evidence-based diabetes prevention and management programs across the state. Through a multistakeholder process, OPH and partners developed a 3-year strategic plan, with guiding stars of reducing avoidable utilization and disparities in care. The plan prioritized (1) generation of a data and analytics road map, (2) advanced population management clinical services for priority populations, (3) improved performance on value-based care programming, and (4) enhanced health system coordination. With a new OPH, Johns Hopkins Medicine is better positioned to execute on value-based initiatives in support of its patients.

Transforming Health Care from Volume to Value: Moving the Needle Through Population Health.

United States health systems face unique challenges in transitioning from volume-based to value-based care, particularly for academic institutions. Providing complex specialty and tertiary care dependent on servicing large geographic areas, and concomitantly meeting education and research academic missions may limit the time and resources available for focusing on the care coordination needs of complex local populations. Despite these challenges, academic medicine is well situated to capitalize on the promise of value-based care and to lead broad improvements in both teaching and nonteaching hospitals. If properly executed, value-based care and complex specialty care can be complementary and synergistic. We postulate that the transition from volume to value in population health requires all health care organizations to advance and formalize infrastructure in 3 core areas: organizational capabilities; provider engagement; and engagement of the patient, family, and community. Although these apply to all organizations, for academic health systems, this transition must also be interwoven with the other domains of the tripartite mission.

A Targeted "Top 100" High-Risk Care Management Program Improves Adherence to Best Practices.

Care management programs for high-risk patients have yielded inconsistent results in reducing health care expenditures. We reviewed the most successful programs and identified 5 best practice areas: (1) in-person patient meetings; (2) direct care manager/physician interaction; (3) provide transitional care services; (4) educate patients; and (5) provide medication review. We measured adherence to the best practices at baseline and at 6 and 9 months into the program for the highest-risk patients. The program increased adherence from baseline to each best practice area. Program enrollment increased at the 6-month follow-up but fell at the 9-month follow-up.

Who represents me? A patient-derived model of patient engagement via patient and family advisory councils (PFACs).

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing attention to patient and family advisory councils (PFACs), what patients who are not PFAC members expect of PFACs remains understudied. Understanding their expectations is critical if PFACs are to help health systems achieve certain outcomes (eg increased patient satisfaction with health systems). OBJECTIVE: To obtain rich insights about what patients who are not PFAC members expect of PFACs. DESIGN: From July to September 2018, we conducted a qualitative study using focus groups. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited patients and caregivers who receive their care from the Johns Hopkins Medicine Alliance for Patients (JMAP), LLC, a Medicare accountable care organization that in 2014 established a PFAC, the Beneficiary Advisory Council. APPROACH: Using grounded theory, we analysed field notes, analytic memos and transcripts to develop a theoretical model of patient engagement via PFACs. RESULTS: Forty-two patients and caregivers participated in five focus groups that included individuals of different ages, races, health statuses and socio-economic statuses. Participants were largely unaware of PFACs. Participants wanted to know who represented them (interpreted as a form of political representation) and emphasized the need for representatives' diversity. Who mattered because who could affect what PFACs do. Participants expected that all patients should be able to communicate with PFACs and that meaningful engagement could enhance perceptions of health systems. CONCLUSIONS: Eliciting views about patient representation from patients who have not been engaged as advisors or representatives has the potential to inform PFACs' activities. Attention should be given to improving and measuring patients' awareness of, and interactions with, their patient representatives.

Population Health and Academic Medical Centers: High Cost Meets High Efficiency.

Academic medicine is at an inflection point with the changing priorities of health care to focus more on population health. In this new model of care, the academic medical center (AMC) tripartite mission needs to be reworked into a new framework that prioritizes management of populations, integration, adaptability, and rapid learning. To complete this change, AMCs will have to undergo the hard work of culture change, which will be facilitated by restructuring governance and organizational structures to fund and champion the population health view. Care coordination and fund health information technology enhancements will be needed to support this work.

Patients' Views About Patient Engagement and Representation in Healthcare Governance.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Health systems increasingly engage with patient representatives on their governance boards or with patient and family advisory councils to improve care delivery. Little is known about how general patients regard those engagement activities. The objective of this study was to assess the importance of patient representation. We mailed a survey to 31,687 Medicare beneficiaries attributed to a Medicare accountable care organization. We examined relationships between respondents' views and their health characteristics and performed thematic analysis on free-text responses. Among 3,061 respondents, the majority believed that having a patient representative (74.1%) or a patient council (74.0%) mattered "some" or "a lot." The main factors respondents considered in answering were that "patients deserve a voice" (64%) and "having a patient on the [governance] board increases my trust" in this organization (46%). Our analysis of free-text responses illuminated why patient representatives are important, keys to successful engagement, and reasons behind the skepticism. This study indicates that most patients believe representation in health system governance is important, and that realizing its potential requires engagement activities that improve general patients' awareness of, and interaction with, their representatives.

Implementation of a comprehensive program to improve coordination of care in an urban academic health care system.

Purpose Academic healthcare systems face great challenges in coordinating services across a continuum of care that spans hospital, community providers, home and chronic care facilities. The Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership (J-CHiP) was created to improve coordination of acute, sub-acute and ambulatory care for patients, and improve the health of high-risk patients in surrounding neighborhoods. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach J-CHiP targeted adults admitted to the Johns Hopkins Hospital and Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, patients discharged to participating skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), and high-risk Medicare and Medicaid patients receiving primary care in eight nearby outpatient sites. The primary drivers of the program were redesigned acute care delivery, seamless transitions of care and deployment of community care teams. Findings Acute care interventions included risk screening, multidisciplinary care planning, pharmacist-driven medication management, patient/family education, communication with next provider and care coordination protocols for common conditions. Transition interventions included post-discharge health plans, hand-offs and follow-up with primary care providers, Transition Guides, a patient access line and collaboration with SNFs. Community interventions involved forming multidisciplinary care coordination teams, integrated behavioral care and new partnerships with community-based organizations. Originality/value This paper offers a detailed description of the design and implementation of a complex program to improve care coordination for high-risk patients in an urban setting. The case studies feature findings from each intervention that promoted patient engagement, strengthened collaboration with community-based organizations and improved coordination of care.

Going Beyond Clinical Care to Reduce Health Care Spending: Findings From the J-CHiP Community-based Population Health Management Program Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Addressing both clinical and nonclinical determinants of health is essential for improving population health outcomes. In 2012, the Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership (J-CHiP) implemented innovative population health management programs across acute and community environments. The community-based program involved multidisciplinary teams [ie, physicians, care managers (CM), health behavior specialists (HBS), community health workers, neighborhood navigators] and collaboration with community-based organizations to address social determinants. OBJECTIVES: To report the impact of a community-based program on cost and utilization from 2011 to 2016. DESIGN: Difference-in-difference estimates were calculated for an inclusive cohort of J-CHiP participants and matched nonparticipants. The analysis was replicated for participants with a CM and/or HBS to estimate the differential impact with more intensive program services. SUBJECTS: A total of 3268 high-risk Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries (1634 total J-CHiP participants, 1365 with CM and 678 with HBS). OUTCOME MEASURES: Paid costs and counts of emergency department visits, admissions, and readmissions per member per year. RESULTS: For Medicaid, costs were almost $1200 per member per year lower for participants as a whole, $2000 lower for those with an HBS, and $3000 lower for those with a CM; hospital admission and readmission rates were 9%-26% lower for those with a CM and/or HBS. For Medicare, costs were lower (-$476), but utilization was similar or higher than nonparticipants. None of the observed Medicaid or Medicare differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Although not statistically significant, the results indicate a promising innovation for Medicaid beneficiaries. For Medicare, the impact was negligible, indicating the need for further program modification.

Strategic Review Process for an Accountable Care Organization and Emerging Accountable Care Best Practices.

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), like other care entities, must be strategic about which initiatives they support in the quest for higher value. This article reviews the current strategic planning process for the Johns Hopkins Medicine Alliance for Patients (JMAP), a Medicare Shared Savings Program Track 1 ACO. It reviews the 3 focus areas for the 2017 strategic review process - (1) optimizing care coordination for complex, at-risk patients, (2) post-acute care, and (3) specialty care integration - reviewing cost savings and quality improvement opportunities, associated best practices from the literature, and opportunities to leverage and advance existing ACO and health system efforts in each area. It then reviews the ultimate selection of priorities for the coming year and early thoughts on implementation. After the robust review process, key stakeholders voted to select interventions targeted at care coordination, post-acute care, and specialty integration including Part B drug and imaging costs. The interventions selected incorporate a mixture of enhancing current ACO initiatives, working collaboratively and synergistically on other health system initiatives, and taking on new projects deemed targeted, cost-effective, and manageable in scope. The annual strategic review has been an essential and iterative process based on performance data and informed by the collective experience of other organizations. The process allows for an evidence-based strategic plan for the ACO in pursuit of the best care for patients.

Association of a Care Coordination Model With Health Care Costs and Utilization: The Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership (J-CHiP).

Importance: The Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership was created to improve care coordination across the continuum in East Baltimore, Maryland. Objective: To determine whether the Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership (J-CHiP) was associated with improved outcomes and lower spending. Design, Setting, and Participants: Nonrandomized acute care intervention (ACI) and community intervention (CI) Medicare and Medicaid participants were analyzed in a quality improvement study using difference-in-differences designs with propensity score-weighted and matched comparison groups. The study spanned 2012 to 2016 and took place in acute care hospitals, primary care clinics, skilled nursing facilities, and community-based organizations. The ACI analysis compared outcomes of participants in Medicare and Medicaid during their 90-day postacute episode with those of a propensity score-weighted preintervention group at Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership hospitals and a concurrent comparison group drawn from similar Maryland hospitals. The CI analysis compared changes in outcomes of Medicare and Medicaid participants with those of a propensity score-matched comparison group of local residents. Interventions: The ACI bundle aimed to improve transition planning following discharge. The CI included enhanced care coordination and integrated behavioral support from local primary care sites in collaboration with community-based organizations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Utilization measures of hospital admissions, 30-day readmissions, and emergency department visits; quality of care measures of potentially avoidable hospitalizations, practitioner follow-up visits; and total cost of care (TCOC) for Medicare and Medicaid participants. Results: The CI group had 2154 Medicare beneficiaries (1320 [61.3%] female; mean age, 69.3 years) and 2532 Medicaid beneficiaries (1483 [67.3%] female; mean age, 55.1 years). For the CI group's Medicaid participants, aggregate TCOC reduction was $24.4 million, and reductions of hospitalizations, emergency department visits, 30-day readmissions, and avoidable hospitalizations were 33, 51, 36, and 7 per 1000 beneficiaries, respectively. The ACI group had 26 144 beneficiary-episodes for Medicare (13 726 [52.5%] female patients; mean patient age, 68.4 years) and 13 921 beneficiary-episodes for Medicaid (7392 [53.1%] female patients; mean patient age, 52.2 years). For the ACI group's Medicare participants, there was a significant reduction in aggregate TCOC of $29.2 million with increases in 90-day hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions of 11 and 14 per 1000 beneficiary-episodes, respectively, and reduction in practitioner follow-up visits of 41 and 29 per 1000 beneficiary-episodes for 7-day and 30-day visits, respectively. For the ACI group's Medicaid participants, there was a significant reduction in aggregate TCOC of $59.8 million and the 90-day emergency department visit rate decreased by 133 per 1000 episodes, but hospitalizations increased by 49 per 1000 episodes and practitioner follow-up visits decreased by 70 and 182 per 1000 episodes for 7-day and 30-day visits, respectively. In total, the CI and ACI were associated with $113.3 million in cost savings. Conclusions and Relevance: A care coordination model consisting of complementary bundled interventions in an urban academic environment was associated with lower spending and improved health outcomes.

A Concise Tool for Measuring Care Coordination from the Provider's Perspective in the Hospital Setting.

BACKGROUND: To support hospital efforts to improve coordination of care, a tool is needed to evaluate care coordination from the perspective of inpatient healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVES: To develop a concise tool for assessing care coordination in hospital units from the perspective of healthcare professionals, and to assess the performance of the tool in measuring dimensions of care coordination in 2 hospitals after implementation of a care coordination initiative. METHODS: We developed a survey consisting of 12 specific items and 1 global item to measure provider perceptions of care coordination across a variety of domains, including teamwork and communication, handoffs, transitions, and patient engagement. The questionnaire was distributed online between October 2015 and January 2016 to nurses, physicians, social workers, case managers, and other professionals in 2 tertiary care hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 841 inpatient care professionals completed the survey (response rate = 56.6%). Among respondents, 590 (75%) were nurses and 37 (4.7%) were physicians. Exploratory factor analysis revealed 4 subscales: (1) Teamwork, (2) Patient Engagement, (3) Handoffs, and (4) Transitions (Cronbach's alpha 0.84-0.90). Scores were fairly consistent for 3 subscales but were lower for patient engagement. There were minor differences in scores by profession, department, and hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The new tool measures 4 important aspects of inpatient care coordination with evidence for internal consistency and construct validity, indicating that the tool can be used in monitoring, evaluating, and planning care coordination activities in hospital settings.

American Heart Association's Call to Action for Payment and Delivery System Reform.

The healthcare system is undergoing a transition from paying for volume to paying for value. Clinicians, as well as public and private payers, are beginning to implement alternative delivery and payment models, such as the patient-centered medical home, accountable care organizations, and bundled payment arrangements. Implementation of these new models will necessitate delivery system transformation and will actively involve all fields of medical care, in particular medicine and surgery. This call to action, on behalf of the American Heart Association's Expert Panel on Payment and Delivery System Reform, serves to offer support and direction for further involvement by the American Heart Association. In doing so, it (1) provides baseline review and definition of the present models and some of the early results of these delivery models, including outcomes; (2) initiates a conversation within the American Heart Association on the impact of payment and delivery system reform, as well as how the American Heart Association should engage in the interest of patients; (3) issues a call to action to our organization and to cardiovascular and stroke health professionals across the country to become educated about these models so to as to understand their impact on patient care; and (4) asks the government and other funding agencies, including the American Heart Association, to begin supporting and prioritizing meaningful research endeavors to further evaluate these models.

Regional cost and experience, not size or hospital inclusion, helps predict ACO success.

The Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) continues to expand and now includes 434 accountable care organizations (ACOs) serving more than 7 million beneficiaries. During 2014, 86 of these ACOs earned over $300 million in shared savings payments by promoting higher-quality patient care at a lower cost.Whether organizational characteristics, regional cost of care, or experience in the MSSP are associated with the ability to achieve shared savings remains uncertain.Using financial results from 2013 and 2014, we examined all 339 MSSP ACOs with a 2012, 2013, or 2014 start-date. We used a cross-sectional analysis to examine all ACOs and used a multivariate logistic model to predict probability of achieving shared savings.Experience, as measured by years in the MSSP program, was associated with success and the ability to earn shared savings varied regionally. This variation was strongly associated with differences in regional Medicare fee-for-service per capita costs: ACOs in high cost regions were more likely to earn savings. In the multivariate model, the number of ACO beneficiaries, inclusion of a hospital or involvement of an academic medical center, was not associated with likelihood of earning shared savings, after accounting for regional baseline cost variation.These results suggest ACOs are learning and improving from their experience. Additionally, the results highlight regional differences in ACO success and the strong association with variation in regional per capita costs, which can inform CMS policy to help promote ACO success nationwide.

Novel Emergency Department Risk Score Discriminates Acute Coronary Syndrome Among Chest Pain Patients With Known Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with known coronary artery disease presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain are often admitted, yet may not be having an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: We assessed whether the use of a novel risk score and a modified thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score obtained in the ED could discriminate which of these high-risk patients have ACS. Chart review was performed on a cohort of 285 patients with known coronary artery disease presenting to the ED with chest pain thought to be of ischemic origin and admitted to the hospital. The ED variables were assessed with logistic regression for their association with eventual ACS diagnosis at hospital discharge. ACS was diagnosed in 74 (26%) of the patients. RESULTS: Non-ACS patients had a 2-day median length of stay and $6875 median inpatient (post ED) hospital charges (not including physician fees), totaling 566 hospital bed days and $1,871,250 for the 211 (74%) non-ACS patients. A novel risk score, including (1) history of prior revascularization, (2) comorbid chronic kidney disease, (3) onset of chest discomfort at rest, (4) dynamic electrocardiogram changes in the ED, (5) elevated troponin I (>0.05 ng/mL) in the ED, and (6) associated illness at presentation, discriminated ACS and non-ACS with a c statistic of 0.767; the c statistic for a modified thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score was 0.712. CONCLUSIONS: Application of these risk scores may reduce the number of potentially avoidable admissions and their associated hazards and costs.