Improving the quality of workers' compensation health care delivery: the Washington State Occupational Health Services Project.

This article has summarized research and policy activities undertaken in Washington State over the past several years to identify the key problems that result in poor quality and excessive disability among injured workers, and the types of system and delivery changes that could best address these problems in order to improve the quality of occupational health care provided through the workers' compensation system. Our investigations have consistently pointed to the lack of coordination and integration of occupational health services as having major adverse effects on quality and health outcomes for workers' compensation. The Managed Care Pilot Project, a delivery system intervention, focused on making changes in how care is organized and delivered to injured workers. That project demonstrated robust improvements in disability reduction; however, worker satisfaction suffered. Our current quality improvement initiative, developed through the Occupational Health Services Project, synthesizes what was learned from the MCP and other pilot studies to make delivery system improvements. This initiative seeks to develop provider incentives and clinical management processes that will improve outcomes and reduce the burden of disability on injured workers. Fundamental to this approach are simultaneously preserving workers' right to choose their own physician and maintaining flexibility in the provision of individualized care based on clinical need and progress. The OHS project then will be a "real world" test to determine if aligning provider incentives and giving physicians the tools they need to optimize occupational health delivery can demonstrate sustainable reduction in disability and improvements in patient and employer satisfaction. Critical to the success of this initiative will be our ability to: (1) enhance the occupational health care management skills and expertise of physicians who treat injured workers by establishing community-based Centers of Occupational Health and Education; (2) design feasible methods of monitoring patient outcomes and satisfaction with the centers and with the providers working with them in order to assess their effectiveness and value; (3) establish incentives for improved outcomes and worker and employer satisfaction through formal agreements with the centers and providers; and (4) develop quality indicators for the three targeted conditions (low back sprain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and fractures) that serve as the basis for both quality improvement processes and performance-based contracting. What lessons or insights does our experience offer thus far? The primary lesson is the importance of making effective partnerships and collaborations. Our policy and research activities have benefited significantly from the positive relationship the DLI established with the practice community through the Washington State Medical and Chiropractic Associations and from the DLI's close association with the Healthcare Subcommittee of the Workers' Compensation Advisory Committee. This committee is established by state regulation and serves as a forum for dialogue between the committee and the employer and labor communities. Our experience thus underscores the importance of establishing broad-based support for delivery system innovations. Our research activities have also benefited from the close collaboration between DLI program staff and UW health services researchers. The DLI staff brought important program and policy experience, along with an appreciation of the context and environment within which the research, policy, and R&D activities were conducted. The UW research team brought scientific rigor and methodological expertise to the design and implementation of the research and policy activities. In Washington State, the DLI represents a "single payer" for the purposes of workers' compensation. As discussed earlier, Washington State, along with five other states, has a state-fund system that requires all employers that are not self-insured to purchase workers' compensation insurance through the state fund. No matter what one feels about the merits or drawbacks of a single-payer system of health care financing, the fact is that such a system creates important opportunities for policy initiatives and for research and evaluation. Our ability to access population-based data on injured workers and to develop policy initiatives through innovation and pilot testing to assess whether proposed changes are really improvements has been critical. Understanding what works within the constraints and complexities of the system on a small scale is critical in order to bring forth policy and processes that will be of value systemwide. Finally, we note that general medical care faces many of the same quality-related problems and challenges as occupational health care. Medical care for chronic diseases, such as diabetes, is often fragmented and uncoordinated. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Evaluation of the Washington State Workers' Compensation Managed Care Pilot Project I: medical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the effect of managed care on medical outcomes and patient satisfaction as part of an evaluation of the Washington State Workers' Compensation Managed Care Pilot. METHODS: One hundred twenty firms (7,041 employees) agreed to have their injured workers treated in managed-care plans. Managed care introduced two changes from the fee-for-service (FFS) delivery system currently used by injured workers in Washington State: (1) experience-rated capitation, and (2) a primary occupational-medicine delivery model. The FFS control group included injured workers employed at 392 firms (12,000 employees). A total of 1,313 workers who experienced occupationally related injuries or illnesses between April 1995 and June 1996 were interviewed by telephone at 6 weeks after injury regarding their medical outcomes and satisfaction with care. Workers whose injuries resulted in four or more lost workdays (n = 372) were also interviewed at 6 months after injury on the same topics. The areas surveyed included functional outcomes and satisfaction with care, providers, and access to providers. RESULTS: The measures of functional outcome reflected no consistent differences between the managed care and the FFS conditions. The workers who attended the managed-care system reported lower levels of satisfaction with care, particularly with access to providers. For example, 58% of managed-care patients reported satisfaction with their attending physician as compared with 69% of FFS patients (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Workers treated through managed-care arrangements were less satisfied with their care, but their medical outcomes were similar to those of workers who received traditional FFS care. The current workers' compensation system in Washington State affords injured workers great latitude in choosing providers. If provider choice is substantially restricted by managed care, worker satisfaction is likely to diminish.

Evaluation of the Washington State Workers' Compensation Managed Care Pilot Project II: medical and disability costs.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the effect of managed care on medical and disability costs as part of an evaluation of the Washington State Workers' Compensation Managed Care Pilot (MCP). METHODS: One hundred twenty firms (7,041 employees) agreed to have their injured workers treated in managed care plans. Managed care introduced two changes from the fee-for-service (FFS) delivery system currently used by injured workers in Washington State: experience- rated capitation and a primary occupational medicine delivery network. The FFS control group included injured workers employed at 392 firms (12,000 employees). Medical and disability costs were compared for 1,058 injuries in the managed care group and 1,159 injuries in the FFS group occurring between April 1995 and June 1996. Univariate and multivariate statistical methods were used to analyze the effects of managed care on medical and disability costs. RESULTS: The mean unadjusted medical cost per injury ($587) for the managed care group was 21.5% lower (P = 0.06) than for the FFS group ($748). Adjustment for differences in worker and firm-level characteristics through multivariate analysis had little effect on the unadjusted results, except that the difference in costs between managed care and FFS groups became statistically significant (P<0.01). The major cost differences were for outpatient surgery (cost per surgery) and ancillary services (pharmacy, x-ray, physical therapy, and all other costs). In addition, disability costs, particularly percent on time loss and time-loss cost per injury, were significantly lower (P<0.01) in the managed care group. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the MCP suggest that substantial savings in workers' compensation medical and disability costs may be realized using the type of managed care intervention designed for this study. Delivering occupational health services through managed care arrangements whose design is based on an integrated, occupational health-centered delivery model may offer a viable approach for improving delivery systems, reducing costs and encouraging greater attention to disability prevention.