The Veterans Health Administration: Taking Home Telehealth Services to Scale Nationally

Since the 1990s, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has used information and communications technologies to provide high-quality, coordinated, and comprehensive primary and specialist care services to its veteran population. Within the VHA, the Office of Telehealth Services offers veterans a program called Care Coordination/Home Telehealth (CCHT) to provide routine noninstitutional care and targeted care management and case management services to veterans with diabetes, congestive heart failure, hypertension, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other conditions. The program uses remote monitoring devices in veterans' homes to communicate health status and to capture and transmit biometric data that are monitored remotely by care coordinators. CCHT has shown promising results: fewer bed days of care, reduced hospital admissions, and high rates of patient satisfaction. This issue brief highlights factors critical to the VHA's success -- like the organization's leadership, culture, and existing information technology infrastructure -- as well as opportunities and challenges

The transformation of community hospitals through the transition to value-based care: Lessons from Massachusetts

Enabling community hospitals to provide efficient and effective care and maintain competition on par with their academic medical center (AMC) counterparts remain challenges for most states. Advancing accountable care readiness adds to the complexity of these challenges. Community hospitals experience narrower operating margins and more limited access to large populations than their AMC counterparts, making the shift to value-based care difficult. Massachusetts has taken legislative action to ensure a statewide focus on reducing healthcare costs, which includes a nearly $120-million grant program supporting community hospital and system transformation toward a value-based environment. The Massachusetts Health Policy Commission’s Community Hospital Acceleration, Revitalization and Transformation (CHART) investment program is the state’s largest effort to date aimed at readying community hospitals for value-based care. In doing so, Massachusetts has created the largest state-driven, all-payer (payer-blind) readmission reduction initiative in the country. n this paper, we examine the design and evolution of CHART Phases 1 and 2 and offer insights for other states contemplating innovative approaches to bolstering community hospital participation in value-based care models

Norton Healthcare: A Strong Payer-Provider Partnership for the Journey to Accountable Care

Examines the progress of an integrated healthcare delivery system in forming an accountable care organization with payer partners as part of the Brookings-Dartmouth ACO Pilot Program, including a focus on performance measurement and reporting

The Medicare Physician Group Practice Demonstration: Lessons Learned on Improving Quality and Efficiency in Health Care

Discusses the experiences of ten large practices earning performance payments for improving the quality and cost-efficiency of health care delivered to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries

N.C. Medicaid Reform: A Bipartisan Path Forward

The North Carolina Medicaid program currently constitutes 32% of the state budget and provides insurance coverage to 18% of the state’s population. At the same time, 13% of North Carolinians remain uninsured, and even among the insured, significant health disparities persist across income, geography, education, and race. The Duke University Bass Connections Medicaid Reform project gathered to consider how North Carolina could use its limited Medicaid dollars more effectively to reduce the incidence of poor health, improve access to healthcare, and reduce budgetary pressures on the state’s taxpayers. This report is submitted to North Carolina’s policymakers and citizens. It assesses the current Medicaid landscape in North Carolina, and it offers recommendations to North Carolina policymakers concerning: (1) the construction of Medicaid Managed Care markets, (2) the potential and dangers of instituting consumer-driven financial incentives in Medicaid benefits, (3) special hotspotting strategies to address the needs and escalating costs of Medicaid\u27s high-utilizers and dual-eligibles, (4) the emerging benefits of pursuing telemedicine and associated reforms to reimbursement, regulation, and Graduate Medical Education programs that could fuel telemedicine solutions to improve access and delivery. The NC Medicaid Reform Advisory Team includes: Deanna Befus, Duke School of Nursing, PhD ‘17Madhulika Vulimiri, Duke Sanford School of Public Policy, MPP ‘18Patrick O’Shea, UNC School of Medicine/Fuqua School of Business, MD/MBA \u2717Shanna Rifkin, Duke Law School, JD ‘17Trey Sinyard, Duke School of Medicine/Fuqua School of Business, MD/MBA \u2717Brandon Yan, Duke Public Policy, BA \u2718Brooke Bekoff, UNC Political Science, BA \u2719Graeme Peterson, Duke Public Policy, BA ‘17Haley Hedrick, Duke Psychology, BS ‘19Jackie Lin, Duke Biology, BS \u2718Kushal Kadakia, Duke Biology and Public Policy, BS ‘19Leah Yao, Duke Psychology, BS ‘19Shivani Shah, Duke Biology and Public Policy, BS ‘18Sonia Hernandez, Duke Economics, BS \u2719Riley Herrmann, Duke Public Policy, BA \u271

Achieving Efficiency: Lessons From Four Top-Performing Hospitals

Synthesizes lessons from case studies of how four hospitals achieved greater efficiency, including pursuing quality and access, customizing technology, emphasizing communications, standardizing processes, and integrating care, systems, and providers

The Veterans Health Administration: Implementing Patient-Centered Medical Homes in the Nation's Largest Integrated Delivery System

Describes the implementation of a model that organizes care around an interdisciplinary team of providers who work to identify and remove barriers to access and clinical effectiveness in primary care clinics. Outlines two case studies and lessons learned

Performance-Based Financing: Report on Feasibility and Implementation Options Final September 2007

This study examines the feasibility of introducing a performance-related bonus scheme in the health sector. After describing the Tanzania health context, we define “Performance-Based Financing”, examine its rationale and review the evidence on its effectiveness. The following sections systematically assess the potential for applying the scheme in Tanzania. On the basis of risks and concerns identified, detailed design options and recommendations are set out. The report concludes with a (preliminary) indication of the costs of such a scheme and recommends a way forward for implementation. We prefer the name “Payment for Performance” or “P4P”. This is because what is envisaged is a bonus payment that is earned by meeting performance targets1. The dominant financing for health care delivery would remain grant-based as at present. There is a strong case for introducing P4P. Its main purpose will be to motivate front-line health workers to improve service delivery performance. In recent years, funding for council health services has increased dramatically, without a commensurate increase in health service output. The need to tighten focus on results is widely acknowledged. So too is the need to hold health providers more accountable for performance at all levels, form the local to the national. P4P is expected to encourage CHMTs and health facilities to “manage by results”; to identify and address local constraints, and to find innovative ways to raise productivity and reach under-served groups. As well as leveraging more effective use of all resources, P4P will provide a powerful incentive at all levels to make sure that HMIS information is complete, accurate and timely. It is expected to enhance accountability between health facilities and their managers / governing committees as well as between the Council Health Department and the Local Government Authority. Better performance-monitoring will enable the national level to track aggregate progress against goals and will assist in identifying under-performers requiring remedial action. We recommend a P4P scheme that provides a monetary team bonus, dependent on a whole facility reaching facility-specific service delivery targets. The bonus would be paid quarterly and shared equally among health staff. It should target all government health facilities at the council level, and should also reward the CHMT for “whole council” performance. All participating facilities/councils are therefore rewarded for improvement rather than absolute levels of performance. Performance indicators should not number more than 10, should represent a “balanced score card” of basic health service delivery, should present no risk of “perverse incentive” and should be readily measurable. The same set of indicators should be used by all. CHMTs would assist facilities in setting targets and monitoring performance. RHMTs would play a similar role with respect to CHMTs. The Council Health Administration would provide a “check and balance” to avoid target manipulation and verify bonus payments due. The major constraint on feasibility is the poor state of health information. Our study confirmed the findings of previous ones, observing substantial omission and error in reports from facilities to CHMTs. We endorse the conclusion of previous reviewers that the main problem lies not with HMIS design, but with its functioning. We advocate a particular focus on empowering and enabling the use of information for management by facilities and CHMTs. We anticipate that P4P, combined with a major effort in HMIS capacity building – at the facility and council level – will deliver dramatic improvements in data quality and completeness. We recommend that the first wave of participating councils are selected on the basis that they can first demonstrate robust and accurate data. We anticipate that P4P for facilities will not deliver the desired benefits unless they have a greater degree of control to solve their own problems. We therefore propose - as a prior and essential condition – the introduction of petty cash imprests for all health facilities. We believe that such a measure would bring major benefits even to facilities that have not yet started P4P. It should also empower Health Facility Committees to play a more meaningful role in health service governance at the local level. We recommend to Government that P4P bonuses, as described here, are implemented across Mainland Tanzania on a phased basis. The main constraint on the pace of roll-out is the time required to bring information systems up to standard. Councils that are not yet ready to institute P4P should get an equivalent amount of money – to be used as general revenue to finance their comprehensive council health plans. We also recommend that up-to-date reporting on performance against service delivery indicators is made a mandatory requirement for all councils and is also agreed as a standard requirement for the Joint Annual Health Sector Review. P4P can also be applied on the “demand-side” – for example to encourage women to present in case of obstetric emergencies. There is a strong empirical evidence base from other countries to demonstrate that such incentives can work. We recommend a separate policy decision on whether or not to introduce demand-side incentives. In our view, they are sufficiently promising to be tried out on an experimental basis. When taken to national scale (all councils, excepting higher level hospitals), the scheme would require annual budgetary provision of about 6 billion shillings for bonus payments. This is equivalent to 1% of the national health budget, or about 3% of budgetary resources for health at the council level. We anticipate that design and implementation costs would amount to about 5 billion shillings over 5 years – the majority of this being devoted to HMIS strengthening at the facility level across the whole country

A Review of Best Practices for Monitoring and Improving Inpatient Pediatric Patient Experiences.

ContextAchieving high-quality patient-centered care requires assessing patient and family experiences to identify opportunities for improvement. With the Child Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey, hospitals can assess performance and make national comparisons of inpatient pediatric experiences. However, using patient and family experience data to improve care remains a challenge.ObjectiveWe reviewed the literature on best practices for monitoring performance and undertaking activities aimed at improving pediatric patient and family experiences of inpatient care.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsychINFO.Study selectionWe included (1) English-language peer-reviewed articles published from January 2000 to April 2019; (2) articles based in the United States, United Kingdom, or Canada; (3) articles focused on pediatric inpatient care; (4) articles describing pediatric patient and family experiences; and (5) articles including content on activities aimed at improving patient and family experiences. Our review included 25 articles.Data extractionTwo researchers reviewed the full article and abstracted specific information: country, study aims, setting, design, methods, results, Quality Improvement (QI) initiatives performed, internal reporting description, best practices, lessons learned, barriers, facilitators and study implications for clinical practice, patient-experience data collection, and QI activities. We noted themes across samples and care settings.ResultsWe identified 10 themes of best practice. The 4 most common were (1) use evidence-based approaches, (2) maintain an internal system that communicates information and performance on patient and family experiences to staff and hospital leadership, (3) use experience survey data to initiate and/or evaluate QI interventions, and (4) identify optimal times (eg, discharge) and modes (eg, print) for obtaining patient and family feedback. These correspond to adult inpatient best practices.ConclusionsBoth pediatric and adult inpatient best practices rely on common principles of culture change (such as evidence-based clinical practice), collaborative learning, multidisciplinary teamwork, and building and/or supporting a QI infrastructure that requires time, money, collaboration, data tracking, and monitoring. QI best practices in both pediatric and adult inpatient settings commonly rely on identifying drivers of overall ratings of care, rewarding staff for successful implementation, and creating easy-to-use and easy-to-access planning and QI tools for staff