Physician Self-Referral and Physician-Owned Specialty Facilities

Outlines issues of self-referral -- physicians referring patients to a group or facility in which they have a financial interest -- and the prevalence of physician-owned facilities, as well as the effects on healthcare quality, cost, and access

Experimental evidence of physician social preferences

Physicians' professional ethics require that they put patients' interests ahead of their own and that they should allocate limited medical resources efficiently. Understanding physicians' extent of adherence to these principles requires understanding the social preferences that lie behind them. These social preferences may be divided into two qualitatively different trade-offs: the trade-off between self and other (altruism) and the trade-off between reducing differences in payoffs (equality) and increasing total payoffs (efficiency). We experimentally measure social preferences among a nationwide sample of practicing physicians in the United States. Our design allows us to distinguish empirically between altruism and equality-efficiency orientation and to accurately measure both trade-offs at the level of the individual subject. We further compare the experimentally measured social preferences of physicians with those of a representative sample of Americans, an "elite" subsample of Americans, and a nationwide sample of medical students. We find that physicians' altruism stands out. Although most physicians place a greater weight on self than on other, the share of physicians who place a greater weight on other than on self is twice as large as for all other samples-32% as compared with 15 to 17%. Subjects in the general population are the closest to physicians in terms of altruism. The higher altruism among physicians compared with the other samples cannot be explained by income or age differences. By contrast, physicians' preferences regarding equality-efficiency orientation are not meaningfully different from those of the general sample and elite subsample and are less efficiency oriented than medical students.K01 AG066946 - NIA NIH HHSPublished versio

Accountable Care Organizations and Population Health Organizations

Abstract Accountable care organizations (ACOs) and hospitals are investing in improving "population health," by which they nearly always mean the health of the "population" of patients "attributed" by Medicare, Medicaid, or private health insurers to their organizations. But population health can and should also mean "the health of the entire population in a geographic area." We present arguments for and against ACOs and hospitals investing in affecting the socioeconomic determinants of health to improve the health of the population in their geographic area, and we provide examples of ACOs and hospitals that are doing so in a limited way. These examples suggest that ACOs and hospitals can work with other organizations in their community to improve population health. We briefly present recent proposals for such coalitions and for how they could be financed to be sustainable

Spending per Medicare Beneficiary Is Higher in Hospital‐Owned Small‐ and Medium‐Sized Physician Practices

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145215/1/hesr12765.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145215/2/hesr12765-sup-0001-AppendixSA1.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145215/3/hesr12765_am.pd

Undergoing Transformation to the Patient Centered Medical Home in Safety Net Health Centers: Perspectives from the Front Lines

Objectives—Safety Net Health Centers (SNHCs), which include Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) provide primary care for underserved, minority and low income patients. SNHCs across the country are in the process of adopting the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) model, based on promising early implementation data from demonstration projects. However, previous demonstration projects have not focused on the safety net and we know little about PCMH transformation in SNHCs. Design—This qualitative study characterizes early PCMH adoption experiences at SNHCs. Setting and Participants—We interviewed 98 staff,(administrators, providers, and clinical staff) at 20 of 65 SNHCs, from five states, who were participating in the first of a five-year PCMH collaborative, the Safety Net Medical Home Initiative. Main Measures—We conducted 30-45 minute, semi-structured telephone interviews. Interview questions addressed benefits anticipated, obstacles encountered, and lessons learned in transition to PCMH. Results—Anticipated benefits for participating in the PCMH included improved staff satisfaction and patient care and outcomes. Obstacles included staff resistance and lack of financial support for PCMH functions. Lessons learned included involving a range of staff, anticipating resistance, and using data as frequent feedback. Conclusions—SNHCs encounter unique challenges to PCMH implementation, including staff turnover and providing care for patients with complex needs. Staff resistance and turnover may be ameliorated through improved healthcare delivery strategies associated with the PCMH. Creating predictable and continuous funding streams may be more fundamental challenges to PCMH transformation

Suitability and managerial implications of a Master Surgical Scheduling approach

Abstract: Operating room (OR) planning and scheduling is a popular and challenging subject within the operational research applied to health services research (ORAHS). However, the impact in practice is very limited. The organization and culture of a hospital and the inherent characteristics of its processes impose specific implementation issues that affect the success of planning approaches. Current tactical OR planning approaches often fail to account for these issues.Master surgical scheduling (MSS) is a promising approach for hospitals to optimize resource utilization and patient flows. We discuss the pros and cons of MSS and compare MSS with centralized and decentralized planning approaches. Finally, we address various implementation issues of MSS and discuss its suitability for hospitals with different organizational foci and culture

Toward a 21st-century health care system: Recommendations for health care reform

The coverage, cost, and quality problems of the U.S. health care system are evident. Sustainable health care reform must go beyond financing expanded access to care to substantially changing the organization and delivery of care. The FRESH-Thinking Project (www.fresh-thinking.org) held a series of workshops during which physicians, health policy experts, health insurance executives, business leaders, hospital administrators, economists, and others who represent diverse perspectives came together. This group agreed that the following 8 recommendations are fundamental to successful reform: 1. Replace the current fee-for-service payment system with a payment system that encourages and rewards innovation in the efficient delivery of quality care. The new payment system should invest in the development of outcome measures to guide payment. 2. Establish a securely funded, independent agency to sponsor and evaluate research on the comparative effectiveness of drugs, devices, and other medical interventions. 3. Simplify and rationalize federal and state laws and regulations to facilitate organizational innovation, support care coordination, and streamline financial and administrative functions. 4. Develop a health information technology infrastructure with national standards of interoperability to promote data exchange. 5. Create a national health database with the participation of all payers, delivery systems, and others who own health care data. Agree on methods to make de-identified information from this database on clinical interventions, patient outcomes, and costs available to researchers. 6. Identify revenue sources, including a cap on the tax exclusion of employer-based health insurance, to subsidize health care coverage with the goal of insuring all Americans. 7. Create state or regional insurance exchanges to pool risk, so that Americans without access to employer-based or other group insurance could obtain a standard benefits package through these exchanges. Employers should also be allowed to participate in these exchanges for their employees' coverage. 8. Create a health coverage board with broad stakeholder representation to determine and periodically update the affordable standard benefit package available through state or regional insurance exchanges