Inadequate Communication Between Hospitalist and PCP is Detrimental To Patient Care

The American health care delivery system is reaching a point of crisis.  Its costs are escalating as outcomes and quality of care are diminishing.  It focuses on crisis management and treating problems aggressively with medicines and interventions of uncertain benefit, while neglecting true health and wellness.  It is estimated that 1 trillion dollars annually is being spent on unnecessary care, much of which occurs in the hospital, and some of which leads to harm. Medicare, although concerned about rising health care costs, does little to address the real issues and actually but subtly encourages aggressive management when less could indeed be more.  Hospital acquired infections and death from medical errors are far too numerous, often occurring in patients who did not have to be hospitalized in the first place.  Patients and physicians are frustrated, while private insurers and both Medicare and Medicaid are becoming unable to fund this excessively costly care without raising premiums or exhausting trust funds.  Something certainly must be done.

We wish to focus on one glaring problem occurring in hospitals that is relatively easy to fix and whose resolution could improve outcomes.  Currently, as many hospitals close their doors to primary care physicians (PCPs) and instead rely on hospitalists, there often is a lack of communication between these doctors that can lead directly to costly mistreatment.  A true and common story will set the stage.

Mrs. P suffers from dementia and lives in a nursing home.   One day she became unresponsive.  The nurse on duty could find no obvious reason and so immediately called 911 and sent her to the hospital.  While she quickly woke up, the emergency medicine physician admitted her for further evaluation.  Her assigned hospitalist found bacteria in the urine and treated her for a urinary tract infection, calling in an infectious disease consultation and starting her on a potent intravenous antibiotic.  He also requested consultations from a cardiologist and a neurologist to determine the cause of her unresponsiveness, and they ordered further tests including an MRI and an echocardiogram.  Mrs. P became more confused, was exposed to aggressive evaluation and treatment, and was losing her strength as a result of bed confinement.  She was ultimately sent back to her facility after tens of thousands of dollars of medical care, worse off than when she arrived.  She was fortunate to have not suffered further harm from her hospital-induced delirium and the potent medicines she received.

Let’s dissect what happened, and why.

The emergency medicine physician was faced with a lethargic person who could not give a coherent history, hence she was subjected to an extensive work-up and then admitted to the hospital. The hospitalist, likewise, was faced with a patient he had never met before, with only the emergency room records as guidance. He detected neurologic, infectious, and cardiac problems and so called for specialist consultations and extensive testing. 

It is unfortunate that the nursing home nurse did not call the patient’s primary care physician (PCP) upon transfer, but it was even more unfortunate that her PCP was not contacted at any time during her emergency room stay or subsequent hospitalization by any of the doctors who saw her.  Had they called Mrs. P’s PCP they would have learned that she had a long history of progressive dementia and similar unresponsive episodes in the past that had been fully evaluated. Further, they would have learned that she always carried bacteria in her urine without tissue invasion and that she could have received any of her treatments in the nursing home where she would have been safer and more comfortable, at a far lower cost.  A recent study showed that 20% of hospitalized patients who receive antibiotics develop an adverse event so avoiding unnecessary antibiotics must be a top priority.

The growth of the hospitalist movement over the past twenty years has been truly phenomenal – at 50,000 physicians it is the largest medical sub specialty, surpassed as a specialty only by general internal medicine at 109,000 and family medicine at 107,000. Studies suggested that quality was improved and costs reduced with hospitalist care. This was especially true for complicated patients who required multiple physician visits and interactions each day, something increasingly difficult for the community based PCP to achieve.

The hospitalist is experienced in managing the types of medical issues that lead to hospitalization and works full time in the hospital. As a result they come to know how to “get things done” and potentially can give more efficient care. But they are far too often burdened with large numbers of patients, and often know very little about the patients they are treating. With too many patients to care for and too little information they tend to request consultations for problems that, given adequate time, they could have managed. This is especially problematic if the patient has multiple medical issues and is elderly. Other reasonable concerns are the diminishment of the patient-physician relationship and miscommunication and discoordination at both admission and discharge.  Communication with the patient’s PCP however could alleviate many of these issues.

PCPs have been – generally – content to allow the hospitalist to manage their patients, indeed it has been a major advantage for many. PCPs have seen their overhead costs rise dramatically, necessitating seeing more and more patients per day for less and less time each in order to cover those overhead costs. The multitude of rules, regulations and requirements foisted upon them by the insurers has further consumed extensive time, time that previously could be used to care for their hospitalized patients. Today, many PCPs do not have time to see patients in the hospital, while others are barred from doing so by hospital rules. 

In this situation, both PCPs and hospitalists could have improved Mrs. P’s care substantially, and reduced the cost of unnecessary care, simply by communicating.  A call or text by the hospitalist to the PCP upon admission and at various decision points might have enabled Mrs. P to leave the hospital before any consults were called, before extraneous tests were ordered, before antibiotics were initiated, and before she became more confused and weaker.  More than half of elderly patients leave the hospital worse off than when they came in, and involvement of a PCP in a patient’s care could potentially facilitate more rapid discharge and less aggressive treatment. 

A recent survey indicated that 95% of hospital leaders are concerned that discharge communication is “inefficient” and 80% have concerns about communication among care team members.  PCPs complain that they are never called. Hospitalists often state that they just don’t have time to call the PCP but when they do, the PCP is not available. Each is culpable. Each must remember that the issue at hand is the patient’s care and welfare, not their convenience or preferences. It is a matter of professional responsibility. What could help? The electronic medical record was supposed to solve these sorts of problems but it has not and probably will not in the foreseeable future. There are some HIPPA compliant texting systems which could be utilized and there are HIPPA compliant smart phone apps that can coordinate among all involved physicians, nurses, hospitals, other facilities and even the patient him or herself. One of these types of systems could potentially negate the issue of non-availability although it will not top the value of nuanced conversation among physicians. 

In the end, there is nothing that trumps good physician to physician communication. It must be incumbent on hospitalists to involve PCPs during in-patient stays and it must be incumbent on PCPs to respond to hospitalists and provide crucial insight and information when asked to do so.   Not only can outcomes be improved, but costs can drop and patients and their families can feel more comfortable knowing that their own doctor is involved in their care.  If necessary, hospitals should set policy that makes hospitalist to PCP communication mandatory; everyone will benefit.  Very basic solutions can frequently lead to profound improvement. 

 

This post was co-authored by 

Andy Lazris, MD, CMD  a primary care physician whose private practice focuses on geriatric patients especially those residing in long term care and assisted living facilities. He is the author of Curing Medicare and co-author of Interpreting Health Risks and Benefits and was first published on Medical Economics on July 29, 2017

A New Way To Improve Primary Care Yet Reduce Total Costs

PCPs in the current reimbursement model are obliged for business reasons to see too many patients per day which of course means less time per patient. PCPs are frustrated and patients are less satisfied. With less time it is hard to build a strong doctor – patient relationship and without it there is less opportunity to build trust. Readers of my posts know that I am a strong advocate for primary care and for granting the PCP added time per patient but doing so with no decrement in income. Here is an innovative experiment by an insurer to incent PCPs to offer more time to those patients with chronic illnesses while enhancing preventive care to all. 

Added time and good care coordination will improve the quality of care for the individual patient with a chronic illness and yet will reduce costs by eliminating excess specialists visits, tests, procedures and, by improving care quality, it will reduce the need for hospitalizations. That was the assumption underlying a program by a large not for profit BlueCross/Blue Shield plan - CareFirst. Fundamentally the plan incents PCPs with opportunities for increased income in return for giving added time and good care coordination to those with chronic illnesses along with enhanced preventive care to all patients. 

The insurer calculated that about 80% of their medical expenditures went towards the care of just 15% of patients. These were patients with complex chronic illnesses. Knowing that primary care physicians receive about 5% of total healthcare expenditures it was hypothesized that they are in a position to strongly impact much of the other 95%. The insurer also wanted to raise awareness of healthy lifestyles to assist all of their enrollees to remain healthy. So the agenda was to create incentives for PCPs to have an impact to reduce the total cost for those with chronic conditions while improving the care and concurrently maintain the health of the remaining enrollees. 

Oversimplified, the new program works like this. PCPs form into actual or virtual groups or panels of 5 to 10 and enter into an agreement with the insurer which then increases their reimbursement by 12% for each visit. The insurer also agrees to pay the physician within one business day, reducing the doctor’s need for working capital.  

An actuarial analysis of the PCP group’s patients is done using claims data from the prior year to create an anticipated “global budget” for the coming year.  The 15% or so of patients that need chronic illness care coordination are “flagged.” The PCP’s obligation is to give those patients whatever added time is needed per visit, to create a complete care plan and to post it in an electronic medical record (for which the PCP gets an additional $200). This serves as automatic preauthorization; no further calls will be needed for tests, procedures, etc. – a major time saver for the PCP and the office staff. The concept also anticipated that with extra time per patient, the PCP would be able to handle most issues including those of patients with complex chronic illnesses, reducing the need for specialist referrals. Finally, the insurer makes available a nurse “care coordinator” at its expense  to call the patient as often as necessary to check on medication use, medication side effects, weight gain or whatever else the PCP has built into the care plan. The expectation starting out was that this approach of incentives for giving the patient with a chronic illness the intensive primary care and the care coordination needed would enhance quality yet reduce the overall expenditures for that patient.  

If, at the end of the year, the PCP groups’ total claims came in under the projected global budget, the members of the virtual group would get back a portion of the savings. With these incentives, it was anticipated that the PCP would be sure to carefully coordinate care so that there were no excess specialist visits, no unneeded tests or procedures and, with better care overall, less ER visits and less hospitalizations. The end result, it was hoped from the start, would be higher quality care, lower total expenditures for that care, enhanced income for the PCPs and a more satisfying practice. It could be a win for everyone. Now three years in, the plan seems to be working. The physicians are pleased with the added income and the insurer is pleased that total costs have dropped. 

The whole concept was to coordinate the care that the patient receives with the expectation that the patient will be better served, the providers will be more satisfied and the total costs will be reduced. It is a transformational change in how the PCP functions. It is an equally huge transformational change for the insurer –a change that accepts that extensive primary care with care coordination costs extra money but recognizes that the end result is better quality at a lower total cost.  

After two years, it was reported that it saved $136 million with the 297 panels of 3,600 PCPs that had joined the program caring for about one million individuals. All of the PCPs enjoyed the added income in their reimbursements and two thirds received end of year incentive payments as a result of the savings. Overall the average PCP in the program received about 29% more than they otherwise would have under the standard fee schedule.  

At the end of three years and with enough data to be actuarially credible, there have been quite definite improvements in ten measures such as costs per member per month, number of emergency visits, admissions per 1000 members, length of stay, cost per admission, and readmissions within 30 days after discharge, etc. while maintaining or improving quality measures. Not all panels of PCPs were as successful as others and those that were tended to be successful in each of the three years in the program. At the end of the third year, about 60% of the panels were granted an incentive award for beating their projected global budget. The successful panels tended to be those in small private practices and, interestingly, had sicker patients under care yet they maintained higher quality scores. Another important finding was that some specialists tended to much higher utilization (and therefore costs) than others despite similar patient problems. PCPs who tended to refer to high utilization specialists were much less likely to achieve an end of year incentive payment. 

Of course, there are some questions to raise. If the PCP is spending more time with these patients but still has the same total size practice, then where is the time coming from? Does it mean less time for other patients? PCPs have now learned which specialists expend more dollars per patient than others. Will their referrals gravitate to these specialists regardless of known or perceived quality? Patients will likely in the future be offered incentives for choosing the PCPs that are most effective with this program; is that appropriate? And what about those PCPs who have converted their practices to direct primary care? They are actually saving the insurer considerably, probably much more than the incented PCPs in this program. The insurer should consider paying all or part of the DPC fee for their insureds since the insurer is benefiting substantially yet at no cost to itself. 

Perhaps the most important outcome, from my perspective, is the recognition by a major insurer that it is possible to create a new incentive-based approach to reimbursement – in this case within the old fee-for-service model – which actually costs more for primary care (up from about 5% of total costs to about 7-8% of total costs) yet significantly reduced those total costs of care while improving quality. 

Note: I talked to CareFirst's CEO, the former chairman of the board and a vice president about the program but I have no financial relationship; this program is used for illustrative purposes only and is not meant to be an endorsement.

 

 

Employer-Sponsored Comprehensive Primary Care

Patients need doctors that take time to listen which means a limited number of patients under care. Employers need programs that reduce costs and ideally improve the health of their staff. These apparently disparate needs can come together in a new model for effective company-sponsored primary care programs.

Those of you who have followed this series know that I am an advocate for PCPs finding ways to have a smaller patient panel so that each patient can receive more time for comprehensive primary care. When properly designed, company-sponsored primary care clinics can do just that.

Some employers are turning to outside firms such as QuadMed to initiate care models that can serve both smaller patient panels yet reduce their total costs toward healthcare. Although there are many such firms (or local practices) that will take on the role, real success hinges on a program that is well organized and allocates adequate time for the PCP to give truly comprehensive primary care. It also means that the employer has accepted the concept that it is no longer just trying to hold the line on healthcare costs but is actually looking at employee health as a strategic business imperative.

Successful programs tend to include not only PCPs, NPs, nurses and other providers but, if the employee base is large enough, a pharmacy, laboratory, and radiology suite. Other key resources are health coaches and nutritionists to maintain wellness and reduce risk factors. The typical employer in these arrangements is generally self-insured, has a large enough employee base to justify the clinic resources and is committed to employee health and wellness while wanting to reduce its total costs of health care.

A full service primary care clinic is funded by the company at or very near to the employer’s site of business. Services include routine episodic care but also extensive preventive care, intense management of those with chronic illnesses and care coordination when a patient does need to visit a specialist and sufficient time with the provider that trust can develop; in other words, this is comprehensive primary care not just limited function urgent care centers.

Employees are informed that they are welcome but not required to utilize the clinic and do so at no cost or perhaps a modest fee per visit. Some but not all employers make the clinics available to family members. Each participating individual is assigned a primary care physician (PCP) or in some cases a nurse practitioner or physician assistant. The PCP/NP/PA is paid by salary by the vendor company, not fee-for-service. In the programs that truly develop comprehensive primary care, the PCP/NP/PA has a limited number of patients in his or her panel, does a full initial evaluation usually lasting 60 minutes or more and then sees the individual thereafter as often as necessary for as long as necessary.

The expectation is that the patient and PCP/NP/PA will develop a long term trusting relationship just as they would in a private office setting. Individuals can schedule appointments often on the same or next day and there may be extensive use of mobile technologies, an electronic medical record, telemedicine and other advanced techniques. For those individuals with a chronic illness, the clinic nurses often work with the PCP to coordinate care and (often and hopefully always) the PCP communicates directly with any specialist before referring and after the visit.

The clinic manages wellness and preventive programs with health coaching and lifestyle behavior management. This might include but is not limited to nutrition counseling, fitness counseling, stress management and smoking cessation. It depends on the provider company selected to develop and manage the clinic, but if the employer already has an effective wellness program ongoing with another provider, the primary care company may agree to partner with that wellness provider to create seamless programs. It can thus be an employer wellness program and a comprehensive primary care program rolled into one. It may even be population health to the extent that the PCP and the team proactively interact with each participant to address risk factor and incipient chronic illnesses rather than waiting for an employee/patient to call or visit with a problem. To repeat, a very key ingredient is assigning no more than a reasonable number of employees and family members to each PCP/NP/PA. What is “reasonable”? – it depends – on average age, whether many individuals have chronic illnesses, etc.

Some provider companies such as WeCare TLC call their model “medical risk management,” a term generally thought of in medicine as programs and policies to reduce the potential for malpractice claims. Here however it has a completely different meaning. It is called medical risk management because the driving principle is identification and management of ongoing medical problems while at the same time addressing potential health risks for the future. It is really an employer-sponsored (although not directly involved) companywide approach to population health management. It is taken from the concept of enterprise risk management which seeks to identify and mitigate corporate risk as a strategic advantage. It is management of risk not just from a downside perspective but from an upside or positive perspective as well. The employer therefore needs to be thinking about health risk management as a strategic perspective, not just as a tactical effort. In other words, a healthy workforce is available to be productive and a healthy workforce creates a very substantial savings in medical costs for both the company and the employee.

Note that it is not just “episodic” visits but rather comprehensive primary care in a medical home type model with proactive population health concepts.

The provider company and the employer usually agree up front to a set of performance measures such as utilization/penetration of the clinic (are employees actually using it), patient satisfaction (do they like what they get), quality outcomes (standard measures used nationally such as blood pressure control, diabetic control, immunizations up to date, etc.) and of course functioning within budget and a return on the employer’s investment at a pre-agreed level. Companies that engage in these clinics, provided that the services are actually comprehensive in nature as described, tend to find that their return on investment very good.

Since in these models of comprehensive primary care where the employer fully pays for the primary care services, there can be a significant savings for the employee (patient) and family members.  Importantly, the employer pays the bills, perhaps offers incentives for participating but is otherwise kept at a distance. The PCP and other staff members work for the provider company, not for the employer, and cannot be expected to share patient information. The employee gets quality healthcare with a strong emphasis on maintaining wellness, active prevention and on chronic illness early detection, management and care coordination. The result is a healthier workforce leading to greater productivity, greater workforce satisfaction, reduced or no employee costs for primary care and reduced or at least limited health insurance cost increases for both employers and employees.  Definitely a triple win.

But there are potential downsides to consider. Some KevinMD readers will certainly comment that it is best to keep the employer completely out of healthcare. Another downside would be if the employer wanted to be intrusive and learn medical information about individuals. A third would be the loss of a trusted PCP when a person leaves the company for other employment. So in the end, each person offered the option needs to make an informed decision.

Note: I have interviewed principals at both QuadMed and WeCare but have no financial or arrangements with either. They are used as examples only; their use does not represent an endorsement.

Direct Primary Care – Isn’t It Too Expensive?

A common criticism of direct primary care (membership/retainer/concierge practices) is the added expense – “isn’t it too expensive?” Ways to think about the cost are to prioritize expenditures and to consider potential savings that make it cost effective.

I gave examples of three direct primary care practices in an earlier post. Here is a recap of costs.

AtlasMD’s annual fee is $600 for a young adult and about $1400 for a family of four; Dr Neuhofel’s fee is $360-$600 annually for an individual and $1200 for a family of four and Drs Izbicki charge $780 per year per individual. All can be paid monthly.

As Jon Izbicki puts it, “Our monthly fee is less than what it costs to rent a parking space downtown for the month.” Even the more expensive retainer practices are still within reason for many.  $1500 is about $4 per day; $2000 is about $5.50. How many people spend that much per day at Starbucks? Or, consider the monthly/annual cost of a smart phone data contract with ATT or Verizon. According to the Wall Street Journal and quoting from a Department of Labor study, the average American family spends $2237 per year for internet, pay TV and telephone service. So, perhaps $1500 or $2000 - which is certainly real money - is not such an onerous expense when thinking in terms of prioritizing healthcare expenses relative to other expenses. Of course, it is an added expense if you already have typical insurance.

But if you have a high deductible plan with a health savings account (HSA), you can pay for the membership/retainer with tax advantaged dollars and save considerably. And since the PCP will likely help you avoid expensive trips to the specialist, you will save those dollars as well.

I predict that (absent a significant change in insurer behavior) direct primary care will likely be the future of primary care payment. In each of them, it means that the patient will obtain real assistance to first prevent chronic illnesses from occurring; second, episodic care for those issues that pop up during the year; third, careful care of complex chronic illnesses and fourth, thorough coordination of the care of chronic illnesses, all at a reasonable cost which will be transparent. Fifth and importantly, a PCP who has the time to listen – to listen deeply with a return to relationship medicine.

Those who already have typical limited deductible insurance – commercial or Medicare – might argue that these various direct primary care models represent an added expense, not a savings. Correct, although the potential savings can actually be quite substantial. For example, each of the three practices referred to above make generic medications available at wholesale prices; considerable savings for many individuals.

Those who have no insurance – for whatever reason – will find that they can obtain good quality primary care at a reasonable price from one of the direct pay or membership practices. It will cost a lot less than going to an urgent care center or an ER. Recall from my earlier post that Dr Neuhofel’s practice has more than two thirds with no insurance.

Perhaps Medicare and Medicaid will decide that it makes eminently good sense to pay the retainer for their enrollees and thus ensure that their members gets superior primary care at a reasonable cost and meantime save Medicare and Medicaid enormous total dollars.

This concept applies equally to commercial insurers who have largely avoided paying the retainer. Some are collaborating with the insurer paying the retainer out of its premium.

What about employers? Many are converting their health insurance policies to high deductible, often with a deductible as high as $10,000 per person or family per year. For a family with members that have chronic illnesses, the costs of healthcare will be very substantial indeed at this level. Employees will arguably feel that their employer has walked away from them and saddled them with costs that they simply cannot bear. The company can partially offset the inherent anger this generates among its employees by paying the fee for a direct primary care practice. It is especially valuable for the individual with multiple chronic illnesses since quality primary care can mean much better health, many fewer tests, prescriptions, specialist referrals and hospitalizations.

I suspect that employers will be the major reason for direct primary care membership/retainer-based practice growth in the coming years as they will essentially demand that level of service for their employees – and in so doing they will be reducing their company health care costs as a result of high quality primary care.

The exact number of physicians in DPC practices is unclear but an estimate by Concierge Medicine Today in early 2014 pegs the known number at about 4000 with about 8000 others doing so but without fanfare. CMT also notes that many combine insurance with membership fees; not exactly DPC anymore but still an ability to limit the number of patients and give more attention to each.

More doctors will convert once the general population understands the advantages and begins to ask for it. There are many good reasons for an individual to connect with a direct primary care physician - better quality care, a return to relationship medicine and often a significant cost savings despite the fee.

TAGS  Direct primary care, primary care, primary care physicians, health insurance, healthcare costs, relationship medicine, concierge medicine, retainer based medicine