0
View Post
MVC Launches New Push Report on ED and Post-Acute Care Use

MVC Launches New Push Report on ED and Post-Acute Care Use

The emergency department (ED) is a unique and critical component of the healthcare system in the U.S., treating acute injuries or illnesses and acting as a safety net for patients who are uninsured or low income. ED visits are also very expensive, and that spending is growing according to a recent retrospective study of ED trends. This week the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) is distributing its newest push report on ED and post-acute care (PAC) utilization to support members' efforts in this space.

Since the ED serves as a safety net for patients experiencing barriers to healthcare access, the Coordinating Center report purposefully integrates measures tied to social determinants of health and health equity. Reports contain a patient population snapshot table showcasing several patient characteristics by payer (see Figure 1), including age, race, comorbidities, zip code, dual-eligibility status, and economic distress scores. Dual-eligible patients are those who qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare; these patients tend to have a higher prevalence rate for chronic conditions, disabilities, and other care needs that substantially increase healthcare utilization.

Figure 1.

Economic distress scores range from 0-100 with a higher score indicating greater economic distress. These scores come from the Economic Innovation Group’s Distressed Communities Index (DCI), which is derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Business Patterns and American Community Survey. The DCI combines seven complementary economic indicators (see Figure 2) to provide a single, holistic, and comparative measure of economic well-being across communities in the U.S. In MVC’s report, there is a proportion of patients living in an “at-risk” or “distressed” zip code across all payers, as classified by the DCI. However, as the literature often indicates, the Medicaid population has the highest average distress score and a larger proportion of patients living in an “at-risk” or “distressed” zip code.

Figure 2.

The bulk of MVC’s latest report aims to provide its members with more granular insights into PAC utilization in the 30-day post-discharge period than is available on the MVC registry. Using index admissions for medical conditions from 1/1/18 through 12/31/20, the report focuses predominantly on ED utilization, which is categorized as either “ED to Home” or “ED to Readmission.” ED to Home represents ED visits that do not occur on the same day as readmission, and ED to Readmission refers to those visits occurring on the same day as readmission.

The report includes figures illustrating trends in 30-day ED to Home rates between 2018 and 2020, top reasons for ED visits at a given hospital, the number of ED to Home visits within 30 days post-discharge, the number of days until the first ED visit post-discharge, the ED to Home rate and the breakdown of total PAC spending for a hospital’s three highest-volume conditions, and the average ED facility payment. MVC included the following payers in this report: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) PPO Commercial, BCBSM Medicare Advantage (MA), Blue Care Network (BCN) HMO Commercial, BCN MA, Medicare Fee-for-Service, and Medicaid.

Overall, the MVC report confirms published findings that Medicaid patients utilize the ED at a higher rate than patients insured by other payers. The Coordinating Center also finds that ED use differs between types of providers. For acute care hospitals, for example, over half of ED visits occur on the same day as readmission, whereas these visits account for 40% at Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs).

MVC also finds that ED to Home visits most often occur once in the 30 days following discharge for most of the collaborative (see Figure 3). There are some members, however, with three or more ED to Home visits within the 30-day post-discharge period.

Figure 3.

The Coordinating Center envisions this report being of particular importance to its CAH members, whose structures, services, and patient populations make the ED and PAC a top priority. As such, MVC prepared versions of this report for both CAHs and acute care hospitals using their respective comparison groups throughout. In other words, the CAH version of the report includes comparison points for all other CAHs in the collaborative. Acute care hospitals can see their traditional collaborative-wide and regional comparison data, not including hospitals with a CAH designation.

As members review and discuss the findings in their report(s), MVC encourages providers to utilize the Michigan Emergency Department Improvement Collaborative (MEDIC), which is dedicated to improving the quality of ED care across the state of Michigan. In addition, if members wish to discuss additional custom analyses on ED and PAC utilization, please contact the MVC Coordinating Center at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com.

0
View Post
MVC’s Latest CDM Push Report Reframes Focus to Follow-Up Care

MVC’s Latest CDM Push Report Reframes Focus to Follow-Up Care

The Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) distributed its chronic disease management (CDM) push report recently, which has been refreshed and reframed from its previous iterations. Originally termed the CDM congestive heart failure (CHF) report and the CDM chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) report, the new “CDM follow-up report” focuses more specifically on follow-up care after hospitalization for the two conditions.

The newest version aims to provide additional granularity into follow-up care at member hospitals by showcasing variability across different windows of time, across payers, and by type. MVC defines follow-up as episodes where a patient had an outpatient follow-up visit (in person or by telehealth) within 30 days or before a readmission, inpatient procedure, emergency department visit, skilled nursing facility admission, or visit for inpatient rehabilitation.

The report features a new patient population snapshot table that highlights demographic data. These tables (see Figure 1) provide each hospital with demographics for their CHF/COPD patient populations, including race, mean age, the average number of comorbidities, and the proportion of patients who are dual-eligible.

Figure 1.

MVC hospitals will see comparisons to their peers on 7-day, 14-day, and 30-day outpatient follow-up rates, as well as 30-day risk-adjusted total episode payments and 30-day outpatient follow-up rates stratified by payer. Members will also see their individual hospital’s breakdown of follow-up types at 30 days, and trends over six months for 3-, 7- and 14-day rates.

Each figure presented reflects index admissions from 1/1/18 – 12/31/20 for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) PPO Commercial, Blue Care Network (BCN) Commercial, BCBSM PPO Medicare Advantage, BCN Medicare Advantage, Medicare Fee-For-Service, and Medicaid. Hospitals received report pages for each condition if they met the threshold of at least 11 episodes in each year of data for that condition.

There was wide variation in follow-up rates across the collaborative, with member follow-up rates ranging from less than 40% after 30 days to approximately 80% (see Figure 2). In addition, 30-day follow-up rates were lowest within the Medicaid patient population with an MVC average of 58% (see Figure 3); the collaborative-wide averages for 30-day follow-up among BCBSM/BCN and Medicare patients were 76% and 73%, respectively. It was also the case that most patients (92% on average) received follow-up care in person as opposed to a remote or hybrid option (see Figure 4).

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

The CDM follow-up report was distributed in partnership with the Integrated Michigan Patient-Centered Alliance in Care Transitions (I-MPACT) Collaborative Quality Initiative (CQI). I-MPACT is a unique patient-centered, data-driven collaborative that engages hospitals and provider organizations throughout Michigan in developing and implementing innovative approaches for improving care transitions. They work to improve the transition of patients between care settings with the goal of bettering outcomes and reducing readmissions.

In addition to partnering with I-MPACT to expand the report’s reach, MVC also partnered with a CQI to provide members with supplemental materials that may be relevant to their work with CHF/COPD patients. The Healthy Behavior Optimization for Michigan (HBOM) CQI provided tobacco cessation materials that were shared alongside the MVC report, including a Quit Smoking Resource Guide and Quit Smoking Medication Guide. HBOM aims to ensure that all smokers who are interested in quitting receive the support and resources they need to be successful. Read more about HBOM’s materials and efforts in MVC’s May CQI spotlight blog.

In addition to continuing to offer its CDM push report, the MVC Coordinating Center offers a bimonthly CDM workgroup. The next workgroup will take place on Tuesday, July 12 from 1-2 p.m., and will feature a presentation about the Sparrow Pain Management Center’s Care Management Program. Please register today to join the MVC Coordinating Center for this presentation and discussion.

If you have any suggestions on how these reports can be improved or the data made more actionable, the Coordinating Center would love to hear from you. MVC is also seeking feedback on how collaborative members are using this information in their quality improvement projects. Please reach out at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com.

0
View Post
Special Consideration Needed for Older Patients Using Telecare

Special Consideration Needed for Older Patients Using Telecare

When most people think about healthcare, the images that come to mind include a trip to their local provider’s office, lab, or hospital for services such as physicals, blood tests, and procedures. However, medical professionals and their patients are increasingly transitioning to more remote services that leverage our advances in communication technologies, resulting in the burgeoning “tele” world of healthcare. But are these services reaching everyone?

Telemedicine, telehealth, and telecare are three examples of remote, interactive services that allow patients to receive healthcare from within their own homes. Although these terms are often used interchangeably, they in fact refer to different aspects of healthcare delivery. Telemedicine applies to physicians who use technology to support the delivery of medical, diagnostic, or treatment-related services. Telehealth is like telemedicine but applies to a broader collection of providers, such as nurses or pharmacists. Telecare (see Figure 1) is generally more consumer-oriented by providing the patient with technology to manage their own care safely from home, such as health apps or digital monitoring devices.

Figure 1. Telecare Slide from MVC Workgroup Presentation

The adoption of “tele” services saw incredible growth in 2020 in response to the pandemic. A report found that Medicare telehealth visits increased 63-fold recently, from 840,000 in 2019 to 52.7 million visits in 2020. However, now that adoption of these services (and the platforms needed to host them) are more commonplace, providers are asking whether it benefits their most vulnerable patients and who may be left behind.

These questions drove the discussion of the most recent MVC workgroup on chronic disease management. Over the course of the session, attendees were particularly interested in how telecare improves elderly care, and whether patients over the age of 65 could adequately access such services. For those older adults utilizing telecare, evidence from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic identified convenience and affordability as telecare’s primary strengths. In addition, research evidence suggests that the two most effective telecare interventions in this population are automated vital sign monitoring and telephone follow-up by nurses.

Some of the challenges often cited for this population include lack of appropriate internet access or devices, limited digital literacy, medical conditions that may impede participation (i.e., hearing or vision impairments, dementia, etc.), and the need to regularly monitor vitals in very high-risk patients. Although the authors compiling these challenges specifically reference older adults, they could just as easily apply to people experiencing poverty, people with disabilities, and people with more limited language and literacy skills.

Some recommended strategies to address common challenges include tablet delivery services, “mobile medical assistants” who perform video set-up for the patient, assistance from an on-site caregiver, practice or “mock” video visits prior to the appointment date, partnerships with community health workers to support or train patients in their homes, and providing self-monitoring devices. Other simple considerations include the size of the text displayed on the page (use larger text to enhance readability), providing adequate instructions in advance and in multiple languages, and engaging experts in user experience design.

In addition to these considerations, some researchers suggest that, in general, the adoption of new technologies can be predicted in part by Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Theory. One study incorporating this theory found that the chances of telecare adoption were highest for three types of older adults: those already receiving long-term or nursing care, those living alone, and those who have fixed daily telecare points of contact.

Increased integration of technology in healthcare is inevitable as advancements continue and we shift to a more digital world. Since the number of people in the U.S. who are age 65 or older will more than double over the next 40 years, it is imperative that older adults are not left behind when transitioning to such services. Rather than fear the challenges, researchers and practitioners are seeking ways to find solutions and help all patients benefit from healthcare access within their own homes.

The MVC Coordinating Center encourages its members to collaborative with one another to benefit from peers’ success stories and lessons learned. If your hospital or physician organization has developed an age-friendly telecare protocol, please consider sharing your story with the MVC Coordinating Center at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com. To catch up on the recent MVC workgroup discussion about telecare, watch the chronic disease management workgroup recording here.

0
View Post
The Behavior Change Puzzle of Medication Non-Adherence

The Behavior Change Puzzle of Medication Non-Adherence

Non-adherence to a prescribed medication regime for chronic disease management is known to lead to poor health outcomes and higher healthcare costs. A number of studies have shown that adherence is usually around 50% or less, even when medications are provided free of charge. What seems to be less clear is how best to address poor adherence; one study points out that most of the current interventions meant to improve adherence rates are too complex or ineffective, and that the research in this field is rife with weaknesses and bias.

But as with most quality improvement initiatives, understanding the source of the problem is an important first step. In this case, identifying the reasons for non-adherence is an important starting point for reducing barriers and improving patient outcomes. Many factors may affect whether a person takes their medications, including the patient themselves, the disease being treated, the health system and team, and the type of therapy involved. One study’s survey of 10,000 patients found that the most cited barrier to taking one’s medications was simply forgetfulness (24%). This was followed by perceived side effects (20%), high drug costs (17%), and a perception that their prescribed medication will have very little effect on their disease (14%).

The same study illustrated the various patient, provider, and external factors that can play a role in medication adherence using the figure below (Figure 1). If any one of these factors were to present a challenge for the patient, then they are at risk of not taking their prescribed medications on time and any related medical issues.

Figure 1.

While some interventions such as pill box aids and electronic reminders have helped patients when forgetfulness is the issue, these do not address factors such as concerns about side effects and medication-related harm, or uncertainty about the importance of taking long-term prescribed medications. These issues have the potential to be addressed through shared decision-making and education from clinical experts such as pharmacists and nurses.

One review analyzed the impact that social determinants of health has on medication adherence. Disadvantageous circumstances in social and living conditions are associated with an increase in chronic disease, and it is believed that these same challenges impact a person’s ability to manage their health. When an individual is facing food insecurity, unemployment, and unstable living conditions, they are sometimes unable to address their health concerns emotionally or financially. The review found that medication adherence was negatively impacted by food insecurity and housing instability, although few studies identified other specific social determinants that influence non-adherence to medications beyond these two. In fact, education, income, and employment status did not significantly correlate with adherence to a medication regime.

The Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) would like to hear how your institution is addressing medication non-adherence, especially in the chronic disease patient population. This will be an upcoming topic at a chronic disease management workgroup. Please contact MVC at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com for information about attending.

0
View Post
Continuous Glucose Monitoring Has Potential in Inpatient Setting

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Has Potential in Inpatient Setting

One of the most prevalent comorbidities in the United States is diabetes; as many as 1 in 10 Americans are diagnosed with this condition, and 90-95% having potentially preventable Type 2 diabetes. It is well documented that unstable blood glucose levels can contribute to increases in morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.

In the inpatient setting, the current standard of care for monitoring and testing blood glucose levels in diabetic patients is point-of-care (POC) testing, which combines a specific testing schedule and approved devices to measure blood glucose levels. A recent study involving 110 adults with Type 2 diabetes looked at implementing real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) in order to better manage inpatient glycemic levels. The patients were on a non-intensive care unit (ICU) floor, and received either the standard of care or the RT-CGM with Dexcom G6 monitoring—where a tiny sensor wire is inserted just beneath a person’s skin using an automatic applicator. Data was transmitted from the bedside wirelessly, and monitored by hospital telemetry. The bedside nurses were notified of any abnormal glucose levels or trends and the patients were treated accordingly. The results indicated that patients in the RT-CGM group demonstrated lower mean glucose levels and less time in hyperglycemia.

Another study that evaluated the efficacy of RT-CGM discussed the effect that uncontrolled glycemic levels can have on clinical outcomes and healthcare costs. Currently, hospitals use POC glucose testing in order to monitor and treat hypoglycemia, and it is recommended that POC testing occur four to six times per day. However, this leaves many hours throughout the day where hypoglycemia can go undetected. RT-CGM using a glucose telemetry system (GTS) offers an alternative method to monitor these glucose values. A total of 82 patients participated in this study. Patients in the RT-CGM group experienced 60.4% fewer hypoglycemic events compared to the POC group. Figure 1 below illustrates the number of hypoglycemic events per patient for both the CGM/GTS and the POC.

Figure 1.

RT-CGM has yet to be implemented in inpatient settings for several reasons. The primary reason is the lack of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Additionally, institutional challenges may act as a significant barrier. For instance, staff need to be prepared for increased workload and educated on appropriate protocols and procedures. Technological support is required to ensure hardware compatibility and maintain a robust internet network with minimal interference in transmission of results and alerts. Additional factors within the hospital setting include certain medications, procedures, nutrition, acute illness, and any other condition that may affect glucose control. All of these challenges have the potential to impact CGM and its associated workload because of the effect they may have on the patients’ blood glucose levels. Although challenges remain to the implementation of RT-CGM in the inpatient setting, the benefits may outweigh the risks; thus, it is worth considering, especially given the successes in the outpatient arena.

The Michigan Value Collaborative hosts diabetes workgroups where topics such as continuous glucose monitoring are discussed by Collaborative members. If you are interested in attending the next MVC diabetes workgroup, please connect with the MVC Coordinating Center at: michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com.

0
View Post
Henry Ford Health System – Cardiac Rehab

Henry Ford Health System – Cardiac Rehab

At the most recent congestive heart failure MVC workgroup, Dr. Steven Keteyian, Section Head of the Cardiac Rehabilitation/Preventive Cardiology Unit at Henry Ford Medical Group, presented on exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with heart failure. Dr. Keteyian started out by discussing the importance of cardiac rehabilitation and adhering to a program in order to improve exercise tolerance and disease-specific outcomes. Exercise intolerance is measured and the information gathered can be used to stratify a patient’s future risk. If the measurement improves over time, Dr. Keteyian discussed the potential for a decrease in risk of death and re-hospitalization. This shows a tie to directly improving outcomes and symptoms in cardiac rehabilitation. Also, in the words of Dr. Keteyian, “functionally, the more they don’t do, the less they can do.”

Cardiac rehab is a Class I recommendation from The American College of Cardiology for all of the traditional cardiac disorders. Henry Ford has a 36-visit program that is anchored on exercise training. Between four and fifteen people are in each class and each person receives an individual treatment plan with a focus on bio-behavioral components. Six core components make up the program which include outcome assessments, supervised exercise, dietary/weight management, tobacco abuse, psychological support, and medication adherence. All participants participate in 30-minute behavioral education sessions which cover topics such as nutrition, dining out, proper exercise, medication compliance, and other relevant disease-management self-care activities. These same topics are also available on YouTube and can be found here, all of which are available for use in your cardiac rehab program. Currently, Henry Ford is working on bringing their time to enrollment after hospital discharge to less than 21 days and increasing adherence to the 36-visit program. The goal is to achieve a participation rate of 70% or more in cardiac rehab for Henry Ford’s patient population.

After discussing the program specifics at Henry Ford, Dr. Keteyian discussed the barriers that one may face in relation to participation in cardiac rehab. These barriers include:

  • Demographic
  • Difficulty contacting patient after hospitalization
  • Return to work demands
  • Transportation
  • Co-payment obligations
  • Dependent care responsibilities

Henry Ford is working at a system level in order to increase the percent of patients who gain access to cardiac rehab. This includes increasing the use of electronic medical record (EMR) driven automatic referrals, with an option for users to opt-out if necessary. Additionally, a member of the cardiac rehab team goes to the inpatient setting and talks to patients to establish a touchpoint before they leave the hospital. This five-minute conversation is all some patients need in order to see the importance and benefits of rehab. Lastly, Henry Ford is working to shorten the discharge to start time. Each day after discharge, the chance of getting patients started in rehab decreases by 1% for each day that passes. Henry Ford is working diligently in order to help decrease this risk.

In 2016, Henry Ford launched a hybrid home-based cardiac rehabilitation service. This includes some visits at the clinic and other virtual sessions. Previously being tied to a single visit at a time on their current streaming platform, Henry Ford will roll out a WebEx model in February 2021 that will allow up to six cardiac rehab appointments to occur at one time. This will provide more of a group setting. Currently, a randomized controlled trial is being done on center based cardiac rehab versus hybrid cardiac rehab. Improvements in fitness and the number of sessions attended are being assessed.

If you are interested in watching the entire workgroup, please click here.  If interested in any information about this workgroup, or other MVC workgroups please email michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com