Electronic Medical Records Are Not a Cure-All

We regularly work with clients that have developed innovative solutions to vexing, long-term problems confronting healthcare.  Some examples include:  enabling hospitals to quantify patient satisfaction, managing the release of patient chart information from the hospital, and providing meaningful drug and disease content to physicians in the course of their daily work.

In discussions with potential buyers and investors for these types of businesses, we regularly hear the following:  “Won’t widespread EMR adoption make this business obsolete?”   In the minds of many thinking about the HCIT industry:

Increased EMR Use = Fully Electronic Records = Integrated Data Whizzing Back and Forth

This is a welcome goal – and it’s theoretically possible that we could live in this world one day – but there are so many barriers to this future state that it’s very likely that none of us will be around to see it.

Consider the following:

• EMRs were first created in the 1960s and 1970s, but as recently as 2011, only about 1 in 3 of office-based physicians reported use of an EMR with basic functionality in place (i.e., medical history, electronic ordering, drug interactions, etc.)  Just over half of the respondents were using any EMR at all (to record basic patient demographics, for example).
• On the inpatient side, with more than $3.1B in Meaningful Use incentives paid out as of 2011, only 35% of U.S. hospitals have now adopted EMRs.
• CMS has been paying incentives for e-prescribing for the past two years.  In the framework of potential healthcare data described above, this is one of the most basic electronic transactions possible:  passing an error-free prescription from a provider’s EMR to a pharmacy.   As of the end of 2010, CMS reports that e-prescribing has grown tremendously – to where fewer than 12% of the nearly 700,000 eligible providers are now receiving incentive payments.

This is progress to be sure, and adoption is up significantly in the past few years.  However, EMR vendors still face a long road to achieving widespread adoption for basic functionality before they dive into the other challenges like data interoperability, clinical analytics, and payer-provider convergence.

In our view, new value-based reimbursement models via prospective population health management and coordination at the point of care simply have to run through the clinical data living in the EMR.   So, as stimulus dollars trail off in the coming years, we expect the more forward-thinking EMR vendors to start looking for tangential acquisitions outside of their core business that will help them make progress toward accelerating these reimbursement initiatives.

In other words, we expect that leading EMR vendors, in an effort to create differentiation in a still-crowded marketplace, will increasingly look to absorb – rather than displace – these innovative businesses that we see every day.  What is still an open question is whether the EMR vendors will be the buyers best positioned to reap the biggest benefits of owning these companies, or if other HCIT participants will put together the pieces that move us toward that future state where healthcare data moves around effortlessly.  In either case, we don’t see much evidence yet that EMRs are the standalone panacea that some seem to think they can be.

Let us know what you think.

Conor Green

Conor Green is a Vice President at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, and specializing in revenue cycle management and tech-enabled business services. You can email Conor at cgreen@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Behavioral Healthcare: Five Key Factors Are Driving Sector Consolidation

Mergers and acquisitions, public equity financings and private equity investments in the Behavioral Healthcare industry closed with a bang in 2011, and the momentum has continued into 2012. Demand and access to behavioral healthcare services, including treatment for mental health and substance abuse disorders, has accelerated in recent years due to a number of favorable industry and legislative trends.

Within this highly fragmented industry, Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACHA) has pursued an aggressive growth strategy in the last twelve months, executing a number transformative strategic decisions:

• Equity Offering: On December 15^th, Acadia completed a public equity offering of 9.5 million shares at $7.50 per share for total net proceeds of $67.5 million. Acadia plans to use the offering proceeds principally to fund its acquisition strategy. The Company certainly did not waste much time, announcing on January 5^th that is has signed a definitive agree to acquire three inpatient hospitals from Haven Behavioral Healthcare for $91 million in cash.
• Reverse Merger: On November 11^th, Acadia completed its merger with PHC, Inc., d/b/a Pioneer Behavioral Health (AMEX: PHC) and as a result became the leading publicly traded pure-play provider of inpatient behavioral healthcare services, based upon licensed beds.
• Add-on Acquisitions: Acadia purchased MeadowWood Behavioral Health System, an acute care psychiatric hospital, and Youth and Family Centered Services, Inc., an operator of 13 inpatient and outpatient psychiatric and behavioral health facilities, in July and April of 2011, respectively.

Private equity investors are also playing a meaningful role in this sector, accounting for roughly 30% of overall activity during 2010 and 2011. Just prior to the new year, Cressey & Co, a healthcare-focused private equity firm, acquired a majority stake in InnerChange, a residential treatment provider offering therapeutic services and accredited academics to young women with behavioral, emotional and substance abuse problems. This is investment marks the Cressey’s second investment in the behavioral healthcare sector; Cressey invested in Haven Behavioral Healthcare Inc. in 2008.

So what industry dynamics are catching the attention of both the public and private equity investors?

The following are a few of the more compelling attributes that in our view, will fuel the growth, investment and consolidation in the market.

1. Large and Growing Market. National expenditures on mental health and substance abuse treatment are expected to reach $239 billion in 2014, up from $121 billion in 2003, representing a compound annual growth rate of nearly 7%.The demand for behavioral health services has increased in recent years due to earlier and more accurate diagnosis of mental health conditions and the de-stigmatization of seeking treatment. It is estimated that approximately 6% of people in the US suffer from a seriously debilitating mental illness and over 20% of children either currently or at some point in their life, have had a seriously debility mental disorder. Moreover, the influx of returning US veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan will result in a growing percentage of veterans with serious mental and substance abuse disorders including schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder, PTSD and major depression.
2. Favorable Legislative Initiatives.  Recent legislative trends are increasing access to industry services as more individuals obtain insurance coverage in 2014. The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MHPAEA”) of 2008, which went into effect in January 2010, requires health plans to provide coverage for mental health services on par with conventional medical health services and forbids employers and insurance companies from placing greater restrictions on mental healthcare compared to other conditions. This legislation not only expands coverage for the existing insured population, but also for the newly insured in 2014, a meaningful percentage of which are said to suffer from a mental health conditions.
3. Diverse Payor Mix. Compared to other healthcare services sectors, behavioral health is reimbursed by a diverse mix of public and private payors. With the exception of a few segments within behavioral health, no single payor type (state/local/federal, Medicaid, Medicare, commercial, private pay) dominates that market. That said, Medicaid represents a significant source of funds, so potential cuts to Medicaid funding should be watched closely.
4. Attractive Financial Model. Compared to general acute care hospitals, which typically generate mid-teens margins, inpatient behavioral healthcare enjoy margins in the range of 20-40% for acute hospitalization and 15-25% for residential treatment. Maintenance capital expenditures are minimal at approximately 2% of revenue.
5. Niche markets / delivery models… Downsize fitness. The behavioral healthcare industry includes a number of different sub-segments defined on multiple dimensions, including age, gender, illness severity, diagnosis, delivery model and payors. As a result, tremendous opportunity exists for providers to expand into attractive niche/specialty markets. Companies such as, Downsize Fitness, are pursuing the obesity and eating disorder market(s) by developing niche-specialized facilities. Downsize fitness is new to the fitness center scene and is designed specifically for the chronically overweight and obese individuals. Trim men and women are not allowed as members, providing a more welcoming environment than in most conventional gyms.

With healthcare reform just around the corner, TripleTree expects the barrage of M&A and investment activity to continue and even accelerate. We look forward to sharing our thoughts as this market continues to evolve – let us know what you think.

Jon Hill

Jonathan Hill is a Vice President with TripleTree covering the healthcare industry and specializing in population health management and facility-based services.  You can contact him at jhill@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Focus, Economics and Patient Satisfaction…three keys to understanding Ambulatory Surgery Centers

Historically, surgical procedures were performed within the four walls of a hospital.  However, the past decade has seen a dramatic rise in surgery volume being performed in an outpatient setting—largely ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs).  As seen below, the number of U.S. ASCs is approaching 6,000, and overall procedure volume has shifted dramatically from inpatient to an outpatient setting.

Source: VMG Intellimarker 2011 and 2010

ASCs are outpatient facilities at which surgical procedures are performed on patients who do not require an overnight stay.  ASCs were originally established in 1970 and most commonly perform elective procedures with short anesthesia and operating times.  Typical procedures include eye, orthopedic, hand, plastic surgery, pain management, podiatry, ear-nose-and-throat, endoscopy, and laparoscopy at facilities usually ‘free-standing’ (not part of a hospital campus).  ASCs operate within a highly regulated industry with each facility being required to comply with rigorous oversight and certification.  Many of the same standards, constraints and requirements as inpatient hospital operating rooms apply to ASCs.

ASCs receive less of their total payments from Medicare/Medicaid than an average hospital – 37% for ASCs vs 61% for an average hospital which reduces some of the reimbursement pressure.  This makes sense as most of the procedures performed in this setting are elective in nature, which tend to come from the population not utilizing government health benefits.  We’ve assessed three key advantages offered by with the ASC approach to care:

• Compelling economics:  ASCs are able to provide lower-priced procedures because they have a lower cost structure than a traditional hospital setting along with a “focused factory” approach which creates efficiencies.
  • By shifting just half of all eligible outpatient surgeries to the ASC setting, Medicare could save an additional $2.3 billion annually (Ambulatory Surgery Center Advocacy Committee, 2010)
• Consumer appeal:  ASCs are generally free standing and located in the suburbs, which provide patients with better access.  Also, ASC schedules are better maintained because there is no possibility of emergency surgeries preempting a scheduled procedure.
• Focus, specialization and quality:  It’s difficult to track the quality of care provided in ASCs compared to hospitals because ASCs are not yet required to report comparable outcomes data – which will likely change in the near future.  We do know, however, that ASCs focus on a select number of procedures at a high volume, which allows doctors to perfect their craft and deliver high quality results to patients.

The advantages are not only for patients, but also for payers and providers.  Payers are able to negotiate more favorable rates for procedures performed in the ASC which lowers their overall costs of care.  Providers which are part of the ASCs have seen large economic gains as they’re able to take economic stakes in the operations.  Overall, ASCs have grown to become an important part of the care delivery landscape and as the three advantages listed above might dictate, this an area we predict will have an increasing relevance in the healthcare landscape.

Let me know what you think.

Judd Stevens

Judd Stevens is an associate at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, specializing in the impacts and transformation of health plans in a post-reform world.  Follow Judd on Twitter or e-mail him at jstevens@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Healthcare: Survival of The Fittest

According to Levin and Associates, mergers and acquisitions in the healthcare industry totaled over $227 billion, an 11% increase over 2010 and the fourth-largest year of the past decade. Even more interesting, is that the value of healthcare services deals increased 43% while technology decreased 2%. Hospital systems are moving into new communities, integrated health systems are acquiring additional delivery system assets, managed care networks are growing, and specialty care service businesses are expanding their footprint—to be well-positioned for survival in a post-reform world.

This is the type of data we shared with TripleTree’s Health Executive Roundtable–the investment bank’s “think tank” comprised of a diverse group of health industry executives with backgrounds ranging from banking, medical device, education and life sciences; to food services, technology, human capital management, and compliance.

We asked each Roundtable member: “What are the key trends that will emerge from this consolidation?”

Their independent and unique perspectives are published in:

Viewpoint: A Kaleidoscope of Insights Regarding Growth Opportunities amid Consolidation in the Healthcare Industry.

You can view and download the report here.

In addition, you are invited to participate in a webcast on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 from 12-1 pm CST where we will discuss the highlights and key themes from the report. You can register for the webcast at: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/771534410. After registering you will receive a confirmation email with information about joining the event.

As a preview. the following are the highlights and key themes from the report:

1. Healthcare costs will increase. It’s all about supply and demand. Market consolidation sets the stage for increasing healthcare costs as fewer, large, hospital and healthcare systems leverage their size and strength during unit cost contract negotiations with payors.
2. Contraction of the delivery system = expansion of demand for meaningful innovation to combat the pressures of #1. However, the only “new new things” that will survive are those that solve real problems with a scalable, cost-efficient solutions that integrate with the existing healthcare infrastructure.
3. B to C solutions require B to B revenue streams. Consumer adoption is critical for demonstrating relevance, but consumers don’t typically fund high growth enterprises.
4. “Health and Wellness” will transition to “Life and Well-Being.” Payers and employers will seek innovations that support life and well-being as the distinction between work, home and health become increasing blurred.
5. Healthcare gaming will emerge–actually, it will explode. Gaming platforms that integrate entertainment, interaction, and achievement will be a transformational solution for driving consumer engagement and behavior change as well as provider education, training, delivery, research and cost containment.
6. Electronic health records will evolve into smart health information technology ecosystems. These ecosystems will (finally) enable the coordination of care and drive shared accountability among healthcare providers.
7. Doctors will be loyal to a single system. (Smart) hospitals and health systems will attract and retain doctors with mobile and wireless software applications that enhance personal income and lifestyle.
8. The most disruptive solutions are likely to come from outside the traditional healthcare industry. The core assets and capabilities that fuel retail, consumer packaged goods, banking, and telecommunications, for example, can be translated into unique and meaningful healthcare solutions by companies and individuals not trapped in parochial “we’ve always done it that way” thinking.

A “perfect storm” is brewing where science and technology have no boundaries, and the convergence of reform and unsustainable medical costs are generating opportunities for change. I can’t think of a more exciting time to be in healthcare.

I look forward to your feedback via blog post comments, personal email, or during the webcast.

Archelle Georgiou

Archelle is a Senior Advisor and Chair of TripleTree’s Healthcare Executive Roundtable, and focused on creating health through innovation.  You can follow Archelle on Twitter, on her blog, or email her at ageorgiou@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

ACOs: Good News for Skeptics

As TripleTree continues to cover the rapidly evolving opportunities associated with health reform, I have remained an optimist about the potential for the many health reform experiments included in the healthcare reform bill to create meaningful healthcare savings in the long term.   In particular, I have been hopeful about the various shared savings programs to meaningfully impact cost and quality in the healthcare system, and momentum has continued to build, with CMS naming 32 organizations to the Pioneer ACO program in December.

This is what makes the recent news from CBO disheartening.  Last month, they released an analysis showing that ten different demonstration programs – six disease management and four value-based payment approaches – have usually not had any meaningful impact on reducing Medicare spending.    One of these value-based demonstrations “allowed large multispecialty physician groups to share in estimated savings if they reduced total Medicare spending for their patients.”

Sound familiar?  Troublingly, this program had little to no effect on Medicare expenditures.  (The only program of the four that did have an effect on costs used bundled payments for heart bypass surgeries.)

Adding to the bad news, Leavitt Partners released a study late last year showing that of the 164 accountable care organizations (ACOs) they have identified (note that the Leavitt definition of ACO overlaps with – but doesn’t perfectly align with – the CMS definition), were somewhat evenly distributed across 41 of 50 states.  However, these same 164 were found in just 144 of the 306 hospital referring regions (HRRs) – a benchmark of regional health care markets where patients are referred for care.   While a number of these HRRs had three or more ACOs, large swaths of the country had yet to see even one yet suggesting that perhaps ACOs are springing up largely to compete with each other, rather than focusing on finding geographic areas where a new care delivery model could meaningfully reduce costs.  This is one of the issues that skeptics of the model are concerned about, as my colleague highlighted recently.

In any case, critics of the healthcare reform have certainly gotten some new ammunition in the past few weeks – we’ll be keeping an eye out for some good news to highlight in a future post.   As before, I still remain optimistic about the change in mentality that CMS’s ACO program seems to have brought in how payers and providers are rethinking the traditional and rigid zero sum game of treatment and reimbursement, allowing new ways for commercial payers and care delivery organizations to partner to deliver quality care.

Let us know what you think.

Conor Green

Conor Green is a Vice President at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, and specializing in revenue cycle management and tech-enabled business services. You can email Conor at cgreen@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Utilization Sits at the Forefront of Recent and Future MCO Performance

As a host of leading managed care organizations (MCOs) roll out their most recent earnings reports, it is important to analyze some of the key drivers of plan performance. A key driver of success for MCOs recently has been low utilization, which has driven earnings that exceed market expectations.

Utilization: As indicated, utilization has been a primary driver of recent MCO performance upside; in addition to the important role it plays in setting future pricing, capitation rates and earnings expectations. So what exactly drives utilization among managed care plans? In short, utilization refers to the use of services by members or the patterns of rates of use of certain services such as hospital care, physician visits and prescription drugs. Utilization has long been viewed to be driven primarily by the economy, which has benefited MCOs in the near-term.  The current economic climate has been beneficial to many of the MCOs in terms of utilization in that people have deferred medical care. For example, given the current economic climate, it is likely that consumers are more than likely to wait it out a few days rather than going to a doctor and incurring a co-pay plus a prescription charge. As people have put off medical care, MCOs have benefited from lower than expected medical expenses. Lower medical expenses relative to premiums collected equal more profitability (all other things like MLR rebates aside).

One of the big questions right now surrounding MCOs has to do with what future utilization will look like.  MCOs have benefited greatly from the recent 3-year cycle of lowered utilization rates starting in 2009. Perhaps the biggest question is whether the broader implications of this trend should be accounted for in setting future plan pricing or earning expectations. Is the trend of lowered utilization correlated to the recession, unemployment and economic concerns or is there a fundamental change in how people look at medical care, especially related to consumer-directed health, higher deductible plans and the cost shift to the consumer?

Given the current economic impasse in the United States and abroad, one would expect that trend is expected to continue driving continued earnings upside among MCOs. However, this has not been the case in the guidance provided by many leading MCOs. Several MCOs are predicting higher utilization for 2012. This higher utilization will have a direct impact on the earnings performance among these plans and have been a key topic among analysts and industry commentators. These recent utilization suggestions have been supported by analyst estimates that utilization rates will increase by up to 50-150 basis points in the near-term. As analysts are just now updating their 2012 models to reflect increased utilization, it is likely that model updates will lead to lowered 2012 analyst earnings forecasts and related price downgrades in the MCO sector. The analyst community generally has taken a hard stance on MCO utilization and it is likely that we will witness several MCO downgrades in the near term as analyst work to assess the impact of increased 2012 utilization assumption.

Several counter viewpoints exist that utilization rates will not move increase as much as the carriers are suggesting. The prevailing viewpoint from this camp is that although there might be marginal utilization increases this year, the profit spread will remain as pricing increases will exceed the expected increases in medical cost spending as a result of increased utilization. This stance prevailed in 2011 as utilization last year was below expectations, leading to overall MCO sector public market performance that exceeded other healthcare sectors.

While low healthcare utilization is generally beneficial to MCOs, it generally has the opposite effect on other healthcare sectors, including hospitals and healthcare IT and services companies. These groups generally benefit from the consumption of services, which was the focus of the most recent HCA earnings release. During this release, HCA cited a rise in same-facility admissions to be a key driver of their earnings increase despite a decline in domestic surgery admissions and revenue-per-equivalent admission fell amid Medicaid reduction.

However, it is important to note that role that several other factors play in formulating earnings expectations and guidance. Almost equally important to some MCOs as utilization (particularly those with Medicare enrollment) are factors related to new member enrollment and Medicare Advantage conversion rates. In addition, several MCOs face huge earnings upside related to expansion of Medicare / Medicaid dual eligible enrollment as well.

It appears that the uncertainty that plagued MCOs following PPACA’s passage has been pushed to the back burner as most MCOs have generally benefitted from the legislation. While there is still some fine-tuning on the edges of reform that still present an overhang for MCOs (namely, MLR limitations, administrative cost constraints), that is a topic for another day as the current focus appears to be squarely on near-term medical cost expenses and new opportunity capture (courtesy of dual eligible expansion, state Medicaid RFPs and commercial market pricing pressure).

Let us know what you think.

Joe Long

Joe Long is a Senior Analyst at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, covering payer-focused healthcare software and service providers. You can email him at jlong@triple-tree.com.

Scott Donahue

Scott Donahue is a Vice President at TripleTree covering infrastructure and application technologies across numerous industries and specializes in assessing the “master brands” of IT and Healthcare. Follow Scott on Twitter or e-mail him at sdonahue@triple-tree.com

Read Full Post »

The Divide in the ACO Debate – Beltway Rhetoric versus Marketplace Cynicism

Amid the broader – and oftentimes highly opinionated and heated – ACO conversation occurring across Washington and the private sector, The Wall Street Journal published an interesting piece last week highlighting the specific views of three individuals:

• Don Berwick is the former administrator for CMS who just stepped down last December.  Don oversaw the creation of the ACO framework under the Medicare Shared Savings Program.
• Tom Scully is currently a General Partner at the New York-based private equity firm Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe.  Tom formerly served as the CMS administrator from 2001 to 2004 and CEO of the Federation of American Hospitals.
• Jeff Goldsmith is a president of Health Futures, a healthcare consulting firm out of Charlottesville, VA and an associate professor of public health sciences at the University of Virginia.

What becomes immediately apparent in the three-way dialogue (done via email) is the lens through which various participants view the industry’s efforts to improve healthcare’s fundamental problem of shifting from the traditional fee for service to a value-based approach.  There aren’t any quick, silver bullet answers to the debate, but what is evident is the divide among those that represent Washington’s political rhetoric (Don) and those that must figure out ways to make the new framework work within a dynamic, private care delivery system (Tom and Jeff).

Several disagreements bubble to the surface related to:

The role providers will play

• Berwick: “The ACO premise is different. Beneficiaries don’t join an ACO; providers of care do.”
• Scully: “The biggest flaw with ACOs is that they are driving more power to hospitals—not to doctors. Very scary, and I am a hospital guy.” … “If the doctors had the capital to organize comprehensive ACOs to control their own fate and drive us to more efficient care, I would be bullish on ACOs. But doctors are again along for the ride, not driving the bus.”
• Goldsmith: “In practice, however, the ACO is more like asking the hungry horse to guard the granary. The major savings for Medicare are to be found by keeping people out of the hospital, and reducing the incomes of the specialists who dominate hospital politics. To get those savings, hospitals and their specialists have to turn their backs on five decades of making more by doing more.”

Emphasis on the patient

• Berwick: “…the formula for ACO success is clear: keep quality high, save money by improving—not by restricting—care, and remain attractive to beneficiaries, who could go anywhere for care.”
• Scully: “The best models for ACOs are doctor groups like Monarch HealthCare in Los Angeles or JSA HealthCare in Tampa. Give doctors lots of patient data, pay them to see patients more often, follow their drug use and health status more closely to keep them out of hospitals—and give them control of the cash!”
• Goldsmith: “The biggest problem with the ACO, however, isn’t the faulty business proposition, but the patient’s role.” … “In the ACO, providers are accountable to Medicare. Patients won’t get a dime of the savings, and no choice whether to participate or not.” “Despite all the rhetoric about ACOs being patient-centered, it is a paternalistic, “we’ll decide what you need” kind of model.”

Prospects for care improvements and financial success of ACOs

• Berwick: “Knowing full well the results of the PGP demonstration, the CMS office of the actuary estimated base-case Medicare savings of over $400 million in the first three years of the ACO program.”  … The “32 physician groups and health-care systems selected for the pioneer program, covering 860,000 Medicare beneficiaries, [are] projected to save $1.1 billion in health-care costs over the first five years.”
• Scully: “In the system we have, ACOs are conceptually right, in that the concept inches toward differential pricing for quality, and Don should be congratulated. But we need to step back out of the trees, look at the forest and question the financing system we have created.”
• Goldsmith: “Having each community, large or small, set up its own ACO is like setting up a backyard steel mill.” … “It is the incredibly heterogeneous 5% of the population that generates 47% of all costs that you need to focus on, and if you don’t have enough of them in your “attributed” population, you cannot concentrate the resources to change their care and lives.”

Startup costs of an ACO

• Scully: “The start-up cost of a real ACO is probably $30 million and up in a midsize market.”
• Berwick: “The actual barriers to entry appear a lot lower than the $30 million cost that Tom Scully mentions; CMS estimates are only a fraction of that.” “… the CMS Innovation Center has proposed a program of advance payment to provide front-end capital and extra operating funds for care coordination, information systems and the like.”
• Goldsmith: “A more credible estimate of setup costs for a provider system with no prior managed-care experience to participate in the shared savings program: $10 million to $15 million per health system (consulting, IT systems conversions, new staff, etc.).”

 Prospects for success

• Berwick: “Smart entrants, focused on seamless care, outcomes and beneficiary satisfaction, will both reduce Medicare’s expenditures and reap financial rewards for themselves.” … “I hope and expect that ACOs will honor the trust they have been given by doing the job—lower cost through care improvements. If they violate that trust, the costs to them and to the future of seamless, coordinated care in America will be high indeed.”
• Scully: “Don’s vision is great, and who can’t like what he has tried to do with ACOs… Except that the incentives are very small, the change will be slow, and we are just nibbling at real system reform.”
• Goldsmith: “There were a lot of good ideas in the Affordable Care Act for saving money and improving quality. Unfortunately, the ACO wasn’t one of them.” … “By pushing this edgy idea from the policy world and ignoring the real-world evidence of its own trials, CMS picked the wrong horse.”

In a final from Jeff Goldsmith: “One of the most serious problems with the health-care world just now is the gap between the policy world and the real world. The ACO is Exhibit A in this yawning disconnect.”  Jeff is right to point out that there’s a divide between the public and private domains, yet progress, however small, has arguably been made.

The real question is whether “the vision” put forth by Don Berwick will ultimately evolve into a pervasive performance-based delivery model in which quality, efficiency, and choice are the driving factors behind private sector reimbursement and profitability.  To those outside of Washington, there certainly seems to be a long way to go – let us know what you think.

Seth Kneller

Seth Kneller is a Vice President at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, specializing in revenue cycle management, clinical software solutions, geriatric care and healthcare analytics. Follow Seth on Twitter or e-mail him at skneller@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Consumer Directed Health to Social Media…’Consumerism’ Has Become the Undeniable Force in Healthcare

Healthcare can no longer deny nor ignore the importance of social media.  As a communication platform, it’s being used to educate, engage and empower consumers about topics ranging from legislation, hospital rankings, and ER wait times, to patient satisfaction, chronic illness management and health improvement.  Collaborative applications around seeking, sorting, assessing and ranking health information and experience have become part of our connected culture.

As “consumerism” increasingly impacts the healthcare landscape – payers, providers and other healthcare stakeholders are investing in technologies ranging from collaboration and contact center tools, to next generation video and self service platforms.  Consumerism is forcing these organizations to change their cultural barriers to how customer interactions need to be supported, and the pace of legislative mandates is exposing the healthcare information systems that can’t nimbly react to creating new products, or support online conversations.

Blogger Ed Bennet tracks 1,188 hospitals which are proving their seriousness about social media usage as they update:

• 548 YouTube Channels
• 1018 Facebook pages
• 788 Twitter Accounts
• 458 LinkedIn Accounts
• 913 Foursquare
• 137 Blogs

The impact of social media in healthcare goes beyond just an inexpensive channel that targets consumers.  Social media is fundamentally changing how payers, providers, and healthcare stakeholders manage their brand and influence purchasing decisions.

• For payers its managing customer service touch points through insurance exchanges, one of the few ways for them to maintain loyalty.

• For providers its connecting care providers with patients and is no longer about a gadget or app, but for measurable opportunities to share knowledge, build loyalty and improve processes that can influence how they manage care and patient relationships.

• For other healthcare stakeholders it’s supporting their brand and customer interactions with thoughtful, engaged support allowing for the ability to listen in on conversations already occurring about the industry, products, news, issues, etc.

Social media is a powerful source of information for consumers, and an equally powerful communication channel for providers of health information and support services.  For payers, providers and other healthcare stakeholders, TripleTree considers social media the lowest cost enabler of consumerism with a technical heritage linking it to cloud-based CRM and collaboration platforms.  In addition, social media is a cornerstone for marketing and branding initiatives in many industries.   With social media in healthcare, the old models for marketing, sales and service have been transformed.

Let us know what you think.

Chris Hoffmann

Chris Hoffmann is a Senior Director at TripleTree covering Cloud, SaaS and enterprise applications and specializes in CRM, loyalty and collaboration solutions across numerous industries. Follow Chris on Twitter or e-mail him at choffmann@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »

Hospital Readmission Stats Can Have a Meaningful Impact on Reimbursement

With the New Year fast approaching, and the start of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) fiscal year shortly behind us (it began October 1, 2011), it seems appropriate to evaluate the major initiatives implemented by CMS in FY 2012.  When doing so, one program stood out more than many others—the implementation of the hospital readmission reduction program. In short, CMS has implemented a program—consistent with its value-based purchasing program—designed to improve the quality of medical treatment provided to patients by penalizing hospitals that are deemed to have an excessive number of Medicare inpatient readmissions.

CMS’ program to curb readmissions, which began in 2009 when it started publicly reporting 30-day readmissions, is part of its overall effort to reduce costs and improve the quality and coordination of patient care.  The premise of the campaign against readmissions is to punish and dissuade providers from releasing patients that will likely need follow-up care for the same ailment as they were just treated, which, theoretically, will cause providers to make sure patients are provided with the necessary treatment the first time they are treated and, as a result, reduce the number of expensive follow-up trips to emergency rooms.  The program, which currently only covers readmissions for pneumonia, acute myocardial infraction (AMI) and heart failure, takes a step forward in FY 2012 from being a program that is intended to “shame” providers by making the 30-day readmission information publically available, as was done until now with CMS’ pay-for-reporting program, to being a true “penalty” program.

Beginning October 1, 2011, providers’ 30-readmission data will be collected and used to generate an overall score for each hospital for FY 2012.  This score will then be used to determine if a hospital’s readmission rate is higher than the Medicare-calculated “baseline” readmission rate (which was calculated by CMS using reported readmission information from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2011).  If so, the total operating payments due to the hospital will be reduced by CMS, with the maximum reductions being as follows: FY 2013 =1%, FY 2014 = 2%, and FY 2015 = 3%. In addition, beginning in FY 2015, CMS can expand the list of covered conditions to broaden the impact of the program.

While the reimbursement risk associated with this program may seem insignificant to some, many providers are operating under very thin margins, which will make even a 1% reduction in Medicare reimbursement meaningful.  For example, if a hospital’s total inpatient operating payments for FY 2012 were $25mm, that hospital will have $250k at risk for reimbursement reduction pursuant to this program. With the maximum penalty increasing 1% per year until FY 2015, the penalty and dollars at risk will undoubtedly heighten providers’ focus on their readmission rates. It stands to reason that many will also look to new solutions, technologies, and programs to help them avoid being penalized. New solutions aimed at patient engagement as well as remote-patient monitoring are areas of opportunity that we think will continue to be instrumental in addressing the readmission dilemma providers are facing.  

Have a great week.

Jamie Lockhart

Jamie Lockhart is a Vice President with TripleTree covering healthcare software and service providers with a focus on consumer directed healthcare.  You can contact him at jlockhart@triple-tree.com

Read Full Post »

HHS Reform Timelines…Wiggle Room In Sight?

Aggressive IT deadlines have left the healthcare industry scrambling to meet a host of regulatory mandates spanning HIT adoption, payment transaction methodologies, coding standards, and state-run health insurance exchanges.  Hundreds of new regulations have been implemented over the past couple of years, leaving the industry torn in how limited time and resources are utilized among care delivery, quality and cost reduction initiatives, process/infrastructure modernization, and increasingly stringent regulatory reporting requirements.

Hospitals and doctors have been especially overwhelmed with regulations and have been reprioritizing investments to support EMR implementation, Meaningful Use qualification, and what is expected to be a tidal wave of new entrants into the system once the 2014 health reform mandates become effective.

The American Medical Association (AMA) set newswires and the blogosphere abuzz last week when they publically voiced opposition to the transition to ICD-10 coding stating “the implementation of ICD-10 will create significant burdens on the practice of medicine with no direct benefit to individual patients’ care.”  Some dispute the AMA’s move as self-serving given their interests in maintaining the stature and importance of the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code set.  Nevertheless, whether the AMA’s move was defensive or not is irrelevant – the vast majority of providers and a meaningful cross-section of payers are ill-prepared to meet the ICD-10 transition deadlines that CMS currently has in place.

To the relief of payers, providers, vendors, and states, the department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have recently backed off from a few key deadlines.  While these announcements by no means cancel any existing mandates, at a minimum they buy the industry some time to comply with the overarching legislative intent of increasing coverage among the uninsured population, incentivizing IT adoption, and driving improved levels of care delivery.  Of note:

1. HIPAA 5010– CMS announced that it would hold off enforcing the HIPAA 5010 transaction sets until March 31, 2012, a 90-day extension to the original enforcement date. While the compliance date will technically remain intact, relaxing the enforcement date “encourages all covered entities to continue working with their trading partners to become compliant with the new HIPAA standards and to determine their readiness to accept the new standards as of Jan. 1, 2012,” as stated in a release by CMS’ Office of E-Health Standards and Services (OESS).HIPAA 5010 is widely viewed as a precursor to the impending transition to ICD-10 in October 2013. The enormity of that effort will dwarf HIPAA 5010. This week’s announcement foreshadows further delays yet to come.
2. Stage 2 Meaningful Use– HHS announced this week that it would delay its compliance date for Stage 2 Meaningful Use from 2013 to 2014. The extension specifically impacts eligible providers that qualified for Stage 1 Meaningful Use in 2011. Providers, vendors, and government work groups alike have noted the timing issues and inherent disincentive posed on early adopters attempting to adhere to criteria that have yet to be finalized. The Health IT Policy Committee, a federally-chartered advisory panel to HHS, recommended these changes earlier this year to the endorsement of Farzad Mostashari, M.D., ONC’s National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius acknowledged the progress to date, referring to the reported doubling of HIT adoption over the past two years. In its move to extend the Stage 2 deadline HHS has smartly protected its initial success by attentively listening and responding to the needs of an overwhelmed provider community.
3. Health Insurance Exchanges – HHS (though the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight – CCIIO) has seemingly relaxed (or at least clarified) a critical deadline for the states to stand-up their Insurance Exchanges. This week, CCIIO extended a grant deadline by six months until June 2012 from December 2011. Also CCIIO has committed funding for the establishment exchanges beyond the previous January 1, 2014 deadline. Now states have until December 2014 to apply for grants for continued exchange development provided that at least a portion of the exchange is operational by January 1, 2014.

While it is not entirely clear why these significant changes coincided in timing – perhaps it had to do with the resignation of controversial CMS chief Don Berwick – these reprieves are no doubt welcomed within the industry. The extra time will give payers, providers, and states some extra time to meet their compliance mandates.

This extra time should not be squandered. Industry participants must continue to plan for and implement systems that support new EDI standards within 5010, the reporting requirements of Stage 2 Meaningful Use, and the complexities of insurance exchanges. Furthermore, the real value in any of these mandates is not meeting the minimum requirements of the mandate itself, but rather the powerful and compelling capabilities that each enables in terms of improved communication and workflow automation that will enable entirely new quality and cost initiatives.

We’re optimistic that the timeline flexibility of HHS regarding timelines will promote more thoughtful approaches, investments and implementations across all impacted organizations, let us know what you think.

Scott Donahue

Scott Donahue is a Vice President at TripleTree covering infrastructure and application technologies across numerous industries and specializes in assessing the “master brands” of IT and Healthcare. Follow Scott on Twitter or e-mail him at sdonahue@triple-tree.com

Seth Kneller

Seth Kneller is an Associate at TripleTree covering the healthcare industry, specializing in revenue cycle management, clinical software solutions, geriatric care and healthcare analytics. Follow Seth on Twitter or e-mail him at skneller@triple-tree.com.

Read Full Post »