Economic profiling of primary care physicians: consistency among risk-adjusted measures.
(73/354)
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether different risk-adjustment methodologies and economic profiling or "practice efficiency" metrics produce differences in practice efficiency rankings for a set of primary care physicians (PCPs). DATA SOURCE: Twelve months of claims records (inpatient, outpatient, professional, and pharmacy) for an independent practice association HMO. STUDY DESIGN: Patient risk scores obtained with six profiling risk-adjustment methodologies were used in conjunction with claims cost tabulations to measure practice efficiency of all primary care physicians who managed 25 or more members of an HMO. DATA COLLECTION: For each of the risk-adjustment methodologies, two measures of "efficiency" were constructed: the standardized cost difference between total observed (standardized actual) and total expected costs for patients managed by each PCP, and the ratio of the PCP's total observed to total expected costs (O/E ratio). Primary care physicians were ranked from most to least efficient according to each risk-adjusted measure, and level of agreement among measures was tested using weighted kappa. Separate rankings were constructed for pediatricians and for other primary care physicians. FINDINGS: Moderate to high levels of agreement were observed among the six risk-adjusted measures of practice efficiency. Agreement was greater among pediatrician rankings than among adult primary care physician rankings, and, with the standardized difference measure, greater for identifying the least efficient than the most efficient physicians. The O/E ratio was shown to be a biased measure of physician practice efficiency, disproportionately targeting smaller sized panels as outliers. CONCLUSIONS: Although we observed moderate consistency among different risk-adjusted PCP rankings, consistency of measures does not prove that practice efficiency rankings are valid, and health plans should be careful in how they use practice efficiency information. Indicators of practice efficiency should be based on the standardized cost difference, which controls for number of patients in a panel, instead of O/E ratio, which does not. (+info)
A preliminary report of an educational intervention in practice management.
(74/354)
BACKGROUND: Practice management education continues to evolve, and little information exists regarding its curriculum design and effectiveness for resident education. We report the results of an exploratory study of a practice management curriculum for primary care residents. METHODS: After performing a needs assessment with a group of primary care residents at Wright State University, we designed a monthly seminar series covering twelve practice management topics. The curriculum consisted of interactive lectures and practice-based application, whenever possible. We descriptively evaluated two cognitive components (practice management knowledge and skills) and the residents' evaluation of the curriculum. RESULTS: The mean correct on the knowledge test for this group of residents was 74% (n = 12) and 91% (n = 12) before and after the curriculum, respectively. The mean scores for the practice management skill assessments were 2.62 before (n = 12), and 3.65 after (n = 12) the curriculum (modified Likert, 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The residents rated the curriculum consistently high. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study suggests that this curriculum may be useful in developing knowledge and skills in practice management for primary care residents. This study suggests further research into evaluation of this curriculum may be informative for practice-based education. (+info)
Management in general practice: the challenge of the new General Medical Services contract.
(75/354)
BACKGROUND: Managers in general practice perform a variety of roles, from purely administrative to higher-level strategic planning. There has been little research investigating in detail how they perform these roles and the problems that they encounter. The new General Medical Services (GMS) contract contains new management challenges and it is not clear how practices will meet these. AIM: To improve understanding of the roles performed by managers in general practice and to consider the implications of this for the implementation of the new GMS contract. DESIGN OF STUDY: In-depth qualitative case studies covering the period before and immediately after the vote in favour of the new GMS contract. SETTING: Three general practices in England, chosen using purposeful sampling. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with all clinical and managerial personnel in each practice, participant and non-participant observation, and examination of documents. RESULTS: Understanding about what constitutes the legitimate role of managers in general practice varies both within and between practices. Those practices in the study that employed a manager to work at a strategic level with input into the direction of the organisation demonstrated significant problems with this in practice. These included lack of clarity about what the legitimate role of the manager involved, problems relating to the authority of managers in the context of a partnership, and lack of time available to them to do higher-level work. In addition, general practitioners (GPs) were not confident about their ability to manage their managers' performance. CONCLUSION: The new GMS contract will place significant demands on practice management. These results suggest that it cannot be assumed that simply employing a manager with high-level skills will enable these demands to be met; there must first be clarity about what the manager should be doing, and attention must be directed at questions about the legitimacy enjoyed by such a manager, the limits of his or her authority, and the management of performance in this role. (+info)
Evaluating computer capabilities in a primary care practice-based research network.
(76/354)
PURPOSE: We wanted to assess computer capabilities in a primary care practice-based research network and to understand how receptive the practices were to new ideas for automation of practice activities and research. METHOD: This study was conducted among members of the Pediatric Practice Research Group (PPRG). A survey to assess computer capabilities was developed to explore hardware types, software programs, Internet connectivity and data transmission; views on privacy and security; and receptivity to future electronic data collection approaches. RESULTS: Of the 40 PPRG practices participating in the study during the autumn of 2001, all used IBM-compatible systems. Of these, 45% used stand-alone desktops, 40% had networked desktops, and approximately 15% used laptops and minicomputers. A variety of software packages were used, with most practices (82%) having software for some aspect of patient care documentation, patient accounting (90%), business support (60%), and management reports and analysis (97%). The main obstacles to expanding use of computers in patient care were insufficient staff training (63%) and privacy concerns (82%). If provided with training and support, most practices indicated they were willing to consider an array of electronic data collection options for practice-based research activities. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variability in hardware and software use in the pediatric practice setting. Implementing electronic data collection in the PPRG would require a substantial start-up effort and ongoing training and support at the practice site. (+info)
Professionalism reconsidered: physician payment in a small-practice environment.
(77/354)
Traditional fee-for-service health insurance rested on the assumption that doctors have primary responsibility for decisions about care. Managed competition assumed a new model based on corporate medicine, which has not materialized; also, consumers' ability to replace doctors as primary medical decisionmakers is unproven. Data on practice size show that doctors and patients continue to prefer the small-practice setting, where the doctor's role as the patient's agent is salient. The persistence of the small practice suggests that medical professionalism remains the cornerstone of the health system. If so, it may be more appropriate to pursue quality-oriented refinements of traditional payment approaches, rather than radical transformation. (+info)
Physician organization and care management in California: from cottage to Kaiser.
(78/354)
Data from a survey of practicing physicians in California's thirteen largest urban counties were used to ascertain differences in care management processes, financial incentives for quality, and practice pressures by type of practice setting. Physicians in the Permanente medical groups have adopted and value quality-oriented, system-level care management tools to a much greater degree than physicians in independent practice association (IPA) networks or traditional "cottage-industry" practices. Our findings raise disturbing questions about how the health system will close the "quality chasm" in medical care without transforming the underlying organization of physician practices. (+info)
Report on financing the new model of family medicine.
(79/354)
PURPOSE: To foster redesigning the work and workplaces of family physicians, this Future of Family Medicine task force was created to formulate and recommend a financial model that sustains and promotes a thriving New Model of care by focusing on practice reimbursement and health care finances. The goals of the task force were to develop a financial model that assesses the impact of the New Model on practice finances, and to recommend health care financial policies that, if implemented, would be expected to promote the New Model and the primary medical care function in the United States for the next few decades. METHODS: The members of the task force reflected a wide range of professional backgrounds and expertise. The group met in person on 2 occasions and communicated by e-mail and conference calls to achieve consensus. A marketing study was carried out using focus groups to test the concept of the New Model with consumers. External consultants with expertise in health economics, health care finance, health policy, and practice management were engaged to assist the task force with developing the microeconomic (practice level) and macroeconomic (societal level) financial models necessary to achieve its goals. Model assumptions were derived from the published medical literature, existing practice management databases, and discussions with experienced physicians and other content experts. The results of the financial modeling exercise are included in this report. The initial draft report of the findings and recommendations was shared with a reactor panel representing a broad spectrum of constituencies. Feedback from these individuals was reviewed and incorporated, as appropriate, into the final report. RESULTS: The practice-level financial model suggests that full implementation of the New Model of care within the current fee-for-service system of reimbursement would result in a 26% increase in compensation (from 167,457 dollars to 210,288 dollars total annual compensation) for prototypical family physicians who maintain their current number of work hours. Alternatively, physicians could choose to decrease their work hours by 12% and maintain their current compensation. This result is sensitive to physician practice group size. The societal level financial model shows that modifications in the current reimbursement system could lead to further improvements in compensation for family physicians practicing the New Model of care. Reimbursement for e-visits and chronic disease management could further increase total annual compensation to 229,849 dollars for prototypical family physicians maintaining their current number of work hours. The widespread introduction of quality-based physician incentive bonus payments similar to some current programs that have been implemented on a limited basis could further increase total annual compensation up to 254,500 dollars. The adoption of a mixed reimbursement model, which would add an annual per-patient fee, a chronic care bonus, and an overall performance bonus to the current reimbursement system, could increase total annual compensation for the prototypical family physician continuing the current number of hours worked to as much as 277,800 dollars, a 66% increase above current compensation levels. The cost of transition to the New Model is estimated to range from 23,442 dollars to 90,650 dollars per physician, depending on the assumed magnitude of productivity loss associated with implementing an electronic health record. The financial impact of enhanced use of primary care on the costs of health care in the United States was estimated. If every American used a primary care physician as their usual source of care, health care costs would likely decrease by 5.6%, resulting in national savings of 67 billion dollars per year, with an improvement in the quality of the health care provided. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians could use New Model efficiency to increase compensation or to reduce work time. There are alternative reimbursement methodologies compatible with the New Model that would allow family physicians to share in the health care cost savings achieved as a result of effective and efficient delivery of care. The New Model of care should enhance health care while propelling the US system toward improved performance and results that are satisfying to patients, health care professionals, purchasers, and payers. The New Model needs to be implemented now. Given the recognized need for improvements in the US health care system in the areas of quality, safety, access and costs, there is no reason to delay. (+info)
Bridging the quality chasm: integrating professional and organizational approaches to quality.
(80/354)
Current Western health care practices face the challenge to improve their quality on multiple dimensions simultaneously. This requires new ways to think about how to deliver health care services. A careful and 'flexible' standardization of care into 'care programs', we argue, is central. Yet such standardization is powerless without the application of four additional design principles: a thorough restructuring and delegation of tasks, the application of integrated planning, the use of indicators about the functioning of the care programs, and implementing process-supporting information technology. Vice versa, these additional principles can only function properly when integrated with care programs. We will only be able to improve the safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, and timeliness of health care, while reducing costs and improving equity, by integrating professional and organizational approaches to quality. This paper describes a series of interrelated design principles that together depict how future health care delivery could be organized. (+info)