At Infosys, our Insurance, Healthcare and Life Sciences teams strive for holistic, better and safer healthcare through the technology we create. In this blog, we will discuss healthcare IT, obstacles, successes, new ideas and much more, with the aim of improving healthcare technology, and quality of life as a result.

« March 2011 | Main | August 2011 »

July 26, 2011

Promoting accountability in ACO - A few insights (Part 1)

In a successful Accountable Care Organization (ACO), establishing and sustaining the exchange of information flow among the individual constituents matter the most.

The term accountable care organization (ACO) was coined in the Medicare Shared Savings Program as part of the Patient Protection and Accountable Care Act of year 2010 (PPACA). The program, anchored by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), will share annual savings for a population of Medicare beneficiaries with a group of providers who form a provider organization that meets the defined criteria. Such groups are called accountable care organizations (ACOs).

Consider a few situations in an ACO where the participating providers diagnose the same disease differently, prescribe additional or different procedures if diagnose the same patient, do not consult patient's medical history during diagnosis. In such cases, the patients will not receive the cost effective quality care.  In a recent letter issued to CMS, AHIP had raised the concern that "The antitrust agencies should modify their proposed antitrust policy statement to minimize the potential risk of increased prices due to provider consolidation". This can be very easily misconstrued as the monopoly of the large provider group. If we look from other side, it could very well be because the providers are working in silos even though they belong to one ACO and there is a big gap in exchanging the clinical information.

Is ACO thus limited to just consolidation of providers or there is something more to it ? In my point of view, two critical factors which will ensure a proper functioning of ACO -

• Adherence by the individual constituents to a central theme of improving quality of care through innovative practices and collaboration
• Establishing a standard way of performing the clinical practices across the ACO organization


We will be deliberating on these two topics in the next series of blogs.

Coming to the first topic i.e. Adherence to a central theme, the questions that quiz me:
1. How to ensure collaboration among the stakeholders which will result in the patients getting the right and cost effective treatment
2. How will the collaboration exceed the boundary of each individual participating hospital to the level of the accountable care organization

To me, the major roadblocks in ensuring collaboration are the lack of defined processes and supporting systems and a right attitude from the provider. The simple example would be a patient visiting different doctors with the diagnosis and medication information not being shared among the doctors. This might result in duplicate procedures resulting in higher costs.  The medicines prescribed by doctors can create side effects due to lack of knowledge of other medication being taken by the patient. A process needs to be established which will keep track of a patient from the minute of entry to a provider facility to the diagnosis phase. All the medical test results and prescriptions need to be made available on demand. The doctors need to make every attempt to understand the patients by thoroughly looking at the patient history including patient genetics. This is achievable if the providers change the mindset which is caring for volume without looking at the quality of care. The ACO organization must enforce this through a central focus. Building provider awareness is the key. And all these are not achievable by the providers manually and there is a need of robust infrastructure to support.

July 14, 2011

Financial Neutrality: Address it before the calendar turns "2013"

Even before the industry could solve the puzzle of ICD-10 mapping, "Revenue Neutrality" has become a new food for thought. It's obvious that ICD-10 will alter health plan's existing coverage determination, clinical policies, and adjudication logics at a much finer level, which can complicate their reimbursement decisions for every single service claimed by the providers. If this occurs, then guaranteeing that provider payouts remain at the same level in ICD-10 as they currently are in ICD-9 will become somewhat of a myth.

Read the complete article here.

Payment reform with ICD-10

The advent of ICD-10 has made the payer & provider industry to seek new ways for improving the management of their medical expenses. In order to achieve this, both parties will need to work together towards remodeling of the payment structures and methodologies and establish a prospective contract model that can help rationalize the medical cost structure, ensure clinical integrity, and optimize operational efficiency across organization's functional areas.

Read the complete article in my blog space in ICD10Hub.com.

Medical Loss ratio: The GOOD-BAD-CONFUSING!

As you might have guessed from my previous posts, I'm more or less in favor of the health care reform mandates, but there are still individual rules I'm concerned about, and some I'm definitely confused about. This post focuses on one such confusing rule--the requirement for payers to use 85 percent member premiums toward the MLR (Medical Loss Ratio). Simply, payers must spend at least 85 percent of the amount they collect toward the cost of care.

Read my views in the article in Health Data Management.

The Medical-Loss Ratio Conundrum

Since I wrote my last blog regarding the confusion that I have withthe whole medical-loss ratio mandate, I have been inundated with e-mails and phone calls. People either took strong opposition to my assertions or supporting my assertions about the uncertainties surrounding the MLR mandate.

Click here to read my views in my blog space in Health Data Management.

 

Accountable Care Organizations - Old Wine in a New Bottle?

Everywhere I turn, I hear about accountable care organizations, especially during provider-focused forums. Nearly everyone is excited about their ACO (and medical home) initiatives, but I've also met with quite a few skeptics who believe that the concept is nothing new and has been tried many times--and failed--in various forms. Interesting!

Click here to read the complete blog in my blog space in Health Data Management:

 

Health Insurance Exchanges - Why Do States have to pay for them at all?

Lately, I have been reading a lot and of course, simultaneously thinking a lot, about the whole business of HIX. The more I think about it the more I start believing that the HIX and subsequently the move towards the individual market could be the ultimate catalyst to bring that major change in US healthcare industry that everybody is looking for. But it could simply be wishful, a bit misty, thinking on part of an increasingly frustrated middle-aged healthcare industry professional. I guess I included half of the healthcare industry professionals out there, along with myself. Anyways, I am going to throw out a bit of what I have been thinking over the next few blogs and would love to hear back from you guys if it makes sense or is just a day-dream.

Read the entire article in Health Data Management Blog :

Insurance Exchanges: Why Do States Have To Pay For Them?

Subscribe to this blog's feed

Follow us on

Blogger Profiles

Infosys on Twitter