Driving forces


7
Sep 10

The Geocomplexity of US Primary Care

What to say about the popular press accounts (such as this one, in the 9/7/10 New York Times) of a new study of acute care treatment published in the current issue of Health Affairs (Stephen R. Pitts, et al, Where Americans Get Acute Care: Increasingly, It’s Not At Their Doctor’s Office. Health Affairs, September 2010) ?

The options are numerous:

  • Primary care is broken, and the study simply quantifies what has been known for years;
  • Primary care is broken, and the study highlights looming challenges for the implementation of effective health system reform in accord with new Federal legislation;
  • Primary care is broken, and the study provides a needed platform for outlining effective primary care delivery alternatives

You may discern a theme here, dear reader… ;-)

The difficulty is that appropriate conclusions are not self-evident. Is educating ER users about more-appropriate treatment venues the best fix? Perhaps hospitals could solve the problem with relatively simple adjustments to their EMTALA obligations? Surely the nation’s policies regarding EMR/PHR adoption can play a positive role in channeling individuals to the most appropriate care settings for their health conditions? And of course we can’t forget the possibility that a combination of these and other approaches might yield valuable improvements….

Our initial feeling is that close examination of decisions about where to obtain acute care treatment would be well worth the time and trouble. People get care where they get care for reasons, and we imagine those reasons are at once practical, malleable. and deeply affected by both ingrained habits and available information about alternatives.

When we undertake to make people’s care-consumption decisions better for them and for our health care system, we’lll do better by looking at what people actually do rather than go by practitioner beliefs/desires regarding what people should do.


30
Aug 10

Thinking Flu Shot? Schedule It

We’ve never been clear why retail clinics have not done more experimenting with scheduling. Like MinuteClinics’ new flu scheduler initiative:

Flu Shots Your Way

Or Target’s since-discontinued online clinic visit scheduler.

My sense is that Target took down its online scheduling application due to lack of use – but why not make it available, even if it’s seldom used? Its very availability suggests that Target has its would-be clinic visitors’ ease & convenience in mind. I suppose it raises issues for onsite juggling of onsite walk-in customers – who may be unaware of clinic scheduling options – and those in the know who HAVE scheduled visits.

Management of customer perceptions of ‘privilege’ is not insignificant, but may be enough, combine with low use, to make mothballing scheduling the right move.

Can anyone help clarify this for me?


25
Aug 10

Take Care Health Congratulates Itself For Engaging Its Clientele

On the other hand, what else are press releases for, anyway?

Exceptional Patient Experience Delivered at Take Care Clinics at Select Walgreens

Take Care Clinic strongly engages more than 3-out-of-every-4. The typical company in Gallup’s database strongly engages less than 1-in-5 of their customers.

“In today’s consumer-driven healthcare environment, engaging patients is far more powerful than simply satisfying a patient. Not only is satisfaction a poor indicator of future behavior, but more importantly engagement may be predictive of a patient’s willingness to make changes necessary to improve their health,” said John Fleming, Gallup principal and chief scientist customer engagement….

“Take Care Clinic believes that an engaged patient leads to better adherence,” said [ Sandra F. Ryan, RN, MSN, CPNP, FAANP and Chief Nurse Practitioner Officer for Take Care Health Systems]. “If a patient believes in the provider who is giving the advice, they are more likely to follow the treatment protocol that has been put together. This includes taking medication as prescribed, seeking follow-up care or making a lifestyle change. The patient is also more likely to return to a Take Care Clinic because of the great experience and care received.”

Before we continue – who knew you could grow up to be a customer engagement scientist? Sounds cool.

We understand Take Care Health’s and Gallup’s enthusiasm for the kind of customer engagement Take Care clinics are generating. What we don’t understand is this: given retail clinics’ focus on episodic care, and their explicit public commitment to supporting customers’ development and/or maintenance of relationships with primary care physicians, shouldn’t ‘scoring’ engagement success based on actual customer return visits be viewed as ambiguous at best? (We can set aside that, as a practical matter, Take Care will have a tough job gathering objective evidence that customers have in fact followed through on care recommendations from their Take Care visits).


20
Aug 10

Policy May Shape Clinics – and Clinics May Shape Policy

This concise summary of the emerging retail clinics business:

McMedical Care |The rise of health clinics in retail stores could affect both health policy and regulation

http://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/McMedical-Care.html

was published in Governing in 2006, so it could not have been informed by the recent white paper on clinics and public policy released by Rand, & written by Dr. Ateev Mehrotra and colleagues which we posted about yesterday. We did not see it in 2006 – a link to the article showed up in our mail just yesterday – so we took heed of the serendipity & decided to reference it here.

At very least it makes a nice complement to that more recent publication, providing a historical point of reference for the early & modest research findings summarized in the Rand paper.


19
Aug 10

Retail clinics and public policy

It’s been a relatively slow summer, newswise, for retail clinics, and our vigilance for news items has undoubtedly flagged a bit. So imagine our delight to have news of this report show up in our mail this morning:

Policy Implications of the Use of Retail Clinics. August 2010. Authors: Robin M. Weinick, Craig Evan Pollack, Michael P. Fisher, Emily M. Gillen, Ateev Mehrotra.

We haven’t yet seen any media releases for it, and thought you’d like to know about it.

Dr. Mehrotra can lay claim to being the most recognizable retail clinics expert among clinicians and academics.

We’re poring over the report as you read this. Watch for our review in the next few days.


17
Aug 10

Do More Retail Clinics Equal Fewer Primary Care Docs?

Ken Terry thinks so.

I don’t believe so, and I don’t think the facts Ken points to in his brief article make his case, but alas – I have not marshalled the countervailing facts that impel me to disbelieve his assertion. I hope to, but it won’t happen today.


17
Aug 10

Two (Or More?) Faces of Mobile Health

We don’t comment primarily on health applications of telecommunications technologies, or on public health initiatives. We’re firstly about health care that features convenience (I like convenience. People like convenience).

We remind you, dear reader, of our principal theme to give you context for our posting the following links to two otherwise apparently unrelated health care topics, both identified by their authors or editors as about “mobile health”:

Mobile Clinics Seen As A Way To Cut US Health Bill (Scott Malone, Reuters, 8/11/10; immediate access)

The [Family Van] — which visits six low-income neighborhoods around Boston weekly — is one of about 2,000 such mobile clinics in the United States. Advocates say the approach can help control the rising cost of health care by helping people with chronic diseases to stay out of the emergency room, often the first recourse for inner-city residents.

Mobile Health and the FDA: What WellDoc’s Approval Means for mHealth (Jane Sarasohn-Kahn, HealthPopuli, 8/10/10; immediate access)

While an “N” of 1 = 1, and WellDoc’s approval is for one product from one company, the approval of DiabetesManager represents a positive sign for the many developers of mobile health applications waiting in the wings for market approval.

We’re confident that your familiarity with Healthcare 311 would equip you to advise those authors & editors that their subjects are also squarely in the realm of “convenient health”.

Because they are.


10
Aug 10

MinuteClinic Visits Up + Conventional Medical Visits Down <> Trend

Sorry, Johnson/Rockoff/Masters, California Healthcare Foundation, Mark Perry, et al – you are NOT on to any particular thing here, however much you wish it so.

MinuteClinic visits up + conventional visits down DOES equal “it’s the economy, stupid” (and no, you bloggers/commenters/industry observers aren’t stupid, either).

We’ll know we have systemic change worth talking about when data on the use of “physician extender services” (gee whiz, is the vocabulary of health care innovation ever lame) shows people prefer the combination of ease, convenience, and quality they offer to care they have obtained from conventional clinicians in conventional settings, in significant numbers.

The data doesn’t show that yet.

Meanwhile, Dr. Jason Hwang, he of The Innovator’s Prescription (along with Clay Christensen & Dr. Jerome Grossman) points to the way Minnesota-based integrated health system HealthPartners is refashioning its delivery of primary care services through the conscious application of wellness programs, worksite clinics, e-visits, and retail clinics.


2
Aug 10

National Convenient Care Week

August 2 – 8 has been declared National Convenient Care Clinic Week in “recognition of the critical role retail clinics play in our very fractured healthcare system, and a nod to the indispensable role the clinics, and the practitioners in them, will play as healthcare reform plays out over the next several years.”

Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye and Massachusetts Senator Thad Cochran led Congressional declaration of the week of recognition. There are few retail clinics in either state – none in Hawaii, as far as we know.


29
Jul 10

Doctor visits: down

A gaggle of Wall Street Journal reporters has examined recent data of a dip in doctor visits – and prescription fills, and lab work – and adjudged it evidence of the market working its magic to reduce use of care.

They inform Journal readers of their findings in this article: Americans Cut Back Visits to Doctor (July 28, 2010; paid subscription required for access).

The reporters make an elementary, and incorrect, conclusion from the information they have in hand:

Continued weak demand could eventually put downward pressure on spiralling health-care costs, a long-sought goal of policy makers. It could also force insurers to lower premiums.

Somewhat surprisingly, this mistake is made even by people who should know better – people who spend lots of time looking at patterns of health care data.

The essence of these reporters’ confusion is that they’re treating all doctor visits as of equal value. Most of the foregone visits are probably indeed of little value – but some of those visits would have revealed conditions that benefit from ongoing, relatively inexpensive care that, having gone untreated, produce results both clinically and financially catastrophic.

In other words, that immediate reduction in total costs wrought by foregone primary care results, in relatively short order (15-24 months) in a spike in the costs driven by a surge in “rescue care” provided to people whose conditions went undertreated or unidentified. Everyone from Rand to individual self-insuring employers like Pitney Bowes have seen and reported on the hard data that demonstrates the effect.

It’s probably too much to expect Wall Street Journal health care reporters to be aware of this sort of research, but we have taken the time to peruse a third of the comments on this article, and not a one has referenced the body of research refuting their cockeyed predictions.