People who are acquainted with the work of Shorenstein APARC’s Asia Health Policy Program (AHPP) may be aware of the Innovation for Healthy Aging collaborative research project led by APARC Deputy Director and AHPP Director Karen Eggleston. This project, which identifies and analyzes productive public-private partnerships advancing healthy aging solutions in East Asia and other regions, encompasses an upcoming volume, co-authored by Eggleston with Harvard University professors Richard Zeckhauser and John Donohue, about public and private roles in governance of multiple sectors in China and the United States, including health care and elderly care. This volume, however, is not the first collaboration between Eggleston and Zeckhauser.

Zeckhauser, the Frank P. Ramsey Professor of Political Economy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, is known for his many policy investigations that explore ways to promote the health of human beings, to help markets work more effectively, and to foster informed and appropriate choices by individuals and government agencies. In 2006, Eggleston and Zeckhauser co-wrote a paper about antibiotic resistance as a global threat, an issue that has since received much attention as it has become a critical public health and public policy challenge. Zeckhauser was a pioneer in framing antibiotic resistance as a global threat.

On October 20, 2018, Eggleston was among some 150 colleagues, students, and friends who participated in a special symposium at the Kennedy School to celebrate Zeckhauser’s 50th anniversary of teaching and research, and to anticipate what the next 50 years might bring in the multiple fields he has influenced throughout his long career.

Eggleston joined the first of two panels in that symposium, where she spoke about Zeckhauser’s impact on health policy and about what academics and policymakers should be tackling next on the path to addressing the global threat of antibiotic resistance.

The panel was moderated by Harvard Professor Edward Glaeser. In addition to Eggleston, it included Jeffrey Liebman, Daniel Schrag, and Cass Sunstein.

A video recording of the panel is made available by the Kennedy School. Listen to Eggleston’s remarks (beginning at the 8:42 and 36:20 time marks):

Research by Stanford Health Policy’s Michelle Mello looks at what happens when a group of hospitals started systematically acknowledging adverse outcomes in care by apologizing and proactively offering compensation where substandard care caused serious harm. 

Hospitals have traditionally “crouched in a deny-and-defend posture when things go wrong in medical care,” said Mello, a professor of law at Stanford Law School and a professor of health research and policy. The new approach, called “a communication-and-resolution program,” or CRP, is being adopted by an increasing number of health-care facilities.

“None of the hospitals experienced worsening liability or trends after CRP implementation, which suggests that transparency, apology, and proactive compensation can be pursued without adverse financial consequences,” Mello and her co-authors write in the study published Monday in Health Affairs. However, despite the growing consensus that CRPs are the right thing to do, concerns over liability risks remain.”

Stanford Health Policy asked Mello some questions about the research:

Could this new approach to resolving patient conflict be a thing of the future?

Hospitals that adopt CRPs believe they will help improve patient safety and are consistent with the ethical obligation to disclose medical errors; they also hope they will reduce liability costs. However, there is a lot of uncertainty about their effects on costs. On the one hand, being honest with patients could avoid the anger that prompts patients to sue, and compensating injured patients early on saves on litigation expenses. On the other hand, in the traditional system, very few patients injured by substandard care ever get compensated. Offering up admissions of error and early compensation could mean a lot more patients receive payment, raising total costs. Uncertainty about this issue continues to be a barrier to widespread adoption of the CRP approach.

What were the key findings in your study?

We evaluated the liability effects of CRP implementation at four Massachusetts hospitals by examining before-and-after trends in malpractice claims, volume, cost, and time to resolution. We then compared those to trends among similar hospitals in the state that did not adopt CRPs. We found that CRP implementation was associated with improved trends in the rate of new claims and legal defense costs at the two big hospitals that implemented these programs — favorable developments that were not seen at comparison hospitals with no communication-and-resolution programs in place. CRP implementation was not associated with significant changes upward or downward in trends of new claims receiving compensation, compensation costs, total liability costs, or average compensation per paid claim, nor was it associated with a significant change in time to resolution.

So then why are the findings important?

The study helps resolve uncertainty about the liability effects of admitting and compensating medical errors, especially since the study design was much stronger than that of previous studies. We found that the CRP approach does not expand liability risk and may, in fact, improve some liability outcomes. Therefore, hospitals can “do the right thing” — be honest about errors, apologize, and compensate patients who are injured by negligence — without adverse financial consequences.

Who began the CRP approach and what is the average payment proactively made to patients who did not receive proper care?

The approach dates to the late 1990s and was first publicized by a Veterans Affairs hospital in Kentucky and then by the University of Michigan Health System, both of which reported very positive outcomes.  Stanford was also an early adopter.

The model calls for patients to be compensated at about what the hospital estimates their claim would be worth in traditional litigation. In our study in Massachusetts, the median payment to patients was $75,000. That’s a lot lower than the median payment in the tort system, but the mix of injuries is different. In traditional litigation, 85 percent of claims involve very serious injuries or deaths, because smaller claims aren’t attractive to plaintiff attorneys. They just go uncompensated. In CRPs, it’s easier for patients with moderate-severity injuries to have access to justice.

There is a wealth of data that could help hospitals cut costs while still providing high-quality service for patients, if physicians were willing to join forces with administrators to truly understand how much their services cost, according to a new article by Stanford researchers.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has been pushing physicians and providers toward population-based payment, which requires that providers reduce their internal costs below payment levels.

In this effort, the beleaguered health-care payer for the elderly has been undertaking innovative payment models, such as accountable care organizations (ACOs) and bundled payment that require providers to better coordinate care and reduce reimbursements and unnecessary or redundant patient procedures.

“However, it has proven challenging for the models, which focus on costs from the payer perspective, to achieve the desired effect of reduced Medicare spending,” writes Merle Ederhof, PhD, in this Health Affairs Blog. The researcher who focuses on issues at the intersection of health-care and accounting is with Stanford’s Clinical Excellence Research Center.

Her co-authors, Alexander L. Chin, MD, MBA and Jeffrey K. Jopling, MD, MSHS, are also at the center, which is dedicated to discovering, testing and evaluating cost-saving innovations in clinical care.

Changing old patterns at hospitals and among physicians

“Highly detailed cost data generated by internal cost accounting systems already exist in a large, and growing, number of health-care organizations,” says Ederhof. 

As Ederhof wrote in this New England Journal of paper last year, the data collected by the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society shows that more than 1,300 U.S. hospitals have adopted sophisticated internal cost accounting systems.

The authors argue that the cost data produced by these accounting systems can be used in hospitals internally to lower their costs of providing services to all their patients, both within and outside the Medicare system. But physicians must get on board.

“The high adoption rate of these cost-measurement systems is not surprising, considering that the systems are designed around the existing data infrastructure that providers must have in place for billing purposes,” the authors write. “However, while provider administrators have used such cost accounting systems for some time, we are only now beginning to see them being used by interdisciplinary teams involving physicians to restructure clinical processes.”

Some large health-care systems have already started using these accounting systems alongside teams of physicians.

Partners HealthCare in Boston has started to use this approach to analyze costs for a set of services, for example, in a recent project a team of spine surgeons reviewed and discussed unblinded comparisons at the episode and cost-category levels. 

“Analysis of the costs in the individual categories revealed variation in clinical processes across surgeons, which was very illuminating to the team,” the authors wrote.

Leaders at NYU Langone Health have also started to use the cost data in the organization’s “Value-Based Management” initiative. A key feature of the initiative, the authors write, is a dashboard that is accessible to all physicians. For each specific diagnosis-related group (DRG), the dashboard shows cost averages for each physician performing the procedure, at the procedure level and at the level of individual cost categories, such as the ICU, laboratory, operating room and therapies.

“Physicians have been highly engaged and interested in the dashboard since it allows them to compare their costs to their peers and external benchmarks, and to learn how they can restructure clinical processes to lower their costs,” the authors write.

This Value Based Management initiative at NYU, which incorporates cost savings targets, development-level incentives and quality components, has apparently resulted in substantial cost savings for the organization.

Stanford Health Care has also joined the movement to promote value-based care, recently launching its Cost Savings Reinvestment Program. 

Compare, for example, the average cost for a hip replacement surgery among five surgeons who perform the surgery in the same hospital. Then take the “positive outlier,” or the surgeon with the lowest cost for the surgery.

“Once positive outliers are identified, detailed analysis that combines physicians’ clinical expertise and administrators’ insight can uncover ways in which clinical processes can be restructured to deliver high-quality care at lower total episode cost,” the authors wrote.

Then the interdisciplinary team of physicians and administrators must try to understand why that surgeon’s costs are lower and what he or she does differently. Did she order physical therapy sooner after the hip-replacement surgery? Did he use a different anesthesia approach that resulted in a shorter recovery for the patient? 

But you still have to get those four, more expensive surgeons to adopt the less-expensive treatments. And that can go to the heart of a physician’s identity.

“Even just a few years ago concern for the cost of providing health-care services still heavily clashed with physicians’ professional identity,” Ederhof said in an interview. 

The authors believe there is no turning back.

“In my view, the shift in recent years is attributable to the fact that physicians are starting to realize that the rising costs of the U.S. health-care system are no longer sustainable and that things will have to change — with or without their collaboration,” Ederhof said.