New Marketplace
New Risk, New Business Models

Why Health Care Mergers Can Be Good for Patients

Article · October 24, 2016

Hospitals and physician groups are merging into large health systems at unprecedented rates, fueled in part by the Affordable Care Act. Provider consolidation takes many forms, but the general trend can make it easier to share electronic records systems, coordinate care of patients, and eliminate redundant costs. Another potential benefit of integrated health systems is in addressing the persistent problem of variation in health care practice and outcomes, particularly in surgery.

Decades of scientific research confirm the obvious: Patients who undergo complicated operations fare worse when their hospitals or surgeons rarely perform them. (In the medical community, we classify these surgeons and hospitals as “low-volume.”) The problem has long been known, and the purchaser coalition called Leapfrog Group has tried to curb it. However, recent analyses confirm that thousands of Americans whose surgeries are performed by low-volume surgeons and hospitals die unnecessarily every year.

The Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health System (where I do surgery), Johns Hopkins, and the University of Michigan have recently taken a “volume pledge” — the first public commitment to manage the low-volume surgery problem. The three institutions have identified 10 complex operations (mainly cancer, cardiovascular, and orthopedic procedures) for which scientific evidence shows that surgical volume matters, and they have set minimum standards for all surgeons and hospitals in their systems. The volume bars, established by consensus among surgeons in each specialty, are set high enough to reduce risk meaningfully for patients, but not so high as to be impractical or impede access to care. Reasonable exceptions are made for surgeons just out of training, surgeons coming back from sabbatical or medical leave, and emergency clinical situations.

Dartmouth-Hitchcock, as part of its One DH effort, is also working to implement standardized care protocols across its affiliate network for common conditions and procedures — based on evidence where possible, clinician consensus where not. For example, for total knee replacement, a patient will soon be able to expect not only a high-volume surgeon but also a consistent clinical experience, regardless of which DH practice or affiliated hospital provides the care. That experience will include shared decision making, to ensure that both scientific evidence and patient preferences influence decisions about surgery. Standardized perioperative care pathways will also guide consistent, evidence-based prophylaxis against infection, blood clots, and other complications. Orthopedic surgeons across the system will even agree to use the same types of joint prostheses — a big stride in collaboration within this specialty.

Geisinger’s ProvenCare model for cardiac surgery is another example of how standardization in an integrated health system can improve quality and reduce costs within hospitals. Regional health systems that comprise many affiliated hospitals have an opportunity to apply such a model on a much larger scale and in heterogeneous care environments, where limiting variation in quality is most important.

How to Move Forward

Even within most committed, mission-driven health systems, standardizing care and reducing variation in quality is difficult. Given our early experience, I believe that two cultural shifts are key:

  1. Physician leaders must be willing to push through unpopular changes. When we announced the surgical volume pledge at Dartmouth-Hitchcock, most physicians, including surgeons, were strongly supportive. But a small but vocal subgroup accused us of Big Brother tactics, asking questions like, “Who are you to tell me what procedures I can and can’t do?” We offered to help low-volume surgeons better their skills in doing specific procedures, differentiate their practices, and clear the new volume bars. We would not bend the policy itself, however, and told a couple of recalcitrant surgeons, “Dartmouth-Hitchcock may not be the best fit for you.” That kind of firmness is essential.
  2. Organizational structure must also be changed. Like many regional health systems, Dartmouth-Hitchcock has grown incrementally, one community group practice and one affiliated hospital at a time. Until recently, clinical practice issues were left entirely to local leaders and governance. Our move this year to a specialty-specific “service line” model is greatly accelerating our efforts to reduce variation in care. In that structure, one physician in each specialty has authority and accountability for managing care across all practice sites in the system. For the musculoskeletal disease service line, for example, one orthopedist is responsible for “clinical programming” (which procedures are done where and by whom), for optimizing the size of the clinical workforce to match population demands, and for aligning physician compensation with clinical performance. That same service-line leader is also charged with implementing consistent standards and care pathways for the most common orthopedic conditions and procedures.

Implementing the New Standard

Despite the commonsense nature of the volume standards, implementation has been laborious. With close guidance from legal counsel and leadership by Dartmouth-Hitchcock’s Surgeon-in-Chief and Chief Quality Officer, we identified one surgeon champion, for each surgical procedure, who (1) must develop a current procedural terminology (CPT) code algorithm for assessing volume (i.e., what counts and doesn’t count as a performed procedure) and (2) must get his or her peers’ sign-off on the specified metrics.

For a 2-year look-back period, volume measures for each surgeon are reported biannually to specialty leaders responsible for Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation, a Joint Commission requirement. Surgeons who fall below the specified volume bar for a given procedure — and who wish to continue doing that procedure — are eligible for proctoring, other remediation, or both through the Focused Professional Practice Evaluation, a companion Joint Commission requirement. Others are expected to stop performing the procedure.

The Medical Executive Committee of Dartmouth-Hitchcock’s academic medical center voted to approve the volume policy, which was recently ratified by the hospital’s board of trustees. Having established a system-wide governance model for quality and safety that reports up to our “parent” board, we are now working to extend the volume policy to our affiliate hospitals. Although we have little direct leverage over the subset of surgeons at our affiliate hospitals who are not employed by Dartmouth-Hitchcock, we can discourage our primary care physicians from referring patients to any surgeon who does not adhere to safe practices, including our volume requirements.

Rapidly expanding health systems, like ours, are learning as they go and will inevitably take different paths toward reducing variation in practice. Regardless of how they get there, patients will benefit.

 

This article originally appeared in NEJM Catalyst on April 18, 2016.

New Call for Submissions ­to NEJM Catalyst

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

More From New Marketplace
ED Telehealth Express Care Service Patient Room

Revolutionizing the Delivery of Care for ED Patients

How the NYP OnDemand Emergency Department Telehealth Express Care Service reduced stay times and revisit rates in one year.

Targeting Unconscionable Prescription-Drug Prices — Maryland’s Anti–Price-Gouging Law

Why, in the early 21st century, are so many drugs that were cheaply available in the 20th century becoming prohibitively expensive?

The Economics of Indication-Based Drug Pricing

What would indication-based drug pricing accomplish?

Controlling the Cost of Medicaid

Both political parties should support policies that focus on incentives as a mechanism for improving and sustaining their value.

Resetting the Nation’s Health Care Quality Agenda

Poor measures of care quality have consequences. The National Quality Forum is essential to creating measures that are valid and reliable.

Opportunities for Private-Sector Entrepreneurship in Health Care Transformation

Two veterans of public service say that government can do only so much — which creates attractive business opportunities for entrepreneurs.

Moving Past the EHR Interoperability Blame Game

Why can't EHRs talk to one another? We never created the right incentives, but we pretend that we did.

Emerging from EHR Purgatory — Moving from Process to Outcomes

What's the effect of the mode of physician payment when it comes to EHRs?

Reframing Analytics: Transforming Insights into Action

Centralizing clinical data for an integrated delivery system revealed a surprising lesson: sometimes predictive analytics are not enough.

Infographic: The Effects of Health Insurance on Health and Survival

There is strong evidence that expansions in health coverage have increased people’s use of health care across multiple domains of well-being and reduced deaths overall.

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

Topics

Reframing the Conversation on Drug Pricing

We can’t afford for current trends to continue. There is only one solution.

Value Based Care

127 Articles

Jumping into Value-Based Reimbursement with Two…

What payers would like to see when it comes to engagement in value-based reimbursement and…

Jumping into Value-Based Reimbursement with Two…

What payers would like to see when it comes to engagement in value-based reimbursement and…

Insights Council

Have a voice. Join other health care leaders effecting change, shaping tomorrow.

Apply Now