Skip to main content

The Answer For Lower Healthcare Costs Is...

...Customer Service.

From the New York Times: Seattle's Iora Primary Care is a new model of primary care, seeking national scale and venture capital funding.  Though the ambition may be outsize, the concepts are not new. Daily team huddles. Health coaches. Taking satisfaction surveys seriously and mining results for actionable insights. Employer and payer partnerships. Pay-for-performance not volumes. Loose-tight operations (wellness options are "loose" - i.e. varying from site to
site, while EHR alignment is "tight" and non-negotiable.)

According to the article:
"...small change(s) can make a big difference in a patient’s health — what good is the perfect drug if the patient can’t swallow it? — but the extra-mile work it took to get there can be a challenge for the typical primary care practice in the United States. Harried by busy schedules and paid on a piecework model, many doctors rush from visit to visit, avoid phone calls and emails that don’t generate payments, and often fail to address the complex social issues that hamper people’s health.
"This misalignment of financial incentives is a huge problem for patients, who often can’t get the care they need. But it’s also a big economic problem. The United States has the costliest health care system in the world, even as many patients suffer from preventable illnesses and die younger than their peers in other countries. The system is so full of inefficiencies that Americans are often sicker even as everyone — patients, insurers, the government — ends up spending more money on care.
"Iora thinks it may be able to solve both problems and make money doing so. Its business model is meant to keep patients...out of the hospital by improving service while earning a dividend on the expensive care it was able to avoid."

Still, despite the intuitive appeal and some preliminary research, hard data on results are scant:
"Iora has little published research on the cost savings it has achieved for its partners. The company’s small size makes it hard to produce data with statistical significance. Asked about current evidence of the model’s success, the company provided numbers about one of its sites, where researchers have compared Iora patients with similar patients elsewhere: Total spending was down 12 percent, with hospitalizations down 37 percent, compared with the control group. That may have been a practice with healthy patients, like Dartmouth, or one of the higher-risk patient groups; an Iora spokeswoman said she could not say which practice it was because of a confidentiality agreement with the sponsor.
"Many of the basic elements of the Iora primary care approach — longer hours, more support staff and additional per patient funding — have been tried in other settings, especially in so-called patient-centered medical homes. So far, the results for those types of practices have not been promising. Few have shown real reductions in spending or in the frequency of patients entering hospitals.
Many healthcare organizations are chasing the same vision, betting that all the "We Love Customers" talk will finally start to put some results on the bottom line.  As a healthcare strategist AND an occasional patient, let's hope they're right and the data begin to show it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Porter On Health Care Reform

Michael Porter, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, proposes "A Strategy For Health Care Reform - Toward A Value-Based System." His proposals are fundamental, lucid and right-on, meaning they're sure to be opposed by some parties to the debate, the so-called "Yes, but..." crowd. Most important, in my opinion, is this: "... electronic medical records will enable value improvement, but only if they support integrated care and outcome measurement. Simply automating current delivery practices will be a hugely expensive exercise in futility. Among our highest near-term priorities is to finalize and then continuously update health information technology (HIT) standards that include precise data definitions (for diagnoses and treatments, for example), an architecture for aggregating data for each patient over time and across providers, and protocols for seamless communication among systems. "Finally, consumers must become much mor

Being Disrupted Ain't Fun. Deal With It.

Articles about disrupting healthcare, particularly those analogizing, say, Tesla's example with healthcare's current state, are frequently met with a chorus of (paraphrasing here) "Irrelevant! Cars are easy, healthcare is hard." You know, patients and doctors as examples of "information asymmetry" and all that. Well, let me ask you this: assuming you drive a car with a traditional internal combustion engine, how much do you know about the metallurgy in your car's engine block? I'll bet the answer is: virtually nothing. In fact it's probably less than you know about your own body's GI tract. Yet somehow, every day, us (allegedly) ignorant people buy and drive cars without help from a cadre of experts. Most of us do so and live happily ever after (at least until the warranty expires. Warranties...another thing healthcare could learn from Tesla.) Now, us free range dummies - impatient with information asymmetry - are storming healthcare

My Take On Anthem-Cigna, Big Dumb Companies and the Executives Who Run Them

After last Friday's Appeals Court decision, Anthem's hostile takeover of, er, merger with Cigna has but a faint pulse. Good. Unplug the respirator. Cigna's figured it out but Anthem is like that late-late horror show where the corpse refuses to die. Meanwhile, 150 McKinsey consultants are on standby for post-merger "integration" support. I guess "no deal, no paycheck..." is powerfully motivating to keep the patient alive a while longer. In court, Anthem argued that assembling a $54 billion behemoth is a necessary precondition to sparking all manner of wondrous innovations and delivering $2.4 billion in efficiencies. The basic argument appears to be "We need to double in size to grow a brain. And just imagine all those savings translating directly into lower premiums for employers and consumers."  Stop. Read that paragraph again. Ignore the dubious "lower premiums" argument and focus on the deal's savings. $2.4 billion saved