The current focus of the health reform debate is rightfully beginning to shift to the need to transform the delivery system to contain the long run growth in costs. Although much of the debate still focuses on the role of a public plan, this ignores the need for fundamental change. None of the options on the table will transform the delivery system. If passed, the best the current proposals could do is to expand enrollment and perhaps contain federal costs, but on its own the public plan will be unable to make the delivery system more efficient.

To control health care costs, I propose a publicly chartered major risk pool, or MRP, that
will allow plans to pool risk, thereby eliminating the need for wasteful underwriting and
selective marketing costs. Participation in the MRP by both providers and insurers is
voluntary. It can be combined with any public option in an exchange implemented at the
federal or state level; it can even work without a public option. After a brief transition
period, the MRP requires no federal funds and will not be “on budget.” By allowing private plans to play a role in a transformed insurance and delivery system, the MRP can be politically attractive to a broader constituency than any of the current proposals.

The MRP addresses a key component of comprehensive health reform: restructuring the
delivery system. It is not a simple reinsurance pool that reimburses health plans for high costclaims. Instead, it creates a reformed payment system for both inpatient care and outpatient chronic care that will encourage efficiency and quality. The MRP will cover inpatient and similar short but expensive episodes, as well as chronic illness management. Its new payment approaches will achieve the efficiency goals promised by proposals for hospital medical staff-focused Accountable Care Organizations, but in an organizationally more plausible manner. Hospitals and physicians who focus on inpatient care and voluntarily form Care Delivery Teams will receive bundled episode-based payments, but the MRP will pay providers regardless of whether they belong to a Care Delivery Team, although at less attractive rates. Providers in these teams can use their bargaining power to charge the primary insurers more than the MRP pays. The MRP’s payments for monthly chronic illness management will give health plans and primary care physicians the incentives, flexibility, and information to more effectively compensate clinicians for the care they deliver and coordinate. By being publicly chartered, but independent of Congress, and by allowing options for all players, the MRP will be able to sidestep the ability of special interests to block change.

As pressure builds on the White House and Congress to deliver on their promise of health care reform, the idea of a government health insurance company to compete with for-profit and not-for-profit private companies is gaining political momentum. Advocates claim that this new company would be more efficient, honest, and successful in forcing lower reimbursement rates on physicians and hospitals. However, a close look at how the present health care system functions, what its major problems are, and what reforms are needed to solve them suggests that this new idea is not the answer. The three major problems of the current U.S. system are that 45 million to 50 million people have no health insurance, the cost of care is high and rapidly increasing, and there are gross lapses in the quality of care. There is no reason to think that a government insurance company would make a significant dent in any one of these problems, let alone all three. To do that would require real reform in the financing, organization, and delivery of care.

Background

Although the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) limits the work hours of residents, concerns about fatigue persist. A new Institute of Medicine (IOM) report recommends, among other changes, improved adherence to the 2003 ACGME limits, naps during extended shifts, a 16-hour limit for shifts without naps, and reduced workloads.

Methods

We used published data to estimate labor costs associated with transferring excess work from residents to substitute providers, and we examined the effects of our assumptions in sensitivity analyses. Next, using a probability model to represent labor costs as well as mortality and costs associated with preventable adverse events, we determined the net costs to major teaching hospitals and cost-effectiveness across a range of hypothetical changes in the rate of preventable adverse events.

Results

Annual labor costs from implementing the IOM recommendations were estimated to be $1.6 billion (in 2006 U.S. dollars) across all ACGME-accredited programs ($1.1 billion to $2.5 billion in sensitivity analyses). From a 10% decrease to a 10% increase in preventable adverse events, net costs per admission ranged from $99 to $183 for major teaching hospitals and from $17 to $266 for society. With 2.5% to 11.3% decreases in preventable adverse events, costs to society per averted death ranged from $3.4 million to $0.

Conclusions

Implementing the four IOM recommendations would be costly, and their effectiveness is unknown. If highly effective, they could prevent patient harm at reduced or no cost from the societal perspective. However, net costs to teaching hospitals would remain high.

Rationale: Timeliness is one of six important dimensions of health care quality recognized by the Institute of Medicine. Objectives: To evaluate timeliness of lung cancer care and identify institutional characteristics associated with timely care within the VA Health Care System. Methods: We used data from a VA nation-wide retrospective chart review and an independent audit of VA cancer programs to examine the association between time to first treatment and potentially explanatory institutional characteristics (e.g. volume of lung cancer patients) for 2,372 veterans diagnosed with lung cancer between 1/1/02 and 9/1/05 at 127 VA medical centers. We developed linear mixed effects models to control for clustering of patients within hospitals and stratified analyses by stage. Measurements and Main Results: Median time to treatment varied widely between (23 to 182 days) and within facilities. Median time to treatment was 90 days in stage I or II patients and 52 days in those with more advanced disease (p<0.0001). Factors associated with shorter times to treatment included a non-academic setting and the existence of a specialized diagnostic clinic (in patients with limited stage disease), performing a patient flow analysis (in patients with advanced disease), and leadership beliefs about providing timely care (in both groups). However, institutional characteristics explained <1% of the observed variation in treatment times. Conclusions: Time to lung cancer treatment in U.S. veterans is highly variable. The numerous institutional characteristics we examined explained relatively little of this variability, suggesting that patient, clinician, and/or unmeasured institutional characteristics may be more important determinants of timely care.

Understanding the factors that affect physicians' job satisfaction is important not only to physicians themselves, but also to patients, health system managers, and policy makers. Physicians represent the crucial resource in health-care delivery. In order to enhance efficiency and quality in health care, it is indispensable to analyse and consider the motivators of physicians. Physician job satisfaction has significant effects on productivity, the quality of care, and the supply of physicians.

The purpose of our study was to assess the associations between work-related monetary and non-monetary factors and physicians' work satisfaction as perceived by similar groups of physicians practicing at academic medical centres in Germany and the U.S.A., two countries that, in spite of differing health-care systems, simultaneously experience problems in maintaining their physician workforce. We used descriptive statistics, factor and correlation analyses to evaluate physicians' responses to a self-administered questionnaire.

Our study revealed that overall German physicians were less satisfied than U.S. physicians. With respect to particular work-related predictors of job satisfaction we found that similar factors contributed to job satisfaction in both countries. To improve physicians' satisfaction with working conditions, our results call for the implementation of policies that reduce the time burden on physicians to allow more time for interaction with patients and colleagues, increase monetary incentives, and enhance physicians' participation in the development of care management processes and in managerial decisions that affect patient care.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare alternative approaches of measuring preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in treatment-experienced HIV patients and evaluate their association with health status and clinical variables. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.

SETTING: Twenty-eight Veterans Affairs hospitals in the United States, 13 hospitals in Canada, and 8 hospitals in the United Kingdom.

PATIENTS: Three hundred sixty-eight treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients enrolled in the Options in Management with Antiretrovirals randomized trial.

MEASUREMENTS: Baseline sociodemographic and clinical indicators and baseline HRQoL using the Medical Outcome Study HIV Health Survey (MOS-HIV), the EQ-5D, the EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ-5D VAS), the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), and standard gamble (SG) and time trade-off (TTO) techniques. RESULTS: The mean (SD) baseline HRQoL scores were as follows: MOS-HIV physical health summary score 41.70 (11.16), MOS-HIV mental health summary score 44.76 (11.38), EQ-5D 0.77 (0.19), HUI3 0.59 (0.32), EQ-5D VAS 65.94 (21.71), SG 0.75 (0.29), and TTO 0.80 (0.31). Correlations between MOS-HIV summary scores and EQ-5D, EQ-5D VAS, and HUI3 ranged from 0.60 to 0.70; the correlation between EQ-5D and HUI3 was 0.73; and the correlation between SG and TTO was 0.43. Preference-based HRQoL scores were related to physical, mental, social, and overall health as measured by MOS-HIV. Concomitant medication use, CD4 cell count, and HIV viral load were related to some instruments' scores.

CONCLUSIONS: On average, preference-based HRQoL for treatment-experienced HIV patients was decreased relative to national norms but also highly variable. Health status and clinical variables were related to HRQoL.

BACKGROUND: Concern about patient safety has promoted efforts to improve safety climate. A better understanding of how patient safety climate differs among distinct work areas and disciplines in hospitals would facilitate the design and implementation of interventions. OBJECTIVES: To understand workers' perceptions of safety climate and ways in which climate varies among hospitals and by work area and discipline. RESEARCH DESIGN: We administered the Patient Safety Climate in Healthcare Organizations survey in 2004-2005 to personnel in a stratified random sample of 92 US hospitals. SUBJECTS: We sampled 100% of senior managers and physicians and 10% of all other workers. We received 18,361 completed surveys (52% response). MEASURES: The survey measured safety climate perceptions and worker and job characteristics of hospital personnel. We calculated and compared the percent of responses inconsistent with a climate of safety among hospitals, work areas, and disciplines. RESULTS: Overall, 17% of responses were inconsistent with a safety climate. Patient safety climate differed by hospital and among and within work areas and disciplines. Emergency department personnel perceived worse safety climate and personnel in nonclinical areas perceived better safety climate than workers in other areas. Nurses were more negative than physicians regarding their work unit's support and recognition of safety efforts, and physicians showed marginally more fear of shame than nurses. For other dimensions of safety climate, physician-nurse differences depended on their work area. CONCLUSIONS: Differences among and within hospitals suggest that strategies for improving safety climate and patient safety should be tailored for work areas and disciplines.

OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to develop a pediatric-focused tool for adverse drug event detection and describe the incidence and characteristics of adverse drug events in children's hospitals identified by this tool.

METHODS: A pediatric-specific trigger tool for adverse drug event detection was developed and tested. Eighty patients from each site were randomly selected for retrospective chart review. All adverse drug events identified using the trigger tool were evaluated for severity, preventability, ability to mitigate, ability to identify the event earlier, and presence of associated occurrence report. Each trigger and the entire tool were evaluated for positive predictive value.

RESULTS: Review of 960 randomly selected charts from 12 children's hospitals revealed 2388 triggers (2.49 per patient) and 107 unique adverse drug events. Mean adverse drug event rates were 11.1 per 100 patients, 15.7 per 1000 patient-days, and 1.23 per 1000 medication doses. The positive predictive value of the trigger tool was 3.7%. Twenty-two percent of all adverse drug events were deemed preventable, 17.8% could have been identified earlier, and 16.8% could have been mitigated more effectively. Ninety-seven percent of the identified adverse drug events resulted in mild, temporary harm. Only 3.7% of adverse drug events were identified in existing hospital-based occurrence reports. The most common adverse drug events identified were pruritis and nausea, the most common medication classes causing adverse drug events were opioid analgesics and antibiotics, and the most common stages of the medication management process associated with preventable adverse drug events were monitoring and prescribing/ordering.

CONCLUSIONS: Adverse drug event rates in hospitalized children are substantially higher than previously described. Most adverse drug events resulted in temporary harm, and 22% were classified as preventable. Only 3.7% were identified by using traditional voluntary reporting methods. Our pediatric-focused trigger tool is effective at identifying adverse drug events in inpatient pediatric populations.

OBJECTIVES: Narcotic-related adverse drug events are the most common adverse drug events in hospitalized children. Despite multiple published studies describing interventions that decrease adverse drug events from narcotics, large-scale collaborative quality improvement efforts to address narcotic-related adverse drug events in pediatrics have not been described. The purpose of this study was to evaluate collaborative-wide narcotic-related adverse drug event rates after a collection of expert panel-defined best practices was implemented.

METHODS: All 42 children's hospitals in the Child Health Corporation of America were invited to participate in the Institute for Healthcare Improvement-style quality improvement collaborative aimed at reducing narcotic-related adverse drug events. A collection of interventions known or suspected to reduce narcotic-related adverse drug events was recommended by an expert panel, with each site implementing >or=1 of these best practices on the basis of local need. Narcotic-related adverse drug event rates were compared between the baseline (December 1, 2004, to March 31, 2005) and postimplementation periods (January 1, 2006, to March 31, 2006) after an a priori-defined intervention ramp-up time (April 1, 2005, and December 31, 2005). Secondary outcome measures included constipation rates and narcotic-related automated drug-dispensing-device override percentages.

RESULTS: Median narcotic-related adverse drug event rates decreased 67% between the baseline and postimplementation time frames across the 14-site collaborative. Constipation rates decreased 68.9%, and automated drug-dispensing-device overrides decreased from 10.18% to 5.91% of all narcotic doses administered.

CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of >or=1 expert panel-recommended interventions at each participating site resulted in a significant decrease in narcotic-related adverse drug events, constipation, and automated drug-dispensing-device overrides in a 12-month, 14-site children's hospital quality collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Strengthening hospital safety culture offers promise for reducing adverse events, but efforts to improve culture may not succeed if hospital managers perceive safety differently from frontline workers.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether frontline workers and supervisors perceive a more negative patient safety climate (ie, surface features, reflective of the underlying safety culture) than senior managers in their institutions. To ascertain patterns of variation within management levels by professional discipline.

RESEARCH DESIGN: A safety climate survey was administered from March 2004 to May 2005 in 92 US hospitals. Individual-level cross sectional comparisons related safety climate to management level. Hierarchical and hospital-fixed effects modeling tested differences in perceptions.

SUBJECTS: Random sample of hospital personnel (18,361 respondents).

MEASURES: Frequency of responses indicating absence of safety climate (percent problematic response) overall and for 8 survey dimensions.

RESULTS: Frontline workers' safety climate perceptions were 4.8 percentage points (1.4 times) more problematic than were senior managers', and supervisors' perceptions were 3.1 percentage points (1.25 times) more problematic than were senior managers'. Differences were consistent among 7 safety climate dimensions. Differences by management level depended on discipline: senior manager versus frontline worker discrepancies were less pronounced for physicians and more pronounced for nurses, than they were for other disciplines.

CONCLUSIONS: Senior managers perceived patient safety climate more positively than nonsenior managers overall and across 7 discrete safety climate domains. Patterns of variation by management level differed by professional discipline. Continuing efforts to improve patient safety should address perceptual differences, both among and within groups by management level.