PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Kelly J Devers

Publications and source records attributed to Kelly J Devers.

14 recordsLinked to original sources

Health care market trends and the evolution of hospitalist use and roles.

OBJECTIVE: To describe local health care market dynamics that support increasing use of hospitalists' services and changes in their roles. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews in 12 randomly selected, nationally representative communities in the Community Tracking Study conducted in 2002-2003. Interviews were coded in qualitative data analysis software. We identified patterns and themes within and across study sites, and verified conclusions by triangulating responses from different respondent types, examining outliers, searching for corroborating or disconfirming evidence, and testing rival explanations. SETTING: Medical groups, hospitals, and health plans in 12 representative communities. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seven purposively sampled executives at the 3-4 largest medical groups, hospitals, and health plans in each community: medical directors and medical staff presidents; chief executive and managing officers; executives responsible for contracting, physician networks, hospital patient safety, patient care services, planning, and marketing; and local medical and hospital association leaders. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We asked plan and hospital respondents about their competitive strategies, including their experience with cost pressures, hospital patient flow problems, and hospital patient safety efforts. We asked all respondents about changes in their local market over the past 2 years generally, and specifically: hospitals' and physicians' responses to market pressures; payment arrangements hospitals and physicians had with private health plans; and physicians' relationships with plans and hospitals. We drew on data on hospitalist practice structures, employment relationships, and productivity/compensation from the Society for Hospital Medicine's 2002 membership survey. Factors that fomented the creation of the hospital medicine movement persist, including cost pressures and primary care physicians' decreasing inpatient volume. But emerging influences made hospitalists even more attractive, including worsening problems with patient flow in hospitals, rising malpractice costs, and the growing national focus on patient safety. Local market forces resulted in new hospitalist roles and program structures, regarding which organizations sponsored hospitalist programs, employed them, and the functions they served in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have important implications for patients, hospitalists, and their employers. Hospitalists may require changes in education and training, develop competing goals and priorities, and face new issues in their relationships with health plans, hospitals, and other physicians.

Arizona↗

Leapfrog patient-safety standards are a stretch for most hospitals.

The Leapfrog Group, a national coalition of large health care purchasers, has championed three hospital patient-safety initiatives--computerized physician order entry systems, staffing of intensive care units (ICUs) with specially trained physicians and evidence-based hospital referrals for certain high-risk procedures. While Leapfrog's campaign has raised hospital awareness of these patient-safety practices and spurred some implementation efforts, few hospitals are close to meeting Leapfrog standards, according to findings from the Center for Studying Health System Change's (HSC) 2002-03 site visits to 12 nationally representative communities. Moreover, Leapfrog's focus on selected communities--known as regional rollouts-has not yet prompted significantly greater implementation of the three hospital patient-safety practices in targeted communities. Many factors, including a lack of incentives for hospitals, are hindering hospital buy in and fulfillment of the Leapfrog standards.

Health Care Coalitions↗

Benefits of and barriers to large medical group practice in the United States.

BACKGROUND: For decades, reformers argued that medical groups can efficiently provide high-quality care and a collegial professional environment. The growth of managed care and the movement to improve quality provide additional reasons for physicians to practice in groups, especially large groups. However, information is lacking on recent trends in group size and the benefits of and barriers to group practice. OBJECTIVES: To identify benefits of and barriers to large medical group practice, and to describe recent trends in group size. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Information on benefits and barriers was obtained from 195 interviews conducted during round 3 (2000-2001) of the Community Tracking Study with leaders of the largest groups, hospitals, and health insurance plans in 12 randomly selected metropolitan areas. Information on recent trends in group size was obtained from more than 6000 physicians in private practice in 48 randomly selected metropolitan areas via Community Tracking Study telephone surveys in 1997-1998, 1998-1999, and 2000-2001. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Benefits of and barriers to large group practice, as perceived by interviewees, and changes in percentages of physicians in groups of varying sizes. RESULTS: Gaining negotiating leverage with health insurance plans was the most frequently cited benefit; it was cited 8 times more often than improving quality. Lack of physician cooperation, investment, and leadership were the most frequently cited barriers. Survey data indicate that 47% of private physicians work in practices of 1 or 2 physicians and 82% in practices of 9 or fewer, and that the percentage of physicians in groups of 20 or more did not increase between 1996 and 2001. CONCLUSIONS: Current payment methods reward gaining size to obtain negotiating leverage more than they reward quality. However, barriers to creating large medical groups are substantial, and most private physicians continue to practice in small groups, although the size of these groups is slowly increasing.

Data Collection↗

The end of an era: what became of the "managed care revolution" in 2001?

OBJECTIVE: To describe how the organization and dynamics of health systems changed between 1999 and 2001, in the context of expectations from the mid-1990s when managed care was in ascendance, and assess the implications for consumers and policymakers. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Data are from the Community Tracking Study site visits to 12 communities that were randomly selected to be nationally representative of metropolitan areas with 200,000 people or more. The Community Tracking Study is an ongoing effort that began in 1996 and is fielded every two years. STUDY DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 50-90 stakeholders and observers of the local health care market in each of the 12 communities every two years. Respondents include leaders of local hospitals, health plans, and physician organizations and representatives of major employers, state and local governments, and consumer groups. First round interviews were conducted in 1996-1997 and subsequent rounds of interviews were conducted in 1998-1999 and 2000-2001. A total of 1,690 interviews were conducted between 1996 and 2001. DATA ANALYSIS METHODS: Interview information was stored and coded in qualitative data analysis software. Data were analyzed to identify patterns and themes within and across study sites and conclusions were verified by triangulating responses from different respondent types, examining outliers, searching for disconfirming evidence, and testing rival explanations. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Since the mid-1990s, managed care has developed differently than expected in local health care markets nationally. Three key developments shaped health care markets between 1999 and 2001: (1) unprecedented, sustained economic growth that resulted in extremely tight labor markets and made employers highly responsive to employee demands for even fewer restrictions on access to care; (2) health plans increasingly moved away from core strategies in the "managed care toolbox"; and (3) providers gained leverage relative to managed care plans and reverted to more traditional strategies of competing for patients based on services and amenities. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in local health care markets have contributed to rising costs and created new access problems for consumers. Moreover, the trajectory of change promises to make the goals of cost-control and quality improvement more difficult to achieve in the future.

Community Health Services↗

Hospitals' negotiating leverage with health plans: how and why has it changed?

OBJECTIVE: To describe how hospitals' negotiating leverage with managed care plans changed from 1996 to 2001 and to identify factors that explain any changes. DATA SOURCES: Primary semistructured interviews, and secondary qualitative (e.g., newspaper articles) and quantitative (i.e., InterStudy, American Hospital Association) data. STUDY DESIGN: The Community Tracking Study site visits to a nationally representative sample of 12 communities with more than 200,000 people. These 12 markets have been studied since 1996 using a variety of primary and secondary data sources. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of individuals from hospitals, health plans, and knowledgeable market observers. Secondary quantitative data on the 12 markets was also obtained. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our findings suggest that many hospitals' negotiating leverage significantly increased after years of decline. Today, many hospitals are viewed as having the greatest leverage in local markets. Changes in three areas--the policy and purchasing context, managed care plan market, and hospital market--appear to explain why hospitals' leverage increased, particularly over the last two years (2000-2001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals' increased negotiating leverage contributed to higher payment rates, which in turn are likely to increase managed care plan premiums. This trend raises challenging issues for policymakers, purchasers, plans, and consumers.

Contract Services↗

Changes in hospital competitive strategy: a new medical arms race?

OBJECTIVE: To describe changes in hospitals' competitive strategies, specifically the relative emphasis placed on strategies for competing along price and nonprice (i.e., service, amenities, perceived quality) dimensions, and the reasons for any observed shifts. METHODS: This study uses data gathered through the Community Tracking Study site visits, a longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample of 12 U.S. communities. Research teams visited each of these communities every two years since 1996 and conducted between 50 to 90 semistructured interviews. Additional information on hospital competition and strategy was gathered from secondary data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found that hospitals' strategic emphasis changed significantly between 1996-1997 and 2000-2001. In the mid-1990s, hospitals primarily competed on price through "wholesale" strategies (i.e., providing services attractive to managed care plans). By 2000-2001, nonprice competition was becoming increasingly important and hospitals were reviving "retail" strategies (i.e., providing services attractive to individual physicians and the patients they serve). Three major factors explain this shift in hospital strategy: less than anticipated selective contracting and capitated payment; the freeing up of hospital resources previously devoted to horizontal and vertical integration strategies; and, the emergence and growth of new competitors. CONCLUSION: Renewed emphasis on nonprice competition and retail strategies, and the service mimicking and one-upmanship that result, suggest that a new medical arms race is emerging. However, there are important differences between the medical arms race today and the one that occurred in the 1970s and early 1980s: the hospital market is more concentrated and price competition remains relatively important. The development of a new medical arms race has significant research and policy implications.

Ambulatory Care↗

Specialty hospitals: focused factories or cream skimmers?

Hospitals specializing in cardiovascular and orthopedic procedures are developing rapidly throughout the country, raising challenging questions for communities and policy makers. Proponents argue that specialty hospitals could improve quality and reduce costs, yet skeptics note that specialty hospitals might reduce quality, increase costs and decrease access to basic services. The Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) site visit findings suggest that the relatively high profit margins of these select procedures and specialists' desire to increase control over the care environment and increase their income are among the key reasons for this specialty hospital building boom. Policy makers are exploring a range of responses with the goal of allowing specialty hospitals to compete and innovate while minimizing the potential for quality, cost and access problems.

Economics, Hospital↗

The use of expensive health technologies in the era of managed care: the remarkable case of neonatal intensive care.

UNLABELLED: The use of neonatal intensive care (NIC) continued to rise rapidly in the 1990s despite the concerns of observers about its cost effectiveness and its successes being mostly in facilities with high volume and capabilities. The objective of this study is to test the effects of insurance type, competition among hospitals, and market pressure from managed care plans on the supply and cost of NIC. The analysis uses logistic and linear models with techniques to avoid bias from (a) market area definitions based on actual patient flows and (b) self-selection of hospitals by patients with unmeasured risk of needing NIC. The data source contains all births in short-term hospitals in New Jersey during 1990 and 1994. Both the number of days and charges for NIC are reported. Key findings are that the decision of a hospital to offer NIC was associated with teaching status, the proportion of infants in the market area with documented high risk, and the market concentration of major competitors. The market share of managed care plans and the concentration of enrollment were not associated with either NIC being offered or with the standardized charges. Whether a particular patient was given to a NIC depended on patient risk factors and whether a NIC unit was present, but not on payer group. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that young insured parents (with the advice of their obstetricians) prefer hospitals with NIC and also are relatively profitable enrollees for health plans. IN CONCLUSION: using the results here and in other research, public and private policy makers may consider several ways to strengthen the incentives for health plans to contract for cost-effective birth-related services. The results also raise questions for a number of regulatory and payment policies and call for better public data on costs and outcomes for NIC.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

A practice-sponsored Web site to help patients pursue healthy behaviors: an ACORN study.

PURPOSE: We tested whether patients are more likely to pursue healthy behaviors (eg, physical activity, smoking cessation) if referred to a tailored Web site that provides valuable information for behavior change. METHODS: In a 9-month pre-post comparison with nonrandomized control practices, 6 family practices (4 intervention, 2 control) encouraged adults with unhealthy behaviors to visit the Web site. For patients from intervention practices, the Web site offered tailored health advice, a library of national and local resources, and printouts for clinicians. For patients from control practices, the Web site offered static information pages. Patient surveys assessed stage of change and health behaviors at baseline and follow-up (at 1 and 4 months), Web site use, and satisfaction. RESULTS: During the 9 months, 932 patients (4% of adults attending the practice) visited the Web site, and 273 completed the questionnaires. More than 50% wanted physician assistance with health behaviors. Stage of change advanced and health behaviors improved in both intervention and control groups. Intervention patients reported greater net improvements at 1 month, although the differences approached significance only for physical activity and readiness to change dietary fat intake. Patients expressed satisfaction with the Web site but wished it provided more detailed information and greater interactivity with clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians face growing pressure to offer patients good information on health promotion and other health care topics. Referring patients to a well-designed Web site that offers access to the world's best information is an appealing alternative to offering handouts or impromptu advice. Interactive Web sites can facilitate behavior change and can interface with electronic health records. Determining whether referral to an informative Web site improves health outcomes is a methodological challenge, but the larger question is whether information alone is sufficient to promote behavior change. Web sites are more likely to be effective as part of a suite of tools that incorporate personal assistance.

Adult↗

Quality improvement by providers: market developments hinder progress.

Providers report maintaining, but not greatly enhancing, their quality improvement (QI) programs between 1999 and 2001. In addition, recent market developments are intensifying barriers to providers' QI efforts. A notable exception is the tremendous attention to medical errors, which is stimulating patient-safety activities in hospitals. It is too early to tell if the momentum from these activities can be sustained and provide a spark for revolutionary changes in QI more broadly.

Diffusion of Innovation↗

Focused factories? Physician-owned specialty facilities.

Using data from Round Four of the Community Tracking Study site visits, this paper describes the recent rapid increase in physician-owned specialty hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers, reasons for this increase, possible impacts, and potential policy options. These facilities could lead to excess capacity, provision of unnecessary services, and lower quality because of decreased volume at some facilities. They also could reduce community hospitals' net revenue and thus their ability to subsidize socially necessary but unprofitable services. But regulatory intervention should be cautious, because data on impact are inconclusive, and these facilities could have the potential to function as "focused factories" that improve quality and reduce costs.

Facility Regulation and Control↗

What is driving hospitals' patient-safety efforts?

The Institute of Medicine's report To Err Is Human described the alarming prevalence of medical errors and recommended a range of activities to improve patient safety. Three general mechanisms for stimulating hospitals to reduce medical errors are professionalism, regulation, and market forces. Although some believe that market forces are becoming more important, we found that a quasi-regulatory organization (the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations) has been the primary driver of hospitals' patient-safety initiatives. Professional and market initiatives have also facilitated improvement, but hospitals report that these have had less impact to date.

Hospital Administration↗

Financial pressures spur physician entrepreneurialism.

Using data from Round Four of the Community Tracking Study (CTS) site visits, we describe how recent revenue and cost pressures have led physicians to aggressively increase prices and service volume and provide fewer traditional services that are less lucrative. As a result, physicians' business practices are contributing to rising service use and hindering cost containment, which could impair access to critical services for certain populations. In response, policymakers may need to revisit regulation of physicians' conflicts of interest and consider how their financial incentives could be realigned. But the diversity of physicians' behavior requires that policy responses take account of differences between specialists and primary care physicians.

Entrepreneurship↗