Tag Archives: institute of medicine

Wellness Programs Lack Health Literacy

The more informed your employees are about health and healthcare, the wiser and more confident they’ll be when it comes to making the right lifestyle and healthcare choices.

Health Literacy

Health literacy improves health outcomes, while controlling health spending. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) defines it as:

“the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions.”

What does the IOM mean by “basic health information”? It’s the knowledge necessary to understand the impacts and risks of different health-related decisions or behaviors. For example, basic health information would include knowing why you should complete the full dosage of antibiotics prescribed by a doctor.

However, an even more informed healthcare consumer would know, or at least ask, whether antibiotics are even necessary for the ailment in question.

The Low Health Literacy Rate

Health literacy is very low in the U.S. – “proficiency” is pegged at 12% by the Journal of the American Medical Association, well below the level of other nations where citizens have access to technology.

According to JAMA, having a “proficient” level of health literacy can mean making consistently good healthcare choices and understanding one’s insurance options. Yet, mere proficiency should not be the goal. At Quizzify, where employees are already “proficient,” we continue to learn something every day. For instance, today we learned that pregnant women should avoid consuming black licorice because it contains a chemical that can harm unborn babies. (In this situation, it’s the high-quality candy-store licorice that is the culprit. The version you buy at newsstands is only licorice-flavored.)

See also: New Wellness Plans: for Employee Finances  

Low Health Literacy Affects Cost

A study conducted by the Veterans Administration (VA) on the literacy-cost correlation revealed that veterans with low health literacy spend roughly 50% more on disease management and medical care than veterans with proficient knowledge, other things equal. Think about what that means for your own healthcare budget, and how much you would save by making even a small dent in that.

Low Health-Literacy Affects Employee Wellness Outcomes

Health literacy training has far better outcomes than any other employee wellness program. Screenings, for example, do not prevent the utilization of medical care. In fact, they may actually encourage it.

In the Health Enhancement Research Organization Outcomes Guidebook, researchers found that only 7-8% of hospitalizations are “potentially preventable” by wellness programs. They also note that many non-hospital expenses increase as a result of these programs. Meanwhile health literacy applies to the vast majority of decisions and behaviors that affect health.

In contrast, health literacy applies to the vast majority of decisions and behaviors that affect health. Typically, literate consumers spend less. When literate consumers spend more, it is usually an educated decision and may avoid a bad outcome.

Implementing Health Literacy Into the Workplace

The Uphill Battle Toward Behavior Change:

People who are smokers or overweight already realize they should make changes…and yet, for many complex and (in the case of obesity) poorly understood biochemical reasons, can’t. Encouraging smokers to quit or obese employees to lose weight is a totally uphill, probably unwinnable task for an employer, even as a lot of money gets spent trying to move the needle. It is nearly impossible to make significant dents in these two (and related) health issues through behavior change. Furthermore, employers are not especially well-positioned to bring about these changes. Trying too hard can even feel intrusive and uncomfortable for employees.

Knowledge as a Solution:

By contrast, in health literacy, most of the effort is in imparting the knowledge, not changing the behavior.

Examples:

  • Every smoker knows he or she is supposed to quit already for health reasons but doesn’t. However, a few smokers may be motivated to quit when they learn the amount of money they are really spending on cigarettes. ($300,000-plus over a lifetime.)
  • People know that radiation is unhealthy, whereas very few patients receiving CT scans realize they will be absorbing as much as 1000 times the radiation of an X-ray. Simply obtaining the knowledge can change behavior while saving money.

See also: Ethics of Workplace Wellness Industry  

Achieving a higher level of health literacy is not difficult– it just takes some learning.

In Opioid Guidelines We Trust?

A common recommendation to combat the current opioid epidemic is to provide physicians with opioid prescribing guidelines. Opioid guidelines synthesize the available research to inform judicious prescribing behaviors and safe dosages when opioids are needed. Given the seriousness of the opioid epidemic, it is not surprising that multiple organizations currently produce opioid prescribing guidelines. Opioid guidelines are based on evaluations of the research, but the guidelines themselves need to be evaluated critically, as well.

Guideline Evaluation

Fortunately, there are multiple standards currently available to evaluate guidelines, including AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation), IOM (Institute of Medicine), GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews). For example, the AGREE consortium’s latest standard (AGREE II) provides a 23-point checklist covering six domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability and editorial independence. While some AGREE II domains are obvious criteria including “rigor of development” and “editorial independence,” other domains such as “applicability” are less obvious but important.

See also: Who’s Going to Pay for the Opioid Crisis?  

For example, one part of “applicability” is about providing advice or tools for translating recommendations into practice. This point is important considering opioid prescribing guidelines will only work if practitioners can integrate use of the guidelines into their workflow and can apply them effectively to the appropriate individuals. Most chronic opioid users’ first exposure to opioids is through a physician’s prescription, and physicians’ opioid-prescribing patterns have been shown to be associated with opioid abuse and deaths. Therefore, preventing unnecessary first exposure to opioids is crucial.

Guideline standards have shown that not all opioid treatment guidelines are of equal quality. For example, Nuckols et al. (2014) assessed 13 opioid guidelines using the AGREE II and AMSTAR instruments. The authors found AGREE II scores ranged from 3.00 to 6.20 on a 1 to 7 scale, and AMSTAR ratings ranged from poor to high. Four of the guidelines were “recommended against using … because of limited confidence in development methods, lack of evidence summaries or concerns about readability.” This research proves that the quality of opioid guidelines does vary.

The National Guidelines Clearinghouse (www.guideline.gov) is a publicly available resource that provides summaries of guidelines that comply with IOM standards. Although not all guidelines are available free on the National Guidelines Clearinghouse website, it could be a good starting point for finding organizations with guidelines that adhere to a guideline standard.

Jim Smith’s Story

Jim Smith’s occupational injury provides a useful example of how being prescribed opioids contrary to high-quality treatment recommendations may lead to serious health and economic consequences. Jim is a 38-year-old construction worker who suffered an extremely painful lower back strain while attempting to lift a heavy box. Against most guidelines’ recommendations, he was treated from the start with a long-acting opioid, on which he became first dependent and then addicted, taking increasingly higher doses. Even on doses exceeding most guidelines’ recommendations, Jim still suffered from pain and limited mobility. In addition, he began to require supplemental medication to treat the side effects of his opioid use, such as constipation. He subsequently underwent surgery on his lumbar spine, which did not provide him relief from his pain, and he ended up a chronic user of opioids, permanently disabled and housebound.

If Jim had been treated according to any of the current, high-quality opioid treatment guidelines, he would not have received a prescription for an opioid as an initial measure. He would have been counseled to try over-the-counter medications such as ibuprofen or acetaminophen, sent to physical therapy, prescribed exercise and perhaps offered a course in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). If opioids had been truly necessary in the acute phase of Jim’s injury, he would have been prescribed a limited course and then been gradually tapered off.

See also: 3 Perspectives on Opioid Crisis in WC  

Conclusion

It is very important to find guidelines that both reduce initial use of opioids and serve to guide the physician in tapering chronic opioid users off these drugs. For someone who has been on opioids for a long time, the tapering process could take many months or years, and there could be both physical and psychological complications during the taper. The process for weaning someone off chronic opioid usage will be discussed in the next article in this series.

In conclusion, users of treatment guidelines put a lot of trust into the recommendations provided. Using only opioid treatment guidelines with sound quality and content helps keep that vital trust so clinicians can continue to use guidelines in combating the prescription opioid epidemic.

A New Focus for Health Insurance: ‘Negaclaims’

Historically, the “do more, bill more” fee-for-service model of healthcare measured success by increased billings. In the fee-for-value era, we need a new framework for assessing healthcare results. Quality indicators are logical, but they are mostly geared toward measuring actions taken. We can borrow a concept from the energy sector for an additional metric.  We need a concept for removing waste and unnecessary care that could be inspired by a concept from the energy sector described in this blurb from Wikipedia for something called Negawatts.

Negawatt power  is a theoretical unit of power representing an amount of energy (measured in watts) saved. The energy saved is a direct result of energy conservation or increased energy efficiency. The term was coined by the chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute and environmentalist Amory Lovins in 1989, arguing that utility customers don’t want kilowatt-hours of electricity; they want energy services such as hot showers, cold beer, lit rooms, and spinning shafts, which can come more cheaply if electricity is used more efficiently. Lovins felt an international behavioral change was necessary in order to decrease countries’ dependence on excessive amounts of energy. The concept of a negawatt could influence a behavioral change in consumers by encouraging them to think about the energy that they spend.

The healthcare parallel would be a “Negaclaim™” — i.e., an unnecessary claim avoided. This isn’t about simply denying care. Just as consumers aren’t interested in kilowatt hours, patients aren’t interested in claims — they want health restored and diseases prevented, which can be done more efficiently and effectively. When individuals are fully educated on the trade-offs associated with interventions, they generally choose the less invasive approach. A nice byproduct is that the invasive approaches are frequently more costly and medically unnecessary. The following are a few of many examples of how unnecessary care can be eliminated while improving the patient experience:

  • Day-to-day and chronic disease care: One of the key reasons Direct Primary Care (DPC) has proven itself to be the Triple Aim  leader is that a proper primary care relationship involves time spent with patients to explain trade-offs of various medical options.  Without incentives to push for “more,” DPC providers have demonstrated that they can reduce unnecessary utilization by 40-80%. By contrast, “hamster wheel” primary care has effectively turned primary care into 7-minute, drive-by appointments that leave little time to do anything but direct patients toward additional costly items, whether it’s ordering a prescription, test, hospitalization or specialist visit. In many cases, those could be avoided with a robust primary care relationship.
  • High Cost Procedures: Leah Binder wrote about what major employers such as Walmart, Loews, Pepsico and others are doing to reduce risk to their employees while also saving money, in What We Can Learn From Walmart: How Our Healthcare System Can Save Lives and Dollars. Employees found that 40% of the transplants that were recommended by local hospitals were deemed medically unnecessary by top physicians at the Mayo Clinic and other nationally renowned facilities. Employees were thrilled to avoid risky (and expensive) procedures. It also sent a great message to employees that their employer valued them enough to send them to the best medical centers in the world for second opinions.
  • End of Life: Quality of life is affected dramatically by the end-of-life decisions we make. This was outlined in How Not to Die. The system is oriented to do more even if it is at odds with quality of life. Doctors themselves recognize this when they are the patient, as described in Why Doctors Die Differently. While quality of life is the driving factor for patients and families, there is a second-order benefit that the procedures that reduce quality of life are typically very expensive.

The problem in healthcare has been that providers have incentives to do stuff because of the flawed reimbursement models that dominate our present healthcare system. Respected studies such as from the Institute of Medicine demonstrate that there is more than $750 billion in waste. PwC stated that more than half of healthcare spending is waste. Incentives have driven providers to encourage more interventions, and consumers have been led to believe that more is better even though, in many cases, less is more.

That has added a challenge for health insurers. The general perception is that health insurers reflexively deny claims (sometimes getting in trouble for that). This has resulted in health insurers having the lowest Net Promoter Score of any industry. Consumers have clearly decided that health insurers aren’t doing this for consumer benefit. Fair or not, they have concluded it’s simply for the financial health of the insurer. Clearly, health insurers need a different approach if they want to improve their image and the health of their customers while ensuring their financial viability.

One incentive that has changed revolves around the Medical Loss Ratio (see Aetna’s explanation here).  In contrast to “customer service” reps focused on claims, an investment in patient engagement can have the same or greater effect on reducing claims while qualifying as a healthcare expense. Enter patient engagement.

Patient Engagement Is the Blockbuster Drug of the Century
Leonard Kish made the case that if patient engagement was a drug, it would eclipse all blockbuster drugs before it. Kish cited results of studies showing benefit when patients were successfully engaged in their health.

Compared to those not enrolled in the study, coordinated care “patients have an 88 percent reduced risk of dying of a cardiac-related cause when enrolled within 90 days of a heart attack, compared to those not in the program.” And, clinical care teams reduced overall mortality by 76 percent and cardiac mortality by 73 percent.

Rather than reflexively denying claims and building up a mountain of ill will, insurance companies should invest resources in helping their customers get engaged in their health. Their customers would, in effect, “self-deny” their own claims.

Note that when I describe patient engagement, I’m including family members and caregivers. Did you know that families provide care valued at more than $450 billion per year  – more than our total spending on Medicare! Thus, much of what is outlined below speaks to caregivers (particularly with elderly patients), not just the patient. Having more resources/tools as a caregiver would be welcomed, as most of us have no clinical background and are thrown into a caregiving role virtually overnight.

[Disclosure: My patient relationship management company is one of the organizations providing patient engagement tools to healthcare providers, which is why I'm familiar with these examples.]

Just about every myth has been debunked about how patients of all types supposedly won’t get engaged in their health, whether it’s low-income diabetes patients, native American populations or the elderly. However, providers are largely failing in their efforts at engaging patients as they haven’t had the incentives, tools or training.  Provider-patient communications guru Stephen Wilkins points this out clearly in a few pieces.

Despite less than stellar results that Wilkins highlights, the initial attempts by providers at engaging patients are welcomed just as a muddy puddle of water in the Sahara Desert is welcomed. However, much more can be done.

Catalyzing Patient Engagement in Health Plans’ Best Interests
A wave of new requirements and challenges have crashed on top of providers. Insurers could help if they focus in the right areas and are mindful of the challenges. JAMA recently wrote a piece highlighting one facet of patient engagement — shared decision-making (SDM). Physicians aren’t going to magically take on this challenge without a change.

The brevity of visits constrains the opportunities to address these elements of SDM. Furthermore, clinicians are not adequately trained to facilitate SDM, especially eliciting patient values and preferences for treatment.

[Note: Resources to train clinicians on patient engagement are emerging. One would expect that a host of continuing education courses will emerge. One example is HIMSS (the professional association for healthIT), which released a seminal book on patient engagement.]

In the places where providers have successfully achieved the Triple Aim objectives with challenging patient populations, they have had payment aligned with outcomes. Teams were unleashed, led by doctors, to get creative about how to tackle the challenges. While doctors are vital, they use non-physicians for a substantial part of the interaction with patients. It turns out, for example, that doctors and even nurses can be less effective at effecting behavioral change in patients than non-typical care team members. Rather than being relegated to low-level tasks, medical assistants and health coaches play a vital role in the successful models. Once again, while the goal is an improved health outcome, there is a second-order benefit that being more effective lowers costs by avoiding complications, and the medical assistants and health coaches are generally paid less than doctors and nurses. Unfortunately, in a typical fee-for-service reimbursement model, these types of services typically aren’t compensated despite their impressive results.

Dr. Rob Lamberts described this problem in detail in Washington, We Have a Problem. He summarizes the conflict between people’s desires and healthcare’s flawed reimbursement framework.

This is why, I believe, any system that profits more from people with “problems” than those without is destined to collapse. Our system is opposed to the goal of every person I see: to stay healthy and stay on as few drugs, have as few procedures, and avoid as many doctors (and drug companies) as possible.

Health insurers have implicitly viewed their customers as adversaries by creating a claim-denying framework as the default. The smart health plans will figure out how to harness the consumer goals. This isn’t some fanciful dream as it has been demonstrated (profitably, I might add) by the physician-entrepreneur organizations outlined in The Hot Spotters Sequel: Population Health Heroes.

This isn’t about minor tweaks to a fundamentally flawed model. Rather, as one physician-entrepreneur put it, too many models are “putting wings on cars and calling them airplanes.” Rather, it’s supporting proven models where they have rethought care delivery – here’s how one physician-entrepreneur describes rethinking care delivery from the ground up (video).

While financial rewards are important, most physicians are not motivated primarily by money but by autonomy, mastery and purpose. In the successful models, the physician-entrepreneurs created their own autonomy and recognized that the focus of their mastery and purpose had to fundamentally shift. A nice byproduct was the growth of “Negaclaims” as the educated and empowered patients better understood the significant risks of overtreatment and errors.

Too frequently, health plans have tried to micromanage clinical processes. With proper financial incentives combined with a move toward enabling clinical teams to become masters at driving patient engagement, the health plan is much more likely to achieve the desired outcomes. As the Stephen Wilkins pieces referenced above illustrate, clinicians haven’t been trained or rewarded directly or indirectly for encouraging patient engagement. It should be no surprise that most haven’t achieved mastery in helping their patients achieve patient engagement. Instead, the language of medicine has been punitive and demeaning, talking about “non-compliant” patients as though they were petulant criminals. That doesn’t further the partnership between patients and their care teams, which is necessary for optimal outcomes.

Previously, I outlined the strong business case for patient engagement. Those who have understood that business case have moved on to practice the 7 habits of highly patient-centric providers. It’s clear that past efforts by health plans to reduce claims have fallen short and created ill will and sub-optimal health outcomes. Putting the patient/member at the center need not be a marketing gimmick. Rather, it’s central to the notion of “Negaclaims” and to a winning strategy in the fee-for-value era.

How To Avoid Public Backlash Against Price Transparency

“Audiences in the Washington area have been erupting in whoops, whistles and applause when actress Helen Hunt, playing the single mother of a chronically ill child, denounces HMOs with a string of unprintable epithets,” the Washington Post recounts in a story in 1998. “Hunt's character quickly apologizes for the outburst, but actor Harold Ramis, playing a physician, assures her that the apology is unwarranted. 'Actually, I think that's their technical name,' he says.”

While most people may not remember this movie, “As Good As It Gets,” they certainly are familiar with HMOs — and how unpopular they were with the public in the Clinton era, as embodied by this scene. Today, most purchasers and payers who once championed HMOs as the next great answer to health costs and quality are much more cautious about them: Less than 38 percent of employers offer an HMO benefit to their employees, almost always as one among many plan options.

Yet the basic principles behind HMOs remain appealing to employers. They can realign payment systems to incentivize prevention. If a procedure appears unnecessary, they don't pay for it — or they can require clinical evidence that it is indeed necessary. They can pivot services around the needs of the patient and coordinate care.

Employer reliance on HMOs has receded, but the problems HMOs were designed to address have only grown exponentially larger in recent years. Health costs exploded since “As Good As It Gets” debuted, and the persistent problems of fragmented services, inadequate prevention and unnecessary care waste at least a third of all money spent on healthcare, according to the Institute of Medicine (IOM). But consumers hated HMO restrictions on choice and resented interference with the doctor-patient decisio-nmaking, and that doomed HMOs, however good their intentions may have been.

So purchasers moved in a new direction, aiming to uphold the original principles behind HMOs without interfering with patients' choices. Instead of tightly managing the services provided to employees, purchasers would take a hands-off approach and give consumers more information so they could make their own decisions about the right care at the right price. Instead of managed care, we'd have manage-your-own-care. The manage-your-own-care philosophy ultimately led to the accelerated growth of high deductible health plans, now the fastest-growing form of health insurance, in which employees and dependents enjoy a high level of choice of doctor and procedure but pay for much of it out of their own pocket. This gives consumers the incentive to “shop” for the best provider, search out the right prices, and make sure that the procedure and the costs are warranted.

In line with this development is a trend among purchasers to call for price transparency, including a demand for plans and individual providers to publicly report on how much employees must pay for services they seek. I support price transparency, with an important caveat: Price reporting must be interwoven with quality reporting, in all venues, every time. By contrast, price reporting decoupled from quality reporting could inspire the same backlash HMOs did. Here's how:

  • Your costs will grow. Anyone who has worked in healthcare knows that the current pricing and chargemaster scheme are nonsensical and are in no way correlated to the quality of care. What that means is you can't predict the quality by the price. But consumers don't understand that, and studies show that given the pricing options, they will select the highest priced provider — assuming that's automatically the highest quality provider. When you only show pricing, without coupling the dollar figures with an easily comprehended indicator of quality, consumers will head toward the highest priced option, especially after they have already satisfied the deductible and it's the purchaser's dime (i.e. during an inpatient stay). If a purchaser or plan tries to restrict choice of hospital, it will be perceived as a cynical effort to cut costs at the expense of patient quality — since the employee does not see for themselves that price is unrelated to quality.
  • Your company CEO will appear as the villainous businessman sweating on 60 Minutes. Employees will accuse their companies of choosing “cheaper” providers rather than the “best” providers, without any information on whether the less-expensive options are actually lower in quality. Comparing pricing information with quality information allows employers to make informed choices, and in turn, inform employees, too.
  • Your health plan will be treated as evildoer. If your employees continue to shop services by price alone, they will not appreciate any efforts by health plans to restrict choices of hospitals or otherwise make demands on hospitals. Health plans that try to do this on behalf of purchasers or as part of the exchanges will be subject to Helen Hunt-style vitriol for sacrificing quality as soon as the employee exhausts the deductible.

In the new movement away from managed care and toward manage-your-own-care, purchasers and payers are at a crossroads. They must take steps to educate their employees on how to select the best provider, including the weirdness of a market in which price tells you nothing about quality or vice-versa. Only by assuring full transparency of both quality and pricing — always coupled together — will the public learn the strange truth about getting the best care for themselves and their families. Purchasers and payers deserve credit for pushing for higher quality care, so they should insist on giving employees what they need to work toward that same goal. Don't be cast as the villain again.