THE LEARNING HEALTH SYSTEM SERIES
EFFECTIVE CARE
FOR HIGH-NEED PATIENTS
OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING OUTCOMES, VALUE, AND HEALTH
Peter Long, Melinda Abrams, Arnold Milstein, Gerald
Anderson, Katherine Lewis Apton, Maria Lund
Dahlberg, and Danielle Whicher, Editors
WASHINGTON, DC
NAM.EDU
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICINE • 500 FIFTH STREET, NW • WASHINGTON, DC 20001
NOTICE: This publication has undergone peer review according to procedures established by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM). Publication by the NAM signifies that it is the product of a carefully considered process and is a useful contribution worthy of public attention, but does not represent formal endorsement of conclusions and recommendations by the NAM. The views presented in this publication are those of individual authors and do not represent formal consensus positions of the authors’ organizations; the NAM; or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Support for this activity was provided by the Peterson Center on Healthcare, which is dedicated to identifying proven solutions that improve care quality, lower costs, and accelerate the adoption of these solutions on a national level.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Long, Peter (Peter V.), editor. | National Academy of Medicine (U.S.), publisher. | Leadership Consortium for a Value & Science-Driven Health System, issuing body. | Models of Care for High-Need Patients (Workshop) (2015-2016 : Washington, D.C.)
Title: Effective care for high-need patients : opportunities for improving outcomes, value, and health / Peter Long, Melinda Abrams, Arnold Milstein, Gerald Anderson, Katherine Lewis Apton, Maria Lund Dahlberg, and Danielle Whicher, editors ; Leadership Consortium for a Value & Science-Driven Health System.
Description: Washington, DC : National Academy Of Medicine, [2017] | Report on issues discussed over the course of 3 public workshops held between July 2015 and October 2016 at the National Academy of Medicine, Washington, DC. | Includes bibliographical references.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017041343 (print) | LCCN 2017042253 (ebook) | ISBN 9781947103078 (Ebook) | ISBN 9781947103061 (pbk.)
Subjects: | MESH: Health Services Needs and Demand | Health Services--utilization | Delivery of Health Care--utilization | Delivery of Health Care--economics | Patient Care Management--economics | United States | Congresses
Classification: LCC RA425 (ebook) | LCC RA425 (print) | NLM W 84 AA1 | DDC 362.1--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017041343
Copyright 2017 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: Long, P., M. Abrams, A. Milstein, G. Anderson, K. Lewis Apton, M. Lund Dahlberg, and D. Whicher, Editors. 2017. Effective Care for High-Need Patients: Opportunities for Improving Outcomes, Value, and Health. Washington, DC: National Academy of Medicine.
“Knowing is not enough; we must apply.
Willing is not enough; we must do.”
—GOETHE
ABOUT THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICINE
The National Academy of Medicine is one of three academies constituting the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies). The National Academies provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on issues of health, medical care, and biomedical science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
Learn more about the National Academy of Medicine at NAM.edu.
PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR THE WORKSHOP SERIES ON MODELS OF CARE FOR HIGH-NEED PATIENTS
NAM Staff
Development of this publication was facilitated by contributions of the following NAM staff, under the guidance of Michael McGinnis, NAM Leonard D. Schaeffer Executive Officer and Executive Director of the Leadership Consortium for a Value & Science-Driven Health System:
Consultant
TAXONOMY WORKGROUP
MELINDA K. ABRAMS, Vice President, Delivery System Reform, The Commonwealth Fund
GERARD F. ANDERSON, Director, Center for Hospital Finance and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
MELINDA J. BEEUWKES BUNTIN, Chair, Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
DAVE A. CHOKSHI, Assistant Vice President, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation
HENRY CLAYPOOL, Policy Director, Community Living Policy Center, University of California San Francisco
DAVID A. DORR, Professor & Vice Chair, Medical Informatics, Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University
JOSE FIGUEROA, Instructor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Associate Physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital
ASHISH K. JHA, K.T. Li Professor of International Health and Health Policy, Director, Harvard Global Health Institute, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
DAVID LABBY, Founding Chief Medical Officer & Health Strategy Adviser, Health Share of Oregon
PRABHJOT SINGH, Director, Arnhold Institute for Global Health, Mount Sinai Health System
POLICY WORKGROUP
GERARD F. ANDERSON, Director, Center for Hospital Finance and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
TIM ENGELHARDT, Director, Federal Coordinated Health Care Office, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
KATHERINE HAYES, Director, Health Policy, Bipartisan Policy Center
SANDRA WILKNISS, Program Director, Health Division, National Governors Association
This page intentionally left blank.
REVIEWERS
This special publication has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with review procedures established by the NAM. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this publication:
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of this publication, nor did they see the final draft before it was published. Review of this publication was overseen by Danielle Whicher, senior program officer, NAM; Gwen Hughes, senior program assistant, NAM; and Michael McGinnis, Leonard D. Schaeffer Executive Officer, NAM. Responsibility for the final content of this publication rests entirely with the authors and the NAM.
This page intentionally left blank.
PREFACE
The National Academy of Medicine’s Leadership Consortium for a Value & Science-Driven Health System provides a trusted venue for national leaders in health and health care to work cooperatively toward effective, innovative care that consistently adds value to patients and society. Consortium members are leaders from stakeholder communities brought together by their common commitment to steward advances in science, value, and culture necessary for a health system that continuously learns and improves in fostering healthier people.
It has been known for some time that a small percentage of patients with complex health and social needs use a disproportionate share of medical care at significant cost to them, the healthcare system, and broader society. There is also substantial evidence that the standard of care provided to these individuals, while costly, often does not meet their expectations. That said, there exists a number of successful programs and models in health systems and communities across the country that are providing excellent care and producing positive results. To date, they have remained positive exceptions to the norm rather than become the standard of care. Beyond the inherent challenges of scaling and spreading promising care models, there is a growing recognition that some federal and state health policies and payment models inhibit rather than facilitate the delivery of more effective and lower cost care and services for high-need patients.
NAM hosted three public workshops exploring high-need patients in more depth to inform future policy and practice. Through our inquiry, we found that bold policy action and care delivery reform is needed to improve care for high-need patients and reduce costs. The high-need patient population is diverse, complex, expensive, and dynamic. Addressing their needs will require the appropriate balance between standardized and customized approaches to care. Segmenting high-need patients into smaller homogeneous subgroups using a “taxonomy” represents one promising tool to inform and target care and should be rapidly tested in real-world settings in conjunction with care models that have been shown to work. It is clear that effective tools, care models, and policies must extend beyond strictly medical approaches to address social and behavioral factors. In order to be actionable, policy solutions must account for
existing system constraints and complexities such as the integration of medical and social approaches and the financing of care models.
I want to recognize the Peterson Center on Healthcare, who funded these activities at the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) in order to advance our knowledge and actions around this critical issue. The Center also supported associated research projects at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health and the Bipartisan Policy Center to provide quantitative and policy analysis used to inform these workshops. Those teams provided invaluable input and shared important perspectives throughout the process, as did Melinda Abrams from The Commonwealth Fund.
Thanks also to the hundreds of individuals who participated in the three public workshops. In particular, I want to recognize the patients and caregivers who shared their personal stories at the beginning of each workshop. Their stories provided a powerful reminder why this effort is so important and focused our attention on improving outcomes from their perspectives.
Thank you to the planning group, who remained committed, curious, and engaged throughout the process. The process produced a publication that is both comprehensive in its scope and focused on practical policy solutions. Beyond planning the three workshops, two subgroups addressed specific issues that were raised as gaps in our knowledge. The taxonomy and policy workgroups greatly enhanced the utility of this publication.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the leadership demonstrated by the dedicated staff at the NAM (Elizabeth, Katie, Maria, Danielle, Gwen, Emma, Michelle, Marianne, Michael, Daniel Bearss of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine Research Center, and Joe Alper) who shepherded this project from its inception through the release of this publication. They organized the three public workshops, supported the working groups, and assisted in the drafting of this publication.
As our nation once again debates health care financing approaches that could fundamentally alter people’s access to health insurance coverage and medical care, it is critical to focus attention on those individuals who are the heaviest users of health care and commit to improving their outcomes while reducing spending. There are currently major policy barriers to broad implementation of what we already know does work. Future policies and funding proposals that either ignore what we know works or inhibit us from implementing effective care models will be detrimental to the health of these vulnerable populations. If our goal is to improve the health of our most vulnerable neighbors, we must take effective actions now.
—Peter V. Long, PhD
Chair, Planning Committee
CONTENTS
Key Characteristics of High-Need Patients
The Patient Taxonomy and Implications for Care Delivery
Policy to Support the Spread and Scale of Care Models
Common Themes and Opportunities for Action
The National Academy of Medicine
2 Key Characteristics of High-Need Patients
Identifying High-Need Patient Populations
The Overlap of High-Need and High-Cost Definitions
The Impact of Being a High-Need Patient
3 Patient Taxonomy and Implications for Care Delivery
Purpose and Operation of Patient Segmentation
Advancing the Use of a Taxonomy
Characterizing Successful Models
Care Models that Deliver and the Patient Taxonomy
Denver Health:A“Real-World”Application
5 Policy to Support the Spread and Scale of Care Models
Spreading and Scaling Successful Care Models
Integration of Social Supports and Medical Care
Expand and Align Payment Policies
Workforce For Comprehensive Health Care
6 Common Themes and Opportunities for Action
Opportunities for Stakeholder Action
BOXES, FIGURES, AND TABLES
Boxes
S–1 Care and Condition Attributes of Successful Care Models
S–2 Delivery Features of Successful Care Models
4–1 Service Setting and Focus of Successful Care Models
4–2 Care and Condition Attributes of Successful Care Models
4–3 Delivery Features of Successful Care Models
4–4 Organizational Culture of Successful Care Models
Figures
S–2 A conceptual model of a starter taxonomy for high-need patients.
2–2 Mean number of chronic conditions among three groups of Massachusetts residents.
2–3 Mean number of frailty indicators among three groups of Massachusetts residents.
2–5 High-need adults have more emergency department visits and hospital stays.
2–6 Demographic characteristics of high-need adults.
3–1 A conceptual model of a starter taxonomy for high-need patients.
3–2 A framework for health with all of the factors that would go into an ideal taxonomy.
3–4 Preventable spending by patient group in the Medicare population.
3–5 High-cost Medicare patients’ distributional mean spending by patient category.
4–1 Variations in the needs of dual-eligible individuals.
4–3 Denver Health’s use of Clinical Risk Groups to assign patients to care programs.
Tables
2–1 Complex and Noncomplex Chronic Conditions
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACE | Adverse Childhood Experiences |
ACO | accountable care organization |
AHRQ | Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality |
BPC | Bipartisan Policy Center |
CMMI | Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation |
CMS | Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services |
CRG | clinical risk group |
D-SNP | Dual Eligible Special Needs Plan |
DME | Durable Medical Equipment |
EHR | electronic health record |
EMDR | eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing |
FPL | federal poverty line |
FQHC | federally qualified health center |
HCH | Health Care Home program (Minnesota) |
HIPAA | Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 |
HRP | Health Resilience Program |
HSPH | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health |
IMPACT | Improving Mood: Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment |
IOCP | Intensive Outpatient Care Program |
LTC | Long-Term Care |
LTSS | long-term services and supports |
MEPS | Medical Expenditure Panel Survey |
MIND at Home | Maximizing Independence at Home |
NAM | National Academy of Medicine |
OECD | Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development |
PAC | Post-Acute Care |
PACE | Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly |
PBGH | Pacific Business Group on Health |
PMPM | per-member per-month |
PRAPARE | Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients’ Assets, Risks, and Experiences |
PRISM | Predictive Risk Intelligence System |
PTSD | Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder |
SNP | Special Needs Plan |