Posts Tagged Dartmouth Atlas

What it all Means: Practice versus Theory

Data Guy: 

No one disputes that there is variation in care and outcomes in the US and that variation manifests in many, many different ways. Most of us have been staring that variance in the eye for well over two decades. Some of us have even been doing something about it on a national scale.

One way to look at variation is to study Medicare spending per capita and to declare that if spending is high, and not justified by outcomes (controlling for age, gender, and other socio-economic factors) that it is a bad thing, and most might agree. It sounds logical and consistently plays out for the dozen or so years that the Dartmouth Atlas Project has been pushing for reform. Same model, same results no surprise there.

Others, especially those who build systems, collect data for analysis, test hypothesis, build models, teach physicians about variance and get their hands dirty every day with the “change” thing, know that the “stick approach” is nothing other than bad policy. What they also object to is the abject approach that if the spending says so then it is true!

I don’t have to cite examples of government data and research that points to illogical spending, reimbursement or taxation for that matter to make my point any more clear.

The simple point gentlemen is that there is no one single thing that makes McAllen,  East Long Island, Grand Junction or Rochester exceptionally good or bad, except that they are at similar points on some researchers pole that doesn’t adjust for all variables.

The reason that there is a Blog on The Hospital Value Index site is to also bring awareness to the multi-variant points of light that make health care unique from one place setting to another.  The more we refine the analyses, and the better the data and methodology become, the closer we get to root cause. But until then, let’s stay focused on some key factors; utilization, safety, satisfaction, process measures, risk adjustment for case severity, efficiency, outcomes  and price (and maybe a few other things) all matter! AND when building models and drawing conclusions it is more helpful to have complete, current and accurate data! GIGO is what we once called it, “garbage in, garbage out”.

Where the rubber hits the road is not with the researcher’s ego and political affiliation or even source of funding and grants, but with what we all can learn and deploy when we working stiffs go into hospitals and try to re-train the physicians and staff; most of whom weren’t taught anything about economics while they were studying for their Board certification. It may be just that easy…or not!

If you have a better point to make, go build something like RWJ funded at Dartmouth, or invest a couple million dollars and try to create your own engine like we did. I personally appreciate your contributions and look forward to your results.

John R. Morrow

Founder: The Hospital Value Index™, 100 Top Hospitals:Benchmarks for Success®, The Patient Satisfaction Index™

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, ,

No Comments

The Wheelchair Chronicles, Part III: Why Price Is a Component of Value

In response to our post Lost in D.C. with The Dartmouth Atlas, Jonathan Skinner of Dartmouth responded in part that “patient charges…, unlike Medicare payments, are imaginary – no one actually pays them.” I responded,“Nothing could be farther from the truth”.

The mere thought that price is irrelevant is a curious one, especially coming from an economist. Price always matters in a value discussion, whether you are in Tiffany or a Turkish bazaar.

As it relates to healthcare, price matters a great deal. The number of consultants advising healthcare providers on setting charges, aka price, would rival the army of a Nordic country. If price does not matter, then there would not be any managed care agreements based on a percentage of charges. If price does not matter, there would not be differences of as much as 1,000% between markets for the same basket of healthcare goods.

Not only does price matter, but it also tragically has a disproportionate impact on the uninsured, who do not have the benefit of group purchasing to negotiate a lower price. Regardless of your view of the politics of healthcare reform, it is stunning that a Democratic White House and Congress do not grasp this elementary principle. Equally stunning is that Republicans advocating for a free-market economy do not realize that price transparency is a fundamental requirement.

What is inexplicable in my experience of the wheelchair is that there can be more than one “price” and that it can be higher at the distributor level (WheelChair Professionals) than at the retail level (MobilityCo). For more musings on that concept, see Part IV.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, ,

No Comments

“10 Steps” vs. “10 Markets”: The Dartmouth Atlas vs. Hospital Value Index™ GPS

Last Wednesday and Thursday, The New York Times published 10 Steps to Better Health Care, an opinion piece by Atul Gawande, M.D., Donald Berwick, M.D., Elliott Fisher, M.D. and Mark McClellan, M.D. Like some who commented on the article, we are not quite sure what the “10 Steps” are.

We do, however, understand that the “10 Steps” are intended to point us to a broader spectrum of markets that might be instructive for understanding reform of the health care delivery system, which has recently been relegated to the background by the White House and Congress.

Once again, however, we think that using a GPS is a better homing device than an Atlas. As described in the article, Dr. Gawande et al. invited healthcare stakeholders from a diverse group of markets for a summit, presumably based upon information gleaned from the Atlas study.

We believe that canvassing diverse marketplaces is essential, so in that respect, we agree with the Atlas approach. At the same time, we think that selecting models for healthcare reform benefits from a robust and transparent analytical framework. As highlighted here before, we believe that the use of old Medicare data leads to erroneous conclusions as compared to more recent all-payer data.

Based upon our most recent Hospital Value Index study, we have identified the Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) with the highest value hospitals.

 

First, we compare the markets cited in The New York Times with the results of our study:

“10 Steps to Better Health Care”, New York Times, Dr.Gawande et al. Hospital Value Index™ Overall CBSA Rank Hospital Value Index™ Mean Index Score
Asheville, North Carolina 214 58.96
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 38 67.72
Everett, Washington 678 48.13
La Crosse, Wisconsin 39 67.68
Portland, Maine 225 58.72
Richmond, Virginia 269 57.33
Sacramento, California 524 51.92
Sayre, Pennsylvania 181 59.63
Temple, Texas 423 53.92
Tallahassee, Florida 202 59.21

We note that, as defined by ESRI, there are 939 CBSAs in the United States. While two of the markets highlighted by Dr. Gawande et al. have great merit, others are average at best. We offer the following markets as a substitute.

 

First, we offer a market ranking for the largest 100 CBSAs in the United States.

Hospital Value Index™ Top Market Rankings –100 Largest CBSAs

Market

Mean Index Score

Charlotte, North Carolina 66.92
Rochester, New York 62.18
Grand Rapids, Michigan 61.92
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 61.91
Knoxville, Tennessee 61.38
Omaha, Nebraska 61.01
Columbus, Ohio 60.42
Virginia Beach-Norfolk, Virginia 59.91
Youngstown, Ohio 59.48
Dayton, Ohio 59.19

We believe that high-performing large markets indicate patterns of practice that are fairly well-ingrained. We do not have objective research to explain the performance, though we know enough about the dynamics of these high-value markets to make educated guesses about the drivers of performance.

 

Second, we offer market rankings irrespective of size.

Hospital Value Index™ Top Market Rankings – All CBSAs

Market

Mean Index Score

Clarksburg, West Virginia 77.99
Maysville, Kentucky 77.26
Mayfield, Kentucky 75.46
Oil City, Pennsylvania 75.01
London, Kentucky 73.94
Billings, Montana 73.93
Williamsport, Pennsylvania 73.82
St. Joseph, Missouri-Kansas 72.02
St. George, Utah 71.36
Sioux City, Iowa-Nebraska-South Dakota 71.09

These markets are more similar in size to those selected by Dr. Gawande et al. Most of these markets are characterized by having only one hospital, which indicates outstanding performance by those hospitals. In turn, that performance may or may not be replicable and/or instructive for the nation as whole.

We remain very hopeful that the White House and Congress will eventually focus on healthcare delivery system reform as a foundation of healthcare reform. When they do, we suggest that a GPS will help us find our way more accurately than an Atlas.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

, , , ,

No Comments