Are you planning to focus on managing the health of the population on your site? If you are already focusing on managing public health, do you plan to strengthen your attention? Wherever you are in the planning of population management, make sure that you have the first set goals to achieve the plan. Every planning event that focuses on improving care on your site must first begin with goals.
I believe that many health workers believe that the triple goal of the IHI (Institute for Improving Health) - these are very good goals. These goals are aimed at improving the health of the population, improving the capabilities and experience of the patient and at the same time reducing the cost of caring for your community. I would like to add improvement to the bottom line of suppliers. Fortunately, they can be achieved at the same time with the right approach, although the work is very difficult.
Setting and achieving goals for public health on supplier sites is a completely new focus in healthcare. Fortunately, health departments and epidemiologists have many tools that suppliers can use or adapt. Among them is the collection and analysis of data at the aggregate population level, and then the implementation of proven based processes (standardized processes) that affect the population. Other areas also used population level management for their enterprises or processes. Many of them are services based programs. I recently completed a population level survey for the Salvation Army and energy provider.
In a reminder of this newsletter, I will describe two population-level management programs and highlight some of their approaches. Before I do that, let me point out that managing population levels can have excellent return on investment for suppliers. In a recent online interview with Medical informatics, Robert Fortini, RN, MSN, and Chief Clinical Fellow at Bon Secours Medical Group, based in Richmond, Va., Said he saw a 3: 1 return on investment in Bon Secours public health initiatives. I believe that this return on investment is possible for many providers with a good risk management program.
One medical group working on community-based health initiatives is the Hill Physicians Medical Group in the East Bay area of California. This is a group of 3,500 doctors. This group formed virtual care groups for pharmacists, social workers, case managers, etc. To support their doctors. Managing public health requires a team approach to be successful. Hill Medical Medical Group works with the ACO multi-payer model. This approach encourages teamwork and breaks traditional barriers to better care. As the group’s general director, Darryl Cardoza, said, “And what allowed us to make the ACO model is to begin to destroy some of these walls and help us all work within the same system and level the incentives, as stated in an interview Medical informatics.
Cardoza argues that managing public health is very different from previously administered treatment. According to Cardoza, “it’s not just preventing people from using certain resources, but managing all of their tools. and evaluate it and extract meaning from IT, but now these tools are available. ” Further, Cardoza states that it is very important to integrate HIT into the network of providers in order to make collaboration more efficient. In addition, the Hill Physicians Group should be very good partners with other providers in this area, with local hospitals and health plans. They work very hard to be a good partner to others.
The result of their investment in virtual teams with doctors and associating his HIT both domestically and with their partners through health information networks has resulted in a positive financial return and improved health for patients due to the improved provision of care.
Another group that deals with health issues at the population level is Bon Secours, mentioned above. In this group there were 530 working doctors. Robert Fortina stated that “the bulk of our work was aimed at supporting our medical home project, and this included redesigning the delivery system, more reliable use of technology, and then good old-fashioned aft case management using these tools, so development was multifactorial.
One of the components of Bon Secours population management is community (patient) coverage based on Phytel software. This software generates about 75,000 contacts per year. This coverage is based on 20 chronic disease protocols and 15 prevention protocols. This is a good start for better patient care, but Fortina foresees a time when their analytics will be much better and they will be better able to cope with stratifying patients by risk category. This will allow them to provide care that is better aligned with the needs of the individual patient.
As you can see, Bon Secours Medical Group and Hill Doctors Medical Group is working hard to deploy an effective public-health model in both the interests of the patient and the providers. Both use a team-based approach. Return on investment is positive for both groups. Contrasts exist between the two groups. Hill Physicians is a much larger group and can use its scale for financial advantage. Both use different models for their approaches. Hill Physicians uses the ACO model, contracting with several different payers, which makes his approaches more attentive, since different payers have different requirements in their contracts. Bon Secours bases its population model on a patient-oriented medical home on a long-established model of chronic care.
I believe that since the patient-centered model of the medical center has proven itself and is well received in the primary health care environment, it makes sense to extend the case management model to include patient management at the population level. Recent data released by the Medical Group Management Association show that, although the total general operating costs of a medical home are more than non-medical home methods - $ 126.54 versus $ 83.98 per patient, the total income from medical services after operating costs are much higher - $ 143.97 for a medical home versus $ 78.43 for a non-medical home per patient. Thus, if you use the ACO model, the PCMH model or another model, it seems that public health management previously provided more thorough care at a lower cost per patient and increased revenue for the provider if a carefully developed risk management plan is developed.
