![]()
| EMBARGOED
FOR RELEASE 12:01 a.m. EDT Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2003 |
Contacts:
Jon Gardner, Health Affairs Daniel
Danzig |
Better
Chronic Illness Management, Incentives For Improved Quality
More Likely Among California Physician Groups
New Analysis Compares
Practices At California Medical Groups
With Counterparts In The Rest Of The Country
BETHESDA, Md.Physician organizations in California are more likely
than their counterparts outside the state to be paid for improving health care
quality, and are more likely to follow case management or similar practices
for treating chronically ill patients, according to a new report published today.
The wider application of care management processes by California's medical groups
and independent practice associations (IPAs) may be linked to the more frequent
use of financial performance tools, other external incentives for improving
quality, and increasing investment in clinical information technology, according
to the report published by Health Affairs with funding from the California
HealthCare Foundation.
Robin R. Gillies, a project director in the Department of Health Policy and
Management in the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health,
and four colleagues analyzed data from a national survey of the chief executive
officers (primarily physician leaders) at more than 1,100 physician organizations
with more than 20 physicians. The survey consisted of structured interviews
with the CEOs. Nearly one-fifth of the physician organizations studied were
in California.
The authors singled out California for study because its health care delivery
system is believed to be unique. This study shows that California has more and
larger physician organizations. In addition, the organizations are more likely
to be IPAs, take on more risk, and are delegated more responsibility for managing
care than physician organizations in other states.
To improve quality, California medical groups are more likely to employ special
hospitalist physicians to coordinate the care of their hospital patients: 65.3
percent of California medical groups, compared to 46.5 percent of non-California
medical groups. California medical groups also employ case management for chronically
ill patients more often and use preventive tools to reduce hospitalization among
patients with diabetes, asthma, and congestive heart failure.
According to the study, California physician organizations had greater incentives
to use quality improvement tools. Insurers were more likely to pay California
medical groups on the basis of quality, as well as publicly report outcomes
data and the results of continuous quality improvement initiatives. In California,
53.3 percent of medical groups received income for quality, compared to 39.8
percent of non-California medical groups.
While health care delivery varies from market to market, the authors contend
that medical groups in other parts of the country can benefit from the California
experience.
"The data indicating that California physician organizations use more recommended
care management processes for patients with chronic illnesses while operating
within a stringent managed care environment suggests that others could adopt
such processes, even amid renewed emphasis on containing costs," Gillies
says. "The California performance findings as well as the national data
suggest that payment policies designed to reward physician organizations for
improved quality, public reporting of quality performance, and arrangements
for increasing investment in and use of clinical information technology in care
delivery could move the system in desired directions," she says.
Gillies' coauthors were Stephen M. Shortell, dean of the UC Berkeley School
of Public Health; Lawrence Casalino, assistant professor in the Medical School
at the University of Chicago; and James C. Robinson and Thomas Rundall, professors
in the UC Berkeley Public Health School's Department of Health Policy and Management.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation also supported the article.
Health Affairs, published by Project HOPE, is a bimonthly multidisciplinary
journal devoted to publishing the leading edge in health policy thought and
research.
The California HealthCare Foundation (CHCF) is an independent philanthropy committed to improving California's health care delivery and financing systems. For more information, visit www.chcf.org.
###
©2003 Project HOPEThe People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.