Big Blue and UHG’s New Health Plan Model

Innovative Model -or- Just another Paradigm Shift

By Staff Reporters56372274

According to Reed Abelson, and David Kadlubowski of the electronic New York Times [NYT].com edition, on February 6, 2009, a new medical practice business plan and health care insurance reimbursement model could allow family physicians to practice medicine the way they used to practice. How so?

Exit UHG

The giant insurer UnitedHealth Group is testing a new model of health care that some policy experts say holds great promise, but has yet to prove itself. An earlier trial of the model by UnitedHealth, in Florida, never got off the ground because doctors refused to participate.

Enter IBM

This time however, the insurer is teaming up with seven doctors’ groups to make another attempt, in Arizona, at the prodding of one of the state’s big employers, and IBM. UnitedHealth will try giving doctors more authority and money than usual in return for closely monitoring their patients’ progress, even when patients go to specialists or require hospitalization.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/07/business/07medhome.html?_r=3&ref=health

Moving toward Value-Added Models and Episodes of Care

The insurer will also move away from paying doctors solely on the basis of how many services they provide via CPT® codes and will start rewarding them more for overall quality of patient care [value added and/or episodes of care model].

Link: https://healthcarefinancials.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/a-medical-payment-paradigm-shift

Assessment

One comment heard through the grapevine was “caveat and vendor emptor”; while another sarcastic observer wondered if this was the same “Useless Healthcare Group that we all despise?” And, who is to define the term “medical quality -or- value added care”?

Conclusion

And so, your thoughts and comments on this Medical Executive-Post are appreciated. Early-adopter insight and reports from Arizona participating practitioners is appreciated.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com  or Bio: www.stpub.com/pubs/authors/MARCINKO.htm

Our Other Print Books and Related Information Sources:

Practice Management: http://www.springerpub.com/prod.aspx?prod_id=23759

Physician Financial Planning: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/0763745790

Medical Risk Management: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763733421

Healthcare Organizations: www.HealthcareFinancials.com

Health Administration Terms: www.HealthDictionarySeries.com

Physician Advisors: www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.com

Subscribe Now: Did you like this Medical Executive-Post, or find it helpful, interesting and informative? Want to get the latest E-Ps delivered to your email box each morning? Just subscribe using the link below. You can unsubscribe at any time. Security is assured.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Internal Healthcare Marketing and Patient Satisfaction

Managing Expectations and Perceptions

By Dr. David Edward Marcinko; MBA, CMP™

By Dr. Gary L. Bode; MSA, CPA, CMP™ (Hon)gary-bode

Patient satisfaction occurs when patient perceptions exceed their expectations. They get an intangible “something extra” from the visit, above what they, or their TPA / health plan / Medicare / Medicaid plan, paid for. 

Managing Perceptions

We’ll concentrate on managing patient perceptions. Note that when patient expectations match their perceptions, mutual obligations are fulfilled, making both practitioner and patient “even”.

Clinical Outcomes

The clinical result, within a relevant range, is only part of the patient’s perceptions. Numerous unconscious impressions comprise the remainder.

We’ve all had patients love us despite a less than optimal result. And, we’ve all had patients angrily leave the practice over some non-clinical matter like a trivial billing dispute.

A patient’s perception of any health care service is colored by a vast array of prior experiences that set up current expectations. The patient is pleased to the extent that his current perceptions exceed his pre-existing expectations. This encompasses far more than the clinical result (within a relevant range), and includes such non-treatment issues as the demeanor of the staff, condition of the physical premises, psychological comfort during the visit, etc.

Patients Talk

Remember, all patients talk about you anyway.

A happy patient tells four others about what a nice doctor you are.

They are more likely to complete treatment and follow instructions, thus obtaining a better medical outcome, and, generating additional fees for the practice.

They pay quicker, cause less bad-debt and help create a pleasant environment for us to work in.

An unhappy patient vehemently tells nine others what a nasty rip off artist you are. Sad, but true!  They are not as likely to complete treatment, thus incurring a less than optimal result, and generate fewer fees. They pay slower, if at all, create a stressed environment and detrimentally affect the attitude of other patients in the office.

Soft Managerial Science

Try to eliminate problems that might cause negative perceptions (i.e., a filthy restroom) and implement controls that help assure positive perceptions.

Patient satisfaction is a soft managerial science. It is a numbers game. Most patients don’t pre-define what would be “acceptable” from this encounter, but have vaguely defined ranges of prior expectations anyway, gleaned from a lifetime of health care related experience. Any variance between these this “acceptable” range of expectations and each trivial encounter invokes some degree positive or negative feeling in the patient.

The total perception of the office experience is an aggregate of multiple trivial, often subliminal, observations. Patient satisfaction is an intangible and amorphous process complicated by: 

  • Inter patient variables: Significant differences between patients in their “expectations”. 
  • Intra patient variables: A single patient can perceive the same thing or situation differently at different times, depending on uncontrollable variables like mood, or, context of occurrence which may (sometimes and/or partially) be controllable by the practice.
  • Luck of the draw” in physical variables: Does Sally or Mary escort the patient to the exam room?  Was it the blue or green exam room: Did the last patient to use the rest room, five minutes ago, leave a disgusting mess?
  • Heterogeneous staff variables: Even with appropriate training, people are not machines and have their own quirks.

By proactively anticipating the entire visit, from the patient’s perspective, the medical practitioner can structure and arrange things so that most patients have, generally positive perceptions, most of the time. This can be done despite all the potential heterogeneity of the above factors. Patient satisfaction can be improved in any office, and can be done by anyone.

Assessment

Because patient satisfaction is a multi-faceted amorphous subject, there are multiple correct approaches to the subject and no “cook book” recipe on how to proceed. Try and get the big picture: 

  • Identify the worst areas and fix them.
  • Identify the best areas and reinforce them.
  • Proceed slowly.

It can be done one facet at a time. Adapt things to your own managerial style and personality. Be completely open to new suggestions, innovation and change.

Conclusion

How do you mange patient expectations, as an increasingly vital concept for CDHCPs, concierge medicine, retail and onsite medical practices and clinics? Please comment.

Related Information Sources:

Medical Practice Management: http://www.springerpub.com/prod.aspx?prod_id=23759

Physician Financial Planning: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/0763745790

Medical Risk Management: http://www.jbpub.com/catalog/9780763733421

Healthcare Organizations: www.HealthcareFinancials.com

Health Administration Terms: www.HealthDictionarySeries.com

Physician Advisors: www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.com

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact him at: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com  or Bio: http://www.stpub.com/pubs/authors/MARCINKO.htm

Subscribe Now: Did you like this Executive-Post, or find it helpful, interesting and informative? Want to get the latest E-Ps delivered to your email box each morning? Just subscribe using the link below. You can unsubscribe at any time. Security is assured.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos

Understanding Healthcare Competition

Funneling Porter’s Five Forces of Business

Staff Reporters

ho-journal12Michael Porter PhD, of Harvard Business School, is considered by many to be one of the world’s leading authorities on competitive strategy and international competitiveness.

In 1980, he published Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, in which he argued that all businesses must respond to five competitive forces. And now, these thoughts have been condensed for the healthcare industrial complex by Robert James Cimasi; MHA, CMP™ of Health Capital Consultants, LLC, in St. Louis, MO. They are cited below from the print journal-guide www.HealthcareFinancials.com

1. The Threat of New Market Entrants

This force may be defined as the risk of a similar company entering your local marketplace and winning business. There are many barriers to entry of new market entrants in healthcare including: the high cost of equipment, licensure, requirement for physicians and other highly trained technicians, development of physician referral networks and provider contracts, and other significant regulatory requirements.

Certificate of Need (CON) laws, which require governmental approval for new healthcare facilities, equipment, and services that have been in place since they were federally mandated in 1974. State CON laws create a regulatory barrier to entry. New medical provider entrants commonly faced substantial political opposition by established interests, which is manifested in the CON review process.

2. The Bargaining Power of Suppliers

A supplier can be defined as any business relationship or vendor you rely on to deliver your product, service or outcome. Healthcare equipment is a highly technical product produced by a limited number of manufacturers. This reduces the range of choices for providers and can increase costs.

3. Threats from Substitute Products or Services

Substitute products or services are those that are sufficiently equivalent in function or utility to offer consumers an alternate choice of product or service.  An illustration of this in healthcare would be diagnostic imaging, or PET scans, as a substitute for surgery, which is often a more costly and risky option for patients. The threat of less invasive or less expensive diagnostic tests other than diagnostic imaging is relatively small for the near term future.

4. The Bargaining Power of Buyers

This force is the degree of negotiating leverage of an industry’s buyers or customers. The buyers of healthcare services are ultimately the patients. However, the competitive force of buyers is manifested through healthcare insurers including the US and state governments through the Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and other programs; managed care payers (e.g., Blue Cross/Blue Shield affiliates); workers’ compensation insurers; and others. 

In addition to the government, many of these healthcare insurers are large, national companies, often publicly traded, commanding significant bargaining power over healthcare provider reimbursement.

5. Rivalry among Existing Firms

This is ongoing competition between existing firms without consideration of the other competitive forces which define industries. Healthcare providers face pressure from other existing providers to obtain favorable provider contracts; maintain the latest technology; increase efficiencies; and lower prices.

Link:

http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/02/making-price-competition-work-.html#comments

Assessment

And so, these forces should be considers by all new, mid-career, and mature independent medical practitioners. They should also be combined with an internal organizational SWOT analysis as well.

Conclusion

And so, your thoughts and comments on this Medical Executive-Post are appreciated.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com  or Bio: www.stpub.com/pubs/authors/MARCINKO.htm

Subscribe Now: Did you like this Medical Executive-Post, or find it helpful, interesting and informative? Want to get the latest E-Ps delivered to your email box each morning? Just subscribe using the link below. You can unsubscribe at any time. Security is assured.

Link: http://feeds.feedburner.com/HealthcareFinancialsthePostForcxos