ACO University
October 30th, 2009
We weighed in several weeks ago with our perspective on accountable care organizations. Since then we’ve seen some interesting new information come out on this emerging topic:
Archive
Posts Tagged ‘Group Health’
The cooperative and waste
July 31st, 2009
With Group Health Cooperative (GHC) getting a lot of attention as part of the conversation over co-ops as an alternative to the public plan, it’s interesting to see some more details about how GHC is handling waste, borrowing from an efficiency methodology called “Lean” that emerged out of the manufacturing industry.
Co-ops
July 7th, 2009
Senator Kent Conrad recently introduced what he characterized as a compromise on the contentious issue of having a public plan under healthcare reform: a healthcare co-op. This interview with Milliman principal Jim O’Connor analyzes the co-op concept in more detail.
Q: What is a co-op and how does it differ from a public option?
A: A cooperative health plan, or co-op, is member-controlled rather than government-controlled, and is typically not a for-profit corporation. A co-op must negotiate its payment or reimbursement rates for hospitals and physicians in the market, and cannot dictate them through legislation and regulation like the government could under a public plan. With a co-op, the roles of government regulator and health plan providing coverage are kept separate. The co-op concept is oriented around member decision-making and control, distinguishing it from for-profit insurance carriers. Because it would compete against for-profit and other heath carriers, however, a co-op must offer products that are attractive to the public in a marketplace with choices and must employ prudent rating and enrollment practices if it is to be successful. Determining any requirements or restrictions on those practices, as they apply to all health plans, is one of the many important questions under reform.
Do providers face an electronic health record learning curve? (Part I)
February 18th, 2009
Jim Schibanoff of the Milliman Care Guidelines, Scott Armstrong of Group Health, John Hammarlund of CMS, and Joe Scherger of Lumetra discuss physician adoption of electronic health records.
Transcript:
Q: Jim Schibanoff, we’ve talked a bit about the cost and investment requirements of adopting these systems. I’m curious also about the impact on providers of learning these new systems, learning how to use them effectively. Is this potentially a larger burden for healthcare providers?
Jim Schibanoff: Well, it’s great to hear Scott describe Group Health’s experience, the after, because most physicians are dealing with the before, which they see as great disruptions to their routines of care, more inefficiencies in their practices. They feel under financial pressure already and here it’s taking more time to use this electronic health record. So getting over that hump is a significant issue. And in systems like the VA, Kaiser, I believe Group Health, there is much more of a group culture. There’s a financial mechanism, a delivery mechanism. The physicians are more integrated into the system, as opposed to all the physicians in private practice who are in one or two physician offices and may go to one or two hospitals.
What are the benefits of electronic health records for patients and providers?
February 6th, 2009
Scott Armstrong, Group Health CEO, addresses this question.
Transcript:
Barry: What can electronic health records do for us? Scott Armstrong at Group Health, I understand that you’ve been using electronic records for some time. How’s it going?
Scott Armstrong: Well, thanks, Barry. We, as you said, we have been using electronic records in our care delivery system for more than four years now. This is thousands of terminals in our medical centers all across the state.
How will electronic health records help with the migration of information between providers?
January 30th, 2009
Scott Armstrong, Group Health CEO, addresses this question submitted by Drew Campbell via LinkedIn.
For submitting this question, Drew Campbell is a finalist in our question contest. Congratulations, Drew.
Transcript:
Barry: Scott, I have a question from a tech manager at Group Health. He submitted a question via LinkedIn. Maybe you could take this. “My question stems from changing doctors, which I’ve been forced to do due to changing companies, and thus health plans and physicians. It has been very difficult to get my records to the new doctor, which is my health information, not the doctor’s. How will making these records electronic facilitate migration of this information from one doctor to another? Are there concerns from the doctors that they will not be able to charge as much due to getting a more complete historical record than they’ve had in the past? Or will they not use the information and still re-evaluate any diagnosis? How much trust is there in the community of doctors between doctors?”
Scott Armstrong: Well, Barry, this question goes back to the discussion we were having earlier about the portability of this information. In our healthcare system, we have not solved for this. This is something that I am sure will be addressed in the years ahead, but it’s a big issue.
Fact or fiction: Electronic health records will reduce healthcare costs
December 18th, 2008
Of all the initiatives endorsed by outgoing Secretary of Health Mike Leavitt, few are likely to be met with as much agreement by his likely successor, Tom Daschle, as the need for wider adoption of electronic health records (EHR). While there is general agreement on the need for this technology investment—both presidential campaigns included EHR in their health platforms—the cost ramifications are still up for debate. Will electronic health records reduce costs? There are compelling reasons to answer both “yes” and “no.” Read more…
Recent Comments