1 / 20

Adoption Patterns of Clinical IT in Acute Care Hospitals: Potential Policy Levers

University of Southern California Center for Healthcare Financing, Policy and Management. Adoption Patterns of Clinical IT in Acute Care Hospitals: Potential Policy Levers. Katya Fonkych fonkych@usc.edu Academy Health Annual Research Meeting June, 2007. Measuring HIT Adoption.

astro
Download Presentation

Adoption Patterns of Clinical IT in Acute Care Hospitals: Potential Policy Levers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. University of Southern California Center for Healthcare Financing, Policy and Management Adoption Patterns of Clinical IT in Acute Care Hospitals:Potential Policy Levers Katya Fonkych fonkych@usc.edu Academy Health Annual Research Meeting June, 2007

  2. Measuring HIT Adoption

  3. Focus of the Study is on Key Clinical HIT Systems in Hospitals • Electronic Medical Records (EMR) • Backbone of the entire clinical HIT –> interactions with other software • Speeds up care processes, reduces duplications, improves coordination • Helps to produce clinical documentation, billing and quality data • Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) • Provides decision support at the time of ordering • Decreases medication errors • Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) • Digital images in radiology and cardiology departments • Eliminates film-related costs, reduces duplication of tests

  4. Data Sources for HIT Measurement • HIMSS (2004) - survey of software applications in: • 80% of nation’s acute community hospitals (all but small independent) • 20% of ambulatory care physicians (all part of hospital systems) • Sum of 2 measures of adoption: installed and signed a contract: • EMR in ambulatory clinics: 13% including contracted • Inpatient CPOE: 22% including contracted • Inpatient PACS: 42% including contracted • Not measured in the dataset: • Inpatient EMR system (instead there are some components) • Integration of HIT infrastructure and its utilization • Derived an overall measure of clinical HIT sophistication – HIT scale from 1 to 5 • Using data on adoption of over 50 different clinical IT applications

  5. Hospitals Classified by Clinical HIT Adoption Level (HIT scale) * Top 2 categories approximate adoption of a basic EMR system

  6. Hypotheses

  7. Reimbursement Policies Could Be Responsible for HIT Adoption Pattern • Per diem and FFS reimbursements do not provide much incentive to reduce LOS by improving efficiency • Capitation increases hospital’s financial benefit from HIT • E.g. closed systems like Kaiser & VA • Medicare DRG payments provide financial incentive to reduce LOS • But lower reimbursement rate may reduce the capital available for investment • PACS’ benefits are mostly in efficiency improvements per procedure that accrue to a provider regardless of reimbursement policy • Most CPOE benefits are in safety/quality of care, and in reduced utilization that may not benefit provider under some reimbursement policies

  8. Non-Reimbursement Factors May Influence HIT Adoption • Economies of scale mean higher ROI for larger hospitals, unless very complex • Rich hospitals are more able to adopt • Higher reimbursement level is a function of favorable patient mix • Market power • Donations • Network externalities: • HIT can improve care-coordination only if majority of providers in the community adopt • Conflicting views on the effect ofcompetition/market power: • Observed lower prices now are more important than unobserved quality in future: only market power allows for such “luxury” as investing in quality • Expected improved efficiency in the future induces hospitals to adopt HIT to beat their competitors • Locally concentrated multi-provider systems can reap the benefits of coordinated HIT investment => network externalities are internalized

  9. Hypothesized Relationships • Disadvantaged hospitals may need help with HIT: • Small hospitals, • Rural hospitals • Safety net (underpaid) hospitals (e.g. with high Medicaid patient mix) • Nonprofits may be quicker to adopt because they can afford to trade profit for quality • Capitation provides largest incentive to improve efficiency with HIT • HIT adoption is clustered within local areas and hospital systems due to network externalities • Address the debate on whether competition or market power is helpful for HIT adoption

  10. Methods of Empirical Analysis • Descriptive analysis to find disadvantaged hospitals and patients: • Correlations and tabs • Cross-sectional analysis of adoption prevalence: • OLS and Ordered Logit => HIT scale (1 to 5) • Logit => CPOE, PACS & Top 2 categories on HIT scale (~ EMR) • PACS • Inter-temporal incidence analysis for a limited sample and variable mix • 6 alternative national models • Different mix of variables • Different sample sizes • Look for robust results • Californian sample is small but has complete set of variables

  11. Independent Variables: • Hospital type, size and location: Non-profit, rural, large and small urban, log bedsize, academic, pediatric, contract-managed • System variables: small geographically concentrated system, small dispersed or large hospital system (versus single hospital) • % revenues and patients from: Managed care (HMO and PPO for sub-sample), Medicare, Medicaid • Mix: Outpatient/inpatient, long-term care share, DRG case-mix index • Financial status: Profit margin & unrestricted contributions (only for California sample) • Competition:HHI (good measure for California only) • Capitation: % revenues (good measure for California only) Sources: HIMSS, AHA Hospital survey, Medicare Impact files, OSHPD for California) – 2004 and 2003

  12. Empirical Findings

  13. Non Profits For Profits Mission versus Profit • Regression results: • for-profits do not differ significantly on average level of HIT sophistication • but have significantly lower adoption of CPOE, top two HIT categories (EMR proxy) &even PACS (despite ROI?) • Academic and pediatric hospitals have very high HIT adoption, especially CPOE

  14. Size Matters - Especially for PACS Small hospitals constitute almost ½ of the facilities, but only ¼ of patients Regression Results: • log size is significant and positive across all models for HIT scale & PACS • But insignificant for CPOE

  15. Lower Adoption in Hospitals with High Share of Medicare & Medicaid Patient-level: Differences (above median): Hospital-level: Differences (above median): • High Medicare share hospitals have 1.5 to 2 times lower HIT adoption • High Medicaid share hospitals are no different • Because many are academic Regression results: • Shares of Medicare & Medicaid patients (revenues) are negative & significant for HIT scale & CPOE • Less robust results for PACS

  16. Managed Care & Capitation Are Associated with Higher Adoption Managed care: • % revenues from managed care matter only for CPOE (+) • % revenues from HMO (includes capitation) significant for HIT scale and CPOE, but not PACS • PPO & POS do not matter Capitation: • E.g. Kaiser is getting towards 100% adoption • Even when Kaiser is excluded: • % revenues from capitation have positive & significant effect on HIT scale • Increase from 0% to 50% would move hospital 2 positions up • from 2 (slow adopter) to 4 (advanced adopter) • Positive effect on CPOE, but no effect on PACS

  17. Adoption Spreads within Hospital Systems & Market Power Matters • Adoption by other hospitals from the same system is the largest determinant of hospital’s HIT adoption: 75% correlation (HIT scale) • System-level adoption is higher than individual: % of systems that have at least one hospital with: • Top HIT (EMR) 65% • CPOE 41% • PACS 75% • Non-adopting systems are more effective as a policy target, than an individual non-adopting hospital Regression results: • HIT adoption in a hospital positively depends on local adoption rates • Small and geographically concentrated multi-hospital systems have higher adoption, than independent hospitals • Geographically dispersed and larger hospital systems have lower adoption • Market power is associated with high probability of adoption of EMR and PACS, but not necessarily CPOE

  18. Conclusions:Addressing Market Failures • Over 30% adopted => time to focus on ROI • Relate HIT adoption polices to quality measurement • Pay-for-Performance programs to reward quality improvement • Payers to coordinate & finance HIT investment • Can demand data onquality/efficiency from hospitals in return • Broader use of mechanisms that internalize most benefits of improved efficiency: • Capitation • DRG-like payments • Kaiser exemplifies this

  19. Strengthening CMS Involvement is Critical for Broader Adoption Reasons: • Medicare and Medicaid patients have less access to the benefits from clinical HIT (higher quality and safety) • Hospitals with high share of Medicare and Medicaid lack capital for HIT adoption • CMS eventually pays for everyone => • most interested in better health outcomes Policy Levers: • CMS can coordinate efforts to pay for HIT adoption/use • Capitation helps! • Current “Disproportionate share” payments for hospitals with high share of Medicare/Medicaid/indigent • make amount conditional on either HIT adoption/performance/publicizing data on quality • Or separate subsidy for high share hospitals

  20. Government Subsidies for HIT? • Subsidy for Smaller Hospitals: • Due to insufficient economies of scale, it is a costly to subsidize • ½ of all hospitals, and quarter of all patients in <100 bed hospital • Promote vendor development of a simpler and less expensive EMR system, i.e. modules on-line + interaction • Rural hospitals are no less disadvantaged than hospitals from large urban areas after size is taken into account • Grants & incentives for geographic areas and hospital systems with low overall adoption – spillovers of information, experience & coordination of investments can help to spread the diffusion further

More Related