A Preemptive Leap to Patient-Centered Care

Andrew Smith
Published: Wednesday, Jan 18, 2017
Kashyap Patel, MD

Kashyap Patel, MD

Kashyap Patel, MD, saw the first signs that fee-for-service was doomed eight years ago. He was serving on South Carolina’s Medicaid board when he received a report about CMS’s plans to test new payment models.

A few years later, when the first of those pilot programs began to show strong improvement in savings and outcomes, Patel and his partners at Carolina Blood and Cancer Care (CBCC), which has an office in suburban Charlotte and another in rural South Carolina, decided to jump ahead and switch from fee-for-service to one of the new patient-centered care models.

Because they realized that success hinged upon getting payers to change payment protocols, they reached out to their payers before they changed anything and asked what they’d need to do to get compensated for the services they would add and how they could share in the overall cost savings.

The answer they got was that they’d have to make a full commitment to one of the new models. “The payers wanted us to get formal accreditation to demonstrate that we were properly executing one of the new patient-centered models in its entirety. That limited us to some degree, because there are still caps on how many practices can be accredited in the pilot programs of some very interesting models, such as the patient-centered oncology home,” said Patel.

After due diligence, CBCC decided to adopt the Patient-Centered Specialty Practice (PCSP) model from the National Committee for Quality Assurance. The model is designed to reduce waste and improve outcomes through superior coordination of care (Figure). “We worked very hard for 18 months, and we lost money during that time, but patients and the practice will both end up benefitting from the move,” Patel said (Table).

To begin the transformation to patient-centered care, physicians at CBCC began by asking patients to explain what they knew of their own diagnoses and treatment. The responses were hazy, so the practice experimented with different consultation templates until it cobbled together something that not only made patients more aware, but also enabled them to make better decisions about treatment.

The next step was to guarantee same-day urgent care appointments for patients who called during business hours and next-day appointments for patients who called at night. The practice looked for ways to tweak its scheduling protocol, but the only way to ensure immediate service without canceling less-urgent appointments was to stay open for an hour longer each day and to put staff on call during weekends.

As the practice expanded its ability to see patients quickly, it also began training its nurses to recognize when patients require rapid treatment. Like many other practices that have moved to patient-centered care, CBCC began using telephone triage flowcharts. The charts list every common patient concern and guide nurses through a series of questions that determine the appropriate response.

The combination of telephone triage and immediate appointments is a cornerstone of the patient-centered care model. It is designed to keep patients out of the emergency department (ED), both by preventing health problems from becoming emergencies and by reassuring patients when emergency care is not necessary. Pilot programs to date suggest that these strategies help reduce ED visits by 15% to 50%.

CBCC’s experience also suggests that the change has significantly reduced the tendency of its patients to visit the ED. However, payers have hesitated to share the savings so far, mostly because the practice’s patient volume is low enough that it’s hard to separate the effects of the care model from mere chance.

“We have about 100 patients undergoing chemotherapy at any given time, which is too small a number to demonstrate statistical significance over the time that has passed since we were accredited,” Patel said. “We’re doing a monitoring program through Medicare’s Oncology Care Model (OCM) that should allow us to estimate cost savings accurately by the middle of next year. Even without that, as soon as we got accreditation, our payers recognized a lot of additional codes, and that made this a profitable model for us. Once we share in cost savings, we will be in a very good position.”

View Conference Coverage
Online CME Activities
TitleExpiration DateCME Credits
Cancer Summaries and Commentaries™: Update from Atlanta: Advances in the Treatment of Chronic Lymphocytic LeukemiaFeb 28, 20190.5
Community Practice Connections™: 2nd Annual International Congress on Immunotherapies in Cancer™: Focus on Practice-Changing ApplicationFeb 28, 20192.0
Publication Bottom Border
Border Publication