Posts Tagged ‘chcfp’

21st Century Blood Pressure Diagnosis and Treatment: Workflow, in Cartoon, Bonus Workflow

March 17th, 2009 | Popularity: 29%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Employer Workflow

(click image to enlarge)

This is the final, “bonus,” workflow, created to answer the question – “Could an employer be the driver, rather than a physician, of changing the locus of control closer to the patient?”

I think the answer is yes, and given that employers bear most of the cost (along with patients) of chronic illness, there would be incentive for them to do so.

An employer is not a physician so she/he cannot render the diagnosis of high blood pressure, but they can facilitate identification and ongoing management that includes the physician (the physician is included, this is not about removing the physician from a patient’s care, just amplifying everyone’s contribution).

Enjoy, comments welcome as always.

21st Century Blood Pressure Diagnosis and Treatment: Workflow, in Cartoon, Part III

March 10th, 2009 | Popularity: 29%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Blood Pressure Treatment

(click on the image to enlarge)

This is part III in the series on managing blood pressure in the 21st Century. This panel focused on treatment. As with diagnosis, once a person is identified with high blood pressure, the actual “check” of whether the medicine is working should happen at home, not at the doctor’s office.

Again, there’s a CPT code out there that could be modified to support a physician office in monitoring the success of the medication and making the cognitive assessment as to whether it is working or not.

Given recent comments about safety-net populations, it’s useful to think “home monitoring” rather than “web + laptop” – this could happen via cell phone, via Twitter (my prototype is coming here soon, I promise), or any other accessible technology. The idea is simple – don’t require the patient to travel to the doctor’s office in person to be given a reading that is both expensive to obtain and challenged for accuracy, and empowerment to the patient….

Keep the comments coming!

Oh, and also, comments on this tool for communicating about workflow – should cartoons like this be used more often? Would you use them in any of your management/leadership work?

21st Century Blood Pressure Diagnosis and Treatment: Workflow, in Cartoon, Part II

March 6th, 2009 | Popularity: 36%
6 comments

Page_1

(click to enlarge)

This is the next panel in the series on 21st Century Blood Pressure management. This covers workflow, from the patient perspective, regarding diagnosis. Given that 20% of the time, a patient is inappropriately diagnosed as having high blood pressure in the office, and at least 10% of the time, inappropriately diagnosed as not having high blood pressure, the best way to confirm is via home measurement.

Because there is already a CPT code that covers an older type of blood pressure management outside the office, it’s possible (and reasonable) to reimburse a practitioner’s office for the time spent training a patient, and the cognitive work to make the determination. This is especially important considering that the determination means a lifelong diagnosis and treatment path.

As always comments welcomed. I especially welcome comments regarding how this might be applied in safety-net populations, based on the excellent discussion started on the last post.

21st Century Blood Pressure Diagnosis and Treatment: Workflow, in Cartoon

March 3rd, 2009 | Popularity: 32%
6 comments

Page_2

(click to enlarge)

I am going to share some work on this blog that I completed for the California Healthcare Foundation around new models of treatment for chronic illness, in this case high blood pressure, over the next few days.

As I have detailed here previously, there’s a great opportunity with this condition to change the locus of care closer to the patient, with greater accuracy and efficiency for patients, families, their employers, and communities.

Because this way of doing things (patient in control) seemed to be such a change from standard care, I decided to portray the workflow in cartoon format, to show what this might look like in practice.

This is the first set of panels, and shows the different ways that a patient’s suspected high blood pressure might come to the attention of themselves and their doctor. The series will hopefully show how a new model might change things around quite a bit….

Feel free to let me know what you think of the workflow, and of the approach to communicating what is really a big change in the way we manage a condition that is in the United States the #1 reason for a visit to the doctor.

Work- and dataflows for managing hypertension outside of the doctor’s office

November 29th, 2008 | Popularity: 19%
2 comments

I am still working with The California Healthcare Foundation to support consumer connectivity to their personal health information in California. As part of that work, I developed these work/dataflows for an organization that might transition the management of hypertension from an office-based approach (shown to be mostly ineffective) to a home-based approach, for which a significant body of evidence is accumulating for its effectiveness.

The problem this is working to solve is the one where a physician will say, “you should monitor your blood pressure at home,” (which many do today) but without any specifics. How often? What to do with the readings? How is the physician / care team involved in managing the data? These workflows seek to address that.

Reimbursement: There are already reimbursement considerations for home monitoring, approved by most health plans and Medicare. The problem with them is that they specify an outdated technology (so-called “Ambulatory monitoring,” much like a holter monitor) instead of modern, more cost-effective technology (digital home monitors). The good news is that the rationale for reimbursing has been worked out for this service, which could potentially benefit 1/3 of the United States population.

Questions? Comments? Feedback? Happy to hear them.

Revisiting Health Social Networking and Communities with http://www.inspire.com/brian

October 14th, 2008 | Popularity: 31%
1 comment

I got to revisit this topic with the person behind (or in front of the easy-to-remember) URL, Brian Loew, the CEO of Inspire.com.

I visited this the first time in May, 2008, when Brian and VP for Partnerships Amir Lewkowicz and I went for a short walk to talk about Inspire.

And I have to take a short break here to celebrate having a blog, that allows someone like me to remember when they last looked at something…

Back to the story, Brian offered me the opportunity to walk somewhere to meet him and go for a walking meeting while in Washington (well, I offered the walk to him). Again, twist my arm. And I’m glad I did. It has been a (short) while since I have been looking at the state of online communities for health. This could be because the last bit of excitement around these occurred around Health 2.0 this spring.

What hasn’t changed for me though, is the interest in supporting social networking in the empowerment/engagement of patients managing their health, so I was grateful for the update. Inspire.com has redesigned their site, and moved away from organization that is by health condition and more person-focused with the idea that someone will have multiple health interests depending on themselves and their families.

As I mentioned previously, Inspire has an interest in supporting clinical trials, and serves as an intermediary between consumer/patient organizations and pharmaceutical manufacturers looking to recruit interested patients who opt-in to trials in a privacy protected way.

What I am especially interested in the work I am doing the presence of a platform that could serve a diversity of health interests depending on the focus of, say, an employer group, a provider group, or a patient group. I have found a small hypertension community on Inspire, and joined it. It nicely allows me to indicate that I am there as a health professional/interested person rather than a patient with hypertension (at least not one, yet).

Near the end of our walk, Brian asked me an interesting question as we talked about how much patients think of their conditions throughout the day. He asked, “What would you think if you knew that I had a chronic condition?” My answer – that I would have a lot of respect for that person and pay close attention to their experience. I want to learn as much about people and the ways they encounter their health outside medical centers. I think other health care providers do, too, and I hope health communities can help teach as much as they learn.

Now Reading: The value of ambulatory care measures: a review of clinical and financial impact from an employer/payer perspective

October 1st, 2008 | Popularity: 24%
0 comments | Leave a reply

The subtitle of this article might be, “what performance measures should employers be tracking and paying for in ambulatory care”

The article was passed to me by Sophia Chang, MD, at the California Healthcare Foundation, who has been advising and supporting on our Connectivity for Californians work, and is a nice economic study of 62 performance measures used in specialty recertifcation program and pay-for-performance initiatives.

The measures will look familiar to anyone who works in quality improvement – everything from blood pressure management, to retinal eye screening, all the way through to some measures that have less data associated with them, such as “plan of care for hypertension.” What the authors did was grade the evidence of effectiveness, add cost and benefit data based on meta-analyses and derive a “savings per patient” for each measure.

There are a few critical assumptions made, including full adherence to therapy (they used the term “compliance” which is no longer recommended), and most importantly, no quantification of indirect costs. In other words, this is not a study of presenteeism, only direct medical costs.

What came out near the top of measures with the most impressive savings profile? Hypertension management. Here’s the detailed analysis:

AJMC_08jun_BranteFig2

This study has a specific informative value in my mind – which is to encourage employers’ engagement around the performance measures that will likely result in a return on investment for them. This is not a call to action for the health system to reorient its priorities for maintaining community health. I think the idea is that if an employer has an interest in promoting efficient use of the health care dollars they spend on behalf of employees, an analysis like this provides an idea of where to start.

Incidentally, when I did the same analysis using my own literature review, but without the complex analysis employed here, I came to the exact same conclusion around hypertension, which surprised me. I thought I would become an expert in remote monitoring of congestive heart failure or coronary artery disease. The data led me a different way.

See what you think.


ConsumerReports.org – Self-test kits: Ratings, How to choose : The Good and Not So Good

September 18th, 2008 | Popularity: 24%
0 comments | Leave a reply
  • ConsumerReports.org – Self-test kits: Ratings, How to choose – The Good and Not So Good about this reportGOOD: Consumer Reports publishes an article looking at the accuracy of blood pressure monitors, testing them against medical technicians using a mercury sphygmomanometer. Also, nice quote from an MD representing the American Heart Association about the empowering effect of self-monitoring. NOT SO GOOD: A vague recommendation that "patients home monitor" – they did not cite the AHA recommendations about frequency and duration (just twice a day, for 7 days at a time, don’t bring the monitor to work, don’t do it more than twice per day), which may lead to excess or inaccurate monitoring of the condition. I think this is reflective of the fact that the medical profession still has not bought into the value of self-monitoring, and the industry hasn’t bought into reimbursing for it. In the future, reimbursement would be in the form of clinician time to assess and manage conditions, rather than patient time to come into the office, where the readings will be less predictive of a patient’s condition anyway. It could be as simple as a slight change to a pre-existing CPT code for Ambulatory BP Monitoring, which almost no one uses, because 24-hour around the clock blood pressure monitoring is a procedure that has not been state of the art for a long time.

Health Record Bank – Grant Soliciation Information

August 30th, 2008 | Popularity: 20%
0 comments | Leave a reply
  • Health Record Bank – Grant Soliciation – Documents from the Washington State Health Care Authority's Grant Solicitation Process. This information would be useful to any agencies/philanthropies who would be looking to spur innovation among health care organizations in partnership with leading edge technology companies. I think they’ve done a nice job here.

Stepping Through a Patient’s Experience with Hypertension: Maintaining control (yearly recheck)

August 26th, 2008 | Popularity: 31%
0 comments | Leave a reply

This is fifth of a multi-part series on a patient’s experience managing a chronic condition, in this case hypertension. A diagnosis has been made, and our patient has hopefully followed up and has hopefully been maintained on appropriate therapy (there is a 1 in 3 chance that this is happening). We are now in the maintenance phase, where it is recommended that a patient be checked once per year..

Click on the image to see it larger size


recheckyearly-eytan-htn

Patient Story (Frydman)

For today’s post, I am going to paste a dialog I had with Gilles, which contains some follow up questions I had about a new process for managing blood pressure


Ted: Ok, very helpful -

Gilles: I’d say amazingly helpful! See remark at bottom.

Ted: So what if the doctor said, “Your blood pressure in the office is high today. I don’t know if you really have high blood pressure though. Can I show you how to check it at home and will you check it twice a day, in the morning and at night, and then we’ll take the average and decide if you have high blood pressure?”

Would this make you anxious?

Gilles: I don;t think you can answer this question in a unidimensional fashion. It would probably be anxiolytic if this is the first time I heard of HBP. If this is what I hear at a repeat visit I almost certainly will be ready to hear 10 times more details about HBP. But if during the first interaction the doc would say “I don’t know if you really have high blood pressure though. Just in case maybe you could read the following information about HBP” and then give me some URLs like the Medline Plus entry or this one: http://www.ash-us.org/about_hypertension/index.htm. I think it would definitely prepare for a much better interaction the next time I saw the doc. In fact in case of diagnosis of HBP or changes of BP, I would definitely advocate for this method followed by a second visit not too long after. That is basically what my PCP does with me, whenever there is a change in BP. Follow-up in 1 week/10 days.

Ted: [It turns out that checking throughout the day isn't really helpful, twice a day is best]

Gilles: That’s good to know. I didn’t know. This is not trivial info and is not easy to find if you are actively looking for it. But it should definitely be part of BP home monitoring guidelines. If you check http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=89718 you will notice no mention of what you just told me.

Ted: Let’s say your blood pressure was high this way. If the doctor said, “I would like to have you be in charge of checking your blood pressure, once every 3 months, for just one 7 day period, twice a day.”

Is this a routine you would be willing to follow?

I do not understand. You mean choose randomly a week during this 3 months window and get 14 basic readings as a result?

I would probably freak out, wanting to get feedback about the results ASAP.


Ted: What if the blood pressure cuff didn’t come from your doctor – what if your employer came to you and said, “For our employees who have high blood pressure, we are going to give them free cuffs to allow them to connect to their doctor.” Do you think this would or would not be a good way to change the ideas about measuring blood pressure, from a privacy perspective?

What if the messages about blood pressure being harmful came from your employer too – would this be welcomed, or would you think, “this is really something I should only get from my doctor?”

Gilles: I am certainly not an example for this. I would certainly distrust any involvement of my employer in health matters.

Ted: Last question – is this discovery, that BP was important to you, something you needed time to make, or do you think you would have made a change sooner if the initial conversation was different?

I think the conversation was not optimal at all. He is a real friend and a great doctor but evidently not the greatest communicator. But the conversation about learning about HBP and developing knowledge about it could very well be done by a trained nurse assistant. I strongly believe that instead of immediately treating it would have been much better to give me a solid dose of info RX. I am sure that I would have been early on a much more compliant patient.


Ted: I looked up what I know about time of day for blood pressure for you – I don’t have an accurate answer about apnea, but it appears that “morning” and “evening” have been selected because they correlate best with the possibility of stroke in the future, actually better than what your doctor would measure during the day.

I found this as well

“In persons successfully treated with CPAP, cessation of treatment causes blood pressure levels to increase, while restarting treatment causes blood pressure levels to fall again.”

from here:

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020115/229.html

I think your presence will be very helpful next week.

Gilles: I don’t think I would have found this great article. So here is a clear example of how a 2 minutes interaction between a somewhat informed patient and a physician can produce real results. My family has a real history of apnea and I am convinced that there is a real connection. The input from a physician becomes more and more important as one starts to ask precise questions about the potential reasons for the HBP. Yes the internet is great but we all know there is a limit to the benefits. At some point the filtering done by an expert becomes fundamental. Maybe the internet has just shifted the level at which the filtering does occur.

Clinical and Public Health pearls (Houston-Miller and Eytan)

  • Patients are at risk for non-persistence and poor control if they have less than 1 health care visit per year or do not have blood pressure in the last 6 months.
  • The overall US control rate is 36.8%; The Healthy People 2010 goal is 50%.
  • This translates into 10.7 million Californians, with 3.3 million with controlled hypertension, a gap of 7.4 million people. (source)

Comment

Where is the data? and What’s Missing? From the conversation above, it appears that there isn’t good understanding about how to monitor blood pressure from home, either on the part of patients, or on the part of the medical profession. Prior to reading the AHA position paper, I did not know that a protocol existed for doing this accurately, and I would gather that most physicians that recommend home monitoring do not provide the guidance that is recommended by the American Heart Association, or desired by our patient.

The impact of this is that a patient may not monitor at the right times or with the right technique, resulting in changes to therapy that are inaccurate. In terms of what’s missing, without clear guidance from a physician besides, “Come in to see me and we’ll check it in my office,” the guideline or protocol is implicitly stated that blood pressure measurement is a physician-centric activity, even if the physician recommends home monitoring.

I of course welcome counter arguments to this hypothesis!

To close things out on the current state of affairs, here’s a slide show of all the pieces put together. Go through them as a group and notice where the data is in each case. Is it localized to the patient? Is the patient supported in engaging in the management of their condition outside of the medical office visit? And what about the stakeholders that are represented but not participating – the connectivity providers, the social networks. Can or should they be involved?

Final question: Should this current state continue? (Loaded question. Hint: Look at the results we’re getting with this approach)

Now Reading: Pew Hispanic Center’s Hispanics and Health Care in the United States

August 17th, 2008 | Popularity: 40%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Tomorrow I will be in Oakland, California, along with health care leaders from the California Heatlhcare Foundation, California Safety Net Organizations, National Leaders in Patient Online Access in the Safety Net, and other national leaders in the social aspect of the Internet for Americans to talk about patient online access in the health safety net. It promises to be a very interesting day, which I’ll post about here.

The referenced report is one of two recent studies on the impact of the Internet among Latinos in the United States, and among all Californians (next post). They are both timely and useful as we answer the question that I was asked many times while visiting Safety Net medical centers: “Are our patients online?”

Pew Hispanic Center Report: Hispanics and Health Care in the United States: Access, Information and Knowledge

This report describes research performed jointly by the Pew Hispanic Center and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and consisted of a bilingual telephone survey of a nationally represented samle of 4,013 Hispanic adults conducted from July – September, 2007.

Highlights from my review

  • 27 % of Latinos report having no usual care provider, the rate is 42 % for those without insurance.According to the CDC, the proportion among Hispanics is more than double that of non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks.
  • Language differences are significant: 24 % are English dominant, 35 % are bilingual, 41 % are Spanish-dominant. This has significance with regard to the Internet….only 17% of Spanish-dominant Latinos receive health information from the Internet, compared to 53 % of their English-dominant peers. Interestingly, those of South American descent report a 51 % figure, higher than the figure for Puerto Rican (49%) and Mexico (31%).
  • Fleshing the language issue a bit more: 40 percent of those who get health information from the television get it from Spanish-language stations. For those getting information from radio, 47 % rely on Spanish language radio stations
  • Youth is a factor: 42 % of those aged 18-29 get health information from the Internet.
  • Overall, 35% of Hispanics get their health information from the Internet, far behind television (68%), radio (40%), or a doctor (72%)
  • Also of interest to me is in the demographics of this population, younger than their non-Hispanic cohorts, and with lower rates of chronic disease today (20 % with high blood pressure, compared to 22.4 % Non-Hispanic White, 31.6 % Non-Hispanic Black)
  • And….in terms of health seeking, 41% said the reason they did not have a regular health provider was because they are seldom sick. The impact? Only 62 % of these individuals have had their blood pressure checked in the last 2 years.

What impressed me overall was the impact of language – it reinforces what I saw from my observations way back in November 2007:

Key health care leaders are saying the time for PHRs are now. Based on the Boston visit, I am saying the time for multilingual and culturally relevant PHRs is now.

Obviously, I still believe that, and this is why I am especially excited that one of the organizations presenting to us today is Cambridge Health Alliance (see information about my visits with CHA here), who have launched their personal health record to a population that is predominanly portuguese-speaking.

Without parity in access to quality health information, the concern is that the dependence on the in-person interaction with the health provider is greater for Spanish-dominant individuals than for English-dominant, and therefore the risk is greater that needed preventive care will not happen if they do not have a usual health care provider. The data appear to bear this out. It is worth thinking – if you did not have your blood pressure checked in the last 2 years, how would you be able to reassure your family about your ability to provide for them with a healthy heart? Should these individuals wait for their organs to be damaged, or should they have an equal chance at providing for themselves and their families with healthy hearts, brains, and kidneys? Thank you to the Pew Hispanic Center and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for informing these questions.


Stepping Through a Patient’s Experience with Hypertension: Setting Rates and Negotiating Benefits

August 14th, 2008 | Popularity: 38%
0 comments | Leave a reply

This is fourth of a multi-part series on a patient’s experience managing a chronic condition, in this case hypertension. A diagnosis has been made, and our patient has hopefully followed up and has hopefully been maintained on appropriate therapy (there is a 1 in 3 chance that this is happening). Now it is time for our patient’s health care sponsor (such as his employer) to review the health care benefit.

Click on the image to see it larger size

setrates-htn-eytan

Patient Story (Frydman)

There is no patient story in this phase. At some point during the year, our patient’s employer will discuss provided health care coverage with a health plan or plan(s) who have set rates for coverage in the coming year. On the diagram, there’s no red dot indicating the presence of data because in many (most?) cases there is not a lot of data to guide this conversation. Many health plans have claims data, to show how many services and what types have been paid for throughout the year. They may not have data about the effectiveness of those services. For example, they may not know what percent of office visits for high blood pressure showed effective control. On the employers’ part, they may not have much data, either. If they are self-insured, they may have similar levels of claims data, but not measures of performance.

Even in health care organizations with advanced electronic medical records, the determination of “% patients with appropriate blood pressure control” may not be done in an automated fashion – a random selection of charts may be used to come up with this percentage. The electronic health record may facilitate the selection and review of charts, but nothing more. This is dependent on the health care environment being studied.

(If there are health plan and providers who would like to inform this part of the story, comments are open)

Clinical and Public Health pearls (Houston-Miller and Eytan)

  • High blood pressure is one of the most costly conditions for employers, more than cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and behavioral health conditions. This does not take into account that hypertension is responsible for a significant amount of morbidity among patients with heart disease and diabetes. This post shows the costs of each. The first graph shows the cost per person with the condition. When you average the costs across an entire employed population, the large numbers of patients with hypertension escalates the cost of this condition above all others. For those people interested in the cost profile of chronic conditions to employers, The Center for Studying Health System Change hosted a forum where expert Ron Goetzel, Ph.D. provided an updated look at the data. It is compelling.
  • Fewer than 10% of the cases of undetected or uncontrolled hypertension could be associated with lack of health care use. In other words, health plans and employers are already paying for this current state. It does not exist because patients are not getting enough health care.

Comment

Where is the data? and What’s Missing? In this case, there isn’t much data in the conversation. The conversation is around use of services, and in that setting, an assumption is typically made that more services is better. The result is that these stakeholders cannot engage at their potential to ensure that services are as effective as possible.

It is possible that a patient or provider may share data about the effectiveness of their blood pressure control services which are being purchased and paid for by employer and health plan respectively. Blood pressure control is already a HEDIS measure, and is a development Pay for Performance measure in California in 2009.

Next post, the yearly checkback, completing the cycle. Comments welcomed, of course

Stepping Through a Patient’s Experience with Hypertension: Adjusting Therapy

August 8th, 2008 | Popularity: 25%
0 comments | Leave a reply

This is third of a multi-part series on a patient’s experience managing a chronic condition, in this case hypertension. A diagnosis has been made, and our patient is following up to see if the therapy is working or if adjustments need to be made.

Click on the image to see it larger size

adjust-htn-eytan

Patient Story (Frydman)

I was supposed to go back but I didn’t do it. During a business trip I did try checking my BP with a home tool a few times and every time the BP was well within the norms, helping me be even more in denial. But then the next time I went to my friend’s office the data still showed clear HBP. Go figure!

(On the use of home monitors)It was first a few times on a specific day. Then a couple of times the next day. I then thought I would buy an OMRON blood pressure monitor. But I conveniently forgot about it when I returned to my home. No he (my doctor) didn’t say a thing about it. His behavior made me believe that he was not supportive of the home monitoring.

Clinical and Public Health pearls (Houston-Miller)

  • Many patients already self-monitor (55 %, do it, 64 % own a monitor) – many have not been trained how to monitor correctly, and may over monitor; the most accurate way to monitor is twice per day, once in the morning, once in the evening, for 7 days. Patients should not monitor during the day and should not monitor while at work. These measures have not been shown to correlate with future organ damage as well as the morning and evening measures.
  • The estimates of “masked hypertension,” or high blood pressure that appears normal in the doctor’s office are probably much greater than the 10 % reported; many patients restart medications in advance of coming to see their physicians (“similar to flossing your teeth a week before the dentist appointment”).

Comment

Where is the data? As in previous encounters, the data is again localized away from the patient and with the provider and ancillary services. Patients are asked to come back (physically) to the physician office to have their blood pressure rechecked and evaluated. The result is that the patient must ask for their blood pressure data from their provider, not the other way around.

What’s missing? If patients do not return in person (where their provider can bill for an office visit), there is no workflow in place in the majority of healthcare to assess blood pressure control, so these patients often go undertreated or untreated. Although 47 % of physicians recommend home-monitoring, many do not know recommendations for appropriate monitoring, including calibration of monitors, monitoring technique, and counseling on the value of home monitoring.

There is also a missed opportunity to leverage social networking, for connections to patients who may have recently been diagnoses and are integrating monitoring and treatment into their daily lives, similar to what occurs at the PatientsLIkeMe Community. Current data shows that there is a significant risk of being untreated or undertreated (4 – 11 times) among patients who have not seen a doctor in the past year. It’s as possible that these data are confounded by the fact that for most patients, management of the condition is stipulated by the care system to be an office-based activity.

Next post, a slight switching of gears to the annual health plan/employer interaction. Comments welcomed, of course

Stepping Through a Patient’s Experience with Hypertension: Making the Diagnosis

August 6th, 2008 | Popularity: 42%
16 comments

This is second of a multi-part series on a patient’s experience managing a chronic condition, in this case hypertension. We’re now past the discovery that something may be wrong, and at follow up with a personal physician. Recall that 1/3 of patients do not make it this far.

Click on the image to see it larger size

dx-htn-eytan

Patient Story (Frydman)

I was convinced that the HBP was just a temporary event due to stress and that by the time I had it checked by my friend the problem was gone. The measurements showed that I was completely mistaken. For the first time I was faced with the possibility that I was not really in control with a health problem. Even after a couple of measurements and a strong admonition from my friend to take every day the medicines he prescribed, I was still inclined to deny the reality of the problem. I remember telling myself: ” even if the problem is there to stay I can still afford to wait another 6 months before I become a compliant patient.” And I kept being this stupid and stubborn patient for another 1 1/2 year.

He said: “this is very dangerous. We do not want you to experience a catastrophic event. Therefore you must be treated”

For some reason, that is NOT the message that makes me understand that I really must be treated. There is clearly a missing piece in the way the doc is interacting with me, his friend. By spending maybe 3 to 5 minutes explaining the rational behind the proposed treatment he would have transformed the interaction from – he is forcing me to change – to – I understand why I must change

I was supposed to go back but I didn’t do it. During a business trip I did try checking my BP with a home tool a few times and every time the BP was well within the norms, helping me be even more in denial. But then the next time I went to my friend’s office the data still showed clear HBP. Go figure!

Clinical and Public Health pearls (Houston-Miller)

  • Hypertension is the #1 reason for physician office visits in the United States (9.7% of all visits)
  • 20 % of patients diagnosed with high blood pressure do not actually have it; it is falsely elevated in the doctor’s office (called “white coat hypertension”). This results in unnecessary (and costly) treatment.
  • 10 % of patients measured with normal blood pressure in the doctor’s office actually have high blood pressure (called “masked hypertension”)
  • In recognition of the above, many health plans and Medicare reimburse for “Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring” (CPT Code: 93784), which is a 24-hour, round-the-clock, blood pressure measurement. This type of measurement is typically a research tool and not used in clinical practice. There is no reimbursement for home monitoring currently.
  • The average of 2 home blood pressure readings is more predictive of mortality than screening blood pressures taken by nurses and technicians
  • 32 – 53 % of patients stop their medications by the end of the first year
  • A patient like this is considered “high risk” because he is male and likely to have another condition (such as high cholesterol)

Comment

Where is the data? The diagram and patient’s experience illustrate the fact that the information related to the diagnosis and treatment is typically localized to the provider, and not the patient. When a diagnosis is made, lab studies and medicines are ordered, and the patient’s health plan will receive a claim for the office visit. The patient is typically instructed to come back to the doctor’s office for reassessment, rather than doing self-assessments, and the patient is usually not given a treatment plan, or access to blood pressure and other data generated in the visit.

What’s missing? As in the previous vignette, the patient is without information regarding the significance of the condition, or resources to learn more / compare with other patients’ experiences. In my own searching, I have found limited social networking resources online for blood pressure management, relative to other conditions such as diabetes. This is beginning to change, though, as more organizations, such as the American Heart Association, become active in promoting self-management and personal health records.

Tomorrow, ongoing management and maintenance of blood pressure control. Comments welcomed, of course.


Stepping Through a Patient’s Experience with Hypertension: Initial Discovery

August 5th, 2008 | Popularity: 36%
2 comments

This is first of a multi-part series on a patient’s experience managing a chronic condition, in this case hypertension.

Click on the image to see it larger size

initial-htn-eytan

We’ll start with the patient story, told by Gilles Frydman, followed by clinical and public health commentary by Nancy Houston-Miller, RN, BSN, FSHA. At the bottom of this post, I have added information about our patient and clinical expert.

Patient story (Frydman)

I have always had at least a yearly checkup. 3 years ago, while spending a few weeks in the Texas portion of the Chihuaha desert, I noticed that I experienced growing moments of dizziness whenever I would stand up, tie my shoes or leave my bed. During my stay in Texas, a family member had a bicycle accident and ended up in the hospital, located 30 miles away because everybody feared a serious concussion or even worse. While waiting for results from the ER I asked to have my blood pressure checked. A nurse did check it and told me the equipment was probably deffective or something else went wrong and wanted to check it again. The second check showed an extremely HBP (200/130). I was instantly seen by a cardiologist and prescribed a drug to lower the HBP, with a warning that I was at high risk to suffer a catastrophic event if I didn’t bring the HBP under control. And then I was sent home, without any additional Information RX. (A medication was prescribed and Frydman was asked to begin taking it)

Clinical and Public Health pearls (Houston-Miller)

  • Blood pressure of 200/130 typically requires immediate assessment and treatment, with expedient (within 1 week) follow-up
  • 29 % of the U.S. population has hypertension, 76 % are aware of it
  • 1/3 of those found to have high blood blood pressure do not follow up
  • 10.6 % of Californians are diagnosed with high blood pressure
  • 12.4 % of an employee (working) population are typically diagnosed with high blood pressure

Comment

Although our patient was uncertain about whether a medical record was created in the Emergency Room, it is possible and likely that one was created, which contained the blood pressure readings and medication administration or prescription records. Because the patient was not given this information on discharge, the data involved in this episode remained with the provider who originally assessed the blood pressure. Patients may learn that they have high blood pressure in a variety of environments – a health fair, a doctor’s office, an employer-based screening program. In these cases, patients are typically asked to visit with their health care provider for diagnosis and treatment. Recommendations for interval monitoring are typically not made in these cases (today).

» Read more: Stepping Through a Patient’s Experience with Hypertension: Initial Discovery

Stepping Through a Patient’s Experience with Hypertension: Should It Continue This Way? (Intro)

August 4th, 2008 | Popularity: 29%
0 comments | Leave a reply

We recently facilitated an exercise involving a patient, a clinical expert, and interested stakeholders at the California Healthcare Foundation, to look at the way a chronic condition (in this case, high blood pressure) is managed.

Over the next several days on this blog, I will step through our patient’s real story, along with clinical and public health commentary.

I created this cartoon from the exercise, suitable for downloading and discussion (
PDF version can be downloaded using this link
or click on the image directly to see a larger version):


lifecycle-htn-eytan

The cartoon is based on this output of our exercise which began with our patient’s story, clinical commentary, and the creative use of paper:

Patient Experience walkthrough - 1

Feel free to answer the question in the title of the post at any point.

I will explain the meaning of the symbols and the meaning as we go along.

By the way, the exercise resulted in this future state, which I’ll go over on the last day:


Patient Experience walkthrough - 2

Tomorrow: Step 1 – Initial Discovery

Now Reading: An Article on Weight Loss and one on Employers as Health Coaches

July 31st, 2008 | Popularity: 24%
3 comments
Weight Loss with a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean,

Shai, Iris, Dan Schwarzfuchs, Yaakov Henkin, Danit R. Shahar, Shula Witkow, Ilana Greenberg, et al. “Weight Loss with a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet.N Engl J Med 359, no. 3 (July 17, 2008): 229-241.

Employer as Health Coach

The Employer as Health Coach,” October 11, 2007.

I initially reviewed this article for my interest in the question, “What kind of diet is best for losing weight?” (with good news for low carbohydrate and Mediterranean dieters), but I quickly became fascinated with the way this study was performed – on the worksite, at the Nuclear Research Center Negev, in Dimona Israel.

To quote:

As Okie recently suggested, using the employer as a health coach could be a cost-effective way to improve health. The model of intervention with the use of dietary group sessions, spousal support, food labels, and monthly weighing in the workplace within the framework of a health promotion campaign might yield weight reduction and long-term health benefits.

I think this is as significant as the weight loss intervention itself – that the study authors worked to modify the work environment to support the study aims. In the supplemental materials (linked here), you can see an example of the signage placed in the cafeteria to alert employees to the different food choices available, depending on which arm of the study they were in.

I think this fact of the study design is under-emphasized and marks an important trend in supporting interventions like this moving forward. With thanks to the Research Center in Dimona for teaching the world about more than nuclear science.

Now Reading: A Few Peer-Reviewed Articles About Patient Willingness to Self-Monitor

July 20th, 2008 | Popularity: 52%
1 comment
Patients' experiences and opinions of home blood pressure measurement

Rickerby, J, and J Woodward. “Patients’ experiences and opinions of home blood pressure measurement.” J Hum Hypertens 17, no. 7 (0): 495-503.

Systematic Review of Home Telemonitoring for Chronic Diseases: The Evidence Base

Pare, Guy, Mirou Jaana, and Claude Sicotte. “Systematic Review of Home Telemonitoring for Chronic Diseases: The Evidence Base.” J Am Med Inform Assoc 14, no. 3 (May 1, 2007): 269-277

Comparison of acceptability of and preferences for different methods of measuring blood pressure in primary care

Little, Paul, Jane Barnett, Lucy Barnsley, Jean Marjoram, Alex Fitzgerald-Barron, and David Mant. “Comparison of acceptability of and preferences for different methods of measuring blood pressure in primary care.” BMJ 325, no. 7358 (August 3, 2002): 258-259.

Not pictured: Port, Kristjan, Kairit Palm, and Margus Viigimaa. “Daily usage and efficiency of remote home monitoring in hypertensive patients over a one-year period.” J Telemed Telecare 11, no. suppl_1 (July 1, 2005): 34-36.

There’s a potentially serious gap in the Connectivity for Californians initiative that we are addressing. Here’s a quote that illustrates it:

It is very clear from the interview data that patients have their own ideas, and spend a lot more time thinking about their BP than is apparent in the average 10-min consultation in general practice.

The gap is patient involvement in the design and planning of this initiative, or any healthcare initiative for that matter. Patients have many more ideas about what the problems are to be solved than can be gleaned even from articles like this – the articles simply show that the ideas are out there. Fortunately, we are committing ourselves to have a patient representative involved from the beginning, and that is coming together before any work is started.

The quote above is from the first paper by Rickerby, et. al (click on the images to the right to review any of the papers yourself), which described a qualitative study to look at a small number of patients’ attitudes toward monitoring their own blood pressure, in a practice that routinely recommends this.

The question (#1)

The reason I have reviewed these particular papers is because of the commonly posed question to me over the past several months, in the form of, “Ted, will/are patients really motivated to check their own blood pressure?” with the implication that they are not and they won’t. It’s a fair question that deserves an informed response. Several of the readers on this blog have given me some information from their own lives. These papers add to that knowledge.

The answer (#1)

They are and they will.

The question (#2)

This came up during reading of the papers. Does patient engagement come from having knowledge? Or does knowledge come from being engaged? This came up because patients in the first study who did not have knowledge about why they should monitor their blood pressure or how to do it seemed less engaged.

The answer (#2)

Unclear, with the implication being about whether to work to engage patients with more knowledge or use knowledge as a means test for engagement. I think regardless of the answer, there’s no reason not to provide information to patients. That answer is good enough in this case.

Read on for more conclusions….

» Read more: Now Reading: A Few Peer-Reviewed Articles About Patient Willingness to Self-Monitor

AHIP Board of Directors Statement on Patient Centered Medical Home

July 18th, 2008 | Popularity: 14%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Getting What We Pay For: Innovations Lacking in Provider Payment Reform for Chronic Disease Care

July 18th, 2008 | Popularity: 14%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Many Women Struggle With Uncontrolled Blood Pressure – Yahoo! News

July 18th, 2008 | Popularity: 18%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Latest Project Plan: Connectivity for California Consumers (c-cubed)

June 30th, 2008 | Popularity: 22%
2 comments

Issue & Focus

  1. The California Healthcare Foundation is dedicated to the improvement of the lives of Californians managing chronic illnesses.
  2. There are many community stakeholders involved in supporting this goal; their work could be improved by making connections to each other that are meaningful for patients.
  3. This is part of a broader strategic plan to support the objective of involving patients and families in all aspects of their care. This is the identified gap to be closed through this work.
  4. California Healthcare Foundation is seen as catalyst and partner for patient engagement in California. It’s scope is 36,000,000 Californians

Current Condition

  1. All chronic conditions can benefit from better patient engagement
  2. Hypertension is a good example of one – recently published studies demonstrate both the gap and the opportunity with non-office-based approaches

Problem Analysis

  1. Divided into three areas : Clinical Gap, Technology Gap, Partnership Gap, that California Healthcare Foundation can connect partners to assist with
  2. Clinical Gap: Patient role in recognizing blood pressure out of control; currently this rests with the physician, in an office-based setting
  3. Technological Gap: Chronic disease assessment is typically performed in the office or medical setting
  4. Partnership Gap: Stakeholders (patients, payers, providers, connectivity providers) are not connected to patients and one another at the same time
  5. The societal costs of inadequate management are spread diffusely; few organizations are able to to see the total harm from this perspective

Target Condition

This pilot seeks to create a functioning ecosystem that supports chronic disease management across the lifecycle, with the best candidate being hypertension

Action Plan

We began by interviewing example employers, health care providers, and technology providers to understand which approaches and components appeared most promising. At this time, it seems most reasonable to approach this first from the employer perspective.

Next step will be to convene a group of potential partners in July, 2008, at California Healthcare Foundation, to discuss how pieces would fit together.

A presentation would be made to the CHCF Board in the fall, with funding and activity to begin in 2009.

Cost / Cost-Benefit / Waste Recognition

There are recognized wastes, which include unnecessary visits for blood pressure monitoring, inadequate medication therapy, and inadequate use of the health system, for patients who have not been seen in the past 12 months.

There are costs including, technology costs (although the goal is not to build anything new), and realignment of incentives to support non-visit-based care.

Followup / Unresolved Issues

Points of concern and planned countermeasures

  1. What is the metric for patient access? (Pacific Business Group on Health is working on an employee engagement survey; metrics for patient access to their health data may need to be developed)
  2. How can this complement the launch of both a P4P measure for blood pressure management, and a HEDIS “Relative Resource Use for Uncomplicated Hypertension” measure for 2008?
  3. Data for presenteeism and productivity loss does not seem intuitive (I have reviewed this in depth and we can bring in clinical champions to verify)
  4. Partners and aligned interests (will do due diligence to support cooperative business models of partners)
  5. How to engage patients in things like biometric monitoring and blood pressure control (there is data supporting patient interest in this monitoring, but most importantly will go to the factory floor, and will bring an employee/patient advisor on to the team)

That’s the latest script that goes with the story, more or less. Comment away, and keep in mind that each comment will change the A3 a little every time.

Health care found to be better with online help: Seattle PI

June 30th, 2008 | Popularity: 28%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Health care found to be better with online help – Nice localization of the landmark Group Health study on managing hypertension using Web services, from the Seattle PI.

So…if the study and the community agree that this kind of care is better, and there is data to show that diagnosing “white coat” hypertension is cost-effective, and payers already have reimbursement policies for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (and older type of technology to figure this out), why not create more modern policies for home blood pressure monitoring?

Cartoon: How might a patient engage in the process of home blood pressure monitoring?

June 28th, 2008 | Popularity: 39%
0 comments | Leave a reply

If we want to change the way blood pressure is managed away from the doctor’s office and toward the place where it is managed best, we have to envision how that would happen. Here are a few scenarios. What do you think? Are these realistic?


Cartoon: Engaging in Home Monitoring

Now Reading: “Effectiveness of Home Blood Pressure Monitoring, Web Communication, and Pharmacist Care on Hypertension Control: A Randomized Controlled Trial

June 24th, 2008 | Popularity: 24%
0 comments | Leave a reply
CiDV0A

Green, Beverly B., Andrea J. Cook, James D. Ralston, Paul A. Fishman, Sheryl L. Catz, James Carlson, et al. “Effectiveness of Home Blood Pressure Monitoring, Web Communication, and Pharmacist Care on Hypertension Control: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” JAMA 299, no. 24 (June 25, 2008): 2857-2867.

Our findings demonstrate the effectiveness of using home blood pressure monitoring combined with pharmacy care over the Web to improve BP control for patients with essential hypertension

This is a significant study in the world of health care and e-health – the first randomized controlled trial to test the use of care management over the Web. It was performed at Group Health Cooperative, using the Web services that I helped implement as part of our electronic health record system.

Looking at the data, it appears that patients with uncontrolled hypertension without access to supportive pharmacists over the Web were much less likely to have their blood pressure controlled compared to patients that did. In other words, patients were not able to achieve as sufficient control through doctor visits alone.

This study further supports the idea that we have a great opportunity to support non-visit-based, participatory health care as a modality to manage chronic illness.

For a health system already paying for physician visits that have less than a 1 out of 2 chance at recording a controlled blood pressure in them, maybe there’s an opportunity to change the way high blood pressure is managed, for example, in California.


“If people are given the tools and techniques (to manage blood pressure), they can get better control,” – A Conversation With Nancy Houston-Miller, RN, BSN, FAHA

June 24th, 2008 | Popularity: 19%
0 comments | Leave a reply

I was able to speak with Nancy Houston-Miller, RN, BSN, FAHA, about the future of blood pressure management today. She’s a national expert in the field, and has a research career spanning 30 years which has supported innovative ways to improve health. In the 1970’s her team established that patients could exercise to rehabilitate their hearts at home, rather than spending 6 weeks in the hospital.

I wanted to talk to Nancy about blood pressure, and specifically home monitoring, as a co-author and lead of the recent Call to Action by the American Heart Association, the American Society of Hypertension, and the Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association.

Her research has shown that the gold standard for blood pressure control should be the home, rather than office measurement, which is still where most blood pressure is managed (and with less then favorable results for most patients – about a third have adequate control, despite being well insured and with access to care). Nancy told me that control can be achieved using non-office based approaches, and her research has shown this. This is refreshing to hear especially in light of data indicating that it may becoming more difficult to control blood pressure. Could this be because of the “how” (office-visit-based) it’s being treated today?

What was the purpose of this conversation and where do we go from here? We think there is a good case for planting the seed for patient and family involvement in care for all chronic illnesses, using patient-centered technology, by starting here. As Nancy told me on the phone:

72 million Americans have high blood pressure, only a third have it under control, and they are at huge risk for kidney disease, heart disease, and stroke

High blood pressure may account for 27% of total CVD events in women, and 37% in men, 14% of heart attacks in men, 30% of heart attacks in women. We know the science of managing blood pressure, and the ways it can be managed best (by patients), why not empower them to do it, and empower them to help us design the ways to do it (see next post)

Stay tuned….

High Blood Pressure as a Foundation for Connectivity: Telling The Story Via Cartoon

June 23rd, 2008 | Popularity: 78%
6 comments

I am experimenting with storyboarding using cartoons to help people visualize how to connect Californians to better management of a chronic condition. The goal is for potential partners and patients to see the value of a program like this, and add their input based on technical and clinical knowledge. Full storyline coming…working on getting patient involvement. On that note, is there anyone out there managing high blood pressure that would like to be a patient advisor?


hypertension cartoon

Coding & Documentation – January 2003 — Family Practice Management

June 23rd, 2008 | Popularity: 11%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Medicare Coverage of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

June 23rd, 2008 | Popularity: 21%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Intel Launches Web Site To Connect Caregivers – iHealthBeat

June 20th, 2008 | Popularity: 8%
1 comment

Involving Patients: Her (Diana Forsythe’s) paper should be inscribed on cubicle walls…

June 19th, 2008 | Popularity: 20%
12 comments

…of all those who aspire to develop online systems for patients. – Chapter 2 – e-Patients

It’s not a norm (yet) in medicine to involve patients in the process of care or in improvement of the system. What that means for me and others like me is that we’re going to get lots of “why?” questions about this in everything we do. Most (let’s say, all) of them are going to be intelligent, rational ones, from people who want to improve our health system.

Some of the questions are coming from myself to myself, most recently in the context of the project I am developing with California Healthcare Foundation. I think it’s really important to involve a person (patient, employee, participant) in designing the work, and that I should observe them managing their condition in their native environment (in this case high blood pressure). I recently had to remind myself, “I just gave a presentation on 5 1/2 reasons why patients and families should be involved in their care. I know why.”

Well-timed support from colleagues helps too – enter Susannah Fox, one of my favorite patient empowerment observers and informers, who referred me to this article by Diana Forsythe about a migraine headache patient education software system that was designed by physicians, programmers, and ethnographers, to empower patients with headaches.

If you don’t have access to the article through your institution or purchase it from the link above, there’s a brief summary of it in Chapter 2 of e-patients. In her journey, Ms. Forsythe discovers that a planned intervention to empower patients has the strong potential to disempower them, by connecting patients to information “needs” developed by physicians and programmers only, and not needs stated by others involved in care, including the patients themselves, nurses, and other caregivers.

I added this to what I was asked/told at the Health 2.0 conference in San Diego in March : “Why are current applications only about one to one relationships – patient to doctor?” and realize that’s the “why?” that’s really important. Since it’s a reality that people are as likely to trust someone “just like me” as much (if not more than) their doctor, both have to be brought into the picture. Which means both need to be involved in designing the system.

On the topic of computer programmers, it might be tempting to interpret the story in the article as evidence that software engineers cannot express their coding (or other) creativity and need to be handed specific things to code. What I’ve seen in my own work is that the opposite is more effective – bringing more of the specialized team members into the patient experience is better rather than more shielding from it.

There’s an important clue about this – it’s noticed that several project team members have significant experience with migraines as patients but do not bring these experiences into their professional roles on the project.

Everyone has something meaningful to contribute if they understand (and observe) the customer’s experience, and it’s the role of project leaders to create an environment where this happens.

How Does Chronic Illness Impact You In the Workplace?

June 13th, 2008 | Popularity: 15%
3 comments

I am here at the WIxRed Conference in Washington, DC, the annual conference of the Center for Information Therapy and in my comments, decided to include some information about the work I am doing with California Healthcare Foundation to connect Californians to good chronic illness management. I mentioned that this is the first time I have posted a project “in evolution” for the world to assess and give feedback. Crowdsourcing my job – let’s see how it goes, and thanks to CHCF for allowing me to give this a try.

A few pics, first (click on any to see larger size)

One of the important aspects of this work is the employee / patient perspective. We are looking to include a patient / employee advisor in planning the project, and a conversation I had just now confirms how valuable this could be.

I was told that in many workplaces, there are rules about bathroom breaks, ie when they can be taken. Because of this, some patients will skip taking blood pressure medication that may require more trips to the bathroom.

It was so interesting for me to hear about this because at the very same time, I’m reading “Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America” (Barbara Ehrenreich) which brings home the reality of modern workplaces for those making minimum wage (or less). Look for that review in the next few days.

I’d like readers to think about this example, and give me more ideas if you would – what are some ways that a chronic illness impacts your work life, even for illnesses that some people don’t think about? What are the a ha’s that maybe the medical system isn’t aware of? Thanks for your input. The example above is a reminder of the value of patients as partners in planning and implementation.

Is worker wellness a privacy issue?

June 10th, 2008 | Popularity: 18%
0 comments | Leave a reply
  • Is worker wellness a privacy issue? – Nice article from Jane Sarasohn-Kahn. A reminder that people want to how the data is used to help them. Same thing with patient access – demonstrate how it helps care, and the balance of privacy and utility becomes more even.

Milliman Medical Index – Milliman’s fourth annual study of average medical spending for a typical American family of four

June 6th, 2008 | Popularity: 22%
0 comments | Leave a reply
  • Milliman Medical Index – Average family of four at $15,609 medical costs / year. Employee share is up 10 %, the highest cost share is for pharmaceuticals, at 27 %. This ties to the Connectivity for Californians work, because it’s a reminder I need to look up total patient costs for hypertension management.

Project Plan: Connectivity for Californians

June 4th, 2008 | Popularity: 27%
7 comments

A3 060308

A3 Project plan, PDF Format

Note: There is a more recent plan published. Click on this link to be taken to it.

As I have discussed previously, I am trying something I have never done before, floating a project plan in development (ie before it signed off) for community comment.

The plan is still one page, with multiple improvements along the way. My last post on this topic talks about how and A3 works if you want to brush up there.

The specific improvements

  1. Very concise summary at the very top
  2. Tightening of the Current Condition Section
  3. Rewrite of the problem analysis to incorporate some of the latest data about managing blood pressure. Restating the [a] Foundation’s role in assessing benefits and harms of chronic illness in the aggregate and being a good partner and catalyst.
  4. Defining of the target condition for multiple audiences – a “general” target, which is overall infrastructure and connectivity for all chronic illnesses, a “specific” one for the Foundation, which is a target condition, hypertension, to stay focused on one thing.
  5. Addition of another milestone, a partner summit, this summer, to go over workflows and technology feasibility
  6. Rapid management of follow-up / countermeasures, including defending the “presenteeism” hypothesis (which I believe I can), and the “patient engagement” challenge (see this post for discussion on this).
  7. Cleanup of formatting using a new Apple Pages template – I am finally wrangling this great word processor into shape. If anyone would like my A3 template using Apple Pages, let me know and I’ll send it to you.

As usual comments welcome. Each one makes the story tighter and repeatable across stakeholders. Thanks for indulging in the experiment. More participation is better. And if you know of partners interested in participating, comment away as well.

Aetna Clinical Policy: Automated Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring

June 4th, 2008 | Popularity: 23%
0 comments | Leave a reply
  • Aetna Clinical Policy: Automated Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring – Rules for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, which is different from "home" blood pressure monitoring. Useful to know when thinking of connectivity in the California Healthcare Foundation project work. Because health plans and CMS already pay for this type of monitoring, there’s precedent for looking at home blood pressure monitoring. This type of monitoring (ambulatory) pays for itself because it can establish the presence of “white coat” hypertension, which is high blood pressure that only occurs in the doctor’s office. In that situation, it’s better for the patient not to undergo treatment, which saves them (and the system) time and money in unnecessary health care.

Consumer acceptance of self-monitoring devices

June 3rd, 2008 | Popularity: 26%
5 comments

More information about connecting California’s Consumers, tip from Larry Leisure, President of iMetrikus:

This is from the 2008 Deloitte Survey of Health Care Consumers, page 14 of the report:

  • 13 indicate prior use of one or more medical devices for monitoring a condition for themselves or a family member.
  • 7% of consumers report expressing a preference to their physician about a specific branded device.
  • 88% of consumers say they would be interested in using a self-monitoring device at home if they were to develop a health condition that required regular monitoring. 33 % said they were extremely interested.
  • Reasons for consumers’ interest include the elimination of trips to the doctor’s office (75%), the convenience of reporting results to the doctor electronically (69%) and the ability of the device to help in adjusting their medications (67%)

Interesting to see that consumers recognize the costs that come with (potentially) unnecessary visits to the office to monitor chronic conditions. I am next going to look at consumer costs for managing blood pressure. If anyone has articles handy, please post them below….

Now Reading: Call to Action on Use and Reimbursement for Home Blood Pressure Monitoring

May 27th, 2008 | Popularity: 27%
1 comment
Hypertensionaha.107.189010V1

Pickering, Thomas G., Nancy Houston Miller, Gbenga Ogedegbe, Lawrence R. Krakoff, Nancy T. Artinian, and David Goff. “Call to Action on Use and Reimbursement for Home Blood Pressure Monitoring. A Joint Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association, American Society of Hypertension, and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association.Hypertension (May 22, 2008).

As we have been planning a multi-stakeholder pilot to demonstrate improved management of chronic conditions by Californians, this paper was just published, which adds compelling information to the discussion. Talk about interesting timing.

The paper is a compendium of research and information to date on the value of home blood pressure monitoring, which has not been previously integrated into the clinical practice of improving blood pressure control. The impact of poor control is reiterated: high blood pressure as accountable for 27% of total CVD events in women and 37% in men.

Useful Facts

  • 35% of hypertensive patients check their BP once a week, 64% of patients own a monitor.
  • Arm monitors appear to still be the best choice through validation studies.
  • There is often “poor” agreement between patient reported readings and readings stored in the monitors’ memory, with one study showing up to a 20% error rate.
  • Patients are at risk for over-diagnosis (“white coat hypertension”) up to 20% of the time, and under-diagnosis (“masked hypertension”) up to 10 % of the time, resulting in over/unnecessary treatment, or undertreatment.
  • Blood pressures measured outside of the doctor’s office in many cases is superior in predicting which patients are at risk for organ damage.
  • It appears that more study is needed regarding the effectiveness of home blood pressure monitoring to guide treatment and ultimately support better control. As far as I can tell, none of the studies mentioned here assess the impact of coupling improved patient-health system communication (eg secure messaging with physicians or health system) with home blood pressure monitoring.*
  • Medicare currently reimburses ambulatory (24 hour) blood pressure monitoring for patients with suspected white coat hypertension, and this monitoring has been shown to be cost-effective in reducing unnecessary treatment.
  • Of extreme interest in our planning, this paper refers to studies assessing patient attitudes toward home monitoring, which appear favorable, but maybe less so when out of pocket expense is required – this is a follow-up/countermeasure item.

*A helpful study is under way at Group Health Cooperative that is going to add very useful information to this part of the discussion.

Conclusion

Beyond information about the value of home blood pressure monitoring, there are suggested protocols for integrating this monitoring into practice. This seems like a great springboard to integrate this into patient access to their own clinical information, along with potential connections to the health system and other patients.

Based on the information presented, there seems to be a case for employing “connected” blood pressure monitoring for accurate diagnosis of blood pressure and response to treatment. Given that Medicare already reimburses ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for white coat hypertension, there may also be a case to extend, as a pilot, reimbursement for home monitoring for diagnosis and initial management of blood pressure outside of physician visits. This ties well to the data that most patients with high blood pressure are insured and seeing physicians, with only 35% control, making this approach a worthy alternative.

From a biological plausibility perspective, it makes sense that measuring an ongoing physiological state (average blood pressure throughout the day) in its native environment, over time, has a likelihood of being more accurate than a few point measurements done outside of the environment where people live and work (the doctor’s office).

The opportunity for the proposed project here is to integrate the benefits of home monitoring with a sustainable workflow inside and outside of the health system, using technology available today, to improve patient and family involvement in their care. Of interest, the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research is promoting the idea of patient involvement in care as a quality and safety improvement strategy for patients. This work could extend the strategy to more stakeholders, including employers and the health system itself.

Conflict of Interest Analysis

I think this should be part of a review of any paper, given the information being published about sponsored research (here’s some examples).

The lead author has a significant relationship with device maker Omron, and has received speakers fees from pharmaceutical manufacturer Boerhinger-Ingelheim and Omron. Another author has received speaker’s fees from Merck and serves in a consultant/advisory board capacity for Pfizer and CV Therapeutics.

There was discussion previously about support to the American Heart Association by device makers.

These associations could result in over-exhuberant promotion of home blood pressure monitoring devices and treatment (i.e. it’s unlikely that a device manufacturer would have an interest in less devices being sold), and need to be taken into account when reviewing this piece. This might be reflected especially in areas where the data is/was equivocal about benefits, yet conclusions are framed in the positive or hopeful.

One of the issues in the discussion of device/medication promotion is that new treatments are compared to placebo instead of to current practice. The information presented here compares the treatment of interest to current practice, which has room for improvement. With that in mind, I think the information here is contributory to the work we’re considering and will be used to update the A3 accordingly.

A Disclosure of My Own

I should point out that I assisted in the planning of the Group Health blood pressure study mentioned above from an operations/informatics perspective, and was not funded under the grant and am not a co-author of that study, which is not connected to this work. I am currently funded by the California Healthcare Foundation.

Comments welcome, of course.

Wireless Messaging System Has No Impact on Blood Glucose Levels, but Patients Believe It Improves Quality of Care (…and their blood pressure was reduced)

May 26th, 2008 | Popularity: 14%
3 comments

Monitors urged for all with high blood pressure – Yahoo! News

May 23rd, 2008 | Popularity: 23%
1 comment
  • Monitors urged for all with high blood pressure – Yahoo! News – American Heart Association urges patients to monitor their blood pressure – nice coincidence for the work we're doing in California. Note the concern about conflict of interest, however – it comes up multiple times in the article. People are interested in information free of bias – another nod to Information Therapy and patient and family involvement, in my opinion.

E-Health Europe :: Continua promises products by year end

May 22nd, 2008 | Popularity: 10%
0 comments | Leave a reply

A Few Links Regarding the Continuity of Care Record (CCR) Standard

May 22nd, 2008 | Popularity: 80%
3 comments

May 15th through May 18th:

AHA – Trendwatch – Absenteeism and Presenteeism in the Workplace

May 22nd, 2008 | Popularity: 18%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Health and Productivity Among U.S. Workers

May 22nd, 2008 | Popularity: 17%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Employees to get an online checkup – The Boston Globe

May 22nd, 2008 | Popularity: 12%
0 comments | Leave a reply

Mobile applications for illness managment; Historical Scientific Misconduct; A Good LEAN Summary

May 21st, 2008 | Popularity: 65%
2 comments

May 10th through May 13th:

Hypertension, Health 2.0, and Indirect Costs, Now it’s Getting Interesting

May 20th, 2008 | Popularity: 41%
1 comment

In my fielding of this data to various people, this part of the analysis has been by far the most controversial. Let’s first start with indirect costs added on top of direct costs, from the societal perspective, just for California. By indirect costs, we mean lost time from work (absence and short term disability), presenteeism (impairment while at work, to avoid being absent), and caregiving (21 million working men and women are caregivers in the US)


direct and indirect costs societal perspective

The indirect cost data is only for employed persons reporting the condition, which means it is a subset of the population (doesn’t include indirect costs for the non-employed, doesn’t include costs for the undiagnosed). The graph above is therefore a little bit off, because the medical cost is for all people, productivity costs just for employment related losses.

Now, a different look at the data, which averages costs across the entire employee population, from the employer perspective.


hypertension total costs

This is different because it takes into account prevalence, and spreads that cost over all employees, whether they report the condition or not. My explanation for the different way this data looks is that the medical cost per person for hypertensive employees is far less than for heart disease, but there are many more hypertensive patients in a population. In the employee samples used to derive this data, there’s a factor of 2 difference compared to heart disease (12.4 % vs 6.4 %).

The sources for this data are the same as previous charts (formatted for Zotero, below).

I have already been asked, “Ted, how can high blood pressure cause presenteeism at all?” and I welcome the skepticism. I reviewed the study below, which defined the term for our profession, and it includes a combination of employee studies, some done quite well, that ask about employee impairment and absences due to multiple conditions. This includes things like side effects of medications (which are a cornerstone of hypertension therapy). Questions, based on the study, were things like whether an employee performance was reduced by ‘losing concentration, repeating a job, working more slowly than usual, feeling fatigued, or generally “doing nothing”‘. The authors specifically chose tools that measured multiple conditions at once, so that comparisons could be made.

One novel study worth mentioning specifically is one by Bank One, that used administrative and computerized productivity records of its employees to explicitly measure productivity losses, in addition to using a health risk appraisal and claims data to come up with estimates. For hypertension, the estimate was 0.4 % in this one, which was right in the middle.

Based on my reading of the paper, I am accepting the methodology as supportive. As a student of LEAN, though, I know that the facts are best obtained on the factory floor, so my next interest is in working with an employer, and ultimately and employee, who experiences these conditions first hand. And I do mean on the factory floor, rather than the health system.

After creating this post, I realized that my A3 (coming next) has one inaccuracy. Fixing that, posting it soon.

1. An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease: California. Take a look at the methodology here.

2. Goetzel, Ron Z, Stacey R Long, Ronald J Ozminkowski, Kevin Hawkins, Shaohung Wang, and Wendy Lynch. “Health, absence, disability, and presenteeism cost estimates of certain physical and mental health conditions affecting U.S. employers.” Journal of occupational and environmental medicine / American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 46, no. 4 (April 2004): 398-412.

Comment away, this can only improve with input.

More on Hypertenstion and Health 2.0 : Costs

May 19th, 2008 | Popularity: 20%
2 comments

Hypertension Costs
Continuing on the case for connecting Californians, here is a look at the direct costs of hypertension (high blood pressure). There are several sources for cost data, the sources I used here typically rely on the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). The references are below.

The first chart shows things from a societal perspective, for California residents, the cost per person reporting the condition. It does not include costs for people who do not report the condition.

The second chart shows things from an employer’s perspective, and is calculated differently – it is the total cost of the condition spread across the entire employee base, per year. On this one, you’ll note that the prevalence of hypertension makes it formidable from an employer’s perspective relative to the other chronic conditions.

There’s a whole lot more to be said about this, but I’ll keep it brief and open things up for comments.

Additional cost estimate (not charted): $US 1,131 direct medical expenditures, prescriptions &gt 50 % of expenditures

Next, a profile of indirect costs.

Sources (Zotero format):

First Chart

1. An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease: California. Take a look at the methodology here.

Second Chart

2. Goetzel, Ron Z, Stacey R Long, Ronald J Ozminkowski, Kevin Hawkins, Shaohung Wang, and Wendy Lynch. “Health, absence, disability, and presenteeism cost estimates of certain physical and mental health conditions affecting U.S. employers.” Journal of occupational and environmental medicine / American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 46, no. 4 (April 2004): 398-412.

Additional Estimate

3. Balu, Sanjeev, and Joseph Thomas. “Incremental expenditure of treating hypertension in the United States.” American journal of hypertension : journal of the American Society of Hypertension 19, no. 8 (August 2006): 810-6.

“Why Don’t We Make This a Record for the Patient” – Learning about CCR at TEPR

May 18th, 2008 | Popularity: 25%
0 comments | Leave a reply

The quote in the title of the post is from David Kibbe, MD, MBA, who co-taught a workshop on the ASTM Continuity of Care Record Standard with Steven Waldren, MD, MS, in conjunction with the TEPR Conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

I took the workshop on behalf of my work with the Calfornia Healthcare Foundation to look at creating a connectivity ecosystem for patients, families, and health stakeholders in a community, which I’ve started to blog about here.

It was a good workshop, with a nice step-through of the CCR standard, which for me was fairly straightforward to follow. Here’s a screenshot of the XML schema of a sample (test) CCR XML file. If you’re medically inclined, you’ll see that it’s an XML representation of a prednisone taper. I didn’t put this XML file together, but I consider this a sort of “hello, world” – to show that a clinical summary can be represented with a human and machine-readable file.

CCR is figuring into many well publicized Health 2.0 applications and I am of course a fan of anything that has its genesis in engaging patients in their care.

More work understanding hypertension and Health 2.0 applications

May 16th, 2008 | Popularity: 36%
1 comment

The Case for Hypertension and Health 2.0: California

May 15th, 2008 | Popularity: 33%
1 comment

This is simply a redrawing of yesterday’s graphic, based on California population data. This site has an excellent overview of the impact to California. It understates prevalence because it speaks of patients who have had hypertension diagnosed and does not include undiagnosed Californians.

I found a more recent article and updated proportions accordingly ( see, I did find something wrong with the previous diagram )

Click on the images to enlarge

I added a new source, #3 below, since yesterday. This paper has newer control data with a more optimistic point of view:

The prevalence of hypertension has not increased significantly since 1999. At the same time, there has been increasing control rate of hypertension, especially in Mexican American men, elderly, and obese people – Ong, et. al (see below)

(formatted for Zotero):

1. Fang J, Alderman MH, Keenan NL, Ayala C, Croft JB. Hypertension Control at Physicians’ Offices in the United States. Am J Hypertens. 2008;21(2):136-142. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ajh.2007.35 [Accessed May 8, 2008].

2. Rosamond W, Flegal K, Furie K, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics–2008 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation. 2008;117(4):e25-146. Available at: http://circ.ahajournals.org [Accessed May 7, 2008].

3. Ong KL, Cheung BM, Man YB, Lau CP, Lam KS. Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment, and Control of Hypertension Among United States Adults 1999-2004. Hypertension. 2007;49(1):69-75. Available at: http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/49/1/69 [Accessed May 15, 2008].

Tomorrow, a look at costs, direct and indirect, for the nation and California.

What’s Wrong With this Diagram? The Case for Hypertension and Health 2.0

May 14th, 2008 | Popularity: 31%
2 comments

In April of this year, I swtiched gears slightly, from spending time to discover the determinants of patient access / connectivity to their care system through personal health records, to examining the possibilities of creating connectivity with the California Healthcare Foundation.

We’ve been talking to several people and the Foundation is allowing me to present our ideas in sequence, here, for critique, improvement, and interest among potential partners. The goal is to launch a project that will connect multiple stakeholders in the health ecosystem, to improve chronic care management, in California. Timeline and details are going to be posted over time.

Let’s start with the case for hypertension as a chronic illness worthy of examination, though. Take a look at this graphic. What does it say to you about the state of high blood pressure care in the United States? What are the opportunities using HIT and Health 2.0? Are there corrections to be made?

Welcome to my PDCA cycle. Sources are underneath – feel free to ask questions about any of this data. I’ll begin posting regularly under this category.

Update: After finding an error in the image, I decided to leave it in, with this note that it’s incorrect, and a corrected version is in this post. PDCA is about iteration.

Quote: “…undiagnosed hypertension and treated but uncontrolled hypertension occur largely under the watchful eye of the healthcare system.” – Hyman and Pavlik

Sources (formatted for Zotero):

1. Fang J, Alderman MH, Keenan NL, Ayala C, Croft JB. Hypertension Control at Physicians’ Offices in the United States. Am J Hypertens. 2008;21(2):136-142. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ajh.2007.35 [Accessed May 8, 2008].

2. Rosamond W, Flegal K, Furie K, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics–2008 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Circulation. 2008;117(4):e25-146. Available at: http://circ.ahajournals.org [Accessed May 7, 2008].

Tomorrow: Impact to Californians

The RUC Speaks of Medical Home;Gathering Data on Hypertension;HealthPlan-Hospital Conflict in Arizona

May 13th, 2008 | Popularity: 55%
0 comments | Leave a reply

May 6th through May 7th: