Posts Tagged ‘deloitte’

Now Reading: Prescription Medication Adherence: Provider and Patient Perspective (Focus Group Report)

August 17th, 2009 | Popularity: 8%
4 comments

Medication adherence, defined as “as any deviation from the prescribed course of medical treatment,” is a tough issue, and its costs to people and society are well characterized.

I am by no means an expert on medication adherence; the way adherence enters my professional sphere is in the form of technology solutions designed to improve it, typically through the use of electronic reminder systems and other tools, and new ones are cropping up every day.

While I have a lot of enthusiasm for others’ enthusiasm for tools like this, I have felt that the problem of adherence is fairly deep and complicated, and that technological solutions on the patient side may not be the most cost-effective way to start to address it.

Fortunately, this awareness is increasing – A few months ago I was contacted by the National Consumers League, who are working with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to plan a national aherence campaign to improve prescription medication adherence.

What interested me about the work was the fact that the project would include (among other information gathering approaches) focus groups of patient and providers around the issue of medication adherence. I know focus groups aren’t perfect, but I am always drawn to any topic that includes patient perspectives, I can’t help it.

I just received a copy of the focus group report and reviewed it, with permission to blog about it here. Since I don’t see it available for download anywhere else, I’ll just make it available via this link (PDF). National Consumers League performed a literature search as a foundation for this work, and I have combined it with some data from the Deloitte 2009 Survey of Health Care Consumers, which also addressed prescription usage.

If they don’t fill the medication, there’s nothing to adhere to

First, it’s estimated that between 1/4 and 1/3 of people never fill their medications. The 2009 Deloitte Survey of Health Care Consumers provides a nice characterization and some of the causes, a big one of which is cost.

The relationship is key

As I read the focus group findings and some of the quotes below, I couldn’t help getting a visual image of two (or more – think provider and patient + family and community) people working hard to establish a relationship that just ends up with missed connections:

“Do I trust my doctor? You are entering a new relationship that is important as anything and you are wondering if he is the right person for you.”

“Sometimes the doctor explains it but usually at that point I forget and I don’t catch it.” (Short-Term Patient) “

“I agree with him, sometimes when the provider is giving you all of this information you have so many other things going through your mind, like I have to take medication or you know at the end when you get to the pharmacy that you are going to get that pamphlet and you are going to look at the bottom to see what you take once per day.” (Short-Term Patient)

“The doctors do not explain it, I usually ask the pharmacist or I will read the pamphlet.” (Short-Term Patient)

“Some of the medicines I would agree with it {patients are{unaware of why they are taking med}, they might have known when they started it but by the time they are on 10 different meds, maybe 40%, some meds they don’t understand what they are.” (Multi-Specialty)

Providers want to perform for their patients

There are definitely some provider quotes that made me cringe, however, reading carefully, it’s clear that health care providers are aware of the impact of the relationship and do their best to help their patients:

“I agree with her because not a lot of people ask questions, I spend 2 hours with my primary, she had a waiting room full of people and my daughter was a new patient and she spent one hour with her after I saw her.” .” (Chronic Condition Patient)

“If you are asking me personally {specialist}, I do try to explain the medicine because if I take the time doing that I can make the patient much more comfortable accepting my recommendation and the phone calls after the visits are less. The patient remembers 30% of what we tell them once the door is closed and sometimes I think it is less than that so if I spend the time up front explaining to the patient why this medicine is needed, I just find that the patient is much more comfortable accepting my recommendation and the patient has much less phone calls later on.” (Multi- Specialist)

Patients don’t want to be sick

This seems like stating the obvious, however, I think work like this helps to emphasize it. People will take medication when they feel they need it, and when they don’t they won’t.

“Well, maybe (stop taking medication} if I just didn’t think I needed it at that point. I was feeling better.” (Short-Term Patient)

“I agree, I mean the blood pressure medication you just can’t stop, but if it is something for the flu or a bad back or something after a while you feel better you will stop taking it.” (Short-Term Patient)

“I am always trying to minimize the number of medications that I have to take despite the fact that right now that I take 5 or 6, I just don’t like to take chemicals. I try to minimize the number that I take so I am constantly asking my doctor do I have to continue taking this, can I get off it and some don’t have to be forever but there are others that I am trying to get off from. So minimizing the numbers, I don’t like to take meds.” (Chronic Condition Patient)

In addition to the work of National Consumers League, the New England Healthcare Institute also just put out a report that supports broad thinking about the issue of adherence.

This information plus my experience makes me feel that there are actually a broad array of technology approaches to supporting adherence, including reminder systems (whose innovation should be incorporated into a comprehensive strategy to be sure). Those technology approaches may be most cost-effectively applied as close to the provider patient relationship as possible, to include things like:

  • An after-visit summary after every encounter (whether on the phone, e-mail, or in person), with an accurate medication list that the patient + family + support can verify and ask questions about
  • Education aids in every encounter to promote understanding of medication use to include the “why?” as well as the “what?”
  • Accessible two-way communication (phone, e-mail) before, during, and after every encounter. Imagine that adherence could be impacted if a patient, provider, or their family/community could inquire about medication use outside of a formal visit. If that communication is non-existent or cut-off, how will patients and their families fare once they leave the pharmacy?

I want to say again that I do not study adherence for a living, so I welcome others’ thoughts about this in the comments. In the meantime, I am glad to see organizations like Naitional Consumers League and AHRQ engaging on this topic in the first place, and engaging by learning about patients and providers’ experiences. Let us remember that this is what a typical medication regimen can look like for a patient with diabetes and use it to guide our understanding (courtesy of Paulanne Balch, MD, Colorado Permanente Medical Group):

Common sequence of pills for a diabetic


How do we measure an organization / provider’s online accessibility to patients?

June 24th, 2008 | Popularity: 18%
1 comment
deloite supply and demand

This is the data we have today, can we do better? From the well-done Deloitte 2008 Consumer Survey

Ideas requested….

In the patient-centered technology world, there are a lot of different measures that various organizations use to show the size / accessibility of their online services. The challenge of all these numbers is that when someone tries to figure out who the leader in this space is, or where they are more likely to have access and involvement, it’s unclear. Everyone uses the numbers that capture the data they have (and by extension that are the most optimistic sounding – it’s human nature).

Some measures use number of patients on a provider’s web site (“We have 86,000 patients verified for use of our portal”), some use percent penetration (37 % of adults enrolled or that receive care here are online – that’s the one I used). These numbers can be confused by different denominators (adults only? all enrollees?) and services offered (access to what? claims data? e-mailing doctors? lab results?). One metric we began using at Group Health was, “% lab results reviewed online by patients” – this crosses primary care and specialty care practices, and since the assumption is that most patients want the results of their tests, may be a good measure of how much a provider promotes access to clinical data, other things being equal.

Why is it useful to figure out?

As I mentioned in a previous post, we currently measure penetration of electronic health records in practices (it’s scarily low still); however, this doesn’t say very much about the value to the patient, the customer. So:

  1. If a patient can compare organization x / provider y in terms of the accessibility of the data – through whatever channel – there may be better incentive to compete on something that matters a lot – involvement in care and partnership.
  2. If a supporting organization is working to promote patient access across a constituency, they can understand which organizations need more assistance quickly.

Agree? Disagree?

Throw out some ideas for a measure – is it a combination of what is offered (scope of content), how many people are actually using what’s offered (satisfaction with content, priority of the organization in supporting services), and service measures (messages responded to in a timely manner, test results shared)?

Kaiser Permanente provides one example that I am using with permission. As the probable largest personal health record in the world currently, there were 2,140,017 members with access to secure features as of the end of Q1-2008, out of 8.7 million members, and 63.6 % of registered members signed on two or more times in the past 12 months. There are a suite of services on kp.org that include messaging your doctor, access to lab test results, after visit summaries, and a comprehensive health encyclopedia.

This does matter to patients today, like me, as Jen McCabe Gorman pointed out in this post on her blog. She also pointed to a comment on my twitterfeed as well: I am, and I won’t.


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….

Voicethread; Zotero; Nice Summary of Medical Home from Deloitte

April 3rd, 2008 | Popularity: 82%
0 comments | Leave a reply

April 1st through April 2nd:

We Want it; We Don’t Want it; and Google

March 4th, 2008 | Popularity: 15%
4 comments

Actually we do want access to our own health information. The title is a reference to three things:

1. Personal Health Records, why PHRs May Threaten Privacy, published by the World Privacy Forum.

I think this is less about not using a Personal Health Record (PHR) and more about understanding HIPAA, and its useful. The paper states clearly that the discussion is a different one for HIPAA-covered entities (such as Kaiser Permanente and Group Health). I would recommend that people review the information or at least the summary document to be familiar with what an organization can or can’t legally do with personal health information. I think that’s the key – even if an organization states it is not going to do something, there may be no legal protection if they change their mind.

So could a personal health record threaten privacy? Sure. Is it a reason not to use one? That’s a personal decision of benefits vs risks. I think it would be a challenging statement to say that these concerns should keep all Americans from having access to their own health information, and certainly the situation is different for HIPAA-covered entities, where there is both access and legal protections. I also think that we should not rely on information technology to create trust for us using software, or the system we have long been waiting for will never arrive.

2. Deloitte’s 2008 Survey of Health Care Consumers, published by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions

This is a very well done representative survey sample of Americans with regard to health care with a focus on online access an alternative treatments. The conclusion is very clear: consumers want access to information created by themselves with their physicians, hospitals and health plans. And only 6 percent have this access. So, a huge discrepancy between what people want and what they are getting.

I keyed in on some very important statements, that buttress a fact from my travels, that “uninsured does not mean uninformed”:

The attitudes and preferences of the uninsured mirror those of the insured

Interest in online appointment scheduling, e-mail access, and online access to medical records and test results is equally high in the uninsured and insured groups.

There was a similar attempt at creating “personas” of the various consumer groups in this paper, much as we did here, for the stakeholders we are working with. I would say that the technique is less effective in this report because the personas aren’t based on standard terms and are likely to be forgotten. In the health system world, it seems easier to segment by known groups, like Gen X, Gen Y, baby boomer, or by insurance status or by care system.

One other item of note is that 60% of respondents state that they are on medications. That’s an impressive number, especially when I think about the power of the compounds that we prescribe today. Having access to one’s information is more than a convenience. I wrote about a real-life example that I encountered recently, on my blog.

3. Google. See for yourself. I think this ties together a lot of the ideas above. John Halamka makes some comments about HIPAA and the Google product based on his experience being on the Google Health Advisory board. I think patient-centeredness may become mainstream. Comments are welcome of course.