Enterprise Growth in the Ambulatory Space – The Benefits & Challenges

Diane Beatini

Diane Beatini

Vice President, Sales at SRS Health
Diane Beatini is the Vice President of Sales. She oversees the Sales, Account Management, and Sales Operations teams. She works to promote the complete SRS product suite of HCIT solutions to medical practices of varied sizes and specialties. Diane’s background includes an MBA in marketing and finance with 15 years of executive sales and customer service management experience in the radiology, medical device, and pharmaceutical industries.
Diane Beatini

“Leadership is the challenge to be something more than average.” Jim Rohn

trees-growth-39281207_sEnterprise growth is an emerging trend in the ambulatory specialty space. The shift to a value-based market with an emphasis on quality rather than volume, together with associated pressures in the healthcare landscape, has fueled the consolidation of individual practices into super groups.

This trend was a predictive model and growth strategy for hospital systems as the shift to value-based care loomed on the horizon. Hospitals understood the need to grow by becoming better—leveraging cost, quality, and service advantages to attract key decision-makers as opposed to pursuing prior, price-extractive growth strategies that were driven purely by increasing size through acquisitions and expanded market share. (Advisory Board: Health System Growth Strategy for the Value-Based Market)

A similar shift is occurring with ambulatory specialty practices, which face challenges from declining reimbursement, increased costs, changes in government regulatory requirements with the advent of MACRA/MIPs, hospital system pressure and competition, and the shift from a fee-for-service model to value-based care. Physicians have realized that, in order to remain independent and profitable, they need to come together and create regional—and in some cases statewide—groups united under a common brand name and/or the formation of clinically integrated networks (CINs).

Enterprise growth empowers physicians to practice independently and compete with area hospitals and health systems. Enterprise specialty groups are a strong sustainable alternative to hospital employment and they support ancillary growth opportunities like ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), urgent care, imaging, and physical therapy locations. They provide a platform from which to negotiate local/state/national contracts inclusive of malpractice premiums, and to direct employer opportunities. This bargaining power allows for a reduction in overhead together with an improved revenue stream. Enterprise groups also have the advantage of scale to tackle infrastructure and HCIT investments, improvements, customizations, and maintenance.

In any industry, growth through acquisition and consolidation brings challenges. It’s not easy to merge management, staff, locations, and office cultures—it requires strong leadership and governance. A unified community-facing brand, a shared growth strategy /approach, and the development of KPIs are key determinants of success. Performance metrics may include market share, geographic reach, patient growth vs. physician density, annual revenue by specialty, total cost of care, and outcomes quality. Other important considerations are developing an integrated approach for human resources, employment contracts, health and malpractice plans, purchasing/procurement, and Bundled Payments for Care Improvements (BPCI).

The emerging organization must keep the community it serves as its top priority as it transitions and the pieces come together. The main driver of enterprise growth—the need to demonstrate quality outcomes and low-cost episodic care—also serves as the attraction for referral sources within the surrounding medical community and their consumers, the patients.

Done well, the demonstration of quality outcomes will support a strong brand reputation, providing the necessary bargaining power needed with payers and employers. To accomplish this, many groups seek a common HCIT platform for patient engagement, regulatory compliance, and outcomes reporting. While this represents yet another change during a time of transition, the right HCIT partner is an integral part of the success of the organization. Other key considerations are the ability to integrate these solutions to drive a seamless experience for both the clinician and the patient. Equally important is that the HCIT solution participates in a collaborative dialogue regarding ongoing needs, and supports each individual specialist’s clinical workflow preferences and patient volume while providing reliable, dedicated, hands-on support.

The Top 5 Challenges for Orthopaedists

In a recent article featured on Becker’s Healthcare, 19,200 physicians representing over 27 unique specialties were surveyed on what the most challenging parts of their careers were.

Here are the top 5 challenges for orthopaedists:

The Top 6 Challenges for Orthopaedists

It is also interesting to note that “Despite challenges, 79 percent of orthopedists would choose a medical career again, and 95 percent would choose orthopedics again.”

Would you?

What Are Specialists Faced With Today? Uncertainty and Change!

Ryan Newsome

Ryan Newsome

Vice President of Software Engineering at SRS Health
Prior to joining SRS almost 10 years ago, Ryan started his career as a software engineer for Map Info/Pitney Bowes. Throughout the years Ryan has been an expert in all things web, interoperability, and in agile leadership. He currently oversees all of product engineering at SRS and has led SRS’ transition to an Agile/Scrum Development Methodology. In his free time, you can find Ryan either skiing, cycling or spending time with his family. Fun Fact: Ryan played Division 1 Soccer at Sienna where he attended on a scholarship. Goal!
Ryan Newsome

Latest posts by Ryan Newsome (see all)

Changes AheadRecent Nobel-recipient Bob Dylan wrote “The Times They Are A-Changin’” in 1963—a time of growing social upheaval reflected in the song’s lyrics, which called for listeners to acknowledge and embrace the transformations taking place around them. As I listened to this song over the past weekend, I couldn’t help but draw a correlation to the radical transformations we are currently experiencing in our industry. The past several years have epitomized the term “change” as the nation has taken big steps to transform the delivery of healthcare.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed in 2009 by President Barack Obama, was one of the catalysts for this transformation by requiring the “meaningful use” of digital systems in healthcare. Since then, change has been the only constant that we have been able to count on. Government regulations, payment models, and product innovations have continued to evolve in disruptive ways—both good and bad. As soon as we become comfortable with one wave of change, another wave is already threatening to drench us to the bone (for us, the next big one is MACRA & MIPS).

So, coming off nearly a decade of constant uncertainty, what’s next? Well, you guessed it—more change! Starting in 2017 we will have new policy leaders in place who have promised to significantly restructure the incumbent’s healthcare programs. President-elect Donald Trump’s appointment of Tom Price as the head of HHS may be indicative of the changes on the horizon. Price, a 6-term congressman from the Atlanta, Georgia, area, was formerly an orthopedic surgeon. Will a specialist at the helm help make government programs, that have typically been focused on primary and in-patient care, more meaningful for specialists?

Time will tell, but the one thing that is certain is that, as the song says, the wheel is still in spin. In other words, the times they are still a-changin’.

MACRA News: CMS Yields to Pressure with “Pick Your Pace”

Lynn Scheps

Lynn Scheps

VP, Government Affairs & Consulting Services at SRS Health
Lynn Scheps is a leading resource on MACRA, MIPS, and Meaningful Use. She is the SRS liaison with government policy makers. Representing the voice of specialists and other high-performance physicians, she develops strategies to respond effectively to government initiatives.
Lynn Scheps

yieldAs everyone is in the midst of anxiously trying to prepare for MACRA while awaiting the Final Rule, (due November 1), CMS announced yesterday that it is stepping back the requirements and the timetable to make it easier for providers to avoid the 2019 negative payment adjustments set out in the Proposed Rule. This decision comes in the wake of 4,000 comments and subsequent pressure from professional groups and from Congressmen/women pleading for relief from the rushed implementation of a complex and overly aggressive set of requirements that would negatively impact many practices, particularly small groups.

Andy Slavitt, Acting Administrator of CMS, published a blog that gave an overview of the new options that allow providers to “pick their pace” of complying. It appears that the only way a provider would receive a negative adjustment in 2019 would be if they do almost nothing in 2017. He outlined 4 options for participation:

  1. Do something! Avoid a negative payment adjustment in 2019 by submitting some data in 2017. This begs the question: what constitutes “some data?” Does this mean some data in each MIPS category, some data in one category, quality data only? (To me, the wording in Slavitt’s blog is reminiscent of CMS’ past MU shift to “capability enabled” or “met for 1 patient”.)
  2. Report for a short reporting period (“a reduced number of days”) could qualify you for a “small” positive payment adjustment.
  3. Comply with MIPS as defined in the Proposed Rule—or I assume, as it will be defined in the Final Rule— for the full calendar year and you could qualify for a “modest” positive payment adjustment.
  4. Participate in MACRA’s Advanced Alternate Payment Model option. CMS is hinting that it may broaden the definition of an APM.

This news will no doubt be greeted with relief and cheers by most providers, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they are left feeling more uncertain now of what will be required in 2017 than they did before the announcement! What constitutes sufficient reporting in options 1 and 2 above? How many days are in a short reporting period—90 perhaps? How do the revised “small” and “modest” payment adjustments compare to the potential 4% proposed for 2017 and to each other? Will performance still be evaluated relative to other providers? And what happened to budget neutrality, i.e., where is this money coming from if hardly anyone will receive a negative adjustment?

Please let us know what you think of this latest MACRA news, and stay tuned as we learn more!

90-Day MU Reporting: Deja-Vu All Over Again!

Lynn Scheps

Lynn Scheps

VP, Government Affairs & Consulting Services at SRS Health
Lynn Scheps is a leading resource on MACRA, MIPS, and Meaningful Use. She is the SRS liaison with government policy makers. Representing the voice of specialists and other high-performance physicians, she develops strategies to respond effectively to government initiatives.
Lynn Scheps

flag-money-stethLast week, in keeping with what seems to have become a mid-year tradition, CMS issued a proposed rule that—amidst its 700-plus pages related to hospital payments—reduces the 2016 MU reporting period from the full calendar year to any 90 consecutive days. (Note that this applies only to providers participating in the Medicare, not Medicaid, EHR Incentive Program, and has no effect on PQRS reporting.) Would it have been better if the announcement had come in a more timely fashion—i.e., at the beginning of the year instead of the middle? Absolutely! But don’t let that keep you from taking advantage of this opportunity.

This is good news for providers who had given up on MU for 2016—or who got off to a slow start on the program this year. Here’s an opportunity to get back in the game and avoid the 2018 payment adjustment (3% or 4%, to be set at the discretion of the Secretary of HHS). It also provides a bit of a breather for those who are successfully demonstrating meaningful use and may be able to identify an already-completed 90-day period during which they met all the requirements. These providers can now turn their attention to preparing for MACRA, which is proposed to be effective on January 1 and in which MU (renamed “Advancing Care Information”) is only one of the four components.

So, what accounted for this change? Is it an indication of a kinder and gentler CMS to come? The CMS Fact Sheet states that CMS is trying to “assist health care providers by increasing flexibility in the program.” Was it in response to the deluge of comments to the MACRA rule that screamed “Help!,” or to the repeated requests for relief submitted by providers, organizations, and members of Congress? Let us know below what you think brought about this change of heart.

Free-Flow Workflow: How Did This Help with Data Collection?

Adam Curran

Adam Curran

Product Marketing Manager at SRS Health
Adam Curran is a Product Marketing Manager at SRS. He oversees marketing intelligence to support the development of strategic marketing plans. Prior to joining the organization, he was a key member of a pharmaceutical software company’s Clinical Development Business Unit, specializing in the clinical data management elements of the drug development lifecycle. He was also the editor for their microsite’s blog. Adam has also held roles at the UK’s National Energy Foundation and Skills Funding Agency.
Adam Curran

data-flow“Being flooded with information doesn’t mean we have the right information or that we’re in touch with the right people” – Bill Gates

We are able to collect a wealth of information today, thanks to technological improvements over the last couple of years. For a long time, specialists struggled to get the most out of earlier EHR solutions due to the limited data available. This was not so much the fault of EHR vendors but rather of the inherent limitations of the technology at the time. Additionally, the first “templated” EHR systems were specifically designed for primary care and family practice doctors. These systems were not suitable to meet specialists’ different data needs and handle a much higher volume. I did a post recently on the evolution of data capture (read it here).

When it comes to submitting meaningful use data to CMS, however, with all this data available, identifying and collecting it generally takes a long time. There are studies that show an increase in the number of physicians who spend more than one day a week on paperwork, and that indicate many physicians still feel that EHRs do not save time. Although this technology is allowing practices to comply with meaningful use requirements, the cost seems to be too high.

What are we seeing here? Physicians are spending more time capturing data due to regulations, and this is taking up the time available to see patients. How did we get to a point where the physician is spending more time staring at the screen than looking at the patient? I’m not a doctor, but I can imagine that they went into the profession to actually help people as much as they can, so more face-to-face time with the patient is the end goal here.

What is the solution to handling this volume of data? Certainly not reducing the amount of data—it would be hard and time-consuming to distinguish which data to get rid of. The solution must focus on making it quicker to handle this data. This is where free-flow workflow comes into play. Rather than having to go through the laborious process of submitting the data to each application, it essentially reduced the repetitive steps involved, thereby streamlining the submission of data.

This big time saver helps to alleviate the pain, but there are still limitations. Fortunately, we are now at a point where we can get a workflow that isn’t just free-flow, but also adaptive. To find out more about this development and other future trends, you can read our white paper.