Is Lean Primary Care the Next Bandwagon?

Bandwagon movements have been very common in primary care. They have been very distracting. The failure of Primary Care Medical Home for many reasons now leads to the need to have another bandwagon. Lean Primary Care may lead the charge to become the next bandwagon.

 The rosy reviews have been seen in the usual media sources. These indicate a 5% increase in productivity, guaranteed to attract attention. Whether this was Lean or the movement of physicians into the action is impossible to address - except in the media and in the article.

Which would you read

  • Scaling Lean in Primary Care Impacts on System Performance or
  • Moving Physicians from Back to Front Offices Improves Performance


 Lean Primary Care Meets Many of the Criteria of Primary Care Medical Home

 The usual suspects are present such as inflated claims for results despite short term data collection. The problems also persist:

  • Lean is too vague - a similar problem with Primary Care Medical Home. There is no way to assess whether these are selective clinics with better patients and cash flow or not. Changes do tend to work for quality and costs in such patients and clinics. Terms such as not for profit mean little. The same is true for safety net.
  • Confounders that could explain the results without "Lean" are seen. For example, the physicians were moved from their private offices to work places shared with the medical assistants. The paper could have been titled and written differently because of the location rearrangement instead of "lean." Lean obviously draws more attention but may not explain the findings.
  • The study location was vague. A not for profit can be profitable or not as well as in better or worse locations. The entire context of the study is difficult to assess. Primary Care Medical Home and other innovations are more likely to do well with patients already spending too much and with inherently the best outcomes. Generally these practices have the best insurance plans that also pay better - as is also seen in the largest practices. Larger means better contracts and annual escalation clauses. Smaller often means take it or leave it contracts and concentrations of patients with lowest paying plans.
  • The primary care physician definition was vague. Those providing even as low as 5% FTE were included. The selection should have been over 50% FTE as primary care physicians. Fragmentation can be pushed, continuity may not be as easily pushed.
  • The study combined different primary care types but did not offer a breakdown - IM can be more costly and least efficient, as have certain types of not for profits. Rural family medicine can also have high complexity and more chronic disease. An obvious concern would be whether patients had as many care needs met.
Other problems common to primary care remain: 

  • No show and same day were not mentioned. Dealing with these areas alone can change results.
  • Nurse practitioners were not mentioned. 
  • Physician assistants were not mentioned. 
  • The word nurse was mentioned, but it is not certain that RNs were involved as many have been eliminated from primary care over the decades due to cost factors.
  • Community was not mentioned
  • Changes in patient panels were not mentioned.
  • Clinical quality was essentially not measured and should not have been mentioned. A few measures are not reflective of overall quality and should not be represented as same. There are no patient controls for quality.
  • Physician satisfaction was also difficult to assess due to short length of the study as noted. It is not clear how readiness for the change was assessed, a possible indication that it may not work other than in early adopters
Flow was pushed - which could be good in some poor productivity settings (Veterans Administration, others) but may not be good in others running on or over the edge.

There will be more studies, and given the current example there should be more questions than answers generated.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Fine CMS You Have Gotten Us Into

Perhaps we are indeed back to the time of Another Fine Mess (Laurel and Hardy). In a mad rush to implement innovation and to save all possible costs, CMS is creating complications for people that it is most responsible to protect. As PBS and Ken Burns celebrate the legacy of The Roosevelts, it is tragic to see what has become of over a century of effort involving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and health care equity. The United States has one of the most complex health designs and clearly the various designers often know not what they are doing to others. More cartoons and comedians would find this a ripe area for material if not for the suffering involved. Health and Human Services has a huge role across Social Security and US health care. CMS or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has a dominant role to play in the design of health care in the United States.  CMS can be progressive or regressive. Interestingly CMS has chosen to appear to be progressi...
Read more

The Essential True Reform Restores Primary Care and Much More

The list of distractions from True Reform are impressive. For decades True Reform has been specifically avoided as primary care worsens within practices and from outside. The demise is most specifically about the financial design. Unless there is a focus on True Reform, there is little hope for Basic Health Access. This may not make as much sense to those outside of family medicine. Family physicians not familiar with AAFP may also be clueless. If you think that you can fix primary care with more technology, more rearrangements, more types of health professional graduates, or more expansions of training - think again. None of these have any hope of working without financial design changes - major changes. The following are various concepts that dominate the discussions at AAFP and primary care meetings and media releases of associations and foundations and institutions. Members, staff, media releases, programs, and personnel have been reviewed.  There is little about...
Read more

Innovation Is the Problem Not the Solution for Worsening Health

Image
Innovation is good. Innovation worship is not good. Innovation application without scientific testing or clinical trials is unethical regarding clinical interventions and should be just as prohibited with regard to health policy. Clinical trials can harm hundreds or thousands. Innovative policies can harm millions. It takes a reasonable understanding of health care, health care outcomes, social determinants, and the investments that most improve social determinants to understand the consequences arising from the innovative nightmares past, present, and future. If you review the information sources with a critical eye, you too may find that the innovative policy designs have been disruptive to care, have hurt health care where health care is most needed, have reduced access to care, and have resulted in distortions in the literature. Indeed what is accepted and published in journals seriously lacks consideration of alternative hypothesis, lacks inclusion of many pages of limitatio...
Read more