The Mobile Integrated Healthcare
in Virginia
By Alan Perry
updated June 24, 2018
updated June 24, 2018
Introduction
I embarked on a journey to explore what has come to
be known as Mobile Integrated Healthcare Practice (MIHP) several years ago. The concept was
outlined in the National Academies Institute of Medicine book Emergency Medical services at the Crossroads and The National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations publication EMS agenda for
the future, but not named or structurally defined by either. The concept
has been under development by a number of hospital and pre-hospital systems for
several years with some success. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act and
the formation of Accountable Care Organizations (ACO’s), additional monetary
incentives have been created, and the concept has gained significant momentum
and support. I have, for several years, realized that the future of EMS rested
in the improvement of the relationship and integration between healthcare
providers and systems across the continuum of patient care. An article I wrote
in early 2012, EMS Manifesto
describes my vision then as it does now. I am very excited to see the concept
taking shape, of course this type of concept will have application in very
different ways depending on patient population, the type of EMS and hospital
systems that are involved, and the input and participation of local and state
governments.
The goals of Mobile
Integrated Healthcare
The general goals of Mobile Integrated Healthcare are: to
reduce healthcare costs, decrease inappropriate system use, prevent emergent hospital
re admissions and improve hospice results through appropriate use of the whole spectrum of healthcare. The “triple aim” as described by
the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) , improving the healthcare
experience, improving health and reducing costs are met as well as the defined
goals of Accountable Care Organizations (ACO’s), delivering high quality care
and reducing costs. Patients should receive the care needed in the most
appropriate way, improving health and the quality of the experience. For
providers it should produce greater job satisfaction, greater flexibility in
providing care and more options for professional development. For EMS services
this will require additional responsibility and integration within the healthcare system. It should produce a reduction in non-emergency calls, frequent users, and permit
cost recovery for alternative service delivery such as treat and release, or
transport to alternative treatment centers. For hospitals it will require more cooperation with local EMS and medical record sharing. The benefit to hospitals and healthcare systems should include reduce
inappropriate ER visits, reduced re admissions and availability of resources for true
emergencies. Insurers, including medicare and medicaide have to start looking at EMS as a useful partner in achieving the IHI triple aim. EMS is well positioned to make this all happen but legislation and cooperation with the other players is proving to be the greatest obstacle. With cooperation, the entire system should work more smoothly,
costs will be reduced and quality of care improved.
Who will play a part
in Mobile Integrated Healthcare?
Patients, healthcare providers, EMS & fire chiefs, physicians,
administrators, politicians, EMS agencies, regional EMS councils, hospitals,
ACO’s, public health, social services,
mental health, state EMS offices, insurers, Medicaid, Medicare and the public
will all have to contribute, collaborate and cooperate to develop a Mobile
Integrated Healthcare Practice (MIHP) that accomplishes the goals described by the IHI as
well as addressing local needs. I suspect that the diversity of the
stakeholders will play a large role in the ability, or inability, of any locality to reach an
agreement and develop a meaningful program. ACO’s that fall under one
organizational umbrella will have a much easier time developing and
implementing a MIHP provided they have all, or a majority of the required
components to make it work. In the TEMS region of Virginia there are several independent
hospital systems, volunteer, public and fire-based EMS systems, various private
ambulance and home health organizations, local and state government entities
that provide components of the system we will need to build.
Some potential
obstacles
Politics, power, money, ignorance and apathy frequently
prevent progress. The primary stakeholders in MIHP will be the EMS systems,
hospitals, home health agencies, social services, public health, legislators and insurers. Our region has several EMS systems that are very
diverse in their basic structure. We also have multiple hospital systems in the
region that have differing organizational goals and strategies. Success may require funding through insurers both public and private who have been slow to
adopt, and pay for, alternative treatments or destinations for EMS other than an ER. Our biggest challenge will be reaching
agreements that will allow us all to work together cooperatively and creating a legal framework that supports it. We have now been through the first two stages of grief,
denial and bargaining, and must now move on to acceptance, eventually reaching a point
where we are anticipating the benefits of our success.
Success stories in
Mobile Integrated Healthcare Practice
MedStar-Fort Worth, Texas
Public utility model EMS system providing service to a large
metropolitan and suburban area.
Wake County, NC EMS
http://www.wakegov.com/ems/about/Pages/default.aspx
Public Utility model EMS system
Public Utility model EMS system
Alexandria, VA Fire Department
Fire based EMS system
How should or local
system proceed?
I will not represent myself as knowing enough about every
aspect of this subject to try to write an implementation guide for localities, Tidewater or the State of Virginia. To my knowledge there is not a
universally applicable model or implementation guide that will work for every
system. We must find our own way together, with every stakeholders input, to
find the application that works best for our patient population, healthcare
facilities, legislators, emergency services and healthcare providers. There are some general
first steps and considerations needed to begin putting it together. The
majority of functional MIHP programs are hospital based or public utility model
EMS systems, neither of those models is universally applicable to the current
system in the Tidewater EMS council. At this point, with a lack of favorable legislation, insurance billing practice reform, and sincere commitment from the State office of EMS, solving the problem currently rest with individual localities. The good news is that the body of literature and evidence surrounding MIH programs have improved greatly and many brave and determined souls in the realm of EMS are finding creative ways to start chipping away at this issue. It all starts with discussion and identifying the needs of the patients and the system. Stakeholders will make or break you, do not fail to include them in the discussion early. Stakeholders hold the key to enabling a working solution.
Conclusion
The tidewater region has unique challenges to the
implementation of MIHP. The need for a program such as MIHP has
been acknowledged for several years with little action. Changes in
healthcare law, specifically the affordable care act, provide sources for
funding with collaboration across healthcare disciplines. Until a Statewide or Regional solution can be developed, it will be up to individual agencies to start working with their stakeholders to develop solutions that work for that system. Our sacred oath as healthcare providers is to
do no harm, by that we must infer that we do what is best for the patient, in
this case correcting the known problems in our delivery model. By doing so, we
will improve the quality of the experience, the health of the patient, and the
sustainability of our system.
References:
Institute of Medicine, Emergency Medical Services at the Crossroads weblink
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2006/Emergency-Medical-Services-At-the-Crossroads.aspx
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, EMS Agenda for the Future weblink
http://www.ems.gov/pdf/2010/EMSAgendaWeb_7-06-10.pdf
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2006/Emergency-Medical-Services-At-the-Crossroads.aspx
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, EMS Agenda for the Future weblink
http://www.ems.gov/pdf/2010/EMSAgendaWeb_7-06-10.pdf
Institute for Healthcare Improvement website
Accountable Care Organizations, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services website
NAEMT website, Community Paramedicine
Virginia Office of EMS, Division of Community Health and Technical Resources
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please join the discussion!