[Senate Hearing 110-180] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 110-180 THE FUTURE OF MEDICARE: RECOGNIZING THE NEED FOR CHRONIC CARE COORDINATION ======================================================================= HEARING before the SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ WASHINGTON, DC __________ MAY 9, 2007 __________ Serial No. 110-7 Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/ index.html U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 38-617 WASHINGTON : 2007 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001 SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING HERB KOHL, Wisconsin, Chairman RON WYDEN, Oregon GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama EVAN BAYH, Indiana SUSAN COLLINS, Maine THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware MEL MARTINEZ, Florida BILL NELSON, Florida LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina KEN SALAZAR, Colorado NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania DAVID VITTER, Louisiana CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri BOB CORKER, Tennessee SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania Julie Cohen, Staff Director Catherine Finley, Ranking Member Staff Director (ii) C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Opening Statement of Senator Herb Kohl........................... 1 Statement of Senator Blanche Lincoln............................. 2 Prepared Statement of Senator Gordon Smith....................... 5 Prepared Statement of Senator Larry Craig........................ 44 Panel I Todd P. Semla, Pharm.D., president of the American Geriatrics Society; clinical pharmacy specialist, Department of Veterans Affairs; and associate professor, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.......................... 6 Gerard Anderson, Ph.D., professor of Public Health and Medicine, Johns Hopkins Bloomsberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 16 David Dorr, M.D., assistant professor, Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology Joint Appointment: General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR................................................... 29 Panel II Stuart Guterman, senior program director, Program on Medicare's Future, The Commonwealth Fund; former director of the Office of Research, Development and Information, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Washington, DC.............................. 52 Stephen McConnell, Ph.D., vice president of Advocacy and Public Policy, Alzheimer's Association, Washington, DC................ 73 Ann Bowers, caregiver, Fort Smith, AR............................ 80 APPENDIX Prepard Statement of Senator Blanche Lincoln..................... 95 Prepared Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton............. 96 Responses to Senator Smith Questions from Dr. Todd Semla......... 97 Responses to Senator Smith Questions from Gerard Anderson........ 98 Responses to Senator Smith Questions from David Dorr............. 100 Responses to Senator Smith Questions from Stuart Guterman........ 101 Statement submitted by American College of Physicians............ 103 Statement submitted by Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc......... 114 Statement submitted by Disease Management Association of America. 122 (iii) THE FUTURE OF MEDICARE: RECOGNIZING THE NEED FOR CHRONIC CARE COORDINATION ---------- -- WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2007 U.S. Senate, Special Committee on Aging, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:09 p.m., in room 106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Herb Kohl (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Senators Kohl, Lincoln, Casey, Whitehouse, Smith, Craig, and Corker. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL, CHAIRMAN The Chairman. Good afternoon. At this point, we are going to call this hearing to order. We welcome, of course, all of our witnesses who are with us today. I am pleased today to be able to turn over the gavel to Senator Blanche Lincoln, who will be chairing today's hearing on the need for chronic care coordination under traditional Medicare. Today, 63 percent of our Nation's Medicare beneficiaries suffer from two or more chronic conditions. Studies show that Medicare spends two out of every three dollars on seniors with five or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, emphysema, heart disease, arthritis or osteoporosis. These chronic conditions are largely preventable, treatable, and their onset can often be delayed through coordinated care, nutrition and exercise. Unfortunately, today's Medicare program is not designed to serve those elderly individuals with multiple chronic conditions that make up the majority of beneficiaries. Traditional Medicare doesn't provide physicians with incentives to coordinate their elderly patients' chronic care conditions. As a result, many seniors are left receiving disjointed care through multiple visits to different doctors every year at an unnecessarily high cost. Research indicates that Medicare beneficiaries with chronic conditions are more likely to have preventable, costly hospitalizations, experience adverse drug interactions, undergo duplicate tests, and receive contradictory medical information. At a time when our Nation is growing older, it is clear that the success we have in preventing and treating chronic diseases will directly affect our ability to provide quality health care and contain future growth in Medicare spending. Today's hearing will shine a light on these shortcomings in Medicare and help us identify ways we can improve the care of our seniors while making Medicare more efficient. We will now be turning the hearing over to the Aging Committee's greatest advocate for geriatric chronic care coordination, Senator Blanche Lincoln. Senator Lincoln has shown great leadership highlighting these issues and bringing them to the attention of this Committee. Since 2001, she has worked on legislation to improve the care of our Nation's elderly, and I am proud to join her as she introduces the Geriatric Assessment and Chronic Care Coordination Act of 2007. I know Senator Lincoln has assembled a distinguished panel of witnesses today, and we are looking forward to learning more about the challenges that these beneficiaries and their physicians face. We have an obligation to modernize the Medicare program and ensure that it is providing the quality care that today's beneficiaries need. So, we thank Senator Lincoln for all of her work on this issue, and she will now take over this hearing. STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLANCHE LINCOLN Senator Lincoln. Well, thank you, Chairman Kohl. I just want to say a very special thanks for your leadership in this Aging Committee. I think you, working with Senator Smith, have done a tremendous job in helping us to focus on so many of the issues that our American families face as their loved ones start that aging process. It is critically important for so many across this country that we really do look to modernize our ability to provide the kind of quality of care and the dignity of care that our aging Americans want to see. So I want to thank you so much for allowing me to do this today, and thank you again for your incredible leadership. You have done a wonderful, wonderful job. He really has done a tremendous job in helping make the opportunity for today's hearing a reality. I also want to say a very special thanks to our panel, as I was not able to come and greet our witnesses. We had a vote immediately before this. But I want to say a special thanks to both of our panels of witnesses, as well as the advocacy groups that have worked so diligently with us. It is critically important that we hear from them, and hear from their issues relating to the constituencies that they represent. They have all been very, very willing to come forth with good, honest suggestions and proposals and ideas of how we can do this better. I am very proud to be a part of that team as well, in terms of working with them. As a member of the so-called Sandwich Generation, who cares for their children and aging parents simultaneously, I am keenly aware of so many issues affecting older Americans and have been an advocate for geriatric chronic care coordination for several years. Now, I am not just a part of the Sandwich Generation. My husband's grandmother turns 110 in a couple of months, still living in her own apartment, assisted living. So I am a part of the Club Sandwich Generation. [Laughter.] But seeing her remarkable ability to still care for herself in so many ways and to live a very active and fulfilling life at almost 110 is pretty remarkable. But it also shows that there is tremendous potential. There is certainly a lot of commitment that we need to make as Americans continue to live longer lives. We want to make sure that they are very, very healthy. Studies indicate that when patients are linked with a physician or other qualified health professionals to coordinate care, the results are improved quality of care, increased efficiency, and greater cost-effectiveness. That is why I am so pleased to chair today's hearing, to raise the awareness of the need for chronic care coordination for Medicare beneficiaries and to discuss how these services can be provided in a cost-effective way. This hearing will specifically focus on chronic care coordination in the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program. While some chronic care coordination occurs in other programs--such as Medicare Advantage and the Program for All- Inclusive Care for the Elderly, which is known as PACE--nearly 85 percent of Medicare beneficiaries continue to receive health care from the traditional fee-for-service program, which lacks a care coordination component. As we know, obviously, our focus there is on the high cost, and that high-cost element of Medicare is mostly in the fee- for-service component. So why focus on chronic care coordination? Well, there are several reasons. First, the needs of Medicare beneficiaries have changed over time. When Medicare was first established in 1965, it was based on a health insurance model, which focused on acute care, not chronic conditions. But today, many of our older Americans suffer from multiple chronic conditions, and would benefit from care coordination. We know that about 78 percent of the Medicare population have at least one chronic condition, and 63 percent have two or more chronic conditions. Second, as our population ages, the number of older individuals with chronic illnesses is also expected to rise. A recent article in The Washington Post noted that baby boomers are more likely to be in worse health condition than their parents in retirement, which may result in a greater need for medical services. A RAND Corporation study estimates that half of the population will have a chronic condition in 2020, a total of 157 million Americans. Third, Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic care conditions are expensive to treat. We know that our costs in Medicare are exploding as our number of aging Americans is beginning to explode. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 43 percent of Medicare costs can be attributed to 5 percent of Medicare's most costly beneficiaries. Medicare beneficiaries with four or more chronic conditions are 99 times more likely to experience one or more potentially preventable hospitalizations than those without chronic conditions. If an individual has Alzheimer's disease or dementia, medical costs increase even more dramatically. Finally, multiple chronic conditions not only affect the individual suffering from them but also their caregivers. About 5 years ago, I watched my own mother devote herself to the care of the man she had loved for more than 52 years. She had pledged to attend to him and honor his life until he departed this world, even if he no longer remembered her name or could recognize her face. My dear father suffered from Alzheimer's disease, and it was a long journey for all of us for almost 10 years. My mother's strength and commitment to my father during his long illness remains a great source of inspiration to me. Unfortunately, my family's experience with the ravages of Alzheimer's is not unique. Millions of Medicare beneficiaries with chronic conditions who remain at home do so with the help of family and friends. Research shows us that family care for an older adult with chronic illness or disabilities, especially dementia, can have negative health effects, both physical and mental, on family members. To address these issues, I am pleased to announce that, today, Senator Collins and I have introduced the Geriatric Assessment and Chronic Care Coordination Act of 2007--it is S. 1340--and along with Senators Kohl, Kerry, Mikulski, Clinton, Boxer and Casey. I am also pleased that Representatives Gene Green and Fred Upton are sponsoring a companion bill in the House and that 30 national organizations have endorsed our bill. This bill realigns Medicare to provide high-quality, cost- effective care to elderly individuals with multiple chronic conditions. It is an important step forward in recognizing and remedying the impact that multiple chronic conditions have on individuals, their caregivers and the Medicare program. Again, a special thanks to Senator Kohl, our Chairman, and to Senator Smith, Ranking, for all of your incredible leadership on this Aging Committee, and to all of the advocacy groups and our panelists here today for really making all of this a possibility. We want to go to Senator Smith first, if you are prepared and ready. Senator Smith. In the interest of time, let me thank you, Senator Lincoln. It is a pleasure to work with you on this Committee, the Finance Committee, on health care issues. We have done so well, and will continue to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing this important hearing to go forward. I think in the interest of time, I would like to put my statement in the record. I want to thank Dr. David Dorr, who is here from Oregon. I appreciate your taking your time and this long trip out here to share with us your important work on chronic care coordination. He is a distinguished assistant professor at Oregon Health Sciences University, and is the principal investigator of the Care Management Plus Project, which is funded by the John A. Hartford Foundation. So thanks for coming. [The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:] Prepared Statement of Senator Gordon Smith I want to thank Senator Lincoln for holding this important hearing today. I have had the pleasure of working with Senator Lincoln on many issues related to improving the quality of care for older Americans and look forward to exploring this topic with her. Medicare is the backbone of the healthcare system for elderly Americans. Now, more than 44.6 million Americans receive benefits from this important program, and the number is expected to grow quickly in the coming years as more and more baby-boomers edge towards retirement. We also are a nation that is living longer than ever before. Studies tell us that as we live longer we are more likely to have an increased number of chronic health conditions. Americans are suffering from chronic conditions, and asthma, emphysema, dementia, diabetes, arthritis and mental illnesses are just a few of the most frequently diagnosed conditions in the elderly. When these conditions occur together, they significantly compound the daily difficulties of those they afflict. We also know that these conditions take a toll on those suffering. Too often, those suffering are forced by their condition to spend days in bed, become dependent upon family members and experience a general decrease in their quality of life. The good news is that Americans suffering from chronic conditions are living longer and healthier lives due to medical advances. Where they once would have been confined to their home or a hospital bed, many more are able to live much fuller lives. This is the direction that programs like Medicare should continue to move towards. Chronic care coordination is a practice that has been tried and tested in many areas of our nation. In fact, we will hear today from Dr. Dorr about work going on in my home state of Oregon. The purpose of chronic care coordination is to ensure that a patient's care providers are working in a collaborative manner and that everyone who provides care does so in an informed way. The hope is that if care providers work closer together on the patient's behalf, that patient will have better care and a better quality of life. As a member of the Finance Committee, as well as Ranking Member of this Committee, I am always looking at ways to encourage quality care for our elderly. With the skyrocketing cost of healthcare, I am also looking to provide that care more efficiently. Twenty percent of Medicare beneficiaries who have five or more chronic conditions account for about two-thirds of all Medicare expenditures. I look forward to hearing about the body of research today that looks at how chronic care coordination also can achieve the goal of increased quality for these patients as well as how it can improve the fiscal outlook for the ever-increasingly expensive Medicare program. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. I know that they are tireless in their work to better the healthcare for our aging population, as well as all Americans. Those we will hear from today also include advocates for those with chronic conditions. I appreciate your ongoing work to ensure that their needs, and those of their families, are met. I especially want to thank Dr. David Dorr for being here today. I greatly appreciate him taking the time to come out here from Oregon and inform us of his work on chronic care coordination. Dr. Dorr is an assistant professor at the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), and is the principal investigator of the Care Management Plus project, which is funded by the John A. Hartford Foundation. Care Management Plus is a project that uses information technology and care managers based in primary care clinics to improve coordination and quality of care for older adults and those with complex chronic illness. I look forward to hearing all of your testimony today. Senator Lincoln. Great. Thank you, Senator Smith. We have two panels of very distinguished witnesses with us today, so we will get started, as Senator Smith said, in the sake of time. We will ask our witnesses to present their testimony, and then we will open it up for questions and move to panel two. On our first panel, we will hear from Dr. Todd Semla, president of the American Geriatrics Society, a clinical pharmacy specialist at the Department of Veterans Affairs and an associate professor at Northwestern University at the Feinberg School of Medicine. Next we will hear from Dr. Gerard Anderson, a professor of public health and medicine at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. He will be followed by Dr. David Dorr, the principal investigator of Care Management Plus and an assistant professor of medical informatics and clinical epidemiology with a joint appointment in general internal medicine and geriatrics at the Oregon Health and Science University. Thanks to all of you gentlemen for being here today, and we look forward to continuing our work with you. Dr. Semla. STATEMENT OF TODD P. SEMLA, PHARM.D., PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY; CLINICAL PHARMACY SPECIALIST, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, FEINBERG SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, EVANSTON, IL Dr. Semla. Good afternoon. I am Todd Semla, president of the American Geriatric Society. I am a doctor of pharmacy with more than 25 years of experience in the field of geriatrics. The American Geriatric Society is a nonprofit organization of over 6,700 health professionals devoted to improving the health and quality of life of older Americans. Geriatric medicine emphasizes primary care for older persons. It promotes preventive care, with a focus on care management, and coordination that helps patients maintain functional independence in performing daily activities and improves their overall quality of life. I thank you, Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member Smith and the Members of the Special Committee on Aging, for having this hearing during Older Americans Month. It is a time to celebrate this fastest-growing segment of our population and also a time to look toward the future of the Medicare program. Today, I will outline the need for the coordination of care and the many benefits, particularly the increasing number of older Americans with multiple chronic conditions. As Committee Members know, America is on the threshold of a historic population shift upward. It is no surprise that the prevalence of chronic conditions--conditions that typically last more than one year, such as arthritis, cancer and hypertension--increases with age. Therefore, as life expectancy increases, so does the number of people living with multiple chronic conditions, conditions whose symptoms and treatment often interact in very complex ways. Currently, about 20 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries have five or more chronic conditions, and these individuals account for almost 70 percent of all Medicare spending. It is clear that we must find better ways to treat this population, and providers have increasingly recognized the need for care coordination in order to properly manage the health of individuals with complex and multiple chronic health conditions. Simply put, care coordination puts the patient at the center of care. It holistically views the patient's physical, cognitive and caregiving needs and to result in the development of a plan that addresses all of the patient's medical conditions and takes into account the patient's ability to self-manage his or her health care, and functional issues in the patient's support system. A care coordinator, usually a physician, physician's assistant, or nurse practitioner, oversees the plan's implementation by the team. This may entail consultation with other providers, monitoring and managing medication, and patient and family caregiver education and counseling. Studies show that care coordination raises the quality of care, improves health outcomes, and reduces health care costs for individuals with chronic conditions. This means fewer hospital visits are needed, duplicate services and appointments are eliminated, sudden health crises are avoided. When a comprehensive geriatric assessment is combined with coordinated care, studies have shown even better outcomes. Medicare, however, is not structured for the delivery of these coordinated care services. Instead, the current Medicare fee-for-service system encourages providers to see patients frequently for short periods of time. Without a plan or a care team, the patient receives fragmented care by multiple providers who may or may not communicate with each other. This can result in duplicate tests and treatments, and prescribing medications without knowing what medicines the patient is already taking. In turn, this can increase the risk for hospitalizations, drug interactions, and adverse events, placing the patient at risk as well as driving up costs. Where do we go from here? We believe that a new chronic care coordination benefit needs to be fully integrated into the Medicare program, both in the near term and well into the future. This will be key to improve health outcomes, higher quality of health care, and greater value for every health dollar spent. Legislation introduced by Senator Lincoln would move us toward this goal. The Geriatric Assessment and Chronic Care Coordination Act will create a patient-centered approach under Medicare that will benefit patients with multiple chronic conditions and lower their health utilization rates. The bill's establishment of a geriatric assessment and chronic care coordination benefit under Medicare's fee-for- service program will improve the care received by the sickest and most vulnerable patients in the Medicare population. It also will improve the lives of family caregivers by providing them with resources to better care for their parents, grandparents, brothers, and sisters. Thank you, Senator Lincoln, for your leadership. We look forward to working with you and Members of the Committee to enact this bill, as well as advance other issues to improve the health and quality of life of older Americans. I will be happy to answer any questions as the time allows. [The prepared statement of Dr. Semla follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.008 Senator Lincoln. Dr. Anderson. STATEMENT OF GERARD ANDERSON, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICINE, JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMSBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, BALTIMORE, MD Dr. Anderson. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 was the first step in the transformation of the Medicare program to one better oriented to the needs of beneficiaries with chronic conditions. Mrs. Lincoln and Members of this Aging Committee, thank you for your leadership on that issue. The transformation was long overdue. Looking to the future, I would like to propose five additional steps for the Aging Committee to consider. First, we need an evidence base that clinicians can use when they treat Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions. Unfortunately, most clinical trials routinely exclude people with multiple clinical conditions, because it is difficult to demonstrate efficacy in this population. This can leave a doctor treating a Medicare beneficiary with multiple chronic conditions with a difficult clinical decision. First of all, they could assume that the exclusions from a clinical trial just don't matter, and use the new treatment. Or two, they would assume that the exclusions are important, and not use the new information. Both of these could be wrong. There are two ways to give the doctor the important new information. Thirty years ago, clinical trials routinely excluded women and minorities. Now, the Federal Government mandates that women and minorities be included in clinical trials. One solution is to mandate that clinical trials include complex patients, not just the simplest patients. A second is to fund follow-up studies that include the more complex patients. Second of all, most clinicians are never taught how to work cooperatively with a complex patient. We did a national study of physicians, and found that a majority of the physicians did not feel that they had the minimum level of training in care coordination or other skills necessary for taking care of people with multiple chronic conditions. Medicare is spending $10 billion a year to support graduate medical education. Medicare could use some of its leverage to put more emphasis on training residents to care for complex Medicare beneficiaries. Third of all, we need integrated electronic medical records that will allow clinicians to communicate easily with each other. Many countries will have integrated electronic medical records by the end of this decade. In these countries, most of the leadership and most of the funding has come from the Federal Government, because nearly all of the financial benefit accrues to the public and to the payers, it is appropriate for the public and the payers to pay the bill. In the U.S., we are asking the providers to purchase electronic medical records systems. There are two problems with this approach: First of all, it is expensive for providers to introduce electronic medical records, and the payoffs to them are relatively minimal. Second of all, having each provider select his or her own system dramatically reduces interoperability. What I would do is pay each provider $5 to send certain clinical information to a secure site maintained by the Medicare program. All clinicians could then access this information through a secure connection. Medicare beneficiaries would be able to restrict access to certain clinical information if they so desire. The cost of the Medicare program would be $4 billion a year, and it would pay for itself if all the clinicians participated. Fourth of all, we need to pay for assessment and care coordination. The legislation developed by Mrs. Lincoln, the Geriatric and Chronic Care Coordination Act, goes a long way to achieving this objective. My suggestion is that each Medicare beneficiary with five or more chronic conditions--which represents about 20, 25 percent of the population--and/or dementia, select this care coordinator, and the care coordinator would help manage the person's care. Most likely, the person would choose a doctor, and the doctor would hire nurses to conduct the analysis and to identify potential problems. One example of where better care would prevent and save some money is adverse drug reactions. Over half of all Medicare beneficiaries with a chronic condition go to the pharmacist once a year and are told by that pharmacist not to fill a prescription because of another drug that they are already taking that could have a problem. I would pay the care coordinator approximately $100 per beneficiary per month, which is about the same as the disease-management firms receive. In my last few seconds, I would like to expand our horizons and point out that chronic disease is now the major problem in every country in the world, including the poorest countries. Yet most international aid agencies focus almost exclusively on infectious disease such as AIDS, TB, and malaria. However, the three most common reasons for death and disabilities in the world, both in high- and in low-income countries, are circulatory disease, cancer, and injuries. More importantly, chronic diseases can be treated inexpensively, and once the programs are initiated, these programs have a history of sustaining the chronic disease programs. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. [The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.019 Senator Lincoln. Dr. Dorr. STATEMENT OF DAVID DORR, M.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY JOINT APPOINTMENT: GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE AND GERIATRICS, OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY, PORTLAND, OR Dr. Dorr. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Dr. David Dorr, and I am honored to present testimony here today. I am an internal medicine physician who works in a primary care clinic. I am also a medical informatics researcher on the faculty of Oregon Health and Science University. My work has focused on the use of information technology to improve care coordination for older adults with complex chronic illnesses in a program called Care Management Plus. There is a crisis in chronic illness care. Consider Ms. Viera, a 75-year-old patient with five chronic illnesses. In most clinics, coordination of the care for her multiple chronic illnesses would be limited, leading to worsening of her conditions, unnecessary hospitalizations, and significant costs. Guidelines of care for her illnesses may conflict, and she and her husband may struggle to integrate the sometimes conflicting recommendations of six different physicians with their own values. With careful care coordination, as in Care Management Plus and other models, a care manager can help educate and guide the Vieras through their options. Care coordination for people with these complex illnesses can help limit the costs, improve health, and provide better quality of life for the growing number of older adults in our country. Care Management Plus is the integration of a tested information technology system with trained care managers in primary care clinics to treat older adults with complicated conditions respectfully and effectively. In its initial testing, Care Management Plus saved lives and improved health care outcomes by reducing hospitalizations by 24 percent, improving patients' experience with care, and improving disease status. Savings were estimated at more than $.25 million annually per clinic. If 2 percent of the Nation's primary care providers adopted similar care coordination programs, Medicare would potentially immediately save over $100 million each year. We are in the process of disseminating the Care Management Plus model from seven clinics to more than 40 with another grant from the John A. Hartford Foundation. We have discovered three significant challenges as we do so. First, clinicians want to provide care coordination services, but especially in smaller and rural clinics, face significant unreimbursed costs if they do so. For instance, having a care manager is essential to many such models, but services by the care manager such as providing education, motivation, coaching, and monitoring over time, do not receive adequate payment. Second, the use of information technology is essential, but must be adapted to the needs of coordinating care. Current incentives have compelled most practices to use electronic health records to better capture billing documentation rather than address the needs of coordination over time. Third, models like ours and Eric Coleman's Care Transitions nurse-coaching model require time and effort to learn and implement. Incentives must reflect these costs. We are heartened that the Committee on Aging is holding these hearings today. With your help, we can make sure that all persons with multiple chronic illnesses get health care that meets their essential needs in the most cost-effective way possible. I thank you for the opportunity to share some of our exciting work with you today. [The prepared statement of Dr. Dorr follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.027 Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Dr. Dorr. Thanks to all of you all for your helpful input into this issue. We are grateful for that. I will just ask a few questions and then turn it over to the Chairman and the other Members for their questions. Dr. Semla, Dr. Dorr brought up some of this issue, but I was hoping that maybe you might elaborate as well on the doctors working in rural areas, the capacity or the infrastructure needs that they have for a team approach to coordinate their care. In particular, my State, in Arkansas, is rural, and many, many areas are medically underserved. Any of you that may have recommendations--and Dr. Dorr, you have mentioned some in terms of reimbursements and how we could do that--but how we would assist rural providers with providing care coordination, considering that there is a shortage of medical professional providers in many of those areas. Obviously, in terms of reimbursement, there is a challenge as well. But hopefully, there is more that we can do, if you have got some suggestions. Dr. Semla. Yes, thank you, Senator Lincoln. I was fortunate enough to train at the University of Iowa and was there for nine years, and so have some experience in delivering rural health care. I would look at it from a two- pronged approach. First is to look at increasing the workforce that is either specializing in geriatrics or can employ the principles of geriatric medicine. There are a couple of things that are currently under way. One is that the Institute of Medicine is currently working on a report on the workforce, will come forth with recommendations in March of next year on how we will meet the needs of caring for older adults. Another would be the continuation of funding for things such as geriatric fellowship, geriatric residency programs, and Title VII, which funds the geriatric education center that not only trains individuals who want to specialize within their profession in geriatrics, but also teaches others in medicine and other professions the principles of geriatrics, so you are going to eventually get that down into the communities. The other idea I would have is another along those lines, would be loan forgiveness programs for people who choose to go into geriatrics as their specialty, and particularly to encourage people to go into rural practices. Whether that is through State or Federal funding, that would be a huge incentive. With regard to the delivery of care, I think looking at things such as telemedicine, whether that be videoconferencing or phone conferencing or some ways. When I was at Iowa, the dental school had a van that was actually a mobile dental office with several suites that went to nursing homes and provided care. So if a patient can't come to the team for geriatric assessment, the team may be able to come there and then work with the person who is going to be their care coordinator, either a physician, nurse practitioner, physician's assistant in that area. So those are some suggestions that I would offer. Senator Lincoln. That is great. I know we have worked with great programs through Easter Seals to get that same type of team delivery in to special-needs children, particularly in underserved areas, where we can get different therapies out there to them. That same van travels across the State with seven therapists for different things. So there are a lot of good suggestions there. Without a doubt, increasing both the workforce, but more importantly, recognizing that we are not training the geriatricians or the academic geriatricians that we are going to need for the enormous onslaught of seniors that we will see when the baby boomers really do hit their full peak. Dr. Anderson, the health care privacy is also a major concern in our country. Looking at your research on care coordination and health technology in other countries, I was hoping that you maybe could enlighten us a little bit on how they may have handled some privacy issues. Maybe you might have some recommendations for how we can keep patient medical information private when trying to coordinate care for Medicare beneficiaries with these multiple providers. Dr. Anderson. I think the easiest example is Germany, where essentially, they have been working on this issue for about 15 years. They have an electronic medical record. They are moving to the smart card that you would be able to walk around and could have all your electronic medical record information on it. You would have the ability to take off certain things if you chose to do so. So if you were particularly concerned about a mental illness, or you are concerned about something on your medical record that you didn't want all the physicians to know, you could take that off, and it would be your choice. So, essentially, it is your card, and you get to deal with it. So you would have control over the information very easily. I think that works pretty well in Germany. Senator Lincoln. Well, it is interesting. In our State, we now have a consortium group that is working to bring greater efficiency and quality of care through medical records. Wal-Mart has partnered with Intel and the University of Arkansas Medical Sciences to really begin to develop a very similar-type card that gives the information in the hands of the patient the ability to transfer or take that information with them, and to control the information in terms of things that they may want to keep some privacy element with. Dr. Anderson. About a year ago, I was down in New Orleans, and the New Orleans City Health Department was passing out smart cards, because they saw during Hurricane Katrina, there was a huge problem when people lost all of their medical records. If you had it with you in your wallet, and you ended up in Arkansas, you would have that information. It was a critical thing that they learned as a result of Katrina. Senator Lincoln. Well, Dr. Dorr, last--my time is up--but based on your experience with the Care Management Plus, you talked about some of the benefits that you have seen for patients and their caregivers since they have begun receiving coordinated services for their chronic illnesses. Is there anything else there? You talk about the information technology needing to be adapted, and I would think that as opposed to just making sure that we are having this coordination of information and care for the purposes of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, there are also other benefits too. Dr. Dorr. Yes, thank you. That is an excellent question about information technology and its use. I think that we have highlighted health information exchange as a very important part of the care coordination that really has to occur, and keeping privacy carefully monitored as we do that. I think there is one core way we could do that, while still allowing a fair amount of choice, which is to continue to divine the core functions and standards that are necessary to be able to share care plans and coordinated care between physicians so that it is easy to keep track, and keep track of the six different components as well as the patient's preferences. Senator Lincoln. That is great. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lincoln. Dr. Semla, will you tell us more, as specifically as you can, which I believe you touched on, why it is that a direct physician involvement in the care plan rather than the use of disease management companies is more productive and more efficient? Dr. Semla. The demonstration project that CMS has done has largely focused on disease management companies, more focused on a specific disease as opposed to multiple illnesses and chronic conditions that all interact, so that their interventions are designed specifically for that particular intervention. They may be targeting heart failure, but they are not taking into account the patient's diabetes, their arthritis, all of which can lead to complications in terms of managing their heart failure, or lead to drug interactions, as one of the reasons. So having care coordination, some patient-centered focus on all of those chronic conditions, will help to make that system more efficient and lead to better outcomes for the patient. The Chairman. You don't believe a disease management company can do that? Dr. Semla. I don't believe that they have demonstrated it as well as chronic care coordination, particularly when combined with geriatric assessment, where you have an initial plan, and then you have the implementation of that plan. You have to have multiple chronic disease management systems for the patient, and sort of what we have now. The Chairman. Dr. Anderson, what role do you believe that the Federal Government will have to play, or should play, in implementing electronic systems nationwide? Dr. Anderson. As I said in my testimony, I think it is the benefit of electronic medical records accrue pretty much only to the payers. They don't accrue to the providers. If I look at other countries, almost all of the expenditures come from the Federal Government, come from whoever is paying for care. They are the ones who benefit from fewer drug interactions, fewer hospitalizations, fewer readmissions, all these things that occur because you have an electronic medical record. The hospital gets fewer admissions, so they don't benefit from this. The doctor gets fewer admissions. They don't benefit from this, but yet we are asking them in the United States to pay for this electronic medical record. The benefits accrue to the payer, because you get fewer hospitalizations. If I may take a second, in terms of your previous question, the evidence base, as I said, doesn't exist right now for taking care of people with multiple chronic conditions. So, a disease management firm going by the book doesn't know how to take care of somebody with multiple problems. Medicine is an art, not a science, in many of these people, with multiple chronic conditions until we have got a better scientific basis, disease management, as much as it tries, doesn't have the evidence to take care of these complex patients. The Chairman. All right. Thank you so much. Dr. Dorr, implementing a program like Care Management Plus, as you know, may cost clinics upwards of as much as $100,000. Small rural clinics, such as those in my State as well as across the country, may not be able to afford that investment. So what other options exist for small clinics that may assist them in coordinating patient care? Dr. Dorr. That is a great question. We are actually working with the Oregon Rural Practice Research Network to come up with an answer to that question. I will tell you our general approach, which we started in Utah, which was to invoke more of community support for the kinds of people who do care management in the community, to broaden the concept of the care team with the primary care clinics, as a center, but not necessarily providing all the care. To do that, developing relationships with the other resources that are available in that community, to help fill out the care as well. Health information exchange about care plans, about the nature of a person's needs, need to be able to be spread more broadly. So one of the ways we have done this, just on the ground, is have a nurse that is shared between multiple clinics who actually might otherwise be competing. Basically, she goes to two different clinics, and sees the patient specifically for care coordination. That is one example. Might not work in all places. But I don't think we have the answer to that yet, except to look to the broader rural communities and try and enhance the workforce, as Dr. Semla mentioned. The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Dorr. Madam Chairwoman. Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Whitehouse. Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. Dr. Anderson, I would like to follow up a little bit on the comments you just made about health information technology. This is something that interests me a great deal, entirely apart from the question of where, within the health care system, the benefits of HIT accrue. I would agree with you that they accrue first to payers, second to patients, and third to providers, perhaps even not at all to providers, or perhaps even at cost to providers overall. Nobody contests that it is a wise idea to expend taxpayer money maintaining a national highway system, because we are all very pleased that goods can travel rapidly around, and we can drive to visit our grandmothers and family. Should we be looking at the national highway system as a model for a federally managed health information network? Dr. Anderson. I think if we look at other countries, we see in fact that that is exactly what they have done, they use that model. Now, the difference is that I think that the national highway system has both Federal money and State money. I think this is really a Federal responsibility, because many of the people spend 6 months in New York, or Rhode Island, and then they spend 6 months in Florida. Which State should pay for that cost? So you have got to have an information system that is in fact national. So with that slight modification to your idea, I think it makes complete sense to make it a nationally funded system. So I would prefer that, recognizing the health care system. I think my second choice is to have the payers pay for it, with Medicare taking the lead. Senator Whitehouse. Before you can fund something like this, there has to be some agreement on what it is going to look like. The sort of simple analytical model I have is back when we were a much more primitive country, and the railways were the technology of the future. One thing Uncle Sam had to do, in a hurry, was decide how far apart the rails were going to be from each other. Simple decision, but once you made it, then the boxcar could get from Providence all the way down to Arkansas. If you don't make that decision, and you have got different track widths all over the country, you really don't have a railway system that can work. In the health information technology world, it seems to me that there are some similar rail-width issues having to do with interoperability, with what goes in an electronic health record, with what the privacy and confidentiality requirements are going to be. Are you comfortable that we are making enough progress on that in this country right now, when you consider the potential savings that are awaiting us if we can build out adequate health information technology? Dr. Anderson. No, I am not. I think we are in fact doing it the wrong way. We are essentially, by putting all the responsibility on the providers to develop these electronic medical records. We are making it almost impossible to have interoperability. At Johns Hopkins, we have one electronic medical record. The University of Maryland has a different one. A doctor doesn't know which one to use. So it is exactly like your railroad analogy here. They are dealing with two different, three different, five different electronic systems to try to connect with all of the things. Each one of them, Johns Hopkins wants to get as many doctors into their system as possible. That is how the competitive system would work. But in this regard, the competitive system may make it more difficult. So we do need that standardization of rails. There is some work at AHRQ and other places on that issue that I don't think is nearly enough. Until we decide we are going to put some real money into this activity, it is a lot of academic exercise. Senator Whitehouse. In terms of talking about the real money in this activity, I have come across three studies. The RAND Corporation study shows that the minimum likely level of savings is about $81 billion a year from adequate HIT investment. Before David Brailer left ONCHIT, he said it was about $100 billion a year. There is a Massachusetts group CITL which said $75 billion a year. That is a pretty good set of numbers. In fact, the RAND Corporation high-end number estimates $346 billion a year in savings. Are you aware of other work that has been done to cost out the benefits of adequate HIT investment? Those are the three studies that come to mind. Are you aware of others that are out there? Dr. Anderson. There are others, but I think those are for me very reputable ones. They all show about the same number in terms of savings. Really, it depends on how many physicians actually participate into the system. The higher number, I think, is potentially achievable, by RAND. If we got nearly universal working on this system, and that physicians started to really accept the interoperability of it. In other countries, they are seeing significant savings. Senator Whitehouse. For the record, Madam Chair, in the context of these, the annual budget for the Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology in the Federal Government has just been doubled, nearly, to $112 million a year. If you took the $81 billion, and you divided it down to days, that is $220 million a day in savings. So we are investing about 12 hours' worth of the potential savings in trying to achieve them. My time has expired. Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. It is really difficult to mention those kind of savings around Senators, because we all can think of the many places we would like to see them invested. Senator Craig. Senator Craig. First of all, Madam Chairman, thank you very much for this hearing, and to Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Smith. Thank you all. Let me ask unanimous consent that my full statement become a part of the record. Senator Lincoln. Without objection. [The prepared statement of Senator Craig follows:] Prepared Statement of Senator Larry Craig Good afternoon Madam Chairman. I want to thank you as well as Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Smith for calling this hearing today. Madam Chairman, as the baby boom generation ages, we will see an enormous growth in the number of Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions. By some estimates, this relatively small population of patients consumes nearly 2/3 of all our Medicare expenditures. Candidly Madam Chairman, that statistic is too startling to ignore. This hearing will allow us to focus on this important aspect of Medicare. We all agree that Medicare is in need of reform. Medicare's inability to properly handle the needs of seniors with chronic illnesses is only one of the problems with the program. The current system is unstainable--both financially and its ability to maintain quality care. In the testimony they provided, our witnesses have highlighted a variety of problems that the current structure of Medicare presents to beneficiaries with chronic conditions. While it is important to identify the problems, I also appreciate hearing about solutions. America's heavy reliance on third party payers to finance health care presents a number of challenges. One of those--all of the experts on the first panel recognize--is that better coordination of care suffers because providers have little financial incentive to change care delivery based on the needs and wants of their patients. Put simply, their patients aren't paying much of the bill. The federal government is. Still, ideas are beginning to surface in this important area. I was pleased to see that in his testimony Dr. Semla points out that the delivery of health care to chronically ill patients is focused more on the way physicians are paid, not on what is in the best interest of a patient. Every year I meet with more physicians from Idaho than I can count. I'm sure that Senator Lincoln and other members of the House and Senate meet with physicians from the States and Districts as often as I do. When these various physician groups are all put together, it is clear that they are a well- represented profession. While I enjoy learning about the new innovations in health care or the issues important to a particular specialty, I can't help but notice that there are always a few common themes when any doctor visits my office on Capitol Hill. First, most of them recognize that the current Medicare system is not ideal for the needs of their patients. Then, that recognition is followed by a request that Congress increase Medicare payments for their particular specialty or cover some additional treatment service they would like to provide. In short, most of them identify the problem and then request something that will exacerbate the problem. I would like to hear more physicians come in with ideas for a new business model for how they practice medicine and then offer some suggestions as to how we could change Medicare to meet the new business model. I am pleased, Madam Chairman, that this distinguished group of witnesses seems to be heading down that road. When doctors begin to say they have a new business model that will better serve the health care needs of their patients, I think we in Congress will get at the business of reforming Medicare. But, when all we hear is that physicians believe Medicare payments need to increase, it is natural that we in Congress focus on that as the problem. Madam Chairman, I am pleased that we will have the opportunity to discuss one important facet of the challenge of the future of Medicare today. Individuals with chronic conditions stand to significantly benefit from a re-examination of Medicare's payment structure. I hope we move on some of these innovative ideas and more importantly that we begin to change Medicare into a more patients focused system. Again, I want to thank you Senator Lincoln as well as Chairman Kohl for calling today's hearing on this important issue and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Senator Craig. Obviously, to our panelists, with two-thirds of our Medicare expenditures being into the area that you are focusing on, this is a bit of a statistic too big to ignore. Now, we have moved over to one of the tools, and that is as important. Let me suggest to all of you, there is a model out there that the Federal Government owns today that is working phenomenally well. In fact, Dr. Anderson, when Katrina hit, we didn't lose a record. We didn't lose a patient. We didn't lose the pharmaceuticals. We didn't lose a staff person or the staff person's families or the staff person's pets. It was called the VA system. We got them all out on time, on schedule, deployed them to other VA facilities around the country. The moment they walked through the door and their ID number was put into the system, their record was there. It is by far, by almost every public and private estimation today, the best records system in this country. It was federally funded. It is uniform. We are now moving the DOD into a similar system, so there is connectivity. I don't disagree with anything you are saying. The sporadic efforts out in the private sector to build a system is not working, not working the way it ought to work. There is no question, when I look at the quality of health care delivery that the VA system now brings to us. Harvard, Michigan, their surveys, consumer satisfaction is higher than almost any private or other public system, and so on and so forth. Why? It is the records system. It is the uniformity of it. It is a phenomenally good system. Madam Chairman, we have spent a few billion dollars getting there. It is available. It is a publicly owned system. Anybody can replicate it if we were to choose to do that. But there is no single force causing that to happen, or allowing it to happen. Privacy becomes a frustrating issue, as it relates to that kind of connectivity. I voice my concern about smart cards, and the need for uniformity even for a smart card to work, while that card houses all of the information current. In fact, I saw a demonstration of it today where in the card was also the X-rays, and so if you have got a hip that is metal, and you are going through a detector at the security at the airport, well, that system could have a system that accepts a smart card, and boom, up comes your X-ray to prove if you needed to. So all of that is doable, but there is no national coordinated effort. With a smart card, there would need to be a uniformity, though, of at least software to accept it at individual providers' locations. Would that not be true? Dr. Anderson. That would definitely be true. But I think that is something that AHRQ and other Federal agencies have worked on. There is a fair amount of work that has been done. So I think we are close to that. I think it is the Medicare program that should take the lead, because the people who would benefit most from the smart card are the people with multiple chronic conditions, and that tends to be the Medicare program. Senator Craig. What about that chronic condition that says, ``When I get to my provider, I forgot my smart card''? How do we deal with that? Dr. Anderson. That is clearly a problem, that we do lose information. We might have to have a backup---- Senator Craig. ``Oh, it is back home, laying on my dresser. I forgot to bring it.'' Dr. Anderson. Right, and that happens. I sometimes forget my Blue Cross card when I go to the doctor as well. They give me a little bit of information. You could have a backup system there that is available as well, where you just put the smart card in at the doctor's office and it connects to some very large server, if you chose to do that. I was just trying to make sure that we didn't really intrude too much on the privacy thing. But personally, I think the VA system works incredibly well. I think the smart card would be in addition to that. But the VA system works incredibly well. Senator Craig. Well, I thank you. I have no questions. But I do believe, Madam Chairman, we have something that we may not necessarily want to replicate, but we have a model that is working. It is right in front of us every day. The taxpayers of America paid for it. We spent many years investing it, and in it, and improving it, and we continually do work on it today. It is without question a very effective system. It has brought savings. It has brought quality of delivery, and all kinds of things that are something that we are striving for. Thank you very much for this hearing. Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Senator Craig. It brings consistency, as you have mentioned with the victims of Katrina, to be able to have portability. Senator Craig. In fact, Madam Chairman, it was fascinating, in talking with the managers of those hospitals, as I have. They didn't worry about the records, because the records were in the mainframe, outside of Katrina. They just knew that when they got the patient, they worried about the patient. In fact, the great tragedy is that the public sector performed very well in that instance, and the private sector, in some instances, failed, even to the point of losing patients. Therein lies a great tragedy. But beyond that, they didn't worry about the records, because they knew when they got to wherever they were going, they would be there. Dr. Anderson. I had an opportunity to go to see it, and almost all the doctors' offices lost all of their records. The hospitals lost all of their records. It was only the VA that was able to maintain, because they had it on a remote site. Senator Craig. That is right. Thank you. Senator Lincoln. Thank you. Senator Casey. Senator Casey. Thank you, Senator Lincoln. I appreciate you getting us together today here. Senator Kohl, thank you for your chairmanship and the great hearing you have provided and the great panels, today being one of those. I want to say first that one of the things that I am proudest of in the last couple of days is to be a co-sponsor of the Geriatric Assessment and Chronic Care Coordination Act of 2007. Senator Lincoln has shown great leadership on that issue, and we are just beginning that process. Your testimony today helps us to understand better the kind of coordination that we need, and the real urgency to do that when it comes to chronic conditions and in other challenges we have in our health care system, particularly with regard to Medicare. I come from a State where we are right now second in the country in terms of the population over the age of 65, second only to Florida. Eighty-five and up is our fastest-growing population, and your heads are 90, and you know this well. I think these issues that you have given testimony about, we are exploring this particular bill that I mentioned, will bring some light too, I think. All these issues come under the broad umbrella of how do we pay for Medicare in the future, and it is among the two or three most urgent domestic challenges we have for the next 50 or 100 years. We all know that. This is one of the few efforts in Washington, DC, today, I think, to really deal with it. If we don't deal with the coordination of care in chronic disease or illness, we are not dealing with the cost of Medicare. So it is not just about dollars and cents, it is about whether we can deal with those costs. There are two data points or statistics that I want to read, and I think they are particularly compelling. One is, this comes from the summary that Senator Lincoln had for the bill, and it is just startling. The witnesses know this, but I think we can't say this enough. Twenty percent of Medicare beneficiaries have five or more chronic conditions, and these individuals account for almost 70 percent of all Medicare spending. I mean, it is just staggering, the kind of money that is being expended. We have no strategy to deal with that at present, no strategy to take better advantage of the technology, and take better advantage of the care plans that we are talking about. I think also, the other number, or the other data point that jumped out at me, was just the impacts of this on our entire population, that by the year 2020, a quarter of the American population--not the American elderly or older citizens, the entire population--will be living with multiple chronic conditions. Costs from managing these conditions will reach more than $1.1 trillion, by one estimate. So whether those numbers are exactly accurate or not, even if they are in the ballpark, we are in big trouble right now. Washington is not dealing with this. I think this bill and this hearing is a step in the right direction. It seems that we have made a decision over many years in both parties, in lots of administrations and Congresses, to say that for someone who has a chronic condition or a long-term problem like diabetes, that we have made the decision we will pay for an amputation down the road decades later, but we won't pay for a care plan that leads to the prevention that is necessary, or a plan to prevent that amputation from taking place. It is real madness in terms of care, but it is fiscal madness in terms of the money. So that is my statement. But let me get to some questions. I would ask, I did have a longer statement, which I will submit for the record, and I would ask consent to do that. Senator Lincoln. Without objection. Senator Casey. One of the concerns that I have with the direction we are taking is whether or not this coordination-- and this is for any one of the three of you--this coordination and the kind of chronic care coordination that we are talking about can lead to the elimination or the reduction of the kind of independence that people want. I know that is always a tension between helping someone and coordinating their care and a lot of the independence. I don't know if any of you have any opinions about that. Doctor. Dr. Anderson. What I think you want to do is to allow the patient to choose their own care coordinator. So, if I have cancer as my major concern, maybe it is my oncologist that is the care coordinator. If diabetes is my major concern, maybe it is my endocrinologist that is my care coordinator. If I get to choose who my care coordinator is, I am going to feel very comfortable with that. If somebody else chooses it for me, then I am not going to be comfortable. So I think it is really just giving that person the choice. Senator Casey. Anyone else have, on that question? Dr. Dorr. Absolutely. The most patients in the country do seek care from a primary care physician, a geriatrician. That what makes sense, at least from our perspective, is that they are still able to choose any primary care team that they would like, but that unfortunately, that to learn how to do these models takes time and effort. That somehow, if a way to understand the value of that and to document it more carefully through a series of standards that were implemented, that that would help as well. So patients could choose somebody who has by reputation had that opportunity. Senator Casey. I know I am out of time, but, Doctor? Dr. Semla. Well, I would just say that choice is good, and letting the patients choose would be a goal. Most patients are probably going to choose a geriatrician or a primary care provider, particularly if they have multiple chronic illnesses. Senator Casey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair, as well. Senator Lincoln. Thank you. Senator Corker. Senator Corker. Madam Chairman, thank you for this great hearing. I think the testimony has been very, very good, along with the comments that other Senators have made. I know that the subject matter was selected for each of you, and we kind of honed in on Mr. Anderson a great deal, not to take away from the two of you. But I think the focus of the records and the smart card itself are dead-on. I come from a State, Tennessee, that has a lot of entrepreneurs, a lot of people involved in health care. What I find--and I really appreciate the great work that they do, and they have done a lot to advance medical care in America--but it is like we have silos of people that are doing exceptional things, but not talking with each other. I think that tying that together with technology truly is the only--we really do not have a health care system in America. We have a lot of people who are doing what they do well. I think that the technology has the ability to really cause us to have a system where people are actually communicating with each other. I think your comments have been dead-on, along with others up here. I really want to work with our Madam Chairman and others to make sure that we do focus on the public sector taking the lead in making sure we have a technology platform. I would like to move to another subject, and I think Senator Casey's comments about focusing on the end issue instead of prevention--obviously, all the money exists in the chronic conditions. That is where all of the prevention needs to even take place with younger populations. But if you will, describe to me, if we went this route, sort of the upfront investment that might take place. Financially, again, I realize we are seeking bigger savings down the road. But talk a little bit about how we would go about paying for this, through this Medicare program. Also if you would differentiate that from what now happens with Medicare Advantage and that type of thing. I would love to have an explanation from each of you that want to discuss it. Dr. Anderson. What I propose is that the Medicare program pays $5 for a physician, for a hospital, for whoever has the medical records to submit it. Then, that is the payment system, and that would cost about $4 billion. Senator Corker. Yes, I am actually not talking about it. I had heard you say that, both in your testimony and I know someone else asked a question. I am actually talking more now about the general coordinated care effort that would take place, and having someone coordinate that through the fee-for- service program. I am focusing on the bigger picture of the bill itself. Dr. Anderson. Basically, what you want to do is provide to a doctor, I think in most cases--whoever is the person who the patient chooses to be the care coordinator--approximately $100 per member per month. That person would probably hire somebody to do most of the care coordination activities. Then, where there is a difficult decision to be made clinically, it goes to those two, three, four doctors, and they have an actual conversation about whether or not the cardiology problem or the neurology problem is more significant. So, it would probably involve the geriatrician and others. You need money for that person to gather all the information, to have it in order to make a decision. I propose one more number to keep in your heads these Medicare beneficiaries with five or more chronic conditions see 13 different doctors during the year and fill 50 prescriptions during the year. So a lot of information is flowing, and we need somebody paid to coordinate that. Senator Corker. Let me follow up on that, if I could. I know there are others that want to make comments. I was commissioner of finance for the State of Tennessee about a year after we privatized Medicaid. I had nothing to do with privatizing it, but was there to sort of deal with some of the issues. What we found was that, in a lot of the HMOs, we had clerks, in essence, that didn't know that much about medicine, that were paid like you are describing, to make major decisions, if you will, on behalf of patients. So, it turned out to be a not-so-good thing, if you have, in essence, somebody on the end of the telephone that really-- so if you could respond to that? Dr. Anderson. Mine would be different in that it would be paid. The money would go to the doctor, and the doctor would be the one that would be supervising this nurse or this person. So the doctor would feel responsible for the activity, not some clerk on a telephone. Senator Corker. Can I ask one more question? I know I am out of time, but, through an HMO, there is obviously a financial incentive. This would, in essence, be a fee paid to someone. Would there be additional incentives, if you will, to coordinate care and keep costs at a lower level? Or would it just be that per-member per-month payment to that person? It sounds like a strict administrative payment without other incentives in place. Dr. Anderson. I would love to have pay for performance included in that. I think the key things that you would want to reduce are readmission rates, and you could monitor the readmission rates at the hospitals. You can monitor what are called preventable hospitalizations, and these are things that have been in the literature for a while, like you should never be hospitalized for diabetes and other kinds of things. You can monitor how well this care coordinator is performing on all these types of indicators. A third one would be drug-drug interactions. These are things that can be very expensive that can be relatively easily monitored if you have somebody who feels responsible for that activity. Right now, none of these 13 doctors really feel responsible. So paying for a care coordinator and monitoring his or her activities would make them feel responsible, and we can monitor their performance in this activity. Dr. Semla. I would like to comment that many geriatricians are already providing these services without receiving payment for them, because that is what they do and what they are committed to doing as part of their service. I would include others in geriatrics, such as nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants, who can deliver some of these same services under the supervision of a physician. With regard to pay for performance, I think we have to be very careful in terms of the quality indicators that we would choose, because we are dealing with a very vulnerable and at some times frail population but that does get sick. But just focusing on something like drug-drug interactions is a perfect example. I am not sure the Committee is aware, but there is evidence that suggests that for every dollar that we spend in the United States on prescription medications, we are spending between 33 cents and another dollar to treat the adverse events from those medications. So it is not a really good bang for our buck. That would certainly improve with care coordination. Senator Lincoln. Well, I want to thank the panel very much. You all have been a tremendous help, and we look forward to continuing this discussion and work, because I think there are so many things that we can agree will benefit all of us, all of our families, and certainly the Medicare beneficiaries in this country. So we look forward to working with you. Thank you so much for your time and for being here. We would like to call our second panel, if we can. I would like to welcome our second panel. We will first hear from Stuart Guterman, who is the senior program director of the Program on Medicare's Future at the Commonwealth Fund. Mr. Guterman was also the former director of the Office of Research, Development, and Information at the Centers for Medicaid Services. He will be followed by Dr. Stephen McConnell, who is the vice president of advocacy and public policy at the Alzheimer's Association. Our final witness will be Ann Bowers, who will share with us what it is like to be a caregiver to an individual who suffers from multiple chronic-care conditions. I am certainly especially pleased with Ann being here today, because she is from Arkansas. As a caregiver to a parent with Alzheimer's disease myself, along with my sisters, brother, and my mother, I think it is especially important that we hear from family members who face the day-to-day struggles of caring for a person with multiple illnesses and in that chronic disease. So thank you all for being here. Mr. Guterman. STATEMENT OF STUART GUTERMAN, SENIOR PROGRAM DIRECTOR, PROGRAM ON MEDICARE'S FUTURE, THE COMMONWEALTH FUND; FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND INFORMATION, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Guterman. I want to thank you, Chairman Kohl, and Ranking Member Smith, Senator Lincoln, and the other Members of the Committee for this invitation to testify on chronic care initiatives in Medicare. I am Stuart Guterman, senior program director for the Program on Medicare's Future at the Commonwealth Fund. The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation that aims to promote a high-performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable populations, including the elderly and disabled. The Fund carries out this mandate by supporting independent research on health care issues and making grants to improve health care practice and policy. Now, the Medicare program, as you have heard, was designed to ensure access and needed health care for first the elderly and then the disabled population. It has served that purpose well for more than 40 years. But the population it serves has grown and changed, and Medicare must adjust to meet the needs of its beneficiaries. One problem faced by Medicare, as well as the rest of the health care system in this country and in other countries, is that while the health care delivery and financing system was originally designed to address acute care needs, the population they serve is characterized increasingly by multiple chronic conditions. We have already heard from the Chairman and others, 20 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have five or more chronic conditions, and these beneficiaries account for two-thirds of Medicare spending each year. That accounts for about $300 billion next year that will be spent on people with multiple chronic conditions. The astounding fact to me in all this is that this group of 20 percent of Medicare beneficiaries sees 13 different physicians--actually not see, is treated by, sometimes they actually don't see them--13 different physicians, and fills 50 prescriptions each year. So there is not only a lot of money on the table for this group of people, there is also a lot of care being provided. Currently, there is no incentive in Medicare or most other systems to coordinate that care. Within Medicare, I would assert that neither traditional fee-for-service Medicare nor necessarily the Medicare Advantage program currently is configured to ensure that these beneficiaries get the kind of coordinated care that they need. Fee-for-service payment emphasizes provision of individual services in the context of a single encounter for a single condition. Capitation provides incentives that may be more consistent with better coordination, but that doesn't mean that plans respond to those incentives in that way. Capitation also provides a strong incentive to avoid chronically ill enrollees, even under the current risk adjustment mechanism. Moreover, the lucrative payment rate that plans currently receive under Medicare Advantage may actually diminish the power of any incentives, both positive and negative, that capitation otherwise would provide. CMS, though, has begun to respond to these changes in their population and their needs by developing a variety of initiatives aimed at improving the coordination of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries with chronic conditions. In my written testimony, I describe these initiatives in some detail, but I would like to mention a few of the projects that are currently underway. Under traditional Medicare, one of the early attempts to coordinate care was the Medicare Coordinated Care Demonstration. This was an attempt to see whether providing coordinated care services to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with complex chronic conditions could yield better patient outcomes without increasing program costs. There were 15 sites, both in urban and rural areas, that focused on various complex chronic conditions. Enrollment in these programs began in April 2002, and at its maximum reached about 21,000 patients. However, that number was concentrated; about 60 percent of the total enrollment was in the five largest sites. There are initial findings from the first 2 years of that demonstration. They found that beneficiary recruitment in the fee-for-service market can be a challenge, that the most successful programs had close ties to physicians and other providers, and through the first 2 years of the demonstration, few effects were found on beneficiaries' overall satisfaction with care, patient adherence or self-care and Medicare program expenditures. So the results are sort of mixed at best. Currently, there is a major project that is not a demonstration, but a pilot program called Medicare Health Support, which was expected to involve about 160,000 beneficiaries at eight participating sites. Unfortunately, two sites are in the process of dropping out of that program, LifeMasters in Oklahoma and McKesson in Mississippi. But we don't have any good results on what the bottom line is going to be from that demonstration. I am glad to say that apparently, another demonstration project that was in the Medicare Modernization Act is about to be implemented, the Medicare Care Management Performance Demonstration, which is a 3-year project that is scheduled to start July 1 in Arkansas, California, Massachusetts and Utah, to promote adoption of health care information technology to improve quality of care for chronically ill Medicare patients. Focused on the physicians, about 800 practices with one to 10 physicians are going to be involved in that, a total of 2,800 physicians focusing on patients with diabetes, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and preventive care. The special needs plans, which I won't go into, are intended to help, in the Medicare Advantage environment, improve coordinated care. So what do these initiatives tell us? They tell us, No. 1, that engaging Medicare beneficiaries in these kinds of initiatives can be challenging, that the more successful initiatives work more closely with physicians to help identify patients who can be helped most and to establish credibility with those patients. They tell us that designing approaches to reach different populations and in different circumstances and environments and successfully integrating those approaches can be complicated, and that improvements in health care for groups of individuals seem to be achievable, but the jury is still out on whether savings can be reliably achieved. Still, given the current lack of coordination in our health system, it would be hard to believe that a way can't be found to improve on both quality and efficiency. The current system basically is the example of the worst case, and any attempt to coordinate care, I think, would be a move in the right direction to use this $300 billion a year that is on the table more effectively for the beneficiaries in the program. [The prepared statement of Mr. Guterman follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.045 Senator Lincoln. Dr. McConnell. STATEMENT OF STEPHEN MCCONNELL, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT OF ADVOCACY AND PUBLIC POLICY, ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC Dr. McConnell. Madam Chair, thank you for holding this hearing and for your consistent leadership in improving care for the Nation's older population, especially for your leadership on behalf of people with Alzheimer's disease. I would also like to acknowledge the terrific staff work of your Brenda Sulick, who is a fellow in the program named after Senator Heinz, who was the Chair of this great Committee in the past. Assessment in coordinating care is especially important for people with Alzheimer's disease, because they have high use of Medicare services, and incur very high Medicare costs. This is not because of the problems of treating Alzheimer's disease, it is what Alzheimer's disease does to complicate the care and treatment of other conditions. Let's take a look at some of the costs. Medicare now spends three times as much for beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease as it does for those who do not have the disease. About half of that is on hospital care. By 2030, there will be more than 600,000 new cases of Alzheimer's disease every year, and the cost to Medicare for just treating those people will be $394 billion a year, which is the cost of the entire Medicare program today. What is behind the numbers? First of all, people with Alzheimer's disease have other chronic conditions. Twenty-nine percent have heart disease, 28 percent congestive heart failure, 23 percent diabetes, 17 percent had chronic lung disease. In fact, only 5 percent of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and over with Alzheimer's disease had no comorbid medical conditions. Many had more than one serious condition. So what happens when those conditions come together? A couple of examples: Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease plus congestive heart failure had 50 percent more hospital stays, and the cost of their care was 50 percent higher than those with congestive heart failure and no Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's disease plus diabetes resulted in three times as many hospital stays, and average Medicare costs that were 150 percent higher than for beneficiaries with diabetes but no Alzheimer's or dementia. The reason for the higher hospitalization and higher costs is simple. Memory and other cognitive impairments caused by Alzheimer's disease greatly complicate the management of comorbid medical conditions. The case of Ms. X was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association and illustrates this point. Ms. X had mild Alzheimer's disease and osteoporosis, and was prescribed a medication for her osteoporosis and told she had to take the medication with water and remain upright after taking it. Because of her dementia, Ms. X did not remember or follow her doctor's instructions. Four weeks after starting the medication, she was taken to the local hospital emergency room with symptoms of an ulcerated esophagus because of taking the medication incorrectly. Despite treatment, Ms. X ultimately died when the ulcer eroded into a major blood vessel. Ms. X and the data I have presented make clear why care management is essential for beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease. For this reason, we need congressional action to create a new Medicare benefit targeted to the most complex patients. Without the adoption of a new benefit, CMS is unlikely to develop a comprehensive pilot program that ensures complex patients--that is, those with dementia and one or more other medical condition--are treated appropriately with meaningful assessments. We did a survey of 10 of the pilots that are being done now, and with the exception of one, none of the rest of them are even screening for dementia. They are managing diseases and not paying attention to the fact that many of the beneficiaries have dementia. The Alzheimer's Association strongly supports the Geriatric Assessment and Chronic Care Coordination Act. This act is a very important step forward, and has the potential of substantially improving care and lowering costs for Medicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. The value of this legislation is not just the numbers. It is about the lives of real people. Without this legislation, people with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias in their families will continue to struggle with a fragmented health care system, and Government will continue to pay for preventable hospitalizations that could be avoided with better assessment and care coordination. Do not forget the human faces behind all the statistics. You know that very well, and you have handled that incredibly well here in the Senate. There are real reasons to support this important legislation, and we appreciate your leadership on this issue. [The prepared statement of Dr. McConnell follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.050 Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Dr. McConnell. Now, I would like to welcome Ann Bowers from Arkansas. I won't need an interpreter here at all, having a fellow Arkansan. Just to say thanks to Ann for sharing your story. I think our stories really do make all the difference in the world, because it does put a face, as Dr. McConnell said, on each of our families, on how we can do better, and hopefully we will. Thank you. STATEMENT OF ANN BOWERS, CAREGIVER, FORT SMITH, AR Ms. Bowers. Yes, it does. You can provide printed versions for those that do need accent assistance. [Laughter.] Thank you first, Senator Lincoln, for inviting me and for everything you do for those of us struggling with the problems of an aging population--sometimes they are not even that aged-- as well as everything you do for those of us in the great State of Arkansas. Thank you. My name is Ann Bowers, and I represent one of the millions of Americans caring for loved ones with Alzheimer's. Seven years ago, my ex-husband Jay Sweatman, a 50-year-old divorced man with an MBA, two loving preteen daughters, and no family history of Alzheimer's, became ill. At the time, he maintained joint custody of our girls, owned his own company, and served on State and National boards throughout the country. Fourteen months later, everything came crashing down. Repeated financial mistakes, misplaced money, overlooked details, drove his business into the ground, and our marriage ended. He then took and lost a succession of jobs, with the last one being a position as a stock boy at Sam's Club Warehouse. When I realized this college graduate with an advanced degree couldn't hold a job at Sam's, I moved him from Albuquerque to Denver so he could be with his daughters and with me. At this point, he frequently struggled to find words while speaking and was having difficulty carrying on a coherent conversation. After 4 months of exhaustive neurological testing, a diagnosis of probable Alzheimer's was made in March 2002. Neurologists gave me the phone number of the local Alzheimer's Association chapter and suggested I get in touch with them to find out what help might be available for Jay, for our daughters and for me. I will always be grateful for that single gesture. The Alzheimer's Association made sure I knew about day care and referred me to 24-hour phone help and online bulletin boards where I could always find someone who had a clue what I was going through on any day. Finding help for Jay and a way to pay for services was overwhelming. Unemployment and financial mismanagement left him with absolutely no resources. He was admitted in April 2002 to the Colorado Indigent Care Program to help cover his medical expenses. In May, he applied for Social Security Disability Income, but was denied, because he didn't appear to need help and he was under age 60. The following month, his lack of income and resources qualified him for Colorado's Adult Needy Disabled Program, providing $250 a month against any future Social Security benefits, as well as food stamps. During this time, Jay remained in an apartment across the street from our home, with the children spending several nights a week with him. He felt that independence and contact with the girls was critical to his well-being. However, by the winter of 2002, he could no longer reliably keep house, cook, or even groom himself regularly. In early 2003, Jay was finally approved for Social Security Disability benefits. He was also at long last approved for in- home personal assistance, but it came too late. By the time the services were authorized, he could no longer live independently. We moved him into a personal-care boarding home. In the midst of trying to help Jay get the help he needed, it never occurred to me to closely monitor his medication. We had been married for 20 years, and he was totally self- sufficient. I had no idea, due to his impaired judgment, he was hoarding the medication that kept his other health problems, glaucoma and depression, under control. It wasn't until he tried to explain that something was wrong with his eyes that I realized he was losing vision from the sides, a classic exacerbation of his glaucoma symptoms. A thorough search of his apartment confirmed the worst. I found the pills I thought he was faithfully taking organized into neat piles in a dresser drawer, where he placed one each day. From that point on, every health problem quickly became a crisis. Jay's untreated glaucoma required extensive testing, and we briefly considered surgery. He lost most of the sight in one eye. Frustration coupled with lack of medication for his depression led to thoughts of suicide. He had to be hospitalized just so we could get him on an adequate drug regimen and determine his true needs. We didn't know it then, but we needed one person providing ongoing support and a plan of care in coordination with all of his doctors. Instead, I tried to hold down a full-time job, raise two preteenage girls, and solve all the problems myself, guessing what specialist he might need next and what condition we should manage on any given day. There has to be a better system. The Geriatric and Chronic Care Coordination Act will prevent other caregivers from facing the challenges that I did with my daughters. Maintaining Jay's health was only part of the struggle. Multiple wandering incidents landed Jay in the hospital yet again for medical re-evaluation. He was then moved to assisted living, but had to be discharged after only 3 months because he became aggressive and physical, a common progression for Alzheimer's disease. The next stop was a full-service nursing facility specializing in Alzheimer's. Each of these moves required weeks of full-time searching by me to find available beds. First choice was never a consideration. Just finding an open bed for a male patient was the biggest hurdle. Each move also, I will add, required a minimum of 2 to 3 weeks of hospitalization, for reasons that we will see later. Moving from setting to setting was extremely hard on Jay, on myself and on the girls. Access to a care coordination benefit would have provided us with critical nonmedical care, including managing these transitions between care settings and offering guidance on how to find the right facility. Comprehensive geriatric assessment would have properly evaluated his needs and functional status and made changes to his care on an ongoing basis to preserve his independence and his ability to remain in the community. Jay is now 57. He lives in a nursing home in Denver, where he no longer recognizes me or his daughters or any of his caregivers. I am managing his care long-distance, having moved back to Arkansas in 2005 so my daughters could be closer to our extended family. I work full-time and serve as Jay's guardian. I am in charge of all medical decisions related to his care. He doesn't have any other family members who are ready or able to take on this responsibility. I speak weekly with the doctors and nurses at his nursing home and visit as often as possible. It is not an ideal situation, but it is the best we can do for now. I urge Congress to pass the Geriatric Assessment and Chronic Care Coordination Act, so that families living across the country, including those taking care of the 56,000 Arkansans living with Alzheimer's, cannot wait any longer for this kind of help. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Bowers follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.053 Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Ms. Bowers, for sharing your story. I think that so many of us feel incredibly blessed to have grown up in communities and certainly surroundings--I know I did--where I lived within walking distance of both sets of my grandparents and aunts and uncles close by. One of my grandmothers lived with us for the last two years of her life, and those were certainly times and experiences that I cherish and am enormously grateful for. Yet, we also find, in today's world, that is not necessarily the case anymore. We don't live next-door to family members--natural caregivers. Oftentimes we are miles and miles apart. I know that through our own experience as well, if it weren't for my mother's diligence and my sister's unbelievable ferocious appetite of going to the Internet to find out more and more about the progression of Alzheimer's and what my dad might be going through, it was hard for us to make those decisions as well. Later on, hospice came through for us in an incredible way, but we didn't even know to call hospice until the very last minute. So, it is so important that with coordination of care we are able to get some of those answers and directives, and to have someone there who can help to make those decisions. I think you bring that to a great realization in your testimony, and we are grateful to you for sharing your story with us. Just a couple of questions for you all, if I may. The last panel mentioned once something that I thought was important, and I didn't get to mention it before, and that was the issue of utilizing Medicare and our graduate medical education dollars. I know my own husband is a physician, and I never will forget, about four or five years ago, when I really started focusing on this issue, I asked him which year of medical school of residency did he spend a specific amount of time better understanding the coordination of care for his patients. He just looked at me and said, ``That doesn't happen.'' So I hope that we will begin to see some focus on that. I know our former panel mentioned it some. It is something that I wanted to make sure that we were aware of. The other was the technology platforms, and that is the ability to make sure that the information and the exchange of information in our IT efforts to bring about greater coordination are things that are compatible. I just recently visited one of my physicians at home, and they had gone to electronic records. It only frustrated the practice, because everybody that came to see them did not have electronic records, and they were not compatible with the records systems they had. So they were running dual systems, which were extremely costly and unbelievably frustrating. So we have mountains of problems to solve. But without a doubt, I think today's hearing has brought before us that there are some good solutions to be had. We have to have the will to make them happen, and certainly, make the choices of the investments that need to be there to see that happen. Mr. Guterman, even if the chronic care coordination is effective, which I believe it is--and I believe it can be more effective as we walk through the motions of improving it--we may not see any of those benefits or the cost savings for several years. Considering the prevalence of chronic care disease in America and its impact on health care utilization, it seems that at some point we are going to need some kind of dynamic scoring that takes future savings into account. I know myself and Senator Clinton were talking about this last week in our weekly policy meeting, about how critically important it is. But based on your research, do you have any recommendations for us on how we can best measure the results of a chronic care coordination program if it is applied to the Medicare FSS program? I know it is difficult to measure, but you may have some recommendations for us on how to demonstrate those overall savings to Medicare as a result of that chronic care program, so we can convince CBO to score us some of those savings. Mr. Guterman. Well, Senator, I think one thing that all of the chronic care initiatives that Medicare is doing are teaching us is more about how to do these things, and more about the kinds of things that may work in different circumstances. There is a tendency, when people look at these various initiatives, to ask only one question, does it work or doesn't it work, or sometimes even more narrowly, does it save money or doesn't it save money? I think we are at a point now where we are really early on in the process. We need to move in a direction that we all feel is right. It is similar to the interstate highway system analogy, was brought up in the earlier panel. But when people talk about evaluations, I think evaluations are really crucial in any kind of public or private initiative, but I think we need to understand what we are evaluating and the circumstances in which we are evaluating it. It is similar to the interstate highway system analogy: before the system was built, if you were trying to estimate what the savings, what the benefit would be from a system like that, it would be difficult to come up with hard evidence of what that savings would have been. Similarly, to go back even further, if you were trying to estimate what the savings, what the benefit to this country would have been of the automobile in the era around 1900 or 1910, to look at the potential benefits of the automobile. You had an automobile that was running on rutted dirt roads, and you really had no ability to generate hard evidence on what the benefit would be. Sometimes you just have to do things, because you feel like they're the right thing to do. Under the current circumstances, we couldn't possibly do worse than we are doing. However, along the way, you need to be careful. You also need to have a transparent process. I mean, part of the thing that we need is accountability for these initiatives, so that the public can know what works and what doesn't work and when it works and doesn't work, so that we can keep building as we move along with more care. Senator Lincoln. Well, certainly your point of greater evidence being needed is well taken. The problem, obviously, that without it, it takes us longer here to get consensus to bring about that will, to make those investments, and to reach out to those new technologies and the new ideas, and if nothing else, force the consistency that needs to be there if they are going to be effective. So it takes longer, and the longer it takes us, the less effective we are, because we are wasting so many of those dollars and efforts in that timeframe. So my hope is that we can bring about a consensus, and I am pleased that this Committee is very interested, and I know the Finance Committee has been as well in terms of the investments in IT. You did allude to, in your statement there, the report that has reported on the initial findings of the chronic care demos. I would just say that maybe perhaps the information there may not be astounding as we would have liked to have been, because it was such a short period of time. It is hard to--I don't know, maybe you disagree with that--but 2 years is not a very adequate amount time to demonstrate, I think, the true savings or the true benefits of what we might see. Mr. Guterman. Well, I think, Senator, that that early demo was an example of a pretty light--there wasn't very strong financial incentive involved in that system. It was really a sort of early attempt to see whether systems of coordinated care could be put together. I think the answer there is, yes, they could, and I think that we need to be careful when we look at those things to be able to determine what we expected to see in the first place, and how we can learn from what actually happened. One thing we learned was that it can be done. One thing we learned, most of these were very small attempts at doing this, and we need to pick out what we can use in the next step, rather than focus on whether, in the grand scheme of things, whether this was a success or a failure. I mean, the fact that it existed, and that the programs ran, I think, could be called a success. Then we need to draw out of that all the information we can to make the next attempts better. I believe that was done. The Medicare Health Support Pilot will provide more information. But as was mentioned earlier most of the systems that are being tested now are based on third-party disease management organizations. I think those organizations really do have a role, but I think they have a role in working with the physician in providing this care. That is actually one way to answer the question about rural areas in this context, is that these disease management organizations can work with doctors in rural areas on a sort of contract basis or itinerant basis, to able to provide the services to their patient under the physician's coordination for physicians who have practices that are too small to be able to afford a full-time person in the practice to be able to do this. Senator Lincoln. Kind of contracting it out. Well, that is interesting, and I do think that it is important for us to give the time that we need to see the effects of some of the good things that we are seeing happen. I do think it is important. Thank you. Dr. McConnell, your written testimony, you mention the need for assessments as part of chronic care coordination and how important that is. I do see that as an important part of the Chronic Care Coordination bill that we introduced today. Maybe you might talk a little bit more about particularly ways that assessments would benefit individuals with dementia and their caregivers. I think Ann's story really alluded to a lot of that. But there may be some specifics here you would like to mention. Dr. McConnell. Well, the assessment is the foundation. You can't develop a plan, you can't implement a plan unless you know what it is you are addressing. I mentioned that. One of the biggest problems we have in the health care system is that frequently, we don't know that a person has dementia, just as an example---- Senator Lincoln. Right. A lot of people won't even diagnose it. Dr. McConnell. Exactly. If you don't know that a person has a condition, you can't do anything about it. So the assessment is essential to define what the problem is, and then you develop a care plan. I think is an example is a perfect example of that, the example I gave. Somebody wasn't paying attention to the whole person. You mentioned hospice. I think it is a very good example of coordinating somebody's care. Hospice works so well because it is looking at not only the whole patient, but the whole family, and dealing with that whole complex unit and making sure that they get what they need. So it is in some ways a good model. I worry about some of these demonstrations and pilots, because there are a couple of tendencies. One, I think, the disease management approach has problems, and as I said, they are not screening for dementia as far as we know. We are hoping that that will happen eventually. But as far as we know, we are not doing that. So, in the case of trying to manage someone's diabetes, you don't have dementia, you get the doctor prescribes drugs, prescribes the exercise regimen and diet, and you go home and you follow it. You have dementia, you go home, and you don't follow, you end up in the hospital. So some of these things may fail, because they are not really paying attention to the complex problems, particularly where dementia is involved. We have seen that in some previous demonstrations, where they haven't focused on that. Or they have focused not on having the physician coordinate it. So I think the physician role is critical. The other problem is that there is a tendency in these research projects to define the issue so narrowly, so you can really determine, did an intervention here produce a certain kind of an outcome? By definition, what we are talking about here is much more complex. If we try to narrow it down to get a good solid research project out of it, we are in some ways taking the heart out of what it is your bill would do and what is needed in the welfare system. Senator Lincoln. Well, it is interesting, because there is a lot of talk up here about pay for performance, and being able to manage care like that is going to be a critical component of the pay for performance. Because as you said, if there are instructions that patients don't follow, it is hard to be able to recognize what the end performance is of that medical provider if, in fact the patient is not participating, or the actual instructions or prescription or prescriptive plan that has been given isn't followed. So with that, a manager, looking at that overall plan, it is going to be really critical if we want to see that pay for performance, or bait outcome as a part of the tools of creating greater quality and efficiency in our health care delivery. Dr. McConnell. When you mentioned the importance of family caregivers in this whole system, and how, even in your experience, and previous generations where people lived closely together, families can only do so much. If there isn't a good care plan, and the physicians aren't providing the kind of information and monitoring, no matter how closely the family is paying attention--and I think Ann was doing the best she should, but the families simply can't do it without the assistance. The physicians won't do it, in part, because you mentioned the need for geriatric training. We have really got to pay attention to that. Because they just don't have the time. They aren't incented. Senator Lincoln. Well, the incentivizing, as you said, for the amount of time that a physician is going to spend with an aging parent or somebody with chronic conditions, there is no doubt they are going to spend more time with it. But the other is, in terms of rural areas and the physicians that you have there, that there is not more training about where we are going with an aging population for geriatrics and geriatricians. Particuarly academic geriatricians, because we are not training those, which means as med school goes, 10 years from now, we are going to have less in the academic world training the geriatricians, and we will be at a tremendous deficit in terms of the caregivers that we need out there to be managing the managers, in this opportunity. Just one more opportunity. You have talked about how you have handled coordinating your ex-husband's care. Maybe you, in having looked at that and continuing to do that, could reflect on how care coordination services would have helped your family, or would help your family when your husband was first diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. Ms. Bowers. First of all, it is such a huge thing to me to sit here and look at this and hear people talk about budgeting and things like that, because to me, this is such a clear-cut cost-cutting measure. This is---- Senator Lincoln. We need you at CBO. [Laughter.] Ms. Bowers. When I look at the times my husband had three hospitalizations between 14 and 21 days, those hospitalizations were far and away primarily for simply evaluation and placement needs. Those needs could have been taken care of 100 percent by a care coordinator, a well-trained medical background care coordinator, not a clerk at the end of a phone. It would have made a huge difference, not only in cost- cutting--which he was Medicare by that point--how many tens of thousands of dollars were spent hospitalizing him simply because the right hand didn't know what the left was doing? We didn't know the progression of the disease. His depression got out of control. His glaucoma had gone bad. There were so many things that went wrong that, you know, hindsight is the perfect 20-20 situation. I went back, and can beat myself up, ``I should have seen this, I should have seen this.'' But the reality is, every caregiver has other responsibilities, and those of us in the Sandwich Generation invariably have lots of other responsibilities. I did the best I could. Earlier today, I was speaking with someone, and it occurred to me, how would someone have handled this if they were less well-educated than I was? I have been blessed with a good education and have the ability to understand the systems, simply getting through the Web sites on Social Security or Medicare. I am fairly technologically savvy. I have a lot of time doing that kind of stuff. I can't imagine how somebody without the support of a care coordinator could even begin to find the services, much less access and complete the paperwork and the regimen that is required and demanded to achieve the services. A care coordinator would have made not only a phenomenal financial savings, but it would have kept him in the community longer in the early stages, when he still had pride. That kind of thing is gone now. But when he still knew what was happening to him, and he had to try to cover, he had coping mechanisms that he would use to cover up things, like he forgot to take a shower. I mean, this strictly GQ man, who all of a sudden, you will see when it dawns on him, all of a sudden he realizes he is not well-groomed, or he is not putting his best foot forward. Those kind of things, if we could have had the in-home help that a care coordinator could have helped us obtain, instead of being turned down because the person that came to interview him happened to hit him on a good day. ``Well, he doesn't need in- home help.'' Well, if a physician recommended that through a care coordinator, those obstacles would be gone. It would save money, it would enable the patient to maintain his dignity far longer, and it would leave some quality of life for the hundreds of thousands of young children that are going to be affected by this. This is not a disease simply of our parents, Senator Lincoln. It is a disease of our peers, and our children are affected by it. I just feel so strongly about it, that it is not just the financial citings, which to me is so clear-cut, that that alone, the bill should be able to stand on. But in terms of dignity, ability to remain in the community, and the personal quality of life for both patients and caregivers. Senator Lincoln. Well, one of the other things that comes to mind as you discuss those things, is that as we mentioned, many of us, not all of us, represent predominantly rural States, but a lot of us do. Me, and certainly all of us, have rural areas in our States. But when you think about, too, where you go in rural communities, that was our concern. We lived in a small town, my mother was there in a small town. Finding somebody to help her navigate the system of services that exists, my sisters, my brother, we were there for her. Like you, we have got relatively decent educations. Just learning to navigate those systems is unbelievable too. But with a care coordinator, you have somebody who is in the medical field and in those services fields, who can better understand where you go for those services. As you said, you access them quicker, and in that fashion, you provide, again, greater savings, because you don't do those hospitalizations, but you also provide that kind of dignity for your loved one. That is so critically important. Ms. Bowers. It is. I would like to just point out, one point. It really touched me when you mentioned about hospice. By the time you needed it, you didn't even realize it was there until the very last minute, and available. That is an exact parallel to the fact that we had supposedly had access to some in-home help for him, an in-home health care manager that would come in once or twice a day to supervise his medications. I believe you had to lose a certain percentage of your ADLs in order to qualify. Of course, in his initial screening, he didn't qualify, because he happened to be on top of his game for 30 minutes while she was there. The simple ability to access those type of services, and know that they are available through a program like this, would just in the quality of life, would be unbelievable. Dr. McConnell. Senator, I think that is one provision in your legislation that is really important. It is about the importance of linking the individuals to community-based services. You think about just the Alzheimer's Association chapters. There was a clinical study in Cleveland, where the people that were the caregivers were linked to an Alzheimer's Association chapter and given some basic training on how to help care for somebody who had a medical problem. It resulted in significant reductions in unnecessary hospitalizations and emergency room use, just that small little intervention. So not only is it a comfort to caregivers, but it is a very important intervention that is part of your legislation. Senator Lincoln. Well, without a doubt, being able to have someone that you can talk to and have recommendations from is critical. Mr. Guterman, just one last thing on those demonstrations. Of all the chronic care demonstrations that you have analyzed, which one do you think provides us the most promise for helping the chronically ill beneficiaries in the Medicare program? Would you pick one over the other? Mr. Guterman. Well, I think since these are sort of a sequence, and since all the results aren't in, I don't know that there is a definitive model that I could say was the right model. I have my reservations about models that don't involve physicians directly, at least coordinating. I do think there is a role for third-party organizations to help physicians provide the services. The demonstration that is starting up in your State and three others, with small practice physicians, I think is a promising one for two reasons. Senator Lincoln. We wanted the physician oversight as well when we did this. Mr. Guterman. One is that it is physician-oriented, and the other is that it is small-practice-oriented, which is really where the majority of physicians practice. There is another demonstration going on now called the Physician Group Practice Demonstration, that focuses on large multi-specialty group practices, and that has some promise too. But most physicians aren't in large organizations like that. Again, I think what we need to do is take what we can learn out of all of these examples, and then decide as we go along, not necessarily one model, but different models. The Medicare Health Support Pilot is going to offer some good information on what works in different circumstances and what doesn't work in different circumstances. I think we have a lot of development to go, and we can develop as we go along. But as I said before, it is hard for me to believe that we can't do better than we are doing now. Senator Lincoln. Well, thank you so much. Dr. McConnell, just one more thing. You mentioned in your written testimony that disease management may not be the best way to go, because it focuses on specific diseases. Can you just help me understand your comments there? Dr. McConnell. Well, I think, again, taking the case of Alzheimer's disease, there is more than an additive effect here. When you add dementia to another condition, it really creates a whole new care problem. Disease---- Senator Lincoln. You are saying that one single disease is managed, not multiple diseases---- Dr. McConnell. Right. If they are doing multiple disease management, that is fine. But typically, it is focusing on one disease at a time, and as I said, and again, we want to work with CMS. We want to work with these demonstrations and pilots. The concern is that in the legislation, in the Medicare Modernization Act, it specifically requires physicians to assess each eligible beneficiary for conditions other than chronic conditions, such as impaired cognitive ability and comorbidities. It doesn't appear, and we have looked at several of these, that that is happening. Again, it may be just that it is complicated. What the disease management organizations know about is how to deal with managing diabetes. The notion of dealing with someone's cognitive impairment is not something perhaps that they are familiar with. Yet, it is very difficult to imagine that it will succeed without paying attention to that. Senator Lincoln. Well, I just want to thank all of you. I appreciate this panel as well as our first panel, and I certainly do want to say to you, please don't go far. This is an issue that I think we really owe to ourselves, to our children, and to our parents and grandparents to work hard to get it right. As I said, I just go back to the blessing of being able to grow up in a neighborhood with my grandparents and aunts and uncles, and my grandmother right there beside me. I know as much as I may want that for my children, today's society may not fit in that way. But without a doubt, I want to know that my parents--let's face it, we want to be cared for too. Those twin boys of mine, who knows where they will be when I need them, when I need that care? So I am grateful to you all for your input. I am also enormously grateful to my staff. I don't remember who, I guess it was Dr. McConnell, who mentioned Brenda Sulick and Ashley Ridlon on my staff, who have been enormously immersed in this issue. I am grateful for their hard work in helping us put this hearing together. A special thanks to the Chairman and the Ranking Member. So, thank you all. We will look forward to working with you in the future. With that, the Committee is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 5:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- Prepared Statement of Senator Blanche Lincoln I want to thank Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Smith for the opportunity to chair today's hearing on the Future of Medicare: Recognizing the Need for Chronic Care Coordination. As a member of the so-called ``Sandwich Generation'' who cares for their children and aging parents simultaneously, I am keenly aware of many issues affecting older Americans and have been an advocate for geriatric chronic care coordination for several years. Studies indicate that when patients are linked with a physician or other qualified health professionals to coordinate care the results are improved quality of care, increased efficiency, and greater cost-effectiveness. That is why I am pleased to chair today's hearing; to raise awareness of the need for chronic care coordination services for Medicare beneficiaries and to discuss how these services can be provided in a cost-effective way. This hearing will specifically focus on chronic care coordination in the traditional Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) program. While some chronic care coordination occurs in other programs such as Medicare Advantage and the Program for All Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), nearly 85 percent of Medicare beneficiaries continue to receive healthcare from the traditional fee-for- service program, which lacks a chronic care coordination component. Why focus on chronic care coordination? Well, there are several reasons. First, the needs of Medicare beneficiaries have changed over time. When Medicare was first established in 1965, it was based on a health insurance model, which focused on acute care, not chronic conditions. But today, many older Americans suffer from multiple chronic conditions and would benefit from care coordination. We know that about 78 percent of the Medicare population have at least 1 chronic condition, and 63 percent have two or more chronic conditions. Second, as our population ages, the number of older individuals with chronic illnesses is also expected to rise. A recent article in the Washington Post noted that Baby Boomers are more likely to be in worse health condition than their parents in retirement (April 20, 2007), which may result in a greater need for medical services. A RAND Corporation study estimates that half of the population will have a chronic condition in 2020--a total of 157 million Americans. Third, Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic care conditions are expensive to treat. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 43 percent of Medicare costs can be attributed to 5 percent of Medicare's most costly beneficiaries. Medicare beneficiaries with four or more chronic conditions are 99 times more likely to experience one or more potentially preventable hospitalizations than those without chronic conditions. If an individual has Alzheimer's disease or dementia, medical costs increase even more dramatically. Finally, multiple chronic conditions not only affect the individuals suffering from them, but also their caregivers. About 5 years ago, I watched my mother devote herself to the care of the man she had loved for more than 52 years. She had pledged to attend to him and honor his life until he departed this world, even if he no longer remembered her name or could recognize her face. My dear father suffered from Alzheimer's disease. My mother's strength and commitment to my father during his long illness remains a great source of inspiration to me. Unfortunately, my family's experience with the ravages of Alzheimer's is not unique. Millions of Medicare beneficiaries with chronic conditions who remain at home do so with the help of family and friends. Research shows that family care for an older adult with chronic illness or disabilities, especially dementia, can have negative health effects (both physical and mental) on family members. To address these issues, I am pleased to announce that today Senator Collins and I introduced the Geriatric Assessment and Chronic Care Coordination Act of 2007, along with Senators Kohl, Kerry, Mukulski, Clinton, Boxer, and Casey. I am also pleased that Representatives Gene Green and Fred Upton are sponsoring a companion bill in the House and that 30 national organizations have endorsed the bill. This bill realigns Medicare to provide high-quality, cost-effective care to elderly individuals with multiple chronic conditions. It is an important step forward in recognizing and remedying the impact that multiple chronic conditions have on individuals, their caregivers, and the Medicare program. ------ Prepared Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton I would like to thank Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Smith for convening today's hearing on the importance of chronic care coordination for older Americans who rely on Medicare to pay for treatment for multiple illnesses. And I applaud Senator Lincoln for organizing today's hearing and for her leadership on the Geriatric Assessment and Chronic Care Coordination Act, of which I am a proud original cosponsor. In less than ten years, the first wave of baby boomers will turn 65. In light of the growing longevity of Americans, we must consider how we will meet the increasing needs of this elder boom and the growing demands placed on our local, state, and federal health and social service systems in the years ahead. To ensure that we are prepared, we must reevaluate whether our health care system is helping or hindering those who are struggling with the burdens of age. Medicare has long been a vital source of health insurance for our nation's seniors, providing them with access to medical treatment at a time of life when care is needed most. However, a critical weakness of Medicare that Senator Lincoln's bill addresses is the lack of incentives to provide coordinated healthcare. It is crucial that we provide care coordination and geriatric assessments for older Americans who suffer from one or more chronic conditions. We spend more and use more services to treat catastrophic, complex, chronic care cases. Our lack of a system to manage the multiple, complex health care needs of people with chronic illness leads to higher costs and often poor quality. Chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, account for 75 percent of our total national health expenditures and are the leading cause of death in the U.S. Further, the number of Americans with at least one chronic illness is expected to rise 25 percent by 2020. Under Medicare, at least 83 percent of Medicare beneficiaries suffer from one chronic illness and the 23 percent of beneficiaries who suffer from five or more chronic illnesses account for 68 percent of costs to the program. Further, the combination of a chronic condition and Alzheimer's disease causes Medicare costs to soar. According to the Alzheimer's Association, the combination of Alzheimer's and another chronic condition, such as heart disease or diabetes, approximately doubles the Medicare cost. All of us here realize that as the Baby Boomer generation ages, there will be a dramatic increase in the number of Alzheimer's cases. By the year 2050, if we do not make headway, up to 16 million Americans are expected to suffer from this devastating disease. For the people that will confront this disease in their own lives, this is about more than statistics: it represents an emotional struggle, a tremendous financial burden, a new strain on our already stressed healthcare system, particularly for Medicaid and Medicare costs. As co-chair of the Senate Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease with my colleague Senator Collins, I have worked to address issues faced by Alzheimer's patients and their caregivers. I'm pleased that Dr. Steve McConnell is here today. The Alzheimer's Association has been a wonderful partner in raising awareness and support for people living with Alzheimer's and their families. We know that it's crucial to make caregiver health and well-being a priority, which is why I am fighting for full funding of the Lifespan Respite Care Act, which was signed into law last December. But today's hearing is not just about improving Medicare programs for older Americans. It's also about improving management conditions for all ages, including education on how individuals can better manage their own health in order to avoid further complications. That's why I am a strong supporter of chronic disease management programs. The money we invest in prevention, early diagnosis and management programs today can reduce treatment costs down the road. Let's take, for example, diabetes--over 20 million Americans are currently living with this disease. Six million of them have not yet been diagnosed. Another 54 million are classified as ``pre-diabetic,'' with a high risk of developing this condition. Diabetes accounts for over $92 billion in direct medical costs every year, and these numbers are only likely to increase. Last year, a New York Times series focusing on diabetes spelled it out the problem. The healthcare system will pay tens of thousands of dollars for an amputation, but won't pay for a low-cost visit to the podiatrist that could have saved the foot. The incentives inside our health care system are backwards, and the payment system is upside-down: too often paying for costly and debilitating treatment but not for low-cost prevention. Today, Senator Collins and I are introducing the Diabetes Treatment and Prevention Act of 2007, legislation that will strengthen our support for chronic disease management programs of the CDC and state and local health departments. Our bill would allow the Diabetes Prevention Program to be brought into clinical practice where it can be replicated at the state, local and provider level, along with other interventions to control diabetes. This program has shown that diet and exercise interventions were successful at preventing diabetes. Our bill would also establish a demonstration grant program that would help state and local health departments to establish disease management programs for individuals with diabetes and other co-occurring chronic conditions like heart disease, mental illness and HIV. In some cases, the medications for these other conditions can cause diabetes and aggravate its management. I believe we must do more to help people who are dealing with multiple chronic conditions manage them in a coordinated manner and our bill will help accomplish this goal. Again, I thank Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Smith for convening today's hearing, and Senator Lincoln for her leadership on this issue. I look forward to continuing to working with my colleagues to make progress for our seniors and families on these important issues. ------ Responses to Senator Smith Questions from Dr. Todd P. Semla Question. How would you rank the importance of better training for doctors, implementation of electronic-records keeping and utilization of chronic care coordination through case mangers? Answer. All three of these are critically important for providing care to chronically ill patients and it is hard to rank them in terms of priority. However, chronic care coordination is the lynchpin of the system. Without care coordination, better training and better electronic records systems would have very limited effect and the cost savings might be limited. Thus, we would rank chronic care coordination through case managers first, better training (in geriatrics) for doctors and health care professionals second, and implementation of electronic records third. Question. For all of our panelists, though your focus has been to institute systems of care management for persons with multiple chronic conditions to prevent these situations, aren't many of these examples prevalent even among those who only enter the health care system because of an acute health need? Answer. America's health care needs are changing dramatically with the aging of its population--from a system focusing on acute care to one that must address chronic care either after an acute event, such as stroke, or for ongoing conditions that may take years to culminate in an acute event (e.g., Type II diabetes). With the aging of the population, conditions that were not that prevalent 50 years ago are quite prevalent today; osteoporosis and all its complications is one example. Patients who enter the health care system because of an acute health need, such as a heart attack, are indeed at risk for many of negative outcomes that the chronic care coordination model could prevent. It is less complicated to coordinate care for a single condition during a specific acute care event, which is what the current health care system (under Medicare) is designed to do--it's modeled for acute care. Many of the patients that fit your example may derive benefits from existing single disease management programs. The patient, however, with multiple and complex chronic conditions would typically benefit from a comprehensive and coordinated regimen of care that holistically addresses his or her health care needs. The recent MedPAC Commission report of June 2007 has reached many of these same conclusions. Question. Can you talk a bit more about this and explain how a more formal case manager or group of doctors working closely together can relieve some of the pressure on family caregivers and how this could reduce errors since most family caregivers are not trained for this type of work? Answer. The burden currently being placed on family caregivers is huge and frequently detracts from their ability to care for loved ones. Care managers should collect and maintain all health related information for the chronically ill, such as a list of current diagnoses, medications and treatment goals so that it is not only the family doing the task of conveying sometimes complex information. A care manager can much more effectively and efficiently communicate with other caregivers and can, for example, make sure that patients are getting the right medications in the right dose at the right time. A care manager would also see that changes in the patient's care plan are communicated in a timely manner to all health care providers caring for the patient. This legislation introduced by Senator Lincoln (S. 1340) will allow family members to do what they do best--provide day to day care and not force them to be responsible for communicating to an array of health professionals. Question. Can you talk a little more on this culture of specialties working in silos and its impact on patient care? What steps can be taken to break down these outdated practices? Answer. Historically, specialists have taken care of patients with acute illnesses, or single illnesses affecting one organ system, and have not provided ongoing or coordinated care. Only recently have specialists begun to take care of chronic illness, but even then those illnesses tend to consist of a single disease or a few diseases that affect a single organ system. Their practices are not set up to provide care for patients with multiple diseases that affect many organ systems. Neither the specialist nor their staff has the expertise to do that. It is critical to have a care coordinator, such as a physician or nurse practitioner, who can collect and coordinate care from multiple specialists. AGS believes in inculcating principles of geriatric care across all disciplines--the coordinated care approach. The geriatrics based whole patient approach looks at the different functions of each member of the team treating the whole patient. A care coordinator can bring in specialists to consider their areas of expertise in the context of the big picture. Many presently do this well and, in other cases, a care manager is critical, in all cases, a care manager will make it more likely that the whole patient is cared for. S. 1340 would be strong first step in changing the culture of medical practice silos. To change practice habits, changes would need to be made in medical education and residency programs for specialists. Additionally, the mere existence of care coordinators is likely to induce specialists to make sure their patients participate in care coordination because it will allow them to continue doing what they do best--take care of acute illnesses affecting a single organ system. ------ Responses to Senator Smith Questions from Gerard Anderson Question. How would you rank the importance of better training for doctors, implementation of electronic-records keeping and utilization of chronic care coordination through case mangers? Answer. All three are critically important and they are synergistic. Better training for doctors is needed because most doctors currently are not being told how to coordinate care and perform other activities that would benefit people with multiple chronic conditions. Electronic medical records are the only feasible methods to have the multiple clinicians caring for the complex patient interact with one another. Currently most payment systems do not pay for care coordination and with payment many clinicians will not perform the service. Unless the clinician is trained in care coordination, has the information to perform care coordination, and is paid to do care coordination, care coordination is unlikely to happen. All three are needed. Question. For all of our panelists, though your focus has been to institute systems of care management for persons with multiple chronic conditions to prevent these situations, aren't many of these examples prevalent even among those who only enter the health care system because of an acute health need? Answer. The problems are also important for people with just an acute illness. There is, however, one important distinction. An acute illness typically is treated in one location with all the clinicians able to share information and perhaps to meet and discuss the case. For people with multiple chronic conditions it is often that the clinicians are miles apart, never see each other, are unable to coordinate their care and as a result costs increase and quality suffers. The problems compound for people with multiple chronic diseases because the problems are ongoing instead of happening at one time. Question. You mention in your testimony that half of Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions will be told by their pharmacist at least once a year not to fill a prescription because of possible interactions with other drugs that they take. This number strikes me as shockingly high. I assume that there could be a variety of reasons for this happening, including the patient not being able to remember their list of medications, incomplete medical records or medical error. Do you think that physicians are resistant to changes in their training and why do you think physicians are resistant to moving to more advanced approaches such as electronic medical records keeping? Answer. I agree the number is high. I was shocked when we got the numbers from the Gallup Organization. I think the main reason why half of all people with multiple chronic conditions go to fill a prescription and are told of a potential drug drug interaction is that the physicians do not always know the drugs that other doctors have prescribed. An electronic medical record would make the information available. I do not think physicians are resistant to changing their training programs. I teach the importance of care coordination to all 1st year medical students at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. Medical students and the teaching physicians understand the importance of care coordination. However, until it is reimbursed, they are unlikely to emphasize it in the training programs. I think most physicians are resistant to electronic medical record keeping because we are asking them to pay for it when it does not benefit them financially and may actually be very expensive for them to install. Purchasing the software and the computers necessary to have an electronic medical record is only a small portion of the cost. The major cost is in redesigning the office's entire information system from paper to electronic medical records. During the conversion the physician's office must maintain two parallel information systems and this could go on for years. Once the electronic medical record system is implemented it is unlikely to save the physician much money and it could mean fewer visits. Nearly all of the benefits accrue the payors (reduced readmissions, fewer preventable hospitalizations, and fewer drug drug interactions). In other countries the payors are funding the diffusion and operation of electronic medical records. Question. In your testimony, you also mention that many physicians are not trained to work cooperatively to treat a patient with multiple chronic conditions. It seems that a lack of care coordination also is due to some gaps in training or limited emphasis on the importance of coordination within the profession. What do you think can be done to change this aspect of the culture of medicine and how do you think training programs can be enhanced to emphasize chronic care coordination? Answer. Currently most medical schools and residency programs emphasize acute care medicine and emphasize training in a particular disease. We need to emphasize that care coordination is important because patients often have multiple problems and all of the problems need to be considered not just one of the problems. Physicians are becoming increasingly aware of the need to coordinate care; however, the current system stifles care coordination. I propose three things: Medicare use the $10 billion it spends on graduate medical education each year to push medical schools and teaching hospitals to place greater emphasis on training physicians in care coordination. Medicare pays $5 each time a physician submits an electronic medical record. This will fund the creation of an integrated electronic medical record that will allow information to flow easily. Medical pays $100 per beneficiary per month for a clinician to perform care coordination activities on Medicare beneficiaries who want care coordination and who will benefit from care coordination. I would begin by focusing on Medicare beneficiaries with 5+ chronic conditions and/or dementia. Question. In your testimony, you also mention that many persons with multiple chronic conditions are left out of clinical trials. You state that this leads to inadequate data on evidence-based methods to treat them. Are patients with multiple chronic conditions being left out of these trials because it makes the research more difficult in that they have to account for more variables? Answer. Patients with multiple chronic conditions are being left out of the clinical trials because it makes the research more difficult. Currently the research emphasizes efficacy. Efficacy measures what works in a controlled environment. However, in the real world the critical term is effectiveness. Effectiveness measures how well the drug, device or procedure works in actual practice. Effectiveness is more important in the long run. Question. Given that such a large percentage of Americans have multiple conditions wouldn't it benefit medicine to see how treatments impact people with multiple diseases? Answer. I totally agree that it would benefit medicine to know how treatments impact people with multiple diseases. There are two ways to obtain this information. One option is to expand the inclusion criterion in the initial clinical trail. In the 1980s we required that women and minorities be included in all clinical trials (if clinically appropriate). Previously most clinical trials were restricted to white males. Women and minorities wondered if the drug, device, or procedure would work equally as well for them. Now we require their inclusion. The second option is to require follow-up studies to include people with multiple chronic conditions. These studies would be performed only after the efficacy has been demonstrated. ------ Responses to Senator Smith Questions from David Dorr Question. In your testimony you mention the savings to clinics by implementing chronic care coordination plans, like Care Management Plus. You state that the savings can be more than a quarter of a million dollars annually at each clinic. How do you see these potential savings playing out widely within Medicare and Medicaid? Answer. The Care Management Plus process focuses on prevention and patient education, keeping chronically ill patients healthier and out of the hospital setting. We anticipate that savings would accrue to the clinic from an increase in clinician productivity, a shift in clinical practice, and a change in overall patient utilization patterns. In addition, public payers such as Medicaid and Medicare would see savings from the implementation of coordinated care programs that use clinical tools and processes that emphasize effective and efficient patient care. Incentive structures within the reimbursement system, both public and private, must be implemented to support this change in care delivery. There are substantial benefits from the efficiency gains that arise from better information technology (IT) and care coordination. Many researchers have documented the enormous amount of waste in medical care services. Estimates vary substantially but generally suggest that 20 to 50 percent of medical care spending, including Medicare and Medicaid, could be eliminated without reductions in quality services. Question. We know that rural hospitals, clinics, and practices have very different concerns than those located in more urban areas. For instance, there is more likelihood that a person will see a general practitioner in a rural area than the specialist more urban patients will see. How do models of care coordination for patients with chronic illness differ in urban versus rural areas? Answer. Care Management Plus is designed to be flexible for the variety of clinical settings that exist. The program tools and curriculum can be used to accommodate the varying size and structure of clinics/systems, the differing amount of resource capacity within each clinic/system, and the multiple and complex patient populations in need of coordinated care. We will be implementing Care Management Plus in six rural clinic settings over the next two years in collaboration with the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network through a grant funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). This project will provide important information about the gains and the limitations of a care management program in a rural setting. Implementing Care Management Plus in these rural clinics will require special attention not only to the information technology capacity. Its success will also depend on available specialty care in each clinic, available clinical staff to participate in the care management process, and the patient demographics served in each rural area. Question. In your testimony, and in some of the testimony that we will hear during the second panel, there are some very troubling stories and statistics on the lack of important information being given to a person with a chronic disease and the dangers that can arise when patients can't or don't tell one specialist about care they are receiving from another. Many of these examples and statistics lead me to wonder about what can be done to better train doctors in working collaboratively and how to improve our records systems such as through electronic records-keeping. How would you rank the importance of better training for doctors, implementation of electronic-records keeping and utilization of chronic care coordination through case managers? For all of our panelists, though your focus has been to institute systems of care management for persons with multiple chronic conditions to prevent these situations, aren't many of these examples prevalent even among those who only enter the health care system because of an acute health need? Answer. Care coordination can address all three areas of improvement required for high quality care. Care coordination programs like Care Management Plus use a team-driven workforce to provide high quality care with the most appropriate information technology (IT) and clinical tools available. Training for nurses, care coordinators, clinic supervisors and administrators, and medical directors is necessary to successfully transform care for the chronically ill. IT tools and electronic-record keeping play an important role in helping the health care team track patient needs and follow the best evidence-based guidelines for a chronically ill population. Health care providers can also utilize appropriate IT tools to inform and educate patients about their conditions and teach self management strategies. Patient-centered care directly by a care/case manager has proven effects on disease improvement, patient satisfaction, physician productivity, and the resulting change in health care utilization. Prevention and early recognition are key components in programs like Care Management Plus. The primary care team treats patients' chronic diseases early, trying to prevent problems rather than treating them after they occur. This can result in time and cost savings in managing care for not only the chronically ill population, but for those patients that have more acute/episodic health care needs. Many patients do enter the health care system only for acute needs. Each contact with the health care system can still be used to help educate and motivate people to think about their chronic illnesses. Health Information Technology, especially where information is shared readily, can help connect these often fragmented acute visits by reminding about the need to educate and consider their chronic needs without overly burdening the acute care team and to facilitate contacts with the primary care system. Our care management program was borne of the fact that so many patients have no follow-up after their acute care episode; having the care manager whose goal is to understand the barriers and move patients towards more preventative and chronic illness care was a solution to just the problem posed by the follow-up question. ------ Responses to Senator Smiths Questions from Stuart Guterman Question. Mr. Guterman, in your testimony you mention research that shows that persons with multiple chronic conditions are more likely to have preventable hospitalizations, experience adverse drug interactions, undergo duplicate tests and receive contradictory information from doctors. How much of this is due to the simple fact that these persons are sicker than other patients so they see doctors more often and are in more acute health situations and therefore there is more change of error? Answer. Senator Smith, there may well be a relationship between the fact that persons with multiple chronic conditions are sicker than other patients and have more interactions with the health care system at a higher level of acuity and the fact that they experience more problems with their health care than other patients. But that relationship only emphasizes the fact that better coordination is needed for these patients to avoid those kinds of problems. Even if the same proportion of care provided results in problems for the patient who needs more care, it still means that the patient who receives more care is at greater risk for adverse events, and therefore that more needs to be done to reduce that risk. Also, it stands to reason that patients with multiple conditions require more coordination across those conditions, because they receive not only more care, but care from more different providers--each of whom may not be aware of what the other providers are doing to the patient. Question. Do these studies control for the fact that these persons simply have more opportunity for error due to the sheer number of their interactions with medical professionals in a given year? Answer. To my knowledge, the studies I refer to do not control for the number of each individual's interactions with medical professionals. But the focus of interest here is the individual and his or her risk of adverse events, rather than the medical encounter, so the point that patients with chronic conditions are a greater risk still holds, I believe. Question. In your testimony you mention that only 67 percent of hospitalized patients in the U.S. reported having their medications reviewed at the time of a hospital discharge and that patients with congestive heart failure receive discharge instructions only 50 percent of the time. Question. At what point is it a question of providing incentives for chronic care coordination or are we at a question of doctors doing their due diligence in treating the patient? It seems to me that these are questions that doctors should be asking all patients--not just those with multiple chronic diseases. Answer. That is an important question. My answer would be that certainly, physicians should be providing appropriate care, not only to patients with multiple chronic conditions, but to all their patients. But part of the problem we have with the quality of care across our health care system is that we have provided distorted incentives that emphasize providing more services and more complex services--sometimes to the detriment of the patient. We can blame physicians for responding to those very string incentives, or we can search for ways to try and fix the distorted incentives we've presented them with. Moreover, in many cases the problem that patients with multiple chronic conditions face is that multiple providers are responsible for their services, and many times those providers don't communicate with each other--not because they are bad providers, but because the way that medicine is practiced in our health system doesn't really allow for them to devote resources to those types of activities. My point is that if we want to see our health system provide coordinated, appropriate care, that is what we ought to pay for. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8617.076