Collaboration, Not Calculation: A Qualitative Study of How Hospital Executives Value Hospital Medicine Groups
BACKGROUND: Hospital medicine groups (HMGs) typically receive financial support from hospitals. Determining a fair amount of financial support requires negotiation between HMG and hospital leaders. As the hospital medicine care model evolves, hospital leaders may regularly challenge HMGs to demonstrate the financial value of activities that do not directly generate revenue.
OBJECTIVE: To describe current attitudes and beliefs of hospital executives regarding the value of contributions made by HMGs. DESIGN: Thematic content analysis of key informant interviews.
PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four healthcare institutional leaders, including hospital presidents, chief medical officers, chief executive officers, and chief financial officers. Participants comprised a diverse sample from all regions in the United States, including rural, suburban, and urban locations, and academic and nonacademic institutions.
RESULTS: Executives highly valued hospitalist groups that demonstrate alignment with hospital priorities, and often used this concept to summarize the HMG’s success across several value domains. Most executives evaluated only a few key HMG metrics, but almost no executives reported calculating the HMG return on investment by summing pertinent quantitative contributions. Respondents described an evolving concept of hospitalist value and believed that HMGs generate substantial value that is difficult to measure financially.
CONCLUSIONS: Hospital executives appear to make financial support decisions based on a small number of basic financial or care quality metrics combined with a subjective assessment of the HMG’s broader alignment with hospital priorities. HMG leaders should focus on building relationships that facilitate dialog about alignment with hospital needs.
© 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine
“I think initially here it was to deal with the resident caps, right? So, at that moment, the solution that was put in place probably made a lot of sense. If that’s all someone came in with, now I’d be scratching my head and said, what are you thinking?” (President, #2)
Respondents perceived that HMGs provide value in many domains, including financial contributions, high-quality care, organizational efficiency, academics, leadership of interprofessional teams, effective communication, system improvement, and beneficial influence on the care environment and other employees. Regarding the measurable generation of financial benefit, documentation for improved billing accuracy, increased hospital efficiency (eg, lower length of stay, early discharges), and comanagement arrangements were commonly identified.
“I don’t want a urologist with a stethoscope, so I’m happy to have the hospitalists say, ‘Look, I’ll take care of the patient. You do the procedure.’ Well, that’s inherently valuable, whether we measure it or whether we don’t.” (CMO, #21)
Executives generally expressed satisfaction with their HMG’s quality of care and the related pay-for-performance financial benefits from payers, attributing success to hospitalists’ familiarity with inpatient systems and willingness to standardize.
“I just think it’s having one structure, one group to go to, a standard rather than trying to push it through the medical staff.” (VP, #18)
Executives reported that HMGs generate substantial value that is difficult to measure financially. For example, a large bundle of excerpts organized around communication with patients, nurses, and other providers.
“If we have the right hospitalist staff, to engage them with the nursing staff would help to reduce my turnover rate…and create a very positive morale within the nursing units. That’s huge. That’s nonfinancial” (President, #15)
Executives particularly appreciated hospitalists’ work to aggregate input from multiple specialists and present a cohesive explanation to patients. Executives also felt that HMGs create significant unmeasured value by improving processes and outcomes on service lines beyond hospital medicine, achieving this through culture change, involvement in leadership, hospital-wide process redesign, and running rapid response teams. Some executives expressed a desire for hospitalists to assume this global quality responsibility more explicitly as a job expectation.
Executives described how they would evaluate a de novo proposal for hospitalist services, usually enumerating key general domains without explaining specifically how they would measure each element. The following priorities emerged: clinical excellence, capacity to collaborate with hospital leadership, the scope of services provided, cultural fit/alignment, financial performance, contract cost, pay-for-performance measures, and turnover. Regarding financial performance, respondents expected to know the cost of the proposal but lacked a specific price threshold. Instead, they sought to understand the total value of the proposal through its effect on metrics such as facility fees or resource use. Nonetheless, cultural fit was a critical, overriding driver of the hypothetical decision, despite difficulty defining beyond estimates of teamwork, alignment with hospital priorities, and qualities of the group leader.
“For us, it usually ends being how do we mix personally, do we like them?” (CMO, #5)
