Conference Coverage

Clinically integrated networks: 5 roadblocks and how to overcome them


 

AT THE PHYSICIAN LEGAL ISSUES CONFERENCE

CHICAGO – With growing pressure to deliver higher-quality care at reduced costs, more physicians and practices are looking to join a clinically integrated network. But establishing and successfully operating such a network is sometimes easier said than done.

A clinically integrated network is defined as a collection of health providers, such as physicians, hospitals, and post-acute specialists that join together to improve care and reduce costs. Such networks generally share record systems, track data, and rely on evidence-based guidelines to provide high-quality care across participating providers.

If a group meets Federal Trade Commission compliance requirements to be considered a clinically integrated network, the government will provide a safe harbor from antitrust scrutiny. The four components that networks must meet to be considered clinically integrated include: physician leadership and commitment, development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines to improve performance, development of infrastructure and technology, and financial incentives for achieving goals.

An accountable care organization (ACO) that participates in the Medicare Shared Savings Program is deemed “clinically integrated.” The clinical integration network (CIN) is the actual legal entity/network that the physicians join. Unlike physician hospital organizations (PHOs), clinically integrated networks can jointly negotiate contractual fees as long as the primary purpose of the negotiation is to achieve care improvement, according to a summary by the Medical Group Management Association.

Clinically integrated networks can also support ACOs or patient centered medical homes as part of the clinically integrated network by serving as a mechanism for sharing infrastructure and development costs.

“For doctors, participating in a clinically integrated network is an opportunity to work as part of a group, without giving up their independence,” George Mayzell, MD, chief clinical officer for Vizient Southeast, said during a recent American Bar Association meeting. Participation in such a network also may potentially support some of the alternative payment models under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA), he said.

From financial challenges to lack of collaboration to data woes, physicians can face unexpected barriers as their clinically integrated network gets off the ground. Below, experts discuss the top five roadblocks to clinically integrated networks and how doctors and hospitals can overcome them.

1. Contribution reluctance

Although there is no hard-and-fast level, investments of time, energy, and financial resources by all participating providers are necessary to create and maintain a clinically integrated network, according to the Federal Trade Commission. However, physicians can sometimes be wary of contributing substantially to a new network, said April E. Schweitzer, a Chicago-based health law attorney who specializes in clinical integration networks and accountable care organizations.

Some doctors feel comfortable contributing only nominal amounts or believe that the system should bear the burden of costs, Ms. Schweitzer said at an American Bar Association meeting.

April Schweitzer

April Schweitzer

“There’s no bright line dollar amount that the government agencies say is enough,” Ms. Schweitzer said at the meeting. “So [networks] really need to demonstrate participation and physician buy-in.”

Consider different contribution options that will satisfy new members. One option is charging initiation fees, which typically run between $250 and $500, Ms. Schweitzer said. Another option is charging annual dues, which can be a similar amount, depending on specialty. If hesitation among members continues, come up with an alternative plan, Ms. Schweitzer said.

“If opposition is strong, you might do away with those [options],” she said. “[Instead], you may say, ‘We’re going to take a portion of the bonus pool before going into any bonus distribution methodology to reimburse what we would’ve used those dues or initiation fees to cover to pay back the [network] and operating costs.”

2. Savings expectations

Network members often have high hopes when it comes to the savings and reimbursement bonuses they expect to see once the network launches. The reality can be disappointing, said Dr. Mayzell.

“Creating savings takes time and a high level of patience/commitment,” Dr. Mayzell said in an interview. “Even when the savings are realized early on, financial awards are often low, and if they’re spread out between all of the primary care physicians and the specialists, they are not very motivating. This must be taken into account.”

It helps to set reasonable expectations early on about reimbursement, Ms. Schweitzer said. The same goes for managing payer contract expectations.

“You want to manage expectations at the outset,” she said during the meeting. “And you really do want to be honest about what the payers in your market are looking for and are expecting.”

3. Balancing leadership

Sophisticated clinically integrated networks require significant infrastructure and IT costs, thus most are funded by a hospital or health system, Ms. Schweitzer said. As a result, the hospital or health system is likely to be the sole corporate member of the legal entity serving as the network. But because success within the network requires physicians to potentially change their practice patterns, it is important to have true physician leadership on the governing board of the clinically integrated network.

Class voting is one way to balance the need for a physician-led network with appropriate governance of a clinically integrated network, Ms. Schweitzer said in an interview. Class voting allows “physicians to comprise a majority of the governing board of a clinically integrated network [while allowing the corporate member] to retain decision-making power because the physician class gets one vote and the hospital or health system class gets one vote.”

In addition, she advised giving the hospital or health system certain reserved powers to protect the health system’s tax-exempt status. This includes:

  • Ensuring that the CIN serves community and charitable purposes.
  • Protecting and promoting the community benefits served by the corporate member and ensuring that the assets and income of the corporate member and the CIN are used to serve community objectives.
  • Protecting the assets and income of the corporate member and the CIN by ensuring that the CIN complies with all applicable laws and regulatory requirements.

4. EHR interoperability

For a successful network, quality data must be aggregated from all providers. This can prove challenging when independent physicians each have separate electronic health record systems, Dr. Mayzell said.

“You can try to aggregate this data manually, but that is extremely challenging,” he said in an interview. “To aggregate [EHR] level data, you generally need to use additional software and organizations that connect electronically with each of their systems. This is often very expensive and cumbersome, with each system requiring a different interface and often each version of each system requiring a different interface.”

In the beginning stages of the network, survey all participating providers about the most widely used EHR systems to narrow interfacing to a manageable number, Ms. Schweitzer advised.

“This is what a lot of our clients are doing during the steering committee phase,” she said. “That’s when you’re bringing the health system and the doctors together to make decisions about how this entity will run.”

Additionally, consider alternative methods for data downloads, such as flat fees, payer downloads, or manual entries. Incorporate a long-term strategy about how many record systems the network will be using in future years, added Dr. Mayzell.

5. Resistance to data download

When it comes to data, many physicians feel that patient data are “their” data, and they are uneasy about giving access to that data when participating in a clinically integrated network, Ms. Schweitzer said. Patient privacy is also a top concern.

While these are valid concerns, networks need as much data as possible in their data warehouse to show payers that their participating physicians are providing quality care, while reducing cost, she said.

A full data download is beneficial for the network because overinclusion allows for more accurate assessment and better extrapolation in quality improvement, she said. This means each participating physician submits all their patient data, regardless of payer. Remind members that from an IT perspective, data from one doctor are merely grains of sand in a beach of data. Explain to uneasy members that the data are scrubbed of all patient identifiers and that it is the aggregate data that are most valuable to the network.

“If you’re going through one of these processes, I would encourage you to push the lawyers hard because there are answers to these questions about data privacy and you should understand that 99% of the time, the data that are going to be seen, are going to be scrubbed,” she said. “I urge you to ask tough questions if you’re in the room and discussing that particular issue.”

On Twitter @legal_med

Next Article:

Firing
   Comments ()

Recommended for You

News & Commentary

Quizzes from MD-IQ

Research Summaries from ClinicalEdge

Related Articles