More

Baucus Bill Expands Federal Bureaucracy

Please read the Baucus Bill – Health Care Reform Mark Document FINAL

There are so many new federal agencies it’s hard to remember them from day. The CMS innovation center is one of the new agencies. Whether CMS and innovation constitute an oxymoron is debatable but how can innovation ever be managed in a central agency at the federal level. My concern is that the innovation that is happening in states like Wisconsin,Vermont and elsewhere is sure to get crushed with the heavy handed regulatory approach we will inevitably see from Washington. It’s not that these federal bureaucrats are bad people. to the contrary I’ve met many of them and they are trying to do the right thing. The problem is federal mandates never have worked to improve anything in health care and won’t work now.

What to do? The democrats now have 60 votes in the senate so health legislation will pass. The important thing to do now is to make our opinion clear that federalization of all this work is the wrong solution.It must be delegated to public private partnerships at the state level where there can be innovation and improvement.

Feel free to send your legislators this document or the pdf document are yours to distribute.

The Center for Health Care Quality and Payment Reform ACO paper

Harold Miller has recently published a detailed description of ACOs (Accountable Care Organizations) based on expert feedback.

This article describes who can form an ACO,what an ACO does,and how it gets paid.It is based on feedback from many of the experts in the field. Unfortunately,it is not the best thinking yet. The missing link is the patient. No where is the patient journey part of the discussion. As we recently published in Health Affairs, understanding the patient condition or value stream is the key to removing waste and improving quality. I am concerned that as ACOs are currently being thought of there will be no improvement in value to the customer.

There is a three page executive summary at the beginning which is well done.  HowtoCreateAccountableCareOrganizations1

 

Baucus Bill and Delivery Reform

Sen. Baucus released a draft bill yesterday which we summarize in the key areas related to delivery reform. The full bill is included – Health Care Reform Mark Document FINAL

 

This bill outlines the huge increase in federal bureaucracy, which will be required to administer this plan. I have lifted specific language around the delivery reform that is of interest. The whole bill is attached.

 

 

 Hospital Value-Based Purchasing:

Establish a Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) program in Medicare that moves beyond pay-for-reporting on quality measures, to paying for hospitals‘ actual performance on these measures.

Beginning in FY2013, hospital payments would be adjusted based on performance under the VBP program.

By FY2014, the Secretary would be required to expand categories to include efficiency measures.

Physician Value-Based Purchasing:

Beginning with the 2011 reporting period, CMS would be required to make PQRI incentive payments available for two successive years to eligible professionals who voluntarily complete the following on a biennial (every two years) basis.

Quality Infrastructure:

Building on the provision set forth in MIPPA, the Chairman‘s Mark would provide additional resources to HHS to strengthen and improve quality measure development processes for purposes of improving quality, informing patients and purchasers and guiding payment under Federal health programs. AHRQ and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) would implement the provisions in this proposal.

National Strategy to Improve Health Care Quality:

 The Chairman‘s Mark would direct the Secretary to establish a national quality improvement strategy that includes priorities to improve the delivery of health care services, patient health outcomes, and population health through a transparent and collaborative process. In developing these priorities, the Secretary would consider how the priorities would: address health care needs of those with high-cost chronic diseases; improve strategies and best practices to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors, preventable hospital admissions and readmissions, and health care-associated infections; have the greatest potential for improving the health outcomes, efficiency and patient-centeredness of health care; reduce health care disparities across populations and geographic areas; address gaps in quality, efficiency and outcomes measures and data aggregation techniques; identify areas in the delivery of health care services that have the potential for rapid improvement in the quality and efficiency of patient care; improve payment policy under Federal health programs to emphasize quality and efficiency; enhance the use of health care data to improve quality, efficiency, transparency, and outcomes; and other areas as determined appropriate by the Secretary.

Quality Measure Development:

Measures developed under this section would be applicable to all age groups, where appropriate, and focus at minimum on the following areas: (1) patient outcomes and functional status; (2) coordination of care across episodes of care and care transitions; (3) meaningful use of health information technology; (4) safety, effectiveness, patient centeredness, appropriateness and timeliness of care; (5) efficiency of care; (6) equity of health services and health disparities; (7) patient experience and satisfaction; and (8) other areas deemed appropriate by the Secretary.

Accountable Care Organizations:

The Medicare program would allow groups of providers who voluntarily meet certain statutory criteria, including quality measurements, to be recognized as ACOs and be eligible to share in the cost-savings they achieve for the Medicare program. Beginning on Jan. 1, 2012, eligible ACOs would have the opportunity to qualify for an incentive bonus.

Eligible ACOs would be defined as groups of providers and suppliers who have an established mechanism for joint decision-making, such as for capital purchases. The following groups of providers and suppliers would be eligible for participation: practitioners in group practice arrangements; networks of practices; partnerships or joint-venture arrangements between hospitals and practitioners; hospitals employing practitioners; and such other groups of providers of services and suppliers as the Secretary determines appropriate. Practitioners would be defined as physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, and other practitioners or suppliers as the Secretary determines appropriate.

To qualify as an ACO, an organization would have to meet at least the following criteria: (1) agree to become accountable for the overall care of their Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries; (2) agree to a minimum three-year participation; (3) have a formal legal structure that would allow the organization to receive and distribute bonuses to participating providers; (4) include the primary care physicians for at least 5,000 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries; (5) provide CMS with information regarding primary care and specialist physicians participating in the ACO as the Secretary deems appropriate; (6) have arrangements in place with a core group of specialist physicians; (7) have in place a leadership and management structure, including with regard to clinical and administrative systems; (8) define processes to promote evidence-based medicine, report on quality and costs measure, and coordinate care; and (9) demonstrate to the Secretary that it meets patient-centeredness criteria determined by the Secretary, such as use of patient and caregiver assessments or the use of individualized care plans.

 CMS Innovation Center:

Section 646 of the MMA mandates that CMS conduct a five-year demonstration program to test ways to improve health outcomes while increasing efficiency. This demonstration, called the Medicare Health Care Quality demonstration, aims to improve patient safety, enhance quality, and reduce variation in medical practice that often in higher costs. One of the major goals of this demonstration is to see if Medicare can improve outcomes while simultaneously achieving cost savings. Improvements in care coordination are one strategy that CMS anticipates providers will attempt as they strive to improve quality but reduce costs. Two demonstration projects under this demonstration are scheduled to begin in 2009 with two others to begin soon thereafter.The Chairman‘s Mark would require the Secretary to create an Innovation Center within the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS). The Innovation Center will be a new office established within CMS that is authorized to test, evaluate, and expand different payment 91 structures and methodologies which aim to foster patient-centered care, improve quality, and slow the rate of Medicare cost growth. The Mark would also make permanent the authority granted to the Secretary under Section 646 of the MMA (section 1866C of the Social Security Act).

The Center would be required to conduct an evaluation of each model tested, including an analysis of the extent to which the model results in: (1) coordination of health care services across treatment settings; (2) reduction of preventable hospitalizations; (3) prevention of hospital readmissions; (4) reduction of emergency room visits; (5) improvement in quality and health outcomes; (6) improvement in the efficiency of care; (7) reduction in the cost of health care services covered under this title; and (8) achievement of beneficiary and family-caregiver satisfaction.

National Pilot Program on Payment Bundling:

The Secretary would be required to develop, test and evaluate alternative payment methodologies through a national, voluntary pilot program that is designed to provide incentives for providers to coordinate patient care across the continuum and to be jointly accountable for the entire episode of care starting in 2013. If evaluations find that the pilot program achieves goals of improving patient outcomes, reducing costs and improving efficiency, then the Secretary would be required to submit an implementation plan to Congress on making the pilot a permanent part of the Medicare program.

Reducing Avoidable Hospital Readmissions:

 CMS would calculate national and hospital-specific data on the readmission rates of Medicare participating subsection (d) hospitals and for hospitals paid under section 1814 (b)(3) for eight conditions that the Secretary selects based on spending and readmission rates. Starting in FY 2012, the Secretary would share these data with hospitals, and the data would be publicly reported on the Hospital Compare website. Starting in FY 2013, hospitals with readmission rates above a certain threshold would have payments for the original hospitalization reduced by 20 percent if a patient with a selected condition is re-hospitalized with a preventable readmission within seven days and by ten percent if a patient with a selected condition is re-hospitalized with a preventable readmission within 15 days.

Preventable readmissions would be defined as all readmissions that could have been reasonably prevented, as determined by the Secretary. Certain readmissions that would be excluded from the definition as follows: (1) readmissions associated with metastasic malignancies, trauma, and burns; (2) planned readmissions; (3) readmissions for patients with discharge status of ―left against medical advice; ‖ and (4) patients who are transferred to another short-term acute care hospital.

Medicare Commission:

The Chairman‘s Mark would establish an independent Medicare Commission (hereafter the Commission) that would develop and submit proposals to Congress aimed at extending the solvency of Medicare, slowing Medicare cost-growth, and improving the quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries. The Commission would be composed of 15 members, who would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Minority Leader, and the House Minority Leader would each present three recommendations for appointees to the President; however, these recommendations in no way would limit the President‘s ultimate responsibility to present Congress with qualified nominees. Qualifications for members of the Commission would be similar to the qualifications required for members of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). Members of the Commission would serve six-year, staggered terms and would continue to serve until replaced. MedPAC would continue to exist in its current form as an advisory body to Congress.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Act of 2009:

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (the “Institute”).  The Chairman‘s Mark would authorize the establishment of a private, non-profit corporation that would be known as the ―Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The purpose of the Institute would be to assist patients, clinicians, purchasers, and policy makers in making informed health decisions by advancing the quality and relevance of clinical evidence through research and evidence synthesis. The research would focus on the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, monitored, and managed, and would consider variations in patient subpopulations. Research conducted would compare the clinical effectiveness, risk and benefits of two or more medical treatments, services or items. The Mark would define treatment, services and items as: health care interventions, protocols for treatment, care management and delivery, procedures, medical devices, diagnostics tools, pharmaceuticals (including drugs and biological), and any strategies or items used in the treatment, management, and diagnosis of, or prevention of illness or injury, in patients.

The Institute would also disseminate their research findings. The Institute would be subject to the provisions specified below and, to the extent consistent with the Chairman‘s Mark, to the District of Columbia Non-Profit Corporation Act.

 

Response to President Obama

President Obama suggested he is willing to talk about compromises to the reform proposals.The article attached here describes what the Center would like him to focus on.

The following  article  was delivered to a crowd of around one thousand people at the Fox Cities stadium last Tuesday night. The response was overwhelmingly positive probably due to the fact that we are talking about health care reform that everyone can agree on. Let’s get back to a bi-partisan discussion on the important components of needed health care reform.

These are the three key elements the President should be focused on:

1.             Mandate that each state establish consumer reports for health care cost and quality. It must report measures that are meaningful for patients such as medication errors and infection rates. Allow existing regional public reporting collaboratives to publicly report the data such as the Wisconsin Collaborative for Health Care Quality and Wisconsin Hospital Association.

2.         Change government payment processes to reward better quality and lower cost. Medicare and any other public plans should be in the business of stimulating competition among providers to achieve what The Health Care Value Leaders Network members www.createvalue.org,  have achieved using the lean methodology. Provider competition needs to be based on which organization does the best at treating the patient condition in terms of cost and quality.

3.         Any new insurance plan should be paid for by taking cost out of the existing health system. The federal role is to assure all state residents are covered and quality performance is met. Most importantly, any new insurance plan or plans should be administered at the state level because local public-private partnerships work best when radical change is required.

An expert advisory panel should be established by the Institute of Medicine or another non-partisan entity to act in guiding the government in the above policies.

To read the letter, please click here – Fundamentally_Flawed_Toussaint

 

Health Affairs publishing article on lean at ThedaCare

The September/October edition of Health Affairs is dubbed “Bending the Cost Curve in Health Spending”. There are many articles that focus on managing the cost of American medicine. One of those articles features the remarkable improvements that ThedaCare and others have achieved using the methodology of “lean”. This methodology which has been derived from manufacturing and applied to health care is radically improving both the cost and the quality of health care delivery. The Health Affairs article documents the types of improvement organizations can expect by adopting these principles.

The Health Care Value Leaders Network is the first group of health care organizations around the U.S. and Canada that have all committed to transforming their organizations using lean principles as described in the Health Affairs article.  If you are interested in joining us please go to our web site and click on “network” and then “how to join”. You will be prompted to fill out a one page document describing your organization. Once that is submitted we will contact you and describe the types of activities you can immediately get involved in.

To read the abstract, click here – http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/28/5/1256.extract?sid=a87a67ca-c6e0-4407-9d45-3b334756e892

 

 

John Torinus Summarizes Reform Issues

This article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel by John Torinus explains what many Wisconsin residents are concerned about regarding the present legislation pending in Congress.

View Torinus article here: http://www.jsonline.com/business/55948507.html

The Center believes health care reform is a non-partisan issue. There are a number of problems with the existing system which have been clearly pointed out on this blog and other media. However, this can be addressed and improved if we focus on a few core principles as outlined in our white paper on reform.

John Torinus outlines what needs to be included in legislation for health care reform to actually create the outcomes we are looking for.Transparency of price and quality, continuous improvement using lean, competition at the level of the providers delivering care, and insurance benefits that incent employees to get healthy and shop for cost effective services are all part of the equation.

As I said on Fox News, I stand ready(as many others do) to work with both democrats and republicans on the important components of a bill that is focused on health care reform that will work. I’m waiting for a call.

 

Dead by Mistake

200,000 Preventable Deaths: It’s Time for Fundamental Change

 The Hearst Corporation news reports that an estimated 200,000 people will die from preventable medical mistakes this year is a sad and telling statement on the abundant waste and the thousands of errors in the current health care system.

It’s time for everyone in healthcare and for policy makers to admit that we need a fundamentally different way to deliver the safest and most effective care to every patient. These latest reports build on other credible national studies which have documented the thousands of people who are injured or die in healthcare settings every year as a result of preventable errors.

Most of the credible studies estimate that 30 to 50 percent of healthcare services do nothing to improve patient care. These are wasted resources.

Many healthcare leaders recognize the problem, and that’s why we are developing and implementing solutions to fix the problems. Lean healthcare eliminates the errors and mistakes that lead to death. It’s not just about preventing mistakes; it’s about preventing injuries and deaths.

Lean healthcare is a defined methodology that works. It’s all about system redesign coupled with a commitment to making daily improvements throughout the system.

For the past six years, ThedaCare, a community-owned healthcare system in Wisconsin, has used lean methods and tools to redesign the way patients are cared for in its hospital rooms and physician clinics. The results have been dramatic:

 

  • Heart surgery mortality rates decreased from 4 percent in 2001 to 1.4 percent in 2008 and zero percent in 2009
  • Medication reconciliations errors are at zero percent since February 2007, compared to one per patient stay prior to redesign
  • 15 minute turnaround time on most common lab procedures in the clinic

Other healthcare systems across American have produced similar results using lean principles and tools. The staff at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh eliminated central line infections in a critical care unit in 2006 using lean improvement practices. In 2003, under the traditional approach, 49 patients got infections and 19 died. In 2006, under the lean system (called “Perfecting Patient Care”), only three patients got infections, and no patients died.

Many of us in the healthcare industry agree that now is the time for healthcare and payment reform. Group Health of Puget Sound, ThedaCare, Gunderson Lutheran and 12 other healthcare delivery organizations in the U.S. and Canada have come together to accelerate and spread our learning on delivering better patient value. The partnership between the Lean Enterprise Institute (LEI) and the ThedaCare Center for Healthcare Value brings together two of the world’s leaders in “lean thinking,” with a combined 20 years of experience in lean implementation and education.

The Healthcare Value Leaders Network members know we can reduce or eliminate billions of dollars of healthcare waste through the use of lean principles of quality improvement and focus on delivering greater value to each and every patient we treat.

The biggest internal barrier to change is the healthcare culture. At ThedaCare, we moved from a culture of blame to a culture of promptly finding out why mistakes happen and then designing best practices to make sure mistakes are not repeated.

Beyond culture change, the biggest barriers to reform are the backward incentives in the current payment systems, both in public and private insurance programs.

This is what healthcare reform should be all about. The current payment systems reward providers for delivering more and more expensive services, regardless of their quality and outcomes, while penalizing providers who increase quality and reduce costs.

 

Rather than delaying the inevitable, the President and Congress should include strong provisions in the reform plan to reward providers who improve quality, safety and access while reducing costs. Waiting around for ten years to learn the results of another Medicare CMS pilot study is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

We have a proven methodology with the results documented by independent third-parties. It’s working in healthcare systems across America. It’s time to get on with the important work at hand. It’s time to make sure we can confidently tell our patients that when we take care of them, we will not harm them.

NEW YORK (August 9, 2009) – An estimated 200,000 Americans will die
needlessly from preventable medical mistakes and hospital infections this
year, according to “Dead By Mistake,” a wide-ranging Hearst national
investigation, which began reporting the findings today
[www.deadbymistake.com].  Despite an authoritative federal report 10 years
ago that laid out the scope of the problem and urged the federal and state
governments and the medical community to take clear and tangible steps to
reduce the number of fatal medical errors, a staggering 98,000 Americans die
from preventable medical errors each year and just as many from
hospital-acquired infections.

“Dead By Mistake” is the result of an investigation conducted by Hearst
newspaper and television journalists.

Ten years ago, the highly-publicized federal report, “To Err Is Human,”
highlighted the alarming death toll from preventable medical injuries and
called on the medical community to cut it in half-in five years.  Its
authors and patient safety advocates believed that its release would spur a
revolution in patient safety.  But Hearst’s “Dead By Mistake” reveals that
the federal government and most states have made little or no progress in
improving patient safety through accountability mechanisms or other
measures.  According to the Hearst investigation, special interests worked
to ensure that the key recommendations in the report-most notably a
mandatory national reporting system for medical errors-were never
implemented.

Among the key findings of the Hearst investigation:
— 20 states have no medical error reporting at all, five states have
voluntary reporting systems and five are developing reporting systems;

–Of the 20 states that require medical error reporting, hospitals report
only a tiny percentage of their mistakes, standards vary wildly and
enforcement is often nonexistent;

–In terms of public disclosure, 45 states currently do not release
hospital-specific information;

–Only 17 states have systematic adverse-event reporting systems that are
transparent enough to be useful to consumers;

–The national patient-safety center is underfunded and has fallen far short
of expectations;

–Congress approved legislation for “Patient Safety Organizations” as a
voluntary system for hospitals to report and learn from errors, but the new
organizations are devoid of meaningful oversight and further exclude the
public;

–Hearst journalists interviewed 20 of the 21 living authors of “To Err is
Human”-16 believe that the U.S. hasn’t come close to reducing medical errors
by half, the primary stated goal of the report;

–New York’s reporting system has run out of money and staff-its last public
report is four years old;

–The law mandating reporting in Texas expired in 2007, and funding ran
out-a new reporting law has been passed, but no funds have been allocated;

–Washington State requires reporting, but doesn’t enforce that
requirement-and the legislature failed to provide funds to analyze the
results.

“Dead By Mistake” includes profiles of more than 30 people who died or were
injured while seeking medical care. Most lost their lives, some in lingering
pain. Others lived on, with paralysis, amputation, burns and emotional
distress. Families suffered in the aftermath. In some cases, paperwork was
lost, or mischaracterized the cause. “Ranging in age from newborn to 91,
these Americans are a small sample of a huge and poorly accounted for
population,” said Hearst Newspapers Editor-at-Large Phil Bronstein, who
oversaw the project. “To the families, each case is a unique and compelling
argument as to why a system that allows such preventable mistakes is
intolerable.”

In addition to investigative reporting and case profiles, DeadByMistake.com
features an interactive map that provides a state-by-state snapshot of
reporting systems and two interactive databases created as part of this
investigation. One database tracks hospitals’ participation in three
prominent national safety programs. The second brings together the millions
of anonymous patient discharge records that Hearst reporters collected from
California, Texas, New York and Washington. Hearst worked with expert
statisticians at the Niagara Health Quality Coalition, a not-for-profit
think tank, to analyze this data to produce never-before published patient
safety ratings from medical details buried in hospital records. The results
appear on five searchable databases with interactive maps.

“More people die each month of preventable medical injuries than died in the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” Bronstein added. “The annual
medical error death toll is higher than that for fatal car crashes.”

Bronstein continued, “‘Dead By Mistake’ is the result of two things
converging: a critical and neglected health-care issue that dramatically
affects hundreds of thousands of Americans every year and the tireless work
of a team of skilled and dedicated journalists.”

The investigation utilized the reporting resources of seven Hearst
newspapers-the San Francisco Chronicle, Albany Times Union, San Antonio
Express-News, Houston Chronicle, Greenwich Time, Stamford Advocate and the
Connecticut Post-as well as SeattlePI.com and Hearst Television.  In
addition to contributing to the national television, print and Web stories,
these Hearst journalists also produced market-specific reports highlighting
the results of local investigations. Students, faculty and graduates of the
Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism at Columbia University Graduate
School of Journalism also contributed research, stories, photos, audio,
video and Web content to the report.

“This comprehensive investigation allowed us to draw on the unique
journalistic resources of our various Hearst properties and platforms, and
enabled us to broaden the breadth and depth of the reporting,” Bronstein
said. “This investigation is a new, collaborative way of reporting, but,
more importantly, it is a public service focusing on the plague of fatal and
preventable hospital errors.”

“Dead By Mistake” is the third Hearst investigative reporting initiative,
following January’s series on Boy Scouts councils across the country logging
and selling prime woodlands to turn quick profits, sometimes on lands that
were bequeathed to the organization for preservation purposes. Before that,
Hearst Newspapers’ I-team investigated disastrous military housing
privatization programs across the country, which earned a 2008 George Polk
Award for Military Reporting.

Don’t let politics obscure important health care reform

It’s hard to understand what is going on in Washington with a new report coming out daily regarding who is willing to compromise what. We need to stay really focused now on  the facts and what is most important in health reform legislation.

Fact #1: We spend close to 2.5 trillion dollars on health care in the U.S. This number is increasing at a rate of 6-8 % per year.

Fact #2: Depending on which congressional committee’s bill you want to choose, proposed legislation increases this spending by 800 billion to 1.6 trillion dollars per year.

Fact #3: The proposed way to pay for the increase is through increased taxes and reduced reimbursement to providers.

Does this sound good so far? Wait.

Fact #4: There is no significant plan to reduce the continued increase in the cost.

We now have an approximately 3.5 trillion dollar entitlement that will be increasing at a rate of 6-8 % per year. This is simply not going to work. What should we do? Let’s look at some more facts.

Fact #5: 80% of health care costs are generated by the care delivery system. 7% by health plan administration.

The point being we are not going to get cost savings out of the health plan to pay for coverage it is only going to come out of the delivery system. We must begin to eliminate waste from the delivery system if we have any chance of managing the cost.

Fact #6: Approximately 300 million medication errors will be delivered in the American Health Care System this year.

Many other mistakes lead to high cost in health care. Examples include infections after surgery, patient falls, pressure ulcers and many others. We’ve known for years that we were injuring and killing many patients per year. In fact estimates for injuries are as high as 15 million/yr.

Fact #7: There are a core set of early adopters of the principles of manufacturing quality called “lean” which are showing dramatic reductions in these defects and in the costs of delivering care.

This group of organizations has created the Health Care Value Leaders Network They are committed to transforming their organizations to the safest and most reliable in the industry and they are proving that it’s possible to do so.

Fact #8: ThedaCare in Appleton WI, one of the 16 organizations has reduced the cost of inpatient care by 25% and improved quality on their med surg unit to near 100% reliability. Isolated Coronary Bypass surgery mortality rates have dropped from over 4% in 2001 to 1.4% in 2008 and 0% so far for 2009. Gundersen Lutheran in LaCrosse WI, takes care of Medicare enrollees for half the cost of the average in the nation with top quality scoreswww.dartmouthatlas.org All of the health care value leaders network organizations are showing similar dramatic results.

What’s happening at these organizations and a few others is a commitment to improve themselves using a methodology that is understandable and is proven. This methodology has not been widely accepted in the industry which is one reason why costs keep going up and quality doesn’t improve.These organizations are committed to documenting and sharing this proven methodology on behalf of all the patients in America. In the Gundersen and ThedaCare cases alone if all health systems could achieve these results there would be more than a trillion dollars of savings in the next 10 years with hundreds of thousands of lives saved.

This Center and The Lean Enterprise Institute have formed a partnership to facilitate many networks of hospitals and doctors who want to learn this methodology and improve. Visit www.createvalue.org  web site to sign up to become one of the learners of the proven methodology for reducing defects and improving patient outcomes.

In summary, with the political wrangling going on we must not lose site of the fact that we need essential payment reform which supports the innovation described above and we need all health care organizations to focus on learning how to remove waste, about a trillion dollars worth.