Is Grand Junction Really a Model for the Future of Health Care?

None

President Barack Obama at a campaign stop in Grand Junction, Colo., on August 8, 2012.
National Journal
Sophie Quinton
See more stories about...
Sophie Quinton
Aug. 28, 2013, 6:29 a.m.

When Pres­id­ent Obama was mak­ing his pitch for health care re­form in 2009, he flew to Grand Junc­tion, Colo., to praise the loc­al med­ic­al com­munity for cut­ting health care costs. “You’re get­ting bet­ter res­ults while wast­ing less money,” he said. The area par­tic­u­larly ex­celled at provid­ing cost-ef­fect­ive care to Medi­care pa­tients — in 2006, Grand Junc­tion’s per-pa­tient Medi­care costs were 30 per­cent be­low the na­tion­al av­er­age. It wouldn’t be sur­pris­ing if the Af­ford­able Care Act that Obama even­tu­ally signed in 2010, with its em­phas­is on lower­ing Medi­care ex­penses, led more com­munit­ies to fol­low the ex­ample of this largely blue-col­lar city of around 50,000 on Col­or­ado’s west­ern slope.

But Grand Junc­tion’s health care story is more com­plic­ated than Obama’s praise in­dic­ated. While Grand Junc­tion has man­aged to provide low-cost care for Medi­care re­cip­i­ents, it’s not dra­mat­ic­ally less ex­pens­ive than oth­er Col­or­ado towns for non-Medi­care pa­tients. And therein lies the cau­tion for loc­al­it­ies that want to cre­ate low-cost med­ic­al havens: In­nov­a­tion that lowers health care costs for one type of pa­tient can some­times push costs up for an­oth­er. 

A his­tory of col­lab­or­a­tion has helped Grand Junc­tion rein in its Medi­care costs. The town sits hun­dreds of miles from ma­jor med­ic­al cen­ters in Den­ver and Salt Lake City, and its isol­a­tion has forced mem­bers of the med­ic­al com­munity to work to­geth­er. Back in the 1970s, area phys­i­cians formed an HMO — now known as Rocky Moun­tain Health Plans and avail­able across the state — as well as the Mesa County Phys­i­cians In­de­pend­ent Prac­tice As­so­ci­ation, a group of primary-care doc­tors and some spe­cial­ists. To­geth­er, the two or­gan­iz­a­tions de­veloped what RMHP calls the “Mesa County mod­el.” 

Un­der this blen­ded-pay­ment mod­el, MCPIPA doc­tors get the same re­im­burse­ment no mat­ter wheth­er the RMHP pa­tient they see is covered by Medi­care or private in­sur­ance. This makes it easi­er for pa­tients with dif­fer­ent kinds of in­sur­ance to find a doc­tor. Doc­tors used to get the same re­im­burse­ment for RMHP pa­tients covered by Medi­caid, too, but in 2008 re­im­burse­ments for Medi­caid pa­tients were lowered.

“We want our com­munity to go to their primary-care phys­i­cian,” says MCPIPA Ex­ec­ut­ive Dir­ect­or Sandy Ran­dall. En­sur­ing ac­cess to a fam­ily doc­tor gives pa­tients a lower-cost place to take their health prob­lems than the emer­gency room. Es­tab­lish­ing a re­la­tion­ship with a phys­i­cian also helps pa­tients man­age chron­ic con­di­tions, such as dia­betes, and get pre­vent­at­ive care.

MCPIPA and RMHP also use in­cent­ives to en­cour­age doc­tors to use less-ex­pens­ive ser­vices. RMHP with­holds a per­cent­age of re­im­burse­ments for the claims doc­tors sub­mit un­til the end of the year, when the health plan looks at its fin­ances. If premi­um rev­en­ues for Mesa County ex­ceed ex­pendit­ures on care, the health plan and MCPIPA share the profits. To set low-spend­ing norms in the med­ic­al com­munity, MCPIPA cre­ates cost pro­files for each primary care-doc­tor — with in­form­a­tion such as spend­ing on ima­ging ser­vices — and shares the pro­files among mem­bers.

There are lim­its to the reach of the Mesa County mod­el. RMHP in­sures about 25 per­cent of Mesa County pa­tients, and Mesa is home to less than half the 305,000 people in the Grand Junc­tion hos­pit­al re­fer­ral re­gion. But oth­er loc­al play­ers are also work­ing to make ser­vices more cost-ef­fect­ive. St Mary’s, the re­gion­al hos­pit­al, op­er­ates a clin­ic that gives un­in­sured and low-in­come pa­tients a low-cost al­tern­at­ive to the emer­gency de­part­ment for their non-emer­gency con­di­tions. The area hos­pice works with doc­tors to help eld­erly pa­tients make end-of-life plans, pre­vent­ing ag­gress­ive in­ter­ven­tions pa­tients don’t want.

For Medi­care, Grand Junc­tion’s ef­forts have paid off. In 2010, total Medi­care re­im­burse­ments per per­son in the hos­pit­al re­fer­ral re­gion were $6,993, 73 per­cent of the U.S. av­er­age and in the top 10 per­cent of low-cost re­gions, ac­cord­ing to the Dart­mouth At­las of Health Care. Few­er Medi­care pa­tients are re­ad­mit­ted to the hos­pit­al with­in 30 days. In the last two years of life, Medi­care pa­tients in Grand Junc­tion pay about 56 per­cent the U.S. av­er­age in co-pay­ments.

Oth­er pay­ers haven’t ex­per­i­enced com­par­able sav­ings. “We’re good for Medi­care; our oth­er costs maybe not so much,” Ran­dall says, des­pite doc­tors’ best ef­forts to lower costs for all pay­ers. It’s more chal­len­ging to con­trol costs for non-Medi­care pay­ers, she says. Medi­caid and com­mer­cial-claims data com­piled by Col­or­ado’s Cen­ter for Im­prov­ing Value in Health Care show that the total cost of care in Mesa County is ex­actly as ex­pec­ted, giv­en the pop­u­la­tion’s health status. Yet Mesa County res­id­ents are 16 per­cent less likely to be ad­mit­ted to the hos­pit­al, 26 per­cent less likely to make an out­pa­tient vis­it, and 33 per­cent less likely to vis­it the ER than their health status would pre­dict. Even though Medi­caid and privately in­sured res­id­ents use few­er ser­vices, their costs are on tar­get, not lower.

Why haven’t non-Medi­care costs dropped as dra­mat­ic­ally? “Al­most all the vari­ation in Medi­care spend­ing is driv­en by dif­fer­ences in util­iz­a­tion,” says Ateev Mehro­tra, a policy ana­lyst for Rand. Medi­care re­im­burse­ment rates are set na­tion­ally by the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. But when it comes to private in­sur­ance, “the ma­jor­ity of the dif­fer­ence in spend­ing is not driv­en by util­iz­a­tion, but is driv­en by prices,” he says. In the com­mer­cial mar­ket, rates are set through loc­al ne­go­ti­ations between in­surers and hos­pit­al sys­tems.

In the Amer­ic­an med­ic­al sys­tem, there’s really no such thing as a low-cost re­gion. There are high-spend­ing hos­pit­als in low-spend­ing re­gions, and low-spend­ing hos­pit­als in high-spend­ing re­gions, the In­sti­tute of Medi­cine poin­ted out in a re­port last month. In fact, low Medi­care spend­ing is of­ten as­so­ci­ated with high private-in­sur­ance spend­ing, says Robert Ber­en­son, fel­low at the Urb­an In­sti­tute. Small med­ic­al com­munit­ies tend to have lower Medi­care costs be­cause there are just few­er re­sources for Medi­care pa­tients to use. But a hos­pit­al dom­in­ant over a med­ic­al com­munity has mar­ket power it can use to de­mand high­er prices from com­mer­cial in­surers.

In re­cent years, the rising cost of care has been driv­en by unit prices, not be­cause of ex­cess­ive use. Even the old rule of thumb — that it’s cheap­er to see pa­tients out­side the hos­pit­al — is erod­ing as prices for out­pa­tient ser­vices rise and more ser­vices are de­livered in an out­pa­tient set­ting. From 1999-2011, hos­pit­al out­pa­tient spend­ing per fee-for-ser­vice Medi­care be­ne­fi­ciary grew 110.5 per­cent, ac­cord­ing to the Medi­care Pay­ment Ad­vis­ory Com­mis­sion.

Grand Junc­tion demon­strates how care co­ordin­a­tion and pay­ment in­cent­ives can lower the cost of care for Medi­care pa­tients without sac­ri­fi­cing qual­ity. Lower­ing costs for every­one will take an­oth­er step: tack­ling the prices of ser­vices. That’s been hard to do, his­tor­ic­ally, be­cause of the lack of price trans­par­ency in the sys­tem. But a host of re­cent ef­forts — such as the CIVHC’s claims data­base, fed­er­al data re­veal­ing the prices giv­en hos­pit­als charge for com­mon pro­ced­ures, and na­tion­al data-gath­er­ing ini­ti­at­ives such as the Health Cost In­sti­tute — could help shed light on what’s driv­ing health care costs for non-Medi­care pay­ers. Most doc­tors don’t know off the top of their head what a giv­en pro­ced­ure at a giv­en fa­cil­ity will cost a pa­tient, Ran­dall says. Pub­lic data would make it pos­sible for them to find out.

Cla­ri­fic­a­tion: An earli­er ver­sion of this art­icle in­cluded an out­dated ac­count of the blen­ded pay­ments agree­ment between MCPIPA and RMHP. Since 2008, re­im­burse­ments for Medi­caid pa­tients have been lower than for Medi­care and privately in­sured pa­tients.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×