Innovations that could transform planned care

Michael Macdonnell & Nick Ville 4th March 2014

What we’re going to talk about

2

The strategic context

The opportunity in elective care

How to seize the opportunity

We forecast a funding gap of £28-44bn by 2021/22 in a “do nothing” baseline case

3

859095100105110115120125130135

Funding £bn

£44bn

£28bn

2021/22 20/21 19/20 18/19 17/18 16/17 15/16 14/15 13/14 12/13 11/12 2010/11

Real terms freeze

Real terms freeze through 2014/15 followed by increase with real GDP (2.4%)

Historical Funding pressures on the NHS in England (~4%)

1 The forecast spend assumes pressures continue to rise in line with patterns observed prior to 2010/11 and that policy-makers and managers take no action to improve efficiency and reduce costs. This estimate is based on the rising pressures on the NHS from 1) Demographics (principal population projection from ONS), 2) Health care activity (Chronic demands on acute 04/05-09/10; MH 08-10/11; primary care 95/96-08/09; prescribing 08/09-11/12) and 3) Health care costs (Pay 2% a year over GDP deflator; drugs in line with GDP). Assumes NHS funding continues to grow with inflation (GDP deflator). Forecast starts at 2010/11 as that is year with most available data for productivity calculations.

2 The funding gap is estimated to be ~£12-28bn by 2021/22 if the potential QIPP and wage savings to 2014/15 are delivered

So where are the improvement opportunities?

IMPROVE CURRENT SERVICES

Provider efficiency

Reduce spend on low value interventions

RIGHT CARE, RIGHT SETTING

Patient self-care

Prevent hospitalisation through integrated care

Shift activity between

care settings

NEW SERVICES

Examples:

- Torrevieja Salud

- CareMore

- Martini-Klinik

4

5

30 6.5-12

2.4-4

1.7-2

5

7-14.4

Gap by 2021/22

Improve current services

Right care, right setting

Innovate new

services

Wage freeze to 2014/15

Remaining challenge

New services

Higher value care models are needed to close the gap

£Bn/ pa

...And this view is shared by many NHS leaders

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Technology New care models or types of providers Patient responsibility and self management

% o

f Aud

ienc

e

Which of the following is the most important potential solution to the NHS' future challenges?

Healthy & well

At risk

Episodic needs or single LTC

Polychronic and vulnerable elderly

Severe illness & specialist needs

Acu

ity

Active & engaged patients &

citizens

Wider primary care at scale

Modern models of integrated

care

High value elective

care

Specialist centres of excellence

High quality

urgent & emergency

care networks

Six future models or characteristics

What we’re going to talk about

8

The strategic context

The opportunity in elective care

How to seize the opportunity

A step change in the productivity of elective care

Population For patients who need a planned or elective procedure (e.g. cataract or orthopaedic surgery) but excluding prescribed specialised services.

What is it? Providers rationalise their portfolio to specialise in providing a specific planned care procedure and its aftercare at high volume.

By performing at high volume, providers attract the best people, shift tasks to different grades raising quality, reducing variation and lowering cost

9

Providers choose to specialise, do one or few things very well

Measure clinical outcomes, report transparently

Analyse variations, employ best ‘high volume’ surgeons

Focus on improvement & best practice sharing

Individual care tailored to patient

There are significant clinical and productivity opportunities to deliver better value elective care

10

Clinical benefits Productivity benefits

•  Reduced mortality and morbidity associated with higher volume centres

•  Reduced complication rates for surgical procedures

•  Reduced length of stay (and infection rates?) •  Research capability, which in turn is

associated with quality improvements

•  Better patient experience?

•  Greater asset utilisation; for example, theatres and other capital equipment

•  Higher workforce productivity arising from standardisation and potential for task-shifting

•  Better job satisfaction and recruitment benefits •  Fewer complications, less re-work and

potentially lower litigation costs

•  Purchasing / procurement benefits?

Better value (outcomes/costs)

Case study 1 : the Shouldice Center, a dedicated and high volume hernia centre

11

About Shouldice Hernia Center

Shouldice Hernia Center (Toronto, Canada) have a 55 year history in specialising in hernia surgery (80% inguinal hernia)

•  Total of >300 000 surgeries performed

•  89 beds and 11 surgeons

Developed own surgical method—"Shouldice repair"

•  Short operation time with local aesthetic

•  Quick recovering process (the patient leaves the operation theatre un-assisted)

Key success factors

Lower costs—and good outcome •  Patients are screened carefully,

mostly standard operations •  Short operation time

and recovery due to local aesthetic

Lower fees attracts patients from all over North America

•  ~50% lower costs compared to other hospitals1

•  ~50% of patients originates from outside Toronto and ~20% outside Canada

Experienced and dedicated surgeons

•  Nicholas Obney, chief surgeon for 32 years, annual case load of ~800 surgeries

Outcomes

Volu

me

Reo

pera

tion

rate

(%)

~7500 hernia surgeries

0

1

2

3

4

Sweden mean

-89%

Shouldice

3.2

5 year reoperation rate (%)

0.3

Primary surgery 1985

Primary surgery 1992–2007

1. HBS case study shows that a standard hernia surgery at Shouldice costs ~1500 USD, compared to ~3000 USD at other hospitals Source: Swedish National Hernia registry annual report 2012, E. Byrnes Shouldice, Surgical Clinics of North America, 2003 ; HBS Case study

Case Study 2: the ENDO-Klinik, the largest hip arthroplasty unit in Germany

12

About ENDO-Klinik

Recognised Centre of Excellence within orthopaedics

•  ~50% of patients originates from outside Hamburg

•  Built a strong brand based on high quality since the start in 1976

•  Part of the hospital group Helios, one of the largest private players in Germany

Specialised in hip, knee, shoulder and ankle surgery

•  ~7000 patients visit the hospital annually

•  Only German hospital that is a member of International Society of Orthopaedic Centres

Specialised in complicated cases

A wide range of cases—including the most complicated

•  ~2000 hip and knee revisions annually (highest number in Europe)

•  Many other orthopaedic centers in Germany only focusing on standardised surgery

Standardised processes and highly experienced teams

•  Operation theatres identically designed

•  Experienced surgeons with annual case load >200

•  Only elective surgery minimising distractions from acute cases

Outcomes

Volu

me

~2300 hip arthroplasties

0.0

0.5

1.0

Reoperation rate (%)

-13%

Weighted mean for German high

volume units

0.8

ENDO-Klinik Hamburg

0.7

Reo

pera

tion

rate

(%)

1. Antibiotic Loaded Bone Cement Source: AOK Weisse Liste http://weisse-liste.krankenhaus.aok.de/ ; http://www.cementinguniversity.com/centres-of-excellence/endo-klinik/presentation?cookieAccept=true; Interview with surgeon at ENDO-Klinik and former surgeon at Schön Klinik.

Case Study 3: the Schön Klinik Neustadt, a dedicated orthopaedic hospital

13

About Schön Klinik Neustadt

Specialised within 8 surgical areas, i.e., orthopaedics, spine surgery and neurology

•  The hospital was bought from the municipality in 1995

•  Annual case load of ~1500 hip arthroplasties and ~1000 knee arthroplasties

Strong growth and internationally recognised as a Centre of Excellence

•  Between 1997 and 2005 annual case load grew at CAGR 6%

•  Extensive collaborations with international partners (i.e., Harvard Business School)

•  Swedish Global Health Partner and Schön collaborates in developing a spine surgery registry

Key success factors

Extensive focus on quality •  Comprehensive documentation,

reporting and follow-up •  Developed own process called

QED (Quality empowered by documentation)

Cost-efficiency •  Strong focus on identifying

cost drivers and correct allocation of costs

•  Continuously streamlining operations by standardisation of processes, without affecting clinical outcomes negatively

Outcomes

Volu

me

Reo

pera

tion

rate

(%)

~1500 hip arthroplasties

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Reoperation rate(%)

Weighted mean for German high

volume units

0.8

Schön Klinik Neustadt

0.0

Källa: AOK Weisse Liste http://weisse-liste.krankenhaus.aok.de/ ; Schön Kliniks hemsida, http://www.lakartidningen.se/07engine.php?articleId=13843;

An important corollary: measuring mortality is not enough to expose the full benefits of specialisation

14

0% 5%

Incontinence Severe urinary dysfunction Severe erectile dysfunction

35%

7%

43%

76%

German hospital average1 Martini-Klinik

Complication rates 1 year post-operation (2012)

1. BARMER GEK insured 2012 Source: Quality report Martini Klinik, Budäus et al., Dtsch Ärztebl 2011; 108, personal communication Prof. Huland, BARMER GEK Krankenhausreport

In surgery at least, there is an experience curve: for every doubling of experience (volume), quality improves by ~15%

15

What could this mean at a macro level? Planned care accounts for more than 30% of acute spend, or about £12.2bn per year

Breakdown of planned tariff income1 £ billion (2012/13)

46%

29%

25%

24% 22% 1% 5% 19% 17% 11% 1%

ELIP medical

0.1

ELIP other

0.6

ELIP surgical

2.3

ELDC other

0.1

ELDC medical

1.3

ELDC surgical

2.1

OPFU

3.0

OPFA

2.7

Total

12.2

3.0 3.6 5.6

58% of all acute spend

42% of all acute spend

Acute

48

28

20

Non-tariff

20

Unplanned tariff

14

Planned tariff

14

29% 29% 42%

Non-tariff Tariff

Breakdown of acute trust income from patient activities1 £ billion (2012/13)

1 Tariff income refers to income from activities subject to the national tariff. Difference in planned tariff income between charts due to coding adjustment SOURCE: Analysis based on FIMS; DoH Annual Report and Accounts 2012-13; and HES 2012/13 (Inpatient and outpatient datasets)

Adjusting for coding errors, estimated at

£12.2bn

A conservative estimate, based on reference cost variation, suggests the overall opportunity is at least ca £0.7-0.9bn

16

Opportunity from reducing cost variability to mean (e.g. shift to efficient providers) £ Million

% of spend (12/13)

5% 8% 5% 9%

Total opportunity

660 – 910

Inpatients

210-310

Day Cases

140-230

OP Follow-Ups

210-230

OP First Attendances

100-140

However, this opportunity is based on expensive providers achieving mean costs. What could be achieved if much more productive models were implemented and

the bar was set by the best performing providers internationally?

SOURCE: Analysis commissioned by Monitor based on 2012/13 Reference Costs

What we’re going to talk about

17

The strategic context

The opportunity in elective care

How to seize the opportunity

Making it happen........

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Lack of money Political or policy barriers Cultural resistence to change

% o

f Aud

ienc

e

Which of the following barriers to change is the most important?

Challenges for national organisations

19

Partnership working •  Join up our work and enable local health economies to take a

system view

Enabling •  Be flexible in our approach and remove barriers

Informing •  Promote research and analysis the helps local decision-

makers

Active supporter •  Lend our support to local ‘proof of concept’ or pilots

Incentivise •  Learn how we can better incentivise innovation and adoption

How can we encourage the emergence of high value elective care centres? Thoughts for local health economies

20

Understand what you’re buying •  Require quality and cost data as a condition of purchase Allocate resources in search of better value •  Move activity to best providers Consider incentives that reward value •  Can pricing, CQUIN etc encourage providers to specialise?

Commissioners

Providers

Do real strategy •  Portfolio rationalisation (doing what you’re good at) is key Take a health economy perspective •  An ecosystem of specialised providers operating at scale Consider innovative risk & reward sharing structures •  To grease the wheels of collaboration

This makes it sound easy -- taking patients and the public along will also be critical to successful implementation

Discussion question

What can we do that would support innovation and promote its adoption more widely in the NHS?

21