Strategic Systems of Care Planning
Quote from McKinnon, Sr. Communications Manager on February 10, 2022, 8:45 amPosted on behalf of Manager Cynthia Valadez.
Dear Board of Managers,
As we deliberate and review the staff and consultant work on the Strategic Systems of Care Planning leading to an “Equity-focused Service Delivery Strategic Plan” I am raising the following three points:
- I have requested and continue to request that we have an overview of previous Central Health, Seton, and the CCC’s efforts from 2012 to to date to provide an integrated delivery health care system for uninsured and underinsured Travis County patients. The reason for this is that if CH had previously contracted to complete similar work (as was done with Navigant, now part of Guidehouse) then were the previous results and recommendations used in THIS effort to modify our Systems of Care using that collected data as a comparison/contrast to measure changes/disparities gaps? The CCC was established as a new multi-provider, integrated delivery system that was launched in 2012. According to documents, “the CCC was established to integrate safety net providers in Travis County in a “Accountable Care Organization (ACO)-like model where providers would come together to give high quality care to our patients especially the chronically ill. Patients would receive navigated, patient-centered care that was supposed to lead to better health outcomes, increased satisfaction with the system, efficient delivery of services, and lower costs. The focus of which was Central Health’s patient population chronic disease needs by developing critical infrastructure to support the CCC’s goal of providing an integrated delivery system”. The CCC thus access federally available dollars, DSRIP, taxpayer monies and dollars provided by Seton to this venture. My interest is to know what lessons were learned from the CCC’s $850 million investment from 2013 to 2021 into the development of the integrated delivery health care for relevance to our current planning efforts as we develop a new “Equity-focused Service Delivery Strategic Plan”? Simply, what were the lessons learned and how was the then-current system improved via incorporated changes from those projects to the benefit of patients in an effective and efficient way?
- Fast forward to the current project recommended to us by our CEO and the UT consultant to review the work to date on the development of an “Equity-focused Service Delivery Plan to build a comprehensive, high functioning health care system to improve the health of Central Health’s patients.” I have asked for the “equity lens/plan” that is being used to analyze the data/information being received and presented to us as BOM members. I have not seen any validated equity measures being used in the proposed plan. Effective equity measures require accurate and complete collection of key sociodemographic data (for example, race/ethnicity, language, educational attainment levels, income, and geography). If we do not know this, then how is it that systems can identify and act on disparities? Data quality is critical to the development of appropriate policy incentives; and demographically appropriate (to OUR CH targeted population) patient engagement should be used to improve documentation based on data, not at random. Central Health’s targeted patient population has higher levels of health care needs and costs because of disparities in healthcare quality and because of their inability to access healthcare as necessary for their improved quality of life. If we are really talking about an Equity focused Service Delivery Plan, then we should have a solid understanding and documentation of disparities in outcomes; a review of proven interventions that can be effective in reducing disparities; and performance measures and assessment of gaps in measures that can be used to determine the extent to which stakeholders are utilizing those effective interventions to reduce disparities buy closing those gaps. I would like to see these “Four I’s for Health Equity” (developed by equity experts) included in our plan. These are:
- Identify and prioritize reducing health disparities
- Implement evidence-based interventions to reduce disparities
- Invest in the development and use of health equity performance measures
- Incentivize the reduction of health disparities and achievement of health equity
In addition to patient-level data, addressing disparities will require collecting neighborhood-level data on social risk factors to better understand the characteristics of the places in which people live, work, and play. The Equity Focused Service Delivery Plan should provide guidance for addressing a wide spectrum of disparities based on age, gender, income, race, ethnicity, nativity, language, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, geographic location, educational attainment levels, and other social risk factors. It should emphasize the importance of cultural competence, demographically representative community engagement, and cross-sector partnerships to reduce disparities. Data on social risk factors is limited and Central Health will need to partner with public health agencies to collect these data. I haven’t seen any data on disparities and gaps in quality, access, and/or health outcomes between the group with the highest social risk factors and the group with the highest quality ratings for the measure. I also have not seen the comparative breakdown of patient wait-times, per chronic illness and their demographic information, which would have also been an indication of whether CH/CUC was actually improving patient services. It appears as if The Voice of the Community report did not assess data on social risk and equitable access to healthcare to advance health equity, as access is a key to understanding and analyzing disparities. The Community Health Needs Assessment does show gaps in healthcare workers’ accessibility to populations, and the report doesn’t address financial access and the need to continue to improve access to health insurance and ensure that premiums, deductibles, and co-pays do not create barriers to care. Is Sendero included in the planning process to address the systemic improvements which can be implemented ‘In house”?
- As stated before, this timeline is very aggressive. We are getting important reports a day or two before we are being asked to discuss in a board meeting. This is a multi-million, multi-year project and all questions should be welcomed, and the community should be able to weigh in on all of this planning work throughout the process. I do not believe that we should rush this project to meet someone’s timeline for the budget process.
Posted on behalf of Manager Cynthia Valadez.
Dear Board of Managers,
As we deliberate and review the staff and consultant work on the Strategic Systems of Care Planning leading to an “Equity-focused Service Delivery Strategic Plan” I am raising the following three points:
- I have requested and continue to request that we have an overview of previous Central Health, Seton, and the CCC’s efforts from 2012 to to date to provide an integrated delivery health care system for uninsured and underinsured Travis County patients. The reason for this is that if CH had previously contracted to complete similar work (as was done with Navigant, now part of Guidehouse) then were the previous results and recommendations used in THIS effort to modify our Systems of Care using that collected data as a comparison/contrast to measure changes/disparities gaps? The CCC was established as a new multi-provider, integrated delivery system that was launched in 2012. According to documents, “the CCC was established to integrate safety net providers in Travis County in a “Accountable Care Organization (ACO)-like model where providers would come together to give high quality care to our patients especially the chronically ill. Patients would receive navigated, patient-centered care that was supposed to lead to better health outcomes, increased satisfaction with the system, efficient delivery of services, and lower costs. The focus of which was Central Health’s patient population chronic disease needs by developing critical infrastructure to support the CCC’s goal of providing an integrated delivery system”. The CCC thus access federally available dollars, DSRIP, taxpayer monies and dollars provided by Seton to this venture. My interest is to know what lessons were learned from the CCC’s $850 million investment from 2013 to 2021 into the development of the integrated delivery health care for relevance to our current planning efforts as we develop a new “Equity-focused Service Delivery Strategic Plan”? Simply, what were the lessons learned and how was the then-current system improved via incorporated changes from those projects to the benefit of patients in an effective and efficient way?
- Fast forward to the current project recommended to us by our CEO and the UT consultant to review the work to date on the development of an “Equity-focused Service Delivery Plan to build a comprehensive, high functioning health care system to improve the health of Central Health’s patients.” I have asked for the “equity lens/plan” that is being used to analyze the data/information being received and presented to us as BOM members. I have not seen any validated equity measures being used in the proposed plan. Effective equity measures require accurate and complete collection of key sociodemographic data (for example, race/ethnicity, language, educational attainment levels, income, and geography). If we do not know this, then how is it that systems can identify and act on disparities? Data quality is critical to the development of appropriate policy incentives; and demographically appropriate (to OUR CH targeted population) patient engagement should be used to improve documentation based on data, not at random. Central Health’s targeted patient population has higher levels of health care needs and costs because of disparities in healthcare quality and because of their inability to access healthcare as necessary for their improved quality of life. If we are really talking about an Equity focused Service Delivery Plan, then we should have a solid understanding and documentation of disparities in outcomes; a review of proven interventions that can be effective in reducing disparities; and performance measures and assessment of gaps in measures that can be used to determine the extent to which stakeholders are utilizing those effective interventions to reduce disparities buy closing those gaps. I would like to see these “Four I’s for Health Equity” (developed by equity experts) included in our plan. These are:
- Identify and prioritize reducing health disparities
- Implement evidence-based interventions to reduce disparities
- Invest in the development and use of health equity performance measures
- Incentivize the reduction of health disparities and achievement of health equity
In addition to patient-level data, addressing disparities will require collecting neighborhood-level data on social risk factors to better understand the characteristics of the places in which people live, work, and play. The Equity Focused Service Delivery Plan should provide guidance for addressing a wide spectrum of disparities based on age, gender, income, race, ethnicity, nativity, language, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, geographic location, educational attainment levels, and other social risk factors. It should emphasize the importance of cultural competence, demographically representative community engagement, and cross-sector partnerships to reduce disparities. Data on social risk factors is limited and Central Health will need to partner with public health agencies to collect these data. I haven’t seen any data on disparities and gaps in quality, access, and/or health outcomes between the group with the highest social risk factors and the group with the highest quality ratings for the measure. I also have not seen the comparative breakdown of patient wait-times, per chronic illness and their demographic information, which would have also been an indication of whether CH/CUC was actually improving patient services. It appears as if The Voice of the Community report did not assess data on social risk and equitable access to healthcare to advance health equity, as access is a key to understanding and analyzing disparities. The Community Health Needs Assessment does show gaps in healthcare workers’ accessibility to populations, and the report doesn’t address financial access and the need to continue to improve access to health insurance and ensure that premiums, deductibles, and co-pays do not create barriers to care. Is Sendero included in the planning process to address the systemic improvements which can be implemented ‘In house”?
- As stated before, this timeline is very aggressive. We are getting important reports a day or two before we are being asked to discuss in a board meeting. This is a multi-million, multi-year project and all questions should be welcomed, and the community should be able to weigh in on all of this planning work throughout the process. I do not believe that we should rush this project to meet someone’s timeline for the budget process.
Quote from McKinnon, Sr. Communications Manager on February 15, 2022, 8:31 amPosted on behalf of Manager Cynthia Valadez:
A few additional thoughts:The focus needs to be distribution of medical services across all communities that are economically marginalized. The day of having centralized health services is gone. Clinics need to be in the communities. Access is not about just having a centralized place, it is about getting folks to the clinics. No one is going to travel to a centralized clinic at the Hancock Center.Even if “75% of the poor live in the so-called magical I-35 corridor, I-35 is a parking lot. No one can get to the city center. The distribution of health services should be on the outer edge of I-35 – East Riverside, Levander Loop, Manor. Move people away from the central core to get health services, not towards it. Again I-35 is a parking lot. Put services in the communities. Align the services with the APH neighborhood health centers (that is an obvious partnership). Align services with ESD-11. The ESD-11 fire house in ESD-11 was built out to house a clinic, with patient privacy and clinic rooms.All partners need to be at the table if you are doing strategic planning that is going to reorganize the health of the realm. St. David’s JUST announced a $1.2B investment in hospitals in Austin and in the surrounding areas. The learned people among us will recognize that building a hospital in Leander or Bastrop is the equivalent of adding hundreds of hospital beds to Austin. Every person who lives in Bastrop and Leander that can access medical services in that town is one less person that comes to Austin. You can’t plan in a vacuum. The hospitals have been working on this, but no one asked, “hey, what are your plans for the future.” But regardless of directly asking, common sense tells us that the hospitals are actively expanding to meet need.Get all partners to the table. What else is APH planning that you don’t know about. What else is the RAC planning that you don’t know about. What else is the Hogg mental health foundation planning that you don’t know about. What else is DSHS and HHSC planning that you don’t know about. How can the ESDs help – they have fire houses in all parts of the rural county and 80% of their calls are medical. They have a vested interest to help. ESD-11 chief will help. (Honestly, do the consultants even know what a RAC or ESD is? If not, then they are not doing their job.)Most importantly, ask people what they want. Bureaucrats and consultants sitting in an office can’t just assume that people want to go to the old Sears building in the central core to get medical services. Do a demographically based survey of the MAP population, of CUC patients, of Sendero members. The first rule of helping someone is finding out what they want and how they will use that service.
Posted on behalf of Manager Cynthia Valadez: