Overuse of low-value tests, services and medications costs the American health care system $75 billion to $100 billion a year, according to a 2019 review article.¹ These figures do not include the impact on the patients who receive services of marginal utility that sometimes pose significant risk. Although overuse of specific tests, services and medications is well documented, the challenge has been what to do about it. Common approaches – such as expecting patients to second-guess their physicians, blanket denial of payment, or cumbersome authorization requirements – cause their own problems. Patients may not receive services that are medically appropriate in their circumstances, and back-and-forth authorization processes add more administrative costs of the U.S. health care system.
In 2012, Solventum met this challenge by releasing the Solventum™ Potentially Preventable Admissions (PPAs) Classification System as one of the three Population-focused Preventables. (The others are Solventum PPS and Solventum PPV).
As with all Solventum PPE classification systems, three core concepts are essential. First, we recognize that not all services are potentially preventable. Second, what matters is not the individual service, but rather the overall rate of potentially preventable services. Instead of approaching quality with the mindset of “This should never happen,” we use a more realistic and meaningful approach of “This has happened too often.” Third, any comparisons across populations of patients must be risk- adjusted. In practice, that means that the actual Solventum PPA experience of a population is compared with the experience that would be expected for a population with the same case mix.
Structure
Solventum PPS logic is divided into two phases:
- Identify potentially preventable services
Each service provided in a physician practice, outpatient hospital department (except emergency), or similar setting is assigned to one of approximately 600 Solventum EAPGs. The Solventum PPS classification system compares the Solventum EAPG with the principal diagnosis as classified by the diagnostic subgroup (DSG) component of the Solventum™ Clinical Risk Groups (CRGs) Classification System. There are thousands of Solventum EAPG/DSG pairs that indicate potentially preventable services. Examples (as of 2020) include:
MRI of the Back for Other Back and Spine Diagnoses (EAPG 294/DSG 937301)
Diagnostic Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy for Nausea, Vomiting, Diarrhea (EAPG 136/DSG 930401)
Occupational Therapy for Vascular Dementia (EAPG 270/DSG 900602)
Electroencephalogram for Headache (EAPG 211/DSG 904001)
Detailed output from Solventum PPS allows licensees to focus on PPS categories such as imaging, lab, endoscopy or therapy.
- Determine patient risk adjustment
Consider the example of two physician practices that have identical rates of ordering MRIs in the early evaluation of low back pain. If one practice’s patients are baseline healthy and the other practice’s patients have multiple comorbidities, the differences in baseline health status must be considered. This is done by calculating norms by Aggregated Clinical Risk Group (ACRG) and then comparing each practice’s actual PPS experience with its expected PPS experience. The typical result is identification of individual practices with excessive rates of ordering or providing low-value ancillary services. Addressing these concerns may be as simple as showing physicians how they differ from their peers.
Solventum PPS can also identify underuse. For example, when physician practices are paid by capitation (a flat rate per patient regardless of utilization), patients may be underserved. Again, comparing actual experience with expected experience (after case mix adjustment) provides actionable data for improvement.
Solventum PPS clinical logic is maintained by a team of Solventum clinicians, data analysts, clinical analysts, programmers and economists. The methodology is updated annually to reflect changes in the standard diagnosis and procedure code sets and make enhancements to the clinical logic.
¹Shrank WH, Rogstad TL, Parekh N. Waste in the US health care system: estimated costs and potential for savings. JAMA. 2019;322(15):1501-1509.