Therese Zink, MD, MPH
Department of Family and Community Medicine, Minneapolis
Karen Lloyd, PhD, LP
HealthPartners, Minneapolis
George Isham, MD
HealthPartners, Minneapolis
David J. Mathews, PsyD, LICSW
Domestic Abuse Project, Minneapolis
Terry Crowson, MD
HealthPartners, Minneapolis
PDF version: 

Abstract

Purpose: This article presents the steps for organizing a health organization's response to intimate partner violence (IPV) according to the Planned Care Model (PCM). IPV is common and costly and results in poor physical and mental health outcomes for victims and their families. Because most care is not acute, a planned approach that crosses systems may result in more comprehensive and higher quality care. Community collaboration with IPV agencies is especially critical. The health care organization must make IPV a priority and set policies and systems to identify and manage patients, train staff, and measure, monitor, and provide feedback on outcomes. Other key PCM components include: practice design — design systems to identify and track victims, stratify risk, and coordinate care; evidence-based decision support — choose validated IPV screening questions and guidelines for identification, management, and referral and make them available in a systematic way with ongoing assessment and feedback to providers and other members of the health care team; patient self-management — self-management materials should be selected and disseminated to those working with IPV victims; and data information systems — these should support a confidential patient registry and efforts to audit and provide feedback about identification and referral efforts. Process and outcome measures based on the management guidelines and protocols should be developed and monitored, and the results disseminated.

Conclusion: Adapting PCM for the management of IPV stretches the traditional acute approach to IPV of screen-identify-refer. It expands the PCM into new realms, including embracing new partners, trying innovative ways to measure return on investment, grappling with ethical dilemmas, and designing a multifactorial evaluation across systems.

Key words: domestic violence, intimate partner violence, chronic care model, planned care model.

Author correspondence:
Therese Zink, MD, MPH
Department of Family sand Community Medicine
University of Minnesota
MMC 81
420 Delaware Street SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.