A way for the Vaccine Hesitant to Save Face

By Robert L. Moore, MD, MPH, MBA, Chief Medical Officer

“Difficulties mastered are opportunities won.

-Winston Churchill

While we like to believe that we generally weigh different sides of a controversy before coming to an objective conclusion, the reality is that this is very rare. Studies show that humans generally decide first what they believe to be true and then search for supporting evidence and ignore evidence that casts doubt on their beliefs. Behavioral economists call this confirmation bias.

In a fascinating exercise, economist Angela Duckworth and author Steven Dubner (co-author of Freakonomics) debated if they would take a vaccine that prevented them from having any confirmation bias. One conclusion: the result of widespread use of such a vaccine would be economic paralysis. For everyday life to proceed efficiently, we rely on the confirmation bias. However, innovation, justice, and good policy depend on having at least a few individuals who are able, at least some of the time, to more carefully weigh different options before drawing a final conclusion. The most flexible will be willing to change their initial views in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Many individuals who are still refusing COVID vaccination initially felt that they did not want to be vaccinated, but those views solidified under the effect of confirmation bias: they latched onto any concerns, no matter how far-fetched, and actively wrote off evidence of the benefits of vaccination as tainted by a profit motive or a government drive to control citizens. These individuals need a way to allow them to change their view without feeling like they are “selling out” in some way. They need a way to save face.

One option may be to promote the coming Novavax COVID vaccine, likely to be approved for Emergency Use in adults in the next two months. Here is the narrative:

  • This two-dose series uses tried and true purified protein technology, used for decades in Hepatitis B and Tdap vaccines.
  • No fetal cell lines were used in any stage of its research or production.
  • The vaccine uses completely different adjuvants, so there is not a risk of cross-anaphylaxis.
  • The early reports of effectiveness show it comparable to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but with less fatigue and local side effects.

This will not resonate with everyone opposed to COVID vaccination, but it does address several common stated concerns around current vaccine options. It may allow them to change their mind and accept COVID vaccination, in a way that is congruent with their earlier negative views.

A key is for early impressions of the Novavax vaccine to be positive, in your conversations with patients and your social media, leveraging the confirmation bias to increase support of vaccination.



By Robert L. Moore, MD, MPH, MBA, Chief Medical Officer

“I have no idea what’s awaiting me, or what will happen when this all ends. For the moment I know this: there are sick people and they need curing.”

-Dr. Bernard Rieux in The Plague, by Albert Camus

August has not been a good month in our PHC counties.

Another summer of massive wildfires and poor air quality.  Another surge of COVID, this time hitting the rural northern counties with particular severity.  For several hospitals, their ICUs and Emergency Departments are full.  Patients are being transferred hundreds of miles south, to hospitals that still have capacity.  Many hospitals report they have no open mammogram or colonoscopy appointments for the rest of the year.

PCP offices are short staffed, as the sheer number of COVID cases leads to illness, but also to quarantines affecting a larger proportion of staff.  Telephone and video visits are on the rise again.  A state requirement that all health care providers require their staff to be vaccinated will lead to additional staffing stress for many of you.  The staff that are able to work are exhausted; you are working so hard to keep them from burning out.

In the midst of all this, we at PHC are impressed with your dedication to take care of your populations, with testing and vaccination efforts both in your offices and in your larger communities.  You are partnering with our public health colleagues, your local hospitals, and with trusted community-based-organizations to respond in an organized, professional and compassionate way to the many simultaneous stresses you are facing.

PHC is here to support you with advocacy and resources to support these efforts.  In the coming weeks we will be offering incentive opportunities for primary care providers to increase the vaccination rate in the PHC population, and to capture vaccination information missing from state registry databases.  In the coming week, PHC will also be offering grants to community organizations in every one of our counties to increase vaccinations among the most vulnerable populations.  We will be making calls, handing out gift cards to members as they get vaccinated, funding local media campaigns, and asking pharmacies to remind their customers of the option of getting vaccinated while picking up their prescriptions.  The September monthly newsletter will have more details.

Balancing Boosters
As the federal government has signaled an intention to approve a booster dose of COVID vaccination for those at least eight months post-vaccination, many of you are worried about this overwhelming your capacity.  Remember, those vaccinated early, especially health care workers, have more agency than more vulnerable patients. Community pharmacies have a large amount of untapped vaccination capacity: where possible, you may want to steer those who know how to make on-line reservations and keep appointments to pharmacies for their boosters, and save your in-office capacity for those who are actually in your offices at the moment, or for specific outreach events.

How Bad Will the Summer Delta Wave Be?

By Robert L. Moore, MD, MPH, MBA, Chief Medical Officer

“Don’t accept the world as it is. Dream of what the world could be – and then help make it happen.”

-Peter Tatchell

For the past year, for some reason I have enjoyed playing some Pandemic-related games with my sequestered family. The best is Pandemic Legacy: Season 1, a cooperative game where players work together to save the world from dangerous pathogens, including some that turn people into virtual zombies. It is a long game, taking many days to complete. I’m happy to say that my family saved the world twice, although many people died and some cities were destroyed in the process.

An older computer game (from 2008) called Pandemic 2 takes a different perspective, where you are the microbe and you are trying to kill as many people as possible. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the best way to do well in this game is to know how COVID-19 unfolded, with asymptomatic respiratory spread, followed by mutations that increase infectiousness and subvert the effectiveness of vaccines. This really helps hit home what is currently happening with the Delta variant.

Recent estimates put the R0 more infectious Delta variant of COVID-19 at six to eight, compared to the R0 of the original Wuhan strain, which was estimated at 2.7. (Reminder: the R0 represents the average number of contacts infected by a single infected person.) This translates to 80-90% of the entire population (including children) would need to have good immunity to this strain to prevent a wave.

While the vaccination rate among California adults is 61.4%, only 51.8% of California’s entire population has been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Of the 12% of the partially vaccinated, some may have had prior COVID infection before vaccination, in which case the single dose is probably about as effective as two doses in a person who never had COVID; the remaining individuals with a single dose have about 34% protection. Overall an additional 8% protection rate is reasonable. From seroprevalence studies, around 15% of the remaining 36% have been previously infected against COVID, but not vaccinated. Unfortunately, prior infection with non-Delta strains confers only about 30% protection against Delta, so the effective rate of protective immunity is only about 65% in our state, far from the now-needed 80-90%, hence the current exponential growth of infection against the Delta variant.

As of last week, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) projected that the 2021 summer delta wave will be a little less severe than last summer’s COVID-19 wave. Based on the experience in the similarly-vaccinated United Kingdom, which is about 1 month ahead of us in the Delta wave, the hospitalization rate will be about 1/3 of what we experienced in prior waves. This means the risk of overwhelming the hospitals and ICU capacity of the state is low, so dramatic stay at home orders or restaurant closures are less likely to be needed or considered.

The upshot: this will likely be a quicker, steeper wave, with hospitalizations and deaths concentrated in the smaller, unvaccinated population. The rates of infection in the unvaccinated population will likely equal the overall infection rates we saw this past winter.

The vaccinated population is considering the recommendations of local public health officers to encourage wearing masks in indoor settings when among strangers, to slow down their lower-morbidity spread of the Delta variant. By itself, this will have a small impact on the overall epidemic curve. It may protect them and their families in the month ahead.

Vaccination is our best hope for fighting this particular virus, with its combination of high infectiousness, high level of asymptomatic spread, and relatively rapid development of mutations that help it evade our immunological and public health defenses—a lesson confirmed by two games written before COVID-19 struck.

You play a key role in this real-life game. Thanks for dedicating yourself to this vision of a better world.

Statin Therapy Lagging in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease or Diabetes

By Robert L. Moore, MD, MPH, MBA, Chief Medical Officer

Most of us forget the basics and wonder why the specifics don’t work.

-Garrison Wynn

In 2019, about 40% of PHC members with diabetes were not being prescribed recommended cholesterol-lowering medications. For patients with diagnosed cardiovascular disease, about 20% had not received statin therapy.

Statin therapy prescriptions and patient adherence to prescribed statin treatment are NCQA HEDIS measures that we will be focusing on in the years ahead. We urge clinician leaders to look at the rates of prescriptions in your practice and remind clinicians of the importance of prescribing statins in these two groups. If you can, set alerts in your Electronic Health Record system (EHRs) to remind clinicians to consider this therapy.

Clinical Background:
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. Patients with clinical Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) are at high risk for future cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from Cardiovascular Disease (CVD). Lipid abnormalities are also common in patients with diabetes, and contribute to an increased risk for developing ASCVD. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) as well as the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommend statin therapy to prevent cardiovascular disease and reduce ASCVD risk.

Summary of Recommendations:
Therapy to reduce the risk of subsequent cardiovascular events includes addressing modifiable risk factors such as smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). The ACC/AHA guidelines state that statins of high intensity or maximally tolerated statin doses are recommended for adults age 75 or under with established clinical ASCVD regardless of the baseline LDL-C. A maximally tolerated statin dose should be used to reduce LDL-C levels by 50% or more.

In patients with diabetes (but without clinical ASCVD), the ADA and the 2019 ACC/AHA guidelines recommend statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, based on age and other risk factors. Moderate-intensity statin therapy can be initiated without calculating a 10-year ASCVD risk. For patients with diabetes who are at higher risk, especially those with multiple ASCVD risk factors or aged 50 to 70 years, high-intensity statin therapy should be considered to reduce the LDL-C level by 50% or more. Consideration may be given for addition of a SGLT-2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist with proven CVD benefit to improve glycemic control and reduce CVD risk in patients at higher risk.

The HEDIS Measures
The HEDIS measure Statin Therapy for Patients with Cardiovascular Disease assesses the percentage of males 21–75 years of age and females 40–75 years of age with clinical ASCVD who have received and adhered to statin therapy.
The HEDIS measure Statin Therapy for Patients with Diabetes assesses the percentage of adults 40-75 years of age who do not have diagnosed ASCVD.

Best Practices
Here is a summary of best practices for adding appropriate statin therapy and improving adherence for patients with diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease:

  1. Review medication list to confirm a statin has been prescribed when indicated.
  2. Provide patient education: explaining goals of statin therapy and need for adherence.
  3. Prescribe statins as 90 day supplies, once therapy is stable.
  4. Ask your patients open-ended questions to monitor for adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions, and other obstacles that may hinder medication adherence.
  5. Collaborate with dispensing pharmacies to identify and address medication adherence gaps.
  6. Specific medication recommendations:
    1. For high intensity statin therapy (lowers LDL-C by >50%), consider atorvastatin 40-80 mg or rosuvastatin 20-40 mg.
    2. For moderate intensity statin therapy (lowers LDL-C by 30% to <50%), consider atorvastatin 10-20 mg, rosuvastatin 5-10 mg, or simvastatin 20-40 mg.

Thanks for passing this along to your front line clinicians.

The Will for Change: Finding Time for this Critical Step

By Robert L. Moore, MD, MPH, MBA, Chief Medical Officer

“What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for improvement in large systems? Will, ideas and execution!” —Tom Nolan, one of the creators of the Model for Improvement.

In a tribute to Tom Nolan, who died on March 19, 2019, pediatrician and founder of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Donald Berwick describes what will, ideas, and execution means:

“Providing will refers to the tasks of fostering discomfort with the status quo and attractiveness for the as-yet-unrealized future. Providing ideas means assuring access to alternative designs and ideas worth testing, as opposed to continuing legacy systems. And execution was his term for embedding learning activities and change in the day-to-day work of everyone, beginning with leaders.” —Milbank Quarterly, August, 2019

Nolan’s three conditions, flow roughly in the following order:

  • Execution cannot lead to improvement without testing
  • Ideas will not be sought out and tested unless organizational leaders make this a personal and organizational priority, an act of will.

It starts with will to improve.

For leaders to decide to make major improvements, fundamentally, we need to challenge the status quo. We must insist on change and provide a vision for a better state that the organization must strive to achieve.

Creating an atmosphere where new ideas can be explored and where strong, independent teams can test these ideas is a central duty of clinical leaders of health care institutions. Yet, it all starts with leadership’s willingness to take risks, communicate a vision of excellence that is achievable, and communicate that the problems of the status quo are unacceptable.

Challenging the status quo is uncomfortable, can be mentally and emotionally draining, and potentially socially isolating.

An alternative leadership style –cherishing tradition and stability– has a certain appeal in the short term. All those staff and stakeholders with an interest in the status quo are happier. There is no need to risk testing new ideas that might fail and make the leader look bad.

When a leader succeeds in upsetting the status quo, particularly in a larger organization, there is significant risk of backlash, which could torpedo the success of the changes. Unless the underlying organizational culture also changes, there is also a probability that improvements will not be sustained and that quality will regress when there is staff turnover.

How do transformational leaders address these challenges? One key tactic is drawing energy from colleagues who are doing the same work in sister organizations. This can help sustain willpower in the face of negative pushback. Another tactic is to develop a group of “true believers” in the quest for quality within different levels of their organization.

Both of these activities require intentionality. They will not naturally happen in the course of our everyday workweek activities. We need to take some time and mental space to build relationships with colleagues outside our organization and with staff within our organization. These relationships must be based on mutual trust, respect, and a shared dedication to lifetime learning. In short, they require some time for reflection, a critical activity that transformational leaders must ensure they do not neglect.

This suggests a causal chain of activities for transformational leaders to be successful at mobilizing the will to improve:

Clinical leaders overwhelmed with patient care and administrative responsibilities lack the time needed to be transformational leaders. The irony is that an improved/transformed health system can use clinician time more efficiently, ultimately giving more potential time for reflection and cultivating relationships. But how can a clinical leader reach this state of improved efficiency if they don’t have time to reflect on the system they are working in?

If the health care system has capacity to add clinical capacity, this can alleviate time pressures for the clinical leaders. This is certainly ideal, if at all possible. Focus first and foremost on recruiting excellent clinicians with a similar dedication to improving quality.

The other options are to work longer hours (which can lead to family stress), or to disappear from everyday work periodically to attend conferences, read books or listen to podcasts, or even complete formal leadership training. This time away can impact patient care in the short term.

Of course, a combination of these three factors –more staffing, longer hours, and disappearing from everyday work– may also give sufficient time for reflective time and building relationships.  Indeed, most transformational leaders have used this combination tactic for their finding time to work on their initial transformational activities.


Re-framing POLST Completion as a Procedure

By Robert L. Moore, MD, MPH, MBA, Chief Medical Officer

Be brave enough to start a conversation that matters.
-Margaret Wheatley

If a surgeon took a patient with a large colon cancer to the operating room against the previously expressed wishes and consent of a patient, they would be subjected to hospital peer review, investigation by the Medical Board, and potential loss of license to practice medicine.

However, failure to have a goals-of-care conversation, leading to an incorrectly completed POLST, that then leads to a seriously ill patient receiving unwanted CPR/intensive care, almost never results in a referral to peer review or the Medical Board.

It will take a big culture shift for this to change, but perhaps we can learn something from surgeons: using a systematic process. Surgeons have a standard way of documenting a procedure, which is essentially a checklist reflecting the standard of care:

  1. Procedure performed
  2. Date and time of the procedure
  3. Name of surgeon/assistants
  4. Indication for procedure
  5. Pre-operative diagnosis
  6. Post-operative diagnosis
  7. Anesthesia
  8. Narrative Description of the Procedure
  9. Findings
  10. Specimens
  11. Sponge and needle counts
  12. Drains left in after surgery
  13. Disposition/Status of the patient

A goals of care conversation with a patient and the family should be documented like a procedure, with a few adaptations.

The Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) was established by AB 3000, passed in 2008, and took effect in 2009. Early on, the California Healthcare Foundation and the Coalition for Compassionate Care of California funded and organized local community coalitions to educate clinicians, emergency medical technicians, and the public, on how to use the POLST appropriately.

For the patient’s wishes around intubation, CPR and artificial nutrition to be honored, the following steps must occur:

  1. A clinician needs to have a goals-of-care conversation with the patient and potentially their family.
  2. When appropriate, a POLST form must be filled out correctly, without missing signatures or inconsistent directives.
  3. The POLST form must be available to any EMS responding to an emergency call.
  4. The family needs to understand and respect the orders expressed in the POLST (or they may hide the POLST or direct the care team to ignore the POLST).
  5. The emergency medical technicians, emergency department physicians and ICU physicians must understand what a POLST is, how to read the POLST, what it means, what the legal requirements are, and agree to following the directives expressed in POLST forms.
  6. The POLST form must be available to the emergency department physician and potentially the ICU physician caring for a patient who is unable to express their own wishes.

A number of organizations in California are piloting electronic POLST forms and POLST registries. One key finding from these pilots is that there are problems with every one of these six steps, such that many patients are not having their wishes honored by one or more providers.

To focus on just the first two steps, which impact you, our primary care providers: Data from the Palliative Care Quality Network shows that PHC contracted palliative care providers in the PHC service area have a high rate of appropriate use of POLST forms.

However, palliative care clinicians often encounter patients who have a POLST form completed by a non-palliative care clinician which have internal inconsistencies or errors, and in which no goals of care conversation is recorded in the medical record.

This sometimes leads to care that is inappropriate and unwanted.

Consider asking your clinicians to document a goals of care conversation like they would document any other medical procedure. See VitalTalk for some resources that can help.

Outcome Disparities vs. Outcome Inequities

By Robert L. Moore, MD, MPH, MBA, Chief Medical Officer

“One’s zip code should not determine one’s health destiny – but in America, it does”

-Robert Ross, CEO California Endowment

Health equity is the focus of much attention recently, with NCQA and DHCS looking for ways to measure and remediate inequities. A major limitation to analysis of health equity in the Medi-Cal population, is that the data available on race, ethnicity, language and gender is self-identified at the time of Medi-Cal application based on limited standardized categories offered by the state. While some providers gather more detailed demographic data, such as gender identity, sexual orientation, or more nuanced ethnicity information, it is not captured in a standardized way and not reported to the health plan or the state, so no analysis based on this more detailed demographic information is possible outside of the provider-level databases. A high priority for making health equity analysis less blunt will be to standardize more detailed race/ethnicity/gender etc. data collected from beneficiaries at the time of application.

Partnership HealthPlan of California (PHC) is able to use the basic member-level ethnicity data we have to evaluate certain clinical data elements that are collected more systematically, as part of HEDIS administrative measures (such as breast cancer screening) or hybrid measures collected as part of the PCP QIP (such as blood pressure control). Outcome data, like maternal mortality or neonatal mortality, is not coded in a way that we can generate accurate rates within our health plan data (county level and state level mortality data is available from CDPH).

There are two patterns that we find with this approach, illustrated with the following examples:

  • Hypertension control: Note the declining control overall in 2020, due to the COVID pandemic. Additionally, note less control of blood pressure in the Black and male populations. This chart is based on QIP data, the denominator being much larger than for HEDIS data, where only a small sample of the overall population is evaluated. Consequently, while we are not able to find statistically significant disparities from HEDIS data, we are able to see statistical differences in the QIP dataset. Diabetes control exhibits a similar pattern.

  • Childhood Immunization: 10 vaccine series completed by age 2. White and Black children have similarly low vaccination levels, compared to the Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic children. Many other clinical measures have a similar pattern, with the health status of white members below that of other ethnic groups.

As this illustrates, not all health disparities are a reflection of inequities. If a socially favored demographic (such as white males) has a worse health status, this disparity would not be considered a reflection of systematic bias or unequal privileges. Such ethnic disparities (in the setting where all groups have Medi-Cal, and so all the comparison groups have low income) may be associated with other factors which could be considered inequities. Examples include, living in a rural area with less access to medical care or having a higher exposure to factors that increase health risk, such as housing instability or substance use.

These examples illustrate the challenges DHCS and NCQA will have as they try to define standardized equity measures that measure performance of health plans. Nonetheless, analyzing the data we have to look for disparities is well worth the effort, to allow a thoughtful contemplation of associations and potential causal factors that we may be able to address.

Remembering the Founder of Community Health Centers

By Robert L. Moore, MD, MPH, MBA, Chief Medical Officer

“The last time I looked in my textbook,
the specific therapy for malnutrition is food.”

-Dr. Jack Geiger

In December, 2020, Dr. H. Jack Geiger, founder of the first Community Health Centers in the United States, died on Monday at his home in Brooklyn at age 95.

In the 1960s, Dr. Geiger was a co-founder, with Dr. Count Gibson, of Community Health Centers in South Boston and in Mound Bayou, in the Mississippi Delta. They provided desperately needed health care but also food, sanitation, education, jobs, and social services — what Dr. Geiger called “a road out” of poverty. The centers inspired a national network of clinics that now number more than 1,300 and serve about 28 million low-income patients at more than 9,000 sites.

Dr. Geiger was a leading proponent of “social medicine,” the idea that doctors should use their expertise and moral authority not just to treat illness, but also to change the conditions that made people sick in the first place: poverty, hunger, discrimination, joblessness, and lack of education.

During his last year of medical school, he traveled to South Africa and worked with two physicians who were setting up a health center in an impoverished, disease-ridden region of the country called Pholela, which was then a Zulu reserve. A key to the center’s success was that local people — its own patients — worked there and helped run it.

For five months Dr. Geiger took care of patients, visiting thatch huts and cattle kraals, meeting traditional healers and seeing the huge improvements — pit latrines, vegetable gardens, children’s feeding programs — that the health center had brought to the region.

In the summer of 1964, he traveled to Mississippi to help care for the civil rights workers who were pouring into the Deep South to campaign for voting rights.

In Mississippi, he saw conditions much like those in South Africa: families living in shacks without clean drinking water, toilets or sewers; sky-high rates of malnutrition, illness, infant death and illiteracy; few or no opportunities for residents to better themselves and escape. He realized that he did not have to travel to Africa to find people in trouble.

Under President Lyndon B. Johnson, the war on poverty had begun and the Office of Economic Opportunity had been created to pay for projects to help the poor. Sponsored by Tufts University, and armed with grants from the opportunity office, Dr. Geiger, Dr. Gibson, Dr. John Hatch and others set up a health center in Mound Bayou, Miss., a poor, Black small town where most people were former cotton sharecroppers whose way of life had been wiped out by mechanization.

The clinic, which opened in 1967, treated the sick, but also used its grant money to dig wells and privies and set up a library, farm cooperative, office of education, high-school equivalency program and other social services.

The clinic “prescribed” food for families with malnourished children — to be purchased from Black-owned groceries — and the bills were paid out of the center’s pharmacy budget.

The governor complained, and a federal official was sent to Mound Bayou to scold Dr. Geiger for misusing pharmacy funds, which, the official said, were meant to cover drugs to treat disease.

“Yeah,” Dr. Geiger replied, “well, the last time I looked in my medical textbooks, they said the specific therapy for malnutrition was food.”

The official, he said, “shut up and went back to Washington.”

(Adapted from Dr. Geiger’s full Obituary in New York Times)

Patient-Centeredness: In the Eye of the Beholder

By Robert L. Moore, MD, MPH, MBA, Chief Medical Officer

“We are guests in our patients’ lives.”

-Don Berwick, MD

April 26-30, 2021 is National Patient Experience Week, a time for health care organizations to celebrate and reflect upon their efforts to improve the way their consumers perceive the care they receive, a time for health care organizations to proclaim that they are “Patient-Centered.”

What does it mean to be patient-centered? The answer depends on who you ask.

The root of the term “patient-centered” goes back to the 1940s with a school of psychological thought that promoted counseling that was centered on the needs of the client: client-centered counseling. In the 1950s and 1960s, Hungarian-British psychologists Michael Balint, Enid Balint, and Paul Ornstein brought a basic psychodynamic approach to primary care clinicians –the “Balint Group” approach now used in primary care medical education around the world. The Balints coined the term patient-centered medicine, which “should include everything the doctor knows and understands about his patient . . . understood as a unique human being,” as distinct from illness-oriented medicine that focuses more narrowly on diagnosis and treatment of localizable pathology.

In 2001, the Institute of Medicine identified being “Patient-Centered” as one of the six aims of health care quality (the others being safe, effective, timely, efficient, and equitable). They defined Patient-Centered as care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and ensuring their values help guide all clinical-decisions. This idea of customizing the care to the patient seems consistent with the Balints’ ideas.

Starting in 2007, some larger institutions have appropriated the term patient-centered to have different definitions.

In 2007, all the American organizations representing primary care clinicians (AAFP, AOA, ACP, and AAP) combined the concept of a primary care Medical Home (the 1967 AAP idea of a PCP who coordinates the care provided by specialists), with the idea of patient-centeredness to create the Joint Principles of the Patient-Centered Medical Home. While the goal of this structure is to serve the needs of the patient, this initial conceptualization focused on putting the primary care physician at the center of this care—more of a primary care physician-centered medical home.

Sensing an opportunity, in 2008 the major accreditation agencies (NCQA, URAC, Joint Commission, and AAAHC) launched Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) accreditation and recognition programs. Their focus is on elements of operational and quality infrastructure thought to be good for patients and their outcomes. Moving beyond a narrow physician-centered focus, meeting these elements helps move primary care organizations in the direction of higher quality care, using a compliance with standards approach.

In the meantime, organizations and scholars that were focused on primary care moved in two different directions.

The first of these focuses on relationships between the patient and their clinician who is able to communicate with empathy. This emphasis on relationships is epitomized by the Nuka Model of Care at the Southcentral Foundation in Anchorage, the only health center in the U.S. to win the Baldrige National Quality Award. Health care in the Nuka model is relationship-based and customer-owned. Nuka focuses on understanding each customer-owner’s unique story, values and influencers in an effort to engage them in their care and support long-term behavior change. Note the additional element of community empowerment included in this approach.

The second direction was a focus on more actively seeking input of patients on how to improve the provision of health care, called Patient and Family Centered Care (PFCC). The four fundamental principles of PFCC are treating patients and families with respect and dignity, sharing information, encouraging their participation in care and decision making, and fostering collaboration in care delivery and program design, implementation, and evaluation. The new element here is the idea of moving beyond gathering survey feedback from patients, to partnering with patients to identify service problems and co-design the solutions. “Nothing about us, without us” is their catchphrase.

Both the Nuka model and the PFCC move beyond the individual clinician-patient interaction to look at what the organizations that hire these clinicians must do to be patient-centered, in ways that are challenging for standards organizations like NCQA to fully capture.

Jumping up another level above the organizations that provide care, how can health plans like PHC (as well as suppliers and state regulators like DHCS) promote patient-centered care?

  1. Make patient-centeredness a guiding principle—a frame-of-mind—that guides decisions and prioritization.
  2. Ensure consumers of health care have a voice. This includes a process that uses grievances to drive improvement, including consumers in governance and policy-making, and ideally with some joint design activities.
  3. Support providers, especially your primary care organizations, with financial incentives, comparative data, and sharing of best practices around optimizing the patient experience of care.

Becoming truly patient centered, meeting all the different definitions of this term, requires sustained attention from all of us. Thanks for taking a moment on National Health Experience Week to reflect on what you can do meet this ideal.

Challenges Ahead with the Next Phase of COVID Vaccination

By Robert L. Moore, MD, MPH, MBA, Chief Medical Officer

“Wishful thinking is no substitute for careful planning.”

-Steve McConnell

As you are no doubt aware, starting on March 15, adults aged 18-64 with certain medical conditions will qualify for COVID vaccination, based on the clinical judgement of their medical providers. See below for the full list.

Operationalizing this process, coordinating the judgement of the clinician with the actual vaccinators will be challenging if the provider making the judgement is not also doing the vaccination. Even if the provider is doing both, the sheer volume of patients who qualify is daunting and raises many questions:

Do you treat all the groups below equally, or do you prioritize subsets for your first outreach efforts? How exactly does this fit into the patients who sign up through the centralized myturn.ca.gov site? How can myturn.ca.gov possibly know who meets the medical criteria based on their physician judgement? What role will Blue Shield play? The three final options in the list are vague and allow clinician judgement that may not be uniform. How do you interpret that language for your patient population?

While we may wish that these questions will be answered by March 15, it is probable that they won’t be. Each of your health centers, offices and organizations will be expected to use this general guidance to create their own operational plans. This will likely involve using the registry function of your electronic health records to generate lists of potential patients in each group, sub-prioritizing your own outreach activities, and communicating this clearly to your patients. It will also involve ramping up and streamlining your vaccination process, from taking sign-ups, verifying eligibility, checking identity, and auditing for misapplication of the criteria.

These next few months will be even more challenging for primary care. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst. Keep your plans flexible and adaptable to most likely challenges: variable vaccine supply and disconnected communication between the different systems that will need to work together.

Provider Bulletin from the California Department of Public Health:
Beginning March 15, healthcare providers may use their clinical judgement to vaccinate individuals aged 16-64 who are deemed to be at the very highest risk to get very sick from COVID-19 because they have the following severe health conditions:

  • Cancer, current with debilitated or immunocompromised state
  • Chronic kidney disease, stage 4 or above
  • Chronic pulmonary disease, oxygen dependent
  • Down syndrome
  • Immunocompromised state (weakened immune system) from solid organ transplant
  • Pregnancy
  • Sickle cell disease
  • Heart conditions, such as heart failure, coronary artery disease, or cardiomyopathies (excludes hypertension)
  • Severe obesity (Body Mass Index ≥ 40 kg/m2)
  • Type 2 diabetes mellitus with hemoglobin A1c level greater than 7.5%


If as a result of a developmental or other severe high-risk disability, one or more of the following applies:

  • The individual is likely to develop severe life-threatening illness or death from COVID-19 infection
  • Acquiring COVID-19 will limit the individual’s ability to receive ongoing care or services vital to their well-being and survival
  • Providing adequate and timely COVID care will be particularly challenging as a result of the individual’s disability