Advocacy, virtual groups, and Washington State

[Guest guest]

Here's one theme I'd like folks to consider: local IMP aggregates.IMPs are usually smaller practices, therefore they tend to fall short of the volume required for entrance into 'medical home' pilots and other projects that aim to support high quality with extra payments.If one of these pilot projects was willing to consider a combined participation bid on behalf of two or more practices, these practices could then potentially participate.I've discussed this with the Washington State multi-stakeholder payment pilot set to launch next month. They want practices with 4 or more physicians, but they're willing to work with aggregates - i.e. a group that comes together to be counted as 'one' even though the group may be made up of separate and distinct practices.Think of this as a virtual group.There are hurdles: to avoid anti-trust charges independent practices can come together if they use a common quality technology and approach to quality improvement. We have done this in the past with HowsYourHealth and our IMP curriculum.We can provide the organizing framework for individual practices that want to create enough local presence to be eligible.The door is already open in WA. Anyone else game?Gordon

A number of different ideas for national "advocacy" have been mentioned for the organization to consider. We won't be able to take them all on. I think that an outcome of the discussion needs to be some focus on one area.

There could be a focus on influencing policy of those with money and power to help make small practices more sustainable. To do that, we would need to broaden our membership efforts to include a lot of small practices.

There could be a focus on practice management help -- software and purchasing and such, but we are all so varied, it may be difficult to find the helpful common threads. Perhaps that leads us to talk of trying to move to some sorts of commonalities as part of an IMP standard?

I'd vote for the discussion to start with the aforementioned brainstorming session and then see which ideas bubble to the top. The answers could affect the whole organization, marketing, how membership is handled, etc.

Haresch

>

> We are talking about advocacy /how IMP as an organization might help small

> practices nationally?

> or we are talking about common issues we might all have and what approaches

> there are- perhaps just to establish a group or thread that follows this

> And we are talking about ho w is since she hasn;t been heard from

> in a while

> that's a start

> Several people had some good ideas start a concversation

> MAria, I think and Eckhardt and some others- we should maybe

> sit down together and see wher e things go?

> How';s that?