by Holly Hayes According to Healthcare.gov, Medicaid Services (CMS) has committed up to $500 million to examine different models for improving patient care and engagement as well as collaboration with patients to reduce hospital-acquired conditions and improve transition of patients between care providers. The initiative called: Partnership for Patients: Better Care, Lower Costs is a new public-private partnership designed to “help improve the quality, safety and affordability of health care for all Americans”. The Partnership for Patients brings together leaders of major hospitals, employers, health plans, physicians, nurses, and patient advocates along with State and Federal governments in a shared effort to make hospital care safer, more reliable, and less costly. The Partnership will help save 60,000 lives by stopping millions of preventable injuries and complications in patient care over the next three years and has the potential to save up to $35 billion, including up to $10 billion for Medicare. Over the next ten years, it could reduce costs to Medicare by about $50 billion and result in billions more in Medicaid savings. Already, more than 500 hospitals, as well as physicians and nurses groups, consumer groups, and employers, have pledged their commitment to the new initiative. The two goals of this new partnership are: Keep patients from getting injured or sicker. By the end of 2013, preventable hospital-acquired conditions would decrease by 40% compared to 2010. Achieving this goal would mean approximately 1.8 million fewer injuries to patients, with more than 60,000 lives saved over the next three years. Help patients heal without complication. By the end of 2013, preventable complications during a transition from one care setting to another would be decreased so that all hospital readmissions would be reduced by 20% compared to 2010. Achieving this goal would mean more than 1.6 million patients will recover from illness without suffering a preventable complication requiring re-hospitalization within 30 days of discharge. By 2015, a portion of Medicare payments to the majority of hospitals will be linked to whether hospitals are delivering safer care, using information technology effectively and meeting patient needs. Please let us know your thoughts about this new initiative and how collaboration among caregivers, patients and families can improve patient safety and reduce costs. Technorati Tags: Healthcare Holly Hayes is a mediator at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert where she focuses on mediation of health care disputes. Holly holds a B.A. from Southern Methodist University and a Masters in Health Administration from Duke University. She can be reached at holly@karlbayer.com.

Disputing would like to thank Don Philbin for alerting us to the recent publication of Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP’s 2011 International Arbitration Report, Issue 1. According to the firm’s website, Issue 1 topics include: Section 1782 Update The State of Necessity Defense in Investor-State Arbitration The Compatibility of EU Law with Bilateral Investment Treaties between EU States New Arbitration Law Passed in Hong Kong A complimentary copy of the publication may be downloaded here. Hard copies may be requested by email. Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration

Yesterday, the Texas Senate passed a bill which seeks to establish a Texas Institute of Health Care Quality and Efficiency. Senate Bill 8 was authored by State Senator Jane Nelson and filed on February 16, 2011. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services the next day and a public hearing was held on March 29th. SB 8 seeks “to improve health care quality, accountability, and cost containment in this state by encouraging health care provider collaboration, effective health care delivery models, and coordination of health care services.” The full text of the bill is available here. A companion bill, SB 7, was also passed Tuesday. It relates “to strategies for and improvements in quality of health care provided through and care management in the child health plan and medical assistance programs designed to achieve healthy outcomes and efficiency.” The bills will now move to the Texas House of Representatives. You may monitor these and other bills as they move through the Texas Legislature here. The last day of the regular Texas legislative session will be Monday, May 30, 2011. Disputing previously discussed SB 8 here and here. Technorati Tags: Healthcare, Texas Legislation  

The Texarkana Court of Appeals has upheld a mediation settlement agreement (“MSA”) in a divorce proceeding where the mediator was called upon to resolve a factual dispute concerning the scope of the mediation. In In re Allen, No. 06-10-00085-CV (Tex. App. – Texarkana, March 30, 2011), Daphne and James Allen entered into a mediation settlement agreement during divorce proceedings which resulted in the division of a large piece of property that included the marital residence. Attached to the MSA was “Exhibit B,” a map of the property that was color coded to show exactly which property interests would go to each party and the path of an access easement. The MSA stated the parties agreed it was “binding on the parties,” “and not subject to revocation, repudiation or withdrawal of consent.” The MSA also appointed a mediator who would act “as sole arbiter of any disagreement with regard to the drafting and intent” of the final MSA. After final execution of the MSA, a dispute arose which involved a portion of fifty-nine acres not specifically designated by Exhibit B as the property of either party. The mediator resolved the dispute by awarding a portion of the unassigned property to each party based on the language in the agreement which stated she would have sole authority to resolve any disagreement regarding the final MSA. James Allen challenged the resulting division. During a hearing, the trial court took testimony regarding the dispute and determined that “the parties agreements included arbitration by [the mediator] to be binding, therefore, pursuant to Texas Family Code Section 6.601(b) the court will enter an order reflecting the arbiter’s award.” James Allen appealed. The Texarkana Court of Appeals first held that although binding arbitration was not ordered in the case, the parties agreed to be bound by the MSA. According to the court, under the Texas Family Code Daphne Allen was entitled to a judgment based on the mediator’s resolution of the disputed property and the scope of the MSA was the only remaining issue. Both parties agreed the fifty-nine unassigned acres at issue were discussed at the mediation but the final MSA and Exhibit B failed to clearly indicate any agreement as to those acres. While James Allen testified that he expressed concerns regarding the division of the property to his attorney because the color coding was not visible on a faxed copy of Exhibit B he received during the mediation, and he even marked his claim on an additional map, he signed the final MSA which included Exhibit B. According to the Court of Appeals, this bound him to the agreement and to the resolution of any disputes by the mediator. The court further held the mediator’s resolution of the dispute was properly within the MSA because the fifty-nine acres were discussed at the mediation, and it was the mediator’s understanding that the parties wished to divide all of the property, including the fifty-nine acres, and the parties intended to follow certain boundary lines when they divided the property. Because the mediator was called upon to resolve a factual dispute concerning the scope of the mediation and no arbitration occurred, the Texarkana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment which enforced the MSA and the mediator’s related division of the unassigned property. Technorati Tags: ADR, law, Mediation