Driving Quality Through Incentives in a Municipal Hospital System The Quality Colloquium, P4P Track August 20, 2007 Arnold Saperstein, MD President, MetroPlus.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Medi-Cal Managed Care Pay-for-performance Programs Elaine Batchlor, MD, MPH L.A. Care Health Plan.
Advertisements

Making Payment Reforms Work for Patients and Families Lee Partridge Senior Health Policy Advisor National Partnership for Women and Families January 28,
Exhibit ES–1. Quality of Diabetes Care: MetroPlus Medicaid and Family Health Plus Compared with State and National Medicaid, 2006 Sources: New York State.
Update on Recent Health Reform Activities in Minnesota.
* You may use your organization’s PowerPoint template to format the information for the following 9 slides * Please do not exceed the 9 slide limit * Bring.
Carroll County Local Health Improvement Coalition LHIC Annual Conference November 12, 2014.
Determining Your Program’s Health and Financial Impact Using EPA’s Value Proposition Brenda Doroski, Director Center for Asthma and Schools U.S. Environmental.
Aetna and PCMH Improving Employee Health through Patient- Centered Medical Homes Morristown, New Jersey October 12, 2010 Aetna’s experience with Patient-Centered.
Multi-Payer Reimbursement Pilot Overview of Risk/Benefit to Practices L Gordon Moore MD.
1 Wisconsin Partnership Program Steven J. Landkamer Program Manager Wisconsin Dept. of Health & Family Services July 14, 2004.
Population Management & Reporting. Federally-designated Regional Extension Center for the State of Missouri  University of Missouri:  Department of.
"The Performance of an FQHC and Its Impact on the Public's Health" PALOMA HERNANDEZ Planning Committee State Hospital Review and Planning Council JUNE.
PEBB Disease Burden Report PEBB Board of Directors August 21, 2007 Bdattach.10.
America’s Health Insurance Plans Health Insurance Plans Approaches to Asthma Management: 2006 Assessment Supported through a cooperative agreement with.
HRSA HIV/AIDS Bureau1 HIV/AIDS BUREAU HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FUNDAMENTALS OF MANAGED CARE.
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation: Providing Health Care Quality and Value for New York City Residents Anne-Marie J. Audet, MD, MSc, FACP.
Strengthening partnerships: A National Voluntary Health Agency’s initiatives in managed care Sarah L. Sampsel, MPH* Lisa M. Carlson, MPH, CHES* Michele.
Asthma: Shared Medical Appointments
8/17/2015 Provider Educational Seminar Care Management: Part III 8/17/2015.
Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Health Care: Narrowing the Gap through Solutions Joseph R. Betancourt, M.D., M.P.H. Director, The Disparities Solutions Center.
2 AMERIGROUP Community Care Entered Maryland market in 1999 Largest MCO in Maryland Serving over 143,000 members in Baltimore City and 20 counties in.
Robert Margolis, M.D. Chairman & CEO HealthCare Partners ACO’s – Getting from Here to There Benefits / Risks / Opportunities.
Memorial Hermann Healthcare System Clinical Integration & Disease Management Dan Wolterman April 15, 2010.
Risk Adjustment Data For Business Insight Health Care Service Corporation September 2012.
Quality in Laboratory Medicine Conference Business Case for Quality Recognizing Excellence in Practice Presented to the Institute for Quality in Laboratory.
1 Addressing Racial & Ethnic Disparities in Health Care AHRQ 2007 Annual Conference September 28, 2007.
The Business Case for Bidirectional Integrated Care: Mental Health and Substance Use Services in Primary Care Settings and Primary Care Services in Specialty.
OSEP National Early Childhood Conference December 2007.
Value-Based Purchasing in NY Medicaid Deborah Bachrach, Esq. Medicaid Director Deputy Commissioner Office of Health Insurance Programs New York State Department.
An Integrated Healthcare System’s Approach to ACOs Chuck Baumgart, M.D., Chief Medical Officer Presbyterian Health Plan David Arredondo, M.D., Executive.
{ Louisiana Medicaid Baseline Quality Data Dr. Sandra Blake Eddy Myers University of Louisiana at Monroe College of Pharmacy Office of Outcomes Research.
1 NAMD: Moving Past the Hype: Real World Payment Reforms in Virginia November 8, 2011 (2:15-3:45 p.m. session) Cindi B. Jones, Director Virginia Department.
Delaware Community Health Access Program (CHAP): Evaluation of Referrals and Health Outcomes James M. Gill, MD, MPH Christiana Care Health Services August.
A Presentation of the Colorado Health Institute 1576 Sherman Street, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado Hot Issues in.
Pay for Performance: Choosing Measures Linda K. Shelton AVP, Product Development PFP Boot Camp for Physicians and Physician Organizations February 2006.
Patient-Centered Medical Home Overview October 15, 2013.
Performance Measurement Sets Dolores Yanagihara Program Development Manager IHA.
1 CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. ® Registered trademark of the Blue Cross and.
Josette Dorius, Service Director Autism Council of Utah April 6, 2011.
Washington State Medical Assistance Administration Disease Management Program Alice Lind, RN, MPH June 2004.
2010 Pay for Performance (P4P) Program Training for Participants.
California Pay for Performance: Reporting First Year Results and The Business Case for IT Investment Lance Lang, MD Health Net, California November 18,
Second Generation P4P Community-Wide Diabetes and Asthma Care Thomas Foels, MD MMM
0 Florida’s Medicaid Reform National Medicaid Congress June 5, 2006 Thomas W. Arnold Deputy Secretary for Medicaid.
New York State Department of Health Hospital-Medical Home Demonstration Reflections, Celebrations and Transformations.
Quality & Service Recognition Program A PPO Incentive Program for Quality Richard S. Chung, MD SVP, Health Services Division BCBS of Hawaii (Hawaii Medical.
Section 1115 Waiver Implementation Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee May 13, 2010.
Information Technology and Data Collection: February 28, 2008 Optimizing Lab Results and Pharmacy Data Collection Under P4P Concurrent Session 1.07 Horace.
EmblemHealth Medical Home High Value Network Project William Rollow, MD MPH PCPCC Presentation December 2, 2008.
Managed Care. In the broadest terms, Kongstvedt (1997) describes managed care as a system of healthcare delivery that tries to manage the cost of healthcare,
Case Studies – Medical Home A 360 Degree View of the Medical Home in Action.
1 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Experience with the Patient Centered Medical Home Michigan Purchasers Health Alliance September 17, 2009 Thomas J.
Delivery System Reform Incentive Payments History and Evolution of the Program December 8, 2015 Dianne Heffron Principal 1050 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite.
BANNER AND CARE1ST POPULATION HEALTH MODEL Transitioning to a value based model focused on outcome measures driven by providers and engaged members.
Memphis, TN Thomas Duarte, Executive Director, MSeHA.
A Business Case To Maximize Practice Profits.  These are established, yet underutilized programs that are integrated and delivered via automated software.
1 The Relationship between Pay-for- Performance Incentives and Quality Improvement: A Survey of Massachusetts Physician Group Leaders Ateev Mehrotra, Steven.
The Hospital CAHPS Program Presented by Maureen Parrish.
General Assistance – Unemployable Experience in WA state July 2010.
Overcoming the Risk Adjustment Payment Challenge John G. Lovelace, President July 2010.
Monthly Metrics Forum February 2014 Appropriate Testing for Children With Pharyngitis And Appropriate Treatment for Children With Upper Respiratory Infection.
Welcome to Learning 2: Care Management October 2011 Connie Sixta, RN, PhD, MBA.
UCare Dual Eligibles – MSHO Experience Ghita Worcester Sr. VP, Public Affairs and Marketing SNP Leadership Forum November 2,
MHQP Executive Director Pay for Performance Summit
VSAC and Quality Measures
Driving Quality Through Incentives in a Municipal Hospital System
Provider Peer Grouping: Project Overview
Optum’s Role in Mycare Ohio
Presentation transcript:

Driving Quality Through Incentives in a Municipal Hospital System The Quality Colloquium, P4P Track August 20, 2007 Arnold Saperstein, MD President, MetroPlus Health Plan

2 Session Outline MetroPlus Background Relationship with HHC Quality Incentive Programs Evolution, Fundamentals, and Results Generation 1: Annual QARR Awards Generation 2: Medical Provider Performance Pool (MPPP) Generation 3: Chronic Disease Pay-for-Performance (P4P) Success Factors Overall Take-Aways

3 MetroPlus Background Licensed since 1985 in New York State as a Managed Care Organization Prepaid Health Services Plan (PHSP) Wholly owned subsidiary corporation of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) Lines of business include Medicaid, Family Health Plus, Child Health Plus, MetroPlusGold, and HIV Special Needs Program To offer Medicare for Dual Eligibles & HIV/SNP in 2008

4 MetroPlus Background Membership Membership at 265,000 as of July 1, 2007 Line of Business# Members Medicaid 202,000 Family Health Plus 41,000 Child Health Plus 19,000 MetroPlusGold 2,000 HIV Special Needs Plan 1,000 Primary Care Assignment HHC60% Community40%

5 MetroPlus Background Network Built around HHC Ten years ago, MetroPlus began to add community providers and hospitals based on geographic and access needs. Our network, as of July 2007 Primary Care2,267 Specialty5,578 OB/GYN689 TOTAL 8,534

6 Relationship with HHC HHC is the largest public hospital system in the United States. 11 tertiary care hospitals, 6 Diagnostic & Treatment Centers, over 70 offsite satellite clinics HHC is a quality focused organization with numerous initiatives active at every facility, including those for Chronic Disease Management, Patient Safety, and Cycle Time Redesign.

7 Relationship with HHC (cont’d) Close collaboration with our parent company Forward-thinking environment Mutual population served Low-income, inner city communities, many racial minorities with higher health risk profiles Mutual achievements Rating of #1 Plan in NYC Overall Quality and Customer Satisfaction for two years in a row

8 Quality Incentive Programs Evolution Since 1998, Annual QARR awards QARR = Quality Assurance Reporting Requirements, an annual collection of quality measures reported to the NYSDOH; based on NCQA HEDIS measures Since 2002, Medical Provider Performance Pool (MPPP) Quarterly profiles monitor and reward improvements in the process of care, recognizing above-average results for 14 claims-based indicators Since 2005, Chronic Disease Pay-for-Performance (P4P) Rewards improvements in outcomes for members with Asthma and Diabetes $31 million dollars have been paid to date for MPPP & P4P

9 Generation 1 Annual QARR Awards 17 indicators were awarded during our 8 th Annual Awards ceremony in November 2006 MetroPlus awards: A $10,000 check for each indicator, recognizing the highest performing provider or facility A plaque to each HHC network, listing the indicators for which their facilities scored highest Program generates competition for the awards and goodwill between MetroPlus and our providers

10 Why did we do this program? To improve the delivery of the preventive health measures included in QARR To improve the reporting of these measures based on administrative data Fundamentals All data based on claims, no medical record review Program includes all MetroPlus providers, both HHC & Non-HHC Providers are compared to the Plan mean and score points for performance statistically above the Plan mean Points are converted to dollars assigned to a performance pool Payments are made quarterly Generation 2 Medical Provider Performance Pool

11 Based on Massachusetts’ Partnerships Primary Care Contract profiles, the quarterly profiles: Share results on key indicators prioritized for performance improvement Most indicators based on HEDIS or QARR Examples: Blood Lead Testing, Cervical & Breast Cancer Screening, Visits with assigned PCP, Emergency Room visits, Chlamydia Screening in Women, Well Child Visit Rates Enable MetroPlus and HHC providers to address Variation in practice Utilization patterns of members Capture of data in an administrative fashion Generation 2 MPPP (cont’d)

12

13

14

15

16 How results are shared Website Reports are sent out Checks are delivered by Provider Services Department staff An is sent to all providers from the CEO to congratulate top performers Generation 2 MPPP (cont’d)

17 Improved outcomes on all Profile indicators, excluding Mental Health Follow-up MetroPlus rated #1 in NYC for past two years on Quality & Member Satisfaction Adult and Child Access, two visit-based indicators, continue to increase, but appear to be leveling off Lab-based indicator rates (Blood Lead Testing, Cervical Cancer Screening, etc.) increased significantly in 2006 Generation 2 MPPP (cont’d)

18 Notes (1) Methodology changes to asthma in 2006 explain the sharp increase in compliance in 2006.

19 Notes (1) For Children’s Access to Primary Care, Q data is unavailable.

20

21 Next Steps Profiles appear to be contributing to improved outcomes Parallel projects have likely contributed to increased rates Positive feedback from facilities Meaningful dialogue Requests for more information and improvement strategies Generation 2 MPPP (cont’d)

22 Move from process to outcomes-based indicators, focusing on members with Asthma and Diabetes because of the high prevalence in our population and the shared objectives with HHC on chronic disease A joint HHC-MetroPlus workgroup developed the criteria, measures, benchmarks, and points for the program Members included MDs and Finance staff Generation 3 Chronic Disease P4P

23 Key differences from MPPP Only HHC providers Each provider / facility is compared to its own past performance rather than to Plan average Measures are based on meeting or exceeding a benchmark, or improvement from the last data measured at the same facility Methodology guide and reports accessible on MetroPlus Website at any time to administrators and doctors Generation 3 Chronic Disease P4P (cont’d)

24 Generation 3 Chronic Disease P4P (cont’d) Quarterly Process Step 1: MetroPlus identifies the population Step 2: MetroPlus claims and HHC clinical lab data are pulled for specified measures Step 3: For each measure, results are compared against established benchmarks and points are calculated Step 4: Facility-wide and provider/member-specific reports are published Semi-Annually Step 5: Rewards are distributed

25 Generation 3 Chronic Disease P4P (cont’d) Asthma Utilization Rate per Thousand (Population) Percent Utilizing at Acute Level (Individual) Point CategoryPoint ThresholdPoint CategoryPoint Threshold ER Benchmark≤ 25 visits per 1000% Utilizing ER≤ 20% ER % Improvement≤ -10% Improvement in ER Utilization ≤ -10% IP Benchmark≤ 5 visits per 1000% Utilizing IP≤ 4% IP % Improvement≤ -10% Improvement in IP Utilization ≤ -10%

26 Generation 3 Chronic Disease P4P (cont’d) Diabetes Clinical ValuePositive Point(s)Negative Point HbA1c = Glycated Hemoglobin Value is less than 7%; or greater than or equal to 7% but with reduction of at least one percentage point since last test (time between tests must be 2- 8 months) No test in last 8 months; or value increased by at least one percentage point and is greater than or equal to 7% LDL = Low-density Lipoprotein Blood Cholesterol Less than 100 mg/dlN/A Eye Exam Encounter within 12 monthsN/A Max Possible Points 3

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34 Generation 3 Asthmatic Population

35 Generation 3 Asthmatic Diagnosis Rate

36 Generation 3 Results – Asthma Measures, Adults Total Facilities = 17, ER & Inpatient Measures Combined Average

37 Generation 3 Results – Asthma Measures, Children Total Facilities = 17, ER & Inpatient Measures Combined Average

38 Generation 3 Asthma Results As of the first two years: improving results in ER, Inpatient utilization More than half of the 17 facilities already meet the benchmarks A few provider sites have changed their practice patterns, showing improvement in results

39 Generation 3 Diabetic Population

40 Generation 3 Diabetic Diagnosis Rate

41 Generation 3 Results – Diabetes Measures

42 Generation 3 Results – Diabetes Measures (cont’d)

43 Generation 3 Diabetes Results As of the first two years: an increasing number of members meeting the benchmark for LDL and HbA1c tests > ¾ of Diabetic members are receiving timely HbA1c tests > ½ of Diabetic members are reaching the LDL<100 mg/dl benchmark Less than half of Diabetic members are receiving yearly eye exams

44 Generation 3 Challenges Data Member Identification (potential duplicates) Eye Exam Coding Communication of P4P program objectives and available reports & resources Financial incentive transparency: rewards are distributed at corporate level, not to individual physicians or teams

45 Generation 3 Action Items Educate Providers and Hospital Administrators Continual education Share facility-specific results Work through data issues Collaborate with other initiatives and incentive programs Chronic Disease Patient Registry Chronic Care Collaboratives MetroPlus MPPP and Case Management programs Physician-level rewards pilot at HHC Networks slated to begin Fall 2007 Consider development of ROI and efficiency measures

46 Success Factors MetroPlus is active in quality improvement initiatives with all of its providers Due to the higher level of communication, data availability, and inherent incentives to collaborate, we have been particularly successful through joint work with HHC, our provider owner Factors include: communication, data sharing, financial relationship, case management

47 Success Factors Communication Joint MetroPlus/HHC Workgroups Quality Management, Finance, Managed Care, Medical Management, Reporting and Data Sharing Network Relations model with Plan clinical and customer service staff onsite Clinical outreach staff funded at every HHC facility We have addresses for all administrators and providers at HHC, and for many of our community providers

48 Success Factors Data Sharing The Report Delivery System on MetroPlus’ website houses all reports in a central location and is available to all providers and administrators We reap the benefits of our provider owner’s electronic medical records and have a partnership that permits access to clinical data stored in facility data warehouses

49 Success Factors Financial Relationship Designed to incentivize better outcomes Recognizing that funds are limited, MetroPlus and HHC set up a financial risk arrangement focused on helping people manage their health, in order to decrease morbidity and the need for more intensive services

50 Success Factors Case Management Available, proactive resources on hand: Case managers utilize P4P reports to identify and assess potential members for the Asthma and Diabetes programs HHC facilities collaborate with MetroPlus Case Management to maximize impact of interventions Implementation of a Predictive Modeling System (Fall 2007) will further aid in member identification and early enrollment into case management programs

51 Overall Take-Aways Definitive success already seen for Generation 2 HEDIS- based indicators program, which has been in place for four years First two years show positive trends in Generation 3 Chronic Disease outcomes-based program, in addition to much provider and administrator interest

52 Overall Take-Aways (cont’d) MetroPlus Health Plan and the New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation (HHC) are both quality-driven organizations. Being owned by a provider has allowed the Plan to establish greater communication, increased access to data and the providers for follow-up, the set-up of a financial relationship with appropriate incentives, and collaboration on complementary initiatives. All of these circumstances have allowed MetroPlus to develop effective programs and measure success in our quality improvement initiatives.