Alternative Payment Models Salvation From MIPS?

Transcription

1 Alternative Payment Models Salvation From MIPS? Michael Granovsky MD, CPC, FACEP President, LogixHealth David McKenzie CAE Director of Reimbursement, ACEP What Is an APM? Alternative Payment Models are payment approaches, developed in partnership with the clinician community, that provide added incentives to deliver high-quality and cost-efficient care. APMs can apply to: Specific clinical condition (CHF) Care episode (CABG) Population (geographic- local SNF) 1

2 Not All APMs Are The Same Advanced APM- Advanced APM, you may earn a 5 percent Medicare incentive for achieving threshold levels of payments or patients. If you achieve these thresholds, you are excluded from the MIPS reporting requirements. MIPS APMs- not excluded from MIPS but the APM is designed to account for activities already required by the APM and eliminates the need for MIPS clinicians to duplicate submission of Quality and Improvement Activity performance category data. MACRA: Alternative Payment Model Thresholds potential 5% lump sum bonus : 25% of Medicare revenues furnished as part of an eligible APM : 50% of Medicare revenues from APMs Or 25% of Medicare revenues from APMs AND 25% of all payer revenues from APMs 2023: +/- 75% of Medicare revenues from APMs or 25% of Medicare revenues from APMs and 50% of all payer revenues from APMs 2

3 What Models Qualify As Advanced APMs? Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced Comprehensive ESRD Care (CEC) - Two-Sided Risk Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) Medicare ACO Track 1+ Model Next Generation ACO Model Shared Savings Program - Track 2 Shared Savings Program - Track 3 Oncology Care Model (OCM) - Two-Sided Risk Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR track 1) Vermont Medicare ACO Initiative (Vermont All-Payer ACO Model) Am I in an APM? APM Qualification Look Up Tool Program/Lookup-Tools/Lookup-tools.html 3

4 Do APMs Matter to Emergency Medicine? Yes- we need Emergency Medicine specific APMs They take a while to develop Most ED physicians will satisfy MACRA requirements through MIPS for now However many ED MIPS quality measures are topping out 2020 potential problem Advanced APMs described in the MACRA rule require very substantial infrastructure ACEP has a deeply resourced expert group designing APMs for Emergency Medicine The Quality and Payment Timeline $ % MIPS 4

5 Benefits To ED MD Participating In Advanced APM Eligible for a lump sum bonus payment equal to 5% of all reimbursement for services rendered under Medicare Part B. ( ) Exempted from the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) A portion of additional shared savings derived from the model itself Reimbursement for waiver services: telehealth transitional care management, supervision of post discharge home care visits CMS APM Element Requiremenst How easy would it be for participants to implement your Alternative Payment Model? Are the systems and processes in place to operate the APM? For emergency medicine the answer is currently No We need an APM that will apply to a diverse patient population to hit required minimums Will need payment waivers to be reimbursed for extra services 5

6 Who Approves New APMs? Governing Body- The PTAC Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) Section 101 (e)(1)created the PTAC PTAC s 11 members (most are MDs) are individuals with national recognition for their expertise in PFPMs Appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States and will generally serve three-year terms Evaluated based on 10 criteria Ultimate goal is that the PTAC recommends to the Secretary of HHS that the APM move forward PTAC: Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisor Committee Will assess the extent to which each submitted APM proposal meets criteria for PFPMs established by the Secretary of HHS in regulations at 42 CFR Criteria - Value over volume - Flexibility - Quality and cost - Payment methodology - Scope - Ability to be evaluated - Integration and - Care Coordination - Patient Choice - Patient Safety - Health Information Technology 6

7 APM Scoring Structure and Detail Measurement is at the TIN level to achieve value through quality and cost scores Each hospital would have a different benchmark for cost and quality Based on the patient population associated with that site over a 3 year period A group at multiple hospitals may choose to participate in some hospitals but not others Bonus and penalties are then at The TIN level Group could decide how to distribute bonus dollars based on performance Current State of Emergency Medicine APM Design The ACEP Acute Unscheduled Care Model (AUCM) Group would need to achieve an 8% reduction in cost at a particular hospital site Hypothetically achieved through increasing the rate of discharge for 3% of patients However, would need quality and safety infrastructure: tele health follow up, para professionals home visits, and care coordination Currently not paid for - would need waivers for payment approval 7

8 CMS Requires More than Nominal Risk How Much Is Nominal Risk? 8% of Part B Allowables Volume Medicare Revenue 8% Floor 40,000 $1.3M $104,000 60,000 $2.0M $160,000 80,000 $2.6M $208, ,000 $3.3M $264,000 Acute Unscheduled Care Model (AUCM) The AUCM engages payors with emergency physicians to: Avoid an initial admission, and Ensure safe discharge of patients to home. To foster effective care coordination. To reduce adverse post-ed patient safety events, and To ensure overall cost savings. 8

9 Types of Visits A limited number of conditions would be included for testing in the first two years. Proposed conditions are high volume, high cost, symptom-driven diagnoses that were identified as showing marked variation in risk-adjusted readmission rates. Year 3 possibly all conditions. Chest pain Abdominal pain Syncope Altered mental status Model Specifications 9

10 AUCM Model Specifications Cost Metrics AVOIDED ADMISSIONS AND POSTDISCHARGE COSTS AT 7 (30) DAYS Included Visits All live ED discharges where the ED diagnosis does not result in admission over 90% of the time. Program Limited Test Years (One-Two): A select group of episodes for a basket of targeted symptoms or diagnoses Program Implementation Years (Three): All episodes of acute unscheduled care rolled into program Waivers and Incentives Participating ED physicians become eligible to provide telehealth services, transitional care payments and post discharge visits (non-home health) Potential Exclusions Patient transfers, deaths in ED, hospice cases, Medicare beneficiaries with an inpatient admission 1-90 days prior to the index ED visit. AUCM Model Specifications Population Post discharge Events Patient Safety Metrics MEDICARE FFS BENEFICIARIES WHO WERE NOT ADMITTED FOR AN ACUTE CARE STAY WITHIN 90 DAYS, NOT IN HOSPICE. (DUAL ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES WILL BE ROLLED INTO THE AUCM IN YEAR TWO.) In the 7 & 30 days following discharge home: Return ED visit Observation stay Inpatient admission Death Repeat ED visit, inpatient or observation stay within 7 days for: Injuries Adverse drug reaction Post-ED procedure complications 10

11 Expansion of ED Services and Value Discharged Home Proposed Acute Unscheduled Care Model (AUCM) 11

12 The Process Opportunity For Quality Impact: Post ED Discharge Acute Unscheduled Care An analysis of 6.9 million FFS Medicare ED visits in 2014 revealed a significant opportunity to impact quality of care and reduce expenditures: 35.8% of the visits resulted in admission, 7.3% in observation stays, and 54.7% of beneficiaries were discharged to home. Aggregate post-discharge adverse event rates such as death, repeat ED visit, observation or admission were 8.8% at 7 days, and 19.9% of 30 days. We will now have infrastructure to perform and be reimbursed for post DC care 12

13 Opportunity For Economic Impact Analysis of ED visits for conditions with a historical admissions rate of less than 90% found they represent $20.8 billion dollars in inpatient costs. A 3% reduction in the admission rate for four highvolume diagnoses (abdominal pain, syncope, chest pain, and altered mental status) would lead to approximately $315 million dollars in savings Proposed Medicare Waivers and Key ED Value Services Telehealth Emergency physicians will be allowed to provide telehealth services into the beneficiary s home or residence and to bill one of the in-home visits under the same waiver that was put in place in the CJR and other APMs. Post discharge Home Visit Licensed clinical staff may provide home visits under the general supervision of an emergency physician to eligible Medicare beneficiaries. The providers may bill these services utilizing the same G-codes utilized in other APMs. Transitional Care Management Authorize emergency physicians to bill for a transitional care management code. This could be done utilizing the current CPT codes (99494 and 99496) or the ED specific Acute Care Transition codes submitted to the CPT Editorial panel in (Appendix B) 13

14 Participation Options Over Five Years Option 1 No financial risk progresses to limited financial risk (10%/0%) Option 2 Minimum financial gain/risk (10/10%) Option 3 More aggressive financial risk/gain (20%/20%) Where Does the ACEP APM Stand in the Regulatory Process? 14

15 Physician Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC): Evaluation Criteria Value over Volume Flexibility Quality and Cost Payment Methodology Scope Ability to be Evaluated Integration and Care Coordination Patient Choice Patient Safety Health Information Technology Physician Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC): Evaluation Criteria ACEP Received a 10/10 Score Value over Volume Flexibility Quality and Cost Payment Methodology Scope Ability to be Evaluated Integration and Care Coordination Patient Choice Patient Safety Health Information Technology 15

16 Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) Established process under MACRA Provides for comments and recommendations to the Secretary on Physician-Focused Payment Models (PFPMs). The ACEP Proposed APM has undergone committee review. The PTAC voted to refer the model and his submitted its report to the Secretary of HHS for full implementation. The Timeline PTAC Meeting and Recommendati on to Secretary of HHS PTAC Report to HHS Secretary HHS Secretary Detailed Response to PTAC Recommendation Model Implementation September 6, 2018 Fall 2018 End of 2018, Early 2019 Not Guaranteed; Estimated 2020 Work with CMMI on Implementation Details 16

17 AUCM Model Summary The cost of admission from the ED presentation is the major cost driver Great variability at the State, County, and hospital level regarding admissions for several (test case) conditions. Year 3 would be expanded to all conditions Utilizing telehealth, post discharge home visits, and transitional care services allows ED physicians to coordinate post ED discharge care be reimbursed for these services and build infrastructure to decrease adverse events Alternative Acute Care Model (AACM) Involves the population of nursing facility patients who are transported to the ED, treated, and discharged back to the nursing facility. The work group believes that an alternative model of care in place with shared risk between emergency physicians, nursing facility medical directors, and facility operators can be implemented. Would provide improved quality of care, improved patient experience, and more cost-effective care. 17

18 AACM Construct Medicare Care in Place Construct The Care in Place Physician Focused Payment Model (PFPM) episode is a sequence of events initiated by a qualifying index visit by a nursing home patient to an ED, in which an eligible professional orders, provides or significantly influences cost and quality. The physician and payer define the period of responsibility for which the physician is accountable for driving effective and efficient care. Figure 1. Model for the Acute Care in Place Alternative Payment Model Episode of Care Nursing Facility Ambulance Emergency Department Ambulance Nursing Facility Next Steps The AUCM model has been posted to the PTAC website at Recommended to the Secretary for full implementation PTAC then issues a staged Draft/Final report at the discretion of the Chair/Vice Chair Secretary reviews PTAC s recommendations AACM development continues 18

19 Contact Information Michael A. Granovsky MD CPC FACEP President, LogixHealth David McKenzie CAE ACEP Director of Reimbursement #3233 Educational Appendix 19

20 Hospital-Level Variation in Admission Rates Key Findings- Data Analysis In the primary analysis of 6,995,818 ED visits, 54.7% resulted in discharge Removed Hospice, no prior admission within 90 days, no prior ED visit in 30 days No relationship was found between rate of ED admissions and 30-day post-discharge event rates for ED visits discharged home. 20

21 Did hospitals that admitted fewer patients have more post-discharge events? Intra State Variability Admission of Syncope 21

22 AMA APMs Under Development Angina (Stable) Help patients quickly and accurately determine the causes of chest pain and their risk of a heart attack Asthma Reduce emergency visits and hospitalizations due to asthma exacerbations Cancer Improve cancer outcomes through accurate diagnosis and staging, as well as appropriate use of treatments AMA APMs Under Development Chronic Kidney Disease Slow progression to end stage renal disease Diabetes Improve patient understanding and selfmanagement of their condition Epilepsy Reduce frequency and severity of seizures Pregnancy Deliver babies in lower-cost settings Almost All of them have as a goal: reduce emergency department visits 22

23 Evaluation Criteria Addressing an issue in payment policy in a new way Including APM Entities whose opportunities to participate in APMs have been limited Improve health care quality at no additional cost Maintain health care quality while decreasing cost Both improve health care quality and decrease cost Evaluation Criteria Pays APM Entities with a payment methodology designed to achieve the goals Payment methodology differs from current payment methodologies How the model is intended to affect practitioners behavior to achieve higher value care through the use of payment and other incentives How the proposed payment model could accommodate different types of practice settings and different patient populations Have evaluable goals for quality of care and cost 23

24 Supporting Information: Health Information Technology Encourage use of health information technology to inform care Describe how information technology will be utilized to accomplish the model s objectives with an emphasis on any innovations that improve outcomes, improve the consumer experience and enhance the efficiency of the care delivery process Describe goals for better data sharing, reduced information blocking and overall improved interoperability Evaluation Criteria: Integration and Care Coordination Encourage greater integration and care coordination among practitioners and across setting where multiple practitioners or settings are relevant to delivering care to the population Improve care coordination for patients 24

25 Supporting Information: Patient Safety Aims to maintain or improve standards of patient safety How patients would be protected from potential disruption in health care delivery brought about by the changes in payment methodology and provider incentives Describe how disruptions in care transitions and care continuity will be addressed Detail of PTAC Criteria Value over volume: Provide incentives to practitioners to deliver high-quality health care. Flexibility: Provide the flexibility needed for practitioners to deliver high quality healthcare. Quality and Cost: PFPMs are anticipated to improve health care quality at no additional cost, maintain health care quality while decreasing cost, or both improve health care quality and decrease cost. 25

26 Detail of PTAC Criteria Payment methodology: Pay APM Entities with a payment methodology designed to achieve the goals of the PFPM criteria. Addresses in detail through this methodology how Medicare and other payers, if applicable, pay APM Entities, how the payment methodology differs from current payment methodologies, and why the Physician-Focused Payment Model cannot be tested under current payment methodologies. Scope: Aim to either directly address an issue in payment policy that broadens and expands the CMS APM portfolio or include APM Entities whose opportunities to participate in APMs have been limited. Detail of PTAC Criteria Ability to be evaluated: Have evaluable goals for quality of care, cost, and any other goals of the PFPM. Integration and Care Coordination: Encourage greater integration and care coordination among practitioners and across settings Patient Choice: Encourage greater attention to the health of the population served while also supporting the unique needs and preferences of individual patients. Patient Safety: Aim to maintain or improve standards of patient safety. Health Information Technology: Encourage use of health information technology to inform care. 26

27 Contact Information Michael A. Granovsky MD CPC FACEP President, LogixHealth David McKenzie CAE ACEP Director of Reimbursement #