Future of Quality Reporting and the CMS Quality Incentive Programs

Transcription

1 Future of Quality Reporting and the CMS Quality Incentive Programs

2 Current Quality Environment Continued expansion of quality evaluation Increasing Reporting Requirements Increased Public Surveillance/Scrutiny Increased attention to practice guidelines and efficiency Pay for reporting Pay for Performance Meaningful Use Long term success dependent on executing quality strategies, forming new partnerships, and finding the right quality tools for improvement

3 Change Drivers for Quality ACA Mandated Quality Based Payment Reform Health care systems Complex patients Information technology Consumers

4 Critical Questions to Ask Can we assess all aspects of care routinely? Is this efficient and cost-effective? If we cannot asses all aspects of care, where should we focus our efforts? How will quality reporting/pay for performance change over time?

5 Identify Who at Your Hospital Is Responsible For: Initial input of patient demographic information Ensuring that Present on Admission (POA) is determined for every diagnosis that is written Discharge information CMS data abstraction Claims data submission to CMS Request for CMS validation records Notification of physicians with opportunity for improvement issues Communication with senior leaders related to outcomes of quality measures reporting

6 Essential Ingredients for Quality Improvement Data Actionable Information (i.e. Data with meaning ) Hospital Infrastructure/EHR Leadership and company culture Process redesign Continuous evaluation of quality and improvement opportunities

7 Inpatient Quality Reporting New FFY 2015 IQR Payment Penalty = 25% of Market Basket Update

8 Medicare Quality Based Payment Reform (QBPR) Programs Mandated by the ACA of 2010 VBP Program (redistributive w/ winners and losers) Readmissions Reduction Program (remain whole or lose) HAC Reduction Program (remain whole or lose) National pay-for-performance programs Most acute care hospitals must participate; CAHs excluded Program rules, measures, and methodologies adopted well in advance ( )

9 General Program Themes Adjusts payment under Medicare IPPS based on historical quality performance compared to national performance standards Dynamic programs that change each year Quality measures and domains Performance standards Increasing financial exposure HAC = Hospital Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program; RRP = Readmission Reduction Program; VBP = Value Based Purchasing Program

10 Value Based Purchasing (VBP) Program 1 st payment adjustment was Oct. 1, 2012 (FFY 2013) Provides incentives for meeting/exceeding quality metrics Redistributive program (Winners/Losers) Risk/reward: Hospital-specific IPPS payment increases or decreases Funded by IPPS payment contribution of 1% in FFY 2013; Contribution increases by 0.25%/year to 2% in FFY 2017 $0 impact per year nationwide (all contribution dollars redistributed between hospitals) $1.4 Billion program

11 VBP Program Methodology Performance is evaluated on a measure by measure basis Both quality achievement and improvement recognized National performance standards Measures are grouped into program domains FFY 2015 Domains: Process of Care Patient Experience of Care Outcomes of Care Efficiency (New) Domain scores are combined to calculate a Total Performance Score (TPS) Total Performance Score is converted to an Adjustment Factor

12 VBP FFY 2015 Domains Process of Care Chart abstracted measures Example: HF-1 - Heart failure patients given discharge instructions Patient experience of care HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) Example: Patients who reported that their nurses "Always" communicated well Outcomes of care Claims based measures: Mortality Rates PSI-90 Composite Measure Chart abstracted measures: CLABSI Efficiency of care SPP-1: Medicare Spending per beneficiary

13 VBP Program Methodology (cont.) Measure Scores Domain Scores Total Performance Score Payout Percentage VBP Slope Adjustment Factor Program Impact Measure Score Calculation For each measure, hospitals can receive a score of 0-10 depending on where they fall in relation to national performance standards (acheivement points) and/or how much they have improved from historical rates/ratios (improvement points). After acheivement and improvement points are calculated, the higher of the two determines final Patient Experience of Care - Consistency Points Calculation In addition to individual measure scores, the Patient Experience of Care domain scores hospitals based on how consistently they perform across all measures within the domain. Each hospital can receive between 0-20 consistency points based on the measure with the lowest Consistency Multiplier calculated as shown below: Domain Score and Total Performance Score (TPS) Calculation Individual measure scores for similar measures are combined to find overall Domain scores. On each domain, a minimum number of measures must be scored in order to be eligible for the domain. Once domain scores are calculated, a total performance score is calculated, combining domain scores based on the program year's applicable domain weights. For the FFY 2013 and 2014 programs, hospitals must be scored on all domains to be eligible for the program. For FFY 2015 and future program years, domain

14 In addition to individual measure scores, the Patient Experience of Care domain scores hospitals based on how consistently they perform across all measures within the domain. Each hospital can receive between 0-20 consistency points based on the measure with the lowest Consistency Multiplier calculated as shown below: VBP Program Methodology (cont.) Domain Score and Total Performance Score (TPS) Calculation Individual measure scores for similar measures are combined to find overall Domain scores. On each domain, a minimum number of measures must be scored in order to be eligible for the domain. Once domain scores are calculated, a total performance score is calculated, combining domain scores based on the program year's applicable domain weights. For the FFY 2013 and 2014 programs, hospitals must be scored on all domains to be eligible for the program. For FFY 2015 and future program years, domain weights are reweighted proportionally when hospitals are not eligible for one or more domains. VBP Slope/Linear Function, Payout Percentage, Adjustment Factor, and Program Impact Calculation Once TPS scores are calculated for all eligible hospitals, the VBP slope is calculated such that all program contributions are paid out, making the program budget nuetral nationally. The VBP slope/linear function is used to determine each hospitals payout percentage (the amount of their contribution to the VBP pool they receive back) as well as final adjustment factors, and impacts under the program.

15 Program Contribution Amount VBP Program Trends Increasing Program Exposure/Contributions FFY 2015 = 1.5% of Medicare Base Operating Dollars FFY 2016 = 1.75% of Medicare Base Operating Dollars FFY = 2.0% of Medicare Base Operating Dollars 2.00% 1.75% 1.50% 1.25% 1.00% 0.75% 0.50% Increasing focus on outcomes/efficiency New Measures FFY 2015: PSI-90 composite; CLABSI; SPP_1 (Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary) FFY 2016: CAUTI, Surgical Site Infection Colon, Surgical Site Infection Abdominal Hysterectomy FFY 2017: MRSA, C. Difficile Domain weighting FFY 2015: Outcomes (30%), Efficiency (20%) FFY 2016: Outcomes (40%), Efficiency (25%) FFY 2017: Safety of Care + Clinical Care Outcomes (45%); Efficiency (25%) 0.25% 0.00%

16 VBP Program Trends (cont.) Increasing complexity of program measures Process of care/hcahps vs. Outcomes/Efficiency Multiple levels of risk-adjustment Medicare Spending per Beneficiary:

17 VBP Program Trends (cont.) Overlap with other quality based payment reform programs HAC Reduction Program: PSI-90, CAUTI, CLABSI, Surgical Site Infection (SSI) Measures Readmission Reduction Program: AMI, HF, PN Chasing a moving target Measures/Domains National Improvement Trends Performance Standards

18 Kentucky VBP Performance Process of Care 39 of of of 50 Patient Experience of Care 16 of of of 50 Outcomes of Care N/A 37 of of 50 Efficiency of Care N/A N/A 31 of 50 TPS 32 of of of Payback Percent 96% 96% 104% Total Impact ($528,000) ($744,700) $943,600

19 Readmission Reduction Program (RRP) Overview 1 st payment adjustment was Oct. 1, 2012 (FFY 2013) Penalizes hospitals for exceeding expected readmissions based on national performance levels Punitive only Program expands over time by adding new conditions Capped penalty increases each year 1% in FFY 2013; 2% in FFY 2014; 3% in FFY 2015+

20 RRP Program Methodology Excess Readmission Ratios by Condition Excess Readmission Revenue by Condition Total Excess Readmission Revenue (all conditions) RRP Adjustment Factor Program Impact

21 THA/TKA Example Low rates on THA/TKA = Less margin for error Higher payment penalties under THA/TKA than other conditions/procedures

22 Program Expansion over time: RRP Program Trends

23 RRP Program Trends Improving national performance levels Must keep pace with the pack Updated performance periods J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D FFY 2015 Program Performance Period (All Conditions) FFY 2015 Program Payment Adjustment 2017 FFY 2016 Program Performance Period (All Conditions) FFY 2016 Program Payment Adjustment FFY 2017 Program Performance Period (All Conditions) FFY 2017 Program Payment Adjustment

24 Kentucky RRP Performance FFY 2013 FFY 2014 FFY 2015 Kentucky Impact ($5,962,700) ($5,200,500) 13% ($10,687,600) -106% US Impact ($300,000,000) ($227,000,000) 24% ($428,000,000) -89% Kentucky FFY 2015 Impact AMI ($1,618,901) 15.1% HF ($2,225,793) 20.8% PN ($2,328,393) 21.8% COPD ($2,748,510) 25.7% TK ($1,766,178) 16.5% Total ($10,687,775) - Existing Conditions = $6,173,087 New Conditions = $4,514,688

25 HAC Program Overview 1 st payment adjustment was Oct. 1, 2014 (FFY 2015) Penalizes hospitals for having high rates of HACs HAC Rates compared to all other eligible hospitals 1% Penalty applied to hospitals in the top quartile of HAC rates (worst performing) 25% of hospitals will always receive a penalty Penalty is in addition to existing HAC DRG policy

26 HAC Program Methodology Performance is evaluated on a measure by measure basis 1 10 Scoring (1 = best; 10 = worst) Based on national deciles for all program eligible hospitals Improvement is not recognized Measures are grouped into program domains Domain 1 (FFY 2015): PSI-90 Composite Measure Domain 2 (FFY 2015): CAUTI CLABSI PSI-90, CLABSI, and CAUTI also evaluated under the VBP Program PSI-90 & CLABSI beginning FFY 2015 CAUTI beginning FFY 2016

27 HAC Program Methodology Domain scores are combined to calculate a Total HAC Score Domains are not equally weighted Domain 1: AHRQ Measures (35%) Domain 2: CDC Measures (65%) Total HAC Score determines top quartile of hospitals who receive 1% payment penalty

28 HAC Program Trends Domain 2 set to expand over time (Measures & Domain Weight) FFY 2016: Surgical Site Infection (SSI) measure SSI: Colon SSI: Abdominal Hysterectomy FFY 2017: Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) infection measures National performance levels/deciles 1% penalty stays constant; penalty hospitals will vary

29 Estimated Kentucky HAC Summary Statewide Dollars at Risk* ($19,100,100) Estimated Statewide Impact (FFY 2015) ($7,496,400) *Does not include outliers or low volume hospital payments Number of Eligible Hosptials 65 Number of Penalty Hospitals 10 Percent of Hospitals Receiving Penalty 15.4%

30 Kentucky Hospital Association Quality Resources Nuts and Bolts Analyses VBP Impact Analysis (Quarterly) P4P Measure Trends (Quarterly) RRP Impact Analysis and Trends (Annual) HAC Impact Analysis (Annual) QBPR 1-Page Performance Overview (Annual) Quality Reference Guides (Annual) Analysis Descriptions Data Sources & Timeframes Analysis Methodology

31 Other Resources CMS Hospital Compare Quality Net Resources: Preview Reports Timing varies by measure type/data source 30 day review and corrections period Provides additional measure detail (i.e. PSI-90, Readmission Rates) Program Specific reports VBP Baseline Measures Report VBP Percentage Payment Summary Report RRP Hospital Specific Report HAC Reduction Program Hospital Specific Report

32 Key Takeaways This is not just collection/reporting; payment levels are at stake Hospitals are competing against each other Program targets move with national performance Complexity of quality data sources: Patient records Patient surveys Claims/billing data Historical data will continue to drive these programs Readmissions penalties are additive (new conditions = exposure) HACs will always have a top 25%

33 Moving Forward Know your data Examine opportunities to improve data and recommend improvements in methodologies Develop focused QI collaboratives in selected areas (e.g., reduce infections or medication safety or others) Statewide and national partnerships (e.g., with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, the American Hospital Association, or others) Public education/awareness campaigns

34 Questions

35 Contact Information Mason Forando (518) Mary Therriault (518)