Supplementary Online Content

Similar documents
The Pain or the Gain?

CPAs & ADVISORS. experience support // ADVANCED PAYMENT MODELS: CJR

Making CJR Work for You. A Roadmap for Successful Implementation of Medicare Bundles

4/9/2016. The changing health care market THE CHANGING HEALTH CARE MARKET. CPAs & ADVISORS

Redesigning Post-Acute Care: Value Based Payment Models

Advancing Care Coordination Proposed Rule

MEDICARE UPDATES: VBP, SNF QRP, BUNDLING

Data-Driven Strategy for New Payment Models. Objectives. Common Acronyms

Distribution of Post-Acute Care under CJR Model of Lower Extremity Joint Replacements for MS-DRG 470

Episode Payment Models Final Rule & Analysis

MEDICARE COMPREHENSIVE CARE FOR JOINT REPLACEMENT MODEL (CCJR) Preparing for Risk-Based Outcomes of Bundled Care 8/12/2015.

PREPARING FOR RISK-BASED OUTCOMES OF BUNDLED CARE

Comparison of Bundled Payment Models. Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4. hospitals, physicians, and post-acute care where

HOSPITALS & HEALTH SYSTEMS: DATA-DRIVEN STRATEGY FOR BUNDLED PAYMENT SUCCESS 4/19/2016. April 20, 2016

Quality Provisions in the EPM Proposed Rule. Matt Baker Scott Wetzel

Questions and Answers on the CMS Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model

Patient Selection, Optimization and Disposition: Tools for Success in Orthopedic Bundles

Alternative Payment Models: Trends and Tactics for Success

New Models in Payment: Joint Replacements. Sharon Eloranta, MD February 18, 2016

Quality Provisions in the EPM Final Rule. Matt Baker Scott Wetzel

Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Readiness Kit

Bundled Payment Primer

Delivery System Reform The ACA and Beyond: Challenges Strategies Successes Failures Future

Swapping, Kickbacks, Fair Market Value: Risks for a Post-Acute Provider

4/26/2016. The future is not what it used to be. Driving Transformation for Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Understand Redesign Align

Episode Payment Models:

CJR Final Rule: Policy Changes and Strategies for Bundled Payment Success

Medicare Value Based Purchasing August 14, 2012

The Challenges and Opportunities in Using Data Bundled Payment, Care Improvement

Bundled Payments to Align Providers and Increase Value to Patients

3/16/2016. Swapping, Kickbacks, Fair Market Value: Risks for a Post-Acute Provider. AKS designed to prevent improper referrals, which can lead to:

MIPS, MACRA, & CJR: Medicare Payment Transformation. Presenter: Thomas Barber, M.D. May 31, 2016

Medicare, Managed Care & Emerging Trends

Partners in the Continuum of Care: Hospitals and Post-Acute Care Providers

paymentbasics The IPPS payment rates are intended to cover the costs that reasonably efficient providers would incur in furnishing highquality

Physician Performance Analytics: A Key to Cost Savings

Learning Objectives. CMS Plans to Transform Healthcare. Leveraging CDI to Improve Performance Under Alternative Payment Model (APM) Methodology

The President s and Other Bipartisan Proposals to Reform Medicare: Post-Acute Care (PAC) Reform. Summary

Medicare Spending and Rehospitalization for Chronically Ill Medicare Beneficiaries: Home Health Use Compared to Other Post-Acute Care Settings

The 5 W s of the CMS Core Quality Process and Outcome Measures

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovations: Programs & Initiatives

Maximizing Success in a Bundled Payment Environment

The Future of Post-Acute Care Under Value-Based Payment

Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) Hospital Readmissions: Q Q2 2014

MEDICARE FFY 2017 PPS PROPOSED RULES OVERVIEW OHA Finance/PFS Webinar Series. May 10, 2016

Succeeding in a New Era of Health Care Delivery

Medicare P4P -- Medicare Quality Reporting, Incentive and Penalty Programs

Transitions Through the Care Continuum: Discussions on Barriers to Patient Care, Communications, and Advocacy

Supplementary Online Content

Quality, Cost and Business Intelligence in Healthcare

How to Make CJR a Success Negotiating Gainsharing Agreements. Friday, April 29, 2016

The New World of Value Driven Cardiac Care

Wound Care Reimbursement. Things Are A-Changing!

Supplementary Online Content

Value Based Care in LTC: The Quality Connection- Phase 2

MEDICARE ENROLLMENT, HEALTH STATUS, SERVICE USE AND PAYMENT DATA FOR AMERICAN INDIANS & ALASKA NATIVES

agenda Speaker Introductions Audience Poll Understanding Bundled Payments Importance of Physician Alignment Best Practices for Physician Engagement

Moving the Dial on Quality

What is Value-Based Care

Reducing Readmissions: Potential Measurements

BlueAdvantage 2010 Julie Horton, RN, MSN Principle Clinical Consultant BCBST Senior Care Division

Retrospective Bundles

What should board members know about new health care reform payment structures?*

ramping up for bundled payments fostering hospital-physician alignment

Post Acute Care Strategies Do we Own? Buy? Partner? Jan Hamilton-Crawford, FACHE Vice President of Operations

2013 Health Care Regulatory Update. January 8, 2013

Improving bundled payments in the Medicare program

Bundled Payments. AMGA September 25, 2013 AGENDA. Who Are We. Our Business Challenge. Episode Process. Experience

Goals: Hospital Medicine at the Edges: A Specialty in Evolution Robert Harrington, MD, SFHM President, SHM

paymentbasics Defining the inpatient acute care products Medicare buys Under the IPPS, Medicare sets perdischarge

Furthering the agency s stated intention to pay for value over volume,

Reducing Avoidable Hospitalizations INTERACT, PACE, RA+IT

Integrated Care Management in the Age of Population Health: What does that mean?!?

CREATING A PATIENT-CENTERED PAYMENT SYSTEM

Care Redesign: An Essential Feature of Bundled Payment

Surgical Directions

National Provider Call: Hospital Value-Based Purchasing

CJR: Does Your Agency Have the Innovative Strategies to Deliver on Expectations?

Medicare Spending and Rehospitalization for Chronically Ill Medicare Beneficiaries: Home Health Use Compared to Other Post-Acute Care Settings

The IRF PPS FY 2017 Final Rule: What It Portends for Our Future

Euclid Hospital CMS BPCI Episode

Emerging Issues in Post Acute Care Trends

Post-Acute Care. December 6, 2017 Webinar Louise Bryde and Doug Johnson

What 2017 Holds for Medicare Value-Based Transformation: Finalization of the Advancing Care Coordination Rule and Much More


Summary and Analysis of CMS Proposed and Final Rules versus AAOS Comments: Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR)

1/14/2013. Emerging Healthcare Issues: How Will They Impact Hospital Reimbursement? EMERGING HEALTHCARE TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION

Readmissions Moving beyond blame to fill the patient needs. Jackie Conrad RN, MBA, RCC Cynosure Health

The Impact of Health Care Reform on Long- Term Care

Transitions of Care: Primary Care Perspective. Patrick Noonan, DO

Quality and Health Care Reform: How Do We Proceed?

HOW BPCI EPISODE PRECEDENCE AFFECTS HEALTH SYSTEM STRATEGY WHY THIS ISSUE MATTERS

The Future of Healthcare Delivery; Are we ready?

Quality Outcomes and Data Collection

September 11, RE: CY 2018 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems Proposed Rule

Innovative Coordinated Care Delivery

Supplementary Online Content

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: briefopinion: Hospital Readmissions Survey. Purpose & Methods. Results

ACOs: California Style

What s Next for CMS Innovation Center?

Transcription:

Supplementary Online Content Navathe AS, Troxel AB, Liao JM, et al. Cost of joint replacement using bundled payment models. JAMA Intern Med. Published online January 3, 2017. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8263. eappendix 1. Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Model Description etable 1. Total and Within-category Hospital and Post-Acute Care Savings during ACE and BPCI under MS-DRGs 469 and 470 eappendix 2. Description of Component Savings emethods. Technical details of statistical analysis efigure 1. Proportion of Post-Acute Spending by Category efigure 2. Proportion of Episodes by Discharge Destination efigure 3. Average Number of Home Health, IRF, and SNF Days per Episode efigure 4. Number of Days Conditional on Discharge to Home Health, IRF, or SNF ereferences This supplementary material has been provided by the authors to give readers additional information about their work.

SAVINGS IN JOINT REPLACEMENT UNDER BUNDLED PAYMENT ONLINE-ONLY SUPPLEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE eappendix 1: Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Model 2 Description 3 etable 1: Total and Within-category Hospital and Post-Acute Care Savings during ACE and BPCI under MS-DRGs 469 and 470. eappendix 2: Description of Component Savings 4..... emethods: Technical details of statistical analysis.... 5 efigure 1: Proportion of Post-Acute Spending by Category... 6 efigure 2: Proportion of Episodes by Discharge Destination.. 7 efigure 3: Average Number of Home Health, IRF, and SNF Days per Episode.. 8 efigure 4: Number of Days Conditional on Discharge to Home Health, IRF, or SNF 9 ereferences. 10

Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Model Description The CJR program uses powerful incentives, providing opportunities for substantial increased revenues while also placing providers at significant downside risk. The program closely emulates the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program, which was itself modeled on the Acute Care Episodes (ACE) demonstration project. 5 In BPCI, participants selected which medical or surgical conditions to bundle, as well as whether the bundles would include hospital care only (Model 1), both hospital care and PAC (Model 2), or PAC only (Model 3). In CJR, based on BPCI Model 2, episode spending is computed based on payment under the usual FFS rules and procedures, beginning with the admission to a participating hospital under a covered diagnosis related group (DRG) and ending 90 days after discharge. Quality is measured using hospital complications including surgical site infections and bleeding, vascular events such as acute myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, or complications of the prosthetic implant, as well as a patient experience measure. 13 Complications that result in emergency room visits or readmissions affect both quality and episode spending. Financial savings or losses are computed per episode, comparing actual CMS spending to a pre-determined target price set on an annual basis. Savings result in an additional bonus payment to the hospital while losses require the hospital to repay Medicare for a portion of the episode spending. Actual distributions of savings and losses are gated by quality, meaning that higher quality scores will result in higher bonuses or lower repayments for a given level of episode spending. One important feature of CJR, also true of BPCI s model 2, is that health systems have the opportunity to save both by cutting internal hospital costs and by reducing episode spending. In contrast, ACE participants could earn bonuses only by reducing costs for the hospital stay. 3,5 In CJR, the two components are computed separately to prevent double counting. Hospitals receive a fixed fee for the hospital stay, inclusive of hospital and physician fees, which they are required to give at a discount in the range of two to three percent. When computing episode savings, however, CMS counts the entire hospital stay payment against the episode spending, regardless of true internal costs. This structure means hospitals can only achieve episode savings for Medicare by reducing out of hospital costs, though they may make profits by cutting internal hospital stay costs as well. It also means that analyzing Medicare claims data only sheds light on a portion of the savings opportunity for participants.

Table S3: Total and Within-category Hospital and Post-Acute Care Savings during ACE and BPCI under MS-DRGs 469 and 470 ACE Program BPCI Program Percent of Savings Baseline Cost ($) ACE Year 3 Cost ($) Percent of Total Percent of Total within Baseline Cost ($) BPCI Year 2 Cost ($) Component (7/2008 12/2008) (7/2011 6/2012) Baseline Cost (%) Savings in ACE (%) Component (%) (7/2011 6/2012) (7/2014 6/2015) Percent of Total Baseline Cost (%) Percent of Total Baseline PAC Spending (%) Percent of Total Savings in BPCI (%) Percent of Savings within Component (%) Internal hospital costs implant 6636.42 5021.22 46.3 80.5 24.3 5021.22 4715.74 33.2 9.8 6.1 room and board 1240.98 963.16 8.7 13.8 22.4 963.16 829.43 6.4 4.3 13.9 supply 1226.94 694.05 8.6 26.6 43.4 694.05 498.46 4.6 6.3 28.2 OR 1190.38 1707.30 8.3 25.8 43.4 1707.30 1691.23 11.3 0.5 0.9 Rx 604.67 561.47 4.2 2.2 7.1 561.47 636.99 3.7 2.4 13.5 ICU 134.33 104.70 0.9 1.5 22.1 104.70 59.41 0.7 1.5 43.3 blood 80.55 56.16 0.6 1.2 30.3 56.16 1.69 0.4 1.7 97.0 other 3208.93 6028.90 22.4 6028.90 6242.25 39.8 Total 14323.20 15136.96 15136.96 14675.19 Post acute care spending IRF 2339.68 2600.87 13.0 11.2 2600.87 1184.99 28.3 45.4 54.4 SNF 2798.63 2476.14 16.1 11.5 2476.14 1874.89 26.9 19.3 24.3 HH 2139.44 2045.66 4.7 4.4 2045.66 2233.63 22.2 6.0 9.2 Professional 883.32 802.08 4.0 9.2 802.08 653.75 8.7 4.8 18.5 Readmission 506.19 712.04 10.3 40.7 712.04 388.00 7.7 10.4 45.5 DME 295.19 299.55 0.2 1.5 299.55 277.60 3.3 0.7 7.3 LTAC 202.45 135.37 3.3 33.1 135.37 6.90 1.5 4.1 94.9 OP 132.23 131.78 0.0 0.3 111.40 106.45 1.2 0.2 4.4 ER 21.48 20.37 0.1 5.2 20.37 34.15 0.2 0.4 67.6 *Abbreviations: MS-DRG, Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group; ACE, Acute Care Episodes bundled payment program by Medicare; BPCI, Bundled Payments for Care Improvement program by Medicare; IRF, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility; SNF, Skilled Nursing Facility; LTC, Long-term Care facility. MS-DRG 469 - Major joint replacement or reattachment of lower extremity with major complications or comorbidities; MS-DRG 470 -Major joint replacement or reattachment of lower extremity without major complications or comorbidities. The seven hospital cost components were: (1) implant costs - costs of orthopedic implants and related materials, (2) OR costs - operating room staffing and equipment), (3) room and board costs - room and board from in-patient days, (4) supply costs - hospital supplies and equipment excluding implants, (5) Rx costs - medications and pharmacy staffing, (6) blood costs - costs associated with blood products and transfusion, and (7) ICU costs - costs from admission to the intensive care unit. The nine post-acute care spending categories were: 1) professional spending -physician fees ; 2) DME spending - durable medical equipment, 3) OP Spending - outpatient visits, 4) ER spending - emergency room visits, 5) readmission spending; 6) SNF spending - skilled nursing facilities, 7) IRF spending - inpatient rehabilitation facilities, 8) HH spending -home health agencies, and 9) LTAC spending - long term acute care providers. Baseline post-acute care spending in the ACE Program is based on ACE Year 1.

Description of Component Savings Table 2 and Supplementary Table provide detailed data on savings across internal hospital cost and PAC spending. In addition to the detail given in the main text, we also note the following details: Internal hospital cost savings: Supply costs and room and board costs savings were the next two biggest savings areas after implant costs. Supply costs per episode declined 60% from $1226.94 in 2008 to $498.46 in 2015 (P < 0.001), accounting for 26.6% of total savings in ACE Year 3 and an additional 6.3% in BPCI Year 2. Room and board costs declined 34% from $1240.98 to $829.43 (P < 0.001), accounting for 13.8% of total savings in ACE Year 3 and 4.3% in BPCI Year 2. PAC savings: There were minor savings in Outpatient spending, a 35% drop from $132.23 to $106.45 per episode (P = 0.09), and 0.2% of total savings.

Description of Component Savings In this supplemental appendix section, we describe technical details of our statistical analysis that were not able to be included in the main text. Outliers - While CMS adjusted outlier episodes by censoring the spending for 393 episodes (10% of sample), we did not remove or adjust extreme values. Risk Adjustment - Because CMS did not risk-adjust episode payments during ACE and BPCI, we did not perform risk-adjustment in our analyses. 2,3 Transition period between ACE and BPCI - From the 3 rd quarter of 2012 to the 3 rd quarter of 2013 BHS was transitioning between the ACE and BPCI programs and was not paid under bundle payment arrangements. Do deal with this discontinuity, we fit piece-wise models that allowed for different intercepts and slopes for each time period (ACE, the transition period, and BPCI). We then tested for significance of each slope (from 0) and for equality of slopes between ACE and BPCI.

Figure S4: Proportion of Post-Acute Spending by Category 100% Percent of Post Acute Care Spending 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ACE Year 3 BPCI Year 1 BPCI Year 2 ER Readmission LTC SNF HH Prof DME IRF OP This figure shows post-acute care spending divided into its nine components in ACE Year 3 (2009-2010), BPCI Year 1 (2013-2014), and BPCI Year 2 (2014-2015). This graph shows that IRF and SNF spending decreased substantially with a smaller decrease in readmission spending. In contrast, home health (HH) spending increased. Abbreviations: ACE, acute care episodes Medicare demonstration project; BPCI, bundled payments for care improvement Medicare demonstration project; ER, emergency room; OP, outpatient visits; IRF, inpatient rehabilitation facility; DME, durable medical equipment; HH, home health agency; LTAC, long-term acute care facility; SNF, skilled nursing facility.

Figure S5: Proportion of Episodes by Discharge Destination 100 90 80 Percent of episodes 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 IRF HH SNF LTAC HOME OTHER 0 ACE Year 3 BPCI Year 1 BPCI Year 2 This figure shows the total number of discharges divided into six discharge destinations in ACE Year 3 (2009-2010), BPCI Year 1 (2013-2014), and BPCI Year 2 (2014-2015). This graph shows that the share of IRF and SNF discharges decreased substantially. In contrast, home health (HH) discharges increased in share. Abbreviations: ACE, acute care episodes Medicare demonstration project; BPCI, bundled payments for care improvement Medicare demonstration project; ER, emergency room; OP, outpatient visits; IRF, inpatient rehabilitation facility; DME, durable medical equipment; HH, home health agency; LTAC, long-term acute care facility; SNF, skilled nursing facility.

Figure S6: Average Number of Home Health, IRF, and SNF Days per Episode This figure shows the average number of days per episode for home health, IRF, and SNF in the post-acute care period in ACE Year 3 (2009-2010), BPCI Year 1 (2013-2014), and BPCI Year 2 (2014-2015). This graph shows that home health (HH) days increased while IRF and SNF decreased. The gap represents a transition period during which BHS was preparing for BPCI. Abbreviations: ACE, acute care episodes Medicare demonstration project; BPCI, bundled payments for care improvement Medicare demonstration project; ER, emergency room; OP, outpatient visits; IRF, inpatient rehabilitation facility; DME, durable medical equipment; HH, home health agency; LTAC, long-term acute care facility; SNF, skilled nursing facility.

Figure S7: Number of Days Conditional on Discharge to Home Health, IRF, or SNF This figure shows the average number of days per episode, conditional on discharge to home health, IRF, and SNF in the post-acute care period in ACE Year 3 (2009-2010), BPCI Year 1 (2013-2014), and BPCI Year 2 (2014-2015). This graph shows when a patient was discharged to home health (HH), IRF, or SNF the number of days used did not seem to change. The gap represents a transition period during which BHS was preparing for BPCI. Abbreviations: ACE, acute care episodes Medicare demonstration project; BPCI, bundled payments for care improvement Medicare demonstration project; ER, emergency room; OP, outpatient visits; IRF, inpatient rehabilitation facility; DME, durable medical equipment; HH, home health agency; LTAC, long-term acute care facility; SNF, skilled nursing facility.

Additional References 13. CMMI Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model: Quality Measures, Voluntary Data, Public Reporting Processes for Preview Reports. Accessed May 24, 2016 at https://innovation.cms.gov/files/x/cjr qualstrat.pdf.