Patient-Mix Adjustment Factors for Home Health Care CAHPS Survey Results Publicly Reported on Home Health Compare in July 2017

Similar documents
Patient-mix Coefficients for July 2017 (4Q15 through 3Q16 Discharges) Publicly Reported HCAHPS Results

Patient-mix Coefficients for December 2017 (2Q16 through 1Q17 Discharges) Publicly Reported HCAHPS Results

6/7/2016. Objectives. HHCAHPS Overview. SHP HHCAHPS and Patient Survey Star Ratings

Introduction to the Home Health Care CAHPS Survey Webinar Training Session. Session II. January 2018

Introduction to the Home Health Care CAHPS Survey Webinar Training Session. Session I. January 2018

P: E: P: E:

Technical Notes for HCAHPS Star Ratings (Revised for October 2017 Public Reporting)

CAHPS Hospital Survey Podcast Series Transcript

Technical Notes for HCAHPS Star Ratings (Revised for April 2018 Public Reporting)

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

2017 CAHPS Child Medicaid Survey Summary Report

Overview of Home Health Star Ratings

5-Star Ratings and How to Position Your Agency

Prepared for North Gunther Hospital Medicare ID August 06, 2012

Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment System

Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility Prospective Payment System

New Quality Measures Will Soon Impact Nursing Home Compare and the 5-Star Rating System: What providers need to know

Summary Report of Findings and Recommendations

Provider Peer Grouping Monthly Updates

Minnesota Statewide Quality Reporting and Measurement System: Quality Incentive Payment System

Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment System Calendar Year 2015

Using the New Home Health Agency (HHA) PEPPER to Support Auditing and Monitoring Efforts

The Home Health Groupings Model (HHGM)

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

PROPOSED RULE: MEDICARE PROGRAM; HOME HEALTH PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM RATE UPDATE FOR CY 2013 SUMMARY. July 17, 2012

Home Health Care CAHPS Survey Vendor Update Webinar Training Session. February 2018

EuroHOPE: Hospital performance

Scottish Hospital Standardised Mortality Ratio (HSMR)

For More Information

Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program. Hospital-Specific Report User Guide Fiscal Year 2017

Leveraging Your Facility s 5 Star Analysis to Improve Quality

Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program

Hot Off the Press! The FY2017 Final Rule & Its Implications for Hospices. Presenter. Objectives 08/31/16

An Empirical Study of Economies of Scope in Home Healthcare

The Financial Performance of Rural Hospitals and Implications for Elimination of the Critical Access Hospital Program

Medicaid Hospital Incentive Payments Calculations

PRC EasyView Training HCAHPS Application. By Denise Rabalais, Director Service Measurement & Improvement

Home Health Value-Based Purchasing Series: HHVBP Model 101. Wednesday, February 3, 2016

January 2017 A GUIDE TO HOME HEALTH VALUE-BASED PURCHASING

on how to complete this line if you have a new program for which the period of years is less than Rev. 7

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) strives to make information available to all. Nevertheless, portions of our files including

Table 1: ICWP and Shepherd Care Program Differences. Shepherd Care RN / Professional Certification. No Formalized Training.

HHVBP Sessions. HHVBP Overview 6/7/2016. Home Health Value Based Purchasing. Session 1: Overview

Objectives 2/23/2011. Crossing Paths Intersection of Risk Adjustment and Coding

State of Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services Department on Aging Kansas Health Policy Authority

Minnesota Statewide Quality Reporting and Measurement System: Quality Incentive Payment System

CAHPS Hospice Survey Podcast for Hospices Transcript Data Hospices Must Provide to their Survey Vendor

2018 Press Ganey Award Criteria

CY 2018 Home Health PPS Proposed Rule

Final Rule Summary. Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment System Calendar Year 2016

Equalizing Medicare Payments for Select Patients in IRFs and SNFs

Medicare Program; FY 2016 Hospice Wage Index and Payment Rate Update and Hospice Quality Reporting Requirements [CMS-1629-P] Summary of Proposed Rule

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

Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment System

September 25, Via Regulations.gov


Maximizing your Medicaid Rate

Minnesota Statewide Quality Reporting and Measurement System: Quality Incentive Payment System Framework

Policy Brief. Nurse Staffing Levels and Quality of Care in Rural Nursing Homes. rhrc.umn.edu. January 2015

Maximizing your Medicaid Rate

Development of Updated Models of Non-Therapy Ancillary Costs

Common Core Algebra 2 Course Guide

time to replace adjusted discharges

Patient Selection Under Incomplete Case Mix Adjustment: Evidence from the Hospital Value-based Purchasing Program

Population and Sampling Specifications

Understand the current status of OAS CAHPS related to

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) The Harvard Pilgrim Independence Plan SM

Using the Inpatient Psychiatric Facility (IPF) PEPPER to Support Auditing and Monitoring Efforts: Session 1

Supporting Statement for the National Implementation of the Hospital CAHPS Survey A 1.0 CIRCUMSTANCES OF INFORMATION COLLECTION

2018 MIPS Quality Performance Category Measure Information for the 30-Day All-Cause Hospital Readmission Measure

Member Satisfaction Survey Evaluation Table 19: Jai Medical Systems Member Satisfaction Survey : Overall Ratings

Minnesota Department of Human Services Nursing Facility Rates and Policy Division. Instruction Manual

OASIS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT REPORTS

Medicare Advantage PPO participation Termination - Practice Name (Tax ID #: <TaxID>)

All Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs), PACE Organizations, Cost Plans, and certain Demonstrations

Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Updated September 2007

Home Health Care Outcomes Under Capitated and Fee-for-Service Payment

Using the Hospice PEPPER to Support Auditing and Monitoring Efforts: Session 1

Quality of Life and Quality of Care in Nursing Homes: Abuse, Neglect, and the Prevalence of Dementia. Kevin E. Hansen, J.D.

4/25/2017. Linking Up with Corridor. Value Proposition. STAR RATINGS Quality Reporting in the Accountable Care Marketplace

Medicare and Medicaid Spending on Dual Eligible Beneficiaries

Medicare Part A SNF Payment System Reform: Introduction to Resident Classification System - I

Joint Replacement Outweighs Other Factors in Determining CMS Readmission Penalties

Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program

routine services furnished by nursing facilities (other than NFs for individuals with intellectual Rev

Decrease in Hospital Uncompensated Care in Michigan, 2015

Inpatient Quality Reporting Program

2017 HOME HEALTH PPS AND VALUE BASED PURCHASING UPDATE

Scoring Methodology FALL 2016

A Critique of MedPAC s Post-Acute Care Prospective Payment System Prototype

NORTHWESTERN LAKE FOREST HOSPITAL. Scorecard updated September 2012

QIES Help Desk. Objectives. Nursing Home Quality Initiatives and Five-Star Quality Rating System

Table of Contents. Overview. Demographics Section One

Design for Nursing Home Compare Five-Star Quality Rating System: Technical Users Guide. February 2015

HCAHPS Update Training

Statistical Analysis Plan

Hospital Utilization: Hospitalization and Emergent Care

Regulatory Advisor Volume Eight

Medicare Program; FY 2019 Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities Prospective Payment System

Transcription:

Patient-Mix Adjustment Factors for Home Health Care CAHPS Survey Results Publicly Reported on Home Health Compare in July 2017 Home Health Care CAHPS (HHCAHPS) Survey results will be refreshed or updated each calendar year quarter and published on the Home Health Compare (HHC) link on the http://www.medicare.gov/ website. HHCAHPS Survey results based on survey responses from a sample of patients who received home health care from Medicare-certified home health agencies (HHAs) at some point between January 2016 and December 2016 are currently available on the Home Health Compare link on the http://www.medicare.gov/ website. Prior research has shown that patients assessment of the health care they receive may be affected by both the survey data collection mode and patient characteristics. In 2009 and 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the HHCAHPS Coordination Team conducted a mode experiment to assess the effects of the three approved data collection modes (mail only, telephone only, and mail with telephone follow-up of nonrespondents). Data collected during the HHCAHPS mode experiment were also used to determine which, if any, patient characteristics (patient mix) affected patients assessment of the home health care they received. The results of the HHCAHPS Survey mode experiment showed no significant differences in results based on survey mode. There were, however, differences in responses attributable to patient mix characteristics. Therefore, patient mix adjustments are made on HHCAHPS Survey results that are publicly reported using selected patient characteristics identified during the mode experiment, but no adjustments are being made for mode differences. The patient mix adjustment factors being used in the HHCAHPS Survey are derived from coefficients obtained from Ordinary Least Squares regression analyses on each separate HHCAHPS response item for the identified patient characteristics. The regression coefficients indicate the tendency of patients with particular characteristics to respond more positively or negatively to HHCAHPS Survey questions. Patient mix adjustment factors are calculated directly from these regression coefficients for each HHCAHPS response item by multiplying the coefficients by negative one ( 1.0). For example, analyses of the data on which results that are being currently publicly reported showed that patients who were aged 50 64 in the regression on the Overall Rating global measure were 2.5 percent less likely to provide the most positive ( top box ) response (rating of a 9 or 10 for this HHCAHPS measure) when compared to the reference group of patients aged 65 74. Consequently, the adjustment factor for patients aged 50 64 is +2.5 Posted July 2017 1

percent. Likewise, patients with a schizophrenia diagnosis were 3.9 percent less likely to report the most positive (top box) response ( Definitely Recommend ) on the Willingness to Recommend measure. Therefore, the adjustment factor for patients with a schizophrenia diagnosis on this specific item is +3.9 percent (Table 1). Patient mix adjustment factors to account for HHA differences in patient mix are calculated for the latest quarter and applied to HHA raw scores for each of the latest quarter s HHCAHPS response items. The latest quarter s composite measures are then formed from these adjusted scores. The last four quarters of adjusted scores are then averaged to produce the current quarter s published scores. Published scores are adjusted for differences between an HHA s patient composition according to the HHCAHPS patient mix characteristics and the overall national composition of home health patients on these same characteristics. This adjustment, which allows consumers to compare different HHAs based on the same overall patient composition, is made by subtracting the national mean for a given patient characteristic from an HHA s share of patients on this patient characteristic. For example, if nationally 20 percent of patients are aged 65 74, but an HHA s share of patients on this measure is 25 percent, then this adjustment for the difference in the HHA s patient composition versus the overall national patient composition is calculated as 25 percent minus 20 percent, or 5 percent. Four sets of numbers are needed to calculate an HHA s adjusted score for any given HHCAHPS response item: (1) the raw score, or HHA s mean on the respective HHCAHPS outcome before adjustment, (2) the individual-level patient mix adjustment factors shown in Table 1 (top box adjustment factors), (3) the HHA s means on the patient mix characteristic variables, and (4) the national mean on the patient mix characteristic variables shown in Table 2. The adjusted score for a given HHCAHPS Survey response item for an HHA is the sum of a series of products in the equation shown below, where each product multiplies the adjustment from Table 1 (top box) by the deviation of the HHA s mean on a given patient mix characteristic from the national mean on that characteristic from Table 2: where y = y + a1(h1 m1) + a2(h2 m2) + a3(h3 m3) +... + a19(h19 m19) y is the HHA s adjusted score for the respective HHCAHPS response item y is the HHA s raw score, or mean on the respective unadjusted top box HHCAHPS response item Posted July 2017 2

a1 to a19 h1 to h19 are the individual-level adjustments from Table 1 for the patient characteristics in the table expressed as a proportion rather than as a percentage are the HHA s mean proportions of patients with each of the patient characteristics in the same row m1 to m19 are the national mean proportions of patients with each of the patient characteristics in Table 2 across the HHAs participating in HHCAHPS. For public reporting purposes, the final adjusted HHCAHPS score is rounded to the nearest integer and expressed as a percentage (e.g., 84%). Information presented in this document will permit an HHA to approximate the effect of patient mix adjustment on its HHCAHPS Survey results. Exact replication of published HHCAHPS results is not possible because of the effects of data cleaning and small differences between the effects of quarterly patient mix adjustments and the 4-quarter averages presented here. For each future public reporting period, Tables 1 and 2 will be updated and posted on the Home Health Care CAHPS website at https://homehealthcahps.org/. Posted July 2017 3

Table 1. Top Box HHCAHPS Patient-Mix Adjustment Factors (Four-Quarter Average for the July 2017 Public Reporting Period, January 2016 through December 2016 Home Health Patients) Patient Mix Characteristic Patient Mix Level Overall Rating Willingness to Recommend Care of Patients Communication Specific Care Issues Proxy Proxy 0.012 0.014 0.002 0.005 0.009 Non-English survey response Non-English survey response 0.050 0.041 0.001 0.003 0.039 Age 18 49 0.071 0.057 0.040 0.025 0.027 50 64 0.025 0.017 0.016 0.009 0.005 65 74 RC RC RC RC RC 75 84 0.004 0.013 0.004 0.013 0.015 85+ 0.015 0.029 0.010 0.027 0.029 Education < 8th grade 0.004 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.022 Some high school 0.014 0.012 0.003 0.004 0.016 High school graduate/ged RC RC RC RC RC Some college 0.022 0.013 0.011 0.011 0.018 College graduate or more 0.045 0.025 0.023 0.023 0.046 Residence status Patient lived alone 0.026 0.034 0.022 0.024 0.023 Self-reported health status Excellent 0.100 0.119 0.049 0.051 0.063 Very good 0.015 0.007 0.007 0.005 0.011 Good RC RC RC RC RC Fair 0.005 0.001 0.004 0.005 0.002 Poor 0.022 0.010 0.016 0.016 0.004 Mental/emotional status Excellent/very good 0.044 0.041 0.023 0.025 0.000 Good RC RC RC RC RC Fair/poor 0.018 0.015 0.010 0.014 0.006 Diagnoses Schizophrenia 0.052 0.039 0.04 0.043 0.044 Dementia/cerebral degeneration 0.009 0.006 0.007 0.013 0.009 RC = reference category Posted July 2017 4

Table 2. National Means on Patient-Mix Adjustment Factors (Four-Quarter Average for the July 2017 Public Reporting Period, January 2016 through December 2016 Home Health Patients) Patient Mix Characteristic Patient Mix Level Mean Proxy respondent used 0.13 Non-English survey response 0.05 Age 18 49 0.03 50 64 0.12 65 74 0.27 75 84 0.32 85+ 0.26 Education 8th grade or less 0.12 Some high school 0.12 High school graduate/ged 0.34 Some college 0.24 College graduate or more 0.18 Residence status Patient lived alone 0.35 Self-reported health status Excellent 0.09 Very good 0.16 Good 0.30 Fair 0.33 Poor 0.12 Mental/emotional status Excellent/very good 0.42 Good 0.31 Fair/poor 0.27 Diagnoses Schizophrenia 0.01 Dementia/cerebral degeneration 0.08 Posted July 2017 5