Criteria for Physician Performance Measurement, Reporting and Tiering Programs

Similar documents
Physician Performance Measurement and Reporting: Moving to a Common National Framework

Product and Network Innovation: Strategies to Achieve Triple Aim Success. Patrick Courneya, MD Medical Director, HealthPartners October 31, 2013

NQF National Priorities Partnership: Leveraging Our Collective Efforts. Janet M. Corrigan, PhD, MBA President and CEO National Quality Forum

UnitedHealth Premium Program Frequently Asked Questions

The Physician Charter:

Improving Healthcare Quality through Standardization and Innovation

Examples of Measure Selection Criteria From Six Different Programs

QUALITY MEASURES WHAT S ON THE HORIZON

Patient Safety Event Reporting. National Voluntary Consensus Standards for Public Reporting of Patient Safety Event Information A CONSENSUS REPORT

Issue Brief. EHR-Based Care Coordination Performance Measures in Ambulatory Care

DA: November 29, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services National PACE Association

Aggregating Physician Performance Data Across Health Plans

Standards for Accreditation of. Baccalaureate and. Nursing Programs

Quality Measures and Federal Policy: Increasingly Important and A Work in Progress. American Health Quality Association Policy Forum Washington, D.C.

Quality Measures in Healthcare Facilities for Patient Family Advisory Council members

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: Innovation Center New Direction

Measures That Matter: Simplifying Clinical Quality

Session 1. Measure. Applications Partnership IHA P4P Mini Summit. March 20, Tom Valuck, MD, JD Connie Hwang, MD, MPH

Statement for the Record. American College of Physicians. U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health

Re: Rewarding Provider Performance: Aligning Incentives in Medicare

Accountable Care Organizations. What the Nurse Executive Needs to Know. Rebecca F. Cady, Esq., RNC, BSN, JD, CPHRM

Topic: CAP s Legislative Proposal for Laboratory-Developed Tests (LDT) Date: September 14, 2015

1. Measures within the program measure set are NQF-endorsed or meet the requirements for expedited review

Measure Applications Partnership (MAP)

1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 650 P Washington, DC F

Registry of Patient Registries (RoPR) Policies and Procedures

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

QualityPath Cardiac Bypass (CABG) Maintenance of Designation

Prior to implementation of the episode groups for use in resource measurement under MACRA, CMS should:

Re: Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule for CY 2014; 78 Fed. Reg. 43,281 (July 19, 2013); CMS-1600; RIN 0938-AR56

EQuIPNational Survey Planning Tool NSQHSS and EQuIP Actions 4.

CY 2018 Home Health PPS Proposed Rule

MAP Member Guide Last updated: 7/2018. Measure Applications Partnership. MAP Member Guidebook. July 6, 2018

Risk Adjustment Methods in Value-Based Reimbursement Strategies

PART ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

American Osteopathic College Disclosure to Learners For Continuing Medical Education Activities

11/13/2012. SVP & Chief Accreditation Officer, URAC. Presenters. URAC Promoting Quality. Fast Facts About URAC

Performance Measures Methodology Document Performance Measures Committee March 2018

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

URAC Promoting Quality

CMS Proposed Home Health Claims-Based Rehospitalization and Emergency Department Use Quality Measures

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

GUIDELINES FOR ADVERTISING AND MARKETING PHYSICIAN AND HOSPITAL QUALITY CERTIFICATION. Table of Contents

Introduction Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)

WHITE PAPER. Taking Meaningful Use to the Next Level: What You Need to Know about the MACRA Advancing Care Information Component

=======================================================================

Total Cost of Care Technical Appendix April 2015

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE. Summary of Transfer Payments for the Operation of Public Hospitals. Type of Funding

PBGH Response to CMMI Request for Information on Advanced Primary Care Model Concepts

Scoring Methodology SPRING 2018

Note: This is an outcome measure and will be calculated solely using registry data.

PATIENT ATTRIBUTION WHITE PAPER

C. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

The Joint Commission's Performance Measurement Journey

Standards for Initial Certification

Introduction to Patient Experience Surveys

Civil Money Penalty Funds

THE CODE. Professional standards of conduct, ethics and performance for pharmacists in Northern Ireland. Effective from 1 March 2016

REPORT OF THE COUNCIL ON MEDICAL SERVICE. Hospital-Based Physicians and the Value-Based Payment Modifier (Resolution 813-I-12)

Additional Considerations for SQRMS 2018 Measure Recommendations

Developing a framework for the secondary use of My Health record data WA Primary Health Alliance Submission

Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee TECHNICAL BULLETIN 7 PUBLIC INFORMATION, COMMUNICATION AND ADVERTISING AUSTRALIAN CLINICS.

Local Control Funding Formula Spending Regulations Comparison and Feedback Response Chart

QUALITY PAYMENT PROGRAM

National Standards for the Conduct of Reviews of Patient Safety Incidents

March 6, Dear Administrator Verma,

1875 Connecticut Ave. NW / Suite 650 / Washington, D.C / / fax /

Payment Reforms to Improve Care for Patients with Serious Illness

Scoring Methodology FALL 2016

University of San Francisco Office of Contracts and Grants Subaward Policy and Procedures

Note: Accredited is the highest rating an exchange product can have for 2015.

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

METHODOLOGY. Transparency. Conflicts of Interest. Multidisciplinary Steering Committee Composition. Evidence Review

College of American Pathologists. Senior Director, Legislation and Political Action Position Profile October 2012

Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, FACP Vice President, American College of Physicians Adjunct Faculty, Thomas Jefferson University

Scoring Methodology FALL 2017

June 27, Dear Secretary Burwell and Acting Administrator Slavitt,

Movember Clinician Scientist Award (CSA)

Payment Reform Strategies. Ann Thomas Burnett BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina

Draft Code of Practice FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Request for Information: Certification Frequency and Requirements for the Reporting of

INPUT TO THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

A Tool for Maximizing Quality in Your Organization

Alberta Health Services. Strategic Direction

TOWN HALL CALL 2017 LEAPFROG HOSPITAL SURVEY. May 10, 2017

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Good Practices & Principles FIFARMA, I. Government s cost containment measures: current status & issues

SUMMARY OF THE STATE GRANT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT: H.R (May 24, 2010)

Career Development Fellowships 2018 Guidelines for Applicants. Applications close 12 noon 05 April 2018

HIT Glossary and Acronym List

Financial Conflict of Interest Promoting Objectivity in Research Policy

Accelerating the Impact of Performance Measures: Role of Core Measures

The Quality Payment Program Overview Fact Sheet

PLAN OF ACTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF 510(K) AND SCIENCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Memo. Background. NQF Member and Public Commenting. March 8, 2018

Institute of Medicine Standards for Systematic Reviews

ROCKY MOUNTAIN HEALTH PLANS REGIONAL ACCOUNTABLE ENTITY ORIENTATION GUIDE Region 1 An Introduction for Providers March 2018

Updates from CMS: Value-Based Purchasing, ACOs, and Other Initiatives The Seventh National Pay for Performance Summit March 20, 2012

NOTICE OF PRIVACY PRACTICES This Notice is effective September 23, 2013

Measuring Children s Health Outcomes: Current Status and Future Efforts

An Overview of Sterile Compounding. Marshall Moleschi, Registrar Ontario College of Pharmacists

Transcription:

Patient Charter for Physician Performance Measurement, Reporting and Tiering Programs: Ensuring Transparency, Fairness and Independent Review The Patient Charter for Physician Performance Measurement, Reporting and Tiering Programs (the Patient Charter ) is supported by leading consumer, labor and employer organizations who share the conviction that public reporting of physician performance is integral to improving the health and health care of Americans. This Patient Charter applies to physician reporting programs developed by health plans to inform consumers. These organizations believe that health plans that evaluate, rate and report physician performance to consumers should be independently assessed. The review of such programs, coupled with full public disclosure of performance results will (a) promote the consistency, efficiency and fairness of these programs, and (b) make physician performance information more accessible and easier for consumers to understand. The Patient Charter is designed to encourage better performance reporting by striking the needed balance between standardization and innovation. The endorsers of the Patient Charter, including AARP, the National Partnership for Women & Families, AFL-CIO, the Leapfrog Group, Pacific Business Group on Health and the National Business Coalition on Health invite all health plans to take the following actions: 1) Retain, at their own expense, the services of a nationally-recognized, independent health care quality standard-setting organization to review the plan s programs for consumers that measure, report, and tier physicians based on their performance. This review should include a comparison to national standards and a report detailing the measures and methodologies used by the health plan. The scope of the review should encompass all elements described in the Criteria for Physician Performance Measurement, Reporting and Tiering Programs (see page 2). 2) Adhere to the Criteria for Physician Performance Measurement, Reporting and Tiering Programs (see page 2) and make this adherence known to their enrollees and the public. By adopting the Patient Charter, health plans acknowledge that independent review and validation of the integrity and fairness of their programs that measure, report and tier physicians are important to patients/consumers, purchasers and to physicians themselves. For their part, the endorsing groups believe that by accepting the terms of the Patient Charter health plans are agreeing to be assessed against high and consistent standards that will help to advance both the transparency and quality of performance measurement efforts, as well as promote the national consistency and standardization sought by consumers, purchasers, and physicians. (For additional details see companion document Background and Implementation Issues.)

Page 2 of 6 Criteria for Physician Performance Measurement, Reporting and Tiering Programs All elements in the Criteria for Physician Performance Measurement, Reporting and Tiering Programs should be publicly disclosed. In addition to this transparency, for some elements health plans practices should be compared to national standards (these elements are identified below with * ). 1) Measures should be meaningful to consumers and reflect a diverse array of physician clinical activities. a) Measures should be directed at the six aims of the Institute of Medicine to the extent possible: care should be safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patientcentered. Whenever feasible consumer/patient experience should be assessed as a measure of patient-centeredness. b) The program/measures should provide performance information that reflects consumers health needs. Programs should clearly describe the extent to which they encompass particular areas of care (e.g., primary care and other areas of specialty care). c) Performance reporting for consumers should include both quality and cost-efficiency information. While quality information may be reported in the absence of costefficiency, cost-efficiency information should not be reported without accompanying quality information. 1 * d) When any individual measures or groups of measures are combined, the individual scores, proportionate weighting and any other formula used to develop composite scores should be disclosed. This disclosure should be done both when quality measures are combined and when quality and cost-efficiency are combined. e) Consumers/consumer organizations should be solicited to provide input on the program, including the methods used to determine performance strata. * f) A clearly defined process for receiving and resolving consumer complaints should be a component of any program. * g) Performance information presented to consumers should include context, discussion of data limitations and guidance on how to consider other factors in choosing a physician (e.g., talking with your physician). 2) Those being measured should be actively involved. a) Physicians/physician organizations should be solicited to provide input on the program, including the methods used to determine performance strata. * b) Physicians should be given reasonable prior notice before their individual performance information is publicly released. * c) A clearly defined process for physicians to request review of their own performance results and the opportunity to present information that supports what they believe to be inaccurate results (within a reasonable time frame) must be a component of any program. Results determined to be inaccurate after the reconsideration process should be corrected. * 1 These criteria do not apply to pure cost comparison or shopping tools that estimate costs for specific procedures or treatments, so long as it is made clear to the public that such tools and information are based solely on cost or price.

Page 3 of 6 Criteria for Physician Performance Measurement, Reporting and Tiering Programs (cont.) 3) Measures and methodology should be transparent and valid. a) Information about the comparative performance of physicians should be accessible and understandable to consumers, physicians and other clinicians. b) Information about factors that might limit the usefulness of results should be publicly disclosed. c) Measures used to assess physician performance and the methodology used to calculate scores or determine rankings should be published and made readily available to the public. Some elements should be assessed against national standards. Examples of measurement elements that should be assessed against national standards include: risk and severity adjustment, minimum observations and statistical standards utilized. Examples of other measurement elements that should be fully disclosed include: data used, how physicians patients are identified, measure specifications and methodologies, known limitations of the data, and how episodes are defined. * d) The rationale and methodologies supporting the unit of analysis reported should be clearly articulated (e.g., medical group or practice versus the individual physician). e) Sponsors of physician measurement and reporting should work collaboratively to aggregate data whenever feasible to enhance its consistency, accuracy, and use. Sponsors of physician measurement and reporting should also work collaboratively to align and harmonize measures used to promote consistency and reduce the burden of collection. The nature and scope of these efforts should be publicly reported. f) The program should be regularly evaluated to assess its effectiveness and any unintended consequences. 4) Measures should be based on national standards to the greatest extent possible. a) Measures should be based on national standards. The primary source should be measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum ( NQF ). When non-nqf measures are used because NQF measures do not exist or are unduly burdensome, it should be with the understanding that they will be replaced by comparable NQFendorsed measures when available. * b) Where NQF-endorsed measures do not exist, the next level of measures that should be considered, to the extent practical, should be those endorsed by the AQA, national accrediting organizations such as NCQA or The Joint Commission and federal agencies. * c) Supplemental measures are permitted if they address areas of measurement for which national standards do not yet exist or for which existing national standard measure requirements are unreasonably burdensome on physicians or program sponsors. Supplemental measures may be used if they are part of a pilot program to assess the extent to which the measures could fill national gaps in measurement. When supplemental measures are used they should reasonably adhere to the NQF measure criteria (importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility and usability), and may include sources such as medical specialty society guidelines. *

Page 4 of 6 Background and Implementation Issues Leading consumer, labor and employer organizations including AARP, the National Partnership for Women and Families, AFL-CIO, the Leapfrog Group, Pacific Business Group on Health and the National Business Coalition on Health endorse the Patient Charter for Physician Performance Measurement, Reporting and Tiering Programs (the Patient Charter ) because they share the conviction that publicly reporting physician performance is integral to improving the health and health care of Americans. These organizations believe that independent review of the design and implementation of programs developed by health plans to inform consumers will ensure transparency, fairness and promote the continued strengthening of measurement programs to meet the needs of patients. They also believe the Patient Charter strikes a balance between standardization and innovation. Goals of the Patient Charter: The Patient Charter is endorsed by leading consumer, labor and employer organizations based on their conviction that public reporting of physician performance is integral to improving the health and health care of Americans. Support for the Patient Charter by consumer and purchaser organizations is premised on the belief that consumers should have meaningful and valid information to make informed decisions about their physicians and the care they receive. The endorsing organizations believe that independent review of the design and implementation of health plan programs that evaluate and rate physicians for consumers, coupled with full public disclosure of performance results will (a) promote the consistency, efficiency and fairness of such programs, and (b) make physician information more accessible and easier for consumers to understand. Ultimately, the endorsers hope that the adoption of the Patient Charter will encourage improvements in the quality and efficiency of care provided to patients. Reinforcing the Physician Charter: The Patient Charter complements the Physician Charter which has been adopted by many leading physician organizations. The Physician Charter details core principles of professionalism and addresses physicians responsibility to actively participate in the development of better measures of quality of care and the application of quality measures to assess routinely the performance of all individuals, institutions, and systems responsible for health care delivery. Physician performance should be periodically assessed and patients should have results that they can rely on readily available. Information on the Physician Charter can be found at http://www.abimfoundation.org/professionalism/pdf_charter/abim_charter_ins.pdf. Role of Endorsing Organizations: Endorsing organizations will promote health plan adoption of the Patient Charter and encourage use of the Criteria for Performance Measurement. Through the Consumer-Purchaser Disclosure Project, the endorsing organizations will take steps to: (1) ensure that independent reviewer(s) adhere to the Criteria for Physician Performance Measurement, Reporting and Tiering Programs; (2) assure that processes and standards developed by independent review organizations strike an appropriate balance between assuring validity of measurement and providing patients with needed information; and (3) publicly report which health plans adopt the Patient Charter.

Page 5 of 6 Background and Implementation Issues (cont.) Role of Health Plans: Health plans that adopt the Patient Charter agree to abide by the Criteria for Physician Performance Measurement, Reporting and Tiering and have their programs for consumers assessed against these criteria by an independent review organization. Transparency and Comparison to National Standards: All elements in the Criteria for Physician Performance Measurement, Reporting and Tiering Programs should be publicly disclosed as part of the assessment conducted by an independent reviewer. For many elements, a health plan s practices should be assessed against minimum standards and compared to national benchmarks. The Criteria do not identify specific standards -- these should be set by independent review organizations with nationally recognized expertise in the development, assessment and implementation of processes to assess performance. The endorsers believe that the measurement of physician performance is evolving. Therefore, standards must be flexible and allow for innovation. Independent Review and the Development of National Standards: The endorsers of the Patient Charter believe that public comment on the standards and processes for ensuring compliance with the Criteria for Physician Performance Measurement is important. Any participating independent review organization is expected to develop standards with multi-stakeholder input, provide an opportunity for input through a public comment process, and conduct field testing of the standards with multiple organizations. Reviewers should be independent and have demonstrated capacity/experience in the content areas addressed by the standards. Reviewers should also fully disclose their scoring and review methodologies, including the type of documentation and sampling methodology required. Timing and Implementation: The endorsers expect the health plans that adopt the Patient Charter to complete the independent review in a timely manner. Health plans are expected to engage the independent reviewer within three months of pledging to comply with the Charter and to have the review conducted within six months of that engagement. Material changes in the health plan s program should be publicly disclosed with a description by the health plan of how the changes abide by the Criteria. In addition, the health plan should have its public reporting programs on physician performance subjected to external review no less than every three years. Since some measurement programs are already in place, the independent review process should provide a mechanism to conduct an interim or provisional review. The provisional review would encompass all of the methodologies and processes that existing programs use. This should be followed by a review of identified elements that need to be subsequently assessed against national standards. The follow-up review should occur as soon as possible, but no later than twelve months after completion of the initial review.

Page 6 of 6 Background and Implementation Issues (cont.) Development of the Criteria: The Criteria for Physician Performance Measurement, Reporting and Tiering Programs are based on the widely endorsed Guidelines for Measurement of Provider Performance, sponsored by the Consumer-Purchaser Disclosure Project, a group of leading employer, consumer, and labor organizations working to ensure that all Americans have access to publicly reported health care performance information. The Patient Charter, the Criteria for Physician Performance Measurement and the preceding Guidelines were all forged with collaborative input from leading consumer, labor and purchaser organizations, as well as leading organizations representing the physician community and health plans. Information on the Guidelines for Measurement of Provider Performance can be found at http://healthcaredisclosure.org/docs/files/measurementguidelines09-2006.pdf. Reporting on Physician Cost and Quality: The Criteria for Physician Performance Measurement, Reporting and Tiering Programs require that physician measurement, reporting and tiering programs for consumers that include cost efficiency should also include quality. The Patient Charter and the Criteria do not apply to pure cost comparison or shopping tools. Application of the Criteria beyond Health Plans: The endorsing organizations believe that the Criteria for Physician Performance Measurement, Reporting and Tiering Programs should apply to all sponsors of publicly reported physician performance programs.