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

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

Advancing Care Coordination Proposed Rule

Alternative Payment Models: Trends and Tactics for Success

Episode Payment Models Final Rule & Analysis

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

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

Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Readiness Kit

The Pain or the Gain?

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

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

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

Episode Payment Models:

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

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Improvement Program Measures for Acute Care Hospitals - Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Payment Update

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

Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program

(202) or CMS Proposals to Improve Quality of Care during Hospital Inpatient Stays

CMS Quality Program- Outcome Measures. Kathy Wonderly RN, MSEd, CPHQ Consultant Developed: December 2015 Revised: January 2018

Inpatient Hospital Compare Preview Report Help Guide

Understanding Hospital Value-Based Purchasing

Inpatient Hospital Compare Preview Report Help Guide

Value based Purchasing Legislation, Methodology, and Challenges

Inpatient Hospital Compare Preview Report Help Guide

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

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

National Provider Call: Hospital Value-Based Purchasing

Inpatient Hospital Compare Preview Report Help Guide


FY 2014 Inpatient PPS Proposed Rule Quality Provisions Webinar

PREPARING FOR RISK-BASED OUTCOMES OF BUNDLED CARE

Facility State National

National Patient Safety Goals & Quality Measures CY 2017

Quality, Cost and Business Intelligence in Healthcare

Inpatient Hospital Compare Preview Report Help Guide

The New World of Value Driven Cardiac Care

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

Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR): Understanding the CMS Mandatory TJR Bundling Webinar

The Role of Analytics in the Development of a Successful Readmissions Program

Financial Policy & Financial Reporting. Jay Andrews VP of Financial Policy

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

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

MEDICARE UPDATES: VBP, SNF QRP, BUNDLING

Medicare Quality Based Payment Reform (QBPR) Program Reference Guide Fiscal Years

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

CJR Model Update: December 2017 Final Rule and Interim Final Rule with Comment

Quality Based Impacts to Medicare Inpatient Payments

Inpatient Hospital Compare Preview Report Help Guide

Maximizing Success in a Bundled Payment Environment

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

Outpatient Hospital Compare Preview Report Help Guide

Minnesota Statewide Quality Reporting and Measurement System: Appendices to Minnesota Administrative Rules, Chapter 4654

Value-based incentive payment percentage 3

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

Mastering the Mandatory Elements of the Affordable Care Act. Melinda Hancock Walter Coleman

Medicare Value Based Purchasing Overview

Program Summary. Understanding the Fiscal Year 2019 Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. Page 1 of 8 July Overview

Inpatient Quality Reporting Program

2017/2018. KPN Health, Inc. Quality Payment Program Solutions Guide. KPN Health, Inc. A CMS Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) KPN Health, Inc.

Core Metrics for Better Care, Lower Costs, and Better Health

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

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

HACs, Readmissions and VBP: Hospital Strategies for Turning Lemons into Lemonade

September 6, RE: CY 2017 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems Proposed Rule

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

Bundled Payments KEY CAPABILITIES. for working with the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model

Troubleshooting Audio

P4P Programs 9/13/2013. Medicare P4P Programs. Medicaid P4P Programs

MBQIP Quality Measure Trends, Data Summary Report #20 November 2016

National Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Measures Specifications Manual

Future of Quality Reporting and the CMS Quality Incentive Programs

Redesigning Post-Acute Care: Value Based Payment Models

Medicare Value-Based Purchasing for Hospitals: A New Era in Payment

QualityPath Elective Knee Replacement and Total Hip Replacement Request for Proposal (RFP)

Exhibit 1. Medicare Shared Savings Program: Year 1 Performance of Participating Accountable Care Organizations (2013)

Hospital Compare Quality Measures: 2008 National and Florida Results for Critical Access Hospitals

Value-Based Purchasing & Payment Reform How Will It Affect You?

Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program

Star Rating Method for Single and Composite Measures

SNF * Readmissions Bootcamp The SNF Readmission Penalty, Post-Acute Networks, and Community Collaboratives

Structuring Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacements Collaborator Agreements

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

Our comments focus on the following provisions of the Proposed Rule:

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

2013 Health Care Regulatory Update. January 8, 2013

Surgical Directions

Troubleshooting Audio

Medicare Value Based Purchasing August 14, 2012

Medicare Value Based Purchasing Overview

Refining the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. Mark Miller, PhD Executive Director December 6, 2013

Regulatory Advisor Volume Eight

Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program

Alternative Payment Models and Health IT

Rural-Relevant Quality Measures for Critical Access Hospitals

June 27, Dear Ms. Tavenner:

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

Quality Based Impacts to Medicare Inpatient Payments

Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program

HACs, Readmissions and VBP: Hospital Strategies for Turning

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

CMS DATA FOR THE PUBLIC What We Intend To Do About It! Stephen Sibbitt, MD, FACP Chief Medical Officer Scott & White Memorial Hospital

Transcription:

Quality Provisions in the EPM Proposed Rule Matt Baker Scott Wetzel

Overview Quality Scoring Overview Quality Metrics in AMI and CABG EPMs Quality Metrics in SHFFT EPMs COTH Performance in these programs

Quality Scoring Overview

Overview EPMs Quality Three separate EPM quality models o AMI, CABG, and Surgical hip/femur fracture treatment (SHFFT) Quality performance National Percentile o o o 30 th percentile minimum performance to receive points for each quality measure Points are awarded based on percentile Length of reporting period: AMI and CABG mortality, AMI excess days, and hip/knee complications 3 years HCAHPS 1 year Voluntary measures varies by performance year Performance + Improvement + Voluntary Points = Quality Composite Score

Improvement Scoring Measure by measure basis Points awarded up to 10% of max performance points AMI/CABG Defined as improvement over participant s own point estimate from previous year SHFFT/CJR Defined as year over year improvement of two or more deciles

Quality Metrics in AMI and CABG EPMs

AMI Quality Measure Composite Scoring Measure Weight Max Available Points Hospital AMI 30-day Mortality 50% 10 Excess Days in Acute Care After Hospitalization (EDAC) 20% 4 Voluntary Hybrid AMI Mortality 10% 2 if submitted successfully HCAHPS 20% 4

CABG Quality Measure Composite Scoring Measure Weight Max Available Points Hospital CABG 30-day Mortality 75% 15 HCAHPS 25% 5

AMI and CABG Mortality Calculated separately for AMI and CABG Calculates all deaths regardless of cause within a 30-day period from the date of the index admissions NQF endorsed Measure reported on hospital compare

Excess Days in Acute Care After Hospitalization for AMI (EDAC) Actual acute days post discharge compared to expected based on degree of illness Response to increase in ED utilization and Observation Stays Not NQF Endorsed* Not Reported on Hospital Compare *Measure has been submitted for NQF review

HCAHPS Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey Includes 10 questions about the hospital experience* Patients surveyed between 48 hours and 6 weeks after discharge Patients included: All adult inpatients Not limited to Medicare beneficiaries includes patients admitted in the medical, surgical and maternity care service lines. *pain management measure not included

New Voluntary AMI Measure Hybrid measure combines standard claims based 30- day mortality with clinical data from EHR Submit five core data elements and six linking variables Age, heart rate, systolic BP, troponin, creatinine CCN, HIC#, DOB, sex, admission and discharge dates Heart rate and BP within 2 hours of admission; troponin within 24 hours Additional two points for successful submission

Proposed AMI Quality Decile-Based Points Scale Percentile AMI Mortality AMI EDAC HCAHPS 90-99th Percentile 10.00 4.0 4.0 80-89th Percentile 9.25 3.7 3.7 70-79th Percentile 8.50 3.4 3.4 60-69th Percentile 7.75 3.1 3.1 50-59th Percentile 7.00 2.8 2.8 40-49th Percentile 6.25 2.5 2.5 30-39th Percentile 5.50 2.2 2.2 20-29th Percentile 0 0 0 10-19th Percentile 0 0 0 0-9th Percentile 0 0 0 Not Enough Data to Report 7.00 2.8 2.8 Reporting the voluntary AMI Hybrid Measure adds an additional 2 points. For each measure, 10% of hospitals will receive bonus points for improvement: 1 bonus point in AMI Mortality 0.4 bonus points in AMI EDAC 0.4 bonus points in HCAHPS The bonus points will be based on being in the best 10% of hospitals in the improvement, defined as one s own measure s point estimate relative to the hospital s score in the previous year.

Proposed AMI Quality Category and Discount Rate Composite Score Category Quality Category Eligible for Reconciliation Payment Reconciliation Payment Discount Percentage Repayment Amount Discount Percentage Year 1 Years 2 & 3 Years 4 & 5 > 14.8 Excellent Yes 1.5% N/A 0.5% 1.5% > 6.9 and <14.8 Good Yes 2.0% N/A 1.0% 2.0% >3.6 and <6.9 Acceptable Yes 3.0% N/A 2.0% 3.0% <3.6 Below Acceptable No 3.0% N/A 2.0% 3.0%

Proposed CABG Quality Decile-Based Points Scale Percentile CABG Mortality HCAHPS 90-99th Percentile 15.00 5.00 80-89th Percentile 13.68 4.63 70-79th Percentile 12.75 4.25 60-69th Percentile 11.63 3.88 50-59th Percentile 10.50 3.50 40-49th Percentile 9.38 3.13 30-39th Percentile 8.25 2.75 20-29th Percentile 0 0 10-19th Percentile 0 0 0-9th Percentile 0 0 Not Enough Data to Report 10.50 3.50 For each measure, 10% of hospitals will receive bonus points for improvement: 1.5 bonus points in CABG Mortality 0.5 bonus points in HCAHPS The bonus points will be based on being in the best 10% of hospitals in the improvement, defined as one s own measure s point estimate relative to the hospital s score in the previous year.

Proposed CABG Quality Category and Discount Rate Composite Score Category Quality Category Eligible for Reconciliation Payment Reconciliation Payment Discount Percentage Repayment Amount Discount Percentage Year 1 Years 2 & 3 Years 4 & 5 > 17.5 Excellent Yes 1.5% N/A 0.5% 1.5% > 4.8 and <17.5 Good Yes 2.0% N/A 1.0% 2.0% >2.8 and <4.8 Acceptable Yes 3.0% N/A 2.0% 3.0% <2.8 Below Acceptable No 3.0% N/A 2.0% 3.0%

Quality Metrics in CJR and SHFFT

SHFFT* Quality Measure Composite Scoring Measure Weight Max Available Points Hip/Knee Complications 50% 10 HCAHPS 40% 8 THA/TKA Voluntary PRO *Same scoring as CJR 10% 2 if submitted successfully

Hip/knee Complications Hospital-level Risk Standardized Complication Rate (RSCR) following elective primary THA and/or TKA Denominator: Patients with a qualifying* elective primary THA/TKA procedure, enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service, aged 65 or over Excludes: patients with more than two THA/TKA procedure codes during the index admission; discharged against medical advice; transferred from another acute care facility for the THA/TKA Numerator: patients with any of the following acute myocardial infarction pneumonia, or sepsis/septicemia within 7 days of admission surgical site bleeding, pulmonary embolism or death within 30 days of admission or mechanical complications, periprosthetic joint infection, or wound infection within 90 days of admission *For details on which procedures quality, see CMS s Measure Specification: https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality-initiatives-patient-assessment- Instruments/HospitalQualityInits/Downloads/Hip-and-Knee-Arthroplasty- Complications-Updates.zip

CJR and SHFFT Quality Decile-Based Points Scale Percentile THA/TKA Complications Points HCAHPS Points 90-99th Percentile 10 8 80-89th Percentile 9.25 7.4 70-79th Percentile 8.5 6.8 60-69th Percentile 7.75 6.2 50-59th Percentile 7 5.6 40-49th Percentile 6.25 5 30-39th Percentile 5.5 4.4 20-29th Percentile 0 0 10-19th Percentile 0 0 0-9th Percentile 0 0 Not Enough Data to 7 5.6 Report THA/TKA PRO and limited risk variable data reporting earns 2 points for reporting, 0 points otherwise Hospitals can receive bonus points in a category for improvement by moving up relative to the previous year s measures: 1 bonus point in THA/TKA Complications 0.8 bonus points in HCAHPS In order to receive these bonus points, hospitals must improve by two decile groups for CJR, and SHFFT.

CJR and SHFFT Quality Category and Discount Rate Composite Score Category Quality Category Eligible for Reconciliation Payment Reconciliation Payment Discount Percentage Repayment Amount Discount Percentage Year 1 Years 2 & 3 Years 4 & 5 > 15.0 Excellent Yes 1.5% N/A 0.5% 1.5% > 6.9 and <15.0 Good Yes 2.0% N/A 1.0% 2.0% >5.0 and <6.9 Acceptable Yes 3.0% N/A 2.0% 3.0% <5.0 Below Acceptable No 3.0% N/A 2.0% 3.0%

Example SHFFT Hospital Step 1 Convert Your Rate to Percentile Ranking THA/TKA Complications Rate HCAHPS Linear Mean Score Your Rate 2.7 86.4 National Percentile 80-89th Percentile 60-69th Percentile Step 2 Convert Your Percentile Ranking to Points Percentile THA/TKA Complications Points HCAHPS Points 90-99th Percentile 10 8 80-89th Percentile 9.25 7.4 70-79th Percentile 8.5 6.8 60-69th Percentile 7.75 6.2 50-59th Percentile 7 5.6 40-49th Percentile 6.25 5 30-39th Percentile 5.5 4.4 20-29th Percentile 0 0 10-19th Percentile 0 0 0-9th Percentile 0 0 Not Enough Data to Report 7 5.6

Example SHFFT Hospital Step 3 Sum Total Points Total Points = THA/TKA Complications Points + HCAHPS Points + THA/TKA PRO Points Total Points = 9.25 + 6.2 + 0 = 15.45 Step 4 Assign to a Category Based on Total Points Composite Score Category Quality Category Eligible for Reconciliation Payment Reconciliation Payment Discount Percentage Repayment Amount Discount Percentage Year 1 Years 2 & 3 Years 4 & 5 > 15.0 Excellent Yes 1.5% N/A 0.5% 1.5% > 6.9 and <15.0 Good Yes 2.0% N/A 1.0% 2.0% >5.0 and <6.9 Acceptable Yes 3.0% N/A 2.0% 3.0% <5.0 Below Acceptable No 3.0% N/A 2.0% 3.0%

Performance Periods: AMI, CABG, SHFFT

Performance Periods: CABG, AMI, SHFFT Bundles Performance period charts courtesy of HPA

Performance Periods: CABG, AMI, SHFFT Bundles, Cont. Voluntary measure performance periods

COTH Performance on AMI, CABG, and SHFFT Quality Metrics

COTH Performance on AMI Mortality Decile Distribution 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA Decile COTH All Hospitals Source: July 2016 Release of Hospital Compare. Reporting period: July 2012 June 2015. Based on hospitals that are located in a MSA eligible for cardiac bundled payments. Includes hospitals live with AMI episodes in BPCI.

COTH Performance on AMI Readmissions Decile Distribution 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA Decile COTH All Hospitals Source: July 2016 Release of Hospital Compare. Reporting period: July 2012 June 2015. Based on hospitals that are located in a MSA eligible for cardiac bundled payments. Includes hospitals live with AMI episodes in BPCI.

COTH Performance on CABG Mortality Decile Distribution 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA Decile COTH All Hospitals Source: July 2016 Release of Hospital Compare. Reporting period: July 2012 June 2015. Based on hospitals that are located in a MSA eligible for cardiac bundled payments. Includes hospitals live with CABG episodes in BPCI.

COTH Performance on HCAHPS Decile Distribution 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA Decile COTH All Hospitals Source: July 2016 Release of Hospital Compare. Reporting period: October 2014 September 2015. Based on hospitals that are located in a MSA eligible for cardiac bundled payments.

COTH Overall Performance on AMI and CABG Quality Measures Projected AMI Quality Rating Percent of COTH Members Percent of All Hospitals CABG Quality Rating Percent of COTH Members Percent of All Hospitals Quality Rating n=130 N=1,591 n=130 N=1,591 Below Acceptable 17% 10% 5% 5% Acceptable 11% 12% 7% 6% Good 54% 66% 68% 83% Excellent 18% 11% 20% 5%

COTH Performance on THA/TKA Complications Decile Distribution 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA Decile COTH All Hospitals Source: July 2016 Release of Hospital Compare. Reporting period: April 2012 March 2015. Based on hospitals that are in a MSA eligible for CJR. Includes hospitals live with major joint replacement episodes in BPCI.

COTH Performance on HCAHPS Decile Distribution 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA Decile COTH All Hospitals Source: July 2016 Release of Hospital Compare. Reporting period: October 2014 September 2015. Based on hospitals that are in a MSA eligible for CJR. Includes hospitals live with major joint replacement episodes in BPCI.

COTH Overall Performance on SHFFT and CJR Quality Measures Projected Percent of COTH Members Percent of All Hospitals Quality Rating n=74 n=779 Below Acceptable 15% 8% Acceptable 11% 13% Good 66% 66% Excellent 8% 13% Although COTH overall distribution in overall quality ratings are lower than other hospitals, only 15% of hospitals are projected to receive 0 points overall in CJR

Notes For more information on measure methodology, see: CMMI's Measure Descriptions QualityNet website HCAHPS description

Contact Matthew Baker, Research Analyst mbaker@aamc.org Scott Wetzel, Senior Specialist, Quality Reporting swetzel@aamc.org Jessica Walradt, Senior Payment Reform Specialist jwalradt@aamc.org