Managed Long-Term Care Quality Incentive Workgroup. April 7, 2016

Similar documents
Important Numbers. If you have a problem with your health plan, call:

Leading Age NY CFO Council Managed Care Update

Medical Practitioner Training Manual

Very large per-capita Medicaid population.

Vision for Medicaid. Strategies: After the Managed Care Contract is Signed AGENDA. Managed Care - MLTC 5/5/2015

MANAGED LONG-TERM CARE: ISSUES IN 2016

What is Managed Care and DSRIP?

Managed Care Transitions

Legal & Policy Developments Impacting Long Term Care

Managed Care Information for CDPAP Consumers

Fully Integrated Duals Advantage (FIDA) Provider Outreach and Education Event September 30, 2015

Importance of Sepsis Care in the Context of NY State's Value Based Payment initiative

Accessing Transportation for Medicaid Recipients

Quality Outcomes and Data Collection

Review of Critical Managed Care Contracting, Transition, and Operating Issues

New York State Department of Health 2016 Nursing Home Quality Initiative Methodology

Avoiding the Fate of the Scorpion and the Frog

Index. Index... Page 1. Welcome Letter... Page 2. Insurance Directory... Page 3. Timely Filing Requirements for Initial Claim Submission...

Leveraging Your Facility s 5 Star Analysis to Improve Quality

How to Safely Navigate the River of Cash

Medicare Value Based Purchasing Overview

OASIS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT REPORTS

California Community Health Centers

MEASURING POST ACUTE CARE OUTCOMES IN SNFS. David Gifford MD MPH American Health Care Association Atlantic City, NJ Mar 17 th, 2015

Oregon Health Authority Key Performance Measures Biennium

Medicare Value Based Purchasing Overview

Special Issues in the Assisted Living Program

Prepared for North Gunther Hospital Medicare ID August 06, 2012

New York s Statewide Pressure Ulcer Improvement Initiative

SUMMARY OF THE MEDICARE END-STAGE RENAL DISESASE PY 2014 AND PY 2015 QUALITY INCENTIVE PROGRAM PROPOSED RULE

New York State Medicaid Value Based Payment: Data Driven Strategies. Bundled Payment Summit June 27, 2017

Managed Long Term Care Overview. Randall Klein, EVP Managed Care NYAHSA May 10th, 2011 New Hyde Park, NY

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

LSSCC Action Period 1: Composite Score Reports June 25, 2015

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

A New World: Medicaid Managed Care

Incentives and Penalties

Infection Monitoring: National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Bloodstream Infection in Hemodialysis Patients Clinical Measure

kaiser medicaid and the uninsured commission on O L I C Y

MIPS Scoring: Explanation and Estimation 2/7/2017 and 2/10/2017

HMO Value & Quality Roadmap for Wisconsin Medicaid. Rachel Currans-Henry Director Medicaid Bureau of Benefits Management August 8, 2017

The Medicaid Home Care Application Process:

2015 Executive Overview

State of the State: Hospital Performance in Pennsylvania October 2015

DETAIL SPECIFICATION. Description. Numerator. Denominator. Exclusions. Minimum Data Reported to NHSN

Understanding Patient Choice Insights Patient Choice Insights Network

Chad Shearer, JD, MHA, Vice President for Policy, Medicaid Institute Director Misha Sharp, Research Analyst February 28, 2018

Figure 1. Massachusetts Statewide Aggregate Hospital Acquired Infection Data Summary. Infection Rate* Denominator Count*

Journal of Business Case Studies November, 2008 Volume 4, Number 11

Medicare Cost Reporting and PPS FFY 2015 Proposed Rule Why it Still Matters. Glenn Grigsby, CPA OACHC 2014 Annual Spring Conference March 11, 2014

Table of Contents. Overview. Demographics Section One

Hospital Quality Program

Facility State National

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

Required Public Disclosure for the Pioneer ACO Participation Waiver BRONX ACCOUNTABLE HEALTHCARE NETWORK IPA, INC. DBA MONTEFIORE ACO IPA

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

ASA Survey Results for Commercial Fees Paid for Anesthesia Services payment and practice management

3. What does Any Willing Provider (AWP) refer to in the context of MLTSS?

New York State Department of Health Innovation Initiatives

OASIS-B1 and OASIS-C Items Unchanged, Items Modified, Items Dropped, and New Items Added.

California Pay for Performance: A Case Study with First Year Results. Tom Williams Integrated Healthcare Association (IHA) March 17, 2005

Quality Measures and the Five-Star Rating

2018 Hospital Pay For Performance (P4P) Program Guide. Contact:

Welcome and thank you for viewing What s your number? Understanding the Long- Stay Urinary Tract Infection Quality Measure. This presentation is one

Hospital Discharge Data, 2005 From The University of Memphis Methodist Le Bonheur Center for Healthcare Economics

Money and Members: Pay for Performance in a Medicaid Program

Quality Improvement Program Evaluation

Increase Your Bottom Line by Eliminating Physician Driven Denials. Olakunle Olaniyan MD President Case Management Covenants

Hospital Compare Preview Report Help Guide

and HEDIS Measures

STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE

Benchmark Data Sources

Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program

Supplementary Online Content

Fiscal Year 2014 Final Rule: Updates for LTCHs

ACAP Medicare-Medicaid Plans and the Financial Alignment Demonstrations: Innovations and Lessons

AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER WEB-BASED MEASURES: CY 2017 PAYMENT DETERMINATION GUIDELINES

Long-Term Services and Supports Study Committee: Person-Centered Medicaid Managed Care

SCORING METHODOLOGY APRIL 2014

Putting the Pieces Together: Medicaid Redesign and Long Term Care

Improving Quality Care and Health Outcomes

Nursing Home Compare Five-Star Ratings of Nursing Homes Provider Rating Report

Understanding HSCRC Quality Programs and Methodology Updates

HAI Learning and Action Network February 11, 2015 Monthly Call. Overview of HAI LAN

Value based Purchasing Legislation, Methodology, and Challenges

Reducing Readmissions: Potential Measurements

HSAG the QIN-QIO NHQCC II and CDI Initiative Kick-off

Indiana Hospital Assessment Fee -- DRAFT

Additional Considerations for SQRMS 2018 Measure Recommendations

QUALITY INCENTIVE POINTS OHIO. Mandy Smith Regulatory Director Ohio Health Care Association

Mandatory Medicaid Managed Long Term Care (MMLTC): An Overview of Changes Expected. January 2014

NYSHFA ADVANCED TRAINING INITIATIVE & July 30, 2015

THE IMPACT OF MS-DRGs ON THE ACUTE HEALTHCARE PROVIDER. Dynamics and reform of the Diagnostic Related Grouping (DRG) System

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS HOSPITAL & HEALTH SCIENCES SYSTEM HOSPITAL DASHBOARD

Anthem BlueCross and BlueShield HMO

London CCG Neurology Profile

30 E. 33rd Street New York, NY Tel Fax

Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program

HAI Learning and Action Network January 8, 2015 Monthly Call

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Meaningful Use and the Impact on Netsmart s Behavioral Health Clients

Transcription:

Managed Long-Term Care Quality Incentive Workgroup April 7, 2016

MLTC QI Workgroup Charge 2 The charge of MLTC Quality Incentive Workgroup is to advise the Department of Health on using measures of quality, satisfaction, compliance, and efficiency to create a total quality score. The total quality score will be the basis for payment distribution for the MLTC Quality Incentive.

2015 MLTC QI Scoring Methodology 3 Evolved over time Add/alter measures, drop measures that approach 100% Four components Quality: Ten measures, 50 points, percentile rank Satisfaction: Six measures, 30 points, significance test Compliance: Four measures, 10 points, yes/no Efficiency: One measure, 10 points, significance test Documentation Distributed to all MLTC plans in August 2015

2015 MLTC QI Handling Small Sample Size Measures with <30 members in the denominator Small Sample Size (SS) Results suppressed Some plans did not exist at the time of the satisfaction survey Not Surveyed (NS) Reduce base points where there are SS or NS results Example Total possible base points = 100 Total possible satisfaction points = 30; 30/6=5 points per measure Reduced base for plans all NS satisfaction results =70 Reduced base for plans 1 SS satisfaction result =95 4

5 2015 MLTC QI Overall Results Distributed to all plans Content Award Tier Plan Name Quality Points Satisfaction Points Compliance Points Efficiency Points Total Points Base Points Ranking Percent Award Tier Quality Points (50 points possible) Satisfaction Points (30 points possible) Compliance Points (10 points possible) Efficiency Points (10 points possible) Ranking Percent (up to 100%) Total Base Plan Name Points Points 3 Catholic Health LIFE 28.8 22.5 10.0 10.0 71.3 100.0 71.3 3 ElderServe dba RiverSpring 32.5 17.5 10.0 10.0 70.0 100.0 70.0 3 Extended MLTC 40.0 7.5 7.5 5.0 60.0 90.0 66.7 3 Empire BC/BS HealthPlus 25.0 22.5 10.0 5.0 62.5 100.0 62.5 3 GuildNet Medicaid Advantage Plus 27.5 22.5 7.5 5.0 62.5 100.0 62.5 3 WellCare Advocate Partial 26.3 17.5 10.0 5.0 58.8 100.0 58.8 3 Fallon Health Weinberg 25.0 SS 7.5 5.0 37.5 65.0 57.7 3 ArchCare Senior Life 27.5 15.0 10.0 5.0 57.5 100.0 57.5 3 PACE CNY 27.5 15.0 10.0 5.0 57.5 100.0 57.5 3 AlphaCare of New York 28.8 12.5 10.0 5.0 56.3 100.0 56.3 3 North Shore LIJ Health Plan 18.8 22.5 10.0 5.0 56.3 100.0 56.3 3 Montefiore MLTC 23.8 SS 10.0 5.0 38.8 70.0 55.4 2 Complete Senior Care 26.3 0.0 10.0 5.0 41.3 75.0 55.0 2 Elderplan 22.5 17.5 10.0 5.0 55.0 100.0 55.0 2 GuildNet 22.5 17.5 10.0 5.0 55.0 100.0 55.0 2 MHI Healthfirst Complete Care 21.3 17.5 10.0 5.0 53.8 100.0 53.8 2 CenterLight PACE 16.3 15.0 10.0 10.0 51.3 100.0 51.3 2 Senior Health Partners 23.8 12.5 10.0 5.0 51.3 100.0 51.3 2 Senior Network Health 13.8 27.5 10.0 0.0 51.3 100.0 51.3 2 Aetna Better Health 13.8 15.0 10.0 10.0 48.8 100.0 48.8 2 AgeWell New York 16.3 12.5 10.0 10.0 48.8 100.0 48.8 2 ElderOne 21.3 15.0 7.5 5.0 48.8 100.0 48.8 2 Fidelis Medicaid Advantage Plus 16.3 10.0 10.0 5.0 41.3 85.0 48.5 2 EverCare Choice 21.3 15.0 10.0 0.0 46.3 100.0 46.3 2 Independence Care System 21.3 15.0 10.0 0.0 46.3 100.0 46.3 1 VNS Choice Plus MAP 7.5 22.5 10.0 5.0 45.0 100.0 45.0 1 Kalos Health 16.3 SS 7.5 5.0 28.8 65.0 44.2 1 MetroPlus MLTC 15.0 15.0 7.5 5.0 42.5 100.0 42.5 1 VillageCareMAX 12.5 15.0 10.0 5.0 42.5 100.0 42.5 1 Elderplan dba Homefirst 16.3 15.0 10.0 0.0 41.3 100.0 41.3 1 VNS Choice Partial 13.8 17.5 10.0 0.0 41.3 100.0 41.3 1 Total Senior Care 11.3 SS 10.0 5.0 26.3 65.0 40.4 0 ArchCare Community Life 10.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 40.0 100.0 40.0 0 Centers Plan for Healthy Living 7.5 15.0 7.5 10.0 40.0 100.0 40.0 0 Senior Whole Health Partial 5.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 40.0 100.0 40.0 0 Integra MLTC 0.0 17.5 10.0 10.0 37.5 100.0 37.5 0 CenterLight Select 8.8 7.5 10.0 10.0 36.3 100.0 36.3 0 Fidelis Care at Home 5.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 35.0 100.0 35.0 0 Hamaspik Choice 12.5 SS 10.0 0.0 22.5 65.0 34.6 0 United Health Personal Assist 0.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 30.0 100.0 30.0 0 VNA Homecare Options 7.5 15.0 7.5 0.0 30.0 100.0 30.0 0 Health Insurance Plan 3.8 10.0 10.0 5.0 28.8 100.0 28.8 0 HIP MLTC 2.5 15.0 10.0 0.0 27.5 100.0 27.5 0 Eddy Senior Care 2.5 SS 10.0 5.0 17.5 65.0 26.9

2015 MLTC QI Plan Level Results Distributed to the plan Content Measure Name o o Five sections Value o o Points o o Quality Component Satisfaction Component Compliance Component Efficiency Component Scoring Lists each measure and section totals Rate, Yes/No SS, NS Earned for each measure, each component, overall, base, ranking percent Example plan base is 70 of 100 points. Measure name Value Points 1. Quality Component Risk adjusted percentage of members who did not have an emergency room visit in the last 90 days 92 3.8 Risk adjusted percentage of members who did not have falls that required medical intervention in the last 90 days 96 5.0 Risk adjusted percentage of members who did not experience uncontrolled pain 85 3.8 Risk adjusted percentage of members who were not lonely and distressed 95 5.0 Percentage of members who received an influenza vaccination in the last year 79 2.5 Percentage of members who responded that a health plan representative talked to them about appointing 81 5.0 someone to make decisions about their health if they are unable to do so Risk adjusted percentage of members who remained stable or demonstrated improvement in pain intensity 85 2.5 Risk adjusted percentage of members who remained stable or demonstrated improvement in Nursing Facility 94 5.0 Level of Care (NFLOC) score Risk adjusted percentage of members who remained stable or demonstrated improvement in urinary continence 73 0.0 Risk adjusted percentage of members who remained stable or demonstrated improvement in shortness of breath 94 5.0 Quality subtotal 37.6 2. Satisfaction Component Risk adjusted percentage of members who rated their managed long term care plan as good or excellent NS Risk adjusted percentage of members who responded that they were usually or always involved in making NS decisions about their plan of care Risk adjusted percentage of members who rated the helpfulness of the plan in assisting them and their family to NS manage their illnesses as good or excellent Risk adjusted percentage of members who reported that within the last 6 months the home health aide/personal NS care aide/personal assistant services were always or usually on time Risk adjusted percentage of members who rated the helpfulness of the plan in assisting them and their family to NS manage their illnesses as good or excellent Risk adjusted percentage of members who rated the quality of care manager/case manager services within the NS last 6 months as good or excellent Risk adjusted percentage of members who rated the quality of home health aide/personal care aide/personal NS assistant services within the last 6 months as good or excellent Satisfaction subtotal SS 3. Compliance Component No statement of deficiency for failure to submit Provider Network data during the measurement year 2014 Yes 2.5 No statement of deficiency for timeliness or completeness of MEDS III submission for measurement year 2014 No 0 No statement of deficiency for timeliness or completeness of MMCOR submission for measurement year 2014 No 0 MEDS vs. MMCOR ratios of at least 75% encounter data gross dollars must represent at least 75% of MMCOR Yes 2.5 reported medical expense for measurement year 2014 Compliance subtotal 5 4. Efficiency Component Potentially Avoidable Hospitalization 3.80 5 Efficiency subtotal 5 5. Scoring Total points 47.6 Base points 70.0 Ranking percent (up to 100%) 68.0 6

2015 MLTC QI Results Summary Overall Results Category Points Range Plan Type N Award Tier 3 % Award Tier 2 % Award Tier 1 % 7 Award Tier 0 % Overall Award Tier 3 Award Tier 2 Award Tier 1 Award Tier 0 Quality 0.0-40.0 18.8-40.0 13.8 26.3 7.5 16.3 0.0-12.5 Satisfaction 0.0-27.5 7.5 22.5 0.0-27.5 15.0-22.5 7.5-17.5 Compliance 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 7.5-10.0 Efficiency 0.0-10.0 5.0-10.0 0.0-10.0 0.0-5.0 0.0-10.0 Total points 17.5-71.3 37.5-71.3 41.3 55.0 26.3 45.0 17.5-40.0 Partial 30 26.6 23.3 16.7 33.3 MAP 6 16.7 50.0 16.7 16.7 PACE 8 37.5 37.5 12.5 12.5 Total 44 27.3 29.5 15.9 27.3 4 plans excluded base points less than 50 Base points 65.0-100 65.0-100 75.0-100 65.0-100 65.0-100 Percentile Rank 26.9-71.3 55.4-71.3 46.3 55.0 40.4 45.5 26.9-40.0

2015 MLTC QI Payment 8 2015 dollar amount $110 million for PACE, MAP and Partial Capitation plans Payment structure Lump sum Not part of capitation Payment related questions can be directed to mltcrs@health.ny.gov

2015 MLTC Over-Time Measure Questions 9 1. Do plans differ on the number of months between assessments? 2. As the number of months between assessments increases, is there a temporal trend of decrease in rate? 3. Do plans with higher average number of months between assessments have lower rates of stability/improvement?

Months Between Assessments Evaluation Months between assessments Average SD Minimum Maximum 10.8 2.3 6.6 11.7 A member must have 6 to 13 months of continuous enrollment in the same plan between assessments to be considered for over-time measures. The statewide average months between assessments is 10.8 for 2015 over-time measures. Ninety-three percent of MLTC plans fall within one standard deviation of the statewide average months between assessments. 10

Temporal Trend Evaluation Plan specific risk-adjusted rates for each time interval between assessments were calculated. (blue circles) The means of the plan riskadjusted rates (red dashed line) show lower rates for assessments not conducted at the routine 6 month interval. This may be due to change in status assessments. Plan Specific Risk Adjusted Rate Nursing Facility Level of Care Score (NFLOC) 11 Rate of stability/improvement decreases as the number of months between assessments increases. (solid gray line) Temporal trend exists. Expected in this population. Months Between Assessments O = Plan risk-adjusted rate = Calculated slope ---= Mean of the plan risk-adjusted rates

Higher Average Number of Months Evaluation Nursing Facility Level of Care Score (NFLOC) 12 Plan change scores (blue circles) were calculated as: plan risk-adjusted rate (12 month between assessments) minus plan risk-adjusted rate (6 month between assessments). A negative change score means the rate for the 12 month group was lower than the rate for the 6 month group Change score was not significantly associated with average number of months between assessments. (solid gray line) For all over-time measures used in the 2015 Quality Incentive p > 0.05. Plan Change Score Plan A Average 8.1 months between assessments, change score = 12.7 Plan B Average 11.4 months between assessments, change score = 13.5 Plan average months between assessments

2015 MLTC Over-Time Measure Summary 1. There is little difference among plans in the average number of months between assessments. 2. As expected, the rate of stability/improvement decreases as the number of months between assessments increases. 3. However, this decline was similar across plans and plans with more time between assessments were not more likely to have lower rates of stability/improvement. 4. We will continue to evaluate this relationship in the future. 13

2016 MLTC QI Methodology 14 Similar to 2015 methodology Four sections Quality Component Satisfaction Component Compliance Component Efficiency Component Handling of SS and NS results unchanged Distribute Overall summary document Plan specific documents Methodology document

2016 Proposed Quality Measures (1) 15 1. Risk adjusted percentage of members who did not have an emergency room visit in the last 90 days 2. Risk adjusted percentage of members who did not have falls that required medical intervention in the last 90 days 3. Risk adjusted percentage of members who did not experience uncontrolled pain 4. Risk adjusted percentage of members who were not lonely and distressed 5. Percentage of members who received an influenza vaccination in the last year 6. Percentage of members who responded that a health plan representative talked to them about appointing someone to make decisions about their health if they are unable to do so

2016 Proposed Quality Measures (2) 16 7. Risk adjusted percentage of members who remained stable or demonstrated improvement in pain intensity 8. Risk adjusted percentage of members who remained stable or demonstrated improvement in Nursing Facility Level of Care (NFLOC) score 9. Risk adjusted percentage of members who remained stable or demonstrated improvement in urinary continence 10. Risk adjusted percentage of members who remained stable or demonstrated improvement in shortness of breath

2016 Proposed Satisfaction Measures 1. Risk-adjusted percentage of members who rated their managed long-term care plan as good or excellent 2. Risk-adjusted percentage of members who responded that they are usually or always involved in making decisions about their plan of care 3. Risk-adjusted percentage of members who reported that within the last six months the home health aide/personal care aide/personal assistant services were usually or always on time 4. Risk-adjusted percentage of members who rated the helpfulness of the plan in assisting them and their family to manage their illnesses as good or excellent 5. Risk-adjusted percentage of members who rated the quality of care manager/case manager services within the last six months as good or excellent 6. Risk-adjusted percentage of members who rated the quality of home health aide/personal care aide/personal assistant services within the last six months as good or excellent 17

2016 Proposed Compliance Measures 18 1. No statement of deficiency for failure to submit Provider Network data during the measurement year 2015 2. No statement of deficiency for timeliness or completeness of MEDS III submission for measurement year 2015 3. No statement of deficiency for timeliness or completeness of MMCOR submission for measurement year 2015 4. MEDS vs. MMCOR ratios of at least 75%-encounter data gross dollars must represent at least 75% of MMCOR reported medical expense for measurement year 2015 5. No statement of deficiency for incompleteness of UAS assessments for January through June 2016.

2016 New Measure Percent Incomplete UAS Assessments Proposed new compliance measure for 2016 Definition No statement of deficiency for incompleteness of UAS assessments for January through June 2016. Numerator The number of members meeting the denominator criteria without a finalized UAS assessment in the same six month time frame. Denominator The number of members for which six capitation payments were received in the six month time frame. Benchmark, January through June 2015 19 Statewide Numerator Statewide Denominator Statewide Percent Plan Percent Range Plans above Statewide 8,460 124,904 6.77 0.00 46.1 22

20 New Measure Importance & Implementation Importance Accurate reflection membership in MLTC measures Accurate risk-adjustment of measures and payment rates Timely modification to plan of care Six month assessment interval is a programmatic requirement Implementation will provide an opportunity for plans to work on this measure before it is included in the 2016 MLTC Quality Incentive. Implementation In April 2016, plans will receive an email about the Incompleteness of the UAS measure. The email will ask plans to provide a contact person for this measure. The contact person will be sent reports for two time periods, January through June 2015 and July through December 2015, via the HCS. The report will contain statewide and plan specific results, including a list of member IDs that are in the plan s numerator.

2016 Proposed Efficiency Measure 1. Potentially Avoidable Hospitalizations (PAH) A hospitalization was considered potentially avoidable if any one of the following conditions was the admitting diagnosis. o o o o o o Heart failure Respiratory infection Electrolyte imbalance Sepsis Anemia Urinary tract infection Rate is the total number of PAH events divided by the total number of days members are enrolled in the MLTC plan. 21

2016 MLTC QI Anticipated Changes 22 Based on benchmarks, replace or drop measures that approach 100% Addition of one compliance measure.

2016 MLTC QI Measures and Benchmarks 23 January-June 2015 MLTC data is available on Health Data NY (https://health.data.ny.gov/) July-December 2015 MLTC data will soon be available on Health Data NY Measures (handout) Benchmarks January through June 2015 (handout) Crude statewide rates Plan ranges

2016 MLTC QI Proposed Time Frames 24 Data Quality Measures -January through June 2016 UAS Satisfaction Measures -2015 survey Compliance Measures -2015 MEDS III, MMCOR, Provider network, January through June 2016 UAS and Medicaid capitation payments Efficiency Measure -April through December 2015 for UAS and July through December 2015 for SPARCS Releases Methodology document -April, 2016 Report feedback -Oct. to Nov. 2016 Quality Incentive finalized -Nov. to Dec. 2016

Questions and Comments 25