Comparison of Care in Hospital Outpatient Departments and Independent Physician Offices

Similar documents
Comparison of Care in Hospital Outpatient Departments and Physician Offices

Predicting 30-day Readmissions is THRILing

Supplementary Online Content

Innovating Predictive Analytics Strengthening Data and Transfer Information at Point of Care to Improve Care Coordination

domains of disorders 1. Urgent/Emergent Care and challenge 2. HUMS hypothesis 3. High users, multiple systems, and multiple

2016 Medical Home Summit. Reducing Hospital. Innovative Model of Care

Appendix: Assessments from Coping with Cancer

Medical research in the UK is a success story!

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

Supplementary Online Content

Readmission Program. Objectives. Todays Inspiration 9/17/2018. Kristi Sidel MHA, BSN, RN Director of Quality Initiatives

Scottish Hospital Standardised Mortality Ratio (HSMR)

From Risk Scores to Impactability Scores:

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

Same Disease, Different Care: How Patient Health Coverage Drives Treatment Patterns in California. The analysis includes:

Saint Agnes Hospital. Pharmacist utilization of the LACE tool to prevent hospital readmissions. Program/Project Description, including Goals:

Quality of Care of Medicare- Medicaid Dual Eligibles with Diabetes. James X. Zhang, PhD, MS The University of Chicago

New pharmacy practice opportunity: Enhancement of the transitions of care process

O U T C O M E. record-based. measures HOSPITAL RE-ADMISSION RATES: APPROACH TO DIAGNOSIS-BASED MEASURES FULL REPORT

Admissions and Readmissions Related to Adverse Events, NMCPHC-EDC-TR

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

GP SERVICES COMMITTEE Complex Care INCENTIVES. Revised Society of General Practitioners

Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program

NQF-ENDORSED VOLUNTARY CONSENSUS STANDARD FOR HOSPITAL CARE. Measure Information Form

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

Troubleshooting Audio

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

Use of Health Information Technology to Reduce Health Risk

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

Neighborhoods, resources and capacity to improve

Appendix B: Formulae Used for Calculation of Hospital Performance Measures

Executive Summary MEDICARE FEE-FOR-SERVICE (FFS) HOSPITAL READMISSIONS: QUARTER 4 (Q4) 2012 Q STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Community Discharge and Rehospitalization Outcome Measures (Fiscal Year 2011)

Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting (IPFQR) Program: Follow-Up After Hospitalization for Mental Illness (FUH) Measure

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

Ambulatory-care-sensitive admission rates: A key metric in evaluating health plan medicalmanagement effectiveness

An Overview of NCQA Relative Resource Use Measures. Today s Agenda

ICRC Extended Study Hall Call Series: An Update on Using Medicare Data to Integrate Care for Medicare-Medicaid Enrollees

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

Case-mix Analysis Across Patient Populations and Boundaries: A Refined Classification System

Quality Based Impacts to Medicare Inpatient Payments

Center for State Health Policy

Total Cost of Care Technical Appendix April 2015

Integrated Health System

Preventable Readmissions

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

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

Record Linkages in Project Talent

Paying for Outcomes not Performance

Risk Adjusted Diagnosis Coding:

July Avalere Health T avalere.com An Inovalon Company F Connecticut Ave, NW Washington, DC 20036

INTERNATIONAL MEETING: HEALTH OF PERSONS WITH ID SPONSORED BY THE CDC AND AUCD

2017 Quality Reporting: Claims and Administrative Data-Based Quality Measures For Medicare Shared Savings Program and Next Generation ACO Model ACOs

Community Performance Report

Division C: Increasing Choice, Access, and Quality in Health Care for Americans TITLE XV: Provisions Relating to Medicare Part A

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

Reducing Readmissions: Potential Measurements

Inpatient Quality Reporting Program

Uniform Data System. The Functional Assessment Specialists. June 21, 2011

the role of HCCs in a value-based payment system

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

Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) Hospital Readmissions: Q Q1 2017

Clinical Documentation: Beyond The Financials Cheryll A. Rogers, RHIA, CDIP, CCDS, CCS Senior Inpatient Consultant 3M HIS Consulting Services

Dual Eligibles: Medicaid s Role in Filling Medicare s Gaps

Quality Based Impacts to Medicare Inpatient Payments

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

Understanding Medi-Cal s High-Cost Populations

Jumpstarting population health management

Special Needs Plan Model of Care Chinese Community Health Plan

THE ART OF DIAGNOSTIC CODING PART 1

Improving Service Delivery for Medicaid Clients Through Data Integration and Predictive Modeling

Hospital Strength INDEX Methodology

3M Health Information Systems. 3M Clinical Risk Groups: Measuring risk, managing care

Pulmonary and Critical Care Consensus Standards Endorsement Maintenance

Analyzing Readmissions Patterns: Assessment of the LACE Tool Impact

This is the Full Title of a Session

CER Module ACCESS TO CARE January 14, AM 12:30 PM

Payment Rule Summary. Medicare Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Prospective Payment System: Update Notice for Federal Fiscal Year 2013

National Provider Call: Hospital Value-Based Purchasing

California s Health Homes Program

HOSPITAL READMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIC PLANNING

Program Selection Criteria: Bariatric Surgery

STEUBEN COUNTY HEALTH PROFILE. Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency, 2017

Hospital Payments and Quality Initiatives

CASE REPORT FORM (CRF) Worksheets

SPECIAL NEEDS PLAN (SNP) MODEL OF CARE TRAINING 2015

Proposed Rule Summary. Medicare Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Prospective Payment System: Federal Fiscal Year 2015

Hospice Codes. Table 1 ALS Diagnosis. Table 2 Alzheimer s Disease and Related Disorder Diagnoses. Table 3 Heart Disease Diagnoses

The Number of People With Chronic Conditions Is Rapidly Increasing

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

Medicare and Medicaid Spending on Dual Eligible Beneficiaries

Managing Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions

HCT Coding & Documentation

CARING & CODING FOR MALNUTRITION

HHGM is Alive and Kicking: How Can You Prepare for What s Next?

Final Rule Summary. Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility Prospective Payment System Fiscal Year 2016

STATISTICAL BRIEF #9. Hospitalizations among Males, Highlights. Introduction. Findings. June 2006

DC Inpatient APR-DRG Payment for Acute Care Hospitals

Medicare Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Prospective Payment System

Transitions of Care from a Community Perspective

Transcription:

Comparison of Care in Hospital Outpatient Departments and Independent Physician Offices Prepared for: American Hospital Association September 25, 2018 Berna Demiralp, PhD Jing Xu, PhD Elizabeth Hamlett, BS Samuel Soltoff, BS, BS Lane Koenig, PhD answering today s health policy questions

Report Overview Study Background and Purpose Key Findings Overview of Study Approach Comparison of Patient Characteristics Conclusions Appendix: Data and Methodology 2

Comparison of Care in Hospital Outpatient Departments and Independent Physician Offices STUDY BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 3

Study Background and Purpose Patients may receive non-emergent medical care in an independent physician s office (IPO) or a hospital outpatient department (HOPD). Currently, Medicare pays different rates for the same service depending on the site of care. Congress is considering policy recommendations to reduce differential payments for services delivered in the two settings. 4

Study Background and Purpose Whether a payment differential is appropriate depends on differences between IPOs and HOPDs. It has been documented that HOPDs face greater regulatory requirements, 1 but less is known about the differences between the patients served in the two settings. This study aims to fill that gap by examining characteristics of Medicare patients seen in HOPDs and IPOs. 1. American Hospital Association (2014). Hospital Outpatient Department (HOPD) Costs Higher Than Physician Offices Due to Additional Capabilities, Regulations. 5

Research Question How do Medicare beneficiaries cared for in HOPDs and IPOs differ? Demographics and socioeconomic status Severity and medical complexity Prior healthcare utilization 6

Comparison of Care in Hospital Outpatient Departments and Independent Physician Offices KEY FINDINGS 7

Key Findings Compared to Medicare beneficiaries treated in IPOs, beneficiaries receiving care in HOPDs are more likely to be: Under 65 1 and Over 85 Non-white Dual eligible From lower-income areas Burdened with more severe chronic conditions Previously hospitalized Cared for in an emergency department and have higher Medicare spending prior to receiving ambulatory care 1. Medicare Beneficiaries under 65 are individuals with certain disabilities, end-stage renal disease, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). (https://www.cms.gov/medicare/eligibility-and-enrollment/origmedicarepartabeligenrol/index.html) 8

Comparison of Care in Hospital Outpatient Departments and Independent Physician Offices OVERVIEW OF STUDY APPROACH 9

Study Overview Data Source: 2010-2016 Medicare Inpatient, Outpatient, and Carrier Standard Analytical Files and Denominator files. Identifying HOPD and IPO Patients: A patient is considered an HOPD (IPO) patient in a given year if more than 50% of ambulatory care in that year is provided in HOPDs (IPOs). Study Question Characteristics Level of Analysis How do Medicare patients cared for in HOPDs and IPOs differ? Demographics Socioeconomic Status Clinical Characteristics Prior Healthcare Utilization Patient Level Claim Level 10

Comparison of Care in Hospital Outpatient Departments and Independent Physician Offices HOW DO MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES CARED FOR IN HOPDS AND IPOS DIFFER? 11

Relative to beneficiaries seen in IPOs, beneficiaries seen in HOPDs are 12

1.6x More Likely to be Under 65 1 (25.3%/15.5%) and 1.1x More Likely to be 85+ (13.1%/11.5%) Beneficiary Age Composition Source: KNG Health Consulting, LLC analysis of 2010-2016 Medicare claims data. 1. Medicare Beneficiaries under 65 are individuals with certain disabilities, end-stage renal disease, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). (https://www.cms.gov/medicare/eligibility-and-enrollment/origmedicarepartabeligenrol/index.html) 13

1.4x More Likely to be Non-White (19.8%/14.5%) Beneficiary Racial/Ethnic Composition 19.8% 14.5% Source: KNG Health Consulting, LLC analysis of 2010-2016 Medicare claims data. 14

1.8x More Likely to be Dual Eligible (30.3%/17.2%) Percentage of Beneficiaries That Are on Medicare and Medicaid Source: KNG Health Consulting, LLC analysis of 2010-2016 Medicare claims data. 15

On Average, From Lower Income Areas Median Household Income in Beneficiary s County* *2016 USD Source: KNG Health Consulting, LLC analysis of 2010-2016 Medicare claims data. 16

Severity and Complexity Measures We measured patient severity and complexity using three types of indicators: Charlson Comorbidity Index, number of complications/ comorbidities (CCs) and major CCs (MCCs), and prior utilization of care. The Charlson Comorbidity Index is a measure of patient severity computed by assigning higher weights to more severe conditions in terms of their effect on mortality. The Charlson Comorbidity Index includes 17 medical conditions that are found to be associated with 1-year mortality. A weight of 1 to 6 is assigned to each condition based on mortality risk, and weights are added across conditions to calculate total score. 1, 2 The score is predictive of mortality, with 1-year and 10-year mortality rates greater than 50% for those with scores above 2. 1, 3 Prior utilization of care captures short term acute care hospital stays and emergency department visits in the 90 days preceding a HOPD or IPO visit. 1 Charlson, M. E., Pompei, P., Ales, K. L., & MacKenzie, C. R. (1987). A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 40(5), 373-383. 2 Quan, H., Sundararajan, V., Halfon, P. et al. (2005). Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005 Nov;43(11):1130-9. 3 Hall, W. H., Ramachandran, R., Narayan, S., Jani, A. B., & Vijayakumar, S. (2004). An electronic application for rapidly calculating Charlson comorbidity score. BMC Cancer, 4(1), 94. 17

Medicare Beneficiaries Seen in HOPDs Are Sicker The severity of chronic conditions as measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Score is higher for beneficiaries seen in HOPDs. A greater percentage of HOPD patients have CCs and MCCs. Indicator HOPD IPO Average Charlson Comorbidity Score 2.52 1.89 % with at least one CC 57% 46% % with at least one MCC 23% 13% Medical conditions captured in Charlson Score: myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disorders, cerebrovascular disease, dementia, chronic pulmonary disease, rheumatic disease, peptic ulcer disease, mild liver disease, diabetes without chronic complication, diabetes with chronic complication, hemiplegia or paraplegia, renal disease, any malignancy (including lymphoma and leukemia, except malignant neoplasm of skin), moderate or severe liver disease, metastatic solid tumor, AIDS/HIV. Source: KNG Health Consulting, LLC analysis of 2010-2016 Medicare claims data. 18

Medicare Beneficiaries Seen in HOPDs Have Higher Prior Emergency Department Use Emergency Department Utilization 90 Days Prior to Visit by Setting Emergency Department (ED) Use Prior to Visit HOPD IPO Percent of HOPD/IPO Visits with a Prior ED Visit 28% 17% Mean Number of ED Visits 0.48 0.24 Mean Number of ED Visits (Conditional on Having At.Least 1 ED Visit) 1.72 1.43 Source: KNG Health Consulting, LLC analysis of 2010-2016 Medicare claims data. 19

Medicare Beneficiaries Seen in HOPDs Have Higher Prior Acute Care Hospital Use Short Term Acute Care Hospital Utilization 90 Days Prior to Visit by Setting Short-Term Acute Care Hospital (STCH) Use Prior to Visit HOPD IPO Percent of HOPD/IPO Visits with a Prior STCH Stay 17% 9% Mean Number of STCH Stays 0.23 0.11 Mean Number of STCH Stays (Conditional on Having At Least 1 STCH.Stay) 1.38 1.21 Total STCH Days (Conditional on Having At Least 1 STCH Stay) 7.37 5.20 Total STCH payments (Conditional on Having At Least 1 STCH.Stay) $20,108 $14,686 Source: KNG Health Consulting, LLC analysis of 2010-2016 Medicare claims data. * 2017 USD 20

Comparison of Care in Hospital Outpatient Departments and Independent Physician Offices CONCLUSIONS 21

Conclusions Our findings suggest key differences between Medicare beneficiaries treated in HOPDs and IPOs. Medicare beneficiaries primarily treated in HOPDs as compared to IPOs are more likely to be under 65 1 and over 85. be non-white and dual eligible. come from communities with lower income. have more severe chronic conditions and higher prior utilization of hospitals and emergency departments. 1. Medicare Beneficiaries under 65 are individuals with certain disabilities, end-stage renal disease, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). (https://www.cms.gov/medicare/eligibility-and-enrollment/origmedicarepartabeligenrol/index.html) 22

Conclusions Patients of higher complexity may require a greater level of care than patients of lower complexity. To the extent that these differences result in variations in the cost of care, site neutral payments may have adverse effects on patient access to care. 23

Comparison of Care in Hospital Outpatient Departments and Independent Physician Offices APPENDIX: DATA AND METHODOLOGY 24

Data and Study Population 2010-2016 Standard Analytical File of 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries. Claims include: Inpatient Outpatient Professional services (Carrier file) The patient population consists of Medicare beneficiaries who fulfill the following criteria: Had at least one HOPD or IPO visit between Jan. 1, 2011 and Dec. 31 2016. Had continuous enrollment in Medicare FFS Part A and Part B in a given year and three months prior to the year. 25

Identification of HOPD and IPO Patients HOPD visits are identified using: Outpatient claims, excluding non-hospital claims, emergency department visit claims, and observation stay claims Carrier claims with place of service code of 22=Outpatient Hospital or 19=Off-campus Outpatient Hospital IPO visits are identified using: Carrier claims with place of service code of 11=Office Identification of HOPD and IPO patient populations: A patient is considered an HOPD (IPO) patient in a given year if more than 50% of care in that year is provided in HOPDs (IPOs). Only HOPD claims for HOPD patients and IPO claims for IPO patients are included in the analysis. 26

Methodology: Descriptive Analysis Demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical characteristics were examined at the beneficiary level. Demographic characteristics: Obtained from the Medicare Denominator File. Socioeconomic characteristics of beneficiary s county of residence: U.S. Census estimates of county-level characteristics based on 2012-2016 American Community Survey are used. Clinical characteristics: Charlson comorbidity index and number of CCs and MCCs are measured using diagnostic information from all inpatient, outpatient, and carrier claims that a patient had in a given year. 27

Methodology: Descriptive Analysis Prior utilization was examined at the visit level. Prior utilization within 90 days prior to HOPD or IPO visit Emergency Department utilization: Emergency Department use is identified by revenue center codes 0450-0459, and 0981 in outpatient and inpatient claims files. Short-term acute care hospital utilization 28

Methodology: Statistical Analysis Differences between HOPDs and IPOs in terms of patient characteristics: T-tests were conducted to assess differences in average characteristics between the two settings using data from all years (2011-2016) All differences between HOPDs and IPOs presented in this report are statistically significant at the 0.1% level. 29