VBP

You are currently browsing articles tagged VBP.

Do Disease Management and Value-Based Purchasing Programs Work?

February 15, 2012 in Medicare, P4P | 1 comment

In short, the answer is no. The CBO released an issue brief examining two types of demonstrations.

  • Disease management and care coordination demonstrations have sought to improve the quality of care of beneficiaries with chronic illnesses and those whose health care is expected to be particularly costly.
  • Value-based payment demonstrations have given health care providers financial incentives to improve the quality and efficiency of care rather than payments based strictly on the volume and intensity of services delivered.

“The evaluations show that most programs have not reduced Medicare spending: In nearly every program involving disease management and care coordination, spending was either unchanged or increased relative to the spending that would have occurred in the absence of the program, when the fees paid to the participating organizations were considered. Programs in which care managers had substantial direct interaction with physicians and significant in-person interaction with patients were more likely to reduce Medicare spending than other programs, but on average even those programs did not achieve enough savings to offset their fees.”

Today, the healthcare economist looks at these programs in more detail.

Disease Management Demonstrations

These demonstrations were made up of 34 programs operated by disease management companies. “The programs used nurses as care managers to educate patients about their chronic illnesses, encourage them to follow self-care regimens, monitor their health, and track whether they received recommended tests and treatments. In most programs, the care managers were not integrated into physicians’ practices, and their contact with patients was primarily by telephone.”

These programs targeted Medicare beneficiaries with specific chronic diseases. Most programs were not tailored to focus on chronically ill beneficiaries who were expected to have the highest cost of care. The results are displayed in the chart:

test

CBO found that the lack of integration into the physician practice and the lack of physical presence made most of these disease management programs not useful.

Value-Based Purchasing Demonstrations

The list below describes the four major VBP demonstration programs and their findings.

  • Physician Group Practice (PGP) Demonstration. 10 large practices were permitted to keep some of the estimated savings if they reduced total Medicare spending for their patients. In the second year of the demonstration, average Medicare spending excluding the bonuses paid to physician groups was about 1 percent below projections; with bonuses included, average
    Medicare spending was just 0.1 percent below projections—about $7 per beneficiary. Results for years 3 and 4 of the PGP demonstration are currently being analyzed.
  • Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration. 278 hospitals were offered bonuses if their scores on quality-of-care measures were in the top tier of participating hospitals.  This demonstration had no net effect on Medicare spending.
  • Home Health Pay-for-Performance Demonstration. This demonstration allowed 273 home health agencies to keep some of the estimated savings if they reduced total Medicare spending for their patients and met certain criteria regarding quality of care.  Initial results indicate that this demonstration had no net effect on Medicare spending.
  • Medicare Participating Heart Bypass Center Demonstration. Medicare made bundled payments to cover all inpatient hospital and physicians’ services for coronary artery bypass graft surgeries conducted at seven participating hospitals. Bundled payments reduced Medicare’s expenditures for heart bypass surgeries by about 10 percent, and there were no apparent
    adverse effects on patients’ outcomes.

Whereas the first three VBP programs aimed to give providers bonuses for reducing cost and increasing quality, the Heart Bypass Center demonstration relied on bundled payments to align the financial incentives offered to hospitals and physicians. The bundled payments reduced cost without decreasing quality. Of course, measuring quality is difficult and it is possible that the Bypass demonstration did not fully capture all important aspects of quality. Nevertheless, these initial results indicate that bundling may be a more promising cost-saving mechanism than provider bonuses.

Tags: , , , , ,

Medicare reducing reimbursement for low-quality docs

January 16, 2012 in Medicare, P4P, Physician Compensation | 4 comments

In 2015, Medicare will begin implementing a value-based purchasing (VPB) program for physicians.  Initially the program will target only certain physicians and groups of physicians, but by 2017 all physicians is participate in this program.

The VBP program will evaluate physicians along two broad dimensions: quality and cost.  In the final rule:

Section 1848(p) of the Act requires the Secretary to ‘‘establish a payment modifier that provides for differential payment to a physician or a group of physicians’’ under the physician fee schedule ‘‘based upon the quality of care furnished compared to cost *** during a performance period.’’ The provision requires that ‘‘such payment modifier be separate from the geographic adjustment factors’’ established for the physician fee schedule. In addition, section 1848(p)(4)(C) of the Act requires that the value modifier be implemented in a budget-neutral manner.

 

Quality

The current quality measures to be used include:

  1. The measures in the core set of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS);
  2. All measures in the Group Practice Reporting Option (GPRO) of the Physician Quality Reporting System; and
  3. the core measures, alternate core, and 38 additional measures in the Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Program measures.

Cost

The current measures of cost CMS is using are total per capita cost measures and per capita cost measures for beneficiaries with four chronic conditions (COPD; heart failure; coronary artery disease; and diabetes).

By January 2012, however, CMS will choose an episode grouper which can evaluate physicians based on episodes of care. Specifically:

Section 1848(n)(9)(A) of the Act requires us to develop by January 1, 2012, an episode grouper that combines separate, but clinically related items and services into an episode of care for an
individual, as appropriate.

Other Issues

One of the main problems of the physician VBP is attribution of patients to doctors. In managed care organizations, patients are assigned a primary care doctor or gatekeeper who are responsible for the patient’s overall care. In Medicare, the patient can see any willing provider; because the primary care doctor cannot restrict the patient’s choice of care, it is more difficult to hold them responsible for the care. Specifically, Medicare beneficiaries never have to choose a primary care doctor, so identifying the doctor to be ultimately responsible for each patient’s overall care is difficult.

Physicians require additional information to understand why the received the VBP scores they did. For this purpose, CMS will create Physician Feedback Reports, confidential reports providing more detailed information of the underlying factors which produce these scores.

For the VBP modifier in 2015, CMS will use 2013 as the initial performance period 2013. This means that payment adjustments in 2015 will be on care provided 2 years ago. Although evaluating physician performance, allowing for appeals and adjusting payments takes time; two years is a long lead time.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Medicare Physician Payment Adjustments

November 21, 2011 in Healthcare IT, Medicare, P4P, Physician Compensation, Quality | No comments

The Medicare billing system is complex.  There an alphabet soup of acronyms, (e.g., RVUs, CPT, HCPCS, GPCI) and each of these affects payments in different ways.  In addition to the standard payment terms, Medicare is also creating additional payment incentives.  These payment incentives fall into three broad categories:

  • Quality reporting
  • e-Prescribing (eRx)
  • Electronic Health Records (EHR)

CMS’s Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) allows physicians to report the quality of care their patients receive. Physicians can report PQRS measures through claims, registries, or EHR systems.  To incentivize physician participation in the PQRS, CMS has adopted incentive payments.  In 2012-2014, Physicians who meet the PQRS participation requirements will receive a 0.5 percent payment bonus.  In 2015 through 2017, however, who do not submit a sufficient number of PQRS measures actually will receive a payment reduction.

In addition to the PQRS incentive, beginning 2012, Medicare eligible professionals who are not successful electronic prescribers under the eRx Incentive Program to a payment adjustment. This payment adjustment applies to all of the eligible professional’s Part B-covered professional services under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS). From 2012 through 2014, the payment adjustment will increase with each new reporting period. Accordingly, for 2012, eligible professionals receiving a payment adjustment will be paid 1.0% less than the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) amount for that service. In 2013 and 2014, the payment adjustment increases to 1.5% and 2.0% respectively.

A table summarizing these incentive payments is below.

Year PQRS eRx
Incentive Payment MOC Incentive Sucessful
2011 1.0% 0.5% 1% N/A
2012 0.5% 0.5% 1% -1%
2013 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% -0.5%
2014 0.5% 0.5% N/A -2%
2015 -1.5% N/A N/A N/A
2016 -2.0% N/A N/A N/A
2017 -2.0% N/A N/A N/A

CMS also offers physicians incentive payments to adopt EHR.  Incentive payments can be as high as $18,000 per year or $44,000 over a five year period.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Medicare’s Agenda for Hospital Accountability

November 14, 2011 in Hospitals, Medicare, P4P | 1 comment

CSC provies a nice overview of some of Medicare’s hospital quality initiatives. These initiatives include a value-based purchasing (VBP) program, reduced reimbursement for excessive hospital readmissions, and reduced reimbursement for hospital-acquired conditions (HAC).  Each of these three broad quality initiatives is described in more detail after the jump.

It is important to note that these quality initiatives are not voluntary and affect hospital payments through adjustments to the base DRG rate. Broadly, measures fall into three categories: i) claims-based, chart-abstracted, and patient satisfaction (i.e., HCAHPS).  Many of these quality measures will be part of the Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) program and will included in the Hospital Compare website.

Also, Medicare is implementing these three programs on top of similar programs which include:

  • Non-payment for care to treat specific HACs (see here)
  • A Medicaid program which also will not pay for care to treat HACs (see here)
  • Mandated review by QIOs of hospital readmissions within 31 days to assess standards of care and potentially recommend denial of payment (see here)

 

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , ,

MassHealth P4P: Did it work?

August 2, 2011 in Hospitals, Medicaid, P4P, Quality | 1 comment

Massachusetts’ Medicaid program instituted a pay-for-performance program in 2008.  Did it work?  According to this paper, the answer is no.

MassHealth P4P Background

The MassHealth pay-for-perfrmance P4P program was implemented in 2008.  At first the program was implmented using a P4P structure for pneumonia and pay-for-reporting for surgical infection prevention (SIP) and transitioning to P4P for both conditions in 2009. The program measures and incentivizes hospital quality for a subset of MassHealth [Massachusetts Medicaid program] patients who are enrolled in plans that directly bill MassHealth.

The Measures

For pneumonia:

  • oxygenation assessment,
  • blood culture performed in emergency department before first antibiotic received in hospital,
  • adult smoking cessation advice and counseling, initial antibiotic received within 6 hours of arrival, and
  • appropriate antibiotic selection in immunocompetent patients.

For Surgical Infection Prevention (SIP):

  • prophylactic antibiotic within 1 hour of surgical incision,
  • appropriate antibioticselection for surgical prophylaxis, and
  • prophylactic antibiotic discontinuedwithin 24 hours after surgery end time.

Evaluating Hospital Performance

The MassHealth P4P followed the Hospital VBP Report to Congress. Hospital performance on individual measures is aggregated to create a composite score; this composite score then is used to indicate the share of the bonus paymen that each hospital receives. More information on the Hospital VBP Report to Congress can be found here.

Identification Strategy

“We do not observe the quality of care provided to Medicaid patients in Massachusetts and other states, and instead we observe the quality provided to patients from all payers. Our identification strategy assumes that the financial incentives of the MassHealth program, which are based on quality performance
for only a subset of MassHealth patients, are reflected in the quality of care received by all patients.”

The authors control for:

  • Observed and unobserved hospital characteristics which remain fixed over time (i.e., fixed effects)
  • A secular trend in quality for each hospital (i.e., using a hospital-specific time trend)
  • Hospital case mix measured by a “difficulty index” to identify cases where hospitals choose patients selectively after P4P was implemented
  • In one sensitivity analysis, the authors use propensity scoring, nearest neighbor, one-to-one matching without replacement to create a sample of non-Massachusetts hospitals similar to those in Massachusetts. Hospitals were matched based on ownership, nuber of beds, urban/rural status, share of Medicare patients, and share of Medicaid patients.
  • The authors also test if hospitals with more Medicaid patients are more likely to have a larger increase in quality.

Evaluating Hospital Performance

The authors find that the MassHealth P4P has little effect on quality. “Estimates from our preferred specification, including hospital fixed effects, trends, and the control for measure completeness, indicate small and nonsignificant program effects for pneumonia (−0.67 percentage points, p>.10) and SIP (−0.12 percentage points, p>.10). ” The result could be due to the fact that P4P has, in actuality, no effect on quality. On the other hand, by using hospital-specific time trends, there may be little variation in quality over time to capture quality improvements after the P4P implementation.

Source

Tags: , , ,

Risk Scores and provider size

June 16, 2011 in P4P | 1 comment

At a recent AcademyHealth presentation, Cheryl Damberg discussed her research to design a P4P program for implementation for Integrated Healthcare Association (IHA).  One thing I noticed about the presentation was that smaller provider groups had patients with lower risk scores (i.e., healthier patients).  Is it really the case that small providers treat much healthier patients?

My guess is the answer is not.  An alternative explanation would be that small providers do not have as much time or administrative staff to help them code the patient’s comorbidities in their claims (or even EMR).  If this is the case, it would make it appear that small provider’s patients are healthier when in fact the true differences may be due to differences in the quality of the data the providers report.

Any VBP system would need to take into account these differences when evaluating providers.  Setting a lower standard for small providers, however, would provide a disincentive for small providers to expand into the large provider category, even if this expansion could (potentially) create economies of scale and improve patient care.

Tags: , ,

Hospital VBP gains the attention of the New York Times

May 31, 2011 in Current Events, Hospitals, Medicare, Value-Based Purchasing | No comments

The Healthcare Economist has already commented on the impending Medicare implementation of a hospital value-based purchased (VBP) system.  Now, Medicare’s hospital VBP program has garnered the attention of the popular press.  According to the New York Times:

“The administration plans to establish ‘Medicare spending per beneficiary’ as a new measure of hospital performance…Hospitals could be held accountable not only for the cost of the care they provide, but also for the cost of services performed by doctors and other health care providers in the 90 days after a Medicare patient leaves the hospital…

In calculating Medicare spending per beneficiary, the administration said, it wants to count costs generated during a hospital stay, the three days before it and the 90 days afterward. This, it said, will encourage hospitals to coordinate care “in an efficient manner over an extended time period…

Medicare will begin computing performance scores in July, for monetary rewards and penalties that start in October 2012.“

Do hospitals like the plan? Some do, but many do not.

This plan has drawn fire from hospitals, which say they have little control over services provided after a patient’s discharge — and, in many cases, do not even know about them…Without opposing the change, lawmakers from higher-cost states like Massachusetts and New York say the payment formula needs more work…Kenneth E. Raske, president of the Greater New York Hospital Association, said the formula ‘tends to discriminate against inner-city hospitals with large numbers of immigrant, poor and uninsured patients.’

By contrast, J. Kirk Norris, president of the Iowa Hospital Association, welcomed the new plan. ‘Medicare ought to pay for value,’ he said.

Will Medicare adequately risk adjust provider payments? Can hospitals coordinate post-acute care once their patients leave the hospital? Will additional coordination lead to increased industry consolidation and–in the long-run–increased health care cost? Will hospitals be able to game the system? How will Medicare monitor quality?

I have discussed these issues in series of previous posts on value-based purchasing. Hopefully, Medicare will get it right this time and improve quality while reducing cost. At this point, however, with Medicare Trust Fund set to be exhausted in 2024, reducing cost may be the priority which trumps all others.

Tags: , ,

Does WellPoint care about quality…or reducing cost?

May 19, 2011 in Health Insurance, Hospitals, Value-Based Purchasing | 2 comments

One large insurer is planning to begin paying hospitals based on quality.

“WellPoint is replacing the system it uses to help offset rising medical and other costs at hospitals in 14 states that serve its Blue Cross Blue Shield plans, which cover 34 million people. In recent years, it has raised its payments to those hospitals by an average 8% a year.

Under the new system, the company will pay increases only to hospitals that score high enough on a test based on 51 indicators of treatment quality. The indicators include whether the facility tries to prevent patients from relapsing after they leave the hospital, whether it follows a safety checklist and how satisfied the hospital’s patients say they are with their treatment.”

Does Well Point really care about quality?  The answer is maybe.

Improving quality of care could improve WellPoint’s bottom line.  If patients demand improved quality of care, implementing a hospital VBP system could attract more members. Further, WellPoint could just be altruistic and this may be an attempt to improve the health of its members (the Healthcare Economist is skeptical of this point).

It could also be the case the WellPoint does not care at all about quality.  High-quality hospitals will get the same annual increase they did before; low-quality hospitals will get less.  The chairman of the Federation of American Hospitals (FHA) accurately notes that hospital quality measures are far from perfect and are less-than comprehensive.  Nevertheless, even if the selected metrics measured quality inaccurately, certain hospitals would still receive lower payments and WellPoint would benefit either through increased profits or increased market share (by lowering premiums).

Rather than responding to pressure to increase qualityof care, WellPoint’s VBP efforts may in fact be a response to employer and beneficiary pressure to reduce premiums.

Tags: , , ,

Medicaid P4P

March 7, 2011 in Medicaid, P4P | 1 comment

As part of health reform, Medicare is looking to institute value-based purchasing or pay-for-performance programs in a number of settings.   In fact, in my work for Acumen, I have worked on a number of these initiatives (e.g., P4P for physician efficiency profiling, implementing a VBP system in home health).  Medicare, however, isn’t the only public insurance program to implement P4P.  Today, I provide an overview of State Medicaid P4P programs.  Here are some highlights from a report by Kuhmerker and Hartmann (2007).

  • As of July 1, 2006, more than half of all state Medicaid programs were operating one or more pay-for-performance programs. Within the next five years, if all current plans to start new programs are realized, nearly 85 percent of states will be operating Medicaid pay-for-performance programs.
  • Medicaid is not a new entrant to the field of pay-for-performance: almost half of all existing programs are more than five years old. A similar percentage of programs began operations within the past two years. More than 70 percent of planned new programs are expected to start within the next two years.
  • Seventy percent of existing Medicaid pay-for-performance programs operate in managed care or primary care case management (PCCM) environments, focusing on health care for children, adolescents, and women. While planned programs are still focused on managed care and PCCM providers, they appear to be shifting their emphasis to environments in which quality and cost issues related to chronic disease management can be better targeted. Rewarding the provision of primary care continues to be a component in the vast majority of Medicaid pay-for performance programs.
  • Nine Medicaid programs are joining with other payers, employers, consumers, and providers in statewide and regional pay-for-performance and quality improvement efforts.
  • Health information technology (HIT) is a focus of numerous Medicaid pay-for-performance programs. Several Medicaid programs are “paying for participation,” rather than “performance,” in an effort to encourage providers to adopt electronic health records, electronic prescribing, and other technologies.
  • The vast majority of Medicaid directors reported that their priority in operating pay-for-performance programs is to improve quality of care rather than reduce costs.
  • HEDIS and HEDIS-like measures are most popular in Medicaid P4P.
  • In 2000, 55.8 percent of all Medicaid beneficiaries were enrolled in managed care; by December, 2004, this percentage had increased to 61.3 percent. Managed care is the primary P4P setting for Medicaid. Primary care case management (PCCM) is the second most prevalent provider type included in P4P programs.
  • Almost all states use attainment or attainment and improvement scores to assess provider performance.

Of particular interest to an economist, P4P bonus payments are paid through a variety of different mechanisms. Examples include:

  • a maximum pool is established. If the provider performance payments would result in bonuses greater than that amount, the bonuses are prorated. If provider
    performance payments would not use the complete pool, only the amount calculated is distributed;
  • a pool is established and all providers meeting the necessary standard receive a proportional share based on their relative performance. The entire pool is distributed;
  • a bonus amount is established per occurrence. Bonuses are paid out based on the number of occurrences and the dollar amount per occurrence;
  • a bonus equal to a specific percentage of a reimbursement rate is paid when a standard is met;
  • the bonus is an established share of a calculated amount saved as a result of the P4P program (for example, in shared savings situations). The share is usually included in a contract between the state and the provider or vendor;
  • a bonus is calculated, but can only be used to offset any penalties; and
  • in recognition of CMS guidelines in this area, states often include provisions that ensure that no plan can receive more than 105 percent of their capitation rate as a result of any redistribution of, or increase in, funds.

Other incentive schemes include penalties, differential reimbursement rates based on past performance levels, increased probability of receiving an auto-assigned Medicaid beneficiary for good performers, withholds, and grants.  These payments are most frequently made in six-month or three-month intervals. To accommodate billing lags, validation activities, and other calculation-related processes, the time period between the conclusion of the measurement interval and when the incentive is actually received ranges from one quarter to one year. Non-financial incentives include tools, initial bid ranking, and public recognition.

To implement the P4P program, 90% of programs rely on information from providers.  In some states, programs contract with vendors to collect data additional data.  Fifty percent of state Medicaid directors reported that internal Medicaid staff conduct validation of program-related information themselves by sampling the data.  Thirty percent of respondents said that their state hires consultants specifically for data validation purposes.

Does Medicaid P4P work? Most State Medicaid Directors don’t know. Fifty five percent have not conducted formal, either because the P4P program was new or due to limited financial resources.

Source:

Tags: ,

Value-Based Insurance Design

February 11, 2011 in Health Insurance | 5 comments

There have been a lot of “value-based” initatives in health care of late.  Value-based purchasing aims to reward high-quality providers with either higher reimbursement rates or periodic bonuses.  On the other hand, value-based insurance targets the patient side.  The value-based insurance scheme varies cost sharing depending on whether the drug, procedure, or treatment is considered high value.  Disease management is also often linked with value-based insurance strategies.

For instance, this paper examined the effect of instituting a value-based insurance design for drug purchases.  The company’s health plan charged a “10 percent coinsurance for retail prescriptions and 7.5 percent coinsurance for mail-order prescriptions used to treat these three conditions. The coinsurance percentage was calculated as a percentage of the total cost of the medication. Medications for conditions other than those included in the program were assessed 20 percent coinsurance for retail and 10 percent coinsurance for mail-order prescriptions…General disease management programs for asthma, cardiac conditions, and diabetes were also implemented.”

By varying copayment rates, the company found that adherence rates increased significantly.

Another study found that disease management can greatly improve adherence.

V-BID Center

For those interested in Value-Based Insurance Design, I recommend you check out the following resource.

“The University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design (V-BID Center) is the leading advocate for development, implementation and evaluation of innovative health benefit plans. Since 2005, the Center has been actively engaged in understanding the impact of value-based insurance design and collaborating with employers, health plans, policy leaders, and academics, to improve clinical outcomes and enhance economic efficiency of the US health care system.

Our website, www.vbidcenter.org, is designed to be a resource for employers, benefit designers, health care leaders, policy leaders and researchers interested in learning more about and implementing V-BID programs.  The site includes research (both by the Center’s faculty and other V-BID researchers), case studies, health reform and policy summaries, as well as presentations by Center faculty and upcoming events to learn more about V-BID.”

Sources:

Tags: ,

« Older entries