designing payment for collaborative depression care management in primary care yuhua bao, ph.d....
Post on 22-Dec-2015
218 views
TRANSCRIPT
Designing Payment for Collaborative Depression Care Management in
Primary Care
Yuhua Bao, Ph.D.Assistant Professor
Division of Health Policy, Department of Public Health
Weill Cornell Medical College
2
Acknowledgement
This work is supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (K01 MH090087, P30 MH085943). The IMPACT study was funded by grants from the John A. Hartford Foundation and the California Healthcare Foundation.
I thank the following individuals contributed to the work or provided helpful discussion:
Martha Bruce, PhD, MPH, Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, Susan Ettner, Ph.D., Heather Gold, PhD, Andrew Ryan, PhD, Bruce Schackman, PhD, Leif Solberg, M.D, Jürgen Unützer, MD, MPH
Depression in Primary Care
• Depression is prevalent, debilitating, and costly
• The de facto mental health treatment system in the U.S. – Psychiatrist: 29%– Non-psychiatrist mental health providers: 39%– General medical providers: 56% – Human services providers: 19% – CAM providers: 17%
• Primary care is an important sector for depression care– Major depression affects 10-15% of primary care patients– Quality of depression care is poor
3
4
Phases of Depression Treatment
Kupfer DJ. J Clin Psychiatry. 52(5s):28-34,1991.
Treatment Phases
RelapseRecurrence
Recovery
Acute Continuation Maintenance
Syndrome
Symptoms
Remission
Response
No Depression
6-12 wks 4-9 mo. 1 or more yrs
5
Collaborative Depression Care Management (DCM): A Promising Clinical Model
• Consistent with the Chronic Care Model– A team of clinicians: primary care physician, supervising
psychiatrist, depression care manager • Assessment, Follow-up, Collaboration
• Effectively implementing “Stepped Care”• Strong evidence of efficacy from >30 trials• At great odds with the fee-for-service, visit-
based physician payment system– Lack of reimbursement identified as most prominent barrier
to implementation
6
STEP 1
Antidepressant or psychotherapy (if preferred)
Reassessment by care manager and discussion with PCP; Psychiatric consultation if needed.
Persistent Depression Remission
STEP 2
Switch to (or augmentation with) other antidepressant or psychotherapy
Reassessment by care manager and discussion with PCP; Psychiatric consultation if needed
Persistent Depression Remission
STEP 3
Combination of antidepressant and psychotherapy; Consider referral to specialty MH services
Persistent Depression Remission
Monthly contact w/ care manager to maintain therapeutic gains
Relapse Prevention
Monthly contact w/ care manager
8-12 wks
6-10 wks
6-12 wks
Adapted from Unutzer et al. (2001)
7
Current Implementation Initiatives and Payment Arrangements
• Depression Improvement Across Minnesota, Offering a New Direction (DIAMOND) – All major health plans and medical groups in the state– A flat monthly case rate based on average monthly cost of a 12-
month program
• Washington State Mental Health Integration Program (MHIP) – >200 community health centers and mental health centers in the
state– A flat fee based on 75% of cost of a 12-month program– Remaining 25% as bonus payment upon achieving process- and
outcome- based quality
8
The Need for a Conceptual Discussion of Payment Design Issues
• Goals of the payment?
• Important features to consider?
• Incentives provided by certain features?
9
Goals of Payment
• Goal 1: To adequately compensate providers with the cost of delivering collaborative DCM
• Goal 2: To align incentives with evidence-based practice and quality of care
10
Payment Design Features
Contact-based
(Not considered)
Episode
Bundled Case Rate
Monthly
Not Adjusted
Adjusted Adjusted Not Adjusted
What should be adjusted, what should not?
+ P4P?
11
What should (not) be adjusted?
• Should adjust – Factors accounting for major variation in resource
intensity if indicated by evidence-based protocol
• May not wish to adjust – if serious principal-agent problems exist
• Adjustment factor is something providers can potentially manipulate
• Hard to observe/determine whether manipulation is present• Incentives associated with adjustment run counter to treatment
goals
• Example: non-response to treatment
12
Alternative Designs, Incentives, and Implementation Issues: Episode
Episode vs. Monthly
Payment Adjustment
Pros Cons
(In absence of performance incentives)
Administrative/Implementation Issues
Episode
Fixed (capitation)
Tailoring DCM to the need of patient
Stinting on services; selectively treating low-cost patients; terminating patients pre-maturely
Low-cost
Adjusted by baseline severity
Adequately covering the higher cost of treating sicker patients
Incentives for enrolling sicker patients without necessarily performing evidence-based care
Doc. initial assessment of severity
Adjusted by LOS in DCM
Following patients for an adequate course of treatment
If adjustment reflects a typical course of tx, no incentives for maintaining high-intensity with persistently ill patients
Doc. DCM contacts; essentially reduces to monthly
13
Alternative Designs, Incentives, and Implementation Issues: Monthly (I)
Episode vs. Monthly
Payment Adjustment
Pros Cons
(In absence of performance incentives)
Administrative/Implementation Issues
Monthly
Fixed, flat rate Given the front-loaded nature of DCM, incentives for keeping pats in program as long as possible
May become unsustainable if pats drop out early; disincentives for “stepped care” for pats w/ persistent depression
Doc. of DCM contact, but otherwise low-cost
Adjusted by baseline severity
Adequately covering the higher cost of treating sicker patients
Enrolling sicker patients without necessarily achieving tx goals
Doc. of DCM contacts and initial assessment
14
Alternative Designs, Incentives, and Implementation Issues: Monthly (II)
Episode vs. Monthly
Payment Adjustment
Pros Cons
(In absence of performance incentives)
Administrative/Implementation Issues
Monthly
Adjusted by the ordinal month (i.e., 1st, 2nd, …12th
mo.)
Better matching payment to cost variation across time
No incentives for intensive follow-up if intensity needed is greater than average (at a given time point)
Doc. of DCM contacts, low-cost
Adjusted by pat. response/remission over time
Adequately covers the additional cost of “stepped care” for pats with persistent depression
Perverse incentives for helping patients achieve treatment response and remission
Longitudinal doc. of response/remission
15
Conclusions Based on Conceptual Discussion
• A bundled case rate w/o explicit quality incentives may not be sufficient to achieve payment goals
• Episode payment with LOS adjustment reduces to monthly payment
• Each adjustment feature considered has pros and cons
• Payment design will need to balance payment goals and administrative cost/feasibility
16
Empirical Investigation• Variation in DCM intensity over time and across
patients – Using registry data from a multi-site RCT
• Probably the closest to EBP one could expect in community settings
– Identifying factors accounting for variation in resource use (and how much)
• What the analysis can do– Confirm assumptions made in conceptual discussion– Inform decisions regarding payment adjustment – Inform payment rate and/or adjustment formulae
• Analysis will not provide empirical evidence on – Provider behavior in response to alternative designs
17
The IMPACT Study and Data
• RCT of DCM among older primary care patients– 18 primary care clinics, 8 health care organizations, 5 states– DCM program designed for 12 months
• IMPACT registry data – Web-based clinical system documenting DCM activities– Patient-care manager contacts
• Date and duration of contact• Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)• Current tx, changes in tx plan, care coordination
– 767 unique patients with >=1 contact & baseline PHQ-9 >=5– 7,433 patient-months with >=1 contact
18
DCM Intensity at the Episode and Monthly Levels: Descriptive Results
Episode (N=767) Monthly (n=7,433)
Contacts Direct Contact Time
# of months in DCM
Contacts Direct Contact Time (min.)
Mean 15.8 537.7 9.7 1.6 55.7
Std. Dev. 5.9 285.7 2.5 0.9 45.1
Min. 1 10 1 1 5
Max. 40 1,530 12 6 330
19
Statistical Models • Zero-truncated count data (Poisson or negative binomial)
models• Episode
– Measures: total contacts / total direct patient contact time – Predictors: baseline severity,
length of stay in DCM (1, 2, …, 12 mos), baseline severity x months
• Monthly– Measures: contacts / direct patient contact time, in a month – Predictors:
• Model for first-month: baseline severity
• Model for Months 2-12: baseline severity,
month indicator (2nd, 3rd, …, 12th mo.), tx response/remission at beginning of month,
bl severity x month indicator, tx response/remission x month indicator
Episode, Contacts
20
Episode, Time
21
Monthly, Contacts
22BL severity did not predict monthly DCM intensity statistically and was not shown in this graph.
Monthly, Time
BL severity did not predict monthly DCM intensity statistically and was not shown in this graph
24
Conclusions from Empirical Investigation
• Episode– Resource use may vary widely depending on LOS – LOS adjustment or mandate reduces it to monthly payment
• Monthly – Strong time trend regardless of response/remission
• Sharp decline in the first 6 months, but stable afterwards
– BL severity associated with limited difference
• Persistently depressed patients– 30-35% even with DCM closest to EBP– Maintenance of high intensity DCM during Steps 2&3 (Months 4-
8) may not be feasible
25
Two Alternative Payment Schemes
• Episode, adjusted by # of months patients stayed in the program
• Monthly, adjusted by the ordinal month in the first months, flat for months 7-12
• For comparison, also consider – Episode, fixed– Monthly, fixed
26
27
Conclusions
• Adjusted payment over fixed payment
• Should not adjust for response/remission in a monthly design – Perverse incentives – Difference in intensity not substantial – Administrative burden high– Can design a case rate reflecting weighted average cost of
treating responding and non-responding patients
• Performance/quality incentives are a must (next study)– Outcome-based?– Process-based if outcome not met?– How much should be at stake?
28
Comments?