october 28, 2005
DESCRIPTION
Producing and Measuring Quality Health Care For At Risk Kids Wisconsin Children’s Public Policy Forum Nikki Highsmith Center for Health Care Strategies. October 28, 2005. Impetus for Change. We Get the Right Care…About ½ of the Time. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
CHCSCHCSCenter forHealth Care Strategies, Inc.Center forHealth Care Strategies, Inc.
October 28, 2005
Producing and Measuring Quality Health Care For At Risk Kids
Wisconsin Children’s Public Policy Forum
Nikki HighsmithCenter for Health Care Strategies
2
Impetus for ChangeImpetus for Change
3
We Get the Right Care…About ½ of the TimeWe Get the Right Care…About ½ of the Time
Source: McGlynn, et at., NEJM, 2003
56.10%
53.50%
54.90%
54.90%
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00%
Long TermCare
Acute Care
PreventiveCare
Overall Care
Adherence to Processes Defined as Quality Indicators, By Type of Care
4
Impetus for Change:A Medicaid Growth ScenarioImpetus for Change:A Medicaid Growth Scenario
36M
53M
75M
$133B
$329B
$600B
1995 2005 2015 1995 2005 2015
Beneficiaries
Expenditures
5
Medicaid’s Growth…The Reasons WhyMedicaid’s Growth…The Reasons Why
•Underlying growth in medical costs
•Longevity increases for elderly and people
with disabilities and/or with chronic diseases
•Public coverage expansions (e.g., SCHIP)
•Private coverage decimations (e.g., crowd-in)
6
Medicaid Spending Growth Compared to Private Spending (Holahan, 2005)
Medicaid Spending Growth Compared to Private Spending (Holahan, 2005)
02
46
81012
14
6.9%
9.0%
12.6%
Medicaid Acute Care
Spending Per Enrollee
Health Care Spending Per Person with
Private Coverage
Monthly Premiums for
ESI
7
Medicaid: Chaos or Opportunity?Medicaid: Chaos or Opportunity?
•Big Numbers– 52 million people– $320 billion in spending
•Key Challenges– Disproportionate racial and ethnic participation– 80/20
•Increasingly Sophisticated Players– State Purchasers– Managed Care Entities (MCOs, EPCCM)
– Safety Net Providers
8
Five Steps for Reducing Medicaid $$Five Steps for Reducing Medicaid $$
Step 4 $$-Driven Desperate Measures
•TBD as states are figuring out that just cutting is not slowing the rate of growth (e.g. TN)
Step 3 Eligibility •Capping enrollment / eliminating optional groups (e.g. MO)
Step 2 Services •Eliminating optional services (e.g. dental)
Step 1 Reimbursement •Across the board provider rate cuts (e.g. OH )
Lev
el o
f D
iffi
cult
y
LOW
HIGHFocus Examples
Step 5 Quality •Chronic disease management
•Outcome based pay for performance
9
Medicaid Quality SolutionsMedicaid Quality Solutions
BUILDING BLOCK
EXAMPLE
1. Evidence-Based Practice
New York State is implementing standardized asthma guidelines. Indiana is adopting standardized consensus guidelines for select chronic conditions.
2. Measures/Outcomes
Virginia developed a Managed Care Performance Report to guide improvement efforts. California designed the “Dashboard” report for an “at-a-glance” view of targeted performance measures.
3. Information Technology
Indiana Medicaid developed an electronic patient data registry for the state’s chronic disease management program. Numerous health plans developed asthma registries.
4. Continuous Quality Improvement
More than 150 managed care entities have participated in CHCS’ Best Clinical and Administrative Practices (BCAP) initiative to improve care for targeted groups of consumers. Many states, e.g. Wisconsin and California, are working with health plans to implement and track CQI.
5. Pay for Performance
New York is distributing up to $13 million to plans through its incentive program. Seven plans in California are paying a provider bonus to improve HEDIS well-visit rates for babies and teens. Many states, e.g., Michigan, New Mexico, are using auto-assignment to reward high-performing plans.
6. Care Management North Carolina’s PCCM program assigns nurse care managers to local practices to assist with chronically ill, high-risk patients. Oklahoma, Oregon, Washington, and Pennsylvania have developed requirements for special/exceptional needs coordinators based at the state or health plan level.
7. Integrated Care Commonwealth Care Alliance, a specialized plan for dual eligibles in Massachusetts, uses a comprehensive care coordination approach to address members' physical, behavioral and social needs. Massachusetts, Minnesota and Wisconsin have established comprehensive integrated care programs
8. Consumer Direction
Cash and counseling demonstration programs, e.g., in Arkansas, Florida, and New Jersey, offer preliminary evidence for how consumers might manage their own care. West Virginia Medicaid and other states seek to create health investment accounts that will reward consumers for healthy choices.
10
Care Management Trends in MedicaidCare Management Trends in Medicaid
Opportunities
•Create a medical home
•Coordinate/create a continuum of care
•Improve health outcomes/control costs
Challenges
•Choosing a model (HMO, e-PCCM, DMO)
•Communication among interdisciplinary team
•Managing care vs. managing cost
11
Care Management Trends: Moving Away from FFSCare Management Trends: Moving Away from FFS
All but three states enroll their members into RBMC, PCCM, or both.*
05
101520253035404550
1990 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Risk PCCM Either
# S
tate
s (5
0 +
DC
)
*Trend data adapted from: Kaye, Neva . "Medicaid Managed Care Looking Forward Looking Back." 2005. National Academy for State Health Policy . 08 Jul. 2005 <NASHP.org>.
12
Since 1994 over half of all states have enrolled some people with complex needs into a care management model.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Aged SSI children SSI adult
1990
1994
1998
2002
# S
tate
s (5
0 +
DC
)
*Trend data adapted from: Kaye, Neva . "Medicaid Managed Care Looking Forward Looking Back." 2005. National Academy for State Health Policy . 08 Jul. 2005 <NASHP.org>.
Care Management Trends: Moving Into More Complex Populations
Care Management Trends: Moving Into More Complex Populations
13
Evidence-Based PracticesEvidence-Based Practices
Opportunities
•Incorporate scientific evidence into practice
•Focus on single diseases (e.g. asthma, diabetes)
•Emerging evidence (e.g. dental care)
Challenges
•Getting research into practice at state, plan, and provider level
•Developing evidence/protocols for treating people with multiple chronic conditions and disabilities
14
Pay for PerformancePay for Performance
Opportunities•Use measures and payment system to align
incentives to improve quality•Coordinate measures across P4P programs
and across payorsChallenges•Little research to date on design and
effectiveness•Paying for “what they should be doing
anyway”•Physician concerns re “demoralization” of
field
15
Quality Improvement Quality Improvement
Opportunities
•Implement quality improvement collaboratives to drive outcomes
•Use of Best Clinical and Administrative Practices (BCAP) model to design and evaluate programs
Challenges
•Can be resource intensive
•Needs continued and committed leadership on all levels
16
Monroe Health Plan of New YorkMonroe Health Plan of New York
NICU Admissions/1000 Births
107.699.4
93.787.7 90.4
53.5
34.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Analysis of NY State SPARCS Data Demonstrated No Concurrent Changes in NICU Admission Rates in Upstate New York for Medicaid During These Years
17
Year
NICU
Admits
Live
Births
Projected NICU Costs
(1998 Base)
Actual NICU Costs
NICU Cost
Savings
Aggregate
NICU
Savings
1998 65 604 $ 610,700 $ 610,700 -0- -0-
1999 77 775 $ 779,552 $ 675,499 $ 104,053 $ 104,053
2000 93 993 $ 998,958 $ 729,340 $ 269,618 $ 373,671
2001 100 1140 $ 1,148,600 $ 698,432 $ 450,168 $ 823,839
2002 106 1172 $ 1,175,900 $1, 062,250 $ 113,650 $ 937,489
2003 75 1401 $ 1,406,430 $ 355,322 $ 1,051,108 $ 1,988,597
2004 62 1778 $ 1,791,655 $ 214,564 $ 1,577,091 $ 3,565,688
Medical Costs (NICU)Medical Costs (NICU)
18
Year Admin. Costs ($)
No. Live Births
Admin. Costs/ Birth
($)
Incremental Program
Costs/ Birth ($)
Total New Program Costs ($)
Aggregate New
Program Costs ($)
1997 $ 41,300 600 $ 68.83 0 0 0
1998 $ 69,043 604 $ 114.31 $45.48 $ 27,470 $27, 470
1999 $ 106,947 775 $ 138.00 $ 69.17 $ 53,607 $ 81,077
2000 $ 160,053 993 $ 161.18 $ 92.35 $ 91,704 $ 172,781
2001 $ 304,002 1140 $ 266.67 $ 197.84 $ 225,538 $ 398,319
2002 $ 300,857 1172 $ 256.70 $ 187.87 $ 220,184 $ 618,503
2003 $ 397,284 1401 $ 282.57 $ 213.74 $ 299,450 $ 917,953
2004 $ 450,640 1778 $ 253.45 $ 184.62 $ 328,254 $ 1,246,207
Enhanced Prenatal Program CostsEnhanced Prenatal Program Costs
19
Does Any of This Make a Difference?
Ratio:(Pre-Program Medical Costs) – (Post-Program Medical Costs)
Program Costs
$3,565,688 = 2.86
$1,246,207
Developing the Return on Investment (ROI)Developing the Return on Investment (ROI)
20
Developing the Business Case for Quality in MedicaidDeveloping the Business Case for Quality in Medicaid
• Business Case = direct ROI for Quality Enhancing Initiative (QEI)T Plan A’s asthma QEI with practice site IT reduces ED use
by $10 PMPM over 3-year period.
• Economic Case = ROI $ for other Medicaid stakeholders
T Plan A’s QEI reduces PMPM for other payors when patient
churns elsewhere.• Social Case = broader benefits to society
T Plan A’s QEI increases school/work attendance, quality of life, etc.
Message: we need to find the “win-wins” and align financial incentives to reward quality.
21
Score-ability and the Long-term Business CaseScore-ability and the Long-term Business Case
UOMB/CBO methods for scoring need to be changed. For example…maintaining electronic medical records, “would save the Feds billions and save lives as well”…however federal scorers only count the costs of launching the technologies and not the amount that would be saved over time.
Newt Gingrich and Peter FerraraWall Street JournalSeptember 26, 2005