provider directory advisory group meeting november 18, 2015
DESCRIPTION
Use Cases Use refining and prep for larger group discussion 3TRANSCRIPT
Provider Directory Advisory Group Meeting
November 18, 2015
2
Welcome!
• Agenda review:– Introductions – welcome Peter Graven!– Breakouts for use refining and prep for larger group
discussion– Group report-outs– Clinical Quality Metrics Registry Presentation– Break– Procurement update– Common Credentialing update– Fees orientation – Wrap up, updates, and next steps for December
Use Cases
Use refining and prep for larger group discussion
3
Handouts for group exercises
4
• Use case packets• Standards matrix updates
– Network adequacy updates in Oregon start in January 2017
• Updated data element matrix with Common Credentialing practitioner types
• Parking lot
Group discussions
5
• Write your name on your assigned use case and worksheet:– Plans - Validation data sets (8)– HIE - Provider searches for DSM addresses (6)– Analytics - Provider data sets for analytics (24)– Delivery - Provider searches (15/16)
• Groups will have 30 minutes to review the use case Select a presenter from your group to walk through/present their priority use to the broader PDAG
Group Presentations
Office of Health AnalyticsOffice of Health Information Technology
Overview of Clinical Quality Metrics Registry
(CQMR)
Crystal Nielson, Lead Policy Analyst
8
Discussion Outline
• Oregon’s Quality and Measurement Strategy• Clinical Quality Measure (CQM) Reporting Requirements • Future State
– Vision for HIT Optimized Health Care System– Clinical Quality Metrics Registry (CQMR) Overview
QUALITY AND MEASUREMENT STRATEGY
9
Selection of CCO Metrics Set
• Metric set needed to measure Oregon’s Transformation efforts:– CMS to evaluate Oregon’s progress– Oregon to evaluate CCO performance
• Metrics and Scoring Committee is responsible for identifying and adopting metrics
• Committee identified an initial set of 17 CCO metrics• Three measures are based on clinical data (the majority are claims
or hybrid measures) – NQF 0418 Screening for Clinical Depression and Follow-up Plan– NQF 0059 Diabetes Poor Control– NQF 0018 Controlling Hypertension
10
Clinical Quality Measures
• Three measures in the initial CCO Metric Set are based on clinical data (the majority are claims or hybrid measures) – NQF 0418 Screening for Clinical Depression and Follow-up Plan– NQF 0059 Diabetes Poor Control– NQF 0018 Controlling Hypertension
• Efforts in place to develop custom measures for:– SBIRT
• OHA reviewed draft federal measures• Completing draft specifications for custom measure in Q4 of 2015• Two rounds of pilots in 2016• Implementation of EHR-based measure reporting beginning with 2017
– Tobacco Prevalence/Cessation• Utilizing data collection process for the Smoking Objective • Submitting “test data”
11
Incremental Approach to eReporting
• Reporting clinical data requires new processes and capacity• A key decision point was the plan for collecting CQM data
– Chart review vs. electronic reporting?• Electronic reporting will:
– Enable population-based measurement– Automate the reporting process
• Need to develop technology solution for collecting CQM data while implementing waiver requirements: “working with what we have”
• Desire to meet stakeholders where they were and allow for necessary capacity building
12
CQM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
13
Implementing CQM Reporting
• CCOs required to submit:– Pre-Submission Narrative– Data Submission
• Percentage of incentive payment has been payable upon approval of pre-submission documents
• Year Three (2015) is first year that there is no pay-for-reporting component, payment will be performance based
• Incremental increases in reporting requirements over each program year
14
Submission Process
• Data is due to OHA on April 1st following the program year (May 1st in Year One)
• CCO manually uploads files to a secure FTP site• In Year Two (2014), most CCOs submitted data:
– Aggregated at the physical location (one CCO submitted patient-level data)
– For the full calendar year – For CCO Medicaid beneficiaries only– From custom query
16
THE CQMR AND CQM REPORTING IN FUTURE YEARS
17
CQMR Overview
• The Clinical Quality Metrics Registry (CQMR) will electronically collect, aggregate, display, and export clinical quality measure data in order to support an HIT-optimized health system
• Technology includes:– Database– Web-based Portal
• Emphasis on functionality & standards utilized by ONC certified HIT for reporting of CQM data – CMS eCQM Specifications– Capture, calculate, and report certification criteria (including Quality
Reporting Data Architecture format)• Procurement occurring in coordination with other HIT portfolio
projects (e.g., Common Credentialing, Provider Directory)
18
eReporting of CQMs to CQMR
• CCOs, providers, data intermediaries will submit clinical data to meet quality program reporting requirements
• Quality programs will utilize data to determine eligibility for incentive payments– CCO Incentive Metrics Program (Program Year 2016)– EHR Incentive Program (Program Year 2018)– Considering use for other programs
• Improve access to clinical quality measure data and the ability to utilize standardized data for analytics/quality improvement initiatives
• Enable a ‘report once’ strategy to streamline reporting requirements among multiple quality programs
19
CQMR & Provider Directory
• OHIT anticipates that CQMR will be a data source for Provider Directory (and perhaps vice versa)
• CQMR will provide account/access management information that includes provider affiliations to CCOs and clinics
• QRDA standard includes a number of data fields related to provider demographics
• Limitation is data “timeliness” – measure data will be submitted to the CQMR annually (some discussion around quarterly submissions)
• As projects develop, additional connections may be identified
21
Break
Procurement Updates
Rachel OstroyImplementation Director
24
HIT Portfolio Upcoming Milestones
25
Fall 2015 (Q4) Winter 2016 (Q1) Spring 2016 (Q2)
Summer 2016 (Q3)
• QA Vendor (CSG) onboard
• System integrator (Harris) contract
• Stage Gate 3 submission• Harris begins planning
phase
• Provider Directory (PD) Market Analysis
• Common Credentialing (CC) RFP
• Provider Directory RFP
• CC vendor selection
• CC Implementation
• PD vendor selection
Common Credentialing Updates
Melissa IsavoranCredentialing Project Director
26
Current progress Advisory Committee on Physician Credentialing Information
recommended nonsubstantive form changes to be brought to the CCAG for review on 11/20
Delegation agreements may impact program viability Fee structure development work continues with identifying
logistics for tiered set-up fees Provider data alignment discussions with stakeholders
identified consensus of value in exploring additional data collection through common credentialing – value vs. complexity
27
OHPR 8.5.15
Timeline for the Oregon Common Credentialing Program (OCCP)
Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 1st Qtr 2017
Convened the Common Credentialing
Advisory Group
1/17Request for
Information Issued
2/1Report to Legislature
7/1 Developed Rules
10/1 Report to Legislature
Sept 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015
Requirements and Contract
12/31Final Report
2/1Report to Legislature
2/5SB 594 Introduced
Planning and Sub-Vendor
Implementation
Common Credentialing Vendor Contract
Prime Contract Amendment
2/1Report to Legislature
5/29SB 594 Passed
3/1 – 3/31/17Marketing and Outreach
2/8 – 6/30Rulemaking Process
Development & Implementation Plan
10/1Report to Legislature Go Live Date
Common Credentialing Fees
Melissa IsavoranCredentialing Project Director
29
Fee Authority
Senate Bill 604 requires OHA to develop rules on the imposition of fees, not to exceed the cost of administering the Oregon Common Credentialing Program (OCCP), on health care practitioners who submit credentialing information to the database and credentialing organizations that access the database.
30
Current Fee StructurePractitioners generally do not pay for credentialing, BUT:Privileging is supported by fees and includes credentialingSome credentialing costs are built into provider paymentsPractitioners pay for office staff hours to complete
credentialing paperwork and required follow up
31
Fee Structure DevelopmentOHA developed high-level fee structure options by:Consulting subject matter experts and the CCAG on fee
structure principles to use as guidelines and options,Researching market fee structures, and Assessing Request for Information responses to fee
structure questions:◦Not a lot of consistency in responses◦ Total cost ranges varied greatly◦ Some structures conflicted with principles due to inequities (e.g.,
annual Maintenance fees)◦ Some structures (e.g., enterprise fees) not feasible as they
considered number of credentialing organization users, which would actually be small
32
Fee Structure Principles (at a high level)Fees should be balanced considering benefits and resourcesEnsure that costs are not a barrier to participation Fees should be equitably balanced between provider types
and credentialing organization types and sizes Fees must be efficient and economical to administerFees should be transparent and justifiable in developmentFees should be stable and produce predictable income to
support the costs of operating common credentialing which should include allocations for information technology and operational quality assurance activities and security
Individually requested processes must be borne by those making such requests
33
Fee Structure Options
34
FEE OPTIONS STRUCTURECredentialing OrganizationsOne-Time Setup Fee Flat Fee
Tiered FeeFlat Fee, + Amortization
Transactional Fee (ongoing operations and maintenance costs)
Flat FeeTiered Fee; based on Practitioner Type
Expedited Credentialing Fee Flat FeeHealth Care PractitionersInitial Application Fee Flat Fee
Tiered Fee; based on Practitioner Type
Delegation Agreements Capitated Fee? Annual Capitated Fee?Data Users Data Use Fee Undetermined
Next Steps for Fee Structure DevelopmentDevelopment of Credentialing Organization fee structure tiersRulemaking Advisory Committee◦Develop rules◦Submit Notice of Proposed Rules to Secretary of State ◦Public rules hearing◦Publish final rules
Legislative approval process (2017)
35
Provider Directory Fee Principles Discussion
36
Principle 1
Fee development for credentialing organizations and providers must be delicately balanced considering the
benefits they may experience and their respective resources
• Questions for the PDAG (potential edits)• Is there a distinction for the provider directory
between orgs and providers?
37
Principle 2
Ensure that costs are not a barrier to participation
• Questions for the PDAG:• What about costs that are considered to be
unfair government competition? • Would the PD be in competition?
38
Principle 3
Fees should be equitably balanced between different organization types considering their required level of
participation
• Questions for PDAG:• Different organization types – Independent
Physician Associations (IPAs), individual clinics, hospital and health systems, regional HIEs?
• Different uses?• Different levels of access?• Other?39
Principle 4
Fees for health care organizations should be equitably balanced consider the size and types of its health care
organization
• Questions for PDAG:• Different organization types – Independent Physician
Associations (IPAs), individual clinics, hospital and health systems, regional HIEs?
• Different uses?• Different levels of access?• Other?
40
Principle 5
A specific portion of the fees should be specifically allocated for information technology and operational quality
assurance activities
• Questions for PDAG:• Specify more here? Enhancements, maintenance, data
management and ongoing operations
41
Principle 8
Fees should be stable (not vary considerably year to year) and predictable with changes based only on scope
adjustments, CPI increases, and increases in participants
• Question for PDAG:• Do we want to be this specific? • Are the items specified the ones we’d have?
42
Principle 9
Fees should produce a predictable income to support the costs of operating the provider directory which should
include allocations for information technology and operational quality assurance activities and security.
• Questions for PDAG:• Operating, maintaining, and enhancing?• Security?
43
Next steps
• Finalize principles• Draft fee structure options and considerations for the provider
directory based on November meeting input– Fee types– Description– Structure– Benefits– Challenges– Consideration
• December meeting – in depth fee structure conversation.– Bring a fee friend
44
Updates and next meeting
Karen Hale
PDAG 2016 meeting dates and locations
Date LocationJanuary 13, 2016 Portland – PSOB Room 1A
February 17, 2016 Woodburn
March 16, 2016 Portland – PSOB Room 1E
April 13, 2016 Woodburn
May 18, 2016 Portland – PSOB Room 1E
June 15, 2016 Woodburn
July 13, 2016 Portland – PSOB Room 1E
August 17, 2016 Woodburn
September 14, 2016 Portland – PSOB Room 1E
October 12, 2016 Woodburn
November 16, 2016 Portland – PSOB Room 1E
December 14, 2016 Woodburn46
PDAG/CCAG Nominations
• 3 current vacancies on the Common Credentialing Advisory Group (CCAG) and 1 current vacancy on the PDAG
• OHA will arrange a joint CCAG/PDAG nomination/application process – PDAG is looking for a provider representative– CCAG is looking for a Hospital representative, health
plan representative, and an Independent Physician Association (IPA) representative
47
Public Comment and closing
48