Medicare s Bundled Payment Initiatives. From Voluntary Pilot Programs to Mandatory Payment Systems
|
|
- Kellie Thompson
- 7 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Medicare s Bundled Payment Initiatives From Voluntary Pilot Programs to Mandatory Payment Systems
2 Roadmap for Today s Presentation Brief reminder of why payment models matter Definition of episode-based payment systems and the evolution of bundled payment models Brief discussion of key bundled payment systems (both in the public and private sectors) CMS' current bundled payment initiatives Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative (BPCI) Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Oncology Care Model (OCM) Specifics of the CJR and the likely future of CMS payment models 2
3 Preliminary Matter I will try to respond to questions at the end of the webinar. We may not have time for all of your questions, but I will be glad to respond to s after the webinar. Please feel free to contact me at pdean@hollandhart.com 3
4 Why Payment Models Matter By every measure available, the U.S. health care system is the most expensive in the world costing more than 2½ times the average of other developed countries. Accounting for ~17% of GDP, there has been tremendous focus on reducing spending. Experience has proved, however, that payment systems especially those designed to reduce costs affect provider behavior and almost every model has unintended consequences. Despite their protestations to the contrary, study after study has shown that financial incentives have a direct correlation on the amount and type of care provided, regardless of clinical factors. Indeed, payment policy in this country has been an odyssey to reduce spending while maintaining appropriate levels of care. "Overall, financial incentives play a factor in patient and physician behavior regardless of specialty or area of health care. Different pay structures can change the rates of treatment given, the cost of care given, costs imposed on the system, and patient-based characteristics." Vo, A, Working Hard or Hardly Working? The Effects of Pay Structure on Cost of Health Care Provision, June
5 The Issue of Quality Despite the extraordinary cost of health care in the U.S., quality has continued to be an issue. In 2010, the Inspector General for HHS found that 80,000 patients in the Medicare program alone experienced avoidable medical errors that contributed to their deaths. When preventable errors that cause harm but not death are added to the equation, the incidence has been predicted to be as high as 40,000 errors per day. According to Medicare's own estimates, 1 in 7 Medicare patients will experience an "adverse" event while in the hospital, and 1 in 3 will be readmitted to the hospital within a month of discharge. In 2009, Medicare spent an estimated $4.4 billion to care for patients who were harmed in the hospital and readmissions accounted for $26 billion in additional costs to Medicare. 5
6 Episode-Based Payment Prior to the passage of the ACA, the most far-reaching episode-based payment model was introduced in 1983 with the establishment of the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS). Under the IPPS, hospitals are paid a fixed price, prospectively determined, for all physician and hospital charges associated with the patient's medical severity diagnosis-related group (MS-DRG). One of the goals of the IPPS/MS-DRG is to provide incentives for hospitals to shorten inpatient lengths of stay and reduce the number of procedures and the intensity of care provided. IPPS has been at least partially effective in slowing the rate of cost increases. However, multiple studies suggest that IPPS not only fails to improve the quality of care provided, it also has shown a deleterious effect on quality. 6
7 Episode-Based Payment CMS conducted a series of demonstration projects to test the bundling of payment for services provided by multiple types of providers, such as hospitals and physicians, who have historically been paid under separate systems. These pilots have been applied to several types of episodes, including cardiac bypass, cataract surgery, and joint-replacement surgeries. 7
8 ACE Demonstration HHS introduced bundled payments for Medicare recipients with the Medicare Acute Care Episode (ACE) Demonstration in Conducted under the authority of Section 1866C of the Social Security Act. Three-year demonstration of prospective global payments for a single episode of care as an alternative approach to fee-for-service payment. Limited to specific hospitals in four cities (San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Denver) Episode of care was defined as a combination of Part A and B services furnished to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during an inpatient hospital stay for any one of a specified set of cardiac or orthopedic MS-DRGs. The discounted bundled payments generated an average gross savings to Medicare of $585 per episode for a total of 7.3 million across all episodes (12,501 episodes) or 3.1% of the total expected cost for these episodes. After accounting for some increased post-acute-care costs that were observed in two sites, Medicare estimates it saved approximately $4 million or 1.72% of the total expected Medicare spending through the ACE Demonstration. 8
9 Private Sector Efforts The private sector has also experimented with episodebased and bundled payment systems. In 2006, the Commonwealth Fund and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation developed the PROMETHEUS Payment model at four initial pilot sites. PROMETHEUS stands for "Provider Payment Reform for Outcomes, Margins, Evidence, Transparency, Hassle-Reduction, Excellence, Understandability and Sustainability." System assigns evidence-based case reimbursement rates (ECRs) to common conditions, including total joint replacement, diabetes, and depression. 9
10 Private Sector Efforts Also in 2006, the Geisinger Health System tested its "ProvenCare" payment model for coronary artery bypass surgery. The model set a fixed price for preoperative, inpatient, and postoperative care (including re-hospitalizations), within 90 days of surgery. A study of ProvenCare patients revealed that 117 patients who received their care under the model had significantly shorter lengths of stay, resulting in 5% lower hospital charges. In addition, the ProvenCare patients were more likely to be discharged home and had a 10% decrease in readmissions when compared to the 137 patients who received conventional care. Geisinger has added new diagnoses to its ProvenCare model, including elective coronary angioplasty, gastric bypass surgery for obesity, perinatal care, and treatment for several chronic conditions. 10
11 New Private Sector Initiatives In 2014, MD Anderson and UnitedHealthcare agreed on a bundled payment program for cancer patients. The three-year pilot program will enroll 250 patients with cancers of the head and neck, including neoplasms of the salary glands, oral cavity, throat, and larynx who were covered by a UnitedHealthcare employer-sponsored health plan in the Houston area. The yearly bundled payment amount is expected to cover almost all of the patient's cancer care including chemotherapy, imaging scans, surgery, and post-acute-care. 11
12 New Private Sector Initiatives UnitedHealthcare's latest project follows up on a three-year bundled payment pilot with five medical oncology practices covering 810 breast, colon, and lung cancer patients. The pilot program reported medical costs that were 34% less than projections based on fee-for-service costs. According to UnitedHealthcare, cancer therapy, including related drug costs, currently accounts for 11% of its total spending for healthcare. With one of the largest private payers investing heavily in bundled payment models and reporting savings, even if on only unlimited data, other commercial payers are likely to follow. 12
13 The Accountable Care Act Encouraged by the cost savings of the ACE Demonstration and the inherent limitations of IPPS and other payment models, in 2010, the ACA established the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Innovation Center) and mandated the creation of multiple programs to assess their effect on cost and quality of care. The ACA charges the Innovation Center with identifying, developing, assessing, supporting, and spreading new models that might reduce expenditures under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) while improving or maintaining care quality." 13
14 Bundled Payments A payment system that covers a pre-determined episode of care involving the services of multiple providers, typically beginning with a set diagnosis and including all services provided over a specified time frame. Differs from fee-for-service in that the payment amount for all providers involved in the patient's care is set in advance and not affected by the number of services, procedures, or items provided. Differs from capitation in that capitated payment systems involve a single per capita prospective payment for all services over a fixed part of time regardless of the number of services or episodes of care provided within the designated time period. Moreover, since bundled payments ultimately are intended to cover services and items throughout an entire episode of care, including after the initial hospitalization ("post-acute care"), they go beyond the more limited IPPS/MS-DRG model that covers only the hospital and physician costs associated with an inpatient stay. 14
15 CMS Focus Bundled payment models have become a major focus of CMS. Section 3032 of the ACA created the Innovation Center. Section 3023 of the ACA specifically mandates the implementation of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) Initiative for the purpose of testing the effects of episode-based payment approaches on "patient experience of care, outcomes, and cost of care for Medicare fee-for-service providers." The stated goal of HHS is to have 30% of all Medicare services delivered through alternative payment models under which providers are accountable for the cost and quality of the care they deliver (e.g., ACOs and bundled payments) by 2016 and 50% by the end of
16 CMS Current Bundled Payment Initiatives CMS is currently involved in three bundled payment initiatives: 1. Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) Initiative Voluntary program that went into effect in Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Program Mandatory programs in specified geographic regions that go into effect on April 1, Oncology Care Model Voluntary initiative slated to be operational in Spring
17 BPCI Initiative Developed to test the effects of episode-based payment approaches on "patient experience of care, outcomes, and cost of care for Medicare feefor-service beneficiaries. Allows hospitals to enroll in bundled payment agreements with CMS under four separate models for up to 48 broad-ranging clinical conditions designated from the Medicare MS-DRGs. Conditions include chronic illnesses, acute-onset conditions, traumatic injuries, and elective procedures of varying severity. Clinical conditions include diabetes, renal failure, acute myocardial infarction, urinary tract infection, stroke, major upper and lower extremity joint replacements, amputation, and spinal fusion. Each episode is linked to an acute care hospital inpatient stay. Most episodes include services and items covered under Medicare Parts A and B. 17
18 BPCI Initiative Models 2, 3, and 4 include 2 phases: Phase 1 is essentially a preparation period during which CMS provides financial information to participants and participants can decide whether they choose to participate in Phase 2, without assuming any financial risk while they do so. Only participants in Phase 1 can choose to participate in Phase 2. Phase 2 participants assume financial risk for the episode of care. There are multiple ways for providers to participate in the BPCI Initiative, including those entering into direct agreement with CMS to bear financial risk (Awardees), those who do not contract with CMS directly but coordinate multiple providers (Conveners), and those who initiate an episode of care under the BPCI Initiative (Initiators). 18
19 BPCI: Model 1 Model 1 involves only Medicare Part A items and services provided during an inpatient stay in an acute care hospital. Under this model, hospitals receive a discounted payment based on rates established under the IPPS, and physicians are paid separately for their services pursuant to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. 19
20 BPCI: Model 2 An episode of care under Model 2 includes the inpatient hospital stay for the anchor MS-DRG and all related care covered under Medicare Parts A and B during a predetermined post-acute care period. Medicare pays providers and suppliers furnishing services to a beneficiary on a fee-for-service basis over the course of the entire episode. Participants choose which of the 48 episodes in which they will enroll, and they select the length of each episode (30, 60, or 90 days after discharge from the inpatient hospital stay). 20
21 BPCI: Model 2 (continued) After the episode is complete, the total payments for a beneficiary's episode of care is reconciled with CMS s predetermined "target price. This retrospective reconciliation compares the total dollar amount of fee-for-service expenditures for all items and services provided to a beneficiary (collectively referred to as the "Aggregate Fee-For- Service Payments. For those participating in Phase 2 of Model 2, if the Aggregate Fee-For- Service Payments are less than CMS s target price, the Awardee receives the difference. If, on the other hand, the Aggregate Fee-For-Service Payments are more than the target price, the Awardee must repay the difference to CMS. 21
22 BPCI: Model 3 In Model 3, the episode of care is triggered by an acute care hospital stay for an anchor MS-DRG and begins at the start of the post-acute care services with participating Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs), Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs), Long-Term Care Hospitals (LTCHs), or Home Health Agencies (HHAs). Post-acute care services included in the episode must begin within 30 days of discharge from inpatient hospital stay and end either a minimum of 30, 60, or 90 days after the initiation of the episode. Like Model 2, CMS makes fee-for-service payments to providers and suppliers furnishing services to eligible beneficiaries during the course of the episode. After the conclusion of the episode, total payments are reconciled against CMS s predetermined target price; depending on whether the Aggregate Fee- For-Service Payments are above or below the target price, Awardees participating in Phase 2 are either permitted to keep the excess payments or must repay CMS. 22
23 BPCI: Model 4 In contrast to Models 1-3, Model 4 involves a prospective bundled payment. Under this model, CMS makes a single, predetermined payment to an acute care hospital instead of an IPPS payment. The bundled payment includes all services covered under Medicare Parts A and B provided during the inpatient stay to the hospital, physicians, and non-physician practitioners. Payment under Model 4 also includes any related readmissions that occur within 30 days after discharge. 23
24 BPCI: Model 4 (continued) Once an eligible Medicare beneficiary is admitted to an acute care hospital, the participant (Episode Initiator) must submit a Notice of Admission (NOA) indicating that the beneficiary is expected to be included in the bundled payment model. Following the submission of an NOA, hospitals are given a $500 payment and receive the balance of the predetermined bundled payment once the hospital claim is processed. During the course of the hospitalization practitioners submit "no pay" claims to Medicare for the services provided. The Episode Initiator is responsible for paying all providers from the bundled payment amount, unless a provider opts out of the bundled payment model and chooses instead to receive payment under the Medicare fee-for-service rules. If any Medicare fee-for-service claims are paid by CMS for services included in the bundled payment episode as part of the initial inpatient stay or related readmissions, the Awardee is responsible for repaying those amounts to CMS. 24
25 BPCI Quality Measures There are three prongs to quality measurements under the BPCI Initiative: 1. CMS requires all participants to track the measures contained in its existing Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program (HIQRP) and the Hospital Outpatient Quality Data Reporting System (HOQRP). 2. CMS encourages participants to develop custom measures using evidence-based guidelines to measure quality of care. 3. CMS requires that participants collect information included in the BPCI Continuity Assessment Record and Evaluation (B-CARE) Tool that evaluates the condition of beneficiaries at the time of discharge from the hospital. Critically, as compared to the CJR model, reimbursement rates are not tied to quality results. 25
26 BPCI Initiative Results To Date The most recent data on the BPCI was made available by CMS on August 13, It reveals: As of July 1, 2015, the BPCI Initiative has 2,115 participants in Phase 2 (risk-bearing phase). Of these, the majority of participants are Skilled Nursing Facilities (1,071), Physician Practice Groups (441), and Acute Care Hospitals (423). The vast majority of participants are enrolled in Models 2 and 3, accounting for 99% of participation. The table on the next page summarizes the BPCI Initiative and participation in Phase 2. 26
27 BPCI Summary Description Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Acute care hospital Acute care hospital stay plus postacute Post-acute care only Acute care hospital stay stay only care (includes SNF, IRF, LTCH, only. HHA) Payment Retrospective Retrospective Retrospective Prospective Covered Episodes Services Included in Bundle All DRGs for all 48 episodes All Part A services covered by DRG payment Selected DRGs for hospital inpatient stays and post-acute care All non-hospice Part A and B services paid during initial inpatient stay, post-acute period, and readmissions Selected DRGs for postacute care only All non-hospice Part A and B services during the postacute period and readmissions Selected DRGs for hospital inpatient stays and readmissions All non-hospice Part A and B services during the initial inpatient stay and readmissions Defining Features Number of Participants in Phase 2 (as of July 1, 2015) Hospital is paid a discounted amount based on payments rates under the IPPS providers paid separately under feefor-service. Actual expenditures are reconciled after the fact to predetermined target price. Providers/suppliers are paid on a fee-for-service basis during episode. After reconciliation, if expenditures are below the target price, CMS shares those savings with the Awardee. If expenditures are above the target price, Awardee repays CMS. Same as Model 2 except it covers only physician and hospital charges during a 30, 60, or 90-day period that begins with the initiation of post-acute services with a SNF, IRF, LTCH, or HHA following an acute care hospitalization , CMS makes a single, predetermined bundled payment to the hospital that covers all services and items provided by the hospital, physicians, and other practitioners during the inpatient stay and any related readmissions. 27
28 BPCI Conclusions About Effectiveness Conclusions about the effectiveness of the BPCI to control costs and improve quality are difficult to parse out at this early stage. CMS contracted with the Lewin Group to evaluate and monitor the Initiative over its five-year duration. The first (and only to date) report includes data from only eight Awardees in Model 2, six Awardees in Model 3, and one Awardee in Model 4. First report limits its conclusions to Model 2. While the report warns that any definitive conclusions are impossible at this time, the Lewin Group found a statistically significant decline in SNF use and a corresponding increase in HHA care which could indicate substitution of the lower-cost HHA care for the higher-cost SNF stays. The report also found that readmissions declined more for BPCI Model 2 participants but were accompanied by an increase in emergency department visits without hospitalization. 28
29 BPCI Conclusions About Effectiveness The BPCI data for Year 1 was also analyzed by a team from Health Affairs. While also warning that any definitive conclusions are impossible, the Health Affairs analysis yielded the following interesting information: Of the 3,360 non-critical access, acute care hospitals in the U.S. that provide care to Medicare beneficiaries, 225 were participating in Phase 1 (~9%) and only 107 in Phase 2 (~3%); 3,028 declined early participation. While many hospitals enrolled in the majority of eligible clinical conditions (MS-DRGs) during the exploratory Phase 1, only 47% of those entered into risk bearing arrangements in Phase 2 and, of those, the majority chose to focus on three or fewer conditions. Hospitals enrolled in the BPCI Initiative were most often large, nonprofit, teaching hospitals in the Northeast. 29
30 BPCI Conclusions About Effectiveness Health Affairs concluded that the greatest opportunity for savings in bundled payment programs is in post-acute care services. Post-acute services "accounted for the highest amount of variation in total episode-based spending and, therefore, represent important targets in any effort to reduce healthcare spending for these conditions. 30
31 Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR) In July 2015, CMS proposed a rule (subject to notice and comment rulemaking) to implement a new Medicare Part A and B payment model under section 1115A of the Social Security Act, initially referred to as the CCJR (changed to CJR when the final rule was issued on November 24, 2015). Critically, the CJR model is mandatory in certain selected geographic areas. And, unlike the BPCI Initiative in which different types of entities could be the Episode Initiator (bundle-holder), in the CJR, hospitals are the only entity that can be an Episode Initiator and they bear sole responsibility for the cost and quality of the care provided. CMS reasons that by putting hospitals at risk, they will have an incentive to increase care coordination, invest in infrastructure to improve quality and efficiency, and develop systems to ensure high-value post-acute care.
32 Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR) To understand CMS's motivation, you need look only to the numbers of lower extremity joint replacements (LEJR) performed on Medicare beneficiaries each year and the dollars involved: Hip and knee replacements (although the CJR covers all lower extremity replacements and reattachments) are some of the most common surgeries for Medicare beneficiaries. In in 2013, they accounted for 400,000 inpatient procedures, costing more than $7 billion for hospitalizations alone. Common complications, including infections and implant failures, are almost 3 times higher at some facilities than others. Costs vary widely, ranging between $16,500 to $33,000 a difference of $6.6 trillion to the system.
33 Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR) The episode is defined by the admission of an eligible Medicare beneficiary to a hospital paid under the IPPS for DRG 469 (major joint replacement or reattachment of lower extremity with major complications or comorbidities) or 470 (same, without complications or comorbidities). The model includes all Part A and B services during the initial hospitalization and within 90 days of discharge. In addition to physician and inpatient hospital services, the bundle includes all services received in an inpatient psychiatric facility, long-term care hospital, inpatient rehabilitation facility, skilled nursing facility, home health agency, hospital outpatient setting, as well as independent outpatient therapy, clinical laboratory services, durable medical equipment, Part B drugs, and hospice.
34 Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR) Critically, the CJR will be the first Innovation Center model and the only bundled payment model to date in which providers are required to participate. Accordingly, within each of the 67 selected geographic regions, all eligible Medicare beneficiaries, with limited exceptions, who are discharged with a MS-DRG of 469 or 470 will be included in the CJR model.
35 CJR Geographic Regions The geographic areas for inclusion in the CJR model are determined on a stratified random sampling of certain Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the United States. The original proposed rule included 75 geographic regions (also based on MSAs) but that number was reduced to 67 in the final rule. A complete listing of the geographic regions included in the CJR model can be found at 80 Fed. Reg. 73,299, Table 4. CMS excluded from the selection of geographic areas MSAs that met certain criteria. 42 C.F.R (c). 35
36 Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR) Under the CJR, all providers will continue to receive fee-for-service payments. The sum of the payments over the course of the episode are referred to as the actual episode payment. At the conclusion of the episode, the actual episode payment will be reconciled against an established CJR target price with consequences if the actual episode payment is higher or lower than the target price.
37 CJR Setting of Target Price Several factors go into the setting of target prices: First, each participant hospital will have a target price based on whether the beneficiary is undergoing elective surgery or as the result of a fracture. Second, CMS calculates episode target prices based on a blend of hospital-specific and regional episode expenditures. 42 C.F.R (b)(1). (For detailed discussion see 80 Fed. Reg. 73, ). Episode payments are capped at two standard deviations above the mean regional episode payment for both hospital-specific and regional components of the target price. 42 C.F.R (b)(5) 37
38 CJR Performance Years CMS will communicate the episode target price to participant hospitals before each performance year. 42 C.F.R (b)(7) Performance Year 1 will run from April 1, 2016 through December 31, C.F.R Thereafter, Performance Years 2-5 will correspond to the calendar year until the model's conclusion on December 31,
39 CJR - Target Price Each participant hospital's target price incorporates a baseline 3% discount that reflects Medicare's portion of reduced expenditures from the CJR model. 42 C.F.R (c) In each separate Performance Year, this discount may be affected by the two mandated quality-related scores and whether the hospital successfully submits data on a patient-reported outcomes survey. These scores affect: (1) whether a participant hospital is eligible for a reconciliation payment; (2) whether a participant hospital is eligible for a quality incentive payment; and (3) the effective discount percentage for the reconciliation payment. 39
40 CJR Reconciliation Process The CJR provides a series of reconciliation processes to establish final payment amounts to participant hospitals following each Performance Year. The reconciliation process begins 2 months after the end of each Performance Year and establishes a net payment reconciliation amount (NPRA). 42 C.F.R (b). The NPRA essentially compares a hospital's actual episode payments to its target price multiplied by the number of episodes included in the performance year. Other factors included in this calculation are increases an post-episode spending, limitations on loss, limitations on gain, and financial loss limits for certain types of hospitals. 42 C.F.R (f). 40
41 CJR Reconciliation Process For Performance Year 1, if a hospital's actual episode payments are less than the target episode price, it is eligible for a "reconciliation payment" equal to the NPRA. For Performance Years 2 through 5, reconciliation calculations are applied to the NPRA to determine whether a hospital is eligible for a reconciliation payment or whether it will be required to repay CMS for the amount in which its actual episode payments exceeded its target episode amount. CMS has instituted a phased-in repayment requirement, and accordingly, there is no repayment responsibility in Performance Year 1. 41
42 CJR Stop-Loss and Stop-Gain The CJR also includes limitations on both a participant hospital's potential repayment obligation and reconciliation payment, referred to as the stop-loss limit and, correspondingly, the stop-gain limit. As discussed above, hospitals will not bear financial responsibility for acute episode payments greater than a ceiling set at two standard deviations above the mean regional episode payment. Performance Year Stop-Loss Limit (%) Stop-Gain Limit (%) 1 There is no repayment responsibility and
43 CJR - Stop-Loss Example By way of example, assume a hospital has 10 episodes triggered by MS-DRG 469 with the target price for each episode of $50,000, for a total target price of $500,000. If the hospital's actual spending for those 10 episodes was $650,000, the hospital's raw NPRA would be negative $150,000 ($500,000 - $650,000 = $-150,000). Under this scenario, starting in Performance Year 2, this hospital s raw NPRA would be capped at $50,000 (0.1 x 10 x $50,000 = $50,000), as opposed to the $150,000 that the hospital would be responsible to repay without a stoploss limit. See 80 Fed Reg. 73,
44 CJR Reconciliation Process On top of this reconciliation process, CMS imposes additional calculations based on several quality metrics. CMS assesses each participant hospital's performance on quality metrics to determine whether the participant hospital is eligible to receive a reconciliation payment for a Performance Year. Before describing how quality measures affect payment, it is necessary to understand the quality measures incorporated into the CJR and their relative weight on reimbursement rates. 44
45 CJR Quality Measures CMS has incorporated three quality measures into the CJR. They include: 1. Performance on the hospital-level risk-standardized complication rate following elective primary Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) and/or Total Ankle Arthroplasty (TKA) measure (NQF # 1550) ("THA/TKA Complications Measure); 2. Performance on the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey measure (NQF #0166 ("HCAHPS Survey"); and 3. Successful submission of the THA/TKA voluntary patientreported outcomes and limited risk variable data ("THA/TKA Voluntary PRO and Risk Variable Data Measure"). 45
46 CJR Quality Measures THA/TKA Complications Measure (NQF #1550) Measure is currently used in the HIQRP utilized by the BPCI Initiative. Measures the rate of complications occurring after THA and/or TKA surgical procedures during the 90-day period following discharge. HCAHPS Survey Nationalized, standardized, publicly reported survey of patients experience of hospital care. Asks patients to rate their experience on 32 different aspects of their hospital experience. THA/TKA Voluntary PRO And Variable Risk Data First measure used by CMS to assess post-operative functional outcomes. Measure will be used through Performance Year 3. After that, CMS plans to implement its own post-operative functional outcomes measure that it is currently developing. To be eligible for increased reimbursement, hospitals must submit a substantial portion of data on this measure. 46
47 THA/TKA Voluntary PRO and Risk Variable Data Hospitals must submit a specified amount of requested THA/TKA Voluntary PRO and Variable Risk Data each Performance Year of the model in order to be deemed to have successfully complied with the submission requirement. Performance Percentage or Number of Performance Periods Year Primary THA/TKA Procedures 1 >50% or >50 total procedures Performed between 7/1/16 and 8/31/16 2 Post-op data for >50% or >50 procedures and Pre-op data for >60% of > 75 procedures Performed between 7/1/16 and 8/31/16 and Performed between 9/1/16 and 6/30/17 3 Post-op data for >60% or >75 procedures and Pre-op data for >70% or >100 procedures 4 Post-op data for >70% or >100 procedures and Pre-op data for >80% or >200 procedures 5 Post-op data for >80% or >200 procedures and Pre-op data for >80% or >200 procedures Performed between 9/1/16 and 6/30/17 and Performed between 7/1/17 and 6/30/18 Performed between 7/1/17 and 6/30/18 and Performed between 7/1/18 and 6/30/19 Performed between 7/118 and 6/3019 and Performed between 7/119 and 6/30/20
48 Scoring of Quality Measures and Effect on Payment Under the CJR, each of these three quality measures factor into the calculation of a "quality composite score. The three quality measures are given the following weights: Quality measure Hospital-level risk-standardized complication rate following elective THA and/or TKA measure (NQF #1550) Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey measure (NQF #0166) THA/TKA voluntary data submission of patient reported outcomes and limited risk variable data Weight in composite quality score (%)
49 Scoring of Quality Measures and Effect on Payment In addition, CMS computes quality performance points for each of these quality measures based on the participant hospital's performance percentile relative to the national distribution of all hospitals performance on that measure. 42 C.F.R (c). For the THA/TKA Complications Measure, CMS assigns the participant hospital measure value to a performance percentile and then assigns quality performance points. Similarly, for the HCAHPS Survey CMS assigns quality performance points based on the hospital's performance percentile. In addition, a participant hospital is eligible to receive quality improvement points equal to 10% of the total available points for an individual measure if performance improves from the previous Performance Year by at least 3 deciles on the performance percentile scale. The table on the following page provides individual scoring for the 2 required quality measures: 49
50 Scoring of Quality Measures and Effect on Payment Performance Percentile THA/TKA Complications measure (NQF #1550) quality performance score (points) (one additional point available for improvement) HCAHPS Survey measure (NQF #0166) quality performance score (points) (0.8 additional points available for improvement) >90th >80th and <90th >70th and <80th >60th and <70th >50th and <60th >40th and <50th >30th and <40th <30th
51 Scoring of Quality Measures and Effect on Payment CMS may also provide incentive payments to participant hospitals depending on their composite quality score. These incentive payments are implemented in the form of reductions to the applicable discount rate. Participant hospitals with a composite score 4.0 will be categorized as "Below Acceptable" and will not be eligible for reconciliation payment even if actual episode spending is less than the target price. CMS estimates that based on current hospital quality measure performance, approximately 90% of participant hospitals would have a composite quality score of greater than or equal to 4.0 and, accordingly, would be eligible for reconciliation payments based on acceptable or better quality performance. Participant hospitals with an acceptable composite quality score of >4.0 and < 6.0 will be assigned to the "Acceptable" quality category and be eligible for reconciliation payment if actual episode spending is less than the target price. 51
52 Scoring of Quality Measures and Effect on Payment Participant hospitals with a composite quality score of 6.0 and 13.2 will be assigned to the "Good" quality category and be eligible for quality incentive payment at reconciliation if actual episode spending is less than the target price. In addition, hospitals in this category will be eligible for a quality incentive payment at reconciliation that equals 1% of the participant hospital's benchmark price, thereby changing the effective discount percentage. 52
53 Scoring of Quality Measures and Effect on Payment Participant hospitals with a composite quality score of >13.2 will be assigned to the Excellent" quality category and be eligible for quality incentive payment at reconciliation if actual episode spending is less than the target price. Hospitals in this category will also be eligible to receive a higher quality incentive payment that equals 1½ percent of the hospital's benchmark price, thereby changing the effective discount percentage included in the target price. 53
54 Scoring of Quality Measures and Effect on Payment This payment methodology effectively means that hospitals will either have less repayment responsibility (that is, the quality incentive payment will offset a portion of their repayment responsibility) or receive a higher payment (that is, the quality incentive payment will add to the reconciliation payment) than they would have otherwise based on a composite of actual episode spending to the target price that reflects a 3% discount. The tables on the next page summarize the relationship of composite quality scores to reconciliation payment eligibility and the effective discount percentage experienced at reconciliation by Performance Year. 54
55 Scoring of Quality Measures and Effect on Payment Performance Year 1 Composite quality score Quality category Performance Years 2 and 3 Performance Year 5 Eligible for reconciliation payment Eligible for quality incentive payment 55 Effective discount percentage for reconciliation payment (%) Effective discount percentage for repayment amount <4.0 Below Acceptable No No 3.0 Not applicable >4.0 and <6.0 Acceptable Yes No 3.0 Not applicable >6.0 and <13.2 Good Yes Yes 2.0 Not applicable >13.2 Excellent Yes Yes 1.5 Not applicable Composite quality score Quality category Eligible for reconciliation payment Eligible for quality incentive payment Effective discount percentage for reconciliation payment (%) Effective discount percentage for repayment amount <4.0 Below Acceptable No No >4.0 and <6.0 Acceptable Yes No >6.0 and <13.2 Good Yes Yes >13.2 Excellent Yes Yes Composite quality score Quality category Eligible for reconciliation payment Eligible for quality incentive payment Effective discount percentage for reconciliation payment (%) Effective discount percentage for repayment amount <4.0 Below Acceptable No No >4.0 and <6.0 Acceptable Yes No >6.0 and <13.2 Good Yes Yes >13.2 Excellent Yes Yes
56 CJR Financial Arrangements with Other Providers In an effort to facilitate collaboration between hospitals and other providers, including physicians, physician practice groups, sub- acute care facilities, post-acute care providers, and nonphysician providers, the CJR specifically allows participant hospitals to enter into "sharing arrangements" with other providers. 42 C.F.R These sharing arrangements may include agreements to share in reconciliation payments ("gainsharing") or repayment of cost overruns ("alignment payments"). Providers entering into such financial arrangements are referred to as "CJR collaborators" and any financial arrangements to share in gains or losses must be memorialized in written "collaborator agreements." 56
57 CJR Requirements for Sharing Arrangements There are several requirements for sharing arrangements: 1. Sharing arrangements must be made only from the participant hospital to the CJR collaborator with whom the participant hospital has signed a collaborator agreement executed before care was furnished. 2. CMS has the authority to review any sharing arrangement to ensure that it does not pose a risk to beneficiaries access to care, freedom of choice, or quality of care. 3. The participant hospital must have ultimate responsibility for fully complying with all provisions of the CJR model. 4. The governing body of the participant hospital is responsible for overseeing its participation in the CJR model, its arrangements with CJR collaborators, its payment of gainsharing payments and the receipt of alignment payments, and its use of beneficiary incentives in the CJR model. 5. Participating hospitals must develop and maintain written policies and must update its compliance program to include oversight of sharing arrangements.
58 CJR Requirements for Sharing Arrangements In addition: To be a CJR collaborator, a physician or nonphysician practitioner must not have opted out of Medicare. Physician group practices that are CJR collaborators may retain all or a portion of the gainsharing payment provided that they contributed to the hospital's care redesign under the CJR model and were clinically involved in the care of the CJR beneficiaries. Each sharing arrangement must comply with all relevant laws and regulations, including fraud and abuse laws and applicable payment and coverage requirements. An individual s or entity's participation in a sharing arrangement must be voluntary and without penalty for nonparticipation.
59 CJR Requirements for Sharing Arrangements The methodology for determining a collaborators receipt of reconciliation patient payments or obligation for alignment payments must be based, at least in part, on criteria related to the quality of care delivered to beneficiaries during the CJR episode and not directly on the volume or value of referrals. Any gainsharing payment must be derived solely from reconciliation payments, internal cost savings, or both. In a calendar year, the aggregate amount of all gainsharing payments distributed by a participant hospital may not exceed the amount of reconciliation payment the participant hospital receives from CMS. Similarly, in a calendar year, the aggregate amount of all alignment payments received by a participant hospital must not exceed 50% of the participant hospital's repayment amount. No alignment payments may be collected by a participant hospital if it does not owe a repayment.
60 CJR Waiver of Pre-Existing Medicare Program Rules To further encourage collaboration between hospitals, physicians, and other providers, CMS has also waived certain Medicare program rules for providers participating in the CJR model. 42 C.F.R CMS has waived the requirement that services and supplies must be furnished "incident to" direct physician supervision (set forth in 42 C.F.R (b)(5)), thus allowing beneficiaries who do not otherwise qualify for home health services to receive post-discharge visits to their place of residence any time during the episode. Under this provision, any service on the list of Medicare-approved telehealth services can be furnished to a CJR beneficiary, regardless of the beneficiary s geographic location. CMS has also waived the requirement for a face-to-face encounter for home health certification.
61 CJR Waiver of Pre-Existing Medicare Program Rules For episodes being tested in Performance Years 2 through 5, CMS has waived the SNF 3-day rule. Under existing Medicare rules, a beneficiary must have been in an acute-care hospital for three consecutive days in order to be eligible to be discharged to a SNF unit. In an effort to encourage participant hospitals and their collaborators to redesign care for LEJR episodes across the continuum of care, the CJR waives the SNF 3-day rule, thereby allowing beneficiaries to be discharged from an acute care hospital to an SNF in less than 3 days, if clinically appropriate.
62 CJR Appeals If a participant hospital wishes to dispute the calculation that involves a matter related to payment, reconciliation amounts, repayment amounts, or determinations associated with quality measures affecting payment, the hospital is required to provide written notice of the error, in the form and manner specified by CMS. 42 C.F.R Unless the participant hospital provides written notice of error, the CJR reconciliation report is deemed final calendar 45 days after it is issued. If CMS receives a timely notice of the calculation error, it must respond in writing within 30 calendar days to either confirm that there was an error in the calculation or verify that the calculation is correct. CMS can expand this time limit upon written notice to the participant hospital.
63 CJR Dispute Resolution Process If the participant hospital is dissatisfied with CMS's response to the notice of a calculation error, the participant hospital may request a reconsideration review. The reconsideration review request must provide a detailed explanation of the basis for the dispute and include supporting documentation that CMS did not accurately calculate the NPRA, the reconciliation payment, or the repayment amount. Reconsideration requests must be received within 10 calendar days of the issue date of CMS's response to the notice of calculation error.
64 CJR Dispute Resolution Process Upon timely receipt of a request for reconsideration, a CMS reconsideration official will notify the participant hospital in writing within 15 days of receiving the participant hospital's review request of the following: The date, time, and location of the review. The issues in dispute. The review procedures. The procedures (including format and deadlines) for submission of evidence. CMS shall take all reasonable efforts to schedule the review to occur no later than 30 days after the date of receipt of the notification. The provisions at 42 C.F.R (b), (c), and (e) are applicable to reviews conducted in accordance with the reconsideration process for CJR. The CMS reconsideration official is to issue a written determination within 30 days of the review. The determination is final and binding. For additional information on exceptions to the process and limitations on review, see 42 C.F.R (c) and (d).
65 CJR Anticipated Results Review of current bundled payment programs and, in particular the CJR, illustrate the extent to which the Innovation Center and CMS have thrown their weight behind this payment model. The final CJR rule subsumes more than 200 pages of the Federal Register in which CMS attempts to address the numerous concerns raised in over 390 comments to the proposed rule and explain its reasoning for the modifications adopted. This behemoth effort underscores CMS s considerable investment in the success of the bundled payment models to both reduce costs and improve (or at least maintain) the quality of care.
66 CJR Anticipated Results The stakes for Medicare are substantial. CMS reports that in 2014 there were approximately 478,000 discharges for MS-DRGs 469 and 470 nationally. The estimated 90-day episode payment for LEJR procedures in 2014 was approximately $26,000. Of this amount, CMS calculates that 55% was attributable to hospital inpatient services, 25% was attributable to post-acute care services (including both outpatient and in-facility care), and 20% was attributable to physician, outpatient hospital, and other spending. Of the approximately 478,000 LEJR procedures in 2014, CMS estimates that about 86,000 took place in hospitals that will be mandatory participants in the CJR program. This means the CJR model will include about 23% of all LEJR episodes during its pendency.
67 CJR Anticipated Results If the model works as planned, the anticipated savings to Medicare will be $343 million over the program's five-year duration. CMS notes that there will also likely be a spillover effect into non-medicare markets, or even in Medicare markets in other geographic areas. The following table summarizes CMS's total spending, reconciliation amounts, repayment amounts, and net reconciliation as a percentage of total episode to spend by Performance Year Across all 5 years of the model Total episode spending $1.247 billion $2.562 billion $2.688 billion $2.821 billion $2.980 billion $ billion Net reconciliation payments $11 billion ($36 billion) ($71 billion) ($120 billion) ($127 billion) ($343 billion) Reconciliation amounts $11 billion $23 billion $30 billion $52 billion $55 billion $170 billion Repayment amounts Not ($58 billion) ($101 billion) ($172 billion) ($182 ($513 billion) applicable billion) Net reconciliation as a percentage of total episode spend 0.8% 1.4% 2.6% 4.2% 4.2% 2.8%
68 Oncology Care Model (OCM) In addition to the BPCI Initiative and the CJR, CMS has been developing new payment and service delivery models for specialty care. For example, in 2011, CMS announced the Comprehensive ESRD Care Model to provide enhanced care to Medicare beneficiaries with end stage renal disease. The OCM is the second specialty care model to be unveiled by CMS. Under the OCM, physician practices enter into payment arrangements that include financial and quality responsibility for episodes of care surrounding the administration of chemotherapy.
69 Oncology Care Model (OCM) The model is an effort to better align care for one of the most common and devastating diseases in the U.S. According to CMS, nationally more than 1.6 million people are diagnosed with cancer each year, with the majority of those diagnosed being over age 65 and Medicare beneficiaries. The OCM, which was developed by the Innovation Center, will be a five-year model beginning in Spring 2016.
70 Oncology Care Model (OCM) The OCM involves a six-month episode following the start of chemotherapy. CMS s stated goal is to utilize appropriately aligned financial incentives to improve care coordination, appropriateness of care, and access to care for beneficiaries undergoing chemotherapy. The bundled payment incorporates a two-part system for participating physician groups, including a monthly perbeneficiary-per-month (PBPM) of $160 per month for the duration of the episode and the potential for performancebased payments for episodes of chemotherapy care.
71 Oncology Care Model (OCM) The PBPM is intended to reimburse participating practices for effectively managing and coordinating care, while the performance-based payment is intended to incentivize practices to lower total costs and improve care for beneficiaries during the episode. The OCM includes nearly all cancers, and participating practices will receive the PBPM regardless of the type of cancer involved. Participating practices, however, will only be eligible for performance-based payments for beneficiaries with "high-volume" cancers for which there are reliable benchmarks. According to CMS, these high-volume cancers include an estimated 90% of all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy.
THE EVOLUTION OF CMS PAYMENT MODELS
THE EVOLUTION OF CMS PAYMENT MODELS December 3, 2015 Dayton Benway, Principal AGENDA Legislative Background Payment Model Categories Life Cycle The Models LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND Medicare Modernization
More informationNational Trends in Medicare Alternative Payment Models. James Michel Senior Director, Medicare Reimbursement & Policy AHCA
National Trends in Medicare Alternative Payment Models James Michel Senior Director, Medicare Reimbursement & Policy AHCA Discussion Review of CMS priorities and goals related to shifting Medicare spending
More informationBundle Care Care Tool Affordable Insurance Exchanges
See attached resources for further information about the Health Care Reform buzz words for 2013. Bundle Care Care Tool Affordable Insurance Exchanges CMS - Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative
More informationSeptember 8, 2015. Dear Mr. Slavitt,
September 8, 2015 Mr. Andrew M. Slavitt Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 445-G 200 Independence
More informationHow to Prepare for CMS Bundled Payments
How to Prepare for CMS Bundled Payments Mandatory bundled payments for joint replacement will serve as many hospitals first pilot program for value-based reimbursement in 2016. Combined with the five-star
More informationCrowe Healthcare Webinar Series
New Payment Models Crowe Healthcare Webinar Series Audit Tax Advisory Risk Performance 2014 Crowe Horwath LLP Agenda Bundled Care for Payment Improvements Payment Models Accountable Care Organizations
More informationReforming and restructuring the health care delivery system
Reforming and restructuring the health care delivery system Are Accountable Care Organizations and bundling the solution? Prepared by: Dan Head, Principal, RSM US LLP dan.head@rsmus.com, +1 703 336 6536
More informationAdvanced Payment Models in Medicare and Medicaid Draft May 1, 2015
Advanced Payment Models in Medicare and Medicaid Draft May 1, 2015 Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Burwell recently announced a goal for Medicare of having 30% of fee-for-service (FFS) payments
More informationAlternative Payment Models Impacting Care Delivery Across the Care Continuum
Alternative Payment Models Impacting Care Delivery Across the Care Continuum AT A GLANCE Contributing Tenant Partners The recent announcement by HHS and CMS accelerates the movement away from FFS and provides
More informationZEPHYRLIFE REMOTE PATIENT MONITORING REIMBURSEMENT REFERENCE GUIDE
ZEPHYRLIFE REMOTE PATIENT MONITORING REIMBURSEMENT REFERENCE GUIDE Overview This guide includes an overview of Medicare reimbursement methodologies and potential coding options for the use of select remote
More informationHospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program
Medicare Spending per Beneficiary (MSPB) Measure Presentation Question & Answer Transcript Moderator: Bethany Wheeler, BS Hospital VBP Program Support Contract Lead Hospital Inpatient Value, Incentives,
More informationCOMMENTARY. HHS Announces Next Generation ACO Model of Payment and Care Delivery. Potential Participants. Focus of the Next Gen ACO Model
April 2015 COMMENTARY HHS Announces Next Generation ACO Model of Payment and Care Delivery On March 10, 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ) announced the Next Generation Accountable
More informationMedicare Value-Based Purchasing Programs
By Jane Hyatt Thorpe and Chris Weiser Background Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Programs To improve the quality of health care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
More information2013 MEDICARE FEE-FOR-SERVICE QUALITY AND RESOURCE USE REPORT
2013 MEDICARE FEE-FOR-SERVICE QUALITY AND RESOURCE USE REPORT Sample Medical Practice Last Four Digits of Your Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN): 1530 ABOUT THIS REPORT FROM MEDICARE WHAT This Quality
More informationWhat Providers Need To Know Before Adopting Bundling Payments
What Providers Need To Know Before Adopting Bundling Payments Dan Mirakhor Master of Health Administration University of Southern California Dan Mirakhor is a Master of Health Administration student at
More information. 4 " ~ f.".2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL. December 19,2003. Our Reference: Report Number A-O2-03-01016
. 4 " ~..+.-"..i"..,. f.".2 '" '" ~ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Office of Audit Services Region II Jacob K. Javits Federal Building New York, New York 10278 (212)
More informationMeeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services March 27, 2013.
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, Ste. 800 Washington, DC 20004 2654 Tel: 202 783 8700 Fax: 202 783 8750 www.advamed.org Meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
More informationPL 111-148 and Amendments: Impact on Post-Acute Care for Health Care Systems
PL 111-148 and Amendments: Impact on Post-Acute Care for Health Care Systems By Kathleen M. Griffin, PhD. There are three key provisions of the law that will have direct impact on post-acute care needs
More information2014: Volume 4, Number 1. A publication of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of Information Products & Data Analytics
2014: Volume 4, Number 1 A publication of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of Information Products & Data Analytics Medicare Post-Acute Care Episodes and Payment Bundling Melissa Morley,¹
More informationDepartment of Health and Human Services. November 24, 2015. Part II
Vol. 80 Tuesday, No. 226 November 24, 2015 Part II Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 510 Medicare Program; Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement
More informationFinalized Changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program
Finalized Changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program Background: On June 4, 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) issued a final rule that updates implementing regulations for the Medicare
More informationAccountable Care Organization Workgroup Glossary
Accountable Care Organization Workgroup Glossary Accountable care organization (ACO) a group of coordinated health care providers that care for all or some of the health care needs of a defined population.
More informationChapter Seven Value-based Purchasing
Chapter Seven Value-based Purchasing Value-based purchasing (VBP) is a pay-for-performance program that affects a significant and growing percentage of Medicare reimbursement for medical providers. It
More informationDETAILED SUMMARY--MEDCIARE SHARED SAVINGS/ACCOUNTABLE CARE ORGANIZATION (ACO) PROGRAM
1 DETAILED SUMMARY--MEDCIARE SHARED SAVINGS/ACCOUNTABLE CARE ORGANIZATION (ACO) PROGRAM Definition of ACO General Concept An ACO refers to a group of physician and other healthcare providers and suppliers
More informationHow Health Reform Will Affect Health Care Quality and the Delivery of Services
Fact Sheet AARP Public Policy Institute How Health Reform Will Affect Health Care Quality and the Delivery of Services The recently enacted Affordable Care Act contains provisions to improve health care
More informationMedicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System Proposed Rule for FY 2016 (CMS-1632-P)
June 15, 2015 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Mr. Andrew Slavitt, Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attention: CMS-1632-P Mail Stop C4-26-05 7500
More informationAccountability and Innovation in Care Delivery Models
Accountability and Innovation in Care Delivery Models Lisa McDonnel Senior Vice President, Network Strategy & Innovation, United Healthcare November 6, 2015 Today s discussion topics Vision Our strategic
More informationEntities eligible for ACO participation
On Oct. 20, 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized new rules under the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) to help doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers better
More informationUpdates on CMS Quality, Value and Public Reporting
Updates on CMS Quality, Value and Public Reporting Federation of American Hospitals Policy Conference Kate Goodrich, MD MHS Director, Quality Measurement and Value Based Incentives Group, CMS June 17,
More informationValue Based Insurance Design Key concepts & their application at HealthPartners Health Insurance Plan
Value Based Insurance Design Key concepts & their application at HealthPartners Health Insurance Plan Shaun Frost, MD Associate Medical Director for Care Delivery Systems HealthPartners Health Plan Minneapolis,
More informationCMS Next Generation ACO Model. Payment Models Work Group April 20 th, 2015
CMS Next Generation ACO Model Payment Models Work Group April 20 th, 2015 1 Why is there a new ACO model? To address concerns about certain design elements of the existing Pioneer Program and the MSSP
More informationMedicare Shared Savings Program: Accountable Care Organizations. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Final Rule Provisions
Medicare Shared Savings Program: Accountable Care Organizations Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Final Rule Provisions The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published a final rule
More informationMedicare ACO Road Map
PYALeadership Briefing Medicare ACO Road Map January, 2013 Medicare ACO Road Map The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ( CMS ) has announced 106 new accountable care organizations ( ACOs ) have
More informationACOs and Bundled Payments. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) I. The Basics. Medicare s Financial Condition
ACOs and Bundled Payments ACO and Bundled Payments What You Need To Know Missouri Health Care Association August 2014 Brian Hickman, CPA Brad Brotherton, CPA Sherri Robbins, RN, LNHA, CLNC, RAC-CT I. The
More informationMaineCare Value Based Purchasing Initiative
MaineCare Value Based Purchasing Initiative The Accountable Communities Strategy Jim Leonard, Deputy Director, MaineCare Peter Kraut, Acting Accountable Communities Program Manager Why Value-Based Purchasing
More informationMoving Towards Bundled Payment
ISSUE BRIEF Moving Towards Bundled Payment Introduction The fee-for-service system of payment for health care services is widely thought to be one of the major culprits in driving up U.S. health care costs.
More informationPreventing Readmissions
Emerging Topics in Healthcare Reform Preventing Readmissions Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Preventing Readmissions The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) contains several provisions intended
More informationPost-acute care providers: Shortcomings in Medicare s fee-for-service highlight the need for broad reforms
C h a p t e r7 Post-acute care providers: Shortcomings in Medicare s fee-for-service highlight the need for broad reforms C H A P T E R 7 Post-acute care providers: Shortcomings in Medicare s fee-for-service
More informationBUNDLING ARE INPATIENT REHABILITATION FACILITIES PREPARED FOR THIS PAYMENT REFORM?
BUNDLING ARE INPATIENT REHABILITATION FACILITIES PREPARED FOR THIS PAYMENT REFORM? Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation Annual Conference August 10, 2012 Presented by: Donna Cameron Rich Bajner
More informationTHE LANDSCAPE OF MEDICAID ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT MODELS
POLICY BRIEF September 2014 THE LANDSCAPE OF MEDICAID ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT MODELS Authored by: America s Essential Hospitals staff KEY FINDINGS States have increasingly sought to establish alternative payment
More informationCMS Innovation and Health Care Delivery System Reform
CMS Innovation and Health Care Delivery System Reform Dr. Patrick Conway, M.D., MSc CMS Chief Medical Officer and Deputy Administrator for Innovation and Quality Director, Center for Medicare and Medicaid
More informationIssue Brief. CMS Finalizes Rules for Medicare Shared Savings Program (ACOs) KEY POINTS COMMENT
Issue Brief 4712 Country Club Drive Jefferson City, MO 65109 P.O. Box 60 Jefferson City, MO 65102 573/893-3700 www.mhanet.com FEDERAL ISSUE BRIEF June 5, 2015 KEY POINTS z More than 400 accountable care
More informationAffordable Care Act (ACA) Health Insurance Exchanges and Medicaid Expansion
Affordable Care Act (ACA) Health Insurance Exchanges and Medicaid Expansion Table of Contents Expanded Coverage... 2 Health Insurance Exchanges... 3 Medicaid Expansion... 8 Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
More informationLeadership Summit for Hospital and Post-Acute Long Term Care Providers May 12, 2015
Leveraging the Continuum to Avoid Unnecessary Utilization While Improving Quality Leadership Summit for Hospital and Post-Acute Long Term Care Providers May 12, 2015 Karim A. Habibi, FHFMA, MPH, MS Senior
More informationProposed Rule: Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program; Accountable Care Organizations (CMS-1461-P)
Via online submission to http://www.regulations.gov February 6, 2015 Sylvia M. Burwell Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attention: CMS 1461
More informationRegulatory Compliance Policy No. COMP-RCC 4.07 Title:
I. SCOPE: Regulatory Compliance Policy No. COMP-RCC 4.07 Page: 1 of 7 This policy applies to (1) any Hospital in which Tenet Healthcare Corporation or an affiliate owns a direct or indirect equity interest
More informationQuality Credentialing or Why Should a Long Term Care Facility Pay Attention to Health Care Reform?
Quality Credentialing or Why Should a Long Term Care Facility Pay Attention to Health Care Reform? Richard J. Brockman, Esq. Susan D. Doughton, Esq. I. Introduction The Patient Protection and Affordable
More informationProviding and Billing Medicare for Transitional Care Management
PYALeadership Briefing Providing and Billing Medicare for Transitional Care Management Updated November 2014 2014 Pershing Yoakley & Associates, PC (PYA). No portion of this white paper may be used or
More informationLinking Quality to Payment
Linking Quality to Payment Background Our nation s health care delivery system is undergoing a major transformation as reimbursement moves from a volume-based methodology to one based on value and quality.
More informationFiscal Year 2016 proposed Inpatient and Long-term Care Hospital policy and payment changes (CMS-1632-P)
Fiscal Year 2016 proposed Inpatient and Long-term Care Hospital policy and payment changes (CMS-1632-P) Date 2015-04-17 Title Fiscal Year 2016 proposed Inpatient and Long-term Care Hospital policy and
More informationUsing Partial Capitation as an Alternative to Shared Savings to Support Accountable Care Organizations in Medicare
December 2010 Using Partial Capitation as an Alternative to Shared Savings to Support Accountable Care Organizations in Medicare CONTENTS Background... 2 Problems with the Shared Savings Model... 2 How
More informationANNALS OF HEALTH LAW Advance Directive VOLUME 20 SPRING 2011 PAGES 134-143. Value-Based Purchasing As a Bridge Between Value and Access
ANNALS OF HEALTH LAW Advance Directive VOLUME 20 SPRING 2011 PAGES 134-143 Value-Based Purchasing As a Bridge Between Value and Access Erin Lau* I. INTRODUCTION By definition, the words value and access
More informationAlternatives to Fee-for-Service Payments in Health Care
AP PHOTO/M. SPENCER GREEN Alternatives to Fee-for-Service Payments in Health Care Moving from Volume to Value Maura Calsyn and Emily Oshima Lee September 2012 W W W.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Alternatives to
More informationCURRENT AND FUTURE TRENDS IN POST ACUTE CARE The Value and Role of Acute Inpatient Rehab
CURRENT AND FUTURE TRENDS IN POST ACUTE CARE The Value and Role of Acute Inpatient Rehab Robert S. Djergaian, M.D. Medical Director Banner Good Samaritan Rehabilitation Institute Stewardship Profitability
More informationSeptember 8, 2015. Dear Acting Administrator Slavitt:
September 8, 2015 Mr. Andrew Slavitt Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 7500 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21244 Re: CMS-5516-P;
More informationMedicare Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System
Medicare Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System May 5, 2015 Payment Rule Brief PROPOSED RULE Program Year: FFY 2016 Overview, Resources, and Comment Submission On May 17, the Centers for Medicare
More informationPROPOSED MEDICARE SHARED SAVINGS (ACO) PROGRAM RULES
PROPOSED MEDICARE SHARED SAVINGS (ACO) PROGRAM RULES The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and other affected agencies released their notice of proposed rulemaking/request for comment for
More informationAdditional Information About Accountable Care Organizations
Additional Information About Accountable Care Organizations For more information, please contact: April 2011 On March 31st, the federal government outlined proposed actions relating to Accountable Care
More informationMACRA: Looking Ahead - Implications Across the Care Continuum. May 16, 2016/ 12:00-1:00 PM EST
MACRA: Looking Ahead - Implications Across the Care Continuum May 16, 2016/ 12:00-1:00 PM EST 1 Today s Presenter Melinda Hancock Partner, DHG Healthcare Leads a team in developing DHG Healthcare s next
More informationBlueprint for Post-Acute
Blueprint for Post-Acute Care Reform Post-acute care is a critical component within our nation s healthcare system and an essential aspect of care for many patients making a full recovery possible after
More informationMedicare Design Part A: Inpatient care, hospice, and some home health care Part B: Physician services + outpatient care Part C ( Medicare Advantage
Medicare Design Part A: Inpatient care, hospice, and some home health care Part B: Physician services + outpatient care Part C ( Medicare Advantage ): Private plan alternative to Parts A and B Part D:
More informationCMS Progress Toward Implementing Value-Based Purchasing
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CMS Progress Toward Implementing Value-Based Purchasing Thomas B. Valuck, MD, JD Medical Officer & Senior Adviser Center for Medicare Management Presentation Overview
More informationJune 22, 2012. Dear Administrator Tavenner:
Submitted Electronically Marilyn Tavenner Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Room 445-G Hubert H. Humphrey Building 200 Independence Avenue
More informationHospital Financing Overview
Texas Hospital Association 1108 Lavaca, Suite 700, Austin, TX, 78701-2180 www.tha.org Hospital Financing Overview Under federal law, hospitals are required to provide care to anyone who seeks it in their
More informationAccountable Care Organizations: The Final Rule
Accountable Care Organizations: The Final Rule October 27, 2011 2011 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 10.27.11 101799002 v4 Overview Background Final Rule Highlights Structure and Formation of ACOs Quality
More informationRefining the hospital readmissions reduction program
Refining the hospital readmissions reduction program C h a p t e r4 C H A P T E R 4 Refining the hospital readmissions reduction program Chapter summary In this chapter In 2008, the Commission reported
More informationCMS Progress Toward Implementing Value-Based Purchasing
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CMS Progress Toward Implementing Value-Based Purchasing Lisa Grabert, MPH Health Insurance Specialist Hospital & Ambulatory Policy Group Presentation Overview CMS
More informationHome Health Value-Based Purchasing. April 6, 2016 12:00-3:45 pm
Home Health Value-Based Purchasing April 6, 2016 12:00-3:45 pm Learning Objectives Understand the changing health care landscape, including various models of value-based purchasing Learn how the HHVBP
More informationCJR FAQ: Comprehensive Care Joint Replacement Model Frequently Asked Questions
CJR FAQ: Comprehensive Care Joint Replacement Model Frequently Asked Questions What is the Comprehensive Care Joint Replacement Model? The Comprehensive Care Joint Replacement Model (CJR) is a Medicare
More informationMedicare Shared Savings Program Final Rule
Healthcare Committee Medicare Shared Savings Program Final Rule On June 9, 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ( CMS ) published a final rule that, according to the agency, will update and
More informationAvoiding Rehospitalizations in LTC Chris Osterberg, RN BSN Pathway Health Services
Avoiding Rehospitalizations in LTC Chris Osterberg, RN BSN Pathway Health Services Objectives Understand the new consequences to hospitals for discharged clients being re-admitted within selected time
More informationHow To Reduce Hospital Readmission
Reducing Hospital Readmissions & The Affordable Care Act The Game Has Changed Drastically Reducing MSPB Measures Chuck Bongiovanni, MSW, MBA, NCRP, CSA, CFE Chuck Bongiovanni, MSW, MBA, NCRP, CSA, CFE
More informationHealthcare Reform Update Conference Call VI
Healthcare Reform Update Conference Call VI Sponsored by the Healthcare Reform Educational Task Force October 9, 2009 2:00-2:45 2:45 pm Eastern Healthcare Delivery System Reform Provisions in America s
More informationCh. 1130 HOSPICE SERVICES 55 CHAPTER 1130. HOSPICE SERVICES GENERAL PROVISIONS RECIPIENT ELIGIBILITY AND DURATION OF COVERAGE
Ch. 1130 HOSPICE SERVICES 55 CHAPTER 1130. HOSPICE SERVICES Sec. 1130.1. Statutory basis. 1130.2. Policy. 1130.3. Definitions. GENERAL PROVISIONS RECIPIENT ELIGIBILITY AND DURATION OF COVERAGE 1130.21.
More informationAccountable Care Organizations (ACO) Proposed Rule Summary March 31, 2011
Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) Proposed Rule Summary March 31, 2011 On March 31, 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the longawaited proposed rule on Accountable Care
More informationAffordable Care Act at 3: Strengthening Medicare
Affordable Care Act at 3: Strengthening Medicare ISSUE BRIEF Fifth in a series May 22, 2013 Kyle Brown Senior Health Policy Analyst 789 Sherman St. Suite 300 Denver, CO 80203 www.cclponline.org 303-573-5669
More informationCMS-14612-P Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program; Accountable Care Organizations Proposed Rule 79 Fed. Reg. 72760 (December 8, 2014)
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network 555 11 th Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 202.661.5700 www.acscan.org Marilyn Tavenner Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department
More informationOFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF HEALT H AND HUMA.l~ SERVIC ES OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL WASHI NGTON, DC 2020 1 MAY 0 3 2013 TO: Marilyn Tavenner Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services FROM: Stuart
More informationThe Times They Are A- Changing: ACOs and Payment
The Times They Are A- Changing: ACOs and Payment Reform March 9, 2011 Deborah K. Gardner Ropes & Gray Deborah.Gardner@ropesgray.com 617.951.7207 Michael F. Sexton Ropes & Gray Michael.Sexton@ropesgray.com
More informationNarrow network health plans: New approaches to regulating adequacy and transparency. Michael S. Adelberg
Compliance TODAY October 2015 a publication of the health care compliance association www.hcca-info.org Combating healthcare fraud in New Jersey an interview with Paul J. Fishman United States Attorney
More informationAccountable Care Organization Provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Accountable Care Organization Provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act The consolidated Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 1 is 974 pages long. Text related to Accountable Care
More informationValue-Based Purchasing
Emerging Topics in Healthcare Reform Value-Based Purchasing Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Value-Based Purchasing The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) established the Hospital Value-Based
More informationInpatient Transfers, Discharges and Readmissions July 19, 2012
Inpatient Transfers, Discharges and Readmissions July 19, 2012 Discharge Status Codes Two-digit code Identifies where the patient is at conclusion of encounter Visit Inpatient stay End of billing cycle
More informationMedi-Pak Advantage: Frequently Asked Questions
Medi-Pak Advantage: Frequently Asked Questions General Information: What Medicare Advantage product is Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield offering? Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield has been approved by
More informationTHE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ITS EFFECTS ON RESPIRATORY CARE & SLEEP DEPARTMENTS
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ITS EFFECTS ON RESPIRATORY CARE & SLEEP DEPARTMENTS SHANE KEENE, DHSC, RRT- NPS, CPFT, RPSGT, RST DEPARTMENT HEAD, ANALYTICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Mr.
More informationMedicare- Medicaid Enrollee State Profile
Medicare- Medicaid Enrollee State Profile Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Introduction... 1 At a Glance... 1 Eligibility... 2 Demographics... 3 Chronic Conditions... 4 Utilization... 6 Spending...
More information1900 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 c/o McKenna Long
1900 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 c/o McKenna Long Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Attention CMS 1345 P P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore, MD 21244 8013 Re:
More informationImproving Hospital Performance
Improving Hospital Performance Background AHA View Putting patients first ensuring their care is centered on the individual, rooted in best practices and utilizes the latest evidence-based medicine is
More informationPresented by Kathleen S. Wyka, AAS, CRT, THE AFFORDABLE CA ACT AND ITS IMPACT ON THE RESPIRATORY C PROFESSION
Presented by Kathleen S. Wyka, AAS, CRT, THE AFFORDABLE CA ACT AND ITS IMPACT ON THE RESPIRATORY C PROFESSION At the end of this session, you will be able to: Identify ways RT skills can be utilized for
More informationPopulation Health Management: Banner Health Network s Perspective. Neta Faynboym, Medical Director Banner Health Network
Population Health Management: Banner Health Network s Perspective Neta Faynboym, Medical Director Banner Health Network 29 Acute Care Hospitals BANNER AT A GLANCE Banner Health Network with 400K lives
More informationLowering Costs and Improving Outcomes. Patient Engagement Issues. Nancy Davenport-Ennis President & CEO. September 8 th, 2009
The Healthcare Imperative: Lowering Costs and Improving Outcomes Patient Engagement Issues Nancy Davenport-Ennis President & CEO National Patient Advocate Foundation September 8 th, 2009 Institute of Medicine
More informationAmy K. Fehn. I. Overview of Accountable Care Organizations and the Medicare Shared Savings Program
IMPLEMENTING COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS FOR ACCOUNTABLE CARE ORGANIZATIONS Amy K. Fehn I. Overview of Accountable Care Organizations and the Medicare Shared Savings Program The Medicare Shared Savings Program
More informationSummary of Major Provisions in Final House Reform Package
SPECIAL BULLETIN Monday, March 22, 2010 This summary is five pages. Summary of Major Provisions in Final House Reform Package The U.S. House of Representatives late yesterday voted to pass landmark health
More informationHow To Make A Hospice Care Plan
TOPIC PROPOSED RULE SUMMARY COMMENT Rates and Estimated hospital market basket update: 2.7 percent Aggregate Cap PROPOSAL Impact of ACA Reductions: minus 0.7 percentage points Impact of Wage Index Changes
More information2009 Medicaid Transformation Program Review Out-of-State Services
2009 Medicaid Transformation Program Review Out-of-State Services Description Kansas Medicaid maintains an out-of-state program for situations which require a Kansas Medicaid beneficiary to receive services
More informationBuilding a Post Acute Network: Care Management and ACOs
Building a Post Acute Network: Care Management and ACOs A high level summary of proposed rules for ACOs and the shared savings program most relevant to post acute providers. Prepared By: Kathleen M. Griffin,
More informationAMS Performance Based Incentive System
AMS Performance Based Incentive System Presentation to Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission Physician Alignment and Engagement Work Group March 11, 2014 Applied Medical Software, Inc., 2014.
More informationMedicare- Medicaid Enrollee State Profile
Medicare- Medicaid Enrollee State Profile Kentucky Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Introduction... 1 At a Glance... 1 Eligibility... 2 Demographics... 3 Chronic Conditions... 4 Utilization...
More informationDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Discharge Planning
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ICN 908184 October 2014 This booklet was current at the time it was published or uploaded onto the web. Medicare policy
More informationFacilities contract with Medicare to furnish
Facilities contract with Medicare to furnish acute inpatient care and agree to accept predetermined acute Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) rates as payment in full. The inpatient hospital benefit
More information