Oregon Health Leadership Council: High Value Patient Centered Care Model The Clinical Performance...
-
Upload
arnold-mcbride -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Oregon Health Leadership Council: High Value Patient Centered Care Model The Clinical Performance...
Oregon Health Leadership Council:High Value Patient Centered Care Model
The Clinical Performance Improvement Network
Denise L. Honzel
Executive Director
September 19, 2012
2 |
• Commissioned by the business community in the summer of 2008
• Purpose—Develop solutions and actions to keep health care costs and premium increases closer to the CPI
• Incorporated as a 501(c) 6, statewide membership organization in 2010
• 14 member Board of Directors• 29 Council members: 7 major medical groups; 8
hospitals/health systems; 12 local/national health plans; Oregon Assoc. of Hospitals and Health System and Oregon Medical Assoc.
• Director of Oregon Health Authority (ex-officio) • Quarterly reporting back to the business community
Oregon Health Leadership Council--History
OHLC-- HVPCCM
3 |
• Initially, four committees to oversee work Value Based Benefits Evidence Based Best Practice—high cost imaging; low
back pain; elective deliveries before 39 weeks Administration Simplification—single sign on;
standardized EDI for claims, eligibility; best practices—plan websites, pre-authorization, credentialing
Reimbursement and Payment Reform—medical home• In 2011 began work on a major effort focused on re-
designing care delivery and financing for the Medicaid and uninsured populations--now moving forward as Community Care Organizations (CCO’s)
Areas of focus for the Council
OHLC-- HVPCCM
4 |
• In early 2009, the Payment Reform group recommends a multi-payer “medical home” initiative focused on high risk adult population
• Reviewed the successful model of Boeing that delivered lower costs (up to 20%), higher quality and patient satisfaction, improved employee productivity with results beginning within 12 months
• In fall of 2009, hired Dr. Pranav Kothari, Renaissance Health with a goal to launch the initiative within a year, learn along the way
• Convened medical group and health plan advisory committees to develop the care and financing models
OHLC-- HVPCCM
High Value Patient Centered Care Demonstration--Timeline
5 |
• Focus on the to ~10% highest risk patients• Intensive care management with RN Care
Manager in the medical office, following a defined care model would produce the greatest impact on care/costs
• At the end of the 2 year demonstration, results would show Lower overall costs compared to a matched control
group with reduced ED visits, reduced inpatient admits/days and initial increase in PCP visits
High quality health outcomes, high levels or member and provider experience
Hypothesis: Care Model and Outcomes
OHLC-- HVPCCM
6 |
• Multiple payers to get the size• Common model of care• Common payment model and standard contract
for all plans to use• Committed medical groups• Scientific approach to the evaluation• Collective funding to support infrastructure• Common set of health plans policies and
practices to implement
Hypothesis: Process Needs
OHLC-- HVPCCM
7 |
• Access Dedicated care manager for each patient 24/7 access for urgent care Access to care team via email/phone Facilitate access for non-MD services, integrated w/PCP
• Care Delivery Elements Rules-based, care planning and management Intentional, integrated care coordination Recognition of social and behavioral health needs
• Information EHR, registries, quarterly feedback for the team Movement towards broader data transparency
OHLC-- HVPCCM
Common Care Model Components
8 |
• Coordination Care transition management (post ED, hospital) Medical neighborhood of specialists, service
agreements Care giver and social support systems
• Intensive Care Management Motivational interviewing, readiness assessment Team based pre-visit planning, systematic Rx review Team huddles, group visits Advanced directives, end-of-life care programs
• Staffing—RN as a team lead with support from the care team; one RN for 200 patients enrolled
Common Care Model Components
OHLC-- HVPCCM
9 |
• All payers use the same methodology; same contract• Upfront PMPM for participating patients to pay for the RN
care coordinator• Standard fee-for-service for medical care provided• Shared savings between the medical groups and payers
for achieving savings and quality metrics, paid at the end of the demonstration• Quality measures—maintain or improve and achieve
Quality Compass at 50th percentile for diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol management measures; patient satisfaction administer pre, post
• Cost savings—50% share up to specified limit; based on difference over difference of intervention group vs. tightly matched control group
Consistent Payment Approach
OHLC-- HVPCCM
10 |
• Early 2010, 8 health plans and state expressed interest• Plans identified 25 medical groups statewide that they felt
could deliver on the model• OHLC issued an RFP• Staff interviewed each group• Fourteen medical groups selected; a 15th group met
qualifications except not the volume needed• Due to volume or challenges with data, 5 health plans and
state agree to move forward
Rolling Out the Demonstration
OHLC-- HVPCCM
11 |
A
Medical Groups Selected
OHLC-- HVPCCM
Adventist (Portland) High Lakes (Bend)
Legacy (NW Port./Tualatin Medford Medical (Medford)
NW Primary Care (Portland) No. Bend Med. Ctr. (Coos Bay)
OHSU (Portland) Oregon Med. Group (Eugene)
PeaceHealth (Eugene) Portland Clinic (Portland)
Portland Family Practice (Portland)
Providence(Portland/Newberg)
Tuality (Hillsboro) Westside Internal Medicine(Beaverton)
12 |
Health Net ODS
PacificSource Providence
Regence PEBB (State employees)
OEBB (School employees)
OMIP (High risk pool)
DMAP (Medicaid FFS)
Health Plans and State Groups
OHLC-- HVPCCM
13 |
• July 2010, each health plan began negotiating with each medical group—30 day target, finished within 45 days
• During that time, plans began identifying patients to be invited into the demonstration, using plan predictive risk models• Top 10-15% highest risk adult patients• All complex and chronic included• Asked plans to exclude patients with ESRD, transplants,
OB, Trauma with no other co-mordity • In September 2010, medical groups hired 23 RN’s • In October 2010, 23 RN’s participate in a four day training
Implementation
OHLC-- HVPCCM
14 |
• Beginning October 1, 2010, using the lists provided by the plan, nurses start to invite patients to participate-- original goal to have all enrolled by end of December, extended until early March 2011
• Intake visits and care plans completed early in 2011• Baseline quality measures for each patient
• LDL’s, A1c and blood pressure reported • Patient satisfaction surveys (modified national survey) completed
• Early 2011, began quarterly meetings on the medical group and health plan project managers and care managers
Implementation
OHLC-- HVPCCM
15 |
• 3,600 patients voluntarily enrolled• In July 2011 began, reporting quarterly utilization reports to
medical groups, from claims data• ED: # of visits, avoidable rates, diagnosis, by day of
week, by member• Inpatient: # of admissions, by DRG,
discharge/admission day of week, by member, LOS• Rx Drugs filled, Imaging, Lab
• Working with Oregon HealthCare Quality Corp and Milliman to refine the medical group reporting
• Producing summary utilization reports for OHLC and demonstration participants
Where we are now
OHLC-- HVPCCM
16 |
• Additional 1.5 day training for the care managers in Sept. 2011 • Agreed to extend the program through Feb. 2013 to allow for
input from physicians on patient selection; minimize churning• Second enrollment period occurred Jan.-March 2012 to
address attrition• Plans provided new lists; nurses more selective in choosing
those to invite• Contracted with Dr. John McConnell, OHSU for the shared cost
savings evaluation; Dr. Meredith Rosenthal, Harvard University, Dr. Kothari, Renaissance Health will be advisors.
• In February 2012, weekly “Office Hours” with care managers• Working on a sustainable model, post demonstration
Where we are now
OHLC-- HVPCCM
17 |
• While promising, it’s too early to make conclusions; not comparing to a control group, some enrollment data need reconciliation
• Looking at utilization data through March 2012, compared to the pre-intervention time period, we are seeing Downward trends in emergency room visits, inpatient
admits and inpatient days/1000 Office visits for primary and specialty care initially stayed
flat or increased slightly; then decreased (phone/email not included
Reduced use of RX for chronic conditions Slight downward trends in imaging
• Final cost savings won’t be available until the end of the demonstration and analysis—fall 2013
Results to date
OHLC-- HVPCCM
18 |
• Medical groups and Plans able to move beyond contracts and work creatively together—for data, care delivery
• Medical groups and Plans appreciate personal interactions, in person meetings
• Medical groups appreciate requests for input• Communication beyond direct participants involved has
been uneven for all parties sometimes leading to confusion, complications and eroding partnerships
• Medical groups and Plans challenged to manage new billing processes
• Study design (control group, enrollment, etc) limits real-time adjustments to care model and patient selection
Learnings: Medical Group-Plan Partnership
OHLC-- HVPCCM
19 |
• Exchanging accurate, timely data between plans and medical groups can impact care decisions—need timely ED and hospital admit/discharge data
• Challenge in the data exchange: accuracy, timing, capabilities to manage/use data
• Risk models are a good starting point to identifying risk; need mechanisms to include clinical intelligence; not all the “right” patients
• Attribution capabilities uneven• Need for more real-time assessment of progress—claims
lag not suited for dynamic interpretation
Learnings: Data Transparency/Exchange
OHLC-- HVPCCM
20 |
• Some medical groups fully engaged others less so; difference in readiness not small vs. large group, but cultural
• Front-line MD compensations still almost entirely productivity based; these efforts largely perceived as noise by physicians
• Physicians appreciate care manager support, especially after seeing patient improvement
• Support for care managers varies, depending on clinic buy in
Learnings: Medical Group Culture/Readiness
OHLC-- HVPCCM
21 |
• Patients appreciate care management from their MD team; very high engagement when advocated by PCP, well-accepted by clinic
• Non-visit based care (especially email) critical to serving this population needs; and for care manager panel management
• Early, regular communication with patients surface unique needs
• Initial intake assessments yielded deep patient discussions, revelations around barriers; although difficult to schedule
• Workforce needs skill building to engage patients• Health Plan disease management can be helpful partner
with medical group care management• Gap around education resources for patients, behavioral
health, pharmacy, community resources
Learnings: Care Model
OHLC-- HVPCCM
22 |
• As demonstration continues, further work on the processes to support the model of care
• Continue collaboratives to share best practices and learning's
• Complete work on a sustainable model for the long term - care model, roles/responsibilities, reimbursement models
• Measure results
OHLC-- HVPCCM
Next Steps
23 |
Denise Honzel, Oregon Health Leadership Council
Dr. Pranav Kothari, Renaissance Health
For further information
OHLC-- HVPCCM