Steve Hill, Bree Collaborative Chair Rachel Quinn, Bree Collaborative Project Manager
Payment for Healthcare Alignment with Safety, Appropriateness, and Quality Accountable Payment Model...
-
Upload
annabel-ryan -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Payment for Healthcare Alignment with Safety, Appropriateness, and Quality Accountable Payment Model...
Payment for Healthcare
Alignment with Safety, Appropriateness, and Quality
Accountable Payment Model SubgroupBree Collaborative Meeting
July 18, 2013
2
Goals for Today’s Presentation
1. Summarize findings from the public comment period for the draft warranty on total knee and total hip replacement (TKR and THR) procedures
2. Adoption of the revised warranty by the Bree Collaborative
3. Provide update on standards for appropriateness, a bundled payment model, and measures of quality
5
Overview of Public Comment Process
APM subgroup developed an online survey
Posted survey announcement and link on the Bree Collaborative website
Local community partners and national groups promoted the survey through their networksComplete list in the posted summary document
Survey was open for 2 weeks (6/19-7/3)Modified on 6/20 to allow respondents to provide
only general feedback due to clinical/technical nature of many of the warranty definitions
7
Key Findings from Public Comments
Broad support for diagnostic codes (91%), procedure codes (96%), and age limits (84%)
Support for complications ranged from 35% (acute myocardial infarction) to 67% (surgical site bleeding)
57% agree with the warranty periods in the first 90 days
42% agree with the 10-year implant warranty
53% agree with the term that holds the hospital performing the TKR/THR surgery accountable for treatment received for complications at another hospital of outpatient facility
Note: Sample sizes for all of these percentages are included in the posted summary document
8
Recurring Themes from
Public Comments
Warranty limits access to TKR/THR for patients that are at an increased risk of any of these complications
• “This will change the face of orthopaedics forever and limit access to those who need it the most ... the elderly, the poor, those who have medical comorbidities.”
Workgroup response:
• Patients that are at an increased risk of complications are not always appropriate candidates for surgery• Adhering to appropriateness criteria helps ensure that patients have a safe procedure and smooth
recovery
9
Recurring Themes from
Public Comments
Complications are unavoidable, so providers shouldn’t be punished for them
• “Including events that occur even in the best case of care creates unfair burdens on hospitals and physicians.”
Workgroup response:
• Baseline complication rates reflect current care practices – the benchmark should be zero
• We want to get to the point where it’s not dangerous to go to the hospital
10
Recurring Themes from
Public Comments
Complications often result from patient factors/behaviors that providers cannot control
• “[The warranty] makes a flawed assumption that all risks and complications are controlled on the provider side when patients make unhealthy choices in life which we can not mitigate.”
Workgroup response:
• Patient factors can be addressed through comprehensive pre-operative screening, patient education, identification of a care partner, and other components of the bundle
11
Recurring Themes from
Public Comments
Implant manufacturers should be responsible for design/manufacturing defects, not providers
• “I wonder about holding the hospitals responsible for defects in prostheses. Is there any way to get the manufacturers to accept responsibility for their devices?”
Workgroup response:
• Hospitals and providers should only purchase/use implants that have a low failure rate. Manufactures should also be held responsible. This provision is difficult to administer.
12
Recurring Themes from
Public Comments
Implementing the warranty is very difficult (e.g. attributing complications to the TKR/THR procedure)
• “It sounds like an administrative nightmare for hospitals, providers and whomever is providing oversight for the program.”
Workgroup response:
• The CMS Technical Expert Panel (TEP) defined code sets approved by orthopedic content experts, suggesting that they are feasible to administer
• Recognize the difficulty of administering a 10-year warranty for implant
13
Changes Made in Response to Public
Comments•Death is only included as a complication in the warranty if it is attributable to any of the other complications in the warranty
Clarify when death is included in the warranty
•Including the code sets that the TEP used to define all of the complications in the warranty as an appendix
Clarify definitions for all
complications
•Instead of including a 10-year implant warranty, quality criteria for the implant will be added to the bundle
Remove the 10-year implant
warranty
14
Other Efforts to Aid Implementation
•To account for price variability across hospitals, the subgroup recommends applying a fixed amount equal to the allowable amount for treating that complication using Medicare fee schedule•An alternative option is, to create two categories of amounts: a set amount for a readmission without surgery and twice that when surgery is needed
Researching appropriate
penalties for care received at a
second hospital
•Establishing third party groups that could help mediate disputes between health plans and providers; these groups could resolve such issues about whether treatment was for a condition attributable to the TKR/THR procedure
Researching options for
dispute resolution
15
Content of Warranty Adults with TKR and THR surgery
Periods of accountability are complication-specific7 days
a. Acute myocardial infarction (heart attack)b. Pneumoniac. Sepsis (serious infection that has spread to bloodstream)
30 daysd. Deathe. Surgical site bleedingf. Wound infectiong. Pulmonary embolism
90 daysh. Mechanical complications related to surgical procedurei. Periprosthetic joint infection (infected implanted joint)
Hospital/provider group performing surgery should be accountable for payment for care of complications treated in another facility according to single transparent market standard based on CMS fee schedule
16
Proposal to Adopt Draft Warranty
The APM subgroup proposes that the Bree Collaborative adopt the revised Total Knee and Total Hip Replacement (TKR and THR) Warranty.
Note: The APM subgroup is planning to wait until all four components of the TKR/THR bundle are completed before submitting a report to the Health Care Authority.
17
Outreach & Communication Plan
In process
To educate community about the warranty and other components of bundle
Partner with stakeholders: WSHA, WSMA, employers such as Seattle Chamber of Commerce, other employer groups
18
The following slides contain information on the other parts of the bundle; there’s no new substantive developments to report to the Bree
20
Evidence appraisal is complete for both sections of the standards for appropriateness:
1. Disability: reduced function and pain due to osteoarthritis despite conservative therapy
2. Fitness for surgery: physical preparation and patient engagement
No action needed from the Bree at this time
Standards for appropriatene
ss
Surgical bundle
WarrantyMeasurement of quality
22
Evidence appraisal for both parts of the bundle (Surgical Repair and Return to Function) is almost complete
Expect to present a draft bundle to the Bree Collaborative at the September meeting
No action needed from the Bree at this time
Standards for appropriatene
ss
Surgical bundle
WarrantyMeasurement of quality
23
Progress with Deliverables
Direction from the PAR Workgroup
Progress of the APM Workgroup
Recommend episodes of focus Completed – Selected total hip and knee replacement surgeries.
Recommend warranty definition Completed – Presented at today’s meeting.
Recommend bundle In progress – Evidence appraisal of draft content is almost done.
Recommend payment process• Prospective vs. retrospective• Unbundling guidelines
In progress – Have started to develop provisions related to accountability for complications.
Recommend implementation timeline
Completed – Recommend implementation by 1/1/2014.
Define quality outcome measures
In progress – See next slides.
25
Group has discussed 5 broad categories of measures:
1.Patient satisfaction
2.Evidence-based care
3.Functional improvement (Pre- and post-operation)
4. Avoiding readmissions
5.Others, such as time to return to function
WarrantyStandards for appropriatene
ss
Surgical bundle
Measurement of quality
26
Progress made with several measures:
1. Endorse HOOS/KOOS as the preferred method for assessing disability, including pain
2. Agree NIH’s quality of life tool, PROMIS-10, is a promising tool
3. Agree HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) Survey is a good tool for measuring patient experience
No action needed from the Bree at this time
Standard for appropriaten
ess
Surgical bundle
WarrantyMeasurement of quality