Care Coordination Collaborative -Learning Session 1

Leadership Break Out: Identifying Shared Goals between

MCPs and MHPs

Topics• A cross walk- core care coordination functions

needed to manage spectrum of behavioral health needs

• Building relationships between MCPs, MHPs, and Partners to address common problems

• Discussion- “How can CCC Executive Leaders and their Health Plan Partners Plan for Integration of Behavioral Health in their Counties?”

2

Description of the CrossWalk

• Maps the common elements in:1. DHCS APLs- MOU and SBIRT (reviewed and

approved by DHCS)2. Care Coordination Collaborative Clinical and

System Changes to be tested3. Key Elements of Care Coordination identified in

variety of national research articles/CMS initiatives

3

INTEGRATION: ONE HEALTH PLAN’S EXPERIMENT

PETER CURRIE, PH.D CLINICAL DIRECTOR OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

• IEHP is a Non-profit public health plan, serving low-income families and individuals in two of the largest counties in the country. •Today IEHP serves over 680,000 members in government-sponsored programs compared to 400,000 in 2009.• With Health Care Reform and the Cal Medi Connect, IEHP is projected to grow to over 900,000 members by 2015.

604, 862 current IEHP Medi-Cal members (including children under the age of 21).

53,000 LIHP Transition members to IEHP in January 2014.

Medi-Cal also expanded Medi-Cal eligibility criteria, which increases the number of Medi-Cal eligible beneficiaries. It is anticipated that that there will be 4,100 new IEHP members per month for the first 6 months. For the remaining 4 ½ years, it is expected that there will be an increase of 2,050 members per month.

Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-140

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

Medi-Cal - Current LOB LIHPMedi-Cal Expansion

IEHP Medi-Cal Growth

Why IEHP Integrated BH: MBHO Sub-Cap model not aligned with IEHP’s Mission

Clarification: This Evaluation pertained only to the Health Plan’s Carve Out relationship with a private sector MBHO for the

Dual Eligible and HF members “Carve Out” refers to the Sub-Capitated arrangement with a Managed Behavioral Health Organization

(MBHO); Not to the Medi-Cal carve out to County MHPs

Physical Health and Behavioral Health (BH) care were Separate and Disconnected

Outpatient Mental Health Services Under Utilized & Substance Abuse Treatment was Nil

IEHP had no influence over the BH Network Coordination of Care – PCPs describe referring into the “Black Hole”

for Behavioral Health Services. BH Administrative Services were expensive: 50% of BH dollars

reached the MBHO’s Providers (2009)

(Context – 93% of Dollars paid to IEHP reach IEHP Providers)

The BH Integration Plan

Fully Integrated BH Program – “In House” Streamline the coordination of physical and mental

health benefits - one fully integrated system of care Redirect MBHO Admin/Profit (50% of the BH Cost) to

fund Expanded BH Services Directly Contracted BH Network – Identify and

Support Best Practices Eliminate Reliance on Vendor (MBHO) for all BH

Expertise including NCQA Compliance

Preparation for Integration

Infusing BH Competency in all IEHP departments In-House Clinical Expertise – Clinical Director,

Consulting Psychiatrist & BH Care Managers (LCSWs)

Directly contract the BH Network to ensure access Leveraging Web Based Technology to enable Virtual

Integration where Co-Location was not possible Online EHR available to all BH providers Required BH assessment/treatment plan instantly and

securely sent to IEHP BH Care Manager and the PCP

The Launch – Feb 1, 2010

Call Center: triage and referral by Licensed BH Care Managers “No Gate Keeper” model – PCP referral is not required One phone # access at IEHP for physical and mental healthcare Higher than average rate of pay for the initial assessment:

Incentivize prompt Access Payment triggered by Coordination of Care Report Web Form –

eliminating the “Black Hole” Added new BH services - wrap around & intensive outpatient (IOP) Direct Partnership with SBDBH & RCMHD - Improving

Coordination of Care

BH Integration Results

Increased access to BH services – No increased Cost to Plan Improved coordination of physical and behavioral healthcare:

BH providers must submit Tx Plan (COC) Web Forms 78 % of COCs passed on to the member’s PCP (with release) 75 % of PCPs used web portal to access these BH Tx reports

Medical Cost-Offsets from BH services for high-risk/high-cost populations – Dual Eligible's & SPDs

Infusing BH expertise within IEHP to respond to crisis calls Met 100% of the NCQA requirements for BH in 2012 IEHP’s BH network - Private Sector, FQHCs, MHP & CBOs

Inland Empire Health Plan – Medical Operations

Outpatient Mental HealthVisits per 1000

2009 - PBH 2010 - IEHP 2011 - IEHP0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

DualChoice

HF

Inland Empire Health Plan – Medical Operations

Outpatient Chemical Dependency (SA & Dual Diagnosis)Visits per 1000

2009 - PBH 2010 - IEHP 2011 - IEHP0

20

40

60

80

100

120

DualChoiceHF

Inland Empire Health Plan – Medical Operations

InpatientDays per 1000

2009 - PBH 2010 - IEHP 2011 - IEHP0

50

100

150

200

250

300

DualChoiceHF

Inland Empire Health Plan – Medical Operations

Inpatient Readmissions per 1000

2010 - IEHP 2011 - IEHP0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

DualChoiceHF

Current Status

Meaningful collaboration with our County Mental Health Plans including: New Eating Disorder Program New Teen Depression Screening and Referral program Care Integration Collaborative: Co-Location of Mental Health,

Substance Abuse and Primary Care Adoption of County Proven Wrap Around Program for Dual

Eligible SMI group – Big ROI for IEHP Autism Collaborative with a Mission to develop an Inland

Empire ASD Center of Excellence “Warm Hand Off” Referrals between County Specialty Mental

Health and Health Plan for Medi Cal Expansion

Example #1: IEHP Implements SBDBH Proven Wrap Around Program

Pre TeleCare Post TeleCare

36

14

Dual Eligible SMI Psych Admits Reduced by 61% for Participating Members

For each Member information was collected six (6) months prior to TeleCare enrollment up May 29, 2013

Reduction in Psych Bed Days

Pre TeleCare Post TeleCare

347

84

Psych Bed Days Reduced 76% for Dual Eli-gible Participants

For each Member information was collected six (6) months prior to TeleCare enrollment up May 29, 2013

Medical Cost Offset: ED Utilization

Telecare Pre-Consent

Telecare Post-Consent

$-

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

$265.63

$50.06

Telecare Group - ER Cost PMPM

Psychiatric Wrap Around Services Bring Down ED Costs by 74%

Pre Telecare Post Telecare

0.87

0.23

ED Visits PMPM

Visits   Months Reflected   ED Visits PMPMPre Telecare Post Telecare   Pre Telecare Post Telecare   Pre Telecare Post Telecare

   89 29 102 125 0.87 0.23

Average ED Cost per Visit is $510 ($110 for the professional component and $400 for the facility) - [Information Provided by IEHP's Provider Contracting Department]

Control Group – Increasing Psychiatric Hospital Costs

Control01/11-12/12

Control 01/13-10/13

$-

$500.00

$1,000.00

$1,500.00

$2,000.00

$2,500.00

$3,000.00

$3,500.00

$4,000.00

$4,500.00

$1,211.06

$3,054.05

Control Group - Inpatient Cost PMPM

Control Group: ED Cost - Minimal Change Over Time

Control01/11-12/12

Control 01/13-10/13

$-

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

$179.40

$155.07

Control Group - ER Cost PMPMEarliest Recorded Telecare Date through 10/25/2013

25% Return on Investment for IEHP

Pre TeleCare Post TeleCare

$4,131

$3,084

Cost Per Member Per Month - Combined

For each Member information was collected six (6) months prior to TeleCare enrollment up May 29, 2013

Example # 2: From ADHC to CBAS- From State to Health Plan as Payer

What Happened to Adult Day Health Care?: State assigned responsibility to Local Health Plans and changed them into Community Based Adult Services (CBAS)

CBAS and Health Plans got to know each other out of necessity

CBAS Programs learned how to obtain Authorizations and Payment

End Result: Local Collaboration Improved Coordination of Care, Cost Effective for SMIs

Example # 3: IEHP Launches Navigator Program

Spanish Speaking Membership Misuse of Health Care System

Low rate of Well Child Utilization/Immunizations

Uneven use of Primary Care Over use of Emergency Department for

Routine Care Solution: Implementing a “Social” Model

Intervention in a “Medical” Model Health Plan

The Health Plan’s Problem

Very high Emergency Department (ED) utilization

655 Per Thousand Members Per Year (2009)

23% for “avoidable” visits

California Department of Health Care Services Statewide ED Collaborative definition (2009)

Significant ED utilization for those 2 years old and younger for non-emergent visits

Medi-Cal: No ED co-payment

26

Member UtilizationRate

Change

Avoidable Emergency Room

-39%

Nurse Advice Line 51%

Urgent Care 44%

Utilization data based on the family linked to the Member visited by the Health Navigators with a middle visit between 06/15/2010 and 02/29/2012

Rates based on Per 1000 Members

Navigator Program Results

Example # 4 Autism CollaborativeKids with Autism Deserve an Answer!

1 in 50 children have ASD (CDC) Lack of clinical criteria Behavioral treatments:

Not well understood or coordinated $40,000 to $120,000 per child per year =

treatment authorization decisions based on cost

rather than clinical criteria Who is responsible? Fragmented System

The Problem: Late Intervention = Diminished Quality of Life & Higher Life-Long Care Cost

Disparity in the Inland Empire (IE) Average age of diagnosis of ASD in the IE –

All Children - age 5 Latino children - age 7

Scarce resources essential for the assessment of ASD such as Pediatric Neurology - typically not accessible in the IE

The Solution for the IE: Collaboration Stimulated by IEHP “In-House” BH

The Inland Empire ASD Collaborative Autism Society of the Inland Empire Children’s Network Dept of Pediatrics Loma Linda University Desert Mountain Special Education LPA First 5 Riverside and First 5 San Bernardino Counties Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP) Inland Regional Center Riverside County Mental Health Department Riverside County Office of Education San Bernardino Department of Behavioral Health

Inland Empire (IE) ASD Collaborative: Establishing ASD Assessment Center

Vision: “Every child in the Inland Empire will have access to a collaborative, organized, integrated and Trans-Disciplinary Assessment/treatment resource for Autism.”

AACE Clinic: Integrated & Child-Centric Inter-agency collaboration will improve referrals as

well as align providers and educators Wasted time, duplicative assessments eliminated Reduce the Parent’s burden of having to advocate

and coordinate across multiple agencies Provide families and providers with useful,

appropriate and actionable treatment

recommendations, referrals and resources Be financially self-sustaining 2 years after start-up

Last Thoughts: What Works

Integration of Behavioral & Physical Health Care is the “Best Practice” Separate is not Equal Parity is not enough: Parity is a mandate, Integration is the Work to be done Coordination of Care in not Sufficient: just a stepping stone toward integration

Health Plans Need to develop direct relationships with BH Providers in private practice, County BH programs and CBOs to meet the need Direct Relationships are best: Minimize use of Sub-Capitated Middle Men that

limit access Health Plans must bring BH expertise “In House” to ensure Quality BH Care Providers should contract at the highest possible level of the Funding Stream -

Directly with Health Plans when possible In a well integrated Model of Care, Open Access to BH Services pays

for itself in Medical Cost Offsets Not treating BH conditions drives up Medical & Social Costs BH Providers need to demonstrate Value by Measuring Results and prove to

Health Plans the return on investment (ROI) BH services yield

MCP services to be carved-in effective 1/1/14*

Individual/group mental health evaluation and treatment (psychotherapy)

Psychological testing when clinically indicated to evaluate a mental health condition

Psychiatric consultation for medication management

Outpatient laboratory, supplies and supplements

Screening and Brief Intervention (SBI) (new service not currently offered)

Drugs, excluding anti-psychotic drugs (which are covered by Medi-Cal FFS)

IEHP Responsibility San Bernardino County DBHRiverside County MHD

Outpatient Services Mental Health Services

(assessments plan development, therapy, rehabilitation and collateral)

Medication Support Day Treatment Services and Day

Rehabilitation Crises Intervention and Crises

Stabilization Targeted Case Management Therapeutic Behavior Services

Residential Services Adult Residential Treatment

Services Crises Residential Treatment

Services

Inpatient Services Acute Psychiatric Inpatient

Hospital Services Psychiatric Inpatient Hospital

Professional Services Psychiatric Health Facility services

Target Population: Children and adults in Managed Care Plans who meet medical necessity or EPSDT for Mental Health Services

Target Population: Children and adults who meet medical necessity or EPSDT criteria for Medi-Cal Specialty Mental health Services

County Alcohol and Other Drug Programs

(AOD)

Outpatient Services Outpatient Drug Free Intensive Outpatient (newly

expanded to additional populations)

Residential Services (newly expanded to additional populations)

Narcotic Treatment Program Naltrexone

New Services

Voluntary Inpatient Detoxification Services

(Administrative linkage to County AOD still being discussed)

Target Population: Children and adults who meet medical necessity or EPSDT criteria for Drug Medi-Cal Substance Use Disorder Services

As of October 11, 2013

* MCP carve-in services, except for SBI, are currently offered through Medi-Cal FFS

Discussion

How can CCC Executive Leaders and their Health Plan Partners Plan for Integration of Behavioral Health in their Counties? 1. What are your shared risks? 2. What are your shared end goals? 3. How can the process and structure of the

Care Coordination Collaborative (CCC) help you to achieve your shared end goals? Can CCC serve as an incubator?

34