cracking the code to better quality and financial outcomes · cracking the code to better quality...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Cracking the Code to Better Quality and Financial Outcomes
Session 37, February 12, 2019 (1:30-2:30)
James Grana, Ph.D., Chief Analytics Officer, Rush Health
Bala Hota, MD, Vice President & Chief Analytics Officer, Rush University Medical Center
2
James R. Grana, Ph.D.
Bala Hota, MD
Has no real or apparent conflicts of interest to report.
Conflict of Interest
3
• Review Market Justification for Code Capture Optimization
• Review Relationship Between Code Capture and Financial Performance
• Review Practical Challenges to Implementing a Code Capture Strategy
• Review Relationship Between Code Capture and Select Quality Indicators
Agenda
4
• Learning Objective 1: Identify the correlation between accurate documentation and improved quality scores and financial outcomes
• Learning Objective 2: Analyze the steps the Rush Health and RUMC team used to drive process improvements at the provider, practice, and departmental levels
• Learning Objective 3: Demonstrate the improvements in quality scores and risk adjustment Rush Health and RUMC achieved by increasing documentation accuracy
Learning Objectives
5
Evolving Health System
• Fee For Service
• Fee For Value
– Shared Savings
– Shared Risk
– Bundles
– MSSP Changes
– Medicare Advantage
– Oncology Care Model
6
Risk Adjusted Performance Measurement and Compensation
• Medicare
• Medicaid
• Commercials
7
Benefits of Code Capture Optimization and Consistency • Reimbursement
• Quality
– Follow-Up Trigger
– Follow-Up Indicator
• Identify Care Variation Rather than Coding Variation
8
Simple Case is Observed to Expected Ratio
• Simple to Understand
– O/E = 1 suggests that you are performing as expected.
– O/E = 1.1 suggests that you are performing 10% higher than expected
– O/E = .90 suggests that you are performing 10% lower than expected
• Considerations
– Comparison Cohort
– Factors Included In Adjustment
– Data Staging and Timing
– Sample Size
9
Risk Adjustment Factors and Cost Targets
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
Moderate RAF: Target $1,000
PM
PM
Performance Relative to TargetAssuming a PMPM of $1,000
RAF- Driven Target
PMPM: $1,000
RAF- Driven Target
PMPM: $1,000
Achieved PMPM:
$1,000
Achieved PMPM:
$1,000
When the RAF-driven
Target PMPM and
Achieved PMPM are
equal, dollars are
neither available for
shared savings nor at
risk.
10$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
Moderate RAF: Target $1,000
PM
PM
Performance Relative to TargetAssuming a PMPM of $1,000
RAF-Driven Target
PMPM: $750
RAF-Driven Target
PMPM: $750
Achieved PMPM:
$1,000
Achieved PMPM:
$1,000
Dollars at RiskWhen the RAF-driven
Target PMPM is below the
Achieved PMPM, dollars
are at risk.
Risk Adjustment Factors and Cost Targets
11
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
Moderate RAF: Target $1,000
PM
PM
Performance Relative to TargetAssuming a PMPM of $1,000
11
Achieved PMPM:
$1,000
Achieved PMPM:
$1,000
Shared SavingsWhen the RAF-driven
Target PMPM is above
the Achieved PMPM,
dollars are available for
shared savings.
RAF-Driven Target
PMPM: $1,250
RAF-Driven Target
PMPM: $1,250
Risk Adjustment Factors and Cost Targets
12
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
Low RAF: Target $750 Moderate RAF: Target $1,000 High RAF: Target $1,250
PM
PM
Performance Relative to TargetAssuming a PMPM of $1,000
Dollars at
Risk
Shared
Savings
Increasing your RAF, increases your
likelihood of benefiting from shared savings
Risk Adjustment Factors and Cost Targets
13
Reduce health care spend
• Curb avoidable utilization
• Utilize lower-cost care
alternatives
Boost premium revenues
• Increase RAF through accurate
HCC capture
• Grow (high-risk) covered lives
Medical Spend
Premium Revenue and Targets
Two Ways to Improved Your Shared Risk Performance
14
• Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC) are groupings of ICD-10 diagnosis
codes. Each HCC is assigned a weight.
• RAF scores are the sum HCC weights and demographic weights to reflect the
burden of illness associated with group of patients. CMS uses these scores in its
compensation systems.
Sicker Patients
-> Higher RAF
-> More dollars
Healthier Patients
-> Lower RAF
-> Fewer dollars
What They Are
15
• Providers assign diagnoses for a patient’s conditions
• Conditions are sorted into HCCs and assigned a corresponding
numeric weight
• HCCs are re-determined each calendar year, requiring revalidation of all relevant
diagnoses through claims to CMS
Hierarchal Condition Categories
16
• Serve as a payment multiplication factor for relevant populations
• Patient HCC weights are summed to create a RAF score
• Scores are recalculated annually
Base Payment Final RAF Final Payment
$1,000 1.0 $1,000
$1,000 1.2 $1,200
$1,000 0.8 $800
Risk Adjustment Factors
17
All Codes Missing Diabetes
Age/Gender: 72/M 0.379 0.379
Vascular disease with complications (HCC 107) 0.4 0.4
Morbid obesity (HCC 22) 0.273 0.273
Congestive heart failure (HCC 85) 0.323 0.323
- CHF/diabetes interaction (HCC 85d) 0.154 Not coded
Diabetes with chronic complications (HCC 18) 0.318 Not coded
RAF Sum 1.847 1.375
PMPM $2,124.05 $1,581.25
PMPY $25,488.60 $18,975.00
The Importance of ICD 10 Code Accuracy
18
• Missed diagnoses
• Failing to document/bill for an unresolved condition present in a previous calendar year
• Using a “history of” diagnosis when condition is actively occurring and not yet resolved
• Using a generalized or non-specific diagnosis code
• Failing to document completion of medication list review
Common Coding Errors
19
• Patient JW
• Provider: Dr. X
• Conditions not re-validated
• Congestive Heart Failure 0.368
• Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.346
• Coagulation Defects and Other Hem. Disorders 0.252
*Denotes the revenue from CMS; actual payments to provider may vary by payer arrangement
HCC Score Revenue
2016 1.261 $1,450
2017 (October YTD) 0.295 $339
-$1,111*
MA HCC Example
20
194 (29.8%) of 651 patients experienced a decrease in HCC score from 2016 to 2017 (October YTD)
– Average decrease of 0.56
– Lost plan revenue* approximately $1,499,232
– If provider were to reach 2,000 members lost revenue would amount to approximately $4,605,888
Common conditions not revalidated
*Denotes the revenue received by insurance carrier from CMS for the population.
Missing Condition Patient Count
Vascular Disease 37
Congestive Heart Failure 24
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 20
Coagulation Defects and Other Specified Hematological Disorders 20
Breast Prostate and Other Cancers and Tumors 18
Acute Renal Failure 18
Specified Heart Arrhythmias 16
Ischemic or Unspecified Stroke 16
Morbid Obesity 14
Diabetes with Chronic Complications 14
Sample Reporting: MA HCC YTD Performance
21
Impediments to Code Capture Improvement Strategies
• Historical Inpatient Focus is Not Enough
• Outpatient Opportunities
• Multiple Risk Adjustment Models (some requiring recoding prior to each new “episode” or “trigger admission.”)
• Coding Value Chain and Possible Leakage
– Provider
– Input Mechanism
– Internal Coding Team
– Provider IT and ETL
– Payer IT and ETL
22
• Legal Considerations
• Disproportionate PCP Burden
• Specialist Reluctance
• Workflow Inefficiencies
• Need for Ongoing Provider Education
Additional Code Capture Considerations and Impediments
23
Comorbidity Capture and Inpatient Quality
16
24
• Complex space of multiple rating agencies
• Common factors but areas of difference
• Common themes with outpatient ACO risk adjustment
17
Quality Measurement & Inpatient Care
25
Vizient CMS US News LeapfrogConsumer
ReportsTruven
Mortality 26% 22% 38% 20% 20%
Efficiency / Cost 6% 8%* 20% 30%
Safety 26% 22% 5% 50% 20% 20%
Effectiveness /
Readmission and
Throughput21% 26%** 20% 20%
Patient Centeredness 16% 22% 15% 20% 10%
Equity 5%
Reputation 28%
Structural Measures 30% 35%
*4% - effectiveness of care/ 4% Efficient use of medical
imaging**22% - readmission/4% - Timeliness 18
Do These Systems Complement Each Other or Conflict?
26
19
27
• Overall composite score for hospitals based on Hospital Compare Data
• 64 potential quality measures in 7 domains
• Not all measures reported by all hospitals
• In general:
– Reporting fewer measures was better: fewer than 10% of hospitals
reporting fewer than 38 measures included received either 1 or 2 stars
– AAMCs disproportionately received 1 or 2 stars (62%) (worst)
– Rush: 4 stars; best AAMC in Chicago area, top 15.8% of teaching
hospitals nationally
20
CMS Stars Rating
28
• Mortality (MI, CABG, COPD, CHF, PNA, CVA)*
• Safety of Care (CLABSI, CAUTI, SSI, MRSA BSIs, C diff, surgical
complications and PSIs)
• Readmission (unplanned readmissions)*
• Patient Experience (Patient Sat Surveys)
• Effectiveness of Care (Vaccination, Screening, Protocol Driven Care)
• Timeliness of Care (ED throughput, time to care for MI)
• Efficient Use of Imaging (Outpatient MRI, CT, and Stress Test Use)
• Dates of Data: July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2016
*Risk Adjusted Measure, with comorbidities affecting expected rate
Star Rating CMS Measure Components
29
Based on measured values and case mix adjustment rates
Denominator
Claims Based
(ICD/CPT
Code)
Risk
Adjustment
Expected Rte
Claims Based
Numerator
Claims, Chart
Abstraction
Based
O:E Ratio
Quality Rank Contingent
on Documentation and
Hospital Billing Codes
(HCCs)
CMS Mortality, Safety, & Readmission Rates
30
• By-products of risk adjustment methodology
– Comorbidity adjustment
– Hospital size adjustment (small hospitals get handicap)
– No adjustment for SES
Factors in risk adjustment
31
Clinical documentation impacts reimbursement and quality measurement for
hospitals
• Medicare Reimbursements: Maximizing revenue requires determining the
correct Medicare DRG
• Quality: Accurately reflecting outcomes requires fully recording patient and
treatment data, including any complications or comorbidities (CC) and/or major
complications or comorbidities (MCC). Quality risk adjustment models align with
HCCs.
Documentation is often incomplete due to:
- Omission of chronic conditions
- Diagnostic laboratory tests are not fully recorded
Incomplete documentation affects Medicare reimbursement and accurate quality
measurement
Problem: Incomplete Documentation
32
20% of a hospital’s revenues are fixed rate Medicare payments
Mechanism DescriptionImpact of Incomplete
Documentation
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
(CMS) Reimbursements- Reimbursements based on illness severity Lost Revenue
Hospital Value Based
Purchasing (HVBP)
&
Hospital Readmission
Reduction Program (HRRP)
- Patients are assigned a benchmark
probability of readmission/mortality
- Hospitals are incentivized based on
readmission/mortality vs. benchmark
Financial Penalties
Incomplete documentation affects Medicare reimbursement
through three primary mechanisms:
Financial Impact
33
Inaccurate quality measurement affects national
reputation
• Quality metrics such as Patient Safety Indicators
(PSI) influence national rankings and
benchmarking
• Correctly reporting case mix and mortality
measures is critical for accurate quality metrics
• Reputation affects the ability to attract patients
and top staff
Reputational Impact
34
Health and Human Services’
“Triple Aim” Goal
1. Improving health care quality
2. Improving population health
3. Reducing unnecessary health care costs
34
Quality Metrics and Outcomes will Drive Medicare
Reimbursements in the Future
Also have reputational impact –public information
Increasing Focus on Quality
35
Chronic Conditions
Cancer Ischemic heart disease
Major depression Osteoporosis
Epilepsy COPD
Hypercholesterolemia Osteoarthritis
Obesity Dementia
Malnutrition Cerebrovascular disease
Hypertension Asthma
Chronic kidney disease Bipolar disorder
Congestive heart failure Diabetes melitus
• Chronic conditions are critical common factors between DRG and
HCC coding
• Additional codes determine DRG code reclassification and optimize
Hierarchical Condition Classification (HCC) scoring
• Results in a greater reimbursement and improved quality scores
Conditions Detected
36
Perc
entile
1 - 9 points0 points
10 pointsPercentile of evaluated hospitals
Rush’s Risk Adjusted Survival Rate
Included in Medicare Data
Missing from Medicare Data
*Only the conditions with missing
codes are shown (8 of 25)
Hypothetical
1%
improvement:
94th percentile
Original:
77th
percentile
Impact of Conditions on AMI 30-Day Mortality
Rush’s Actual Survival Rate
Rush’s Expected Survival Rate, with the missing condition
37
29
38
Results of Implementation
39
31
Total Hip/Total Knee Readmission Penalty
40
Implementation of software resulted in
pay-for-performance improvements at Rush
Federal Fiscal YearValue Based
Purchasing
Hospital Readmission
Reduction Program
Hospital Acquired
Conditions Reduction
Program
Net Pay for
Performance
FY2015 $550 K ($1.2 M) ($1.7 M) ($2.4 M)
FY2016 $676 K ($1.1 M) No Penalty ($676 K)
FY2017 $958 K ($483 K) No Penalty $475 K
Pay for Performance Initiatives
41
CMS Pay for Performance Estimated Returns for Federal FY2017 CMS Star Rankings
VBPReadmission
Reduction HAC Total
Patient Experience
StarsOverall Ranking
RUMC $958K ($483K) – $475K
U of C $19K ($341K) – ($322K)
NM $562K ($386K) ($1,989K) ($1,813K)
UIC ($129K) ($136K) – ($265K)
Loyola ($35K) ($320K) ($1,611K) ($1,967K)
Post-Implementation: Rush’s outperforms its peers
Rush’s Comparison to Peers
42
James Grana, Ph.D., Chief Analytics Officer, Rush Health
Bala Hota, MD, Vice President & Chief Analytics Officer, Rush University Medical Center
43
James Grana, Ph.D.
Chief Analytics Officer
Rush Health
Bala Hota, MD
Vice President & Chief Analytics Officer
Rush University Medical Center
Contact Information