Funding Adjustment Models
How Do You Incentivize Value?
Bob Opsut/Greg AtkinsonOASD (HA)
Health Budgets and Financial Policy
What is Value in Health Care?
Volume (Activities, Episodes, Population) + Outcomes (Readiness, Population Health,
Customer satisfaction)
Resources (MilPers, appropriations, reimbursements)
2
How Much?How Well?
At What Cost?
Background
• PPS initiated in 2005 to rationalize the direct care budget adjustments– Presidents Management Agenda
– Budget to follow performance
– Declining workload– Care shifting to PSC
– Provide way to offset Efficiency Wedge– Budget could be stable if more work done
– Provide funds for recapture– Way to move PSC funds to Direct Care
3
Background (cont.)
Initially proposed as a capitated systemConsidered too risky and too large a leap
Fee for service (FFS) system seen as simpler to implement and necessary to familiarize the staff with workload measures
SMMAC decided to start as a Fee for Service system with capitation some time in the future
Concern remains that MTFs would have difficulty managing under capitation
However, higher growth in PMPM for MTF enrollees creates budget pressures to go to capitation
4
Transition In Both Payment & Delivery Systems
Today
Payment System
Adapted From “From Volume To Value: Better Ways To Pay For Health Care”, Health Affairs, Sep/Oct 2009.
Delivery System
Transition
Ideal?
Fully IntegratedDelivery
System
Volume-drivenfragmented care
Fee-for-service Medical HomePayments
Full PopulationPrepayment
Co-evolution of
organization and payment
Primary Care Sub-Capitation
PC
MH
Level 2/3 Medical Homes
5
How Much?Mechanism Units Coverage Potential Unintended
Side Effect
Fee for Service
Procedures, MS-DRGs, Beddays
Encounter ChurningUpcodingTreatment over Prevention
Episode Procedure plus associated care
ChurningUpcodingTreatment over Prevention
Care Management Fee
Population No value added
Sub-Capitation
Population All Primary Care
Shift to specialty careDenied access
Capitation Population All Care Denied accessUnder utilization
•Answering “How much” is not enough. •Unintended side effects can reduce value.
How Well?
Measure
Prevention HEDIS Preventive Services
Access 3rd Next Available
Treatment ORYX
Continuity % of visits seeing own PCM
Outcomes HEDIS Outcome MeasuresNever EventsMortality Qualty Adjusted Life Years (QALYs)
Satisfaction Visit SatisfactionPlan Satisfaction
Cost Productivity/efficiencyER UtilizationPMPM
Three Examples
Current PPSNavy Performance Planning Pilot SitesCMS Comprehensive Care Initiative
Current PPS – How Much?
The Current Performance Based Funding Adjustment
Value of MTF WorkloadFee for Service rate for workload produced
Rates based on price at which care can be purchasedTMAC ratesNot MTF costs
Computed at MTF level but allocated to servicesRolled up to Services
9
TMAC versus PPS
CivilianInpatient
InstitutionalHospital (MS-DRG)
Including ancillaries, pharmacy
Professional (RVU)SurgeonAnesthesiologistRoundsConsultants
OutpatientProfessional (RVU)Institutional (APC)
Outpatient Ancillary (RVU/Fee Schedule)
Direct Care PPSInpatient (RWP, i.e. MS-DRG)
All Institutional and ProfessionalHospital
Including ancillaries, pharmacySurgeonAnesthesiologistInternistConsultants
Outpatient Professional (RVU)Institutional (APC)
Outpatient Ancillary (Pass Thru)
None
10
Current PPS WorkloadInpatient – MEPRS A Workcenters
Non-Mental Health – Severity Adjusted DRGs Relative Weighted Products (MS-RWPs)
Mental Health - Bed Days
Outpatient – MEPRS B WorkcentersProvider Aggregate Relative Value Units (RVUs)
Non-credentialed providers get appropriate Practice Expense RVU credit
Ambulatory Payment Classification (APCs)Facility location now identified in CAPER
recordsConsistent with TRICARE change for CY09
11
Valuing MHS Workload Fee for Service Rates FY12
Value per MS-RWP - $8,688 (MEPRS A codes)Average amount allowed
Including institutional and professional feesExcluding Mental Health (MH)/Substance Abuse (SA) Adjusted for local Wage index and Indirect Medical
Education Adjustment
Value per Mental Health Bed Day - $803 (MEPRS A codes) Average amount allowed
Including institutional and professional feesAdjusted for local Wage index and Indirect Medical
Education Adjustment
Value per RVU - $33.97 (MEPRS B codes)Standard Rate – like TMAC/CMS
Adjusted for local geographic price index both Work and Practice
Value per APC - $69.61 (Facility records)Standard Rate 12
How Well? - HEDIS
Paying for additional performance beyond workloadIn past this has been adjustment if MHS had
additional dollars available at Mid-yearMethod is really a performance based allocation
of excess dollars
Does not match external P4P programs where dollars are at risk
13
P4P HEDIS
Values for standard set of measures
14
HEDIS Measure DiabetesService Asthma Mammogram Pap Colorectal Screen LDL AC1 Grand TotalA 656,189$ 1,201,542$ 3,815,139$ 5,959,223$ 53,591$ 552,314$ 931,829$ 13,169,826$ N 343,581$ 1,069,876$ 2,545,224$ 3,683,218$ 281,790$ 620,774$ 876,828$ 9,421,293$ F 653,071$ (287,456)$ (3,637,264)$ 7,435,112$ (513,520)$ 991,360$ 1,188,027$ 5,829,329$ JTF 92,847$ 322,954$ 680,558$ 1,644,882$ 27,863$ 201,327$ 224,612$ 3,195,043$ Total 1,745,688$ 2,306,916$ 3,403,657$ 18,722,435$ (150,276)$ 2,365,776$ 3,221,296$ 31,615,492$
* Excludes Pilot Sites that are funded based on Service unique methods.
Current PPS Summary
15
Army Navy Air Force JTF (1) MHS Total
PPS Recon with SA 2,911,345$ 9,488,684$ 11,638,532$ (65,582,389)$
Adjustments to Base Recon Value
PPS Funding Increase (103,493,000)$ -$ -$ -$
HEDIS 13,169,826$ 9,421,293$ 5,829,329$ 3,195,043$
Pilot site funds (2) 17,740,504$ 278,709$ 8,682,316$ -$
Recon + Adjustments Total (69,671,325)$ 19,188,686$ 26,150,177$ 3,195,043$ (21,137,418)$
(1) JTF Removed from Reconciliation until 2014 per decision from CFOIC. Currently there is no O&M factor for JTF (Service O&M factors range from 35% to 68%)(2) Per decision from CFOIC, Keesler is not to use a FY09 baseline. Currently Keesler is using a Rolling 12 to Prior Rolling 12 for increases.
Mid-year FY2012 Navy Pilots
Performance Funding Adjustment
16
Performance Funding Items
How Much?Care Management FeePrimary Care Sub-capitationTraditional FFS for care outside of Sub-Capitation
How Well?HEDIS Quality adjustment
Colorectal/Cervical/Mammogram/DiabetesAccess/Continuity of care adjustment
3rd Available AppointmentContinuity of Care
SatisfactionNot available, due to change in Survey instrument
ER Utilization adjustmentPMPM adjustment
17
Balanced Bonus Eligible Items
Care Management
An increase in enrollment is awarded with $2.50 per increased enrollee per month.
NCQA Level 2 Certified MTFs can earn $5 per increased enrollee.
Pensacola earned $33,250
Quantico earned $75,860
Enrollees
2009 42,541
2011 43,095
Increase 554 Enrollee
s
2009 20,874
2011 22,138
Increase 1,264 18
Traditional PPS compared to PPS + Primary Care Sub-
Capitation
MTF PPS Overall Funds
(A) Everything outside of Primary Care Product Line
(B) Primary Care Product Line
(C) Team care for own Enrollees
(D) Same MTF Other than Team (ie ER Office Vst)
(E) MCSC/ Other MTF
19
Primary CareSub-Capitation
Funding of Primary Care Sub-Capitation
Baseline MTF PPS Overall Funds
(A1) Everything outside of Primary Care Product Line
(B1) Primary Care Product Line
(C1) Team care for own Enrollees
(D1) Same MTF Other than Team(ie ER Office Vst)
(E1) MCSC/ Other MTF
• Traditional PPS Earnings: • MTF PPS (A1+B1+C1+D1)
• Baseline Sub-capitation Value: (C1+D1+E1)• Capitation rate: (C1+D1+E1)/Eq Lives1
20
Rolling 12MTF PPS Overall Funds
(A2) Everything outside of Primary Care Product Line
(B2) Primary Care Product Line
(C2) Team care for own Enrollees
(D2) Same MTF Other than Team (ie ER Office Vst)
(E2) MCSC/ Other MTF
Team currently represents entire Primary Care Product Line for same MTF Enrollee.
• Revised Pilot PPS Earning Calculation• Rolling 12 (A2+B2+D2) + Net Sub-capitation
• Sub-Capitation Total value = (Capitation Rate x Eq Lives2)
• Net Sub Capitation Earnings = Total value – (D2+E2)
Sub-Capitation
Adjusted for Provider Aggregate RVUsStandardized across years to prevent weight changes
causing utilization increasesUsing current Conversion factor without GPCIsTeam concept currently based on Primary Care
Product Line with adjustments for new PCMH clinics (BAZ/BDZ)
Equivalent LivesBased on Age/Gender/Bencat
Safe HarborBetween 25th and 75th Percentile No adjustmentAbove 75th Percentile reduction of 0.5 RVUs per Eq LifeBelow 25th Percentile growth permitted of 0.5 RVUs per
Eq LifeBase on number of Enrollees not Enrollment sites
21
Provider Aggregate RVU per Primary Care Equivalent Life
7.19
8.54
22
Range based on Total Enrollees
Provider Aggregate RVU per Primary Care Equivalent Life
7.19
8.54
Quantico
Pensacola
Safe HarborUpper
Safe HarborLower
23
Baseline
Primary Care Sub-Capitation Pensacola
(C1) Team care for own Enrollees309,291 RVUs$10,506,613
(D1) Same MTF Other than Team (ie ER Office Vst)10,465 RVUs$355,480
(E1) MCSC/ Other MTF36,688 RVUs$1,246,302
• Baseline Sub-capitation Value: (C1+D1+E1)• Capitation rate: (C1+D1+E1)/Eq Lives1
• Capitation Value = $12,108,395 • Capitation Rate = $12,108,395/41,961 Eq Lives
• $289/Eq Life
24
(D2) Same MTF Other than Team (ie ER Office Vst) 12,796 RVUs$434,672
(E2) MCSC/ Other MTF 35,740 RVUs$1,214,088
Team currently represents entire Primary Care Product Line for same MTF Enrollee.
• Net Sub-capitation• Sub-Capitation Total value = (Capitation Rate x Eq Lives2)• Net Sub Capitation Earnings = Total value – (D2+E2)
• Sub-Capitation Total Value • = ($289 x 42,807 Eq Lives) = $12,352,476
• Net Sub Capitation Earnings • $12,352,476 – $1,648,760 = $ 10,703,716
Net Sub-Capitation Earning change: $10,703,716-$10,506,613 = $197,103 (On a per Eq Life basis MTF earnings decreased from $250.39/Eq Life to $250.05/Eq Life)
(C2) Team care for own Enrollees326,658 RVUsPPS $11,096,576
8.49 RVUs/ Eq Life 8.76 RVUs/ Eq Life
Primary Care Sub-Capitation Quantico
(C1) Team care for own Enrollees138,613 RVUs$4,708,675
(D1) Same MTF Other than Team (ie ER Office Vst)1,452 RVUs$49,328
(E1) MCSC/ Other MTF23,846 RVUs$810,055
• Baseline Sub-capitation Value: (C1+D1+E1)• Capitation rate: (C1+D1+E1)/Eq Lives1
• Capitation Value = $5,568,059• Capitation Rate = $5,568,059/20,241 Eq Lives
• $275/Eq Life
25
(D2) Same MTF Other than Team (ie ER Office Vst) 4,243 RVUs$144,125
(E2) MCSC/ Other MTF 30,882 RVUs$1,049,064
Team currently represents entire Primary Care Product Line for same MTF Enrollee.
• Net Sub-capitation• Sub-Capitation Total value = (Capitation Rate x Eq Lives2)• Net Sub Capitation Earnings = Total value – (D2+E2)
• Sub-Capitation Total Value • = ($275 x 22,256 Eq Lives) = $6,122,542
• Net Sub Capitation Earnings • $ 6,122,542 – $1,193,189 = $4,929,353
Net Sub-Capitation Earning change: $4,929,353-$4,708,675 = $220,103 (On a per Eq Life basis MTF earnings decreased from $232.64/Eq Life to $221.48/Eq Life)
(C2) Team care for own Enrollees134,163 RVUsPPS $4,557,512
8.10 RVUs/ Eq Life 7.61 RVUs/ Eq Life
How Well - HEDIS
• Eligibles determined by measure, valued on a sliding scale– $10.00/properly managed enrollee if enrollment site
manages to meet the 90th percentile– $5.00/properly managed enrollee at 50th percentile– $2.50/properly managed enrollee below the 50th percentile
• Performance Period (Rolling 12 months)– FY11 FM4 to FY12 FM3– FY10 Q4 months inferred
• Baseline– FY09
HEDIS Colorectal HEDIS Cervical HEDIS Mammography HEDIS A1c > 9 HEDIS A1c Screening HEDIS LDL > 100mg/dL Total0038 NH PENSACOLA 16,380$ (1,050)$ 1,355$ 9,278$ 28,345$ 48,023$ 102,330$ 0385 NMCL QUANTICO (2,613)$ (2,710)$ 638$ 510$ 1,950$ 6,568$ 4,343$
26
How Well - Third Available Acute
• Pensacola earned $30,250.
• Quantico lost $34,568
• Earnings are calculated monthly.• By crossing above 60%, Pensacola began earning
$0.50/enrollee month versus $0.25 prior to crossing 60%.
• Conversely, Quantico dropped to $0.25/enrollee in most months, causing a significant earnings decline from 2009.
Raw Earnings
Performance Population
2009 $ 101,652 57%
42,541
2011 $ 131,903 62%
43,095
Raw Earnings
Performance Population
2009 $ 66,841 62%
20,874
2011 $ 32,273 49%
22,138
27
How Well - Third Available Routine
• Pensacola lost $228,522.
• Quantico earned $36,097
• Earnings are calculated monthly.• In 2011, Pensacola decreased in raw performance from 92% to
84%• Additionally, they also dropped below 80% in some of the months
of 2011, which caused them to earn an additional dollar less per enrollee ($1.50 - $0.50) in those months.
• In the months that the performance dipped below 80%, earnings fell almost 33%.
• By passing above 60%, Quantico began earning $0.50 per enrollee per month instead of only $0.25.
Raw Earnings
Performance Population
2009 $ 721,578 92%
42,541
2011 $ 493,056 84%
43,095 Raw
EarningsPerformance Population
2009 $ 55,114 57%
20,874
2011 $ 91,211 60%
22,138
2011 2012 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $
78% $
25,490 79% $
25,765 80% $
25,559 81% $
77,676 86% $
82,793 92% $
88,065 92% $
87,958 83% $
79,751
28
How Well - Continuity
• Pensacola earned $79,067
• Quantico earned $163,090
• Earnings are calculated monthly.• Pensacola increased performance but was
also able to cross the 50% threshold in some months, earning $10 per PCM appointment.
• Quantico increased performance and was also able to earn $20 per PCM appointment by crossing above the 60% threshold.
Raw Earnings
Performance Appointments
2009 $ 378,653 43%
75,185
2011 $ 457,720 51%
118,940
Raw Earnings
Performance Appointments
2009 $ 261,800 49%
40,104
2011 $ 424,890 65%
50,185
29
How Well - ER Visits / 100
• ER roughly calculates the difference in PPS earnings based on utilization that would be expected and then disperses a portion of the savings (or costs).
• ((Enrollees2011 * ER2009) – (Enrollees2011 * ER2011)) * 300 * X %
• Where X % is based on the performance year ER Rate– < 30.0, 20%– < 35.0, 10%– >35.0, 5%– Increase above baseline -5%
30
ER Continued
Pensacola increased their expected visits by approximately 82.43,095*(.4774-.4755)
82 visits * 300 * 5% = ~$1,237 decreaseQuantico increased their expected visits by
approximately 1,01122,138 * (.3861-.3404)
1,011 * 300 * 5% = ~$15,172 decrease
$ (1,237)
% Population
2009 47.55 42,541
2011 47.74 43,095
$ (15,172)
% Population
2009 34.04
20,874
2011 38.61
22,138
31
How Well - PMPM• PMPM earnings are based on the savings
(or cost) from the MHS target.• The 2 year target from 2009 to 2011 is a
9.38% increase. Anything within +/- 2% of that falls into the safe zone.
• 10% of the savings (or cost) is awarded to those that beat the target by 2% or more.
• 20% of the savings (or cost) is awarded to those that beat the target by 4% or more.
32
PMPM Continued• Pensacola fell within the safe
zone and was neither awarded nor penalized financially.
• Quantico increased by well over 4% of the target and thusly was penalized 20% of the increased cost.
• Enrollees2011 * ((PMPM2011 – PMPMTarget) * 12) * 20%
• 22,138 * ((347-311)*12) * 20% = $1.9million
Performance Population
2009
301.47
42,541
2011
329.85
43,095 % Increase 9.4%
Target
329.74
Performance Population
2009
284.40
20,874
2011
346.96
22,138 % Increase 22.0%
Target
311.08
33
Summary for Sites
34
0038 0385 Navy TotalNH PENSACOLA NMCL QUANTICO
HEDIS Performance 102,330$ 4,343$ 3rd Available Appt
Acute 30,250$ (34,568)$ Routine (228,522)$ 36,097$
Continuity of Care 79,067$ 163,090$ ER Utilization (1,237)$ (15,172)$ PMPM Adjustment -$ (1,903,122)$
Non-Workload Peformance Sub-Total (18,112)$ (1,749,333)$
Balanced Bonus -$ -$
Non-Capitated Earnings change 1,593,594$ (74,332)$ Sub-Capitation 197,103$ 220,678$
Workload Performance Sub -Total 1,790,696$ 146,347$
Care Mgmt Fee 33,250$ 75,860$
Total Performance Adjustment 1,805,835$ (1,527,126)$ 278,709$
Both sites had a negative Non-Workload Performance Sub-Total, so there is no Balanced Bonus. Balanced Bonus is only applied if Performance results are positive.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation
Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative
• Tests two models simultaneously• Practice redesign
Targeting 5 key primary care functions (does not equal PCMH specific model)
• Payment redesign – 2 key components of program
•PMPM care management fee •Shared savings
First program to focus on reduction of overall cost of beneficiary
• Better use of data• Ongoing, regular reports to providers
Practice and Payment Redesign Through the CPCI – Overview
36
Reasons/Purpose for MHS Participation
1. Test new model of care for MCSC enrollees2. Investing in PC providers may --> increase in
network (Oregon state reps highlighted especially)3. Partnering with CMS4. Partnering with state5.Establishing roadmap for future such US-wide
demonstrations with other federal partners6.Helps inform future TRICARE contracts.
Does this payment mechanism reduce overall cost per beneficiary?
One of goals of CPCI is to build a medical neighborhood with
providers and payers
37
MHS Selection Criteria: Population
• MHS Criteria: populations eligible for demonstration– Prime enrollees to MCSC (does not include
standard care) Care for non-enrolled beneficiaries (standard patients)
potentially acquired at multiple providers Demonstration is testing management of enrollee care to PCMs
– Active duty family members, retiree and retiree family members
Potential geographic relocations of ADFMs may impact significance of results
– Outside a prism and catchment area– If in a prism or catchment area, referrals to MTFs would occur – Cost of care in MTFs highly variable and presents problem
with study review 38
MHS Selection Criteria: Regions• 7 regions selected by CMMI• 4 with population too small for MHS participation• Arkansas, Oregon (whole state); Oklahoma (only
Tulsa area)― Allows for testing model in rural and metropolitan
areas
39
CPCI Markets TRICARE Region
% Purchased
CareTotal
Enrollees
Enrollees Meeting MHS Criteria for
ParticipationArkansas South 95% 18,829 11,732 Oregon West 95% 6,161 6,161 Oklahoma (Tulsa) South 95% 13,819 13,819 Colorado
Population too small for MHS participationNew JerseyNew York (Albany)Ohio (Cincinnati, Dayton)
How Much?• Management Fee
– Risk adjust using Medicare model; revise in future as MHS-specific model evolves
– Average year 1 & 2 estimates• ADFM - ~$7 per enrollee per month
Retirees, NADFM - ~$9 per enrollee per month
– Potential liability first year of 31,712 eligibles, assuming 20% participation: 6,343 enrollees = $652,150
Fee for Service for any care provided40
How well?Quality measures throughout initiative
• Core set of measures • “Not later than year 2” shared savings as
performance bonus, with reduction in care management fee
• Calculated at total area level (state for Arkansas & Oregon; Tulsa region for Oklahoma)
• Calculation– Actual risk-adjusted PMPM (including
management fee) compared to
– Projected risk-adjusted PMPM (based on baseline inflated)
Catastrophic individuals excluded
• Shared saving for distribution – 50%41
Shared Savings: Distribution
• As performance bonuses
• Based on individual practice performance
• Calculated on quality & utilization metrics – formula TBD
42
Tentative Timeline
Commitment finalized with CMMI – May 31, 2012Start of demonstration for MHS: September 1, 2013Major mileposts from June 1, 2012 – August 31,
2013 to develop TRICARE specific requirements. No later than
― June 2012: Prepare Decision Memorandum for Director, TMA to establish approval to for the TRICARE demonstration project
― May 1, 2013: Develop and Publish Federal Register Notice of Demonstration
― July 1, 2013: Develop and issue contract modification to TMA contractors by July 15, 2012 to ensure implementation by September 1, 2013
43
So…
Has FFS PPS outlived its usefulness?Concern that FFS induces:
Over-utilizationUpcodingTreatment over prevention
Considerable discussion each year on mid-year adjustments
Competition/rancor between services
MTFs strong focus only on PPS earning areasQulaity has ot been focus of performance
adjustments Only used to distribute excess funds
44
FFS with Performance Bonus?Primary Care Sub-capitation with
Specialty FFS?Full capitation with Shared Savings?
Stay Tuned
45
Future PPS??(Performance Payment system)