Transparency Advisory Group

(formerly Reporting Task Force)

January 21, 2014Kickoff Meeting

History of the Reporting Task Force (RTF)

• Established in 2008 by Utah Partnership for Value (UPV) an AHRQ Chartered Value Exchange

• Part of the strategy to “build stakeholder empowerment through transparency and actionability of healthcare data with focus and attention on consumers”

TAG Long-Term Objectives

• Use transparency to improve quality and cost of care• Partner with Utah organizations to publish a series of

reports with nationally created measures and local data that are:– Actionable and understandable to consumers

– Reliable source for redesigning incentives

– Accepted as reasonably valid and reliable by the provider

community and include resources for improving measures

(TAG Charter 2013)

TAG Long-Term Objectives (cont’d)

• Act as an advisory body for Health Data Committee (HDC) and other organizations– input on transparency reports

• Educate membership and community to elevate use of data for transparency in UT

(TAG Charter 2013)

Composition

• Health Data Committee leadership• Utah Department of Health (UDOH) Office

of Healthcare Statistics leadership and staff

• HealthInsight Utah - Quality Improvement Organization (QIO)

• Community– providers – payers– consumers/employers

Previous Activities

• House Bill 128 (APCD)• UtahHealthscape

-public reporting website-provider portal

• Other- per UPV

House Bill 128 (HB128)

• Passed in 2011• UDOH OCHS to utilize All Payer Claims

Database • Clinic-level reporting for clinics with 5 or more

providers (MD, DO, APRN)– Small area-level reporting for smaller clinics– Denominator of at least 15 patients per measure

http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb 128.htm

Purpose Discussion

Cycle III Grant

Vision:As a result of the activities included in the Cycle III Grant, the State of Utah will provide useful information on health care costs to the general public.

Cycle III Grant

• Aim 1 – Data Quality– Facilitating data collection (UHIN)– Patient-provider attribution review

(HealthInsight and OCHS)

Cycle III Grant

• Aim 2 – Analytics– IT Infrastructure– Developing Analytics– Partners

• U of U Biomedical Informatics• U of U Dept of Family & Preventive Medicine

Cycle III Grant

• Aim 3 – Information Dissemination– Practical– Technical

• UID website (Insurance)• IBIS (UDOH)• UtahHealthScape.org (HealthInsight)

– Streamline Data Requests (OHCS)

UtahHealthScape.org• Launched to the public in October 2011• Directory of physicians and clinics• Quality ratings on hospitals, health plans, nursing homes,

home health agencies• Info on common

conditions and health concerns

• Spanish languageversion

• Secure portal forprovider scorereview

Quality Reporting on UHS

Role of TAG

• To participate in and advise on:– Measure selection– Data display strategies– Data issues and concerns

• To support the project as needed

Role of TAG

• Other information will be gathered from– Consumer focus groups– Public reporting literature– Existing price transparency sites in other

states– Sources of healthcare data, such as IBIS

Measure Selection Criteria

• Decision Point– Time to make a decision – non-emergency– Option to choose a provider– Procedure appropriate for shared decision

making

Measure Selection Criteria

• FrequencyCount by Diagnosis‐Related Group and Single Years

2009 2010 2011 Total372 VAGINAL DELIVERY WITH COMPLICATING DIAGNOSES 4,701 4,629 4,608 13,938

390 NEONATE WITH OTHER SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS 8,162 7,597 7,624 23,383

371 CESAREAN SECTION WITHOUT COMPLICATIONS, COMORBIDITIES 9,200 9,071 8,601 26,872

544 MAJOR JOINT REPLACEMENT OR REATTACHMENT OF LOWER EXTREMITY (added 10‐1‐05)

9,009 9,259 9,352 27,620

430 PSYCHOSES 8,300 9,428 10,498 28,226

373 VAGINAL DELIVERY WITHOUT COMPLICATING DIAGNOSES 34,150 32,944 32,340 99,434

391 NORMAL NEWBORN 37,668 36,464 35,041 109,173

Measure Selection Criteria

• Cost– Consumers responsible for cost

• No preventive, except for uninsured– High cost– High variation

Brainstorming

In what areas of health care would pricing information be valuable to

consumers?

Feedback Requests

• Review 3 existing price transparency sites:– Virginia Health Information– Kentucky Hospital Charge Information– Surgery Center of Oklahoma

• Respond to brief SurveyMonkey related to sites and today’s discussion

• Assist in consumer recruitment for focus groups