Measuring to improve quality June 29, 2011 1. This presentation will: Provide an overview of the...
-
Upload
horace-campbell -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
2
Transcript of Measuring to improve quality June 29, 2011 1. This presentation will: Provide an overview of the...
Measuring to improve qualityJune 29, 2011
1
This presentation will:Provide an overview of the provider profile
and pay-for-performance (P4P) process
Invite discussion on proposed measures and the P4P process for BHRS
Outline next steps after today
2
What is a Provider ProfileData-oriented report to measure change at the
System and the Provider level
Intended to profile a Provider in our network on their performance on key quality measures
Include contextual data on who (e.g. demographic information) and how (e.g. length of stay) were served by said Provider
Iterative process: may include new measures each year and or higher targets
3
What makes good performance measures?
Central to our Shared Mission
Important & Meaningful
Feasible to Capture
Accurate and Representative
Leads to Improved Performance
4
What is Pay-for-PerformanceA payment model rewards providers for
meeting certain performance measures for quality and efficiency
Providers under this arrangement are usually rewarded for meeting pre-established targets for delivery of healthcare services
5
How is Philadelphia affected by P4P?
HealthChoices Contract with State
PA Department of Public Welfare pay-for-performance So far, focused on inpatient psychiatric
hospitalizationReceived pay for 2008 performance 2009 performance probably will not as
our Inpatient Outcomes did not keep up with other Counties
6
Purpose of Pay for Performance
Focus attention on desired quality processes & outcomes
Shared FocusWhat are the things DBH can do to improve
and what are things Providers can do?Develop Shared Clarity about the direction we
want to go
7
Timeline (abbreviated) of development of provider profile• 2007 – Series of meetings with providers to
introduce concept & start discussion• 2008 – Preliminary data tabulations; internal
sharing of results• 2009 – Baseline reports on Inpatient
Psychiatric Services (April) and Children’s Residential Treatment (Dec)
• 2010 - 2nd series on IP & RTF; baseline report on D & A Residential Rehabilitation Services
• 2011 – Repeat others and Baseline for:• BHRS, TCM, CIRC, Host Homes
8
Who gets a report?In-network providers
Providers serving at least 20 youthsIndividualized reportsNeed to discuss dose within the year before
expected improvement
Providers with fewer than 20 dischargesAll CBH providers combined report orLetter of Intent for Continuous Quality
Improvement? Similar to the OTIP process? Or Expanded Chart
Reviews?9
Types of Information in the Profiles• Quantitative Outcomes– Inpatient/CRC Visits/RTF rates, Follow-up rates,
AMA rates, etc. • Contextual– Length of Stay– Cost Summaries– Avg Units per Child per Level of Care
• Contractual Oversight– Compliance and Credentialing
• Qualitative Measures (being piloted)– Agency and Individual Service Reviews (chart
audits)10
All reports have:• Measures that compare to national and/or state
standards or to local norms
• Thresholds for assessing good, adequate and poor performance (green, yellow and red) based on national and/or state standards or local norms
• Comparison to overall CBH statistics
• Blinded comparisons to other providers
• Multi-year trends for selected (not all) measures
11
How to use the reportsProvide you with comparison benchmarks
System as a whole and other providersRaise questions about care, expectations, and
generate research about differences Generate discussion about system wide
challengesHelp to determine P4P measuresFacilitate providers sharing information about
practices with each other after receiving reportsInform the credentialing process
12
Purpose of Pay for Performance
Focus attention on desired quality processes & outcomes
Shared FocusWhat are the things DBH can do to improve
and what are things Providers can do?Develop Shared Clarity about the direction
we want to go?
13
P4P MethodologyCriteria for being in P4P Pool each Year
◦ In Network Providers◦ Adequate sample size for measuring said
provider◦ Top 2/3 of Aggregated Scores
Unless all are meeting national standards then possibly consider all as qualifying
Scores/weights for each Measure used in P4P◦ Weighting for specific measure and to
population served – details available from CQI
14
2011 performance pay will be based on 2010 FY data for BHRS• Measures from profiles used in all levels of
care P4P• Continuity of Care• Readmission or alternately Not Readmission• Compliance
• Measures used in some levels of care (not all)
• AMA• Quality of Care Concerns
• Measures not used include Complaints
15
Sample of what CEO’s Received regarding D&A Residential Rehab P4P Scores
16
Performance Dollars are:Proportional to Volume Served Proportional to Weighted Scores
17
2010 Performance PayBased on their weights/scores (which are
based on how well they did in certain measures from the profiles), and how much services they had provided in 2009some providers received performance paysome providers did not receive performance
pay
18
Profiles reported on 5 domains
System TransformationAccess and Service UtilizationQuality of CareCustomer ServiceContract Status
19
1. System TransformationSuggestions for measure includes:
Peer Culture Development
Family Involvement
Recovery/Resilience Training
20
2. Access and UtilizationWhat are we counting
Those servedUnits per Child per Level of careLength of Stay
Are membera having timely access?Do we have enough system capacity?Under and over utilization?
21
Utilization measures
22
3. Quality of CareMeasures in the section of CBH Provider
Profiles that focus on:SafetyClinical effectivenessConsumer-centered
23
Measures in Quality of Care• How do we know that our members received
quality care? – Members are doing better
• How measured?– Not returning to same or higher level of care –
recidivism– Engagement in continuity of care – follow-up
care in a lower level of care– Provider closed to admissions
24
Quality of Care (cont’d)Few DIRECT measures of quality of careWe need to assess for indicators of quality
care:◦ Documentation of specific desirable
(operationally defined) activities or events in client records (e.g. family meetings)
◦ Lack of undesirable events in client records or data sets (e.g. serious incidents, AMAs, restraints)
◦ Individual assessment tools (e.g. recovery tools, community participation scales).
25
Comparison of Providers to CBH System as a whole
26
Comparison to other providers – Adult Inpatient recidivism
27
One example measure of Significant Incident
28
Types of severe incidents
29
4. Customer ServiceComplaints
“an issue, dispute, or objection presented by or on behalf of a member regarding a participating health care provider, or the coverage, operations or management policies of a managed care plan”
30
Complaints: what we report• First-level complaints
– Number of complaints per provider– Type of complaint• E.g., consumer rights, treatment concerns
– Rate per 1000 authorized units of service
• Blinded comparison across providers– How rate per 1000 authorizations compare to
other providers in same level of care
31
5. Contract StatusRate Increase HistoryProvider VolumeCompliance Status and Audit RateCredentialing HistoryRefusal to Admit (proposed)Failure to Notify CBH of Closure (proposed)
32
Measurements to be reported by the categoriesPopulation/diagnostic cohorts
ASD, ID or otherSpecific Level of Care Groupings
STSCARESchool-based Wrap-aroundNon-school based Wrap-aroundGroup TSSMobile TherapyFamily Services
33
Breakout Group 1: Clinical Review of Agency Infrastructure and Chart Reviews
• A break-out group to review and discuss• Proposed Self Audits and Cross-Validation
• What to do for small volume providers?• Letter of Intent: Plan for Quality Improvement
Processes regarding Practice Guidelines and measures that are included in the reports.• Similar to OTIP along with quantitative
measures..weigh quantitative measures less for these
• Additional chart reviews34
Breakout Group 2: Access and Delivery of ServiceAverage number of days between auth and
date of first claim for new auths that yearPaid to Auth Ratios to demonstrate delivery
of serviceBy 6-digit level of care
Staffing Ratio based upon census submissionLength of time between date of completion of
evaluation and date of submission to CBH Avg Number of Units per youth per level of
care35
Breakout Group 3: Transitioning from BHRS to high intensity services or failure to transition
% of (non ASD, non ID) youth receiving greater than 3 years of BHRS
% of (non ASD, non ID) youth >= 14 receiving BHRS
% of Children admitted to Inpatient, and CRC respectively Control for minimum dose: or two measures
those with higher auth/paid ratio’s and those with lower auth/paid ratio
Or Control by length of time with provider36
Breakout Group 3: Successful Completion, Transition to Family or Lower Levels of Care, positive Outcome% Transitioned to Family Level of Care
Family Based ServicesFamily Focused Behavioral HealthPHICAPSFFTOthers?
% Transitioned to any Outpatient Treatment% Listed as Successful Completion on Discharge
Summaries% of Children with Improvement in School
Attendance37
Breakout Group 4: (3 topics) Support of Evidenced Informed Evaluations, Interpretation of Quality, and Compliance
% Completion and Data Submission of ASEBA at Baseline and Follow-up
% Submission of Census% Submission of Discharge Summaries
Rate of Quality of Care ConcernsError Rates on Compliance
38
Report Back by Groups
39
Next StepsSummary to the WebsiteData and profile developmentDistribution of ReportsRecommendations for Pay for PerformancePay for Performance Weights and OutcomesPay Increase before 01/01/2012 for those
deemed as receiving P4P
40