03 Jun 2026
0
View Post
May Workgroup Highlights Building and Sustaining a Systemwide Sepsis Team

May Workgroup Highlights Building and Sustaining a Systemwide Sepsis Team

June 3, 2026 | 0 Comments | , ,

In May, the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) hosted a virtual sepsis workgroup featuring a presentation on the evolution of Michigan Medicine’s enterprise-wide sepsis initiative and the lessons learned while building a sustainable, multidisciplinary sepsis program. The MVC Coordinating Center hosts workgroup presentations once or twice per month, covering a variety of topics including post-discharge follow-up, sepsis, cardiac rehabilitation, rural health, preoperative testing, and health in action.

Sepsis Workgroup – Michigan Medicine

Sepsis remains one of the leading drivers of mortality across healthcare systems, including Michigan Medicine. When sepsis can be treated, this not only reduces patient mortality, but also length of stay, readmissions, morbidities, and overall health of patients, so it comes as no surprise that Michigan Medicine recognized the need to make modifications to their current approach to sepsis management. Presenter Tami Garcia, MSN, RN, Sepsis Team Manager at Michigan Medicine explained how they began by moving away from siloed approaches to care. Early efforts focused on understanding existing workflows across Michigan Medicine’s enterprise and identifying inconsistencies in sepsis care. This included the recognition, escalation, and treatment of sepsis across adult, maternal, emergency and inpatient care settings.

While the team had a foundation set up with dashboards and procedural guides for screening, there had never been a team dedicated to ensuring consistent sepsis care across the system. Rather than immediately deploy new tools or mandates, this new team prioritized “Gemba walking” to meet providers where they work to better understand barriers, workflows, and frontline realities. As Garcia explained, “we need to build changes with our staff, not to our staff.” Garcia credited this approach to helping the sepsis team identify opportunities to standardize care while also building trust with bedside clinicians.

Building Trust as a Quality Improvement Strategy

A major theme throughout Garcia’s presentation was the importance of developing trust in quality improvement work. She emphasized that credibility and relationships became foundational to the success of this sepsis initiative. In addition to Gemba walking, the team focused on:

  • Maintaining a visible unit presence
  • Responding quickly to staff concerns
  • Closing communication loops
  • Listening to frontline staff frustrations
  • Incorporating clinician feedback into workflow design

Figure 1. Michigan Medicine’s Sepsis Team Standard Work and Governance Framework

Flowchart diagram illustrating sepsis coordinator rounding process and workflow reliability in a healthcare setting. It includes labeled boxes for standard work steps (Recognize, Huddle/escalate, Execute sepsis bundle), clear ownership by program team and units, and feedback loops showing stages of communication (What we heard, What changed, What we measured).

One notable outcome of this approach involved the reduction in excessive Epic alerts that historically contributed to alarm fatigue among nursing staff. Rather than dismissing the concerns, the team partnered with clinicians and informatics specialists to reduce unnecessary alerts and improve usability. This example is related to just one of the four main lessons learned by the sepsis team:

  1. Trust-building is a deliverable
  2. Tools must fit a workflow, otherwise they become workarounds
  3. Sustainment requires ownership
  4. Reducing burden (e.g., alarms) is improvement, not compromise

Standardizing Sepsis Recognition and Response

Following this period of learning and trust-building, the Michigan Medicine sepsis team began implementing a series of targeted interventions designed to improve reliability and timeliness of care.

Some key initiatives included:

  • Re-establishing multidisciplinary sepsis huddles in the adult emergency department
  • Enhancing Epic tools and workflows (adult, pediatric, etc.)
  • Launching maternal sepsis screening and nurse-initiated patient care orders
  • Implementing non-invasive fluid responsiveness technology in ICUs
  • Establishing nurse sepsis champions and physician ambassador programs
  • Creating neonatal sepsis response workflows in the NICU

Figure 2. Michigan Medicine’s ER Workflow and Sepsis Huddle Process Map

Flowchart illustrating ER workflow and Sepsis Huddle process for Michigan Medicine, detailing steps from initial sepsis screen to reassessment and monitoring. Key elements include color-coded boxes for tasks like RN paging for Sepsis Huddle, provider actions, and code sepsis activation, with timelines and criteria for bundle completion and reassessment.

Garcia highlighted the adult emergency department sepsis huddles as one of the team’s most impactful initiatives. The huddles bring nurses and providers together immediately after a positive sepsis screen to rapidly determine next steps and initiate treatment plans. This converts concern into coordinated action and normalizes escalation. Combined with streamlined order workflows and decision-support tools, timeliness of care and collaboration between disciplines have been improved.

Measurable Improvements in Sepsis Outcomes

Measurable improvements in both process and outcome measures since the formation of the dedicated sepsis team in 2022 were then reviewed. The reported improvements included:

  • Adult emergency department SEP-1 bundle compliance increased from approximately 50% in 2022 to almost 80% in 2026
  • Severe sepsis and septic shock mortality rates decreased from 26.2% in 2022 to 20.1% in 2025
  • Maternal sepsis screening rates exceeded 90% for OB triage and 78% for inpatient screens
  • Pediatric sepsis alert burden was reduced significantly from over 35,000 OPA’s in 2022 to just under 20,000 in 2025
  • Reduced the frequency of first antibiotic administration in neonatal populations at >120 minutes from over 40% to under 15% between the beginning and end of 2025

Garcia repeatedly credited frontline teams for these successes, emphasizing that sustained improvement depended on empowering all team members, especially clinicians, rather than relying solely on centralized oversight.

Expanding Frontline Ownership Through Sepsis Champions

One of the most promising developments discussed was the creation of the RN Sepsis Champion Program. Nurses serving as sepsis champions support local reliability, providing peer-to-peer education, reinforcing workflows, and helping to disseminate best practices within their units. Garcia described how this program has expanded rapidly across the Michigan Medicine organization and has already demonstrated improvements to bundle compliance and mortality outcomes in pilot units. Champions are especially important given high turnover rates and shifting operational pressures in healthcare. With monthly meetings, shared educational resources, and ongoing collaboration, champions help maintain momentum and create local ownership of sepsis improvement efforts.

Looking ahead, Michigan Medicine plans to sustain workflows, expand sepsis huddles, and strengthen support for sepsis champions and physician ambassadors. Garcia closed the presentation by reinforcing that successful sepsis improvement, or perhaps any quality improvement initiative, depends on partnership, humility, and continuous learning. As Garcia explained, “We really want to continue to partner with our teams to make sure they understand why we’re here, that they trust we’re here for the best of everybody -them and their patients.”

MVC Sepsis Workgroup: May 21, 2026

MVC welcomes presenters from across Michigan to share their expertise, success stories, initiatives, and solution-focused ideas with MVC members through various best-practice sharing platforms. Please reach out to us by email if you are interested in being a workgroup presenter or submit an online presentation proposal.

27 May 2026
0
View Post
PY 2025 Final Scorecards Shared for MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program

PY 2025 Final Scorecards Shared for MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program

May 27, 2026 | 0 Comments |

Last month, the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) distributed final scorecards for Program Year (PY) 2025 of the MVC Component of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) Pay-for-Performance (P4P) Program. This report provided hospitals with their final scores for PY 2025 as well as detailed breakdowns by scoring components. It also included a preview of measure scoring for the new health outcome variation measure that will be worth one point in PYs 2026-2027.

Each hospital received a final score out of a total of 10 points, including 0 to 4 points for their selected total episode payment metric, 0 to 4 points for their selected value metric, and 0 to 2 points for completed eligible engagement activities. PY 2025 scored each participating hospital’s achievement and improvement for selected episode spending conditions and value metrics using index admissions from 2024 performance year data against 2022 baseline year data. Hospitals were awarded the higher of their achievement or improvement point scores.

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of total points out of 10 across the collaborative. The average points scored across the final scorecards was 6.7 out of 10. This average is 0.1 higher than the average points scored at the conclusion of PY 2024.

Figure 1. Distribution of Hospital Total Point Scores for PY 2025

Line chart showing final scores of MVC hospitals participating in PY 24-25 program, with scores ranging from 2 to 10 out of 10. Chart includes orange line for mean score (6.7) and gray line for median score (6.0), highlighting most hospitals scored above median and mean.

Figure 2 illustrates the breakdown of scoring on average by each program component (i.e., episode spending metric, value metric, engagement points). Hospitals could earn up to four points for their episode spending and value metric selections, and up to two points for engagement activities completed in 2025. Across the collaborative, hospitals scored an average of 2.2 points for episode spending, 2.6 points for value metrics, and 1.8 points for engagement activities.

Figure 2. Average Points Earned in PY 2025 by Scoring Component

Bar chart comparing average scores across hospitals in four categories: Episode Spending Points, Value Metrics, Engagement Points, and Final Score. Bars are color-coded gray, blue, orange, and dark blue respectively, with Final Score notably highest at 6.7 out of 10.

Figure 3 illustrates the breakdown of the average points by episode spending conditions. The highest scoring episode spending condition was coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with an average of 2.9 points, and this was followed by joint replacement with 2.5 points. Conditions that hospitals scored less than 2 points on episode spending on average were congestive heart failure and pneumonia with 1.7 and 1.5 points respectively.

Figure 3. Average Points Earned Out of Four in PY 2025 by Episode Spending Condition

Bar chart comparing PY 25 episode spending scores across five medical conditions, with CABG showing the highest score of 2.9 and Pneumonia the lowest at 1.5. Chart includes mean spending score of 2.2 and median of 3.0, with dark blue bars labeled by condition on the x-axis and spending scores on the y-axis.

Figure 4 illustrates the breakdown of average points by value metrics. Consistent with PY 2024, the highest scoring value metric was preoperative testing with 3.7 points. This was followed by 90-day cardiac rehab after PCI and 7-day follow up after CHF, both with an average score of 2.7 points. The lowest scoring value metric was 7-day follow up after pneumonia and follows the same trend as that of PY 2024 with 2 points.

Figure 4. Average Points Earned Out of Four in PY 2025 by Value Metric

Bar chart displaying PV 25 value metric scores across various medical follow-up and testing categories, with scores ranging from 2.0 to 3.7. Categories include preoperative testing, cardiac rehab, and inpatient readmissions, with mean score 2.7 and median 3.0 indicated on chart.

Figure 5 shows the distribution of engagement points earned out of a maximum of 2 across the collaborative. Notably, about 70% of the participating hospitals earned both engagement points in PY 2025.

Figure 5. Distribution of Engagement Points Earned by Hospitals in PY 2025

Scatter plot showing engagement scores of MVC hospitals participating in PY 24-25 program, with individual hospital scores represented by blue dots. An orange horizontal line marks the mean score of 1.8, highlighting that most hospitals meet or exceed this engagement threshold.

This is the second year of a two-year (PY 24-25) P4P cycle. The full methodology for this program cycle can be found in the PY2024-2025 technical document [PDF].

In addition to the PY 2025 final scorecard summary, this report also included a preview of the new health outcome variation measure scoring, which will be worth one point in PY 2026-2027 (Figure 6). The table presents the hospital’s payer-specific risk-adjusted readmission rates in the performance year, the baseline and performance indexes for the hospital, and the target indexes required to score a point via improvement or achievement. This table’s scoring is based on PY 2025 data (i.e., 2024 performance year data and 2022 baseline data). When used in conjunction with other previously shared reports (e.g., the health outcome variation measure push report), hospitals can view performance trends over time on this measure. MVC has also recently prepared custom report requests for members on their HOV performance.

Please note that this table was included to help orient members with the scoring methodology for this new measure and did not impact PY 2025 scores. For detailed information about this measure, hospitals can watch an MVC introductory video to the HOV measure and refer to the PY 2026-2027 P4P technical document.

Figure 6. Sample Scoring of New Health Outcome Variation Measure

Table displaying Health Outcome Variation Measure for hospital readmission rates in 2024 across different insurance types, including BCBSM/BCN Commercial, BCBSM/BCN MA, Medicaid, Medicare, and Dual-Eligible. Key data includes baseline index (1.29), performance overall (3.03), target index for improvement (1.25), target index for achievement (1.24), and a scoring column with points scored (1).

If you have any questions regarding PY 2025 of the MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program, please refer to the MVC P4P PY 2024-2025 Technical Document.  You can also contact the MVC Coordinating Center for a walkthrough of your hospital’s PY 2025 final scorecard or P4P registry reports. MVC will evaluate and release mid-year scorecards for PY 2026 in Q3 of 2026.

20 May 2026
0
View Post
Key Takeaways from MiCR’s First Telehealth Cardiac Rehab Forum

Key Takeaways from MiCR’s First Telehealth Cardiac Rehab Forum

May 20, 2026 | 0 Comments | , , , , , ,

Since 2019, the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2) and the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) have worked together to improve cardiac rehabilitation utilization in Michigan. This collaboration led to the founding of the Michigan Cardiac Rehabilitation network (MiCR) in 2022, a partnership that endeavors to increase participation in cardiac rehab for all eligible individuals in Michigan through clinical practice sharing, networking, data benchmarking, and the dissemination of resources.

On April 17, MiCR invited practitioners from across Michigan to discuss the evolving role of virtual and hybrid cardiac rehabilitation programming amidst recent legislative wins. In February, Congress advanced the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 (H.R. 7148), which extends Medicare telehealth and in-home cardiopulmonary rehabilitation flexibilities through December 31, 2027. With this extension, cardiac, intensive cardiac, and pulmonary rehab programs in both hospital outpatient and physician office settings can continue delivering services virtually using two-way audio and video technology through the end of 2027. This two-year window gives programs the opportunity to launch or expand hybrid rehab models, try new approaches to reach patients who have difficulty attending in-person sessions, and plan with greater confidence while longer-term policy solutions are explored.

MiCR kicked off the forum emphasizing its mission and the progress made to date in statewide enrollment, with participation rates for eligible cardiac patients across the collaborative increasing from 24% in 2020 to 35% in 2024. Despite progress being made, the state is still short of the MiCR goal of 40% enrollment within 90 days of discharge from eligible procedures (Figure 1), as well as the Million Hearts goal of 70% enrollment.

Figure 1. Trends in cardiac rehab enrollment within 90 days of discharge from AMI, CABG, PCI, SAVR, or TAVR encounter

Line graph showing yearly trends in cardiac rehab participation within 90 days of discharge from various cardiac procedures between 2020 and 2024. The graph compares actual MVC participation rates, increasing from 24% in 2020 to 35% in 2024, against a constant MiCR goal of 40%, highlighting a gradual upward trend.

MiCR conducted a short survey in 2025 about telehealth programming in cardiac rehab to better understand opportunities to close the enrollment gap using telehealth, and how leaders and care teams feel about offering telehealth options. Of the 27 cardiac rehab sites that responded, only two were currently offering some form of virtual cardiac rehab, while some others expressed interest in launching or further investigating virtual service options.

Defining Cardiac Rehab Delivery Models

Prior to initiating a discussion, MiCR reviewed several key definitions to clarify terminology surrounding evolving cardiac rehab delivery models:

  • Traditional in-center delivery: synchronous, in-person care
  • Virtual delivery: synchronous, real-time, audio-visual communication
  • Remote delivery: asynchronous communication between patients and providers
  • Hybrid delivery: use of more than one of the methods noted above.

The forum focused primarily on virtual and hybrid delivery approaches given insurance reimbursement stipulations. MiCR emphasized how hybrid models may offer optimal opportunities for organizations to balance flexibility, patient engagement, and clinical oversight.

Health Systems Share Real-World Virtual Cardiac Rehab Experiences

The forum next featured presentations from two Michigan hospitals currently offering virtual or hybrid cardiac rehab programming.

Henry Ford Health

Steven Keteyian, PhD, Bioscientific Clinical Staff in the Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, and Kat Steenson, MS, Clinical Exercise Physiologist, shared insights into Henry Ford Health’s hybrid cardiac rehab model, including their group virtual session structure.

Dr. Keteyian spoke to the importance of designing a virtual program as similar to current in-center facility programming as possible – including using the same forms, outcome measures, even times that the classes are offered. He noted that this simple mindset may help to streamline implementation and workflows. Additionally, Dr. Keteyian encouraged programs considering virtual care to engage physician champions and optimize internal billing support when getting started.

Steenson discussed her experience delivering both traditional in-center and virtual cardiac rehab care and highlighted the important opportunity virtual delivery offers to extend services to patients facing transportation, scheduling, or geographic barriers. She also encouraged sites to develop virtual programming in line with current in-person practices, noting that this makes it easier on the staff ultimately delivering the services.

Michigan Medicine

Next, Samantha Fink, Administrative Manager of Domino’s Farms Cardiology, and Diane Perry, MS, ACSM-CCEP, CHWC, Certified Clinical Exercise Physiologist, outlined Michigan Medicine’s participation in a research pilot for virtual cardiac rehab delivery over the last two years.

Fink highlighted the importance of combining operational planning, process improvement, and patient accessibility initiatives when initially building virtual programs. She noted that while their patients expressed significant interest in virtual options, not all were set up for success—lacking reliable technology, exercise equipment, or appropriate health screenings prior to starting virtual cardiac rehab. Fink also encouraged sites to establish clear emergency protocols and steps for assessing the appropriateness of virtual care.

Perry then shared her perspective as an exercise physiologist on adapting patient support, exercise guidance, and engagement strategies for the virtual environment. She also endorsed a hybrid program, and she spoke in more detail about the importance of in-person initial assessments to confirm the appropriateness of virtual cardiac rehab.

Telehealth as a Tool to Improve Access

After introducing example programs, MiCR Co-Directors Jessica Golbus, MD, MS, and Michael Thompson, PhD, MPH, facilitated a panel discussion on future implementation opportunities, reimbursement considerations, and collaborative learning across Michigan programs.

Throughout the discussion, the panelists repeatedly emphasized that virtual cardiac rehab is not intended to replace traditional in-center rehab but rather enhance access and reduce long-standing barriers to participation. The panelists pointed out that virtual and hybrid approaches may help programs better serve patients with access barriers, such as rural patients, individuals with transportation limitations, working adults, caregivers, and patients with scheduling challenges. Discussion also reinforced that flexibility in care delivery models may improve patient adherence and completion rates. Lastly, the panelists underscored that successful digital transformation in healthcare is less about chasing trends and more about building practical, individualized programs that improve visibility, efficiency, and accessibility.

The webinar concluded with a call for continued innovation and collaboration as health systems explore new ways to improve cardiac rehab participation. With the extension of federal telehealth flexibilities through the end of 2027, presenters encouraged hospitals to consider this time as an opportunity to pilot, expand, and evaluate virtual cardiac rehab programs. For those interested in learning more about virtual cardiac rehab, the following resources may assist your organization’s journey:

Additionally, you can reference the recording of this forum via YouTube.

MiCR will host a second virtual forum discussion on Tues., June 9, from 12-1 p.m. featuring a demonstration of Henry Ford Health’s group virtual cardiac rehab programming. Registration is available now.

13 May 2026
0
View Post
MVC 2026 Spring Collaborative-Wide Meeting Summary – From Innovation to Impact: Advancing Care Across Health Networks

MVC 2026 Spring Collaborative-Wide Meeting Summary – From Innovation to Impact: Advancing Care Across Health Networks

May 13, 2026 | 0 Comments | , , ,

The Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) held its spring 2026 collaborative-wide meeting on Fri., May 8, in Traverse City, Michigan. A total of 84 attendees representing 48 hospitals, 16 multi-hospital systems, and seven physician organizations from throughout the state of Michigan explored strategies for elevating quality across integrated health networks through the lens of system-wide alignment and data-driven improvement.

MVC Director Mark Bradshaw, MSc, began Friday’s meeting with updates on the MVC Coordinating Center and the MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program [see slides]. He first introduced attendees to MVC’s newest team members, Senior Faculty Advisor Ryan Howard, MD, MS, and Lead Analyst Megan Heath, PhD. Bradshaw then provided an update on recent MVC reporting since the fall collaborative-wide meeting, including 12 hospital-level custom reports, a push report focused on follow-up utilization, and the P4P Program Year (PY) 2025 final scorecards. It was further announced that MVC’s registry was recently updated with new payer data, including three new months of BCBSM/BCN claims and three new quarters of Medicare FFS claims.

He also provided an update on MVC’s new site coordinator education program. With a total of 31 site coordinators enrolled thus far in 2026, he encouraged those interested in starting in Q4 of 2026 or Q1 of 2027 to join the waitlist for this individualized educational offering [registration link].

Bradshaw next summarized updates on the Michigan Cardiac Rehab network’s (MiCR) efforts to improve cardiac rehabilitation utilization. These include an upcoming MiCR virtual forum featuring a group cardiac rehab demo [registration link], a third round of NewBeat material orders, and Heart-to-Heart patient stories. Additionally, he summarized the status of MiCR’s medication management initiative. If interested in participating in an interview on this topic, please contact MVC via email [email link].

After providing MVC Coordinating Center updates, Bradshaw moved on to provide insights into final scoring of P4P PY 2025 (see Figures 1-3), which included slight increases in average total points scored from PY 2024, some improvements in engagement point scoring, and continued scoring success for value metrics tied to MVC’s value-based initiatives (e.g., cardiac rehab and preoperative testing metrics).

Figure 1. Distribution of MVC’s P4P PY 2025 Total Points

Line chart displays final scores of MVC hospitals participating in PY 24-25 program, with scores plotted as blue dots ranging from 2 to 10. Horizontal lines indicate mean score of 6.7 in orange and median score of 6.0 in gray, highlighting most hospitals scoring above median with several reaching 10 out of 10.

Figure 2. MVC’s P4P PY 2025 Scoring Breakdown by Episode Spending and Value Metric Selections

Horizontal bar chart comparing PY 25 episode spending scores and value metric scores across medical conditions and procedures. Spending scores range from 1.5 for Pneumonia to 2.9 for CABG, while value metric scores range from 2.0 for 7-day follow-up after Pneumonia to 3.7 for Preoperative Testing, with mean and median values indicated for each group.

Figure 3. MVC’s P4P PY 2025 Engagement Point Distribution

Scatter plot showing engagement scores of MVC hospitals participating in PY 24-25 program, with individual hospital scores represented by blue dots and a mean score of 1.8 marked by an orange horizontal line. Most hospitals achieve or exceed the mean score, with several reaching the maximum score of 2.0, indicating high engagement levels across participants.

After reviewing hospital performance in 2025, Bradshaw looked to the PY 2026-2027 cycle, announcing a one-time alternative point opportunity for PY 2026 to earn credit for MVC’s new health outcome variation (HOV) metric. Additional details on submission requirements and timelines will be announced to site coordinators in the coming weeks. Following this, he noted the many opportunities to earn engagement points remaining in calendar year 2026 including virtual workgroups, networking dinners, and MVC’s fall collaborative-wide meeting in Livonia. For a complete schedule of events and registration, please visit MVC’s events webpage. Bradshaw reminded members that PY 2026 mid-year scorecards are expected in Q3 2026, and hospitals will be asked to make metric selections for PYs 2028-2029 in Q4 2026.

The meeting then featured an MVC data presentation by MVC Medical Director Hari Nathan, MD, PhD, and MVC Analyst Janet Zhang, MPH, on reporting and benchmarking outcomes across Michigan health systems. Dr. Nathan began with a discussion on the gradual, structural shift over the last two decades from independent ownership towards health system affiliation, noting that Michigan has outpaced national averages for system affiliation. He then reviewed the current state of MVC’s system-level reporting and outlined other measures of system variation from the literature not currently utilized in MVC reporting (Figure 4), emphasizing the need for MVC and its membership to co-design a path for measuring system-level quality in the future.

Zhang supplemented the presentation by sharing unblinded data on variation in hospital-level risk-adjusted 30-day readmission rates within hospital systems. She outlined traditional methods of showcasing variation using caterpillar plots and demonstrated how MVC might leverage hospital-level data to calculate a single index value for systems to support tracking variation over time. Zhang and Dr. Nathan both emphasized the importance of considering quality in outcomes and variation in outcomes as they evaluate their system-level performance.

Figure 4. Sample Approaches to Measuring System Variation

Table presenting system characteristics, relevant metrics, and rationales for surgical care quality assessment. It includes metrics like Herfindahl–Hirschman Index for centralization, case volume percentages for surgery avoidance and selective referral, and ambulatory surgery distribution, highlighting standards, care optimization, and resource allocation.

Building on the data presentation, a panel discussion led by Dr. Nathan further explored what “systemness” and system quality of care mean in practice and how stronger integration can improve quality, outcomes, and access across health systems and networks. Panelists included Alex Callaway, MBA, CPHQ, CPPS, Regional Quality Director of Munson Health System; Emily Nerreter, MBA, CPC, CRC, Pay for Performance & Registries Manager of Henry Ford Health System; and Stephanie Pins-Schallip, MSA, CPHQ, Director of Value Analysis & Enhancement of MyMichigan Health. Each panelist brought unique perspectives and experience to the discussion, presenting compelling evidence to support the optimization of system-level resources, data, and cooperation.

Attendees then spent the remainder of the morning in breakout sessions [see breakout session slides] learning from peers, sharing intervention success stories, and brainstorming approaches to measuring quality in both small, stand-alone hospitals and large multi-hospital systems:

  • Catalyst Community for Improvement: Transforming Performance Together (Corewell)
  • Roadmap to Building Strong Post-Acute Care Network (Trinity Health Alliance)
  • Developing a Heart Failure Care Management Program (Trinity Health IHA)
  • Rural & Critical Access Hospital Claims Data Reporting Strategies (MVC)
  • Advancing System-Level Quality Improvement: Exploring Concepts for New MVC Metrics (MVC)

Following a networking lunch and a second session of breakouts, attendees came back together for the presentation of MVC awards by Engagement Manager Jessica Souva, MSN, RN, C-ONQS. The 2025 Engagement Award recipients included:

  • Henry Ford Health – 2025 Most Engaged System
  • Primary Care Partners, Inc. - 2025 Most Engaged Physician Organization
  • Scheurer Health – 2025 Most Engaged Critical Access Hospital
  • University of Michigan Health-West – 2025 Most Engaged General Acute Care Hospital

Souva also announced the winner of the poster contest, which was identified through member voting during the afternoon poster session. University of Michigan Health – Sparrow Carson won “best poster” for their “Rural Sepsis Initiative: Timely Care, Better Outcomes” poster submission. The poster was presented by Sara Hagerman, BSN.

The meeting closed with a reflection of the day’s themes and sessions, and reminders about upcoming meetings and events.

What are attendees saying about the meeting?

“The interactive sessions were great, and so was the location.”

“Today was a really great day, filled with a lot of discussion, networking and interactive activities.”

“This was my first meeting. I appreciate the information shared and opportunity.”

“I liked the panel discussion today. In the past, I also like the different tables of presenters to allow for smaller group discussion. Overall, lots of good discussion on how to work in a system.”

“Always love coming to MVC collaborative wide meetings as they’re so informative and a great way to network with others who have the same or very similar goals and outcomes!”

“The information presented was highly applicable across systems and independents.”

If you have questions about any of the topics discussed at MVC’s spring collaborative-wide meeting or are interested in following up for more details, please email the MVC Coordinating Center. MVC’s next collaborative-wide meeting will be held in person on Fri., Oct. 9, 2026, in Livonia, Michigan.

28 Apr 2026
0
View Post
MVC Push Report Benchmarks Follow-Up Rates for CHF, COPD, Pneumonia, and Sepsis Patients

MVC Push Report Benchmarks Follow-Up Rates for CHF, COPD, Pneumonia, and Sepsis Patients

April 28, 2026 | 0 Comments | ,

The Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) distributed hospital-level follow-up push reports recently intended to support the evaluation of long-term trends as well as the identification of gaps in follow-up care across differing patient demographics. This report focused on follow-up care after hospitalization for congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia, and sepsis—four of MVC’s value metrics for Program Years 2026-2027 of the MVC Component of the BCBSM Pay-for-Performance (P4P) Program.

While MVC also provides reporting on its P4P value metrics via scorecards and registry reports, this push report provided additional data on follow-up care at member hospitals by showcasing variability across a longer analytic timeframe and more detailed stratifications for its 30-day CHF, COPD, pneumonia, and sepsis episodes. MVC defined follow-up as episodes where a patient had an outpatient follow-up visit (in person or by telehealth) within 30 days or before a readmission, inpatient procedure, emergency department visit, skilled nursing facility admission, or visit for inpatient rehabilitation.

Contained in each hospital’s report was a page dedicated to follow-up following hospitalizations for each condition. On those report pages, MVC hospitals received comparisons to their peers on outpatient follow-up rates and 30-day risk-adjusted total episode payments, as well as their hospital’s outpatient follow-up rates stratified by payer.

The report also featured a patient population snapshot table that highlighted demographic data for patients in each condition cohort. These tables (see Figure 1) provided each hospital with information on race, mean age, common comorbidities, and several indicators of non-medical drivers of health.

Figure 1. Sociodemographic Overview of Patients Receiving Follow-Up Following Discharge for CHF, COPD, Pneumonia, or Sepsis at Hospital A

Table presenting sociodemographic overview of follow-up conditions at Hospital A, including CHF, COPD, pneumonia, and sepsis. It details age groups, race/ethnicity percentages, common comorbidities, and socioeconomic indicators such as diabetes prevalence and living conditions, with data organized in rows and columns for comparison across conditions.

*Patient zip codes categorized as prosperous, comfortable, mid-tier, at-risk, or distressed according to the Economic Innovation Group's Distressed Communities Index 2018-2022, which incorporates economic indicators such as education, employment, and income.

Each figure reflected index admissions between 1/1/2023-12/31/2024 in BCBSM PPO Commercial, BCBSM PPO Medicare Advantage, BCN HMO Commercial, BCN HMO Medicare Advantage, and Medicare Fee-for-Service claims, and between 1/1/2023-9/30/2024 in Michigan Medicaid claims. Individuals insured by both Medicare and Medicaid were categorized as dual-eligible in the payer-specific figures. Hospital reports included pages for each condition if they met the threshold of at least 11 qualifying episodes in each year of data for that condition.

There was wide variation in follow-up rates across the collaborative for all four conditions, with some member follow-up rates averaging less than 20% to greater than 60% among CHF, COPD, and pneumonia patients, and between less than 30% to greater than 70% among sepsis patients.

Among general acute care hospitals, there were consistent decreases in average follow-up rates across the collaborative compared to previous reporting; MVC provided reporting on these same follow-up measures in a Q1 2025 push report based on 2022-2023 claims. Using the updated 2023-2024 timeframe, the collaborative-wide average 14-day follow-up rate for patients hospitalized for COPD fell from 55.3% to 51%. A similar trend was observed for seven-day follow-up after CHF (decreased from 44.8% to 43.1%), seven-day follow-up after pneumonia (decreased from 42.7% to 41.6%), and 14-day follow-up after sepsis (decreased from 58% to 52.5%). Follow-up rates were often lowest among the Medicaid and dual-eligible patient populations (Figure 2), and are therefore a patient group that likely needs additional support and outreach. Additionally, across all four conditions the average risk-adjusted price-standardized total episode payment at general acute care hospitals was higher among patients who did not receive follow-up than among patients who received follow-up care (see COPD example in Figure 3).

Figure 2. 3-Day, 7-Day, and 14-Day Follow-Up Rate Among Patients Hospitalized for Sepsis by Payer for Hospital A

Bar chart comparing follow-up rates across five insurance categories with three time intervals: 3-day, 7-day, and 14-day follow-ups, represented by blue, gray, and orange bars respectively. Notable trends include consistently higher follow-up rates at 14 days, with Commercial insurance showing the highest rates.

Figure 3. Average 30-Day Risk-Adjusted, Price-Standardized Total Episode Payment Among Patients Hospitalized for COPD by 14-Day Follow-Up Status for Hospital A

Bar chart comparing 30-day total episode payments for 14-day and no 14-day follow-up periods across three categories: Your Hospital (blue), Your Region (gray), and GACH Average (orange). No 14-day follow-up shows higher payments overall.

MVC member hospitals who classify as Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs) received alternate versions of the report, which used the averages of other CAHs as their comparison group in addition to MVC region. Similar to general acute care hospitals, the collaborative observed decreases in average follow-up rates among its CAH members for patients hospitalized for CHF (decrease from 39% to 38.2%), pneumonia (37.4% to 32.5%), and sepsis (44.7% to 43.9%). Among patients hospitalized for COPD at a CAH, however, there was an observed increase in the average 14-day follow-up rate from 44.9% to 47.2%. CAHs also observed similar trends of lower follow-up rates among Medicaid and dual-eligible patients.

Members can similarly benchmark the values and data provided in their recent report pages to the previously distributed follow-up push report from Q1 2025.

In addition to providing data on follow-up care, the MVC Coordinating Center offers a regular post-discharge follow-up workgroup series where members and partners share strategies and insights to help improve follow-up performance. The next workgroup will take place on Thurs., July 23, from 12-1 p.m. More information about upcoming MVC events can be found on the MVC events page.

If you have any suggestions on how these reports can be improved or have additional data requests to help support your quality improvement projects, please reach out to the MVC Coordinating Center.

22 Apr 2026
0
View Post
April Workgroup Features Preoperative Testing Multipayer Report Registry Demonstration

April Workgroup Features Preoperative Testing Multipayer Report Registry Demonstration

April 22, 2026 | 0 Comments | , , , ,

In April, the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) hosted a virtual preoperative testing workgroup featuring a presentation by the MVC Coordinating Center focused on utilizing MVC’s multi-payer preoperative testing registry reports. The MVC Coordinating Center hosts workgroup presentations once or twice per month, covering a variety of topics including post-discharge follow-up, sepsis, cardiac rehabilitation, rural health, preoperative testing, and health in action.

Preoperative Testing Workgroup – MVC Coordinating Center

The MVC registry includes many different reports for members to utilize when investigating various conditions, procedures, and outcomes. One of the more recent additions includes the preoperative testing reports which include claims data from multiple payers in one location. Reports that were highlighted in the preoperative testing workgroup included the preoperative testing table report, preoperative testing trends report, and preoperative testing utilization rankings report.

Each report offers members multiple filters to modify the data shown including episode start dates, payer selection, specific conditions (or the option to choose all), several common preoperative tests, such as blood tests, cardiac tests, chest x-ray, electrocardiography (EKG), pulmonary function tests, and urinalysis, and patient demographics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, comorbidities).

MVC Site Engagement Coordinator and workgroup presenter Emily Bair, MS, MPH, RDN, introduced the workgroup by sharing a preoperative testing utilization trend graph that included data on all MVC members and all available payers. The graph demonstrated that since the implementation of the preoperative testing value-based initiative in 2020, MVC members have seen a 6% decrease in unnecessary preoperative testing utilization for specific low-risk procedures. Based on available claims data, preop testing rates across the collaborative have declined from approximately 44% to 38% since 2022.

MVC’s preoperative testing measure definition includes the following:

  1. Numerator: episodes of care where preoperative testing (e.g., urinalysis, pulmonary function, chest x-ray, electrocardiography, certain blood tests, and certain cardiac tests) occurred in the 30 days prior to MVC-defined low-risk laparoscopic cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair, and lumpectomy procedures.
  2. Denominator: Elective and outpatient MVC-defined cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair and lumpectomy episodes with length of stay between 0 – 2 days.

The preoperative testing initiative, known as the RITE-Size initiative, has been an ongoing collaborative effort between MVC, the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC), Anesthesiology Performance Improvement and Reporting Exchange (ASPIRE), and the Michigan Program on Value Enhancement (MPrOVE). MVC and MSQC data registries were updated with preoperative testing metrics to improve visibility for members, give access to diverse data, and offer unique customization tools for preoperative testing reports. The MVC engagement team has an ongoing effort to engage and educate members on all of the resources available to them through our registry and data reports. To learn more about attendee usage of MVC data, Bair polled participants to assess whether they had accessed the preoperative testing reports, and if so, whether they used the data in any quality improvement (QI) efforts at their site or system (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Poll: Have You Accessed MVC’s Multi-payer Reports?

Bar chart showing participant responses to accessing MVC's multi-payer reports, with three horizontal bars labeled "Yes," "No," and "Don't have access." The chart indicates 45% answered "No," 35% "Yes," and 15% "Don't have access," highlighting a majority have not accessed the reports.

Figure 2. Poll: Have You Used MVC’s Multi-payer Reports to Support QI?

Horizontal bar chart showing responses to using MVC's multi-payer reports for supporting QI, with three categories: "No" at about 38%, "Don't have access" at about 32%, and "Yes" at about 23%. Chart uses orange bars with percentage labels on the x-axis ranging from 0% to 45%, highlighting majority respondents either do not use or lack access to the reports.

The polling discussion revealed that while many attendees had registry access, 44% had not utilized these multi-payer reports for quality improvement work. Those that did utilize the reports (23%) shared that they use them for efforts such as system-level benchmarking across their hospitals.

Following the polling results, Bair shared unblinded data from Bronson Health System’s MVC multi-payer registry reports and MVC common conditions push report, covering how differing case counts can impact preoperative testing rate performance, especially when looking at conditions separately. Case volume is a common concern for smaller hospitals, such as critical access sites, when trying to extrapolate useful claims data. As larger health systems are acquiring smaller hospitals like critical access sites, though, they may need to shift how the data can and should be interpreted. Using yearly trending can increase the denominator for case data and give a more accurate visual representation of utilization or performance over time, whereas looking at data on a monthly or quarterly timeframe can show volatility due to case counts having high variability over short time ranges.

MVC welcomes workgroup presenters from across Michigan to share their expertise, success stories, initiatives, and solution-focused ideas with MVC members. Please reach out to us by email if you are interested in being a workgroup presenter or submit an online presentation proposal.

15 Apr 2026
0
View Post
Spring Collaborative-Wide Meeting Agenda, Speakers Announced

Spring Collaborative-Wide Meeting Agenda, Speakers Announced

April 15, 2026 | 0 Comments | , ,

The MVC Coordinating Center is excited to announce the agenda for its spring collaborative-wide meeting on Friday, May 8, 2026, from 10 a.m. – 3 p.m., at the Grand Traverse Resort & Spa in Acme, MI. This meeting’s theme is “From Innovation to Impact: Advancing Care Across Health Networks” and will highlight the various ways in which MVC's members collaborate across health systems and networks to advance the quality of healthcare across Michigan. Those interested in attending MVC's spring 2026 collaborative-wide meeting must register here by Tues., April 21.

MVC Director Mark Bradshaw, MSc, will kick off the day with updates on MVC’s Component of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) Pay-for-Performance (P4P) Program. This will be followed by an MVC Data in Action presentation by MVC Medical Director, Hari Nathan, MD, PhD, and MVC Data Analyst, Janet Zhang, MPH.

Dr. Nathan will then invite system representatives from Munson Health System, Henry Ford Health System, and MyMichigan Health System to join him on stage for a panel discussion titled “Elevating Quality Across an Integrated Health Network”.  Nathan will lead the panelists and attendees through a discussion on addressing barriers to health care improvements and measuring success across health systems and networks.

Attendees will then transition to their first breakout session before lunch and networking. The second breakout session will occur following lunch and networking. The five breakout topics will cover:

  • Corewell Health’s system-level approach to performance improvement
  • The development of Trinity Health IHA Medical Group’s Heart Failure Care Management Program
  • Trinity Health Alliance of Michigan’s Post-Acute Care Network
  • An exploration of new concepts for MVC metrics to support Advancing System-Level Quality Improvement
  • Rural and Critical Access Hospital Claims Data Reporting Strategies

View a summary of the breakout presentations using this LINK.

MVC’s Engagement Manager, Jessica Souva, MSN, RN, C-ONQS, will close out the day presenting MVC members with MVC’s second annual engagement awards and next steps for MVC’s Component of the BCBSM P4P Program.

The deadline to register for MVC’s spring 2026 collaborative-wide meeting is Tues., April 21. We look forward to seeing you there!

07 Apr 2026
0
View Post
MVC Welcomes Megan Heath, PhD, as Lead Analyst

MVC Welcomes Megan Heath, PhD, as Lead Analyst

April 7, 2026 | 0 Comments

I am thrilled to be joining the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) team as a Lead Analyst. I look forward to working alongside MVC's talented team of coordinators, administrators, and analysts to support the collaborative's mission of identifying high-impact quality improvement projects and assessing the value of the CQI mission.

My path to health economics and quality improvement began during my graduate studies at Carnegie Mellon University, where I earned my PhD in economics. My dissertation research examined the incentives underlying national-level quality improvement initiatives — work that gave me a deep appreciation for the structural and methodological challenges of measuring and driving meaningful change in healthcare. Prior to that, I earned my Bachelor of Science in economics with a minor in mathematics from Loyola Marymount University, where my interest in applying rigorous quantitative methods to real-world problems first took shape.

After completing my doctoral training, I joined the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS), where I worked as a statistician and analyst focused on process measure improvements for patients hospitalized with PICC lines, sepsis, and COVID-19. One of the highlights of my time at HMS was conducting a return on investment analysis for the HMS-PICC initiative — an opportunity to directly connect analytic work to the value and impact of quality improvement efforts.

I am excited to bring my methodological background and hands-on experience with the CQIs to MVC, and I look forward to getting to know the MVC membership and collaborating on projects that make a real difference for patients across Michigan. Please feel free to connect with me at meganom@med.umich.edu.

27 Mar 2026
0
View Post
March Workgroups Highlight Rural Remote Patient Monitoring and Post-Discharge Follow-Up Innovations

March Workgroups Highlight Rural Remote Patient Monitoring and Post-Discharge Follow-Up Innovations

March 27, 2026 | 0 Comments | , , ,

In March, the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) hosted two workgroups highlighting innovative strategies to improve care transitions and expand access to care across Michigan. A rural health workgroup explored how McKenzie Health System implemented remote patient monitoring to support patients with chronic conditions. MVC’s post-discharge follow-up workgroup featured a presentation from MyMichigan Health on the development of a continuing care clinic designed to improve post-discharge follow-up and reduce hospital readmissions.

Together, these presentations demonstrated how healthcare organizations can leverage care coordination, technology, and new care delivery models to improve patient outcomes across the continuum of care. The MVC Coordinating Center hosts one to two workgroup presentations per month covering a variety of topics including post-discharge follow-up, sepsis, cardiac rehabilitation, rural health, preoperative testing, and health in action.

Rural Health Workgroup – McKenzie Remote Patient Monitoring

The first workgroup of the month featured a presentation led by Heather Baumeister, BSN, RN, CRHCP, Director of Healthcare Practices at McKenzie Health System, who shared how her organization implemented a remote patient monitoring (RPM) program to better support patients living in rural communities.

McKenzie Health System includes a 25-bed critical access hospital (CAH) located in Sandusky, Michigan. The organization also operates six primary care clinics across multiple communities throughout the Thumb region offering several specialty services such as gastroenterology, orthopedic care, general surgery, and behavioral health. Like many rural health systems, McKenzie serves a geographically dispersed patient population where travel distance and limited healthcare resources can make frequent in-person visits difficult. To help bridge these gaps, Baumeister said, the organization relies heavily on care coordination.

McKenzie currently employs three full-time and one part-time registered nurse care coordinators who support primary care clinics across the system. Baumeister described how these coordinators conduct daily follow-ups with patients seen in the emergency department and help connect patients without an established primary care provider to appropriate outpatient care. Care coordinators also participate in monthly readmission review meetings to identify patients who may benefit from additional care management services and reduce avoidable hospitalizations.

Launching a Remote Patient Monitoring Program

To expand its ability to monitor patients between visits, McKenzie Health System participated in an 18-month pilot program focused on RPM for rural health systems. After completing the pilot, McKenzie established a long-term partnership with an RPM vendor to manage several operational aspects of McKenzie’s RPM program, including device shipping, monitoring, nurse outreach for readings outside clinical thresholds, uploading data into the electronic health record (EHR), and billing services. Baumeister said this helped clinicians at McKenzie to integrate RPM into their care model without needing to manage the technical infrastructure internally.

Providers refer patients to the program through the organization’s EHR. After receiving a referral, the RPM vendor enrolls the patient and distributes the appropriate monitoring devices. Patients enrolled in the program receive connected monitoring devices that automatically transmit readings directly to the monitoring platform after patients begin taking measurements. Devices currently used include blood pressure cuffs, weight scales, blood glucose monitors, and pulse oximeters. If readings fall outside predetermined ranges, a monitoring nurse contacts the patient to assess symptoms and determine whether clinical intervention is needed. If necessary, the nurse escalates the case to the patient’s provider according to established care protocols.

Implementing the program in a rural context presented several challenges. Baumeister described how unreliable internet near Michigan’s lakeshore, difficulty reaching patients by phone, and excessive measurement were challenges in delivering the program.

Benefits of RPM Program

Baumeister said the RPM program is particularly beneficial for patients managing chronic conditions like congestive heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and obesity. This is because remote monitoring enables care teams to detect early warning signs of health deterioration that might otherwise go unnoticed between routine visits so providers can intervene proactively. Baumeister gave examples such as adjusting medications, scheduling follow-up appointments, or providing additional education before conditions worsen.

She also noted that many patients became more engaged in their own care through the program, as regular monitoring helped them better understand how lifestyle choices affect their health. View the complete workgroup recording using the video below.

MVC Rural Health Workgroup: March 3, 2026

Post-Discharge Follow-Up Workgroup – MyMichigan Health Continuing Care Clinic

MVC’s second March workgroup featured a presentation by Steven Frazier, MHA, BA, RN, ACM-RN, Director of Quality and Patient Safety for Post-Acute Services at MyMichigan Health, and Dr. John Hagan, DO, Family Medicine Physician and Medical Director of the Continuing Care Clinic at MyMichigan Health. Their presentation highlighted the MyMichigan Health Continuing Care Clinic (CCC), a program designed to ensure patients receive timely follow-up care after hospitalization and to reduce hospital readmissions. Frazier previously presented about the establishment of the CCC program at MVC’s May 2024 collaborative-wide meeting, and this month provided a number of updates on progress in the program to date.

MyMichigan Health serves more than one million Michigan residents across a 26-county region, with multiple medical centers and roughly 1,100 hospital beds. Despite this extensive network, MyMichigan recognized that many patients faced barriers to obtaining timely follow-up care after leaving the hospital, citing limited appointment availability with primary care providers as well as patients without established providers struggling to navigate the healthcare system.

Frazier and Hagan said internal MyMichigan data revealed hospital readmissions were often occurring 12-13 days after discharge, highlighting a critical window when follow-up care could potentially prevent complications. Research also suggested that follow-up with a physician within seven days of discharge could significantly reduce both readmission and mortality risk for patients hospitalized with conditions such as heart failure, myocardial infarction, and COPD.

Launching and Evolving the Continuing Care Clinic

To address these gaps in care, MyMichigan Health opened the CCC in Midland, Michigan in August 2023. The clinic now operates with two locations (Midland and Alma) and three providers, supported by a multidisciplinary care team. The clinic was designed to function as a transitional care bridge, ensuring patients receive follow-up care within seven days after discharge while they wait to reconnect with their primary care providers. Services currently range from follow-up visits and assistance with establishing a primary care provider to behavioral health support and advance care planning.

Since its launch, the clinic’s role has expanded beyond its original focus on hospital discharge visits to support patients who are transitioning between primary care providers, are new to the community’s providers, need additional support navigating the healthcare system, or are seeking follow-up after emergency or urgent care visits. This evolution has allowed the clinic to function as a comprehensive transitions-of-care hub within the MyMichigan Health system.

Early Results and Impact

According to Frazier and Hagan, the CCC has already demonstrated encouraging results, saying that the program helped the health system achieve lower readmission rates compared to peers and maintain short scheduling lead times for follow-up appointments. Additionally, MyMichigan has seen an improvement in operational efficiency and budget performance with the expansion of services to additional geographic regions within the system. The program has also helped bring new patients to the MyMichigan Health network by connecting individuals without primary care providers with internal ongoing care relationships.

Patient feedback has been an important indicator of the clinic’s success, the presenters noted. Patient testimonials were shared during the presentation that emphasized how the clinic helped patients better understand their diagnoses, feel supported during recovery, and access care more easily after discharge. Patients described the clinic as a valuable resource that provided compassionate care and guidance during a vulnerable time in their healthcare journey. View the complete workgroup recording using the video below.

MVC Post-Discharge Follow-Up Workgroup: Mar. 19, 2026

Key Takeaways for MVC Members

The March workgroups highlighted two practical approaches to improving patient outcomes across the care continuum, with several key themes emerging. For one, remote patient monitoring is expanding access to care by helping teams identify early warning signs and better manage chronic conditions—especially in rural communities. At the same time, dedicated transition clinics are strengthening post-discharge care by ensuring timely follow-up and support after hospitalization.

Across both models, strong care coordination remains essential, supported by multidisciplinary teams, clear communication, and sometimes newer technologies. Just as important, patient engagement continues to drive better outcomes by empowering individuals to take a more active role in their care.

Through these shared examples, MVC workgroups continued to support collaboration and help organizations across Michigan identify actionable strategies to improve quality, outcomes, and value. If you are interested in pursuing a healthcare quality improvement project, MVC has data specialists available to help you navigate our data resources and create custom analytics reports to support your efforts. Please reach out to us by email [LINK] if you would like to learn more about MVC data, engagement offerings, or would like to present at a future MVC workgroup.

 

25 Mar 2026
0
View Post
CQI Spotlight: Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium

CQI Spotlight: Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium

March 25, 2026 | 0 Comments | , , , , ,

Cancer care is not defined by treatments alone—it is measured by the experiences, quality of life, and outcomes of the people navigating the disease. Across Michigan, patients with cancer face complex clinical decisions alongside challenges that extend beyond the clinic, from treatment side effects to barriers in accessing supportive services. Through statewide collaboration, shared data, and a commitment to improving care delivery, the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium (MOQC) is working to ensure that patients and their caregivers receive more consistent, compassionate, and high-value cancer care.

Established in 2009, MOQC was tasked with addressing oncology data that showcased significant variation in care outcomes as well as significantly higher costs compared to other areas of healthcare. One of 21 Collaborative Quality Initiatives (CQIs) sponsored by the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) Value Partnerships Program, MOQC’s aim is to improve access, value, and quality of care for all invasive cancers.

In addition to establishing cross-cutting measures that apply to all disease groups within oncology, MOQC’s work expanded to acknowledge and address the impact of non-medical drivers of health on patient outcomes, intentionally creating space for more patient, caregiver, and frontline voices to shape meaningful change and guide the evolution of cancer care in Michigan.

Services and Benefits for MOQC Members

MOQC provides access to resources and tools, quality improvement initiatives, partnerships, funding, and support that its membership of 54 oncology practices would not otherwise have available. Through collaborative-wide and regional meetings, MOQC fosters member networking, ongoing education on best practices and emerging topics, new publications, and collaboration opportunities. MOQC also meets with oncology practices individually to review their performance measures. For those needing additional support in any area, MOQC conducts root cause analyses in collaboration with the healthcare team and provides resources and consultation on their processes and progress.

Members also benefit from access to the Patient and Caregiver Oncology Quality Council (POQC), a robust and highly engaged patient advocacy group currently comprised of 30 members (Figure 1). POQC gives teams the opportunity to learn directly from the lived experiences of patients and caregivers and brings forward barriers to care that may not be visible in data alone. POQC also contributes to decision-making about quality measures and initiatives through their work on MOQC’s Measures and Steering Committees. Their voices help member practices stay connected to the heart of what they do as they work to help guide MOQC’s efforts toward fair, effective, and compassionate health outcomes across the state (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Patient and Caregiver Oncology Quality Council (POQC)

group photo

Figure 2. POQC Member Quote

A text-based graphic features a testimonial quote from a POQC member expressing gratitude for volunteer opportunities and the rewarding experience of being a valued patient voice for cancer care.

MOQC members also have the opportunity to establish integrated clinical pharmacist positions providing direct patient care through the Pharmacists Oncology Excellence Program in Michigan (POEM). This program, which has been in place for five years, encompasses 12 pharmacists who support 113 physicians across 28 practices. POEM has been associated with a variety of positive patient care outcomes and clinic time savings relating to clinical care activities.

MOQC’s Key Initiatives and Achievements

Through MOQC’s targeted initiatives, oncology care and outcomes are improving across Michigan. The Palliative Care and Hospice initiative aims to increase time enrolled in hospice to maximize benefits and quality of life for patients and caregivers. By creating tools for how and when to talk to cancer patients about palliative and hospice care (Figure 3), MOQC practices have seen hospice care enrollment improve from 44% in 2017 to 66% in 2024. In the words of a member physician,

“There is so much to help us do better at survival in cancer, and so many more new treatments out there, but the one thing that is often overlooked is – is it the right thing to do for the patient? So I was thrilled to see that MOQC is focusing on hospice. It’s so under looked in oncology these days.”

Figure 3. MOQC Hospice Conversation Guide for Physicians

An informational flyer titled "Hospice Conversations: Words That Make It Easier for Patients and Their Loved Ones" provides guidance on improving communication during hospice care.

A complimentary initiative, expanding palliative care access through a partnership with the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC), provides training curriculum to advance practice providers (APPs) regarding primary palliative care, with intentional recruitment in areas of the state that have little-to-no palliative care currently. Those who complete the curriculum attain a certificate from CAPC and integrate primary palliative care into their ongoing care of patients and caregivers.

Patient quality of life is an important consideration in cancer care. To address nausea, a common side effect of chemotherapy that significantly impacts patients’ quality of life, MOQC launched a Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV) – Antiemetics initiative in 2020. The initiative works to increase prescribing of olanzapine to manage treatment-related nausea. Since the initiative began, prescribing of olanzapine has increased from 10% to the notable achievement of 60% in 2024, helping more patients have better treatment experiences. To help evaluate the impact of this effort, MOQC reached out to the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) to leverage its robust claims-based data. Together, MVC and MOQC evaluated the impact and value of this initiative in a 2023 impact and value assessment, and the two teams are in the process of refreshing that analysis with newer years of claims data.

Other initiatives include implementing a statewide gynecologic oncology virtual tumor board to support multidisciplinary learning, standardize care recommendations across practices, expand access to clinical trials, and expand perspectives for clinicians caring for patients throughout Michigan. MOQC helps optimize statewide treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer via an oncology stewardship initiative focused on improving biomarker testing across the state and increasing education around targeted therapies.

In addition to centering patient voices through POQC and many other MOQC accomplishments, a major achievement of MOQC is the development of a comprehensive Excellence in Quality Certification program that recognizes oncology practices providing high-quality and high-value care. Eligibility criteria include a site visit to ensure safe practices regarding anticancer therapy, measure performance, medical record review, and policy review. All criteria measure policy and practice to validate that oncology care is guideline-concordant and recognizes substantial decreases in variations in care and in costs of care (Figure 4). A key component of the certification is creating an action plan to close non-medical gaps in healthcare, ensuring all cancer patients in Michigan have the same access to high quality care. Fourteen out of MOQC’s 54 practices were certified in 2024, and 23 practices pursued certification in 2025.

Figure 4. MOQC Excellence in Quality Certification Criteria

A screenshot of a certification guideline document titled "MOQC Excellence in Quality Certification," outlining required elements for certification in oncology quality.

MOQC is proud of its commitment to addressing the non-medical needs of patients and caregivers through the POQC and the Excellence in Quality Certification program. Additional ways MOQC centers this aspect of patient care is by endeavoring to provide patients with increased access to supportive services and resources, including standardizing screening for non-medical needs, integrating referrals to Michigan 2-1-1 into electronic medical records (EMR), providing meals to patients who are currently food insecure and receiving anticancer therapy (plus up to one caregiver per patient), and facilitating financial navigation training for interprofessional members of oncology care teams. Non-medical patient needs and gaps in care are also being addressed through MOQC’s stewardship initiative, which aims to improve the use of systemic anticancer therapy with the goal of enhancing patient health outcomes while reducing financial strain on patients. In addition, MOQC conducts multivariate analyses of its measures annually to find gaps in care based on demographic categories. These analyses allow MOQC to review variation among practices and collaborate individually with them as needed to close gaps.

Looking Ahead: Continuing to Drive Whole Team Collaboration

MOQC’s work offers a reminder that improving oncology care often requires thinking beyond traditional approaches. By weaving patient and caregiver experiences into the fabric of their work, MOQC is able to look for gaps in care, prompt new questions, and reshape how they understand quality. MOQC’s initiatives and learning opportunities (such as interprofessional development sessions, the statewide tumor board, the palliative care certificate program, and addressing non-medical needs) are shaped with recognition that there is a whole team involved in the patient care related to MOQC’s quality measures. MOQC invites practices to engage with quality improvement in ways that expand perspective and challenge existing healthcare power dynamics. Through this multifaceted approach, MOQC is always striving to look for a deeper partnership with all of the people most affected by the outcomes.

The BCBSM-funded CQIs play a crucial role in driving healthcare quality improvement in Michigan. MVC is excited to continue highlighting the innovative contributions of individual CQIs and the ways in which MVC’s data are supporting high-value care initiatives across the portfolio. Please reach out to MVC by email if you are interested in learning more.