07 Apr 2022
0
View Post
MVC Distributes New Push Report Dedicated to P4P Conditions

MVC Distributes New Push Report Dedicated to P4P Conditions

April 7, 2022 | 0 Comments | ,

MVC launched a new push report this week dedicated to the MVC P4P conditions. Its purpose is to support hospitals in identifying areas of opportunity within past and present conditions of the MVC Component of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) Pay-for-Performance (P4P) Program. The conditions currently included in P4P and in this report are chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF), colectomy (non-cancer), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), joint replacement (hip and knee), pneumonia, and spine surgery. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is also included in this report as a historical P4P condition. Hospitals received a page for each condition if they met a case count threshold of 11 episodes in 2019 and 2020.

This report was limited to episodes included in the P4P program with index admissions in 2019 and 2020, and thus included the following payers: BCBSM Preferred Provider Organization (PPO), BCBSM Medicare Advantage, Blue Care Network (BCN) Health Maintenance Organization (HMO), BCN Medicare Advantage, and Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS). To align with the P4P program, MVC excluded patients with a discharge disposition of inpatient death or transfer to hospice, episodes that started with an inpatient transfer, and episodes with a COVID-19 diagnosis on a facility claim in the inpatient setting. To fully exclude COVID-19 patients, pneumonia episodes in March 2020 were also excluded.

The reports provided data on hospital trends in episode payments, readmission rates, post-acute care utilization, and emergency department utilization for P4P patients. Data from the push report can be used in conjunction with the registry reports to inform areas of opportunity in the P4P conditions. The push reports also provided a snapshot of each hospital’s P4P patient population (see Figure 1), including race, mean age, and the average number of comorbidities.

Figure 1. Patient Population Snapshot for Blinded Hospital

For Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs), the report also included index length of stay. For acute care hospitals, the report included a “reasons for readmissions” table that identified the top five reasons a P4P patient was readmitted. However, this table was removed from the report’s joint replacement page due to low readmission rates among joint replacement surgeries. In its place, acute care hospitals received their ratio of outpatient to inpatient surgeries.

As with other push reports, hospitals were compared to other members in the collaborative for select measures. For acute care hospitals, each hospital’s report includes a comparison point for all MVC episodes (“MVC All”) as well as for episodes at hospitals in the same geographic region (“Your Region”). These reference points do not include episodes that occurred at hospitals with a CAH designation. Similarly, the reports distributed to CAHs included comparison points for MVC episodes at all CAHs in the collaborative (“CAH Average”).

This report takes the place of the cardiac service line reports, which included data on CHF, AMI, and CABG. The new P4P conditions push report uses many of the same measures and figures from the cardiac service line reports, but for the complete list of P4P conditions.

For more information on the MVC Component of the P4P Program, see the MVC P4P Technical Document. Please share your feedback on the newest P4P conditions push report with the MVC Coordinating Center at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com.

31 Mar 2022
0
View Post
New Collaborative MIBAC Seeks to Address Back Pain

New Collaborative MIBAC Seeks to Address Back Pain

March 31, 2022 | 0 Comments | , , , ,

Lower back pain is a common—and challenging—realm of healthcare that is the leading cause of disability globally. As many as 80-95% of patients presenting to primary care providers with this condition have no identifiable origin for their pain. The absence of a specific etiology is exacerbated by challenges related to treatment; although there are many treatment options, not all are evidence-based and there is rarely a simple, easy fix. In addition, most primary care physicians do not like managing back pain and feel they have not been adequately trained in musculoskeletal medicine.

With the above considerations in mind, researchers argue that greater attention is urgently needed in response to the rising burden and impact of this condition. Low back pain was, therefore, an ideal area of focus for the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan’s Collaborative Quality Initiatives (CQI) portfolio. The Michigan Back Collaborative (MIBAC) was rolled out in 2021 and is based at Henry Ford Hospital. This new statewide quality improvement initiative focuses on better care for low back pain to address issues such as rising costs, rising disability, and patient and provider dissatisfaction (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

MVC Coordinating Center staff had the pleasure of meeting with the MIBAC team recently to learn more about the program, its focus, and goals. MIBAC has two components: training and quality analysis (see Figure 2). Training is the focus of the first year of commitment to the collaborative, with progression to quality analysis in years two or three. These components are all voluntary and participation in one is not contingent on completion of another.

Figure 2

MIBAC membership currently includes clinicians such as primary care physicians and chiropractors, as these are typically the “first-contact” clinicians for low back pain. As the program expands, there is a plan for additional provider types (including physical therapists and emergency room physicians) to become involved as members of the collaborative, and the MIBAC Coordinating Center is working to recruit more physician organizations as well as independent chiropractic practitioners from across the state of Michigan.

MIBAC’s evidenced-based training is available to all its providers and was delivered to more than 800 primary care and chiropractic practitioners in 2021. The curriculum was developed by Spine Care Partners and delivers information on a biopsychosocial model of spine care management. Education is provided on guidelines for referrals, imaging, and pain medication, with an emphasis on solutions and techniques that cultivate inter-professional and doctor-client partnerships. Training sessions are offered virtually and in-person and provide continuing educational credit.

MIBAC is also planning to provide data for clinicians to support more effective care patterns, better outcomes for patients, and greater satisfaction for clinicians and patients. The MIBAC database will integrate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) along with clinical and demographic data. The hope and goal of the MIBAC registry is to identify variations in practice and key quality metrics whilst building clinical and administrative “best-practices” in spine care. In order to establish a data cohort, MIBAC will focus on a six-month review and a six-month follow-up as their defining period. MIBAC plans to cultivate collaboration and networking between participating members at meetings, site visits, webinars, and other strategies.

To date, the MVC team has supported the MIBAC Coordinating Center to assess the utilization of appropriate imaging by providers to inform the development of the collaborative's VBR program. Moving forward, the MVC team will continue to work closely with MIBAC to explore other avenues to help achieve the collaborative's aim of achieving better care for low back pain for Michigan residents.

For more information on MIBAC, visit their website at https://mibac.org/.

As the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) continues to build its offerings for members, the Coordinating Center is cognizant that many other CQIs also partner with hospitals and providers throughout Michigan. Throughout 2022, MVC will post a series of blogs about some of its peer CQIs to showcase their activities and highlight collaborations with MVC. Please reach out to the MVC Coordinating Center with any suggestions or questions.

24 Mar 2022
0
View Post
Unique Food Assistance Program Bridges Medical and Food Sectors

Unique Food Assistance Program Bridges Medical and Food Sectors

March 24, 2022 | 0 Comments | , ,

MVC hosted another successful session of its new health equity workgroup last week with a guest presentation by Ariane Donnelly, MPH, RD, Health Promotion Coordinator at the Washtenaw County Health Department. The new health equity workgroup was established in response to a greater strategic focus on health equity within the MVC Coordinating Center as well as widespread interest in this topic within the healthcare field.

The March 16 workgroup focused on the Prescription for Health program, which takes a unique approach to chronic disease management by connecting the medical system with the food sector. It operates by having participating healthcare providers assign “prescriptions” to their patients to eat more fruits and vegetables. These prescriptions can then be “filled” at local participating farmers markets, where patients receive $100 in tokens to spend on fresh fruits and vegetables as well as nutrition education and support. Participants also work with Community Health Workers to set health goals. The program leverages the fact that Michigan is the second most agriculturally diverse state in the country, and its abundant farmers markets can be an asset in supporting healthy lifestyles for patients.

Evaluation of the program’s effectiveness has been fruitful. For every year of the program, the health department found a statistically significant increase in self-reported fruit and vegetable intake, often by one cup or serving per day (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The program was first created in 2008 in response to high levels of food insecurity within communities in Washtenaw County combined with generally low consumption of fruits and vegetables, both of which are associated with an increased risk of chronic disease. Ms. Donnelly pointed out that while many clinics provide nutrition advice, patients face multiple barriers to equitably accessing healthy foods and need additional support. Since its first pilot, the program has continued to grow in total enrollees and economic impact, and it maintained its participation levels throughout the pandemic with a modified version of the program.

Similar programs are in operation in other parts of the state and country as well, such as Food Rx in Chicago and Fresh Prescription in Detroit. Washtenaw County’s Prescription for Health program launched an implementation toolkit in 2016 to help others with starting a similar program in their area.

To learn more about the Prescription for Health program’s operations, impact, and lessons learned, watch the full recording of the workgroup here: https://bit.ly/3IyIsnS. You can also visit the program website for more information: www.washtenaw.org/prescriptionforhealth.

MVC will continue to invite guest speakers with valuable insights on a more equitable health system. The next MVC health equity workgroup will take place on Tuesday, May 10, from 1-2 p.m. If you would like to suggest a topic or speaker for a future workgroup, please contact the MVC Coordinating Center at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com.

Prescription for Health is funded by Saint Joseph Mercy Health System with additional financial support from multiple partners.

17 Mar 2022
0
View Post
MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program: PY21 in Review

MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program: PY21 in Review

March 17, 2022 | 0 Comments |

Last month the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) Coordinating Center distributed the final scorecards for the 2021 program year of the MVC Component of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) Pay-for-Performance (P4P) Program. The 2021 program year was the second year of a two-year cycle for which hospitals were evaluated using MVC data. Hospitals were scored on two conditions that they selected from seven options: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), colectomy, congestive heart failure (CHF), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), joint replacement, pneumonia, and spine surgery. Figure one shows the frequency of hospital condition selections for the two-year program cycle.

Figure 1. Distribution of Hospital Condition Selections for PY21

The MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program evaluates each participating hospital’s risk-adjusted, price-standardized, average 30-day episode payments for their two selected conditions through two methods. One way that hospitals earn points is by reducing their payments from the baseline period (which included index admissions in 2018) to the performance period (which included index admissions in 2020). These are termed “improvement points.” Alternatively, hospitals can earn points by being less expensive than the other hospitals in their cohort. These are referred to as “achievement points.” The MVC cohorts are groups of hospitals determined to be peers using bed size, case mix index, and teaching status.

While participants are scored on both improvement and achievement, members receive the higher of the two scores for each condition. Hospitals are also eligible to earn a bonus point for each condition provided all hospitals in their respective cohort who selected the same condition reduced spending by five percent. For the 2021 program year, the Coordinating Center added two additional bonus points that could have been earned by attending both semiannual meetings (one point) and by completing a site visit with MVC in 2021 (one point). A maximum of 10 points were awarded for participating members. Figure 2 shows the distribution of total points earned by hospitals for the 2021 program year.

Figure 2. Distribution of Total P4P Scores for PY21

On average, hospitals earned 6.8 points total, an increase of 1.3 points from the 2020 program year average of 5.5 points. A majority (88%) of hospitals earned at least one of the two possible participation bonus points. In addition, 31 cohort bonus points were distributed within COPD, CHF, and joint replacement. Consistent with previous years, the condition with the highest average point total was joint replacement at 4.5 points with CABG coming in second at 2.9 points (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Average Points by Service Line

When looking at the episode payments behind the point totals, MVC found that hospitals that selected CABG, CHF, and joint replacement saw a decrease in payments from 2018 to 2020 (see Figure 4). Taking into account case counts for all conditions in the baseline year, MVC also found that payments decreased overall for the selected P4P conditions by $7.7 million dollars in program year 2021.

Figure 4. Payment Change by P4P Condition

If you have any questions regarding the MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program, please reference the P4P Technical Document for Program Years 2020 and 2021 and the MVC P4P FAQ PY 2020-2021. If you would like to set up a meeting to review your hospital’s performance, please contact the Coordinating Center at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com. The Coordinating Center will be evaluating and releasing a report on the 2020 and 2021 program year cycle later in 2022.

10 Mar 2022
0

Health Equity Report Refreshed with New Data and Demographics

March 10, 2022 | 0 Comments |

With an enhanced strategic focus on health equity, the MVC Coordinating Center was excited to share refreshed versions of its health equity push report this week. The health equity report was first launched in August 2021 in response to growing interest from members as well as widening gaps in health outcomes for patients with a lower socioeconomic status. The purpose of the report is to help members better understand their patient population, and the newest version re-examines some of the original findings. It also adds data to help providers identify the most impacted patients and understand how their care differs from patients with a higher socioeconomic status.

The report distributed this week provided a comparison of Medicaid patients to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) and Blue Care Network (BCN) patients, whereas the first iteration compared outcomes of dual-eligible versus non-dual-eligible Medicare patients. Therefore, one change from the previous report is that the patients included are much younger on average. This report incorporated index admissions from 1/1/2018 – 9/30/2021 for BCBSM PPO Commercial and BCN HMO Commercial and from 1/1/2018 – 12/31/2020 for Medicaid. Members who received reports will see comparisons between these two groups for total episode payments, length of stay, 30-day readmission rates, 30-day post-discharge emergency department utilization, and 30-day post-discharge office visit rates.

Despite utilizing different payer data, insurance type was still a good predictor of health outcomes in the report. The Coordinating Center continued to see poorer outcomes across the board for those patients who were publicly rather than privately insured – a finding that is consistent in the research literature as well. These disparities were most pronounced among medical conditions than surgical procedures.

This report continued to look at post-acute care trends but narrowed its focus to office visits specifically. This is because there were significant differences in office visit rates by insurance type in the previous report and skilled nursing facility use was much less relevant within this report's younger patient population. When looking at office visit utilization, the rates were significantly different between BCBSM/BCN and Medicaid patients for both medical conditions (see Figure 1) and surgical procedures. However, the disparity was more pronounced in medical conditions. MVC saw a decrease in office visits in early 2020 across the state that is believed to be related to the pandemic, but visits returned to pre-pandemic rates in the latter half of the year. Furthermore, episodes were excluded from this report if they contained a confirmed diagnosis code of COVID-19 in the first three diagnosis code positions of any inpatient facility claim.

Figure 1. Office Visit Trend Graph from Blinded Report

Another key change to the report was the addition of a patient population demographics table (see Figure 2), which provides the hospital with age, race, zip code, and comorbidity information for Medicaid versus BCBSM/BCN patients. Overall, the most common comorbidity across the state was diabetes, and the Medicaid population was younger on average.

Figure 2. Demographics Table from Blinded Report

Like the first version of the report, there was a conscious decision to exclude comparison groups. This is because the socioeconomic factors of a hospital’s patient population cannot be changed, and there is great diversity between hospitals throughout the state and within geographic regions. For those reasons, benchmarking was not the intention of this report. However, it is important to note that across the state, the data analyzed by the MVC Coordinating Center consistently indicates that Medicaid patients have poorer outcomes than privately insured patients, including longer lengths of stay, higher readmission rates, higher post-discharge emergency department utilization, and lower rates of office visits post-discharge.

The MVC Coordinating Center is eager to support members in improving health equity. Please consider sharing feedback on this report with the Coordinating Center, as well as attending MVC’s newest workgroup on health equity to learn and share with peers. If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, please contact the Coordinating Center at michiganvaluecollabortative@gmail.com.

03 Mar 2022
0

MVC Collates Hospital Quality Initiatives to Support Collaboration

March 3, 2022 | 0 Comments |

The Michigan Value Collaborative has always been deeply interested in fostering a collaborative learning environment that enables providers to learn from one another in a cooperative, non-competitive space. In support of that priority, the Coordinating Center completed hospital site visits in 2021 in order to better understand the priorities and activities of its member hospitals and identify common projects that may benefit from practice sharing. The site visits included an overview of MVC resources and services, followed by a discussion with the hospital about their processes, stakeholders, and current initiatives. In total, MVC completed 58 hospital site visits that provided valuable information for the benefit of the collaborative.

At the conclusion of this undertaking, MVC documented 178 quality improvement initiatives. These were compiled in a database that is searchable by content area, provider, and project status, among other details. This allows MVC to understand common themes and challenges among all its members as well as within particular subgroups by hospital size or region. Projects related to hospital readmissions and patient or provider safety were the most common among member hospitals (see Figure 1), with 47 and 46 different projects accounted for, respectively.

Figure 1.

All initiatives were reviewed in order to identify common themes as defined by members. The top 10 most common categories for quality initiatives in 2021 from most to least cited are:

  1. Readmissions
  2. Patient and provider safety
  3. Patient and provider education
  4. Throughput optimization
  5. Transitions of care
  6. Patient follow-up
  7. Mortality
  8. Referrals
  9. Emergency department
  10. COVID-19

The bulk of these quality improvement projects from 2021 are still in progress today, with at least 80% reportedly in progress and about 17% complete. This means that the vast majority of sites enacting quality initiatives in the above areas may still benefit from the lessons learned and advice of peers who are working on similar initiatives. To initiate conversations between members with similar quality improvement projects, the MVC Coordinating Center has begun the process of making email introductions between members. This is already taking place for members who request custom analytic reports. As custom requests are prepared and returned, the Coordinating Center reviews its database of quality initiatives to identify projects related to the findings of that report. A custom report may, for example, identify areas of opportunity in 30-day readmission rates or home health agency utilization. If a peer institution already has a quality initiative underway to improve 30-day readmission rates and care transitions, MVC will connect those members to encourage idea sharing and cooperative learning.

In 2022, MVC has plans to hold site visits with its physician organization (PO) members, which will add a valuable perspective to the database and help the Coordinating Center to further support POs as well as facilitate hospital-PO partnerships.

The MVC Coordinating Center is excited to add to and leverage this database as both an added resource for custom requests as well as a library of practice standards for members. It will also help MVC to identify potential speakers on areas of quality improvement that are of interest to most members. If you are interested in connecting with peers who are implementing similar quality improvement initiatives, please reach out to the Coordinating Center at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com.

24 Feb 2022
0
View Post
MVC Draws Attention to Cardiac Rehab in Promotional Week

MVC Draws Attention to Cardiac Rehab in Promotional Week

February 24, 2022 | 0 Comments | ,

Every February while the nation honors American Heart Month, a subset of heart health advocates spend one week paying tribute to the lifesaving value of cardiac rehabilitation. Last week the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) Coordinating Center joined in on Cardiac Rehabilitation Week by helping to increase awareness and promote MVC’s efforts to improve utilization. Over the course of the week, MVC distributed press releases, published a daily cadence of social media content on Twitter and LinkedIn, and launched a video about the importance of cardiac rehab – all in service of inspiring collaboration in this area.

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has a Class IA indication for recent cardiac-related events or procedures, meaning there is high-quality evidence that it is beneficial to patients. In fact, individuals who complete the full program of 36 sessions have a 25% lower risk of death and a 30% lower risk of heart attack than those who attend only one session. It also reduces hospital readmissions and saves thousands of dollars per patient per year of life saved. Nevertheless, CR is widely underutilized, with national utilization rates of only 25-50%. It is for this reason that MVC wishes to equitably increase CR participation for all eligible individuals in Michigan. Throughout CR week, therefore, MVC endeavored to define the value of CR, what it entails, and how the actions of MVC members impact CR participation.

MVC’s role in the CR space is two-fold. One is the preparation of reports using its unique multi-payer data sources, and the second is providing opportunities for MVC members to collaborate. The reports that MVC prepares for members analyze claims data with time-specific hospital-level information on CR enrollment and completed visits within one year of discharge. This allows hospitals to benchmark their performance against peers and identify areas for improvement. There’s a huge amount of variation in CR rates across many dimensions – hospitals, qualifying events, and payers. For example, the hospital with the highest rate of CR after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) succeeds at sending 75% of their CABG patients to CR, while another only sends 28% of their CABG patients. This variation shows that it is possible to reach high CR rates, and hospitals can learn from each other to make systemic improvements that get more patients into this life-changing (and cost-saving) program.

To support collaboration among its member base of 100 hospitals and 40 physician organizations, MVC hosted a special, one-time workgroup on CR last week as part of its newly launched “Health in Action” workgroup series. This series is meant to drive discussion and collaboration on special topics that rotate throughout the year. Last week’s session featured the expertise of two special voices in the world of CR: Steven Keteyian, Ph.D., Director of Cardiac Rehabilitation/Preventive Cardiology at Henry Ford Medical Group, and Greg Merritt, Ph.D., patient advocate and founder of Patient is Partner. The workgroup was well attended with over 100 guests, who benefitted from informative and inspiring presentations from both speakers.

Dr. Keteyian presented updates on the clinical effectiveness of CR as well as some of the key barriers facing the field. There is high-quality evidence that CR is beneficial to patients on a variety of physiological measures, including improved exercise tolerance, decreased risk of future hospitalization, and decreased cardiovascular mortality. He also reiterated the value of cardiac rehab relative to other recommended cardiac interventions, with CR demonstrating more lives saved per 1000 patients than ACE inhibitors, statins, and other common medications (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Calculating the Value of Cardiac Rehab

The current quality measures for CR suggest a patient’s time to enrollment should occur within 21 days of discharge, and that the patient should attend at least 36 sessions to receive the greatest benefit. The current goal for CR participation set by the Million Hearts initiative is 70%. However, Dr. Keteyian found that of the CR-eligible beneficiaries, only 28.6% participated and only 27.6% of those participants completed all 36 sessions. This represents a significant utilization gap. While discussing related challenges, Dr. Keteyian suggested that hospitals implement EMR-driven automatic referrals, overt provider endorsements, and an inpatient liaison to bridge the gap between referral and enrollment. He also recommended the use of hybrid CR programs that leverage telehealth to offer remote options.

Dr. Merritt’s presentation included his own personal story of surviving a cardiac event and his ensuing participation in a CR program. Following his experience, he became a “patient questionologist” dedicated to finding opportunities for patient and provider collaboration. His story ultimately led to the founding of an organization called Patient is Partner, which is dedicated to the principles of patient-partnered care. Inspired by the writings of behavioral scientists as well as Why We Revolt by Victor Montori, Dr. Merritt outlined a vision for healthcare innovation that invites patients and their unique perspectives to help solve healthcare’s greatest challenges. He encouraged attendees to join the movement and invite more patient voices to contribute to their respective committees and teams.

At the conclusion of the week, the MVC team had helped its audiences connect to educational materials, data, specialists, former patients, and successful peers in this space. The Coordinating Center is eager to continue this momentum from CR Week in pursuit of a variety of goals for 2022 and beyond. If your hospital or physician organization is interested in improving CR utilization rates, you can learn more about how MVC supports members to increase CR enrollment or reach out directly at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com. You can also view a recording of the full CR workgroup here.

17 Feb 2022
0

MVC Shares New Pneumonia Push Report with Hospitals

February 17, 2022 | 0 Comments | ,

The Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) introduced its first ever pneumonia push report this week when the Coordinating Center shared individualized reports with 89 hospitals across Michigan. This report was created in response to member interest and incorporated 30-day claims-based episodes with index admissions from 1/1/18 – 12/31/20 for the following payers: Medicare FFS, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) PPO Commercial, Blue Care Network (BCN) Commercial, BCBSM MA, BCN MA, and Medicaid. Reports were created for all MVC member hospitals that had at least 11 pneumonia episodes per year in 2018, 2019, and 2020.

One goal for this report was to provide data that would be useful for a broad range of MVC’s increasingly diverse membership. Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs), for example, are some of MVC’s newest members and differ in several meaningful ways from other hospitals in the collaborative. Therefore, MVC distributed two different versions of the pneumonia report in order to refine comparison groups and provide a more tailored view of the data. As a result, 81 general acute care hospitals received a pneumonia report comparing their performance to 1) all other eligible general acute care hospitals in the collaborative and 2) acute care hospitals in their geographic region. The second version of the report was shared with eight eligible CAHs, which compared their performance to other MVC CAHs. By providing hospitals with tailored comparison groups when appropriate, MVC hopes to strengthen the usability of its claims-based data to inform quality improvement initiatives.

After much consideration, the MVC team decided to remove any pneumonia episodes containing a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 (U07.1) in the first three diagnosis positions of an inpatient facility claim from this report. Members can now replicate this approach on the MVC registry for episodes from April 2020 or later using the new COVID-19 filter, which allows users to include or exclude episodes that contained an inpatient facility claim with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. For the purposes of this push report, the Coordinating Center further excluded all pneumonia episodes from March 2020 in order to remove COVID-19 hospitalizations that occurred in Michigan before an official COVID-19 diagnosis code was available and were coded as pneumonia.

Measures included in the pneumonia report were trends in average price-standardized risk-adjusted total episode payments, average index length of stay, index in-hospital mortality rates, trends in 30-day readmission rates, rates of 30-day post-acute care utilization, and rates of seven-day outpatient follow-up. Overall, the Coordinating Center found that the in-hospital mortality rate for both groups of hospitals was about 2%. One noticeable difference between the two report groups was that CAHs had a shorter average length of stay for index pneumonia hospitalizations (4.6 days, see Figure 1) than general acute care hospitals (5.8 days, see Figure 2).

Figure 1. Average Index Length of Stay at CAHs

Figure 2. Average Index Length of Stay at Acute Care Hospitals

Post-acute care utilization rates were stratified by emergency department (ED), home health, rehabilitation, and skilled nursing facility (SNF). In general, the most frequently utilized category of post-acute care for pneumonia episodes was home health at a rate of 20% for acute care hospitals (see Figure 3) and 24% for CAHs (see Figure 4). Furthermore, there was wide variability in seven-day outpatient follow-up rates for both types of hospitals, but the average for acute care hospitals was higher at 39.7% (see Figure 5) compared to 24.4% (see Figure 6) for CAHs.

Figure 3. 30-Day Post-Acute Care Utilization Rates at Acute Care Hospitals

Figure 4. 30-Day Post-Acute Care Utilization Rates at Critical Access Hospitals

Figure 5. Seven-Day Outpatient Follow-Up Rates at Acute Care Hospitals

Figure 6. Seven-Day Outpatient Follow-Up Rates at Critical Access Hospitals

By understanding the unique needs of its members, MVC can improve future reports for use in quality improvement activities. If your hospital is interested in sharing feedback about the new pneumonia report or has a specific follow-up request, please reach out to the Coordinating Center at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com.

10 Feb 2022
0

Considerations for a System Approach to Quality Improvement

February 10, 2022 | 0 Comments | ,

As healthcare systems continue to grow and expand, organizational leadership must consider how to implement quality improvement projects across multiple sites and venues. Currently, quality improvement is implemented using a variety of efforts and methods including project-based and system-wide change. A study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (IJERPH) shared information about how several healthcare organizations overcame challenges to accomplish sustainable system change.

For many years, healthcare organizations have worked to improve the quality of their delivery systems with the understanding that their complexity and flexibility can affect the change process. One of the early studies on this challenge identified three conditions that need to be in place for a quality improvement project to be effective:

  • A focus on areas of priority with carefully designed interventions
  • An organization that is prepared and ready for change evidenced by capable leadership, good relations with staff, and supportive information systems
  • A favorable external environment, especially regarding beneficial regulations, payment policies, and competitive factors.

Hospitals that successfully implemented QI projects hospital-wide relied on a commitment from leadership, the use of a daily management system, and quality improvement training. It was noted that those organizations more successful in QI efforts had boards that placed a priority on QI implementation, balanced short-term priorities with long-term investment in QI, used data for improvement, engaged patients and staff in the QI work, and encouraged continuous improvement culture.

The Quality and Safety in Europe by Research (QUASER) guide was used by the IJERPH study authors to assess the hospital cases they examined. This QUASER guide, now an internationally renowned framework, was first developed to aid senior leaders in facilitating systemic, detailed discussions about system-wide quality improvements. It identifies eight challenge areas (further defined in Figure 1) that healthcare organizations should address to ensure successful system-wide improvements: leadership, politics, culture, education, emotion, physical and technological infrastructure, structure, and external demands.

Figure 1.

In assessing the case studies, the IJERPH study authors found that successful QI projects had addressed each of these challenges. They also found that, although a few of the QUASER challenges were missing more often than others, many of them overlap and none of the challenges on their own were directly linked to successful projects.

While many QI managers and executive teams focus more on centralized and system-level QI improvement, clinical teams often focus on improvements at the local level with a desire to improve care at the site of delivery. Local QI efforts should be aligned with centralized efforts across health systems to enhance effectiveness and reduce the burden on clinicians. By utilizing a hybrid of local and centralized methods of QI, project awareness can be aligned, and prioritization can occur between the system leadership and local clinical areas. In addition, the IJERPH study highlighted the importance of making leaders accessible. System leaders need to prioritize communication with frontline staff so they understand the system-wide changes they are working toward.

The Michigan Value Collaborative is interested in learning more about the healthcare systems within Michigan and how system-wide quality improvement efforts are being chosen, implemented, and sustained. The Coordinating Center would like to hold discussions with leadership teams to better understand this work within the Collaborative. Let MVC know how its offerings can better serve your system-level initiatives by contacting michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com.

03 Feb 2022
0

New Report on Colectomy Distributed to Member POs

February 3, 2022 | 0 Comments | , , ,

The Michigan Value Collaborative introduced its first colectomy physician organization (PO) report this week. A colectomy is the surgical removal of a section of the large intestine (colon) or bowel and is performed to treat diseases of the bowel (i.e., Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colon cancer).

The report incorporated administrative claims of attributed members from 1/1/19 – 12/31/20 for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) PPO Commercial and BCBSM Medicare Advantage, and 1/1/19 – 9/30/20 for Medicare Fee-for-Service. Reports were created for all POs that currently participate in MVC and had at least 11 colectomies per year in both 2019 and 2020.

There were significant differences in the anticipated clinical course and the likelihood of complications between elective (planned) and emergent colectomy. Therefore, MVC provided a stratified summary of planned versus emergent colectomies (Figure 1), and some metrics in the report were stratified by planned and emergent status to highlight when there was an emergency department revenue code on the episode. For example, there were notable differences in post-acute care utilization between planned and emergent colectomies (Figures 2 & 3).

Figure 1. PO A Colectomy Report Table

Figure 2. PO A Risk-Adjusted Payments: Planned Colectomies

Figure 3. PO A Risk-Adjusted Payments: Emergent Colectomies

In an effort to provide valuable data to MVC POs, the Coordinating Center continually meets with key stakeholders, BCBSM, and PO members to drive MVC PO report development. The contents of this report were developed based on that feedback. For example, this report allowed POs to individually compare their organization to new comparison groups.

The comparison groups in the new colectomy report include:

  • All MVC POs
  • EMPLOYED VS. INDEPENDENT POs: As defined in the BCBSM Physician Group Incentive Program (PGIP) 2021 physician list, POs with greater than 50% of their aligned providers employed by a health system are considered employed, and those with less than 50% are considered independent.
  • PO SIZE: These groups were based on the number of attributed members at each PO (Figure 4). Member POs would see the PO size comparison group in which they belong so they can compare their performance to other POs of a similar size.

Figure 4. PO Size Grouping

Other components included in the report were a list of the top 10 facilities where a PO’s attributed patients had a colectomy performed, the five most common comorbidities among attributed colectomy patients, median length of stay, 30-day risk-adjusted total episode payment, 30-day readmission rate, and the utilization rate for post-acute care services (emergency department, skilled nursing facility, and home health). General findings included that diabetes was the most common comorbidity across all colectomies (planned and emergent) performed at POs and was frequently one of the top two comorbidities for individual POs. In addition, home health services had the greatest variation in post-acute care utilization (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. PO A Home Health Utilization Rate

By understanding the needs of MVC PO members regarding present and future patient care improvement activities, MVC will be better able to improve future PO reports. If you are interested in sharing feedback about these new PO reports, have any specific PO analytic requests, are undergoing new PO improvement initiatives, and/or would like more information about MVC, please reach out to the Coordinating Center at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com.