0
View Post
Growth On the Horizon for Robotic Process Automation in Healthcare

Growth On the Horizon for Robotic Process Automation in Healthcare

Hospital quality improvement teams have an increasingly difficult task ahead. Their efforts to improve quality of care across a wide range of medical services must be balanced with the need to expand their facility’s capacity, ensure proper handling of sensitive data, adhere to strict procedures, cut costs, and adapt to the limitations of a pandemic. This work poses challenges both organizational and operational. Even though patient care is the primary focus for hospital staff, they must maintain a constant stream of paperwork and other administrative tasks such as data entry, scheduling appointments, billing, and managing claims paperwork. Robotic process automation (RPA) presents an opportunity to decrease these administrative costs and streamline some operations.

RPA is defined as software that can automate repeatable, rule-based processes. RPA interacts with the assigned applications in the same way that a human does, logging into a given system and following a defined set of keystrokes and rules. It is not the same as artificial intelligence (AI)—there is no decision-making capacity. RPA can only offload manual, high-volume computer processes. The primary benefit of RPA, therefore, is its ability to free up time for humans to complete more complex tasks, such as interfacing with patients or interpreting data.

RPA is a burgeoning field recommended by consulting groups such as Deloitte, McKinsey, and Bain & Company. Although RPA hasn’t had sufficient time to make its way into academic literature, it is spreading quickly in all types of industries. For example, according to Deloitte’s Global RPA Survey, more than half of their 400 respondents from multiple industries were already pursuing automation with as many as 72% looking to add RPA in the next two years.

“RPA exceeds adopters’ expectations not only when it comes to the rapid rate of ROI increase, but also when it comes to facilitating compliance (92%), improved quality and accuracy (90%), or improved productivity (86%),” the report read. The report also suggests that the benefits of utilizing RPA may include cost reductions, boosts to productivity, more stable workflows, and fewer human errors, among others (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Source: Summit Healthcare

Healthcare as an industry has the potential to significantly benefit from offloading administrative tasks to bots. According to McKinsey, the healthcare sector has the potential to automate around 36% of tasks. They suggest that the greatest potential for healthcare payers is in areas such as claims processing, customer service, and billing activities (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Hospitals and health systems have pursued RPA in these areas as well and found success. One example written about in Forbes recently described the efforts of Baylor Scott & White Health (BSWHealth), an academic medical system with 52 different hospitals and the largest not-for-profit provider in Texas. BSWHealth uses RPA to automate “claim statusing” in its insurance collections department. The bot helps to check the status of outstanding insurance claims that, previously, a human employee would have to do by logging into multiple payer websites or placing phone calls. The RPA bot uses screen-scraping technology that mimics keystrokes the employee would enter to obtain claim statuses from payers. As a result, an abundance of claims—those that are accepted and scheduled to be paid—never clutter the employee’s desk. Instead, the employee only sees those that are denied and require human attention, resulting in outstanding claims being addressed faster. BSWHealth is pursuing a variety of RPA projects like this one across all of its revenue cycle departments. They reduced their total FTEs by over 20% while simultaneously reducing payer denials by 20%.

Success stories like this one are particularly exciting for hospitals struggling to manage their case load amidst the pandemic. Daily operations and procedures have been severely impacted financially and operationally by coronavirus. A recent survey conducted by the World Health Organization identified that almost half of the countries surveyed (49%) reported strains on their ability to treat diabetes, with 42% reporting the same for cancer and 31% struggling to properly manage cardiovascular emergencies. As a result, companies are pursuing automation opportunities more than ever before (see Figure 3), with Bain & Company reporting as many as 81% of hospitals pursuing RPA initiatives.

Figure 3.

Still, according to a 2019 white paper by The Economist, “extensive” use of automation is only used by half of healthcare organizations, and healthcare in general is among the most resistant to adopting it. Some healthcare organizations remain cautious for a variety of reasons, including concerns about initial investments, maintenance costs, and the possibility of failure. The same white paper also proposes that data privacy and security concerns might be a significant hinderance to RPA efforts, as well as a deficit in the skill sets needed to develop the bots.

Plus, any discussion of RPA sometimes begets fears about job replacement. In some scenarios, health systems have seen an overall decrease in FTEs after putting RPA initiatives in place. However, the overall goal is usually to reallocate effort toward more high-level, cognitive projects in a way that increases productivity without replacing people. If an administrative task requires no higher-level thinking, then giving it to an RPA bot will free up time for clinical staff to attend to patient care rather than paperwork. In fact, according to Harvard Business Review, most new adopters of RPA have promised their employees that it won’t result in layoffs.

Despite hesitations, health systems are likely to test out RPA projects in the coming years in response to the current state of affairs. Hospitals have been forced over the past year to find efficiencies where they can. RPA bots appear to have the potential for a variety of benefits, not the least of which is flexibility to redeploy personnel to areas in need of increased staffing. As RPA begins to make its way into the literature, it will be important to consider research findings about best practices going forward.

It will also be helpful going forward to share lessons learned with peer institutions. One of the goals of the MVC Coordinating Center is to support collaboration and idea sharing across its membership. If any member is implementing RPA projects and would be interested in sharing their experience with others, please contact the MVC Coordinating Center team at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com.

0
View Post
MVC Registry Expands with Addition of Medicaid Episodes

MVC Registry Expands with Addition of Medicaid Episodes

The Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) Coordinating Center recently added Medicaid data to its registry. This update reflects the culmination of many months of work to acquire, process, clean, and add the data, which became available on July 16 to MVC registry users. The current data set is from 1/1/15 through 9/30/19, which amounts to claims from 1/1/15 through 12/31/19. MVC data sources now comprise over 80% of Michigan’s insured population. This represents an additional 1.8 million covered lives (see Figure 1). MVC’s data sources now include Medicare FFS, Commercial Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) PPO, Medicare Advantage BCBSM PPO, Commercial Blue Care Network (BCN) HMO, Medicare Advantage BCN, and Michigan Medicaid.

Figure 1.

The addition of Medicaid data will impact, among other things, the distribution of MVC episodes across its portfolio of payers. Medicare is still the dominant payer within MVC data with more than 641,747 episodes. However, the new distribution of MVC episodes by payer (Figure 2) showcases that Medicaid is now the third-largest payer in MVC data, accounting for 18% of total episodes.

Figure 2.

MVC currently serves 97 participating hospitals, including critical access members, and 40 physician organizations in Michigan. The proportion of Medicaid episodes in MVC data by facility (Figure 3) varies significantly across MVC’s membership, with some members attributing less than 5% of their episodes to Medicaid and some near 60%. For the bulk of MVC’s membership, between 10% and 30% of their episodes are in Medicaid, which represents a significant increase in the total episodes they can now utilize. For some MVC hospitals, the number of episodes they have in MVC data may double if they have a large share of Medicaid patients.

Figure 3.

MVC currently provides data on 40 defined conditions. The addition of Medicaid data is likely to impact certain conditions more than others in keeping with the types of procedures and conditions most prevalent with Medicaid-eligible populations. The top five Medicaid conditions include sepsis, C-section, vaginal delivery, cholecystectomy, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), so members are more likely to see changes to their utilization data for those conditions. The number of episodes being added for each condition is outlined in Figure 4.

Figure 4.

The Medicaid data will also allow for the creation of new data visualizations and reports that capture information not previously available. For example, MVC analysts recently generated two new Medicaid-based maps (Figures 5 and 6) that help visualize utilization and location information for the Medicaid population. Figure 5 represents the patient Zip codes that can be attributed to Medicaid episodes in MVC data, with Zip codes appearing darker if a larger percentage of Medicaid patients reside there. This allows members to see those communities near their own facilities that are likely home to the Medicaid patients they serve.

Figure 6 also represents the percentage of episodes attributed to Medicaid patients, with darker colors representative of higher percentages; however, Figure 6 connects these Medicaid episodes to MVC member facilities rather than Zip codes and visualizes the total number of episodes in addition to the percentage. Together, these two figures provide MVC members with more information about their Medicaid populations as well as the extent to which utilization varies between peer facilities in the same region.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

These maps are the first example of new outputs that are possible with the addition of Medicaid data. The MVC Coordinating Center plans to produce additional reports for members that leverage the new data set. One area of interest is the social determinants of health. Since Medicaid provides medical assistance to disabled and low-income individuals, statistical analysis using this data often reflects trends tied to low socioeconomic status populations. Ideally, this data set will allow MVC and its members to invest more attention and resources into equity-based quality improvement projects.

The MVC Coordinating Center is eager to learn which topics are of greatest interest to members that integrate Medicaid claims. If your team has specific ideas that could help guide this work, please contact MVC at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com.

0
View Post
The Behavior Change Puzzle of Medication Non-Adherence

The Behavior Change Puzzle of Medication Non-Adherence

Non-adherence to a prescribed medication regime for chronic disease management is known to lead to poor health outcomes and higher healthcare costs. A number of studies have shown that adherence is usually around 50% or less, even when medications are provided free of charge. What seems to be less clear is how best to address poor adherence; one study points out that most of the current interventions meant to improve adherence rates are too complex or ineffective, and that the research in this field is rife with weaknesses and bias.

But as with most quality improvement initiatives, understanding the source of the problem is an important first step. In this case, identifying the reasons for non-adherence is an important starting point for reducing barriers and improving patient outcomes. Many factors may affect whether a person takes their medications, including the patient themselves, the disease being treated, the health system and team, and the type of therapy involved. One study’s survey of 10,000 patients found that the most cited barrier to taking one’s medications was simply forgetfulness (24%). This was followed by perceived side effects (20%), high drug costs (17%), and a perception that their prescribed medication will have very little effect on their disease (14%).

The same study illustrated the various patient, provider, and external factors that can play a role in medication adherence using the figure below (Figure 1). If any one of these factors were to present a challenge for the patient, then they are at risk of not taking their prescribed medications on time and any related medical issues.

Figure 1.

While some interventions such as pill box aids and electronic reminders have helped patients when forgetfulness is the issue, these do not address factors such as concerns about side effects and medication-related harm, or uncertainty about the importance of taking long-term prescribed medications. These issues have the potential to be addressed through shared decision-making and education from clinical experts such as pharmacists and nurses.

One review analyzed the impact that social determinants of health has on medication adherence. Disadvantageous circumstances in social and living conditions are associated with an increase in chronic disease, and it is believed that these same challenges impact a person’s ability to manage their health. When an individual is facing food insecurity, unemployment, and unstable living conditions, they are sometimes unable to address their health concerns emotionally or financially. The review found that medication adherence was negatively impacted by food insecurity and housing instability, although few studies identified other specific social determinants that influence non-adherence to medications beyond these two. In fact, education, income, and employment status did not significantly correlate with adherence to a medication regime.

The Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) would like to hear how your institution is addressing medication non-adherence, especially in the chronic disease patient population. This will be an upcoming topic at a chronic disease management workgroup. Please contact MVC at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com for information about attending.

0
View Post
Condition Selection Process Announced for MVC Component of BCBSM P4P Program

Condition Selection Process Announced for MVC Component of BCBSM P4P Program

This week the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) Coordinating Center announced the condition selection process for program year (PY) 2022 and PY 2023 of the MVC Component of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) Pay-for-Performance (P4P) program. The timeline for each program year’s stages are detailed in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

In the announcement, hospitals were tasked with selecting two conditions for which they will be evaluated and returning their condition selection form to the Coordinating Center by Friday, August 13, 2021. The announcement also outlined changes to the scoring methodology, cohort assignments, and bonus points available.

The Coordinating Center’s recent announcement included condition selection reports with targets for each condition option that may help inform hospitals’ selection decisions. Each participating hospital will choose two of the seven available conditions for PY22 and PY23: spine surgery, joint replacement, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), congestive heart failure (CHF), colectomy (non-cancer), and pneumonia. When selecting conditions, the Coordinating Center recommends reviewing your data in the registry and considering several factors for each condition, including case counts and identifiable areas with the greatest cost opportunities. The Coordinating Center also recommends considering where resources are currently being directed in your facility and potentially aligning with those efforts.

One notable change from prior program years is the methodology by which hospitals earn achievement and improvement points. Hospital scores will continue to be based on a hospital’s risk-adjusted, price-standardized total episode payments for two selected conditions, and they can still earn a maximum score of 10 points. However, the improvement and achievement scores will become more similar in order to be placed on the same scale. As such, the achievement equation will change from being based on rank within MVC cohort at performance year to being based on distance from MVC cohort mean at baseline year. Similarly, the improvement equation will utilize the distance from the hospital’s mean at baseline. These new equations (see Figure 2) as well as complete descriptions of the updated methodologies are reviewed at length with examples in the technical document.

Figure 2.

P4P cohorts have also been reassigned for PY22 and PY23. These changes are also detailed in the technical document, and the new cohort assignments can be found on the MVC website. The cohorts are not intended to group hospitals that are exactly alike; rather, they create a reasonably-comparable grouping from which MVC can complete statistical analysis.

The final change is to the awarding of bonus points. In place of the previous 5% cohort reduction bonus, participants can instead earn bonus points by completing two questionnaires (one per selected condition) and submitting these to the Coordinating Center by November 1st of each program year. The purpose of this is to gather examples of quality improvement initiatives in operation at MVC member hospitals to share with the Collaborative. Moving forward, this will help support members in reducing costs through collaboration.

Each of the changes mentioned above are designed to deliver a more transparent, intuitive, flexible, and fairer P4P program. The Coordinating Center will offer an explainer webinar to answer questions and walk through the details of these changes in more detail. The webinar will be offered on two dates: the first is scheduled for Thursday, July 29 from 11:00-12:00 pm, and the second is on Tuesday, August 3 from 1:00-2:00 pm. Both webinars can be accessed using the following Zoom link: https://umich.zoom.us/j/95502303999. Participants can also call +1 301 715 8592 (meeting ID #955 0230 3999). For those interested in the explainer webinar who are unavailable on both dates, a recording of the first webinar will be available. If you are interested in receiving a link to this recording, please email the MVC team at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com.

0
View Post
Introducing Carla Novak, MVC’s Administrative Assistant

Introducing Carla Novak, MVC’s Administrative Assistant

I am excited to be joining the MVC team as the Administrative Assistant. I was born in Ohio (Go Buckeyes!) and moved to Michigan when I was young. I have always had a desire to work on the clerical side of healthcare, which led me to several roles within Michigan Medicine.

Most recently, I worked as a Referral Coordinator for the U-M Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, where I obtained insurance authorizations for various procedures. Prior to this I worked as an Administrative Assistant on an inpatient unit within the hospital, providing support to roughly 90 employees and our management team. I also processed payroll, reimbursements, PTO requests, and more.

As MVC’s Administrative Assistant, I look forward to assisting with the day-to-day needs of the Coordinating Center. I am thankful for the opportunity to work with this great team and look forward to getting to know each and every one of you!

0
View Post
MVC Sepsis Workgroup Review

MVC Sepsis Workgroup Review

The Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) holds bi-monthly virtual workgroups on six different clinical areas of focus. The goals of these workgroups are to help bring collaborative members together to discuss current quality improvement initiatives and/or challenging areas of practice. These six different clinical areas include chronic disease management (CDM), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF), diabetes, joint, and sepsis. At the most recent MVC sepsis workgroup, the discussion centered around post-sepsis syndrome and how organizations are identifying and caring for patients that are diagnosed with this condition.

The group learnt that for several organizations, post-sepsis syndrome is not well understood, identified, or diagnosed which prompted some interesting discussion around this topic and the topic of sepsis itself. A number of studies have suggested that due to an aging population with an increased number of comorbidities, frequent use of immunosuppression therapy, expanded use of invasive procedures and medical devices, and multi-drug resistance, the incidence of sepsis has increased. However, the same studies share that in-hospital mortality has decreased. Credit for this decrease in mortality is associated with improved detection, establishing treatment earlier, improvements in critical care, and the implementation of evidence-based guidelines established by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign.

While survivors of sepsis have increased, identification of post-sepsis syndrome is garnering attention as many patients can suffer from a number of serious and long-lasting complications including delusions, debilitating muscle and joint pains, extreme exhaustion, poor concentration, reduced cognitive functioning, as well as mental health issues and concerns. Certain patients, such as the elderly, those with a preexisting condition, or those diagnosed with severe sepsis are more likely to develop post-sepsis syndrome.

Currently, the most effective method of treatment for post sepsis syndrome is to prevent an initial incidence of sepsis. Primary prevention includes hand washing, vaccination uptake, and managing any chronic conditions. Pharmacological strategies for the treatment of sepsis and the prevention of post-sepsis syndrome include:

• Antibiotic stewardship, to improve the use of antibiotics and using prolactin levels to decide when to stop antibiotic use.
• The use of H2-receptor agonists over proton pump inhibitors to prevent stress ulcers.
• Low dosage and short-term use of medications.
• Early mobility to prevent functional decline.

Non-pharmacological strategies for the prevention and treatment of sepsis to avert post-sepsis syndrome include:
• Sepsis treatment and the identification of post-sepsis syndrome education for frontline workers.
• Post-sepsis education for family and caregivers of sepsis survivors along with available resources.
• Vision/Hearing Aids to reduce the risk of delirium, as well as adaptive equipment.
• Referral for rehabilitation post sepsis survival.

MVC collaborative members from multiple facilities including Michigan Medicine, Henry Ford Wyandotte, Sparrow, and Spectrum Health discussed different ways in which they are working to identify sepsis as early as possible within their facilities. Many organizations have instituted a sepsis program, and some are looking to onboard a sepsis navigator. Dr. Jessie King, Program Director, shared information about the Post-Intensive Care Unit (ICU) research and treatment clinic (PULSE) now screening discharged ICU patients for post-sepsis syndrome, and the Michigan Medicine return on investment analysis which helped initiate a sepsis program. You can find the recording of the workgroup here.

The MVC Coordinating Center is interested in hearing how you are treating sepsis and the prevention and treatment of post-sepsis syndrome. We would like more hospitals to share the work they are doing around these important topics so if you would like to present at or attend an upcoming MVC workgroup, please email MVC at the michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com

0
View Post
Introducing MVC’s Newest Analyst, Kristen Palframan, MPH

Introducing MVC’s Newest Analyst, Kristen Palframan, MPH

I am excited to have joined the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) this month as a data analyst. I’m really looking forward to working with the MVC team and using my experience in data management and analysis to support the goal of improving the quality and value of healthcare in Michigan.

My background is primarily in research and data analysis. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Animal Behavior from Bucknell University. After conducting behavioral research and wildlife disease fieldwork with animals throughout and following college, I developed an interest in disease prevention and came to Michigan to pursue a Master of Public Health (MPH) degree from the University of Michigan School of Public Health. During my MPH program I took a variety of epidemiology and statistics courses, and I particularly enjoyed those that involved programming in SAS and SQL. After graduating from the University of Michigan with an MPH degree in Epidemiology in 2018, I worked for three years as an epidemiologist for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in the Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention. At the VA, I worked on analyses, reports, dashboards, and manuscripts focused on supporting suicide prevention among U.S. Veterans. My work for the VA primarily used electronic medical record data from the Veterans Health Administration as well as mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index.

Now I am thrilled to use my experience in healthcare data analysis to support MVC’s mission and I’m looking forward to growing as an analyst and gaining experience working with claims data. If you have any questions or would like to contact me, please feel free to email me at kpalf@med.umich.edu.

0
View Post
Continuous Glucose Monitoring Has Potential in Inpatient Setting

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Has Potential in Inpatient Setting

One of the most prevalent comorbidities in the United States is diabetes; as many as 1 in 10 Americans are diagnosed with this condition, and 90-95% having potentially preventable Type 2 diabetes. It is well documented that unstable blood glucose levels can contribute to increases in morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.

In the inpatient setting, the current standard of care for monitoring and testing blood glucose levels in diabetic patients is point-of-care (POC) testing, which combines a specific testing schedule and approved devices to measure blood glucose levels. A recent study involving 110 adults with Type 2 diabetes looked at implementing real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) in order to better manage inpatient glycemic levels. The patients were on a non-intensive care unit (ICU) floor, and received either the standard of care or the RT-CGM with Dexcom G6 monitoring—where a tiny sensor wire is inserted just beneath a person’s skin using an automatic applicator. Data was transmitted from the bedside wirelessly, and monitored by hospital telemetry. The bedside nurses were notified of any abnormal glucose levels or trends and the patients were treated accordingly. The results indicated that patients in the RT-CGM group demonstrated lower mean glucose levels and less time in hyperglycemia.

Another study that evaluated the efficacy of RT-CGM discussed the effect that uncontrolled glycemic levels can have on clinical outcomes and healthcare costs. Currently, hospitals use POC glucose testing in order to monitor and treat hypoglycemia, and it is recommended that POC testing occur four to six times per day. However, this leaves many hours throughout the day where hypoglycemia can go undetected. RT-CGM using a glucose telemetry system (GTS) offers an alternative method to monitor these glucose values. A total of 82 patients participated in this study. Patients in the RT-CGM group experienced 60.4% fewer hypoglycemic events compared to the POC group. Figure 1 below illustrates the number of hypoglycemic events per patient for both the CGM/GTS and the POC.

Figure 1.

RT-CGM has yet to be implemented in inpatient settings for several reasons. The primary reason is the lack of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Additionally, institutional challenges may act as a significant barrier. For instance, staff need to be prepared for increased workload and educated on appropriate protocols and procedures. Technological support is required to ensure hardware compatibility and maintain a robust internet network with minimal interference in transmission of results and alerts. Additional factors within the hospital setting include certain medications, procedures, nutrition, acute illness, and any other condition that may affect glucose control. All of these challenges have the potential to impact CGM and its associated workload because of the effect they may have on the patients’ blood glucose levels. Although challenges remain to the implementation of RT-CGM in the inpatient setting, the benefits may outweigh the risks; thus, it is worth considering, especially given the successes in the outpatient arena.

The Michigan Value Collaborative hosts diabetes workgroups where topics such as continuous glucose monitoring are discussed by Collaborative members. If you are interested in attending the next MVC diabetes workgroup, please connect with the MVC Coordinating Center at: michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com.

0
View Post
Custom Hospital Analytics Result in Case Study for Collaborative

Custom Hospital Analytics Result in Case Study for Collaborative

The Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) Coordinating Center encourages its members to seek out custom analytics to inform and support ongoing quality improvement activities. These requests can help hospitals and physician organizations dig deeper into specific aspects of their administrative claims data and, as a result, better understand areas for improvement.

As custom analytics have been prepared and shared with respective members, the Coordinating Center has endeavored to learn the extent to which these analytics have been utilized. The resulting feedback has enriched MVC’s understanding of its members’ quality initiatives, and presents a great opportunity for MVC to educate its members about the successes and lessons learned of their peers.

In that spirit, the Coordinating Center has sought the permission of various hospitals to generate case studies based on this collaborative work. One such case study featuring McLaren Port Huron Hospital was created this past year and shared with the entire Collaborative via the MVC Newsletter (Figure 1). It features a custom analytics request about the rates and adherence of follow-up visits in their congestive heart failure (CHF) population as well as readmission rates for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The resulting custom analytics reports prepared by the Coordinating Center were also accompanied by best practice sharing sourced from other Collaborative members.

Figure 1.

The Coordinating Center plans to continue to generate shareable case studies about similar requests if those facilities have provided their permission. Similarly, MVC will continue to identify such opportunities for information sharing and networking across facilities in order to support its members.

If any members of the Collaborative are interested in pursuing custom analytics in the future or have ideas to share across hospitals, please contact the Coordinating Center at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com.

0
View Post
Virtual Site Visits Underway with MVC Members

Virtual Site Visits Underway with MVC Members

The COVID-19 pandemic affected hospital operations in a myriad of ways, with many Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) members experiencing circumstances that could impact their score on the MVC Component of the BCBSM Pay-for-Performance (P4P) program. In order to mitigate some of the effect of COVID-19, the MVC Coordinating Center introduced two extra bonus points to be earned for Program Year 2021 only. One bonus point can be achieved by attending both MVC semi-annual events; the first was held in May and the second will be held in October. The second bonus point can be earned by undertaking a virtual site visit with the MVC Coordinating Center.

To date, the Coordinating Center has completed 26 site visits, and a further 25 “visits” are scheduled with a variety of hospitals around the state. During these 90-minute virtual visits, MVC provides an overview of the collaborative, our data, and engagement activities. Hospitals receive a quality improvement slide (Figure 1) in advance that they complete and return prior to their scheduled date. These responses drive the main discussion of the site visit.

Figure 1.

Much has been learned about various quality improvement projects being implemented and what hospitals are focusing on for 2021 and 2022. MVC plans to use the information from these slides to connect hospital members with peers interested in implementing similar projects.

In addition, the Coordinating Center is interested in learning: who is utilizing the registry and any individualized reports, the types of MVC data that are most useful, and any challenges hospitals have with using the data. This feedback will help MVC make improvements to the registry and individualized reports to make them more actionable for members.

Finally, the hospital relationship with physician organizations (POs) is discussed. One of MVC’s goals is to help facilitate collaboration between POs that have patients attributed to each hospital, especially in the patient outcomes and quality of care arenas.

If you have not yet scheduled a site visit, please do so here. Slots are available between now and October. If you have any questions or would like further information on a site visit, please contact the MVC Coordinating Center at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com.