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!

12 Nov 2025
0
View Post
MVC Announces Meeting Dates, Workgroups, and Trainings Available in 2026

MVC Announces Meeting Dates, Workgroups, and Trainings Available in 2026

November 12, 2025 | 0 Comments | , , , ,

As we head into the holiday season and final months of calendar year 2025, the MVC Coordinating Center has been planning for its 2026 engagement activities. At MVC's most recent fall collaborative-wide meeting in October, MVC first announced several key dates and updates related to next year’s engagement offerings. 

MVC’s 2026 event calendar is available now [PDF]. Of note, MVC site coordinators can see the dates for 2026 collaborative-wide meetings (Figure 1) and workgroups, as well as the months in which MVC will offer in-person or virtual networking events. MVC will head to Traverse City for its spring collaborative-wide meeting on May 8, 2026. MVC will return to Vistatech in Livonia for its fall collaborative-wide meeting on Oct. 9, 2026. 

Figure 1.

MVC 2026 collaborative-wide meeting dates & locations: May 8, Traverse City, Oct 9, Livonia

Also available is MVC’s Program Year (PY) 2026 P4P Engagement Point Menu [PDF]. Engagement activities offered in 2025 will largely continue along with some minor changes and new additions.

Earning P4P Engagement Points in 2026

In PY 2026 of the MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program, members can continue to earn up to two engagement points by completing eligible MVC activities. Many of the engagement point activities from PY 2025 remain available, such as attending or presenting at eligible MVC events, participating in site visits, utilizing MVC custom analytics, and survey submissions (Figure 2). Some of these offerings will have minor adjustments to their allotted point values. For example, attending a collaborative-wide meeting will now be worth 0.4 points compared to 0.25 points in 2025, and worth 1 point in 2026 for attending both meetings versus 0.75 in 2025.

Figure 2.

2026 engagement points menu options

Another minor change is the number of virtual workgroups offered. MVC will offer 18 virtual workgroups in 2026; these workgroups will continue to focus on similar topics and themes, including cardiac rehabilitation, preoperative testing, post-discharge follow-up, rural health, health in action, and sepsis.

New Engagement Offering

MVC is excited to introduce one new offering in 2026: site coordinator education modules. These modules will support site coordinators via one-on-one tailored training that covers a variety of topics (Figure 3). Site coordinators can receive 0.2 engagement points per module and may participate in as few as one module or all four within the performance year. Each quarter of 2026, MVC will offer limited registration to participate in a module. Registration to begin participating in 2026 Q1 will start in December 2025. Training topics provide a review of:

  1. Overview of MVC’s mission, history, P4P program, and site coordinator role
  2. Training on MVC claims data, metrics, and reports
  3. Introduction to MVC’s value-based initiatives and the CQI model
  4. Meeting with other site coordinators to collaborate and discuss practices

Figure 3.

Site coordinator education modules

As part of the online training, site coordinators will complete a structured education plan with individualized guidance to deepen understanding of how to get the most value out of MVC’s offerings.

Earn Engagement Points by Being a Presenter

For those sites participating in the MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program, being a presenter at an MVC event is an opportunity to earn 0.5 points toward your hospital’s PY26 engagement points. By sharing successes, lessons learned, and helpful tools with members from across the state, presenters play an important role in improving outcomes for all Michigan patients. MVC’s Engagement team is here to support you every step of the way, making the experience of presenting as easy and comfortable as possible. Presentation proposals are accepted on a rolling basis through MVC's online form.

MVC offers a variety of opportunities to engage with the Coordinating Centers and other members of the collaborative to support peer learning, best practice sharing, and networking. These activities and events foster a collaborative learning environment that enables providers to learn from one another in a cooperative, non-competitive space, and is therefore core to MVC’s efforts to support sustainable, high-value healthcare delivery across the state. We look forward to engaging with you and your teams next year. Please contact the Coordinating Center with any questions [EMAIL].

22 Oct 2025
0
View Post
Hospitals Receive PY25 Mid-Year Scorecards for MVC Component of BCBSM P4P Program

Hospitals Receive PY25 Mid-Year Scorecards for MVC Component of BCBSM P4P Program

October 22, 2025 | 0 Comments | , , , , ,

Last month the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) distributed mid-year 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 current standing for PY 2025. 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 mid-year 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 scores achievement and improvement points for each hospital’s selected episode spending conditions and value metrics using index admissions from 2024 performance year data against admissions in 2022 as the baseline year. Hospitals are awarded the higher of their achievement and improvement point scores.

The performance data timeframes included in mid-year PY 2025 scoring were index events 1/1/2024 – 12/31/2024 for BCBSM PPO Commercial, BCBSM Medicare Advantage (MA), BCN HMO Commercial, BCN HMO MA, and index events from 1/1/2024 – 6/30/2024 for Medicare FFS. The engagement points accrued represent all completed activities from 1/1/2025 – 7/31/2025. All scores are subject to change in the final scorecards as the remaining 2024 performance data becomes available and additional 2025 P4P engagement activities are completed and recorded for this year.

Figure 1 illustrates the current distribution of total points out of 10 across the collaborative. The average points scored across the mid-year scorecards was 6.3 out of 10. This average is 0.3 points lower than the average points scored at the conclusion of PY 2024.

Figure 1.

dot graph

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, the average points scored for both episode spending and value metrics was 2.6 points, and 1.2 points for engagement activities.

Figure 2.

vertical bar chart of average score across hospitals for episode spending metric, value metric, engagement points

Figure 3 illustrates the breakdown of the average points by episode spending conditions. Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) was the highest scoring episode spending condition with an average of 3 points, and this was closely followed by joint replacement with 2.7 points. The lowest scoring episode spending condition was pneumonia with hospitals earning less than 2 points on average.

Figure 3.

vertical bar chart of average points by episode spending conditions

Figure 4 illustrates the breakdown of average points by value metrics. Consistent with PY 2024, the highest scoring value metric was preoperative testing with 3.9 points followed by 30-day inpatient readmissions after sepsis with 3.2 points. The lowest scoring value metric was 7-day follow up after pneumonia and follows the same trend as that of PY 2024 with 1.8 points.

Figure 4.

vertical bar chart of average points by value metrics

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.

In addition to the PY 2025 mid-year 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 5). 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). Please note that this table was included to help orient members to the scoring methodology for this new measure and does not impact PY 2025 scores. For detailed information about this measure, please refer to this introductory video and PY 2026-2027 P4P technical document.

Figure 5.

Table presents the hospital’s payer-specific risk-adjusted of 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.

These PY 2025 P4P mid-year scores are subject to change as new data is added. The final scores will be distributed after all 2024 claims are incorporated into the calculations. Hospitals can track their score via the P4P PY 2024-2025 dashboard reports on the MVC registry, which provides all relevant scoring information for both improvement and achievement points. These registry reports can be filtered by selected conditions/metrics to make tracking of P4P points easier. You can also contact the MVC Coordinating Center [EMAIL] for a walkthrough of your hospital’s PY 2025 mid-year scorecard or P4P registry reports.

14 May 2025
0
View Post
MVC 2025 Spring Collaborative-Wide Meeting Summary

MVC 2025 Spring Collaborative-Wide Meeting Summary

May 14, 2025 | 0 Comments | , , , ,

Collaboration in Action: Shaping the Future of Healthcare Across Michigan

The Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) held its spring 2025 collaborative-wide meeting on Friday, May 9, in Midland. A total of 106 attendees representing 62 hospitals, 6 physician organizations, 6 Collaborative Quality Initiatives (CQIs), and 11 healthcare systems from across the state of Michigan came together to build partnerships and collaborate on approaches to healthcare delivery that will have a long-lasting impact.

MVC Director Dr. Hari Nathan kicked off Friday’s meeting with updates on the MVC Coordinating Center [. He introduced MVC’s newest team members, senior analysts Steven Ellinger and Tanima Basu, and Program Assistant Dinah Pollard. Dr. Nathan also announced the promotion of Jana Stewart to Associate Program Manager and welcomed Dr. Jessica Golbus as the new Co-Director of the Michigan Cardiac Rehab network (MiCR). He provided an update on recruitment progress for Phase II of the RITE-Size pilot and encouraged sites interested in participating to reach out to the MVC Coordinating Center. Dr. Nathan concluded the welcome presentation by highlighting MVC reporting updates. These included new multi-payer preoperative testing dashboard reports added to MVC’s data registry in Q4 of 2024, and five hospital-level push reports with data reflecting P4P Program Year (PY) 2026-2027 selections, statewide health equity, process measures, P4P PY 2024 final scorecards, and ED-based episodes.

Managing Director Mark Bradshaw, MSc, presented a summary of PY 2024 scoring and PY 2026-2027 selections for the MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program [SEE SLIDES]. In his summary of PY 2024 scoring, Bradshaw highlighted opportunities for members to leverage MVC resources to optimize P4P scores via MVC’s engagement point menu options and highlighted some of the value metrics that have seen success after their first year of scoring.

The overview of MVC members’ P4P selections included a comparison of the value metric selections that were made for the PY 2024-2025 vs. the PY 2026-2027 program cycles (Figure 1). Bradshaw also reviewed MVC’s new health equity measure and index of disparity before closing with a reminder about upcoming dates relevant to participating P4P hospitals (Figure 2).

Figure 1. PY 26/27 Value Metric Selections

vertical bar chart: PY 26/27 Value Metric Selections

Figure 2. Upcoming P4P Dates

Upcoming P4P Dates

The meeting then featured MVC’s first Engagement Awards, presented by MVC Engagement Manager Jessica Souva, MSN, RN, C-ONQS. MVC presented the awards to members who went above and beyond in their engagement with MVC to the benefit of the entire MVC membership. Scheurer Health received the award for the most engaged peer group 5 hospital, MyMichigan Collaborative Care organization for the most engaged physician organization (PO), Chelsea Hospital for the most engaged hospital, and Corewell Health for the most engaged health system.

Souva remained at the podium for a presentation on MVC’s 2024 Quality Improvement (QI) survey, sharing details about the survey’s purpose, completion rate, results, and applications [SEE SLIDES]. The four most widely reported QI initiatives included sepsis, health outcome variation, readmissions, and emergency department care, and also aligned with the initiatives reported as highest priority for some of the largest health systems in Michigan (Figure 3). Souva provided specific examples of MVC engagement activities that were developed to specifically support the initiatives reported in the QI survey and address common barriers members reported facing. She urged MVC’s PO members to participate in the 2025 QI survey so that MVC will be better equipped to provide support for PO QI initiatives in the future.

Figure 3. Seven System-Level High Priority Quality Improvement Initiatives

Seven System-Level High Priority Quality Improvement Initiatives

Before sending meeting attendees to participate in the poster session, Souva shared the responses from the opening virtual ice-breaker question: “What keeps you motivated to continue working in healthcare?” Members credited their teams and making a difference in the lives of patients and families as their motivation to persevere during challenging times. Posters were then presented by partner CQIs such as MEDIC, MOQC, MSHIELD, and MI Mind. Electronic copies of the posters are available on the spring meeting website [LINK]. The MVC Coordinating Center would like to thank all poster presenters for sharing their work.

After the poster session, MVC Associate Program Manager Jana Stewart, MPH, provided a presentation highlighting the ways in which MVC collaboratives with other CQIs to help drive local quality improvement efforts in hospitals across Michigan. This included two case studies and unblinded data presentations for MVC’s two value-based initiatives: cardiac rehabilitation utilization and preoperative testing de-implementation. She also presented a use case for a new area MVC is exploring within its ED-based episodes of care focused on behavioral health care and outcomes, also with aggregate and hospital-level unblinded data.

Since the launch of MVC's cardiac rehabilitation initiative in 2020, the work has been incorporated into all aspects of MVC’s portfolio, from dedicated workgroup topics to reporting and related P4P metrics, and it also led to the 2022 launch of MiCR in partnership with BMC2 and the NewBeat program in partnership with HBOM. Cardiac rehabilitation enrollment for patients discharged from a “Main 5” condition (e.g., AMI, CABG, PCI, SAVR, and TAVR), has increased across the collaborative from 24% in 2020 to 34% in 2023, amounting to an estimated 145 lives saved and 243 readmissions avoided. Stewart also shared that the mean days to a patient’s first cardiac rehabilitation visit has decreased from 59 days in 2020 to 46 days in 2024.

Highlights from MVC’s preoperative testing efforts included updates on the RITE-Size pilot—a collaboration largely between MVC, MPrOVE, and MSQC—that supported three MVC member hospitals in reducing their low-value preoperative testing rates in 2024 through a variety of strategies. Stewart called out that members interested in participating in Phase II of the pilot in 2025 or 2026 will be well positioned to both reduce their testing rates significantly and also achieve the full two engagement points for 2025. She encouraged anyone interested to reach out to the MVC Coordinating Center for additional information.

Stewart concluded by sharing aggregate and unblinded data on the prevalence of behavioral health as a co-diagnosis in MVC ED-based episodes, where behavioral health ICD-10 codes such as anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and dementia appear as co-diagnoses (Figure 4) in approximately 13% of index ED events. She also shared how those behavioral health rates differ by payer as well as condition and noted that 1 in 3 of ED patients who have a resulting inpatient admission have a behavioral health code noted as a comorbidity.

Figure 4. Most Common ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes Indicated

vertical bar graph: Most Common ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes Indicated - 1. anxiety 2. major depressive disorder 3. dementia 4. bipolar disorder 5. generalized anxiety disorder

After a networking lunch, attendees spent the afternoon participating in roundtable discussions and small group activities on two to three topics [SEE ROUNDTABLE MATERIALS]. During the session, attendees could either join three roundtable discussions or join one roundtable and one small group activity on system approaches to QI. At each table attendees learned about the work of the roundtable facilitator, asked questions, and discussed similar initiatives at their own organizations. In the system activity, MVC members were asked a series of questions about measuring system-level QI, and their responses will help inform MVC’s future work to support health systems across Michigan.

The meeting closed with a reflection of the day spent together, reminders about upcoming meetings, and opportunities for best practice sharing with other MVC members.

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, contact the MVC Coordinating Center. MVC’s next collaborative-wide meeting will be in person on Fri., Oct. 10, 2025, in Livonia.

 

18 Feb 2025
0
View Post
MVC Distributes PY 2024 Final Scorecards for MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program

MVC Distributes PY 2024 Final Scorecards for MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program

February 18, 2025 | 0 Comments | , ,

The Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) Coordinating Center distributed final scorecards for Program Year (PY) 2024 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 score for PY 2024 as well as detailed breakdowns by scoring component. This was the first year of a two-year cycle for which MVC claims data was used to score hospitals on their episode spending and value metric selections. PY 2024 used baseline year claims data from 2021 and performance year data from 2023.

The episode spending conditions for which MVC is scoring hospitals for PY 2024 include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), colectomy (non-cancer), congestive heart failure (CHF), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), joint replacement (hip and knee), and pneumonia. These conditions differ slightly from the list of episode spending conditions available in the PY 2026-2027 cycle (view PY 2026-2027 FAQ). Figure 1 shows the frequency of hospital selections for the PY 2024-2025 program cycle for episode spending; the plurality of hospitals selected joint replacement, whereas pneumonia was selected the least.

Figure 1. Frequency of Hospital Selections for PY 2024-2025 Episode Spending

vertical bar graph: Frequency of Hospital Selections for PY 2024-2025 Episode Spending

The value metrics for which MVC scored hospitals for PY 2024 included cardiac rehabilitation after CABG, cardiac rehabilitation after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), follow-up after CHF, follow-up after COPD, follow-up after pneumonia, preoperative testing, and risk-adjusted readmissions after sepsis. Figure 2 shows that the plurality of hospitals selected 7-day follow up after CHF, and both 90-day cardiac rehab after CABG & 30-day inpatient readmissions after sepsis were selected the least.

Figure 2. Frequency of Hospital Selections for PY 2024-2025 Value Metrics

vertical bar graph: Frequency of Hospital Selections for PY 2024-2025 Value Metrics

The MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program evaluated each participating hospital’s risk-adjusted, price-standardized, average 30-day episode payments for their selected condition as well as rates of utilization for their selected value metric through two methods. Hospitals earned points via "improvement" by reducing their payment or improving their utilization rate from the baseline period, or alternatively earned "achievement" points by being less expensive or having a better relative utilization rate than the peers in their designated cohort. The MVC cohorts are groups of hospitals determined to be peers using factors such as hospital bed size and case mix index.

While hospitals were scored on both improvement and achievement, members received the higher of those two scores for each of their selections. Hospitals were also eligible to receive engagement points by completing eligible MVC activities. A maximum of 10 points (4 points each for the selected episode spending condition and value metric, 2 points from engagement activities) were awarded to participating members. The distribution of total points earned by hospitals for the PY 2024 is illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Distribution of Total Points Earned by Hospitals for PY 2024

vertical bar graph: Distribution of Total Points Earned by Hospitals for PY 2024

On average, hospitals earned 6.6 points in total, a decrease of 0.8 points from the PY 2023 average of 7.4 points. Figure 4 shows that the episode spending condition with the highest average awarded points was joint replacement (3.1 points) followed by CABG (2.3 points). Similarly, Figure 5 shows that the value metric with the highest average awarded points was preoperative testing (3.3 points) followed by 90-day cardiac rehabilitation after PCI (2.7 points). The breakdown of average points by each program component is illustrated in Figure 6. On average, hospitals earned 1.7 of the 2 available engagement points.

Figure 4. PY 2024 Episode Spending Average Points Awarded for Each Condition

vertical bar graph: PY 2024 Episode Spending Average Points Awarded for Each Condition

Figure 5. PY 2024 Value Metrics Average Points Awarded for Each Selection

vertical bar graph: PY 2024 Value Metrics Average Points Awarded for Each Selection

Figure 6. Average Points Earned for Each Program Component Across Hospitals

vertical bar graph: Average Points Earned for Each Program Component Across Hospitals

If you have any questions regarding PY 2024 of the MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program, please refer to the MVC P4P PY 2024-2025 Technical Document. If you would like to set up a meeting to review your hospital’s program year selections or scores, please contact the Coordination Center [EMAIL]. MVC will evaluate and release mid-year scorecards for PY 2025 in the summer of 2025.

16 Oct 2024
0
View Post
New Qualitative Analysis Offers Insights on How Hospitals Approach MVC P4P Program

New Qualitative Analysis Offers Insights on How Hospitals Approach MVC P4P Program

October 16, 2024 | 0 Comments | ,

Quality improvement is critical for ensuring that healthcare services are safe, efficient, patient-centered, and equitable. As such, payers have increased their reliance on financial incentives to encourage high performance, foster improvement, and promote accountable spending. Despite the saturation of studies assessing hospital approaches to federal incentive programs, there remains a lack of information surrounding hospitals’ strategies for episode-based reimbursement in commercial payment models.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan’s (BCBSM) Hospital Pay-for-Performance (P4P) Program rewards hospitals that excel at care quality, cost-efficiency, and population health management. In 2018, BCBSM partnered with the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) in allocating 10% of its P4P program budget to an episode of care spending metric based on MVC data.

To fill the knowledge gaps mentioned above, a qualitative analysis published earlier this year in the American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC) [LINK] took advantage of a unique opportunity to explore hospital activity and decision-making within MVC’s episode-based incentive program. The lead author of the resulting publication was MVC Senior Faculty Advisor Dr. Scott E. Regenbogen, MD, MPH, who previously served as a Co-Director of MVC. In engaging with MVC’s hospital members, the project team aimed to understand hospital approaches to commercial incentive programs, identify best practices for success, and collect information to promote the optimal design of future metrics.

In an effort to understand the variability between participating hospitals, qualitative interviews were completed with 21 leaders from 8 intentionally selected hospitals with ranging performance metrics. Between December 2020 and November 2021, administrative leaders and quality officers were interviewed using a video teleconference-based platform. Each interview followed a standardized protocol and addressed four domains: choice of clinical condition for evaluation, strategies for episode spending reduction, best practices for success in learning incentives, and barriers to achievement.

Clinical Condition Selection Approaches

When asked about approaches to selecting clinical conditions, besides programmatic constraints, the project team found that multiple factors impacted hospitals’ decisions. Throughout the selection process, many hospital leaders aimed to identify opportunities for improvement or areas of historic underperformance.

In analyzing this trend, Dr. Regenbogen commented, “We were somewhat surprised that there was less ‘playing to the test’ than expected. For the most part, hospitals were committed to success in this program and made good faith efforts to try and achieve savings through operational improvements, not just making the numbers look good.” In addition to seeking opportunities for the greatest improvement, participants selected conditions that often aligned with ongoing value-based improvement efforts, especially those related to federal value-based financial incentive programs. A final factor contributing to the selection approach for many sites was the commitment and motivation of physician leaders to contribute to quality improvement. Most site coordinators agreed that without individual and collective dedication to hospital-based initiatives, success was unlikely.

Strategies for Episode Payment Improvement 

As members of MVC, the participants in this analysis had access to comprehensive utilization data and risk-adjusted comparisons with other hospitals across the state of Michigan. When asked about methods to improve performance, site coordinators highlighted the immense benefits of MVC’s custom analytic and annual push reports, citing the utilization of administrative and clinical data to motivate and inspire improvement at their respective hospitals. In addition to using MVC data to identify areas of growth, respondents also recognized the importance of standardizing protocols and policies to promote the implementation of consistent best practices.

Best Practices for Success in the Incentive Program 

In discussing the strategic approaches of program participants, hospitals highlighted three main areas of importance regardless of their performance rank: consistent leadership focus on metrics, readmissions reduction, and controlling costs related to post-acute care.

Obstacles to Success

However, despite these similar strategic approaches, low-performing participants also noted obstacles and barriers to their success in the program. One institution noted a failure to remain focused on cost containment for a condition across the measurement period, while another expressed a disconnect between institutional achievement goals and non-employed physician incentives. In response to participants’ obstacles to engaging with physicians, co-author and MVC Senior Advisor Mike Thompson, PhD, MPH, who served as MVC’s most recent Co-Director until June 2024, noted, “Perhaps it isn’t surprising, but the challenge of engaging front-line clinicians in pay-for-performance programs is always difficult. Bridging the gap between broader administrative goals and daily clinical operations can sometimes feel like a canyon, but it is necessary for success.”

Implications for the Future

Altogether, the data collected during the qualitative arm of this analysis gleaned key quality improvement insights that MVC can utilize to inform the continued refinement and improvement of the MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program. The project team posits that, to be successful, these incentives must possess enough depth and relevance to capture the attention of hospital leadership or align closely with larger initiatives to facilitate collaboration; they must address and resolve any discrepancies between the goals of the hospital and the incentives driving credentialed physicians; and, most importantly, commercial episode-based incentives should offer the chance for success by delivering not only initial performance enhancements but also consistently maintaining excellence over time.

Moving forward, continued program evaluation will be crucial for understanding how to best design metrics in the pursuit of high-value, equitable healthcare. This area of investigation opens the door to future insights into the relationship between financial incentives and quality improvement in healthcare, holding vast potential to shape future incentive-based measures and reporting. As such, MVC is committed to understanding and improving the effectiveness of its own incentive-based measures in partnership with BCBSM.

To learn more about MVC offerings and the MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program, please visit our website or contact us at Michigan-Value-Collaborative@med.umich.edu.

04 Jun 2024
0
View Post
MVC Finalizes Summary Evaluation of PY22-23 P4P Cycle

MVC Finalizes Summary Evaluation of PY22-23 P4P Cycle

June 4, 2024 | 0 Comments | , , ,

This year, the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) completed all scoring and evaluation for Program Year 2023 of the MVC Component of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) Pay-for-Performance (P4P) Program. This concluded a two-year program cycle encompassing the program methodologies and conditions utilized in PYs 2022 and 2023. MVC is excited to share its member evaluation document for these two program years, which highlights hospital performance on average 30-day risk-adjusted, price-standardized total episode payments for the included conditions across both program years.

The PY 2022-2023 program cycle utilized episode claims from 2019 through 2022. PY 2022 scoring compared performance year data from 2021 against baseline year data from 2019. PY 2023 scoring compared performance year data from 2022 against baseline year data from 2020.

Hospitals chose two conditions from seven available options for the PY 2022-2023 program cycle, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), congestive heart failure (CHF), colectomy (non-cancer), joint replacement (hip and knee), spine surgery, and pneumonia. Among these seven P4P conditions, joint replacement was the most selected condition (40), and colectomy was selected the least (4). Trends in average price-standardized episode payments showed a consistent decrease over the years for CABG and joint replacement, and a recent downward trend for pneumonia, spine, and colectomy payments as seen in Figure 1. MVC observed relatively consistent average payments over time for CHF and COPD episodes during PY 2022-2023.

Figure 1. Average Price-Standardized Episode Payment Trends for P4P Conditions

The most striking observation in PYs 2022 and 2023 is the increasing shift to the outpatient setting for both spine and joint replacement surgeries. For joint replacement surgeries, 23.2% of episodes took place outpatient in 2019, 49.4% were outpatient in 2020, 71.6% were outpatient in 2021, and 85.4% were outpatient in 2022. Similar shifts were observed for spine surgeries during the PY 2022-2023 cycle, with the percent of outpatient spine surgery procedures increasing from 30.4% in 2019 to 51.4% in 2022 as seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Utilization of Outpatient Setting for Spine Surgery by Year

This shift in outpatient utilization also impacted the decrease in average total episode payments since the associated costs for outpatient surgeries were significantly lower than inpatient surgeries. The decrease in total episode payments for spine and joint replacement surgeries was largely reflected in the index payments for PYs 2022 and 2023 respectively (Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 3. Change in Average Price-Standardized Episode Components, PY 2022

Figure 4. Change in Average Price-Standardized Episode Components, PY 2023

Overall, there was not much change between PY 2022 and PY 2023 in the overall points earned and average points based on hospital characteristics, though the scores on average were slightly higher in PY 2022 (Figures 5 and 6).  For detailed, condition-specific analyses on scoring, please refer to the full member evaluation document.

Figure 5. PY 2022 Total Point Distribution (Includes Bonus Points)

Figure 6. PY 2023 Total Point Distribution (Includes Bonus Points)

If you have any questions regarding the MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program, please reference the P4P Technical Document for Program Years 2022 and 2023 and the MVC P4P FAQ PY 2022-2023. If you would like to set up a meeting to review your hospital’s performance, please contact the Coordinating Center at Michigan-Value-Collaborative@med.umich.edu.

 

11 Feb 2021
0
View Post
MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program: PY20 in Review

MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program: PY20 in Review

February 11, 2021 | 0 Comments | , , , ,

In early January, the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) distributed 2020 Program Year (PY) scores to hospitals for the MVC Component of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) Pay for Performance (P4P) program. This marked the completion of the first year of a two-year cycle for which hospitals have selected two service lines (out of seven) to be scored on their episode spending using MVC data. These service lines include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), colectomy, congestive heart failure (CHF), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), joint replacement, pneumonia, and spine surgery. Figure 1 shows the frequency of hospital service line selections for the two-year program cycle.

Figure 1.

The program evaluates 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 in the program is by reducing their payments from the baseline period (index admissions in 2017) to the performance period (index admissions in 2019). These are termed ‘improvement points’. Alternatively, hospitals are able to 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 service line. Hospitals are also eligible to earn a bonus point for each service line provided all hospitals in their respective cohort who selected the same condition reduce spending by five percent. A maximum of ten points can be awarded for participating members. Figure 2 shows the distribution of total points earned by hospitals for Program Year 2020.

Figure 2.

On average, hospitals earned six points, an increase of around one point from the 2019 program year average. Twenty-four hospitals received bonus points within the COPD, colectomy, joint replacement, and pneumonia service lines. Consistent with previous years, joint replacement had the average points, with pneumonia coming in a close second (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

If you have any questions regarding the MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P program, please refer to 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.