0
View Post
Study Shows Lasting Impact of a Modifier 22 Initiative on Opioid Use Among Vasectomy Patients

Study Shows Lasting Impact of a Modifier 22 Initiative on Opioid Use Among Vasectomy Patients

The opioid epidemic continues to harm individuals and communities worldwide; over-prescribing, overuse, and related overdose deaths persist in the United States and abroad. Without proper intervention, the proliferation of opioid use disorder and its negative impact on population health will continue. Healthcare professionals and stakeholders eager to stem this crisis are investing in the development and iteration of interventions that improve control of opioid distribution. As part of this effort, one team of healthcare researchers recently published a paper in Urology investigating the impact of an insurance payer’s novel opioid reduction intervention on the adoption of opioid-sparing pathways.

The authors of this publication, including lead author Dr. Catherine S. Nam, M.D., and her colleagues from Michigan Medicine, sought to compare the percentage of patients who filled peri-procedural opioid prescriptions before and after Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) launched a modifier 22 incentive for opioid-sparing vasectomies in Michigan. This program incentivized the utilization of an opioid-sparing post-operative pathway developed by the Michigan Opioid Prescribing Engagement Network (OPEN) by allowing the use of the modifier 22 reimbursement code for vasectomies performed with minimal or no post-operative opioids. Previous literature has demonstrated success in this approach for other medical procedures. The use of modifier 22 as an opioid reduction intervention was first launched by BCBSM in 2018 for select procedures and was expanded to include vasectomies in 2019. Typically, modifier 22 can be applied to select insurance claims with the primary procedure code when the work attributed to that procedure or medical intervention exceeds the typical amount of required labor. When approved, insurance companies may provide additional reimbursements of up to 35%.

The expanded eligibility for the modifier 22 into vasectomy presented substantial quality improvement potential given both how commonly this procedure is performed—approximately half a million times annually across the US—and the fact that a 2019 survey indicated more than half of urologists prescribed opioids for patients receiving a vasectomy, even though the procedure can be completed without them. For a vasectomy procedure to qualify for the modifier 22 program, a surgeon must intend to follow an opioid-free peri-procedural course as well as provide additional counseling to patients about post-procedural pain expectations, proper opioid disposal, and non-opioid pain management strategies.

Given the novel quality incentive for opioid-sparing pathway application to vasectomy with implications for payers, providers, patients, and policymakers, Dr. Nam and her colleagues were interested in evaluating the impact this policy change had within the state of Michigan.

To perform this analysis, Dr. Nam and colleagues leveraged Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) administration claims data from beneficiaries in BCBSM’s preferred provider organization (PPO) plan. The data provided by MVC included men ages 20 to 64 who participated in urologic procedures between Feb. 1, 2018, and Nov. 16, 2020.

Between these dates, Dr. Nam and colleagues identified 4,559 men who underwent office-based vasectomies and 4,679 men in the control group, which consisted of men who underwent cystourethroscopies, prostate biopsies, circumcision, and transurethral destruction of prostate tissue. These procedures are all office-based and not eligible for opioid-sparing modifier 22, thus providing a point of comparison.

The results of the analysis demonstrated a strong association between the implementation of modifier 22 for vasectomies and filled opioid prescriptions. Before July 1, 2019—prior to the implementation of the expanded modifier 22 policy—32.5% of men filled an opioid prescription after receiving a vasectomy, whereas after implementation only 12.6% of men filled an opioid prescription post-procedure (see Figure 1). As highlighted in the figure below, Dr. Nam and colleagues found a 19.9% absolute reduction and 61% relative reduction in the percentage of vasectomy patients who filled peri-procedural opioid prescriptions.

Figure 1. Percent of Patients Filling Opioid Prescriptions Before and After Implementation of Modifier 22

Among the vasectomy patients in the analysis, for every three opioid prescriptions filled before the implementation of modifier 22, only one was filled after the initiative was implemented. They did not find a significant decrease in the percentage of patients who filled peri-procedural opioid prescriptions in the control group.

In addition to the decreased frequency of men filling peri-procedural opioid prescriptions for vasectomies, Dr. Nam and colleagues also found a significant decrease in the prescribed amount. After the implementation of modifier 22 for vasectomies, the oral morphine equivalents (OME) of peri-procedural opioid prescriptions fills dropped from 89.7 OME per prescription to 27.1 OME per prescription. Dr. Nam and colleagues estimated that this decrease in prescription size led to the distribution of approximately 8,473 fewer oxycodone 5mg pills in Michigan.

When asked about the significance of these findings, Dr. Nam explained, “This estimate helped us grasp the impact of the Modifier 22 policy change for patients as well as the community. If this was the impact in a bit over a year for a single procedure in one state, how large could this impact be annually? What could the impact be when quality incentive is expanded to additional procedures? What if the quality incentive could be expanded to other states?”

These findings suggest that the modifier 22 incentive does decrease the percentage of patients who fill peri-procedural prescriptions after a vasectomy and its implementation correlates with a reduction in the number of opioids circulating within the community. In addition to reducing the unnecessary presence of opioids in communities, this initiative also emphasizes a shift to refocus healthcare interactions on the patient. The required additional education about pain management and proper use of pain management medications implemented as part of the modifier 22 initiative provides patients with a better understanding of their care and encourages physicians to consistently deliver high-value care.

Despite the significant findings of this study, a question remained. If these practice changes were initiated by incentivized modifier 22 interventions, what would happen if BCBSM terminated the incentive? Since the publication of Dr. Nam and colleagues’ original study, BCBSM terminated the financial incentive using modifier 22 for opioid-sparing vasectomies on Dec. 31, 2021. This termination provided the group with an opportunity to observe the long-term impact modifier 22 had on physician prescribing patterns and patient opioid use after the incentive was no longer in place.

Dr. Nam and colleagues performed another interrupted time series analysis before and after the termination of modifier 22 using the same vasectomy and control groups. After analyzing the data provided by MVC, they observed no significant changes in the opioid fill rate compared to the rate observed when the modifier 22 program was in effect. This was true for both the vasectomy group and the control group (see Figure 2). The persistence of reduced opioid prescription sizes was also observed following termination of modifier 22. Prior to incentive termination, the mean opioid prescription amount was 59 OME, and after termination the mean further reduced to 36 OME.

Figure 2. Percent of Patients Filling Opioid Prescriptions Before and After Termination of Modifier 22

These critical findings demonstrate that physician opioid prescribing behavior remained constant after the removal of financial incentives. More research still needs to be done on the long-term impact of programs such as modifier 22; however, Dr. Nam and colleagues suggest that other payers could implement incentive programs like BCBSM’s modifier 22 initiative in order to spur similar changes in prescribing patterns and are hopeful that short-term financial incentives are part of the solution to creating lasting practice changes.

“This is the first example of a novel quality incentive targeting physicians to provide high-value care by incentivizing opioid-sparing pain pathway,” she said. “However, this incentive can be adapted to incentivize other high-value care – could we recognize physicians that are providing guideline-based care? How about ensuring that appropriate lab and imaging tests are ordered for patients as part of their care plan? And if so, could it be possible for there to be an investment made from the insurance companies to champion high-value care for a short period of time to have lasting effects?”

MVC is committed to using data to improve the health of Michigan through sustainable, high-value healthcare. Therefore, one of MVC’s core strategic priorities is intentional partnerships with fellow Collaborative Quality Initiatives (CQIs) and quality improvement collaborators. In partnering with clinical, administrative, and CQI experts to leverage MVC data for analyses, MVC aims to identify best practices and innovative interventions that help all members improve the quality and cost of care.

Publication Authors

Catherine S. Nam, MD; Yen-Ling Lai, MSPH, MS; Hsou Mei Hu, PhD, MBA, MHS; Arvin K. George, MD; Susan Linsell, MHSA; Stephanie Ferrante; Chad M. Brummett, MD; Jennifer F. Waljee, MD; James M. Dupree, MD, MPH

Full Citation

Nam, C. S., Lai, Y.-L., Hu, H. M., George, A. K., Linsell, S., Ferrante, S., Brummett, C. M., Waljee, J. F., & Dupree, J. M. (2022). Less is more: Fulfillment of opioid prescriptions before and after implementation of a modifier 22 based quality incentive for opioid-free vasectomies. Urology, 171, 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.09.023.

0
View Post
BCBSM Initiative Incentivizes Data Collection on Social Factors

BCBSM Initiative Incentivizes Data Collection on Social Factors

Health equity is a top priority for providers across the country, who are keenly aware of the prevalence and exacerbation of existing health inequities. The state of Michigan in particular ranks poorly in measures of population health and social determinants of health (SDOH), which represent a huge opportunity to improve equity and health outcomes for patients. Health equity is currently a key strategic focus of the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) Coordinating Center in the years ahead, as well as for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM). As work in this area grows, some suggest that better data collection is the next critical step to improving health equity.

Data collection is the focus of BCBSM’s latest initiative - the SDOH Standardized Data Collection and Aggregation Initiative - which offers incentives to physician organizations (POs) for collecting and submitting SDOH screening data. Its goal is to increase SDOH screening by primary care physicians during annual wellness visits as well as enhance SDOH data submitted to the Michigan Health Information Network (MiHIN), Michigan's nonprofit statewide health information network.

This data will be used in the short term to improve data conformance and SDOH definitions within the Michigan provider community. Ideally, this initiative will help BCBSM to improve care coordination between providers, identify gaps in resources and community-level social need trends, and provide analytics and reporting to the provider community. The long-term goal is to reduce disparities and improve health outcomes.

There are multiple pathways for POs to participate, primarily by either submitting screening data through MiHIN’s SDOH use case, or by developing infrastructure to enable participation in MiHIN’s SDOH use case. BCBSM sees this incentive program as an important step toward ensuring all patients receive the care they need.

“The SDOH initiative is valuable for both patients and providers because it encourages providers to screen for SDOH needs in patients and also encourages that the data from these screenings is exchanged in an interoperable way,” said Karolina Skrzypek, MD, Medical Director of Clinical Partnerships at BCBSM. “It is very important that providers across the state of Michigan have the ability to access SDOH screening data regardless of where the screening took place. Screening for SDOH needs by providers is the first step in helping to address these needs in our patients.”

These points were echoed by Martha M. Walsh, MD, MHSA, FACOG, Medical Director of Clinical Partnerships and Engagement at BCBSM, who said, “We know that when patients have SDOH needs, that it is more difficult for them to have their healthcare needs met and for patients to care for their chronic conditions. Our initial goal in having providers screen for SDOH needs is for patients to have their needs addressed at the point of care.”

Some POs are already actively submitting this data to MiHIN and can receive incentive payments for continuing to do so. The other pathways are focused on those who have capacity to store and extract SDOH data but are not submitting it to MiHIN, or those POs who don’t yet have the digital infrastructure in place. Helping all POs to achieve a similar capacity and submit their data to the same vendor will allow for a broader understanding of the gaps and communities in need of further funding.

“By aggregating this data, we hope to learn more about specific domains of need and geographic areas with the most needs so that we can start to address these more broadly,” said Dr. Walsh. “We hope that by screening for and addressing SDOH needs, we will start to be able to decrease disparities in care for our most vulnerable patients.”

Incentives for the MiHIN SDOH use case pathways are paid out of the BCBSM Physician Group Incentive Program (PGIP) reward pool. Therefore, any deadlines related to participation are based on PGIP payment cycles. Those POs wishing to participate in the October 2022 cycle should submit their opt-in form and any other required materials by the end of August.

A separate value-based reimbursement (VBR) reward was created specifically for patient-centered medical home (PCMH) designated primary care physicians for completing SDOH screenings using Z codes. This VBR payment was available when the SDOH initiative launched in January. Provider offices had six months to work towards meeting the criteria to receive VBR effective 9/1/2022. Criteria for the 2023 cycle was previously announced and updates to the criteria will be provided during the upcoming BCBSM September PGIP quarterly meeting.

Any POs or providers interested in learning more about this initiative and the pathways for participating can read the full brochure here and submit questions directly to BCBSM at POPrograms@bcbsm.com. In addition, if your PO or hospital has success stories or insights that have resulted from collecting SDOH screening data, please consider sharing your story and insights with the MVC Coordinating Center at michiganvaluecollaborative@gmail.com.

Support for MVC is provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan as part of the BCBSM Value Partnerships program. Although BCBSM and MVC work collaboratively, the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of BCBSM or any of its employees. To learn more about the Value Partnerships program, visit www.valuepartnerships.com.

0

Michigan Value Collaborative Value Coalition Campaign. Introducing the Preoperative Testing VCC and Report Series.

In 2020, the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) introduced the Preoperative Testing Value Coalition Campaign (VCC) with the aim of reducing the use of unnecessary preoperative testing for surgical procedures.  As part of this new campaign to improve quality, reduce cost, and improve the equity of care delivery in Michigan, the Coordinating Center developed and distributed preoperative testing reports to collaborative members earlier this week. The goal of these reports is to introduce the VCC and provide benchmarking data for some of the common preoperative tests to members.

Currently, the VCC is focused on three elective, outpatient, low-risk surgeries. This includes cholecystectomy, lumpectomy, and inguinal hernia repair. These surgeries were chosen to identify a population unlikely to require much, if any preoperative testing. Metrics included in the reports evaluate hospital testing rates for electrocardiography (EKG), trans-thoracic echocardiography (TTE), cardiac stress tests, chest X-ray (CXR), urinalysis, complete blood count (CBC), basic metabolic panel, coagulation tests, and pulmonary function tests (PFT).  As shown in Figure 1, there is wide variation across the collaborative for overall preoperative testing rates, ranging from 20% to 96%.

Whilst the report provides the MVC all and regional averages as benchmarks, the variation suggests that there is significant room for improvement among Michigan hospitals, and even facilities that are average likely have the possibility to reduce preoperative testing. Furthermore, to allow hospitals to identify areas of opportunity, a more granular grouping of laboratory testing including CBC, basic metabolic panel, coagulation tests, and urinalysis for the three low-risk surgeries is depicted in Figure 2.  To allow hospitals and physician organizations to view more comprehensive preoperative testing data, the MVC Coordinating Center is in the preliminary stages of developing a new preoperative testing report for the MVC registry.

Although many preoperative tests are relatively low cost, large-scale overuse when not necessary can increase episode costs. For these three low-risk procedures, an annual preoperative testing payment of $3.2 million dollars was noted in 2019 across MVC hospitals and according to MVC data, annual preoperative testing payments for these conditions has increased steadily over the last 5 years. In addition, overuse of preoperative testing has the potential to harm patients. Patients with borderline or false positive tests may be subjected to additional testing, have their surgeries postponed, or even experience unnecessary harm from invasive follow up tests.  Questions about appropriate preoperative testing  guidelines can be answered at the Choosing Wisely website.

Please provide us with your feedback on the utilization of these or any other MVC reports, or if you would be interested in joining the MVC Preoperative Testing Stakeholder Group, please reach out to MichiganValueCollaborative@gmail.com.

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

MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program: PY20 in Review

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.