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

April Workgroup Features Preoperative Testing Multipayer Report Registry Demonstration

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

Preoperative Testing Workgroup – MVC Coordinating Center

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

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

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

MVC’s preoperative testing measure definition includes the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0
View Post
CQI Spotlight: Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium

CQI Spotlight: Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium

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

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

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

Services and Benefits for MOQC Members

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

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

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

group photo

Figure 2. POQC Member Quote

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

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

MOQC’s Key Initiatives and Achievements

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

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

Figure 3. MOQC Hospice Conversation Guide for Physicians

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 4. MOQC Excellence in Quality Certification Criteria

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

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

Looking Ahead: Continuing to Drive Whole Team Collaboration

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

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

 

0
View Post
MVC and MSSIC Impact Assessment Quantifies $73M in Cost Savings from Reduced Surgical Complications

MVC and MSSIC Impact Assessment Quantifies $73M in Cost Savings from Reduced Surgical Complications

Over the past several years, the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) has partnered with clinical quality collaboratives across the state to better understand how improvements in care delivery translate into value—for patients, providers, and payers alike. By pairing robust clinical data with claims-based cost and utilization data, these partnerships allow us to move beyond reporting improvement to quantifying its real-world impact.

The MVC Coordinating Center is excited to announce the completion of two new impact and value assessments conducted in partnership with the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC). These analyses examined statewide improvements in postoperative urinary retention (POUR) complications and surgical site infections (SSI) following spine surgery.

Although focused on different complications, both assessments followed a shared framework: pairing MSSIC’s clinically abstracted registry data with MVC’s claims-based episode data to quantify the impact of declining complication rates on episode-level spending and utilization.

Background and Approach

MSSIC has led statewide efforts to reduce preventable surgical complications following spine surgery through surgeon engagement, performance feedback, alignment of incentive-based measures, and implementation of evidence-informed practice changes. Over time, MSSIC-participating hospitals demonstrated measurable declines in both urinary retention and surgical site infections.

To assess the value implications of these improvements, MSSIC provided MVC with a dataset of lumbar and cervical spine patients that included the presence or absence of complications as abstracted from medical records. Spine patients were matched to MVC’s analytic tables and spine cohort for Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS), Medicaid, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) Commercial, BCBSM Medicare Advantage (MA), Blue Care Network (BCN) Commercial, and BCN MA claims. MVC then evaluated the matched population for readmission status and price-standardized facility payments associated with POUR and SSI. MVC and MSSIC used the rates of adverse events pre- and post-QI to estimate the number of events averted. MVC payment data was then used to calculate cost savings from averted events.

Postoperative Urinary Retention (POUR)

While postoperative urinary retention may not always be perceived as a high-cost complication, the analysis demonstrated that it is associated with meaningful differences in episode spending and utilization. Episodes involving POUR were linked to higher total payments and greater downstream healthcare use compared to episodes without urinary retention.

The analysis conducted revealed that there were statistically significant reductions in the rates of POUR and readmissions between 2016-2024 from which to estimate cost savings. Specific to POUR, MVC and MSSIC estimated there were 5,197 POUR events averted. Using the MVC-based estimate of 21.7% of POUR events also involving readmission, MVC and MSSIC estimated there were 1,128 readmissions averted.

To estimate cost savings from averted POUR events, MVC completed a comparative analysis of diagnosis-related group (DRG) and post-discharge payments among lumbar and cervical spine patients with no POUR compared to those with POUR events. The results of the analysis of higher inpatient DRG payments (Figure 1) show that the weighted average DRG payments for patients without POUR were $25,743.40; the weighted average payments for those with POUR was $27,603.20, a difference of $1,859.80 per patient. Looking at post-discharge payments (Figure 2), MVC found that the average payment for a patient without POUR was $1,691. The weighted average payment for those with POUR (21.7% with readmission and 78.3% without readmission) was $12,684.65, a difference of $10,993.65 between patients with and without POUR.

Figure 1. Calculation of Additional Inpatient Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) Payments Based on Complications and Comorbidities (CC) by POUR Status

Table outlining the differences in inpatient average episode payments for patient with and without urinary incontinence complications

Figure 2. Calculation of Post-Discharge Price-Standardized Payments Associated with POUR

Table outlining differences in outpatient costs between patients with and without urinary incontinence

This amounted to an estimated total direct cost savings to payors of $66,799,380 from POUR rate reductions. On this finding, Senior MSSIC QI Lead Kari Jarabek, BSN, RN, said, “The analyses here show how decreasing rates of what some may consider to be a ‘minor complication’ of surgery can have profound consequences in terms of cost savings for patients, employers, and other payers.”

View the complete summary of the December 2025 MSSIC urinary retention assessment on MVC’s CQI collaboration page [LINK].

Surgical Site Infections (SSI)

The association between surgical site infections and higher costs is well established, and the MVC–MSSIC assessment reinforces this relationship within Michigan hospitals. Episodes complicated by SSI were associated with significantly higher total episode payments and increased post-discharge utilization.

The analysis revealed statistically significant reductions in the rates of SSI and readmissions from the 2019 baseline year to the 2020-2024 post-intervention period. MVC and MSSIC estimated 301 SSI events were averted. Using the MVC-based estimate of 62.6% of SSI events also involving readmission, MVC and MSSIC estimated that 188 readmissions were averted.

To estimate cost savings from averted SSI events, MVC completed a comparative analysis of diagnosis-related group (DRG) and post-discharge payments among patients with no SSI compared to those with SSI events. The results of the analysis of higher inpatient DRG payments (Figure 3) showed that weighted average DRG payments for patients without SSI were $25,823; the weighted average payments for those with SSI was $26,483, a difference of $660 per patient. Looking at post-discharge payments (Figure 4), MVC found that the average payment for a patient without SSI was $1,801. The weighted average payment for those with SSI (62.6% with readmission and 37.4% without readmission) was $23,274, a difference of $21,473 between patients with SSI and those without. This amounted to an estimated total direct cost savings to payors of $6,662,033 from SSI rate reductions.

Figure 3. Calculation of Additional Inpatient Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) Payments Based on Complications and Comorbidities (CC) by SSI Status

Table outlining differences in inpatient episode costs for patients with and without SSI

Figure 4. Calculation of Post-Discharge Outpatient Payments Associated with SSI

Table outlining the differences in post-discharge payments for patients with and without SSI.

View the complete summary of the December 2025 MSSIC SSI assessment on MVC’s CQI collaboration page [LINK].

Advancing Value Through Collaboration

Taken together, these two assessments demonstrated that MSSIC efforts delivered significant net savings for its BCBSM sponsor and healthcare providers in Michigan, and that targeted practice changes—such as early ambulation and updates to existing protocols to reflect best practices—not only improved patient recovery but also contributed to improved value at the episode level.

These two assessments also demonstrated a consistent pattern: fewer complications were associated with lower episode spending and reduced downstream utilization. By linking clinical registry data with claims-based cost analysis, MVC and MSSIC were able to move beyond reporting improvements in complications to quantifying its broader impact.

As MVC continues its partnerships with the BCBSM Value Partnership CQIs, this work provides a replicable model for understanding how collaborative clinical improvement translates into measurable value for patients and the healthcare system.

0
View Post
CQI Spotlight: Obstetrics Initiative

CQI Spotlight: Obstetrics Initiative

In 2018, Michigan was facing a concerning reality: nearly one in three births in the state occurred by cesarean delivery, a rate that exceeded the national average and signaled opportunities to improve the safety, experience, and value of childbirth care. Behind every data point were real families navigating some of the most important moments of their lives and clinicians striving to deliver the best possible care within a complex maternity landscape. The need for change was personal, urgent, and increasingly difficult to ignore.

As such, patients, clinicians, and employers began voicing concerns about rising cesarean rates affecting patients’ recoveries, long-term health, and trust in the healthcare system. Recognizing the scope of the problem and the opportunity to address it, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) turned to clinician leaders at University of Michigan to help design a statewide response, which leveraged Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) claims data on childbirth episodes. In 2018, this collaboration laid the groundwork for what would become a dedicated effort to transform maternity care in Michigan.

Formally launched in 2019, the Obstetrics Initiative (OBI) emerged as one of BCBSM’s 21 Collaborative Quality Initiatives (CQIs). At that time more than 70 hospitals joined together under OBI’s vision to support safer deliveries, reduce unnecessary cesarean deliveries, use resources more wisely, and improve the overall culture of care. Today, OBI continues to build on that foundation by ensuring that every birth in Michigan is supported by the best evidence, the best practices, and a shared commitment to healthier beginnings.

Services and Benefits for OBI Members

To support its members in successfully implementing quality improvement (QI) initiatives, OBI supports its members using four primary offerings (Figure 1). One of those offerings is OBI’s robust, real-time benchmarking data that enables actionable insights. OBI’s registry is a best-in-class source of clinically credible data and compelling data stories that inspire change. A second core offering is direct support and expertise on specific QI interventions, including the development of best practice protocols and resources that advance evidence-based care. A third core offering is the transformational learning that occurs at OBI’s collaborative-wide meetings and other activities that are key to networking, partnership building, and collective learning across maternity units in Michigan. Finally, a fourth core offering is the intentional collection and incorporation of patient stories and experiences in all ongoing activities.

Figure 1: OBI Member Service Offerings

OBI service offerings: data and analytics, learning, QI evaluation, collaboration with patients

OBI Program Director Michelle Moniz, MD, MSc, recognizes how OBI’s tailored approach to QI support helps sites achieve a shared purpose of high-quality perinatal care that improves the lives of current and future generations. In her words:

“Every large-scale QI initiative faces a vexing unsolved problem: how best to support hospitals and clinicians who aren’t responding. Our routine QI support approaches—group meetings, webinars, online toolkits, performance incentives—can fall short for sub-optimally responding sites/clinicians, and leave patients vulnerable to low-quality, low-value healthcare. OBI imagines a future where CQIs deliver the right support, to the right hospital/clinician, at the right time, to achieve highest-quality care across all CQI members. This vision—which we call Precision QI—leverages scarce resources most efficiently to achieve evidence-based healthcare at scale for all patients.” 

OBI’s "precision QI” offers personalized QI support for each hospital. Just as precision medicine accounts for individual patient differences in developing a treatment plan, OBI’s precision QI support model (Figure 2) is adaptive, diagnosing and responding to the unique needs of each OBI member and may include:

  • Performance Measurement: Offering observed, risk-adjusted, and peer-comparative data
  • Performance Feedback: Incorporating individualized goal setting and data for hospitals and individual providers
  • Outreach: Offering augmented support when performance deteriorates or is stably poor
  • Engagement: Offering a suite of resources for key target audiences, including hospital leadership, QI leader, bedside clinicians, and patients

Figure 2. Mechanisms for OBI’s Precision QI Support Model

performance measurement, performance feedback, outreach, engagement

OBI’s Key Initiatives and Achievements

OBI is now a unique asset for quality improvement in Michigan and beyond. Having built a vibrant community of multidisciplinary teams at currently 65+ hospitals across Michigan, OBI generates the evidence base needed for more effective, transformational quality improvement in obstetrics.

Putting that framework into action, OBI achieved noteworthy successes over the years. Since OBI’s inception, their flagship initiative, Safely Averting Cesarean Births, has focused on safely lowering the primary cesarean rate in Michigan. In 2023, OBI launched Patient Voices, a statewide survey to assess childbirth experiences and patient-reported outcomes related to birth. OBI then launched another statewide initiative, Bringing Our Patients COMFORT, in 2024, to promote best practices for managing pain after childbirth.

To reduce first-birth term cesareans – also known as nulliparous term singleton vertex (NTSV) cesareans, OBI’s Safely Averting NTSV Cesarian Births initiative successfully reduced the statewide cesarean rate from a historic high of 28.9% in 2023 to 26.9% as of September 2025. This improvement reflects years of effort to increase compliance with national diagnostic criteria for labor arrest disorders (which increased from 37.9% in 2020 to 77.1% in 2025). Increased compliance was aided using an algorithm to guide fetal management in labor, resulting in significant improvement from 47.3% compliance in 2022 to 93.2% in 2025.

Pain management is another area where OBI has made meaningful progress. Successful promotion of the use of scheduled nonopioid prescribing after cesarean births through OBI’s Bringing Our Patients COMFORT quality initiative boosted a compliance rate of 86.1% in 2024 to 96.8% compliance in 2025. Analyses are ongoing to evaluate corresponding reductions in opioid prescribing rates and amounts.

OBI’s third quality initiative Better Births for All aims to ensure that every OBI member has the tools and support to consistently implement evidence-based obstetric practices while fostering psychological safety and respectful, person-centered care for all during labor and birth. The path to accomplish that is threefold. First, OBI partners with a Patient and Community Action Board (PCAB) to center patient and community experiences in its QI initiatives. The OBI PCAB reviews patient-facing materials and has decision-making power over OBI’s selection of QI initiatives and operationalization of initiative measures in OBI’s incentive packages. OBI further centers patients’ perspectives in its work by measuring and improving collection of patient-reported outcomes and experience data to ensure that patients’ voices are embedded in daily QI work. OBI also educates and trains clinicians on patient-centered approaches and practices they can bring to their own daily work.

"Relationships are at the heart of what we do. We have a shared belief that our goals will be better met when we advance toward them together." Helen Costis, MSHA, Program Manager, OBI

What’s Next for OBI?

In 2026, OBI will launch a new Induction of Labor initiative to promote evidence-based management of induction of labor (IOL), the procedure to start labor before it begins on its own. This procedure occurs in more than 30% of all births, and yet the use of evidence-based techniques occurs in less than 10% of all inductions with wide variation across sites in Michigan (Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 3. Pathways for Evidence-Based Induction of Labor

Induction of labor pathways: Dual-Agent Ripening; Early Amniotomy
Rate of use graph of evidence-based induction of labor techniques. Patients who get both recommended techniques is 7.1%.

OBI is incredibly proud to be a part of the 25+ year history of the Value Partnership portfolio in Michigan, including its long-standing partnership with MVC. OBI and MVC are currently collaborating on several analyses to drive quality improvement, such as evaluating statewide variation in complications and expenditures for different patient groups and modes of delivery, improving the timeliness and quality of prenatal care, evaluating the association between social vulnerability and surgical management of early pregnancy loss. MVC is also working with OBI to estimate the impact and associated cost savings of OBI’s efforts to safely reduce cesarean birth rates in Michigan as well as the impact of OBI’s opioid management work on prescribing rates and costs in Michigan.

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

0
View Post
December Workgroups Highlight RITE-Size Preoperative Testing and MVC Year End Reflections and Goals

December Workgroups Highlight RITE-Size Preoperative Testing and MVC Year End Reflections and Goals

In December, Michigan Value Collaborative’s (MVC) preoperative testing workgroup featured a co-presentation by Kelly Lewton, RN, BSN, Performance Improvement Coordinator for Lake Huron Medical Center, and Nicole Mott, MD, MSCR, a National Clinician Scholar at the University of Michigan supported by the Veterans Administration and a general surgery resident at the University of Colorado. The presentation focused on the Right-Sizing Testing Before Elective Surgery (RITE-Size) trial; Dr. Mott was the lead author on a recently published paper in JAMA Network Open that described the components and impact of the trial, and Lewton shared her first-hand experience as the lead during Lake Huron Medical Center’s participation in the trial. RITE-Size works with hospitals to identify and right-size testing before elective surgery procedures. The second workgroup, health in action, featured MVC Site Engagement Coordinator Emily Bair, MS, MPH, RDN, CSP, and the Engagement team and focused on a year in review of quality initiatives across MVC members. The MVC Coordinating Center hosts one to two workgroup presentations per month covering a variety of topics including post-discharge follow-up, sepsis, cardiac rehabilitation, rural health, preoperative testing, and health in action.

Preoperative Testing Workgroup - RITE-Size & Lake Huron Medical Center

The RITE-Size trial is a partnership among quality improvement teams in Michigan including the Michigan Program on Value Enhancement (MPrOVE), the MVC Coordinating Center, the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC), and the Anesthesiology Performance Improvement and Reporting Exchange (ASPIRE). Dr. Mott shared that the goal for RITE-Size participants is to lower unnecessary preoperative testing before elective outpatient cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair, and lumpectomy. Routine preoperative testing before these low-risk surgeries has shown no clinical benefit to the patient but has led to multiple downstream consequences such as increased spending, care cascades, and treatment delays (Dossett & Wilkinson, 2022).

Dr. Mott described that RITE-Size launched a pilot feasibility study in March 2024 at three hospitals in Michigan. The study aimed to meet criteria in several areas such as feasibility (implementation in the appropriate amount of time), testing rates (reduction), and acceptability and appropriateness (results from interviews). By August 2024, the desired milestones had been achieved, showing a 68% reduction in unnecessary testing at all participating sites (Figure 1).

Figure 1. MVC RITE-Size Pilot Program Testing Rates Over Time Across All Three Sites from March-April 2024 to July-August 2024

line graph depicting reduction in unnecessary preoperative testing at three pilot sites

Some barriers that impacted the study included lack of clarity about guidelines, a need for ongoing education due to the automated nature of testing processes, and coordination across a large healthcare system and/or within the limitations of institutional rules. Elements that led to success included strong leadership through key collaborators, incorporation of the initiative into policy, self-monitoring throughout, and team cohesiveness and communication. The pilot's success allowed RITE-Size to expand to other sites across Michigan.

Lewton from Lake Huron Medical Center (LHMC) followed the RITE-size presentation sharing first-hand experience of participating with the initiative in 2025. She described the site onboarding process, which included a RITE-Size site visit in July 2025 where her team worked with Dana Greene, Jr., Project Manager at MPrOVE, to discuss LHMC interventions and progress over the duration of the program and to schedule ongoing coaching sessions (Figure 2).  After investigating preoperative testing rates, LHMC found that their biggest outlier was electrocardiograms (EKGs) ordered by a particular surgeon.

After the site visit, the lead anesthesiologist met with the surgeon, and they discovered he had been given outdated testing guidelines when he onboarded. With this discovery, their team was able to review their testing guidelines and begin the process of updating and educating team members. By November 2025, LHMC saw a notable decrease in preoperative testing for low-risk surgeries and began development for an updated version of their pre-admission testing (PAT) guidelines.

Figure 2. LHMC Timeline of RITE-Size Pilot Work

Lake Huron Medical Center timeline of RITE-Size pilot work

Lewton rounded out the presentation sharing that the RITE-Size project helped LHMC to update their care guidelines, improve patient care, and reduce unnecessary testing. RITE-Size also provided many resources for staff to help with new process implementation and coached staff to use evidence-based research to guide everyday practice.

MVC Preoperative Testing Workgroup: Dec. 2, 2025

Health in Action Workgroup - MVC Coordinating Center

This month’s health in action workgroup was led by MVC Site Engagement Coordinator Emily Bair, MS, MPH, RDN, CSP, with support from other staff at the MVC Coordinating Center. The workgroup encapsulated a year in review for member QI work in 2025 as well as a look ahead at 2026.

Bair shared result highlights from the MVC QI survey that many MVC members completed in June 2025, noting several common QI efforts across the state (Figure 3). The top areas of focus were sepsis, readmissions, transitions of care, population health management, and emergency department care. Of the 88 survey responses, there were a total of 65 hospitals, 8 physician organizations, and 15 hospital systems represented.

Figure 3. Statewide QI Initiatives in 2025

Statewide QI Initiatives in 2025 depicting sepsis, readmissions, transitions of care, population health management, and emergency department care

Some of the common barriers identified by member sites in the survey included insufficient resources and funds, staff burnout, high turnover, and staff shortages.

The MVC QI survey also sought to consider the needs of its members and asked participants to provide suggestions for how MVC can best support them in the upcoming year (Figure 4). The top requests included data and report-specific training, recordings and summaries of workgroups for those unable to attend events, user-friendly reports, smaller and more frequent breakout sessions during virtual events, and data and QI topics that are helpful for all types of hospital sites.

Figure 4. MVC Member Suggestions for Future Offerings

Graphic Summary of MVC Member Suggestions for Future Offerings

Bair reminded participants that MVC uploads virtual workgroup recordings to MVC’s YouTube channel and shares the link with members in a post-workgroup summary email along with slides and resources from presentations. To support members in accessing additional training opportunities, MVC has launched its new new site coordinator education program in January 2026. The four-module training is designed to provide a more individualized approach to building knowledge as an MVC site coordinator. The MVC QI survey was also a helpful resource for presenter recruitment, developing 2025 workgroup content, and planning 2026 offerings.

Following the 2025 review, participants engaged in an interactive polling activity about QI progress from the past year (Figure 5), areas of focus, and their key accomplishments. Some of the successes shared included improving compliance with the sepsis bundle, maintaining a low readmission rate, increased senior/executive leadership engagement, and a department-led change to improve utilization.

Figure 5. MVC Participants QI Progress Word Cloud

MVC Participants QI Progress Word Cloud

Workgroup participants were asked to share some of their QI priorities for 2026, including ways that their sites are trying to align with other services or programs and how MVC can best support them. Several shared they will focus on the following priorities in 2026:

  1. Sepsis compliance improvement
  2. Streamlining order sets to reduce sepsis fallouts
  3. Reducing readmissions
  4. Building connections with primary care clinics
  5. Reducing length of stay
  6. Reducing unnecessary preoperative testing by participating in the RITE-Size trial
  7. Reducing hospital acquired infections
  8. Interviewing readmissions patients

Participants also shared different ways they are working to align with Collaborative Quality Initiatives (CQI) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) measures. Several sites noted that they are shifting to align their sepsis metrics with the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS) sepsis initiative and the CMS Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements.

Members expressed interest in learning more about local quality leaders, developing effective committee structures within their sites, and acquiring new resources that might be available. Additionally, there was great interest in MVC’s new site coordinator education program that kicked off this January with modules that support site coordinators via one-on-one tailored training. Registration for the education program is closed for Q1 – Q2, and a waitlist has been started for Q3 – Q4. If you are a site coordinator interested in participating, you can submit an interest form. [LINK]

MVC welcomes workgroup presenters from across Michigan to share their expertise, success stories, initiatives, and solution-focused ideas with MVC members. Please reach out to us by email or by submitting a presentation proposal here if you are interested in sharing your work in a presentation.

MVC Health in Action Workgroup: Dec. 18, 2025

0
View Post
August Workgroups Highlight Preop Testing and Three-Pronged Behavioral Health Initiative

August Workgroups Highlight Preop Testing and Three-Pronged Behavioral Health Initiative

In August, MVC hosted two virtual workgroup presentations – a preoperative testing workgroup focused on planning and evaluation of an initiative to reduce unnecessary preoperative testing, and a health in action workgroup on the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) behavioral health initiative. The MVC Coordinating Center hosts workgroup presentations twice per month on a variety of topics including post-discharge follow-up, sepsis, cardiac rehabilitation, rural health, preoperative testing, and health in action. 

Preoperative Testing Workgroup - Holland Hospital

On Aug. 12, MVC hosted a preoperative testing workgroup with a presentation by Amy Poindexter, BSN, RN, from Holland Hospital. Poindexter is the Performance Improvement Analyst in Holland Hospital’s quality department and played an integral role in their quality initiatives over the past 16 years. Her work includes data abstraction for Core Measures, Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS), Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC), and the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) Anesthesiology Performance Improvement and Reporting Exchange (ASPIRE) registry. 

Holland Hospital’s quality initiative focused on reducing unnecessary, routine preoperative testing within 30 days of low-risk elective surgeries. Conditions included in the project were elective hernia, lap cholecystectomy, and breast lumpectomy. The types of testing that were considered included electrocardiograms (ECG), transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE), cardiac stress test, chest x-ray, urinalysis, labs (CBC, BMP, coagulation tests), and pulmonary function tests (PFT). Baseline data used for this initiative was based on Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM), Medicare, and Medicaid patient episodes from January 2023 – March 2023. The initiative goal was to reduce unnecessary preoperative testing by 20% through December 2023. 

The parameters for selecting the preoperative tests were based on recommendations from several well-known medical societies. The American Society of Anesthesiologists recommends not obtaining baseline laboratory studies in patients without significant systemic disease (ASA I or II). The American College of Cardiology recommends avoiding performing ECG screening as part of the preoperative cardiovascular risk assessment in asymptomatic patients scheduled for low-risk non-cardiac procedures. Guidelines to not perform chest x-rays on patients with unremarkable history and physical exams, which are provided by the American College of Radiology and American College of Surgeons, were also used to establish preoperative testing parameters. Holland Hospital used the RITE-size decision aid (Figure 1) to guide testing logic:

Figure 1. RITE-Size Preoperative Testing Decision Aid for Low-Risk Surgeries

Prior to implementing the quality initiative to improve preoperative testing rates, Holland Hospital worked with MVC claims data and MSQC abstracted clinical data from Q1 2023 to develop a baseline data visualization tool. The hospital found that their preoperative testing rates for low-risk surgeries were approximately 10% higher than the MVC All average. According to the sampled cases from MSQC, their average baseline rate was approximately 33%. Holland Hospital set a goal of reducing preoperative testing by 20% (the average rate would need to be less than or equal to 26%) by the end of December 2023. 

Planning Phase 

During the pre-implementation phase of planning, the hospital formed a multi-disciplinary team including pre-admission testing (PAT) staff, surgery providers, hospital leadership, anesthesiologists, and quality improvement staff. The team focused on their pre-admission testing lab draw (basic chemistry panel) policy, which was focused on general and major anesthesia of male and female patients ages 65 – 74 and patients aged 75 and older for specific types of labs such as epidural, spinal, regional, and brachial plexus. Initially, labs were drawn within one month of the procedure, but with the revised policy, patients undergoing low-risk general procedures such as elective hernia or lap cholecystectomy only required labs within 60 days of their procedure. In addition, the process shifted to establish the pre-admission assessment as the trigger for the preoperative testing decision chart. 

Evaluation 

After analyzing the percentage of preoperative screening tests ordered for the associated low-risk procedures, Holland Hospital found that in 2022 they were ordering preoperative tests at a rate of approximately 52% (MVC All rate equaled approximately 45%). With further investigation of preoperative test ordering practices, the site found that of the physicians ordering the tests, 71% were surgeons and 29% were primary care providers (PCPs). Interestingly, the PCP orders would often fall within the 30-day window as the turnaround time from PCP appointment to surgery appointment was happening within a month. It was discovered that physicians had been following old guidelines that were given to them when they were initially onboarded at the hospital in prior years. This finding initiated the implementation of provider education and a slight change in ordering practices.  

To improve ordering accuracy, the PAT team was assigned the responsibility of checking and ordering any preoperative tests needed instead of the surgeons ordering them. As shown in Figure 2, the preoperative testing rates remained above average through September 2023 until provider education and process changes were fully implemented at the end of Q3. After implementing provider education, testing rates showed a significant reduction through the end of 2023.

Figure 2. Holland Hospital Preoperative Testing Rates in 30 Days Prior to Admission for Low-Risk Surgery – Pre-Implementation through Post-Implementation of QI

Vertical bar graph of Holland Hospital Preoperative Testing Rates in 30 Days Prior to Admission for Low-Risk Surgery – Pre-Implementation through Post-Implementation of QI

Workgroup participants asked Poindexter whether other staff had the ability to order preoperative lab tests (such as anesthesia staff) and whether surgical or anesthesia staff were internal or external contracts (Holland Hospital has a mix). Participants were also curious to know how internal or external contracts impacted consistent education. Poindexter noted the education piece was an easier lift at their smaller site, since they only have a few surgical physicians. Participants discussed best practices such as having an updated preoperative testing education program in place for physicians and surgical teams, utilizing RITE-size resources, and including an editable letter and related resources for PCPs about preop testing guidelines and procedures.

Health in Action Workgroup - MDHHS 

On Aug. 28, MVC hosted a health in action workgroup with a MDHHS presentation by Lindsey Naeyaert, MPH, Director of Behavioral Health Transformation in Health Services, and Leah Julian, Innovation in Behavioral Health Specialist in Health Services. Naeyeart leads and directs policy development and changes, program operations, analysis, research, and reporting of integrated health models at MDHHS. Julian is responsible for planning, implementation, and oversight of the Innovation in Behavioral Health (IBH) Model in partnership with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Naeyaert and Julian presented the three programs currently offered through MDHHS: Behavior Health Home, Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics, and the Innovation in Behavioral Health Model. 

Behavior Health Home (BHH) 

The BHH is one of the longest running Medicaid optional state plan benefits, authorized under the 1945 US Social Security Act. This plan allows for more flexible funding towards care for serious and complex chronic conditions of Medicaid beneficiaries. The purpose of the BHH plan is to serve the “whole person” by including physical, behavioral, and social services through an interdisciplinary care team. The goal of this program is to integrate care, create cost-efficiencies, and increase participant health status. This plan is available for people with Medicaid who have two or more chronic conditions, or one chronic condition and are at risk for a second condition. 

In 2014, MDHHS launched a county model of BHH and revamped the design in 2020. The updated program targeted beneficiaries with a diagnosis of Serious Mental Illness (SMI) or Serious Emotional Disturbance (SED). The service area includes 79 counties and 40 home health providers including community mental health services programs, federally qualified health centers, hospital-based clinical practices, rural health clinics, and tribal health centers. In fiscal year (FY) 2024, there were 4,399 people enrolled with ages ranging from 4-86.  

Under this plan, interdisciplinary team members can now be reimbursed for services provided under Health Home Core Services (HHCS) that in the past could not be billed. For example, if the team meets to discuss a patient’s treatment plan it can be billed under care coordination through HHCS (Figure 3). Other covered services include comprehensive care management, health promotion, comprehensive transitional care, individual and family support, referral to community, and social services.

Figure 3. Health Home Core Services

Health Home Core Services: comprehensive care management, health promotion, comprehensive transitional care, individual and family support, referral to community, and social services

Since the implementation of the program, there have been several positive outcomes observed such as increased post-discharge follow-up for mental illness or intentional self-harm episodes, increased care coordination between physical and mental health providers, increased control of high blood pressure, and increased access to preventive/ambulatory health services. 

Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics (CCBHCs) Demonstration 

CCBHCs are non-profit or local government agencies that must meet robust state certification criteria (200 standards). These sites must serve all people, regardless of insurance status or ability to pay, and are required to work with local hospitals as part of their certification criteria. These sites use a state-developed and clinic-based prospective payment system model for reimbursement. There are currently 35 demonstration sites across the state of Michigan. The primary objectives of CCBHCs are to increase access to high-quality services that use evidence-based practices; coordinate behavioral health, physical health, and social needs; promote the use of evidence-based practices; and establish statewide standardization and consistency using the same criteria across all certified clinics. 

In year three (FY 2023) through four (FY 2024), MDHHS added 17 CCBHC sites in Michigan and expects to add 10 more sites by FY 2025. Data collected through FY 2024 shows positive impacts on participating patient populations and CCBHCs. Overall, CCBHCs have seen a 77% increase in individuals served since development year two, with 81% of participating patients enrolled in Medicaid. Some patients with commercial health plans have been able to see providers at CCBHCs as well. Data also shows that 23% of CCBHC patients were children 18 years old and younger. This suggests that parents are bringing their children to see the same providers they do, making it easier for them to access care for all family members in one location. Additional findings show that even though they may have other clinics closer to home, 11% of patients were served outside their county of residence, meaning they are specifically seeking CCBHCs for treatment.  

Naeyeart shared that CCBHCs exceeded statewide averages for Medicaid beneficiaries in the following areas: 

  1. Follow-up after emergency department visit for mental illness 
  2. Follow-up after emergency department visit for alcohol and other drug dependence 
  3. Follow-up after hospitalization for mental illness 
  4. Diabetes screening for people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder who are using antipsychotic medications 
  5. Adherence to antipsychotic medications for individuals with schizophrenia 
  6. Plan all-cause readmission rate 
  7. Initiation and engagement of alcohol and other drug dependence treatment 

Innovation in Behavioral Health (IBH) Model 

The newest program launched is the IBH model. Julian shared that Michigan had been selected to participate in the IBH model in 2024 and began participation on Jan. 1, 2025. This is a cooperative agreement with CMS focused on improving the quality of care and behavioral and physical health outcomes for adults enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare with moderate to severe mental health conditions and substance use disorder. The goal is to assist in minimizing barriers to high quality integrated care. 

The core elements of the IBH framework include: 

  1. Care Integration – Behavioral health practice participants will screen, assess, refer, and treat patients as needed for the services they require. 
  2. Care Management – An interprofessional care team led by the behavioral health practice participant will identify and address multifaceted needs of patients for ongoing care. 
  3. Health Information Technology – Expansion of health information technology capacity through targeted investments in interoperability and tools (e.g. electronic health records) will allow participants to improve quality reporting and data sharing. 

The primary objectives of this program are to improve quality and delivery of whole person care, align care delivery and payment systems between Medicare and Medicaid, explore Medicaid payment strategy, develop value-based payment methodologies, and improve health information systems to improve quality and data sharing.  

This program aims to work with providers who are integrated and engaged with CCBHC or BHHs, sites that are Medicaid entities, providers that serve at the outpatient level with at least 25 people enrolled in Medicaid per month, and sites that provide mental health and or substance use disorder services at the outpatient level of care. The model has an eight-year performance period, including three years of planning (2025-2027) and five years for implementation (2028-2032). In the current planning phase, the focus is on building the structure for the model’s framework identifying stakeholders (e.g., state personnel, practice participants, community organizations, etc.), developing a recruiting strategy, designing a care delivery framework, establishing a Medicaid payment approach, and designing an effective health information technology plan. 

Workgroup participants inquired about any intention of collaborating with other CQIs like the Michigan  Mental Health Innovation Network for Clinical Design  (MI Mind) or community-based organizations like Salvation Army or the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) system. Workgroup participants expressed significant interest in being involved with this model as participant partners.

MVC Health in Action Workgroup: Aug. 28, 2025

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

0
View Post
June Workgroups Highlight Organizational Structure Impacts on Cardiac Rehab and Measuring System Quality

June Workgroups Highlight Organizational Structure Impacts on Cardiac Rehab and Measuring System Quality

In June, MVC hosted two virtual workgroup presentations – the first, a cardiac rehab workgroup focused on how healthcare organizational structures impact the effectiveness of cardiac rehab operations. The second workgroup, health in action, was a continuation of the recent MVC spring collaborative-wide meeting (CWM) presentation and discussion on How Should We Measure System Quality? The MVC Coordinating Center hosts workgroup presentations twice per month, covering a variety of topics including post-discharge follow-up, sepsis, cardiac rehab, rural health, preoperative testing and health in action.

Cardiac Rehab Workgroup June 10, 2025

MVC hosted a cardiac rehab workgroup with a presentation by Gregory Scharf, BS, ACSM-CEP, AACVPR-CCRP from MyMichigan Health System. Scharf is the Cardiopulmonary Rehab System Manager for nine cardiac rehab and eight pulmonary rehab programs that serve 25 counties in Michigan. In addition to his role with MyMichigan, Scharf is also the vice president of the northern region of the Michigan Society for Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation (MSCVPR). With his experience and knowledge, Scharf shared detailed insight into how healthcare organizational structure impacts the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation operations.

Organizational Structures & Impact

Many cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation programs experience disjointed connections within healthcare organization structures.  According to a recent MSCVPR state poll, up to 20% of the state’s cardiac rehab (CR) programs were structured under a non-cardiovascular related service. Scharf polled the MVC workgroup audience to see where their cardiac rehab programs fell within their organizational structure and found that out of the 21 responses, 11 sites had their CR program under Cardiology/Cardiovascular service, three under respiratory service, four under cardiopulmonary service, one under diagnostic imaging, one under cardiovascular/neurology, and one did not have an onsite CR program.

Scharf noted that in his experience, many of the structures and managerial roles of cardiac rehab programs varied across sites. Cardiac rehab managers included an obstetrics/emergency room nurse manager, physical therapy manager, respiratory services supervisor, and a cardiovascular services manager who was also the echocardiogram technician. The lack of consistency in who should manage a cardiac rehabilitation program adds to the challenges within the healthcare organizational structure.

Supporting Cardiac & Pulmonary Rehab Programs

How can cardiac rehab be strategically aligned within a system? Main organizational connections for CR programs can be successful if placed under the umbrella of cardiovascular services (testing, heart failure clinic, open heart surgery, structural heart surgery, electrophysiology, and vascular), and rehabilitation services (occupational/physical therapy, etc.). Misalignment may occur if the organization’s strategies and objectives are disconnected between service areas, for example:

  1. Communication breaking down across the system
  2. Advocates for the CR service lack authority for change
  3. There are conflicts between service resources and access to space based on organizational leadership structure (OT/PT/CR)

A challenge for smaller sites may be that their organization is not large enough to support the typical structure of large health systems. At MyMichigan the CR program functions with 30 clinical staff for all sites whereas PT has more than 1,000 clinicians. These kinds of discrepancies may cause programs like cardiac rehab to be placed under misaligned service structures due to convenience (staff availability, resource availability) versus a more appropriate setting.

Important questions to ask about your site’s cardiac rehab program structure:

  1. Who is responsible for your cardiac rehab operations?
  2. Are they responsible for non-cardiac rehab departments as well?
  3. Who are the cardiac rehab subject matter experts (SME) and do they have authority to make changes?

SMEs may vary in experience and knowledge, especially when looking at smaller healthcare sites. These SMEs may only have secondary or limited experience with cardiac rehab services, which can impact how successful the program is. One way to help support staff in these positions is to encourage continuing education programs and certifications related to cardiac rehabilitation.

Understanding the Anatomy of the Referral

Over the past 10 years, MyMichigan has seen a significant increase in referral rates for cardiac rehab. Unfortunately, an increase in referrals does not always equate to an increase in patient participation. Some examples of why this may happen include referral delays, missing referral information (no qualifying diagnosis, or no co-signing MD/DO), or a referral being sent with the patient information but no signed order (inactionable) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Common Referral Delay Examples

Common Referral Delay Examples

When referrals are completed incorrectly, CR program staff must do the leg work to reconnect with the referring provider and make sure they receive a complete referral for their patient. MyMichigan faxes a Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) Referral & Evaluation Order back to the referring provider to complete and return before the patient can be seen for cardiac rehab. This extra step can impact patient recovery and create added strain on the workforce for multiple healthcare sites.

MVC Data Analytics Resources & Support

Wanting to take a deeper look at cardiac rehab claims data, MyMichigan Health System collaborated with the MVC team including Emily Bair, Site Engagement Coordinator, Julia Mantey, Sr. Data Analyst, and Jiaying Zhang, Data Analyst. The MVC analysts created custom reports that helped visualize where MyMichigan’s CR patients were being referred to and which patients were being referred to their CR program from external sites.

Looking at MyMichigan sites they found that approximately 94% of the patients that discharged from the MyMichigan Midland Medical Center for any of the Michigan Cardiac Rehab Network (MiCR) Main five Conditions (AMI, PCI, CABG, SAVR, TAVR) ended up staying within the MyMichigan system cardiac rehab program. Additionally, they looked at what locations MyMichigan cardiac rehab patients come from across the state. Approximately 58% of CR patients are internal referrals and 41% are from external referrals, almost doubling patient population in MyMichigan’s cardiac rehab program. This also put a spotlight on how much this system’s cardiac rehab program impacted patient populations of external healthcare sites/systems in the state.

Key Take Aways

  • What internal barriers exist due to your organizational structure?
  • Is communication getting to those that impact change?
  • Understand what steps need to be completed between referral and scheduling the patient appointment
  • Understand the process for referrals that leave the system/site

Health in Action Workgroup June 26, 2025

In late June MVC Director Hari Nathan, MD, PhD presented on how quality could be measured at a system level. This was a continuation from his interactive presentation at our spring CWM earlier this year, How Should We Measure System Quality? This “Part 2” workgroup included breakout groups and focused topics for discussion.

Advantages of Health Systems

Dr. Nathan shared several advantages that health systems have in the world of quality improvement that could be utilized, such as being able to right-size care and services at sites, having internal selective referrals as an option, avoiding low-volume surgeries, creating “focused factories,” disseminating best practices, and being able to have a big impact on attributed populations (Figure 2).

Health systems have the ability to address barriers to care on a larger scale, for example improving electronic health record integration between sites and being able to integrate telehealth across the system. Or by collecting data on various patient populations, a system has the potential to develop and expand its population health program. Utilizing the strengths of a system can benefit individual healthcare sites and improve patient care.

Figure 2. Advantages of Health Systems

Advantages of Health Systems

It is important to begin challenging systems to become more than just a sum of their parts – rather, to function as a cohesive unit. How do we create the right incentives for hospital systems to improve quality and costs? What metrics should be measured? These are just a few of the questions posed by Dr. Nathan as the workgroup audience prepared to go into breakout session discussions.

At MVC’s spring CWM in May of this year, audience members were asked “What is your organization doing at a system-level that you would want to be measured on and/or receive credit for improving?”. The most popular responses included: CMS 5 Star Measures, balancing length of stay (LOS) and readmissions, infection prevention, and sepsis outcomes (LOS, readmissions, mortality/end of life care).

Based on the CWM responses, four breakout session topics were chosen (readmissions & balancing LOS, safety, infection prevention, sepsis outcomes), and participants were asked to think about and discuss “What is YOUR organization working on at a system level that you would want to be measured on and/or receive credit for improving?”. Based on their poll responses, participants were sent into breakout groups to discuss their topic more in depth (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Breakout Session Survey Questions

photo with two breakout session survey questions

Readmissions & Balancing LOS

Members expressed great interest in identifying opportunities to incentivize process measures. Currently tracked metrics that were shared included order set utilization, care coordination, evaluating daily readmission risk reports, and transitions to home care. It was noted however, that these metrics may be difficult to track via claims data. Another system-wide metric discussed was the percentage of patients being seen by their primary care physician one week post discharge. The measure of success could be either achievement (outperform MVC All) or improvement (improve on system metric compared to previous measure).

Some barriers to implementing these processes as a system would be system-wide financial support for care coordination and nurse navigators. These positions are typically site specific and funded through the site’s individual budget.

Safety

During this breakout session members discussed some of the interests their sites/systems had around tracking safety metrics across the system. Sometimes a system can be different than just multiple hospitals under the same umbrella. Oaklawn Hospital, for example, is a single hospital site, but their goal is to align better with their primary care offices which requires a systems approach.

When looking at safety measures, Henry Ford Health shared ideas on how measuring or tracking a patient’s nutritional status might be valuable, as well as physical or occupational therapy consults for falls. Patients with a hip fracture from a fall tend to have longer hospital stays, this could be tracked by LOS codes such as weakness or loss of balance.

Infection Prevention

Members discussed some of the successful methods they have been implementing so far with their infection prevention initiatives. ProMedica Charles & Virginia Hickman shared they use a hub and spoke model where the sites have a system level clinical risk department that helps oversee essential hospital acquired infection data (using PowerBI, a data visualization program). This program enables a drill down for the different hospital leaders to design and implement quality improvement initiatives at their site.

At the system level leaders review data to identify opportunities and coordinate with hospital quality leads to implement improvement strategies, maintaining an upstream and downstream approach. In the UP Health system, they use a collaborative model involving regular reporting and discussion of quality markers among hospitals under the LifePoint organization, with resource sharing and active discussion facilitated by calls that include Duke University Health System partners.

Sepsis Outcomes

Members shared that their health systems have hospital level sepsis committees that meet once per month to review sepsis cases, as well as system level sepsis committees that include a representative from each site that meet monthly or quarterly to review sepsis cases. One of the ways that members are tracking their sepsis cases across the system is by tracking when sepsis patients go from “door to initial antibiotic received,” since research has shown this to be the biggest impact on reducing sepsis related mortality.

Sepsis compliance is also an important metric that systems are tracking to meet CMS standards. Sites within a system track sepsis compliance metrics and review them monthly both site by site and system wide. Through the group discussion, the idea of tracking the associated order sets for sepsis cases through MVC claims data may be interesting to view at a system level (though singling out order sets in claims data may be difficult).

Wrap Up

The breakout sessions not only helped to highlight what health systems are currently doing to track quality across their sites but also gave some insight into what metrics could be utilized as performance-based incentives in the future.

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

0
View Post
MVC Fall 2024 Meeting Summary: Data-Driven Strategies for Success in Quality Improvement

MVC Fall 2024 Meeting Summary: Data-Driven Strategies for Success in Quality Improvement

The Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) held its fall 2024 collaborative-wide meeting on Fri., Oct. 25, in Livonia. A total of 99 attendees representing 54 hospitals, 6 physician organizations, 2 Collaborative Quality Initiatives (CQIs), and 8 healthcare systems from across the state of Michigan came together to discuss innovative approaches to data-driven quality improvement. The theme of this meeting was to provide MVC members with new data use strategies to support their QI initiatives.

MVC program manager Erin Conklin, MPA, kicked off Friday’s meeting with an update from the MVC Coordinating Center [SEE SLIDES]. She welcomed MVC’s newest team member, site engagement coordinator Rachel Folk, MHA. Conklin also announced phase 2 of recruitment for the RITE-Size preoperative testing initiative, and provided details for the Michigan Cardiac Rehab Network (MiCR) meeting planned for Fri., Nov. 8 in Midland [register here by 10/31]. She concluded by highlighting recent MVC reporting, including refreshed versions of MVC’s common conditions and procedures push reports, a new statewide diabetes report, PY 2024 P4P mid-year scorecards, and MVC’s 3rd annual QECP public report.

Senior Advisor Jim Dupree, MD, MPH, presented on the MVC Component of the BCBSM P4P Program [SEE SLIDES]. He reviewed MVC’s guiding principles, timeline, and historical program structure, announcing four key changes to the PY 2026-2027 cycle (Figure 1). The addition of a health equity measure is one of four key areas that MVC modified for the upcoming cycle.

Figure 1.

The first change that Dr. Dupree discussed in detail is the change to MVC’s payer mix for PYs 2026/2027. Since April 2023, MVC members were given access to rates and spending for their Medicaid patients. Adding this patient population to the MVC P4P payer mix allows the collaborative to score a more comprehensive and diverse patient population. Medicaid data will be reflected in baseline measures provided in MVC participants’ PYs 2026/2027 selection reports.

Dr. Dupree also announced changes to the P4P episode payment condition menu for PYs 2026/2027. MVC will retire colectomy, pneumonia, and joint replacement, and will add percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Dr. Dupree summarized MVC’s decision-making and rationale behind each retirement or addition. As a result of these changes, the episode spending metric options for the upcoming cycle include CABG, CHF, COPD, and PCI.

A third change announced on Friday was a revision to the definition of MVC’s sepsis value metric. Dr. Dupree explained that this adjustment was being made to align with the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS) initiative to increase post-discharge care coordination after sepsis. In PYs 2026-2027, MVC’s sepsis value metric will change from 30-day risk-adjusted readmissions after sepsis to 14-day follow-up after sepsis.

To close out the P4P presentation, Dr. Dupree announced the inclusion of a new health equity measure and the methodology behind it. This measure was developed with the goal of addressing common barriers that MVC member hospitals reported in the MVC health equity survey, such as insufficient data, no clear business case, and insufficient financial investments. With the introduction of MVC’s P4P health equity measure (Figure 2), MVC wants to quantify and drive improvement in all-cause readmission rates between payer groups at each hospital using an index of disparity (IOD). Dr. Dupree explained that similar index or composite measures have been utilized by health organizations already, and that this risk-adjusted measure can help identify hospital-level preventable differences in readmissions. Hospitals will earn the health equity point by improving relative to their own baseline IOD or by performing well relative to their peers (i.e., having an IOD at or below the median IOD across the collaborative).

Figure 2.

Before closing the P4P session, Dr. Dupree reviewed the upcoming P4P timeline for various cycles. MVC selection reports for PYs 2026/2027 will be shared with members in early November. Following dissemination of these selection reports, MVC will accept selections until Dec. 13, 2024. Members may attend one of two webinars on Nov. 19 at 1 p.m. [REGISTER for 11/19] or Nov. 21 at 10 a.m. [REGISTER for 11/21] to support their selection process, as well as schedule one-on-one meetings with MVC staff as needed.

After the P4P session, MVC members and stakeholders presented posters highlighting their QI work on a wide variety of conditions and initiatives (Figure 3). The MVC Coordinating Center would like to thank all poster presenters for sharing their work. Electronic copies of the posters are available on the MVC website [LINK].

Figure 3.

The poster session was followed by a presentation from the vice president of care coordination for Corewell Health System, Tricia Baird, MD, FAAFP, MBA. Dr. Baird leads inpatient, transitional, and ambulatory care coordination teams comprised of registered nurses, social workers, and community health workers. The presentation, “Readmission Reduction: Intelligent Targeting to Timely Intervention,” provided an in-depth look at how Dr. Baird’s team identified a subset of their Medicare patients with readmissions that were preventable [SEE SLIDES]. After identifying their complex patients, the Corewell team then designed interventions to target those discharge journeys, essentially providing an example of how to lower a payer-specific readmission rate.

After a networking lunch, attendees spent the afternoon participating in breakout sessions on two topics of their choice. A cardiac rehabilitation breakout session was led by Jodi Perdue, RN-C, BSN, who presented on Munson Medical Center’s multi-phase cardiac rehabilitation program [SEE SLIDES]. Her session was followed by an MVC unblinded data presentation by MVC site engagement coordinator Emily Bair, MS, MPH, RDN.

In the post-discharge follow-up breakout session, MVC project manager Jana Stewart, MS, MPH, guided attendees through a patient journey mapping workshop [SEE SLIDES]. Attendees learned the basics of patient journey mapping approaches and collaborated to draft patient journey maps for key patient populations in Michigan.

In the preoperative testing breakout session, Dana Green, Jr., MPH, a project manager and de-implementation specialist for the Michigan Program on Value Enhancement (MPrOVE), educated attendees on available resources, lessons learned, and upcoming opportunities related to the RITE-Size initiative [SEE SLIDES]. MVC engagement manager Jessica Souva, MSN, RN, C-ONQS, then showed participants their own sites’ performance on MVC’s preoperative testing metric using unblinded data.

The fourth breakout session on sepsis was led by Pat Posa, RN, BSN, MSA, CCRN, FAAN, a quality and patient safety program manager with the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS). She outlined the complex impact of sepsis on patients and the motivations behind launching the HMS Sepsis Initiative, as well as details about HMS sepsis bundles and performance data [SEE SLIDES]. The session was closed out by MVC senior analyst Kim Fox, MPH, with an unblinded data presentation on 14-day follow-up after sepsis, MVC’s newest value metric.

The meeting closed with reminders about upcoming meetings, key dates for the PY 2026-2027 P4P metric selection process, and post-event survey information presented by Jessica Souva (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

If you have questions about any of the topics discussed at MVC’s fall 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., May 9, 2025, in Midland.

0
View Post
MVC Rural Health Meeting Summary: Delivering Value in Rural and Northern Michigan

MVC Rural Health Meeting Summary: Delivering Value in Rural and Northern Michigan

This Wednesday, the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC) held its first collaborative-wide rural health meeting for members. With over 50 participants representing rural and critical access hospitals (CAH), physician organizations (POs), and participating quality networks, this virtual meeting was dedicated to discussing the unique quality improvement efforts and challenges that exist within rural healthcare.

MVC Director Hari Nathan, MD, PhD, kicked off Wednesday’s meeting with an update from the MVC Coordinating Center (see slides). Honoring MVC’s 10-year anniversary, Dr. Nathan highlighted important milestones from the last decade that contributed to MVC’s continued efforts to deliver high-value healthcare in all areas of Michigan. Dr. Nathan shared updates pertaining to the launch of MVC’s new emergency department (ED)-based episodes, the recent addition of a CAH comparison group in its reporting, expanded CAH membership (Figure 1), and MVC’s plan to offer a rural health workgroup series in 2024.

Figure 1.

Following Dr. Nathan’s introduction and collaborative-wide updates, MVC Senior Analyst Julia Mantey, MPH, MUP, provided an in-depth presentation of MVC’s new ED-based episodes, which were developed in collaboration with the Michigan Emergency Department Improvement Collaborative (MEDIC). Read this recent blog post for more information on MVC’s ED-based episode structure and utilization or view Ms. Mantey’s slides here.

After introducing the components of MVC’s ED-based episodes, Ms. Mantey presented an unblinded data session illustrating ED-based episode data for MVC’s rural hospital members. When considering both rural non-CAH ED-based episodes and CAH ED-based episodes, chest pain was the most frequent condition observed. Due to its high volume in the ED, MVC produced unblinded rural hospital data using ED-based episodes for 30-day secondary ED visits among patients with a primary diagnosis of chest pain. In analyzing this data, MVC analysts discovered a correlation between patient follow-up rates and 30-day secondary ED visit rates. Patients who receive follow-up care are less likely to return to the ED in the 30 days following their initial index discharge, and the rate of secondary ED visits is smallest among patients who received follow-up care within one week of discharge (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Following the unblinded data presentation, MVC received input from participants about additional analyses that would be useful, such as evaluating the correlation between the availability of nearby urgent care facilities and the rates of primary and secondary ED visits. Such suggestions were noted as MVC works to expand its CAH and ED-based episode data reporting.

Following the unblinded data session, Ross Ramsey, MD, CPEM, FAAFP, President and Chief Executive Officer of Scheurer Health, delivered a presentation on common rural health challenges and Scheurer Health’s recent efforts to improve the quality of care for its rural population. Dr. Ramsey emphasized that rural areas are associated with higher poverty rates, larger proportions of elderly individuals, a higher percentage of patients who are uninsured, and a higher prevalence of chronic health problems such as substance abuse and illnesses related to environmental exposures. Dr. Ramsey highlighted several focus areas at Scheurer Health to improve the value of care for its patients: wellness visits, transitional care management, remote patient monitoring, and ED follow up. As seen in Figure 3, Scheurer Health increased wellness visit participation by 32.8% over the last six years. For more details about Scheurer Health’s strategies and success stories, view Dr. Ramsey’s slides here.

Figure 3.

After Dr. Ramsey’s insightful presentation, MVC welcomed Mariah Hesse, MSN, CENP, President of the Michigan Critical Access Hospital Quality Network (MICAH QN) and Chief Nursing Officer at Sparrow Clinton Hospital. Her presentation (see slides) provided an overview of core components of the quality network, highlighting its foundational pillars of success (Figure 4), in addition to featuring the network’s accomplishments and the benefits of participation by Michigan’s 37 CAHs. MICAH QN ensures representation for CAHs on national and state committees and serves as a resource to Michigan CAHs on performance improvement tools and measures. Her presentation also referenced several key priorities for healthcare in rural Michigan, such as meaningful benchmarking focused on outpatient care, recovery from challenges experienced during the pandemic, and improving healthcare access and equity.

Figure 4.

MVC looks forward to continued partnership with members based in rural communities to support the delivery of sustainable, high-value care through high-quality data analytics, collaboration, and innovation.

The slides from Wednesday’s meeting have been posted to the MVC website and a recording of the meeting is available here. If you have questions about any of the topics, contact the MVC Coordinating Center. MVC’s next collaborative-wide meeting will be in person on Friday, October 20, 2023, in Lansing, MI.

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.