Carolinas HealthCare Towards an Economics of Value ©2013 THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY Making a Case For Quality Eric Fontana, Practice Manager, Data and Analytics Group analytics@advisory.com 2 Toward an Economics of Value Adapting to New Rules of Competition Description Key Success Factors ©2013 THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY Competitive Dynamics Inpatient Performance Metrics Critical IP Infrastructure Health System Strategy, c. 2003 Health System Strategy, 2013-2023 “Price-Extractive Growth” “Value-Based Growth” Grow by being bigger: Leverage market dominance to secure prime pricing, network status Grow by being better: Leverage cost, quality, service advantage to attract key decision makers • Expand market share • Strengthen service lines • Exert pricing leverage • Solidify referrals • Secure physicians • Increase utilization • Expand covered lives • Compete on outcomes • Minimize total cost • Assemble network • Offer convenience • Expand access • Service line competition • Centers of excellence • Referral channels • Physician loyalty • Comprehensive care • Patient engagement • Clinical quality • Service quality • Discharges • Service line share • Fee-for-service revenue • Pricing growth • Occupancy rate • Process quality • Readmission rates • Outcomes quality • Cost per discharge • Patient satisfaction • Guideline adherence • Inpatient capacity • Outpatient imaging centers • Clinical technology • Ambulatory surgery centers • EBP Infrastructure • Care management staff and systems • IT analytics • Post-acute care network Source: Physician Executive Council interviews and analysis. 3 Delivering Next-Generation Acute Care Evolution of Acute Care Performance Standards Workshop of Choice Targeted Quality Improvement • High-Performance OR and ED • Proactive, effective quality department • Streamlined admission and discharge processes • Productive hospitalist program ©2013 The Advisory Board Company • Top-tier performance on publicly reported metrics Baseline Expectations Next-Generation Acute Care • Comprehensive infrastructure supporting evidence-based practice • Patient-centered care • Integration with crosscontinuum care management Emerging Priorities 4 EBP the Key to All Value-Based Payment Models Population Health Management Focus: Utilization Management • Chronic Care Management Bundled Pricing • Disease Prevention Focus: Efficiency • Throughput • Supply Management • Contract Negotiation Pay for Performance ©2013 The Advisory Board Company Focus: Quality Improvement • Adherence to Evidence-Based Practice • Reduced Readmissions • Patient Experience Degree of Provider Cost Accountability Source: Advisory Board and Physician Executive Council interviews and analysis. 5 Real-World Consequences for Poor EBP Adoption LA Times, 2011 Sepsis Guidelines Effective, but Underutilized ©2013 The Advisory Board Company 25% From 2000-2010. Nearly 70,000 Americans die needlessly each year because they are not given optimal heart failure therapy Mortality reduction with introduction of sepsis bundle 19% Physicians who follow pediatric sepsis guidelines 17% Increase in sepsis inpatient hospital death rates in the past decade1 Physicians have been slow to implement many of the procedures called for in the guidelines… Source: Paul R, Neuman MI, Monuteaux MC, Melendez E, “Adherence to PALS Sepsis Guidelines and Hospital Length of Stay,” 2012, Pediatrics; Los Angeles Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/06/news/la-heb-heart-failure-06062011, June 6, 2011;CDCNCHS, National Hospital Discharge Survey, 2000-2010; Lisa Stoneking and Kurt Denninghoff, Sepsis Bundles and Compliance with Clinical Guidelines, 26, 3, Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, 2011; Physician Executive Council interviews and analysis. 6 Inpatient Medicare Margins Remain Under Pressure Quality Based Payment Contributes to Price Deceleration Four Forces Shaping Future Margins Medicare Acute Inpatient PPS Margin 2002-20111 6.6% Decelerating Price Growth Continuing Cost Pressure Shifting Payer Mix Deteriorating Case Mix 2.4% -0.3% -0.5% -0.4% -2.2% -2.3% -1.7% -3.7% -4.8% ©2013 THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 The Medicare Breakeven Project • www.advisory.com/MedicareBreakeven • Ongoing initiative to support margins in an era of increasing financial pressures • Available to all Health Care Advisory Board members at no extra cost 1) Margins calculated as revenue minus cost divided by revenue. Data based on Medicare-allowable costs and exclude critical access hospitals. Includes services covered by the acute care inpatient PPS Source: “Health Care Spending and the Medicare Program” June 2012, MedPAC, Accessed 0917-2013. http://www.medpac.gov/documents/Jun13DataBookEntireReport.pdf, Advisory Board Analysis 7 Three Programs You Need to Know Financial Incentives Take More of a Stick Than Carrot Approach Comparing Major Pay For Performance Programs Discharge ©2013 THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY 30 day Readmit Maximum Penalty FY 2013 – 1% FY 2014 – 2% FY 2015 onward – 3% 1% Penalty for top quartile of HACs from FY 2015 Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program Hospital Acquired Condition Program Hospital Inpatient Value Based Purchasing Program Payment Impact Begins: FY 2013 Payments (October 1, 2012) FY 2015 (October 1, 2014) FY 2013 Payments (October 1, 2012) Incentive Structure: Penalty only, 1% cap for FY 2013 Penalty only, 1% maximum for FY 2015 Bonus or penalty, depending on performance “Base Operating DRG Payment Amount” Revenue after adjustment for Readmissions and VBP programs Base Operating DRG Payment Amount Compares your facility to national average performance based on retrospective three year period Most program details finalized in FY 2014 IPPS Final Rule, specific payment adjustment methodology subject of future rule Budget neutral, creates winners vs. losers scenario Payment Unit to be Modified: Comment: Source: CMS, Advisory Board Analysis 8 Future Dollars on the Line What You’re Doing (Or Not Doing) Today Has Financial Ramifications Performance Periods Currently In Progress For Fiscal Years (FY)1 2014 2015 2016 2017 VBP1 Readmissions2 ©2013 THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY HAC Payment Adjustments Can No Longer be Inflected Data Collection In Progress 1) As of October 2013 2) Performance periods 3) Assumes readmissions performance judged on timeframe of July 1, 2011 – June 31st, 2014 Data Collection Not Yet Started Source: CMS, Advisory Board Analysis 9 Program #1: Hospital Acquired Conditions HAC Program Mechanics 1% Penalty For Worst Performing Quartile on Defined HAC Measures Overview of HAC Program Who is Included? HAC Performance Assessment Penalty Allocated Penalty ©2013 THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY • Inclusion of all subsection (d) hospitals, HAC program will include Maryland hospitals • Excludes LTCH, Cancer Hospitals, Children’s Hospitals, IRFs, IPFs, Critical Access Hospitals, Hospitals in Puerto Rico or US Territories • Finalized methodology assesses HAC performance on two distinct domains • Patient Safety Measures • CDC NHSN Measures • Points assigned based on decile performance compared to other facilities, the higher the points the worse the performance. • Two domain system, individual domain scores weighted and combined to form overall HAC score. • Statutorily mandated penalty is a 1% cut to what “otherwise would be paid” for hospitals in top (worst) performing quartile. • Penalty would apply to payments after the readmissions and value based purchasing program adjustments have been made • Payment adjustment specifics TBD, likely in FY 2015 IPPS Proposed Rule Source: CMS, Advisory Board Analysis 10 Program #1: Hospital Acquired Conditions Two Domain Quality Structure Finalized Targeting Patient Safety and Infection Measures Two Domain Structure for HAC Reduction Program Domain 1: Patient Safety Measures 35% July 1, 2011 - June 30, 2013 + Domain 2: CDC/NHSN Surveillance Measures 65% CY2012 & CY2013 PSI-90 Metric FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Composite Metric CLABSI CAUTI SSI – Colon SSI – Abdominal Hysterectomy ©2013 THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY Including component indicators: • PSI #3 Pressure Ulcer Rate • PSI #6 Iatrogenic Pneumothorax Rate • PSI #7 Central Venous CRBSI Rate • PSI #8 Postoperative Hip Fracture Rate • PSI #12 Perioperative PE DVT Rate • PSI #13 Postoperative Sepsis Rate • PSI #14 Postoperative Wound Dehiscence Rate • PSI #15 Accidental Puncture or Laceration Rate MRSA C. Difficile Source: CMS, Advisory Board Analysis 11 Program #2: Hospital Readmissions Reduction Readmissions Program Mechanics Capped Penalty to Hit 3% Maximum from FY 2015 Onwards Overview of Readmissions Program Who is Included? Readmissions Performance Assessment Penalty Allocated 2013 2014 2015 -1% -2% -3% • Assesses whether hospital had excess readmissions compared to national • Excludes LTCH, Cancer Hospitals, performance on a set of NQF-endorsed, 30Children’s Hospitals, IRFs, IPFs, Critical day risk-standardized readmissions rates: Access Hospitals, Hospitals in Puerto Rico or US Territories • Acute Myocardial Infarction • Heart Failure • Maryland hospitals participation subject • Pneumonia application for exemption. Top date • COPD (from FY 2015) exempted for FY 2013 and FY 2014. • THR/TKR (from FY 2015) ©2013 THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY • Inclusion of all subsection (d) hospitals • Payment adjustment will apply for all inpatient discharges, not just the associated patient populations • Penalty capped at maximum levels in given fiscal year; 1% in FY 2013, 2% in FY 2014, 3% in FY 2015 onward. • Unlike VBP, no opportunity for high performers to earn bonus payments • Being assessed as worse than expected in any one of the defined conditions will result in a financial penalty Source: CMS, Advisory Board Analysis 12 Program #2: Hospital Readmissions Reduction Improvement in Readmissions Year 2 Estimated Readmissions Penalties - Carolinas HealthCare Estimated Penalty Percentage Readmissions 2013 340084 Anson Community Hospital $ (22,764) 0.76% 340064 Wilkes Regional Medical Center $ (70,418) 0.57% 340113 Carolinas Medical Center $ (842,844) 0.53% 340008 Scotland Memorial Hospital $ (98,863) 0.51% 340130 Carolinas Medical Center - Union $ (50,981) 0.16% 340145 Carolinas Medical Center - Lincoln $ (19,394) 0.15% 340075 Grace Hospital $ (16,343) 0.10% 340160 Murphy Medical Center $ (6,073) 0.07% 340119 Stanly Regional Medical Center $ (10,895) 0.06% 340001 Carolinas Medical Center - NorthEast $ (28,805) 0.03% 340070 Alamance Regional Medical Center $ (9,589) 0.03% 340068 Columbus Regional Healthcare System $ (5,872) 0.03% 340166 Carolinas Medical Center - University $ (1,246) 0.01% 340091 The Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital No Penalty 0.00% 340098 Carolinas Medical Center - Mercy No Penalty 0.00% 340184 MedWest-Haywood No Penalty 0.00% 420104 Roper St. Francis Mount Pleasant No Penalty 0.00% 420027 AnMed Health Medical Center No Penalty 0.00% 340037 Kings Mountain Hospital No Penalty 0.00% 340016 Harris Regional Hospital No Penalty 0.00% 340021 Cleveland Regional Medical Center No Penalty 0.00% 420087 Roper Hospital No Penalty 0.00% 340055 Valdese Hospital No Penalty 0.00% Total Estimated Impact $ (1,184,087) ©2013 THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY Provider Name Estimated Readmissions 2014 $ (17,384) $ (93,926) $ (452,166) $ (76,160) $ (13,853) $ (25,088) No Penalty $ (11,956) $ (23,750) No Penalty $ (37,520) $ (58,513) $ (8,185) No Penalty No Penalty $ (12,413) No Penalty No Penalty $ (1,725) $ (8,982) $ (46,573) No Penalty No Penalty $ (888,194) Penalty Percentage 0.70% 0.75% 0.29% 0.42% 0.05% 0.21% 0.00% 0.17% 0.15% 0.00% 0.13% 0.33% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.09% 0.14% 0.00% 0.00% 13 Program #3: Hospital Inpatient Value Based Purchasing VBP Program Mechanics Incentive Payment Based on Quality Performance Quality Performance Assessment Payment Withhold FY13 -1.0% FY14 FY15 FY16 Redistribution of Payment FY17 -1.25% -1.5% -1.75% -2.00% • Payment withhold applies to base operating DRG payment ©2013 THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY • Withhold applies only to roughly 3,000 hospitals meeting VBP inclusion criteria • Assesses performance on quality measures including (FY started in parenthesis): • • • • Clinical process of care (2013) Patient experience of care (2013) Outcomes (2014) Efficiency (2015) • Payment directly proportional to TPS score • Budget neutrality results in “winners vs. losers” roughly half of hospitals earn back more than withhold, others earn back less • Scored on achievement relative to national benchmarks and improvement compared to historical baseline • Quality measure scores combined to form single figure Total Performance Score (TPS) Source: CMS, Advisory Board Analysis 14 Program #3: Hospital Inpatient Value Based Purchasing Overall a Positive VBP Result Projected for FY 2015 ©2013 The Advisory Board Company Estimated Value Based Purchasing Incentive Payment Provider 340113 340130 Name Carolinas Medical Center Carolinas Medical Center - Union 420087 Roper Hospital $ (144,673) -0.21% 340166 Carolinas Medical Center - University $ (5,572) -0.05% 340064 340021 420027 340070 Wilkes Regional Medical Center Cleveland Regional Medical Center AnMed Health Medical Center Alamance Regional Medical Center $ $ $ $ (4,972) 1,491 34,719 17,500 -0.04% 0.00% 0.04% 0.06% 340091 The Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital $ 141,725 0.08% 340075 340098 Grace Hospital Carolinas Medical Center - Mercy $ $ 14,200 94,450 0.10% 0.15% 340084 340016 340184 340119 340068 340037 340160 340145 340001 340008 420104 Anson Community Hospital Harris Regional Hospital MedWest-Haywood Stanly Regional Medical Center Columbus Regional Healthcare System Kings Mountain Hospital Murphy Medical Center Carolinas Medical Center - Lincoln Carolinas Medical Center - NorthEast Scotland Memorial Hospital Roper St. Francis Mount Pleasant Hospital $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4,565 18,087 45,718 48,320 59,872 20,588 25,733 59,466 638,465 225,298 42,819 0.18% 0.18% 0.26% 0.31% 0.34% 0.36% 0.37% 0.50% 0.70% 1.23% 1.36% $ 835,177 Total Estimated Impact 1) Valdese Hospital had insufficient case volume to calculate VBP score using current most recent Hospital Compare data Estimated VBP Incentive $ (430,531) $ (72,092) Incentive Percentage -0.28% -0.26% 15 Program #3: Hospital Inpatient Value Based Purchasing Final Performance Periods For FY 2016 Mortality and Patient Safety Measures Finalized in Previous Rules 2012 Oct 1 Jan 1 Clinical Process of Care Dec 31 Jan 1 Patient Experience of Care Dec 31 Jan 1 Efficiency Dec 31 Jan 1 Outcome: CAUTI/CLABSI/SSI Dec 31 Mortality June 30 AHRQ June 30 Oct 15 We are here: November 1, 2013 Finalized Measures ©2013 THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY 2014 2013 Proposed Measures Domain Weights Under Four Domain Structure Domain FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Clinical Process of Care 70% 45% 20% 10% Patient Experience of Care 30% 30% 30% 25% Outcomes of Care - 25% 30% 40% Efficiency - - 20% 25% Outcomes measures proposed in CY 2014 HOPPS Proposed Rule, not yet final Source: CMS, Advisory Board Analysis 16 Program #3: Hospital Inpatient Value Based Purchasing Finalized Performance Periods FY 2017- FY 2019 October 1 Kickoff for FY 2017 and FY 2018 Performance Periods 2013 2014 2015 October 1 FY 2017 - Mortality June 30 October 1 FY 2017 – AHRQ PSI June 30 FY 2018 - Mortality October 1 July 1 2017 June 30 FY 2018 – AHRQ PSI July 1 June 30 FY 2019 - Mortality July 1 ©2013 THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY 2016 June 30 FY 2019 – AHRQ PSI (Not Finalized) June 30 All finalized baseline periods are already completed and are of the same duration as the performance periods Source: CMS, Advisory Board Analysis