Imagine Better health outcomes and quality of life for Oregonians, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

imagine
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Imagine Better health outcomes and quality of life for Oregonians, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Appendix H Imagine Better health outcomes and quality of life for Oregonians, supported by: A sustainable model for Community Self Management Programs that promotes equity, access, quality, and cost savings through a flexible and evolving


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Imagine

Better health outcomes and quality of life for Oregonians, supported by: A sustainable model for Community Self Management Programs that promotes equity, access, quality, and cost savings through a flexible and evolving statewide network.

Appendix H

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Self-Management Programs Are…

2

  • Innovative, evidence-based interventions
  • Help people take care of themselves,

stay healthy, and live better with existing mental & physical conditions

  • Span community and health system

settings

  • Patient-centered (often peer-led)
  • Meet needs of those with multiple

conditions

Oregon Tobacco Quit Line

Living Well, Tomando Control de Su Salud, Positive Self-Management

  • Appendix H
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Self-Management Programs and the Triple Aim*

(Example: Living Well with Chronic Conditions)

3

Better Health

  • Improved

symptoms

(fatigue, pain, sleep problems)

  • Better quality of

life

  • More active lives

(13% more moderately active days/week)

Better Care

  • Provider-patient

communication

  • Medication

compliance

  • Confidence in

filling out forms (health literacy)

Lower Costs

  • $714 / person

savings in emergency room and hospital utilization

  • $364 / person net

savings (after $350 per person program cost)

*Ory MG, Ahn S, Jiang L, Smith ML, Ritter P, Whitelaw N & Lorig, K. (2013). Medical Care 51(11), 992-998.

Appendix H

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Our Shared Journey

  • Stakeholder

interviews informed the Hub strategy

  • utlined in the

Business Plan.

2012

  • Further research

refined the strategy, including desired services and partner characteristics.

2013

  • We’ve taken a fresh

look at how to most efficiently use community resources & align with health system transformation

2014

  • We’ll build a

sustainable statewide model that honors community needs and strengths.

2015

4

Appendix H

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Community Self-Management Programs Strategic Opportunity

5

  • A vision that works for Oregon
  • Aligned with federal priorities & opportunities
  • A statewide system

– Flexible – Collaborative – Innovative

  • Community-level interventions
  • Demonstrates the business case for SMPs
  • Develops SMP financing structure
  • Aligns with Triple Aim goals: better health,

better care, lower costs

  • Promotes equity
  • Streamlines self-management program
  • perations and technical assistance
  • Furthers cross-sector and community linkages

Appendix H

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Patient Centered Patient Centered

Engage, activate and empower patients

Community Based Community Based

Promote clinical- community linkages

Statewide Access Statewide Access

Invest health care funding to expand access

Equity Equity

Provide culturally & linguistically proficient services

Triple Aim Triple Aim

Support better care and better health at lower cost

Objectives

6

Working Assumptions

  • Expanded access to self-management programs supports OHA priorities
  • Coordinated support and investment build sustainability

Appendix H

slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • 1. Regional

Partnerships with Central Payment / Data System

  • Regional self-

management program partnerships assure:

  • Access
  • Quality

assurance

  • Marketing
  • Centralized,

shared core functions:

  • Registration
  • Payment
  • Data collection &

reporting

  • 2. Centralized

Hub Infrastructure

  • Statewide

umbrella entity supports local self-management programs:

  • Training
  • Marketing
  • Participant

registration

  • Centralized “one-

stop shop” for payers:

  • Payment
  • Program

provider network access

  • Data collection &

reporting

  • Quality

assurance

  • 3. All Regional
  • Regional entities

responsible for quality and access

  • Local/regional

payment agreements & processes

  • No centralized

functions

7

Leading Options

Appendix H

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Comparison of Leading Options: Roles & Responsibilities

Core Functions

State (OHA) Statewide Entity Regional Partner- ship CCOs Local Self- Mgmt Providers Access, Equity and Quality Oversight

x x x

Program Content Licensing

x

Administrative/Infrastructure Funding

x

(seed funding)

x

(ongoing)

x

(ongoing)

Program Funding

x x x

Payer Contracting

x x

Provider Network Administration

x

(technical assistance)

x x

Program Marketing

x x x

Registration, Data Management and Payment Processing

x

8

  • 1. Regional Partnership

with Central Payment/Data System

Appendix H

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Strengths

  • Promotes local efforts and innovation
  • Centralizes key functions: payments & data

management

  • Leverages emerging payment models and system

reforms for large non-OHP populations (PEBB/OEBB, commercial market) Weaknesses

  • Challenging timing:
  • Key components of the new system are still being

established

  • Key players are focused on other priorities

Regional Partnership with Centralized Payments/Data

Appendix H

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Comparison of Leading Options: Roles & Responsibilities

Core Functions

State (OHA) Statewide Entity Regional Partner- ships CCOs Local Self- Mgmt Providers Access, Equity and Quality Oversight

x x x

Program Content Licensing

x

Administrative/Infrastructure Funding

x

(seed funding)

x

(ongoing)

Program Funding

x x x

Payer Contracting

x x

Provider Network Administration

x

(TA)

x

Program Marketing

x x

Registration, Data Management and Payment Processing

x

10

  • 2. Centralized

Hub Infrastructure

Appendix H

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Strengths

  • Efficiency for payers and providers through

standardized payment process

  • Economies of scale via centralized systems
  • Increases access to/for commercial market and

public employees

  • Statewide attention to equity and access
  • Provides neutral selection process/opportunity via

public RFP Weaknesses

  • Less local/regional “face” for programs
  • Infrastructure may not be well aligned with

Coordinated Care Organizations

Centralized Hub Infrastructure

Appendix H

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Comparison of Leading Options: Roles & Responsibilities

Core Functions

State (OHA) Statewide Entity Regional Entities CCOs Local Self- Mgmt Providers Access, Equity and Quality

x x

Program Content Licensing

x

Administrative/Infrastructure Funding

x

(seed funding)

x

(ongoing)

Program Funding

x x

Payer Contracting

x

Provider Network Administration

x

(TA)

x

Program Marketing

x x

Registration, Data Management and Payment Processing

x

12

  • 3. All Regional

May be involved – varies by region

Appendix H

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Strengths

  • Promotes local efforts and innovation
  • Leverages existing transformation efforts and
  • rganizations

Weaknesses

  • Complex to administer
  • OHA’s capacity to support existing network will

diminish as complexity increases

  • Lacks statewide billing for non-CCO covered lives
  • Lacks statewide data collection/reporting

All Regional

Appendix H

slide-14
SLIDE 14
  • 1. Regional Partnerships with Central Payment / Data System
  • Regional self-management program partnerships between program delivery
  • rganizations, insurance plans and local public health assure:
  • Access
  • Quality assurance
  • Marketing
  • Centralized, shared core functions:
  • Registration
  • Payments
  • Data collection & reporting
  • Total combined budget ≈ $200,000

(possible additional funding through pending grant proposal)

14

Recommendation

Strengths

  • Promotes local efforts and innovation
  • Centralizes key functions: payments & data

management

  • Leverages emerging payment models and

system reforms for large non-OHP populations (PEBB/OEBB, commercial

market)

Weaknesses

  • Challenging timing:
  • Key components of the new system are

still being established

  • Key players are focused on other

priorities Appendix H

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Getting From Here to There: A Proposed Partnership Pilot

Goals

  • Begin building infrastructure

and ‘proof of concept’ for Partnership Model (#1)

  • Build capacity for local

business partnerships between CCO’s and other payers and self-management program providers

  • Demonstrate a sound business

case and identify models for statewide development

How Will It Work?

  • OHA contracts with statewide

third-party administrator for billing capacity & data management

  • OHA provides grants to develop

regional self-management provider partnerships

  • Requires that the applicable

CCO(s) are active participants, with special consideration for commercial and/or public payers involvement

  • OHA provides metrics /

requirements and assistance to support business development and connection to billing structure

15

Appendix H

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Regional Self-Management Partnership Pilot

A regional partnership receives OHA funding A regional partnership receives OHA funding Partnership assesses local service and quality gaps, and plans a sustainable business model Partnership assesses local service and quality gaps, and plans a sustainable business model OHA provides technical assistance on infrastructure development, marketing and program delivery OHA provides technical assistance on infrastructure development, marketing and program delivery Partnership establishes working agreements; develops processes to assure quality, equity and access Partnership establishes working agreements; develops processes to assure quality, equity and access

16

Appendix H

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Benefits of the Regional Partnership Pilot

17

Partnership Pilot

Proof of concept: generates models for broader implementation Prepares community self-mgmt. providers to collaborate and contract with payers Tests platform in collaboration with payers and community self-mgmt. providers Invests in building capacity, network and infrastructure Offers additional support for challenged areas Evolves the delivery system and payers to support self- management Prepares regions to better respond to community needs and

  • pportunities

Appendix H

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Draft Timeline for Parallel Systems Development

18

November 2014

  • Release

regional partnership & centralized system requests for proposals

March 2015

  • Contractors

& grantees selected

  • Work plan

development begins

June 2015

  • Needs

assessments complete

September 2015

  • Processes in

place

  • Systems go

live

Centralized Data & Billing System

Key actors: third-party administrator (contractor), statewide non-CCO payers

Regional Self-Management Partnership Pilot Grants

Key actors: Self-Management program delivery organizations, CCOs, local public health

Appendix H

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Factors for Success

19

Essential - By September 2015:

  • Local partnerships

create functional business relationships

  • Centralized system

meets current stakeholder needs for registration, payment processing and data collection

  • Pilot purchasers on

board (CCOs, PEBB & OEBB carriers)

  • Increased participants

Intermediate - By 2017:

  • Increased participant

completion rates

  • Increased statewide

access

  • Geographic spread
  • Culturally appropriate

programs for Oregonians experiencing chronic disease disparities

  • Increased statewide

program delivery capacity

Aspirational - By 2020:

  • Increased financial

sustainability for self- management program delivery organizations

  • High quality programs

available statewide

  • Progress toward the

Triple Aim:

  • Better health and

quality of life

  • Better care for

chronic conditions

  • Lower health care

costs

Appendix H

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Value Stream | Confidential

1 Receive services Referral source/ access point

  • Coordinate

services (contract with providers)

  • QA/Fidelity
  • May provide

services

  • Referrals
  • Payer for OHP

participants

  • Registration +

Data System

  • Payment

processing for all but OHP

  • Metrics +

reporting on

  • utcomes
  • Ensure quality on

services?

  • Pay for self

management services

  • Advocacy +

marketing of program to participants Pay for programs delivered to employees & dependents

What do they do? Why would they participate?

Participant Self-management program delivery

  • rganizations

Health systems Local public health Local primary care CCOs

(Regional)

Slim Hub

(3rd Party Statewide)

Payer Employer

(Large employer PEBB/OEBB) Regional Partnership

  • They are sick
  • They want to feel

better/ get control

  • f health
  • Their friends go
  • Their doctor said

they should go

  • Economic benefits

‒ Lower out of pocket ‒ Better quality

  • f life
  • Part of their

service delivery portfolio

  • They can get

paid to offer these services, reduce admin burden, increase financial sustainability

  • Hospital/

health systems see this as a valuable community service

  • Reduces burden on

their system

  • Augments current

service offering

  • Increases

competitive advantage Admin fee on transactions (financial sustainability) Simplifies their ability to offer programs to constituents statewide

  • Want healthy

employees & dependents

  • Reduce costs

Provide services Regional Partnership

  • Triple Aim (Better

care, better

  • utcomes, lower cost)
  • Improve community

health

  • Evidence-based, we

know they work

  • Value lever to meet

their performance metrics

  • Looking for
  • pportunities for

lowering cost for intermediate + long term strategy

  • Technical assistance for program design; Quality assurance; Coordination of self-management network; Consistency across state

OHA Key Questions

What would entice you to be actively engaged in self- management programs? Do you have the necessary infrastructure to bill and report services &

  • utcomes?

How could self- management programs assist you meet your benchmarks? What infrastructure would community self-management partners need to contract with you? What self- management programs would you be willing and wanting to pay for? Why? What self- management programs would you be willing and wanting to pay for? Why? What systems do you need to bill and report services & outcomes?

Appendix H

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Self-Management Programs Are…

1

  • Innovative, evidence-based interventions
  • Help people take care of themselves,

stay healthy, and live better with existing mental & physical conditions

  • Span community and health system

settings

  • Patient-centered (often peer-led)
  • Meet needs of those with multiple

conditions

Oregon Tobacco Quit Line

Living Well, Tomando Control de Su Salud, Positive Self-Management

Tai Chi: Moving Tai Chi: Moving Tai Chi: Moving Tai Chi: Moving for Better Balance for Better Balance for Better Balance for Better Balance

Appendix H