Measuring Physical and Behavioral Health Integration in the Context - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

measuring physical and behavioral health integration in
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Measuring Physical and Behavioral Health Integration in the Context - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 1 Measuring Physical and Behavioral Health Integration in the Context of Value-Based Purchasing Gregory Allen, MSW Director Division of Program Development and Management Office of Health Insurance Programs, NYSDOH December 7, 2016 2


slide-1
SLIDE 1

1 1

December 7, 2016

Measuring Physical and Behavioral Health Integration in the Context of Value-Based Purchasing

Gregory Allen, MSW Director Division of Program Development and Management Office of Health Insurance Programs, NYSDOH

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2 December 2016

1. Recap: Medicaid Redesign Team (MRT), Delivery System Reform Incentive Payments (DSRIP), and Value-Based Payment (VBP) Initiatives 2. BH & VBP 3. Behavioral Health (BH) in New York State (NYS) 4. Moving Towards Integrated Services 5. Q&A

October 2015

Agenda

Allen

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3 December 2016

Recap: MRT, DSRIP, and VBP Initiatives

Allen

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Governor Cuomo created the Medicaid Redesign Team (MRT) to develop reforms to improve health outcomes and further savings. $6.42 billion dollars of savings were reinvested and designated to Delivery System Reform Incentive Payments (DSRIP). The MRT developed a multi-year action plan. We are still implementing that plan today.

$17.1 billion Federal savings generated by MRT reforms $8 billion Savings reinvested in NYS $6.42 billion Designated to DSRIP

MRT

1115 Waiver

Better care Lower cost Better health

CMS Triple Aim

Recap: The 1115 Waiver

December 2016

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5 December 2016

Goal: Reduce avoidable hospital use – Emergency Department (ED) and Inpatient – by 25% over 5+ years

  • f DSRIP

Remove Silos Develop Integrated Delivery Systems Enhance PC and Community- based Services Integrate BH and PC

  • DSRIP was built on the Center for Medicare

and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) and the State’s goals towards achieving the Triple Aim:  Better care  Better health  Lower costs

  • To transform the system, DSRIP will focus
  • n the provision of high quality, integrated

primary, specialty and BH care in the community setting with hospitals used primarily for emergent and tertiary level of services

  • Its holistic and integrated approach to

healthcare transformation is set to have a positive effect on healthcare in NYS

  • DSRIP objectives are aligned with the objectives of Behavioral Health (BH) Organizations

Source: The New York State DSRIP Program. NYSDOH Website. & New York’s Pathway to Achieving the Triple Aim. NYSDOH DSRIP Website. Published December 18, 2013.

Recap: DSRIP Objectives

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6 December 2016

  • A Five-Year Roadmap outlining NYS’ plan for Medicaid Payment

Reform was required by the MRT Waiver.

  • By DSRIP Year 5 (2020), all Managed Care Organizations (MCOs)

must employ non fee-for-service payment systems that reward value

  • ver volume for at least 80-90% of their provider payments (outlined

in the Special Terms and Conditions of the waiver).

  • The State and CMS are committed to the VBP Roadmap, which core

stakeholders (providers, MCOs, unions, patient organizations) have actively collaborated in creating and updating.

  • If Roadmap goals are not met, overall DSRIP dollars from CMS to

NYS will be significantly reduced.

Recap: Moving Towards VBP

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7 December 2016

Recap: VBP Arrangements

Goal – Pay for Value not Volume

VBP arrangements are not intended primarily to save money for the State, but to allow providers to increase their margins by realizing value.

VOLUME VALUE VOLUME VALUE

Current State

Increasing the value of care delivered more

  • ften than not threatens

provider’s margins

Future State

When VBP is done well, providers’ margins go up when the value of care delivered increases

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8 December 2016

In addition to choosing which integrated services to focus on, Managed Care Organizations and contractors can choose different levels of VBP:

Level 0 VBP Level 1 VBP* Level 2 VBP Level 3 VBP (feasible after experience with Level 2; requires mature contractors) FFS with bonus and/or withhold based on quality scores FFS with upside-only shared savings available when

  • utcome scores are sufficient

(For PCMH/IPC, FFS may be complemented with PMPM subsidy) FFS with risk sharing (upside available when outcome scores are sufficient) Prospective capitation PMPM

  • r Bundle (with outcome-

based component) FFS Payments FFS Payments FFS Payments Prospective total budget payments No Risk Sharing  Upside Risk Only  Upside & Downside Risk  Upside & Downside Risk

Acronyms: FFS – Fee-for-Service PCMH – Patient Centered Medical Home VBP = Value Based Payments PMPM – Per Member Per Month IPC – Integrated Primary Care

Recap: VBP Contracting

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9 December 2016

NYS BH Landscape

MCO PPS* MCO Role:

  • Insurance Risk Management
  • Payment Reform
  • Hold PPS/Other Providers Accountable
  • Data Analysis
  • Member Communication
  • Out of PPS Network Payments
  • Manage Pharmacy Benefit
  • Enrollment Assistance
  • Utilization Management for Non-PPS Providers
  • Fully Integrated Duals Advantage (FIDA)/MLTC Plans

Maintain Care Coordination

PPS/ VBP Contractor Role:

  • Be Held Accountable for Patient Outcomes and

Overall Health Care Cost at local level

  • Accept/Distribute Performance Payments
  • Share Actionable Performance Data with Network
  • Provide Process Data to Plans/State
  • Explore Ways to Improve Population Health

VBP Contractors Advanced & Integrated BH/PC DSRIP VBP HH HARP** NYS Healthcare Initiatives:

  • Set the framework for Healthcare

delivery system reform

  • Establish local performance network

and specialized projects

  • Promote better care delivery through

performance incentives

Program Role:

  • Provide coordinated and integrated care to

targeted populations

  • Care management for Medicaid members
  • Participation in Alternative Payment Systems
  • Support all reforms and help link systems

through integrated care management

*PPS= Performing Provider Systems **HARP= Health and Recovery Plans

HARP Role:

  • Manage care for adults with significant

BH needs

  • Facilitate the integration of physical

health, mental health and substance abuse services for individuals requiring specialized approaches

  • Offer access to enhanced benefit

packages designed to provide the individual with specialized services not currently covered under the State Plan

HH Role:

  • Manage care for high risk

populations

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10 10 December 2016

BH & VBP

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11 11 December 2016

Selecting and Refining Quality Measures is an Ongoing Process

Clinical Advisory Group (CAG) selects measures OQPS reviews measures VBP Workgroup sets measures Start of measurement End of year: evaluation results reported back to CAG

During the process:

  • Lists get refined and reduced to those

measures that really matter (specific to VBP arrangement)

  • Key outcome measures
  • Measures that are key to DSRIP success
  • Nationally standardized key process

measures

  • Focus on outcomes will increase as
  • utcome measures mature
  • VBP Pilots are essential to test feasibility

and relevance of measures

Start

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12 12 December 2016

CAG Composition

CAG

Health Plans Clinical Experts Universities Providers Medical Societies State Agencies Medical Centers

Each CAG is comprised of leading experts and key stakeholders throughout NYS healthcare delivery system, spanning Upstate and Downstate regions. Their scope includes development of quality measures for all VBP arrangements.

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13 13 December 2016

CAG Objectives

CAG members convened to meet the following objectives:

Understand the State’s visions for the Roadmap to VBP Discuss and validate definitions of VBP arrangements Review and recommend quality measures for the VBP arrangements Make additional recommendations to the State on:

  • Data and other support required for providers to be successful
  • Other implementation details related to each arrangement
slide-14
SLIDE 14

14 14 December 2016

HARP Definition: CAG Recommendation

  • Adults enrolled in Medicaid and 21 years or older with select Serious Mental Illness (SMI) and/or serious Substance

Use Disorder (SUD) diagnoses having serious behavioral health issues are eligible to enroll in HARP Plans

  • 14
  • 8
  • The BH HCBS eligibility tool will determine if an individual is eligible for Tier 1 or Tier 2 BH HCBS. Tier I services

include employment, education and peer supports services. Tier 2 includes the full array of BH HCBS

  • The scope of care services included in this VBP arrangement is identical to the scope of services covered by the

HARP plans (including the enhanced benefit package BH HCBS)

Population Included Defined Services

The CAG recommends the following definition for the HARP VBP arrangement.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15 15 December 2016

Quality Measures: HARP CAG Category 1

  • 15
  • 8

The CAG recommends the following quality measures for use in the HARP arrangement.

# Measures Reporting Source State Recommended Category* P4R** 1 Diabetes screening for people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder using antipsychotic medications State 1 No 2 Follow-up after hospitalization for mental illness (within 7 and 30 days) State 1 No 3 Percentage of members enrolled in a Health Home State 1 No 4 Initiation of pharmacotherapy for opioid dependence within 30 days1

State

1 No 5 Percentage of mental health discharges followed by two or more mental health

  • utpatient visits within 30 days2

State 1 Yes 6 Tobacco use screening and follow-up for people with serious mental illness or alcohol or other drug dependence VBP Contractor 1 Yes 7 Initiation of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder within 30 days2 State 1 Yes

1 – OASAS proposing to work through measure specifications and application of measure as a pay-for-performance measure 2 – A claims-based measure for which OMH/OASAS are seeking additional input from VBP contractors to refine * – P4R entry of ‘Yes’ then State Recommended Category of ‘1’ = Required & ‘2’ = Optional. ** – P4R entry of “No” indicates can be used for performance payment.

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16 16 December 2016

Quality Measures: HARP CAG Category 1 (cont.)

  • 16
  • 8

The CAG recommends the following quality measures for use in the HARP arrangement.

# Measures Reporting Source State Recommended Category* P4R** 8 Utilization of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder2 State 1 Yes 9 Utilization of pharmacotherapy for opioid dependence2 State 1 Yes 10 Follow-up after emergency department visit for alcohol and other drug dependence2 State 1 Yes

1 – OASAS proposing to work through measure specifications and application of measure as a pay-for-performance measure 2 – A claims-based measure for which OMH/OASAS are seeking additional input from VBP contractors to refine * – P4R entry of ‘Yes’ then State Recommended Category of ‘1’ = Required & ‘2’ = Optional. ** – P4R entry of “No” indicates can be used for performance payment.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17 17 December 2016

Quality Measures: HARP CAG Category 2

  • 17
  • 8

The CAG recommends the following quality measures for use in the HARP arrangement.

# Measures Reporting Source State Recommended Category* P4R** 11 Rate of readmission to inpatient mental health treatment within 30 days (readmission in any geographic region) State 1 No 12 Continuing engagement of alcohol and other drug dependence treatment (CET)1

State

1 No 13 Continuity of care within 14 days of discharge from any level of SUD inpatient care1

State

1 No 14 Percentage of members who receive PROS or HCBS for at least 3 months in reporting year VBP Contractor 1 Yes 15 Percentage of members who maintained/obtained employment or maintained/improved higher education status (from HCBS Waiver Eligibility Screening) VBP Contractor 1 Yes 16 Percentage of members with maintenance of stable or improved housing status(from HCBS Waiver Eligibility Screening) VBP Contractor 1 Yes 17 Percentage of members with reduced criminal justice involvement(from HCBS Waiver Eligibility Screening) VBP Contractor 1 Yes

1 – OASAS proposing to work through measure specifications and application of measure as a pay-for-performance measure * – P4R entry of ‘Yes’ then State Recommended Category of ‘1’ = Required & ‘2’ = Optional. ** – P4R entry of “No” indicates can be used for performance payment.

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18 18 December 2016

BH in NYS

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19 19 December 2016

BH Statewide Overview

  • A disproportionate amount of total cost of care and hospital visits in NYS can be attributed to the

BH population

Overview:

  • Medicaid members diagnosed

with BH account for 20.9% of the overall Medicaid population in NYS

  • The average length of stay

(LOS) per admission for BH Medicaid users is 30% longer than the overall Medicaid population's LOS

  • Per member per month

(PMPM) costs for Medicaid Members with BH diagnosis is 2.6 times higher than the

  • verall Medicaid population

* This data includes Medicaid Members with 1+ Claims with primary or secondary diagnosis of behavioral health issues

$28,824,105,821 $ 19,224,273,571 Medicaid members diagnosed with BH account for 60% of the total cost of care in NYS 1,415,454 1,724,531 Medicaid members diagnosed with BH account for 45.1% of all ED Visits 584,503 508,538 Medicaid members diagnosed with BH account for 53.5% of admissions 5,509,029 11,729,701 Medicaid members diagnosed with BH account for 32% of Medicaid Primary Care Physicians (PCP) visits Total PCP Visits from Medicaid Members: 17,238,730 Total ED visits from Medicaid Members: 3,139,985 Total Medicaid Cost of Care in NYS: $48,048,379,392 Total Medicaid Admissions: 1,093,041

Source: SIM Database. 2014 Claims Data – analysis based on data from January – December 2014. New York State.*

Total Medicaid Pop. Excluding Medicaid BH Pop. Medicaid members diagnosed w/ BH

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20 20 December 2016

MH/SA readmission $270M

Patients with MH/SA $665M 82% Patients without MH/SA $149M MH/SA medical readmission $395M (59%) MH/SA readmission $270M Patients with MH/SA $665M (82%)

All Readmissions* ($814M) Readmissions for Patients with MH/SA Conditions ($665M)

*Readmissions within 30 day from original admission date

BH Statewide Overview

  • Most Medicaid readmissions for patients with MH and Substance Abuse (SA) conditions are for

medical reasons

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21 21 December 2016

Moving Towards Integrated Services

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22 22

Service integration supported by DSRIP project milestones (Domains 1-4)

  • The four Domains represent groupings of project milestones and associated outcome metrics
  • PPS report on progress and achievement of metrics and milestones and are evaluated using quality

measures associated with their chosen projects across all five demonstration years (DY1-5)

Includes organizational milestones (governance, workforce, cultural competency / health literacy, financial sustainability) and project implementation milestone reporting Projects are divided between three domains to meet overall goals of system transformation, clinical improvement and population health. Examples are:

  • Domain 2, project 2.a.i = Integrated delivery system
  • Domain 3, project 3.a.i = Integration of PC and BH
  • Domain 4, project 4.c.i = Prevent HIV/AIDS

Each project is associated with its own corresponding metrics or measures DOMAIN 3: Clinical Improvement DOMAIN 4: Population Health DOMAIN 2: System Transformation DOMAIN 1: Overall Project Progress

December 2016

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23 23

DSRIP Domain 3 Requirements driving service integration

3.a.i - Integration of PC and BH services 3.a.ii – BH community crisis stabilization services 3.a.iii - Implementation of evidence-based medication adherence program (MAP) in community-based sites for BH medication compliance 3.a.iv - Development of withdrawal management capabilities and appropriate enhanced abstinence services within community-based addiction treatment programs 3.a.v - Behavioral Interventions Paradigm (BIP) in Nursing Homes

3.A Projects: BH

  • In the early stages of DSRIP, PPS were required to implement at least one BH strategy

project from the Domain 3 – Clinical Improvement Projects category. December 2016

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24 24

Measurement Year (MY) 1 results for Domain 3 BH measures

MY1 results are helpful to understand how PPSs are trending from the baseline, but they are not necessarily indicative of future performance. * Table shows the Domain 3 performance measures where all 25 PPSs had comparable data.** DY = Demonstration Year HP: High Performance measure ^ The denominator for this measure is less than 30 for some Performing Provider System's, therefore the rates may not be stable due to small numbers. Data Source: Medicaid Analytics Performance Portal (MAPP) – official MY0 and MY1 Attribution for Performance results.

Domain Measure name* # PPS that achieved measure target # PPS achieved measure target (%) Turns P4P in:** 3 Follow-up care for Children Prescribed ADHD Medications - Continuation Phase^ 20 / 25 80% DY4 3

HP Antidepressant Medication Management - Effective Continuation Phase Treatment

18 / 25 72% DY2 3

HP Antidepressant Medication Management - Effective Acute Phase Treatment

16 / 25 64% DY2 3 Follow-up care for Children Prescribed ADHD Medications - Initiation Phase 13 / 25 52% DY4 3

HP Cardiovascular Monitoring for People with Cardiovascular Disease and Schizophrenia^

9 / 25 36% DY2 3 Initiation of Alcohol and Other Drug Dependence Treatment (1 visit within 14 days) 9 / 25 36% DY2 3

HP Diabetes Monitoring for People with Diabetes and Schizophrenia^

7 / 25 28% DY2 3 Engagement of Alcohol and Other Drug Dependence Treatment (Initiation and 2 visits within 44 days) 6 / 25 24% DY2 3 Diabetes Screening for People with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disease who are Using Antipsychotic Medication 5 / 25 20% DY3 3

HP Follow-up after hospitalization for Mental Illness - within 30 days

5 / 25 20% DY3 3

HP Follow-up after hospitalization for Mental Illness - within 7 days

5 / 25 20% DY3 3 Adherence to Antipsychotic Medications for People with Schizophrenia 2 / 25 8% DY3 3

HP Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Visits (for persons with Behavioral Health diagnosis)

2 / 25 8% DY3

December 2016

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25 25

Potentially Preventable Emergency Room Visits (BH Population) +

Rate of preventable ER visits per 100,000 members with a Behavioral Health diagnosis in MY0 and MY1

+ A lower rate is desirable

Moving in wrong direction Moving in right direction

MY1 results are helpful to understand how PPSs are trending from the baseline, but they are not necessarily indicative of future performance. Data Source: Medicaid Analytics Performance Portal (MAPP) – official MY0 and MY1 Attribution for Performance results.

Statewide Total

MY0 MY0 MY1 MY1

PPS Result

December 2016

slide-26
SLIDE 26

26 26

Key findings – MY1 High Performance measure results.

  • The majority of PPSs did not meet their High Performance annual improvement targets in MY1.
  • The measures where the most PPSs met their MY1 High Performance targets were:
  • Antidepressant Medication Management - Effective Continuation Phase Treatment,
  • Antidepressant Medication Management - Effective Acute Phase Treatment, and
  • Cardiovascular Monitoring for People with Cardiovascular Disease and Schizophrenia.

December 2016

Measure Name # PPS that met HP Target % PPS that met HP Target Turns P4P in:*

BH Antidepressant Medication Management - Effective Continuation Phase Treatment

11 / 25 44% DY2

BH Antidepressant Medication Management - Effective Acute Phase Treatment

10 / 25 40% DY2

BH Cardiovascular Monitoring for People with Cardiovascular Disease and Schizophrenia^

8 / 25 32% DY2

BH Diabetes Monitoring for People with Diabetes and Schizophrenia^

3 / 25 12% DY2

BH Follow-up After Hospitalization for Mental Illness - within 7 days

3 / 25 12% DY2 Potentially Preventable Readmissions 2 / 25 8% DY3

BH Follow-up After Hospitalization for Mental Illness - within 30 days

1 / 25 4% DY2

BH Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Visits (for persons with BH diagnosis)

1 / 25 4% DY2 Potentially Preventable Emergency Room Visits 1 / 25 4% DY3 Antipsychotic Use in Persons with Dementia 0 / 1 0% DY2 Top three measures Bottom three measures

BH Domain 3 Behavioral Health measures

* DY = Demonstration Year ^ The denominator for this measure is less than 30 for some Performing Provider System's, therefore the rates may not be stable due to small numbers. Sources: OQPS, P4P OQPS Mega chart_PS and Measure Summaries v2.xlsm, accessed on 8/29/2016 and DOH website.

slide-27
SLIDE 27

27

Questions

slide-28
SLIDE 28

28

Additional Information:

DOH Website:

http://www.health.ny.gov/health_care/medicaid/ redesign/behavioral_health/index.htm

OMH Website:

https://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/bho/

Contact Us: DSRIP Email:

dsrip@health.ny.gov