Early Health System Experiences with Collaborative Care (CoCM) Billing Codes: a Qualitative Study of Leadership and Support Staff.

BACKGROUND: Although collaborative care (CoCM) is an evidence-based and widely adopted model, reimbursement challenges have limited implementation efforts nationwide. In recent years, Medicare and other payers have activated CoCM-specific codes with the primary aim of facilitating financial sustainability. OBJECTIVE: To investigate and describe the experiences of early adopters and explorers of Medicare's CoCM codes. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen interviews were conducted between October 2017 and May 2018 with 25 respondents representing 12 health care organizations and 2 payers. Respondents included dually boarded medicine/psychiatry physicians, psychiatrists, primary care physicians (PCPs), psychologists, a registered nurse, administrative staff, and billing staff. APPROACH: A semi-structured interview guide was used to address health care organization characteristics, CoCM services, patient consent, CoCM operational components, and CoCM billing processes. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a content analysis approach conducted jointly by the research team. KEY RESULTS: Successful billing required buy-in from key, interdisciplinary stakeholders. In planning for CoCM billing implementation, several organizations hired licensed clinical social workers (LICSWs) as behavioral health care managers to maximize billing flexibility. Respondents reported a number of consent-related difficulties, but these were not primary barriers. Workflow changes required for billing the CoCM codes (e.g., tracking cumulative treatment minutes, once-monthly code entry) were described as arduous, but also stimulated creative solutions. Since CoCM codes incorporate the work of the psychiatric consultant into one payment to primary care, organizations employed strategies such as inter-departmental ledger transfers. When challenges arose from variations in the local payer mix, some organizations billed CoCM codes exclusively, while others elected to use a mixture of CoCM and traditional fee-for-service (FFS) codes. For most organizations, it was important to demonstrate financial sustainability from the CoCM codes. CONCLUSIONS: With deliberate planning, persistence, and widespread organizational buy-in, successful utilization of newly available FFS CoCM billing codes is achievable.

Getting Paid for Clinical Services.

Increasingly, pharmacists are providing advanced, patient-centered clinical services. However, pharmacists are not currently included in key sections of the Social Security Act, which determines eligibility to bill and be reimbursed by Medicare. Many state and private health plans also cite the omission from Medicare as the rationale for excluding reimbursement of pharmacists for clinical services. This has prompted forward-thinking pharmacists to seek opportunities for reimbursement in other ways, allowing them to provide value to the health care system, while carving out unique niches for pharmacists to care for patients.

Community oncology in an era of payment reform.

Patients and payers (government and private) are frustrated with the fee-for-service system (FFS) of payment for outpatient health services. FFS rewards volume and highly valued services, including expensive diagnostics and therapeutics, over lesser valued cognitive services. Proposed payment schemes would incent collaboration and coordination of care among providers and reward quality. In oncology, new payment schemes must address the high costs of all services, particularly drugs, while preserving the robust distribution of sites of service available to patients in the United States. Information technology and personalized cancer care are changing the practice of oncology. Twenty-first century oncology will require increasing cognitive work and shared decision making, both of which are not well regarded in the FFS model. A high proportion of health care dollars are consumed in the final months of life. Effective delivery of palliative and end-of-life care must be addressed by practice and by new models of payment. Value-based reimbursement schemes will require oncology practices to change how they are structured. Lessons drawn from the principles of primary care's Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) will help oncology practice to prepare for new schemes. PCMH principles place a premium on proactively addressing toxicities of therapies, coordinating care with other providers, and engaging patients in shared decision making, supporting the ideal of value defined in the triple aim-to measurably improve patient experience and quality of care at less cost. Payment reform will be disruptive to all. Oncology must be engaged in policy discussions and guide rational shifts in priorities defined by new payment models.

Assessing care integration for dual-eligible beneficiaries: a review of quality measures chosen by states in the financial alignment initiative.

Caring for the 9 million low-income elderly or disabled adults who are eligible for full benefits under both Medicare and Medicaid can be extremely costly. As part of the federal Financial Alignment Initiative, states have the opportunity to test care models for dual-eligibles that integrate acute care, behavioral health and mental health services, and long-term services and supports, with the goals of enhancing access to services, improving care quality, containing costs, and reducing administrative barriers. One of the challenges in designing these demonstrations is choosing and applying measures that accurately track changes in quality over time­essential for the rapid identification of effective innovations. This brief reviews the quality measures chosen by eight demonstration states as of December 2013. The authors find that while some quality domains are well represented, others are not. Quality-of-life measures are notably lacking, as are informative, standardized measures of long-term services and supports.

Accountable care organizations and the allergist: challenges and opportunities.

For decades, health care policy experts have wrestled with ways to solve problems of access, cost, and quality in US health care. The current consensus is that the solution to all three lies in changing financial incentives for providers and delivering care through integrated systems. The currently favored vehicle for this, both in the public and private sectors, is through Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). Medicare has several models and has fostered rapid growth in the number of operative ACOs. At least an equal number of private ACOs are in operation. Whether or not these organizations will fulfill their promise is unknown but there is reason for cautious optimism. Allergists can and should be part of the process of this transformation in our health care system. They can be integral to helping these organizations save money by reducing hospitalizations and improving the quality of allergy and asthma care in the populations served. In order to accomplish this, allergists must become more involved in their medical communities and hospitals.

Paying for quality not quantity: a wisconsin health maintenance organization proposes an incentive model for reimbursement of chiropractic services.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to describe a reimbursement model that was developed by one Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) to transition from fee-for-service to add a combination of pay for performance and reporting model of reimbursement for chiropractic care. METHODS: The previous incentive program used by the HMO provided best-practice education and additional reimbursement incentives for achieving the National Committee for Quality Assurance Back Pain Recognition Program (NCQA-BPRP) recognition status. However, this model had not leveled costs between doctors of chiropractic (DCs). Therefore, the HMO management aimed to develop a reimbursement model to incentivize providers to embrace existing best-practice models and report existing quality metrics. The development goals included the following: it should (1) be as financially predictable as the previous system, (2) cost no more on a per-member basis, (3) meet the coverage needs of its members, and (4) be able to be operationalized. The model should also reward DCs who embraced best practices with compensation, not simply tied to providing more procedures, the new program needed to (1) cause little or no disruption in current billing, (2) be grounded achievable and defined expectations for improvement in quality, and (3) be voluntary, without being unduly punitive, should the DC choose not to participate in the program. RESULTS: The generated model was named the Comprehensive Chiropractic Quality Reimbursement Methodology (CCQRM; pronounced "Quorum"). In this hybrid model, additional reimbursement, beyond pay-for-procedures will be based on unique payment interpretations reporting selected, existing Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) codes, meaningful use of electronic health records, and achieving NCQA-BPRP recognition. This model aims to compensate providers using pay-for-performance, pay-for-quality reporting, pay-for-procedure methods. CONCLUSION: The CCQRM reimbursement model was developed to address the current needs of one HMO that aims to transition from fee-for-service to a pay-for-performance and quality reporting for reimbursement for chiropractic care. This model is theoretically based on the combination of a fee-for-service payment, pay for participation (NCQA Back Pain Recognition Program payment), meaningful use of electronic health record payment, and pay for reporting (PQRS-BPMG payment). Evaluation of this model needs to be implemented to determine if it will achieve its intended goals.

Analysis & commentary. The foundation that health reform lays for improved payment, care coordination, and prevention.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act represents a major opportunity to achieve several key goals at once: improving disease prevention; reforming care delivery; and bending the cost curve of health spending while also realizing greater value for the dollars spent. Reform-based initiatives could produce major gains in a relatively short time. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should develop an action plan detailing how the programs that the health reform law sets into motion throughout various agencies can work synergistically. It should also detail how best practices in finance and payment, in the organization and delivery of care, and in prevention can be expanded nationally.

[Integrated case fees in cardiosurgery--a pilot project for fast-track rehabilitation]. / Komplexfallpauschalen in der Herzchirurgie--ein Modellprojekt zur Frührehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Lengthy recovery and treatment times following cardiosurgical interventions were the motivation for introducing a pilot procedure to integrate acute and rehabilitative treatment structures. The advantage of such a pilot procedure is the medico-economic link between direct transition from acute care to rehabilitation treatment and cutting average case costs. With this in mind, shared case fees for patients following cardiosurgery are being agreed in a pilot project between health insurance companies, acute-care hospitals and rehabilitation clinics. The aim of this study was thus to investigate whether rehabilitation directly after cardiosurgery without prior transferral to an acute-care hospital is comparable with the conventional procedure involving acute care. METHODS: A total of 221 patients were included in the investigation. The pilot project group comprised 159 patients (mean age 70 +/- 6 yrs, 117 men and 42 women) who were transferred directly to rehabilitation following cardiosurgery. The control group, comprising 62 patients (mean age = 71 +/- 6 yrs, 42 men and 20 women), was transferred to an acute-care hospital following cardiosurgery before commencing rehabilitation. Sociodemographic and clinical data were comparable between the two groups. RESULTS: At the end of rehabilitation, the mean maximum ergometric performance in the pilot group was 96 +/- 33 W, significantly higher than the control group's performance of 81 +/- 31 W. One difference between the two groups related to complications. During rehabilitation, complications occurred more frequently within the pilot group. In the pilot group, compared to the control group, postcardiotomy syndrome occurred in 45.3 versus 25.8% and impaired wound healing in 10.1 versus 4.8% of cases. Despite these results, the pilot group demonstrated a significantly shorter overall hospital stay of 39.5 +/- 7.5 days compared to the control group stay of 45.7 +/- 9.7 days. CONCLUSION: Compared to the control group, the pilot group was at no disadvantage with regard to clinical or performance data by the end of rehabilitation. Cardiac complications occur more often during rehabilitation taking place directly after cardiosurgery than with the conventional procedure. These can be viewed, however, as complications occurring directly in temporal conjunction with the operation and as to be expected. Complications attributed directly to fast-track rehabilitation can be excluded. In the pilot group the overall hospital stay was thus shortened. In an environment of legislative restructuring within the healthcare sector, this shows that adequate treatment of cardiosurgical patients is still guaranteed with fast-track rehabilitation.