Improving target price calculations in Medicare bundled payment programs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive accuracy of two approaches to target price calculations under Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced (BPCI-A): the traditional Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) methodology and an empirical Bayes approach designed to mitigate the effects of regression to the mean. DATA SOURCES: Medicare fee-for-service claims for beneficiaries discharged from acute care hospitals between 2010 and 2016. STUDY DESIGN: We used data from a baseline period (discharges between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2013) to predict spending in a performance period (discharges between October 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016). For 23 clinical episode types in BPCI-A, we compared the average prediction error across hospitals associated with each statistical approach. We also calculated an average across all clinical episode types and explored differences by hospital size. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We used a 20% sample of Medicare claims, excluding hospitals and episode types with small numbers of observations. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The empirical Bayes approach resulted in significantly more accurate episode spending predictions for 19 of 23 clinical episode types. Across all episode types, prediction error averaged $8456 for the CMS approach versus $7521 for the empirical Bayes approach. Greater improvements in accuracy were observed with increasing hospital size. CONCLUSIONS: CMS should consider using empirical Bayes methods to calculate target prices for BPCI-A.

Achieving Equity in Telehealth: "Centering at the Margins" in Access, Provision, and Reimbursement.

The SARS-CoV-2 epidemic has led to rapid transformation of health care delivery and access with increased provision of telehealth services despite previously identified barriers and limitations to this care. While telehealth was initially envisioned to increase equitable access to care for under-resourced populations, the way in which telehealth provision is designed and implemented may result in worsening disparities if not thoughtfully done. This commentary seeks to demonstrate the opportunities for telehealth equity based on past research, recent developments, and a recent patient experience case example highlighting benefits of telehealth care in underserved patient populations. Recommendations to improve equity in telehealth provision include improved virtual visit technology with a focus on patient ease of use, strategies to increase access to video visit equipment, universal broadband wireless, and inclusion of telephone visits in CMS reimbursement criteria for telehealth.

Improving Payment for Collaborative Mental Health Care in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence supporting implementation of the Collaborative Care Model within primary care. Fee-for-service payment codes, published by Current Procedural Terminology in 2018, have made collaborative care separately reimbursable for the first time. These codes (ie, 99492-99494) reimburse for time spent per month by any member of the care team engaged in Collaborative Care, including behavioral care managers, primary care providers, and consulting psychiatrists. Time-based billing for these codes presents challenges for providers delivering Collaborative Care services. OBJECTIVES: Based on experience from multiple health care organizations, we reflect on these challenges and provide suggestions for implementation and future refinement of the codes. CONCLUSIONS: Further refinements to the codes are encouraged, including moving from a calendar month to a 30-day reimbursement cycle. In addition, we recommend payers adopt the new code proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to account for smaller increments of time.

The effects of coding intensity in Medicare Advantage on plan benefits and finances.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how beneficiary premiums, expected out-of-pocket costs, and plan finances in the Medicare Advantage (MA) market are related to coding intensity. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: MA plan characteristics and administrative records from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for the sample of beneficiaries enrolled in both MA and Part D between 2008 and 2015. Medicare claims and drug utilization data for Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries were used to calibrate an independent measure of health risk. STUDY DESIGN: Coding intensity was measured by comparing the CMS risk score for each MA contract with a contract level risk score developed using prescription drug data. We conducted regressions of plan outcomes, estimating the relationship between outcomes and coding intensity. To develop prescription drug scores, we assigned therapeutic classes to beneficiaries based on their prescription drug utilization. We then regressed nondrug spending for TM beneficiaries in 2015 on demographic and therapeutic class identifiers for 2014 and used the coefficients to predict relative risk. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found that, for each $1 increase in potential revenue resulting from coding intensity, MA plan bid submissions declined by $0.10 to $0.19, and another $0.21 to $0.45 went toward reducing plans' medical loss ratios, an indication of higher profitability. We found only a small impact on beneficiary's projected out-of-pocket costs in a plan, which serves as a measure of the generosity of plan benefits, and a $0.11 to $0.16 reduction in premiums. As expected, coding intensity's effect on bids was substantially larger in counties with higher levels of MA competition than in less competitive counties. CONCLUSIONS: While coding intensity increases taxpayers' costs of the MA program, enrollees and plans both benefit but with larger gains for plans. The adoption of policies to more completely adjust for coding intensity would likely affect both beneficiaries and plan profits.

Ensuring access to health care by FQHCs as states reopen amid COVID-19.

One in 5 Americans utilizes federally qualified health center (FQHC) services for their primary care, preventive, and community health needs. Medicaid and FQHC programs have been partners at the forefront of addressing population health needs for more than 50 years. Although testing and contact tracing during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis are helping rural FQHC patients, there are other vital Medicaid services that are both available right now and ripe for enhancement to ensure the accessibility of services during and after the COVID-19 emergency. A primary example is nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT). Community health centers must focus on NEMT use to ensure access to care for rural patients as states reopen. This commentary defines NEMT and ways that FQHCs can enhance it as a Medicaid benefit as states reopen amid COVID-19.

Price transparency implementation: Accessibility of hospital chargemasters and variation in hospital pricing after CMS mandate.

BACKGROUND: National regulations have increasingly focused on transparency in hospital billing and pricing practices. A January 2019 federal mandate required hospitals to publicize lists of billable procedures and items known as chargemasters. METHODS: We identified the 500 top self-pay/uninsured revenue grossing hospitals nationally and searched each hospital's website for a chargemaster. Corresponding items were matched across chargemasters. Intrahospital and interhospital price variation were calculated. To investigate variation in item naming, a name variant and fuzzy matching search was conducted for fifteen common chargemaster items. RESULTS: Of 500 hospitals in this study, 69 (13.8%) had chargemasters that were inaccessible and 30 (6.0%) had chargemasters that did not meet mandated requirements. Among the remaining 431 hospitals, the mean interhospital and intrahospital variation in pricing for identical items was 18% (SD 28%) and 28% (SD 29%), respectively. 388 hospitals listed multiple prices for the same item, with a mean of 687.3 duplicated items (SD 1157.7). Among fifteen common chargemaster items, each item was associated with an average of 275 (SD 213) unique name variants. Interhospital price variation of these items ranged from 53% (transthoracic echocardiogram) to 243% (furosemide 40 mg). CONCLUSIONS: Many chargemasters have barriers to access, and item naming is inconsistent across chargemasters. There is significant interhospital price variation for similar items. IMPLICATIONS: Chargemasters are uninterpretable for the purpose of patient price comparison in their current form. Further regulatory efforts are necessary to increase price transparency and enhance the ability of patients to compare hospital prices.

Improving Healthcare Value: COVID-19 Emergency Regulatory Relief and Implications for Post-Acute Skilled Nursing Facility Care.

Rarely, if ever, does a national healthcare system experience such rapid and marked change as that seen with the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, the president of the United States declared a national health emergency, enabling the Department of Health & Human Services authority to grant temporary regulatory waivers to facilitate efficient care delivery in a variety of healthcare settings. The statutory requirement that Medicare beneficiaries stay three consecutive inpatient midnights to qualify for post-acute skilled nursing facility coverage is one such waiver. This so-called Three Midnight Rule, dating back to the 1960s as part of the Social Security Act, is being scrutinized more than half a century later given the rise in observation hospital stays. Despite the tragic emergency circumstances prompting waivers, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and Congress now have a unique opportunity to evaluate potential improvements revealed by COVID-19 regulatory relief and should consider permanent reform of the Three Midnight Rule.

Self-Direction of Home and Community-Based Services in the Time of COVID-19.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, nursing homes and assisted living facilities have accounted for over 20% of all infections, adult day care and other congregate sites have closed, and traditional home care agencies are facing staff shortages. In this environment, self-direction of home and community-based services, where the participant can hire their own staff and manage a budget that can be used for a broad range of goods and services including home modifications and assistive devices, is seen as a promising intervention. Using self-direction participants can minimize the number of people who enter their homes and pay close family and friends who were already providing many hours of informal care, and now may be unemployed. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is encouraging this approach. This commentary presents information on how states have responded using the new CMS Toolkit by expanding who can be a paid caregiver, increasing budgets and broadening the kinds of items that can be purchased with budgets to include items like personal protective equipment and supports for telehealth. This Commentary concludes with policy and research questions regarding how the delivery of long-term services and supports (LTSS) may change as the world returns to"normal".

The Early Impact of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services State Innovation Models Initiative on 30-Day Hospital Readmissions Among Adults With Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) State Innovation Models (SIM) Initiative funds states to accelerate delivery system and payment reforms. All SIM states focus on improving diabetes care, but SIM's effect on 30-day readmissions among adults with diabetes remains unclear. METHODS: A quasi-experimental research design estimated the impact of SIM on 30-day hospital readmissions among adults with diabetes in 3 round 1 SIM states (N=671,996) and 3 comparison states (N=2,719,603) from 2010 to 2015. Difference-in-differences multivariable logistic regression models that incorporated 4-group propensity score weighting were estimated. Heterogeneity of SIM effects by grantee state and for CMS populations were assessed. RESULTS: In adjusted difference-in-difference analyses, SIM was associated with an increase in odds of 30-day hospital readmission among patients in SIM states in the post-SIM versus pre-SIM period relative to the ratio in odds of readmission among patients in the comparison states post-SIM versus pre-SIM (ratio of adjusted odds ratio=1.057, P=0.01). Restricting the analyses to CMS populations (Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries), resulted in consistent findings (ratio of adjusted odds ratio=1.057, P=0.034). SIM did not have different effects on 30-day readmissions by state. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that SIM reduced 30-day readmission rates among adults with diabetes during the first 2 years of round 1 implementation, even among CMS beneficiaries. It may be difficult to reduce readmissions statewide without greater investment in health information exchange and more intensive use of payment models that promote interorganizational coordination.

Mapping colocation: Using national provider identified data to assess primary care and behavioral health colocation.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence supports that integrated behavioral health care improves patient outcomes. Colocation, where health and behavioral health providers work in the same physical space, is a key element of integration, but national rates of colocation are unknown. We established national colocation rates and analyzed variation by primary care provider (PCP) type, practice size, rural/urban setting, Health and Human Services region, and state. METHOD: Data were from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' 2018 National Plan and Provider Enumeration System data set. Practice addresses of PCPs (family medicine, general practitioners, internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrician/gynecologists), social workers, and psychologists were geocoded to latitude and longitude coordinates. Distances were calculated; those < 0.01 miles apart were considered colocated. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted, and maps were generated. RESULTS: Of the 380,690 PCPs, > 44% were colocated with a behavioral health provider. PCPs in urban settings were significantly more likely to be colocated than rural providers (46% vs. 26%). Family medicine and general practitioners were least likely to be colocated. Only 12% of PCPs who were the sole PCP at an address were colocated compared with 48% at medium-size practices (11-25 PCPs). DISCUSSION: Although colocation is modestly expanding in the United States, it is most often occurring in large urban health centers. Efforts to expand integrated behavioral health care should focus on rural and smaller practices, which may require greater assistance achieving integration. Increased colocation can improve access to behavioral health care for rural, underserved populations. This work provides a baseline to assist policymakers and practices reach behavioral health integration. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Preparing for a value-driven future.

At this month's staff meeting of your integrated primary care practice, the medical director makes an announcement: Your health system just signed a contract that includes a value-based payment (VBP) arrangement with a local managed care organization (MCO). The medical director suggests that this will lead to big changes in your practice because you will now focus on producing patient outcomes rather than on volume of care delivered. You wonder: What is a VBP arrangement? What kinds of patient outcomes? What does this mean for integrated care? and How do I help our organization succeed? Value-based care is the future, and it will impact the way that all of us practice. In value-based arrangements, the delivery of care fundamentally changes because payment for care shifts from our current fee-for-service model, in which provider productivity is key to financial survival, to payment for positive clinical outcomes where quality of care rules. And this change is happening now. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced aggressive national VBP targets, with a goal of tying 50% of all Medicare payments to alternative payment models by the end of 2018 (New York State Department of Health, 2015). Since then, many states have adopted similar targets for their Medicaid programs in light of ongoing state budget challenges and unsustainable cost growth trends. As these changes take hold, health care providers are increasingly expected to make fundamental changes to service delivery, financial, and organizational operations. As health care providers, VBP will require us and our health centers to develop new skills, capacities, and systems for managing clinical, financial, and operational performance and risk. We must all make sure we understand and are ready to play our part in the transition to VBP. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Uncertainty from COVID-19 delays progress on the road to value-based cancer care.

COVID-19 has created a significant distraction from normal practice operations. The uncertainty that comes along with the pandemic is a huge worry, and can distract from practice transformation.

Three ways COVID-19 makes the Oncology Care First Model more attractive.

COVID-19 has delayed the transition to Oncology Care First, but the forthcoming model could help.

COVID-19 and mental health in America: Crisis and opportunity?

There is opportunity in every crisis. COVID-19 has presented an unprecedented crisis. What opportunity can be gleaned from it? Unlike crises in the more recent past, such as the bombing of the Twin Towers and Pentagon on 9/11, COVID-19 is an ongoing global pandemic, affecting nearly every person on the planet in some shape or form. It is not only the physical effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that are lethal; the mental health effects are also taking their toll. The impact of physical distancing, stay-at-home orders, job loss, isolation, and fear have resulted in a considerably greater number of people's experiencing symptoms of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder in the United States. Accessing health care services has been a particular challenge given concerns about exposure to the virus and an overwhelmed health care delivery system. In response, policymakers at the federal and state levels implemented changes aimed at addressing access to essential care to include telehealth services. As the public experiences firsthand the struggles of coping with mental health issues in a fragmented dysfunctional health system, there is an opportunity is to use this crisis as a springboard to advocate for permanent changes to promote telehealth, to elevate the importance of integrated behavioral health, and to support the destigmatization of mental illness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).