Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

State Trends in Nursing Home Pay for Performance Washington Health Care Association Annual Convention 2010 Spokane, WA. Leslie Hendrickson Hendrickson.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "State Trends in Nursing Home Pay for Performance Washington Health Care Association Annual Convention 2010 Spokane, WA. Leslie Hendrickson Hendrickson."— Presentation transcript:

1 State Trends in Nursing Home Pay for Performance Washington Health Care Association Annual Convention 2010 Spokane, WA. Leslie Hendrickson Hendrickson Development 1

2 Goals Depends on Point of View Individual -- Want to learn something interesting about Pay for Performance. Building -- Want to understand what changes I should encourage in my building. State -- Identify issues to consider in encouraging state to adopt a P4P program. State organizing and lobbying effort. 2

3 Takeaways Individual Level Fifteen states, eight stable ones, three are project based. Culture change hard to get at in uniform way. Easier measures are CMS MDS quality of care measures, survey results, staffing data and occupancy from cost reports. Medicare may or may not use pay for performance. Will use it, if use of P4P reduces hospital expenditures. 3

4 Takeaways Building Level Staff retention key variable in all states. Medicaid occupancy frequently used. Emphasis on quality of life, culture change, self-direction and their reporting is increasing. Colorado using very interesting measures: dining, bathing, consistent staffing, staff input in care planning, community involvement and volunteers, neighborhoods. 4

5 Takeaways State Level 2008 Task Force Recommendations How P4P is funded is major determinant of success. If it comes out of current rate dont bother, e.g. Ohio difficulties. If it is new $ on top of current rate, then worthwhile to do. See 2008 Tim Graves Texas comments. Project based approaches Minnesota, Vermont, Utah good way to go. Voluntary or collect data on all homes. 5

6 CMS Value Based Purchasing A three-year demonstration beginning in summer 2009. As of March 1, 2010 Demonstration states: Arizona 38 homes, New York 78 homes, and Wisconsin 61 homes. Nursing homes within these states were solicited to participate in the demonstration. 6

7 7 CMS Value Based Purchasing –Aim 1: To examine the organizational characteristics and patient demographic and clinical characteristics of treatment and control group nursing homes. –Aim 2: To analyze the organizational and patient demographic and clinical characteristics of nursing homes eligible for performance payments, the amount of performance payments received, and subsequent impacts on nursing homes quality improvement and financial status. –Aim 3: To examine the impact of the demonstration on incidence of avoidable hospitalization and quality of care levels in participating nursing homes. –Aim 4: To assess the impact of the demonstration on nursing home management, organization, delivery of services and financial status. –Aim 5: To assess the impact of the demonstration, Medicare and Medicaid program expenditures and savings, and evaluate the cost- effectiveness of the demonstration.

8 8 CMS Evaluation Activities Literature Review Nursing Home Site Visits Evaluation Findings: Structure, Process, Cost and Quality Outcomes Longitudinal Nursing Home Interviews Merged Data Set Analysis (MDS, OSCAR, Medicare/Medicaid Claims, etc.)

9 How CMS will Measure Cost Effectiveness CMS will compare risk-adjusted Medicare Part A and B expenditures between the demonstration and comparison groups in each State. CMS will calculate the difference between the demonstration groups actual Medicare expenditures and the target expenditures (i.e., what we would expect Medicare expenditures for beneficiaries in demonstration homes to be in the absence of the demonstration). 9

10 How CMS will Measure Cost Effectiveness #2 The target expenditures will be calculated using base year expenditures for the demonstration group and the rate of change in expenditures for the comparison group since the base year. Stingy savings, basically must be in the 80 th percentile and above to qualify for payment from the state savings pool. Unlike state efforts this is not culture change. 10

11 New Federal Requirements in H.R. 3590 H.R. 3590 can get text at Nursing Home Transparency Title I Part 1 Sections 6101 through 6107. Sec. 6101. Required disclosure of ownership and additional disclosable parties information. Sec. 6102. Accountability requirements for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities. Sec. 6103. Nursing home compare Medicare website. 11

12 New Federal Requirements in H.R. 3590 #2 Sec. 6104. Reporting of expenditures. Sec. 6105. Standardized complaint form. Sec. 6106. Ensuring staffing accountability. Sec. 6107. GAO study and report on Five-Star Quality Rating System. 12

13 Where is Medicare Going? Title III Section 3006 of H.R. 3590 Next step P4P step is in sight. Requires Federal Health and Human Services to develop a pay for performance plan. Report plan to Congress by October 1, 2011. The ongoing development, selection, and modification to the extent feasible and practicable, of all dimensions of quality and efficiency in skilled nursing facilities. 13

14 Section 6102 of H.R. 3590 Not later than December 31, 2011, the Secretary shall establish and implement a quality assurance and performance improvement program shall establish standards relating to quality assurance and performance improvement with respect to facilities and provide technical assistance to facilities on the development of best practices in order to meet such standards. 14

15 Medicaid and Pay for Performance Best stats are from Kuhmerker 2007 Commonwealth Fund study 50% of states used P4P, 85% will by 2012. 70% of uses are in managed care and primary care case management (PCCM) Used in pay for participation in health information technology (HIT) programs Unlike CMS, state focus is often on improving quality, not reducing cost 15

16 Pay for Performance Themes Staffing – Retention, Turnover, and Consistency Quality of Care – Survey Data – Nursing Home Compare Data Culture Change Medicaid Occupancy Surveys of staff, residents and families 16

17 Summary Comments Roughly Fifteen States Arizona, funding on hold California largest P4P in country but doesnt know it. (labor driven operating allocation) Colorado, stable, new $ Georgia, stable, new $ Iowa- stable, $ in base Kansas stable, new $ Maryland, supposed to be new $, but isnt, being phased in. 17

18 Summary Comments Roughly Fifteen States # 2 18 Massachusetts in limbo now, Minnesota, stable, $ in base, project based Ohio, not new $, cap limits receipt of incentive Oklahoma, stable Texas, out for bid, 72,000 interviews required Utah stable, two programs one reimburses costs, other is project based Vermont stable, phased in, project based Virginia – discussed in 2007, dead now

19 Colorado 2010 P4P Application Really interesting. Well worth looking at CPF/1219400774885 CPF/1219400774885 19

20 2009 P4P Studies 2009 State of Colorado Nursing Facility Pay- for-Performance Application Review (For Applications Submitted 1/31/09) at CPF/1219400774885 CPF/1219400774885 Spring 2009 Pay-for-Performance in Nursing Homes HCFA article at Review/downloads/09Springpg1.pdf Review/downloads/09Springpg1.pdf 20

21 2009 P4P Studies #2 21

22 2009 P4P Studies Slide #3 2009 Oklahoma Focus On Excellence Independent Evaluation Easiest way to get this is to Google it. Hard to find on Oklahoma and Pacific Health Group site. 2009 article in Medical Care Review State Adoption of Nursing Home Pay-for- Performance. Ask Rachel Werner lead author for copy at 22

23 2009 P4P Studies #4 23

24 2008 P4P Studies #1 Bailit 2008 study of P4P for TX at Performance_0209.pdf Performance_0209.pdf Testimony of Tim Graves on Behalf of The Texas Health Care Association House Human Services Committee May 1, 2008 at ouse%20050108%20TG%201.pdf ouse%20050108%20TG%201.pdf 24

25 2008 P4P Studies #2 25

26 Washington 26 intcommittees/LTCRFP S/Pages/default.aspx

27 Voluntary or Mandatory Voluntary Kansas Oklahoma-survey part is voluntary Minnesota Colorado Utah Mandatory Iowa Georgia Ohio –calculated for everybody 27

28 Three States use Project Funding Vermonts Gold Star Program Minnesotas Utah 28

29 Vermont Gold Star Employer Improvement Program Homes get Gold Stars The best practices were identified in seven different areas: staff recruitment, orientation, staffing levels and work hours, professional development and advancement, supervision training and practices, team approaches and staff recognition and support. Uses workbook with application instruction. 29

30 Vermont Gold Star Employer Improvement Program Slide #2 To win a Gold Star, nursing homes must conduct a self-assessment, select a best practice area and develop a work plan. After one year, a council review team reviews the nursing facilitys progress through site visits and telephone interviews. The council awards Gold Star Employer Recognition based on achievement of designated goals or achievement of unanticipated goals that have measurable quality outcome improvements. 30

31 Vermont Quality Incentive Awards #3 Five of the states forty homes can get award of up to $25,000 each year. 1. The most recent health survey report resulted in a score of five or less, no deficiency with a scope and severity greater than AD@ level, with no more than two AD@ level deficiencies in the general categories of Quality of Care, Quality of Life, or Resident Rights. 31

32 Vermont Quality Incentive Awards #4 2. No substantiated complaints in previous 12 months related to quality of care, quality of life, or residents= rights. 3. Designated Gold Star Provider. 4. Resident satisfaction survey results above the statewide average 32

33 Minnesota Performance-based Incentive Payments Each Fall the State issues an RFP. Homes can get up to a 5% increase in per diem. Improve the quality of care and quality of life in a measurable way. Deliver good quality care more efficiently. Rebalance long-term care and make more efficient and effective use of resources. 33

34 Minnesota Slide Quality Add-on Program Minnesota had quality add-ons in 2006 and 2007 which made payments based on 24 risk- adjusted quality indicators, for example: Prevalence of Indwelling Catheters Prevalence of Urinary Tract Infection Prevalence of Infections Prevalence of Residents who Have Fallen Prevalence of Burns, Skin Tears or Cuts 34

35 Minnesota Quality Add-on Program #2 Quality Indicators were complicated used risk adjustments/weights. Four other measures. Direct care staff turnover; Direct care staff retention; Temporary staff usage; and State inspection findings. In 2007 did resident quality of life surveys. Were not funded after 2007. It was a choice of funding the Add Ons or funding the COLA. 35

36 Utah Quality Incentives $1,000,000 paid out of provider tax. If you spend the money you get some back. In 2010 can get additional funds for nine costs: for example, nurse call systems, patient lift systems, electronic records, HVAC, van and van equipment, resident enhancing activities, dining improvements. ngHomes/UHCA%202009- 04%20Revised%20Presentation.pdf ngHomes/UHCA%202009- 04%20Revised%20Presentation.pdf 36

37 37

38 Arizona Arizona has 134 licensed nursing homes contracted with the AHCCCS program. Pay $50,000 to the top 40% based on one or two performance measures such as pressure ulcers or use of restraints. Total $2.7 million plus $500,000 additional administrative costs--$3.2 million. 38

39 Colorado 39

40 Colorado 40

41 Georgia Nursing Home Quality Initiative First Phase Nursing Home Quality Initiative in 2003. Training needs identified and paid for from Civil Monetary Penalties (CMP). Next phase started in 2007. 41

42 Georgias Quality Incentive Rate System % of high risk long-stay residents pressure sores; % of long-stay residents physically restrained; % of long-stay residents moderate to severe pain; % of short-stay residents moderate to severe pain; % of residents who received influenza vaccine; and % of low risk long-stay residents pres sure sores. 42

43 Georgias Quality Incentive Rate System #2 Exceeding the threshold of 85 percent or higher of good or excellent ratings on the family satisfaction question would you recommend this facility? Participation in the employee satisfaction survey. Above the state average on either RN/LPN stability or certified nursing assistant stability. In 2007, 78% of homes received payments 43

44 Iowa Significant Change in 2009 Added Culture Change as reported in self certification form showing measures of Person Directed Care. Added three Nationally Reported Quality Measures of quality of care: – High-Risk Pressure Ulcer – Physical Restraints – Chronic Care Pain 44

45 Iowa Nursing Facility Pay-for- Performance Program Quality of life. – Person-Directed Care, Resident Satisfaction Quality of care. – Survey, Staffing, Nationally Reported Quality Measures Access. Efficiency. Most providers are only eligible for 1-3% increase. It is hard to get the full 5%. $1.40 a day to $1.50 a day is average add on that homes get. 45

46 Kansas Changes in 2009 Deemphasized focus on efficiency Added culture change but doesnt pay much for it Eliminated – Operating expenses – Staff retention but still keeps heavy emphasis on number of staff per se and staff turnover – Total occupancy – Survey outcomes now used as gate keeper rather than measure 46

47 Kansas 2009 47

48 Massachusetts Initiated by the state Is on hold because of budget problems The last published document on Massachusetts P4P was the MassHealth Nursing Facility Bulletin 129 December 2008. lth/bull_2008/nf-129.pdf lth/bull_2008/nf-129.pdf 48

49 Ohio Quality Incentive Program Deficiency free on the most survey results. Resident and family satisfaction surveys are above the statewide average. Number of hours nurses are employed is above the statewide average; Employee retention rate is above the average Occupancy rate, Medicaid utilization and case mix are above the statewide average. 49

50 Ohio 2009 Results #1 50

51 Ohio 2009 Results and Context #3 3,409 total points divided into amount of money allocated for P4P came out to.80 per day per point. P4P not paid for out of provider tax although Ohio has a provider tax. State in multi-year transition from cost-based reimbursement to price-based reimbursement with rate reductions. 51

52 Oklahoma Focus on Excellence Well documented effort because of Pacific Health Group study. Focus on Excellence has two components – an incentive payment methodology and a five star rating system published on a website. Significant disadvantage is that money for FOE comes out of existing reimbursement and is not new dollars. Homes facing 6.9% reduction in remainder of FY 10 and 10% in FY 2011. 52

53 Oklahoma #2 1. Quality of Life. 2. Resident/Family Satisfaction. 3. Employee Satisfaction. 4. System-wide Culture Change. 5. Certified Nursing Assistant/Nursing Assistant Turnover and Retention. 6. Nurse Turnover and Retention. 7. State Survey Compliance. 53

54 Oklahoma #3 8. Clinical Measures. Residents without: falls, acquired catheters, acquired physical restraints, unplanned weight loss/gain, and acquired pressure ulcers. 9. Nursing Staffing per Patient Day; 10. Overall Occupancy (used on website only); and SoonerCare (Medicaid) Occupancy and Medicare Utilization (used in incentive payment methodology only) 54

55 Companies Georgia and Oklahoma using My Innerview to collect family and resident interview. Oklahoma pays $646,000 a year to My InnnerView. Minnesota and Ohio used Vital Research to do resident interviews. In last two months, both Colorado and Texas issued RFPs for contractors. 55

Download ppt "State Trends in Nursing Home Pay for Performance Washington Health Care Association Annual Convention 2010 Spokane, WA. Leslie Hendrickson Hendrickson."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google