Post on 15-Jul-2020
E2CM: WHAT’S NEXT?
World Bank Group
October 2017
e2cm = Estonian Enhanced Care Management
1
Areas of further work
Risk-stratification
PHC provider competencies and skills
Involvement of other stakeholders
E-Health
Contracting and monitoring
2
Payment
systems
Impact
evaluation
Adjust to group practices
e2cm
Areas of further work
Risk-stratification
PHC provider competencies and skills
Involvement of other stakeholders
E-Health
Contracting and monitoring
3
Payment
systems
Impact
evaluation
Adjust to group practices
e2cm
Risk-Stratification Model for EECM
1 2 3 4 5
Vet registry
Clinical data B/S data
1 4 5
A
B
Metabolic Triad
(at least 1)
Include Exclude
CVD (1 or 2)
Respiratory disease(1 or 2)
Mental Health /
Disability (1)
Patients with no or
limited potential to benefit
from CM at PHC level
Favorable / unfavorable
Tailor response
Intuition
Exclusion: Not
amenable to change
through CM
Inclusion: “Missed” patients
Metabolic Triad
(at least 1)
Non-utilizers
Exclusion: as above
Known
Unknown
E2CM
Design principles of the risk-stratification approach
▪ Health maximization / potential to benefit from EECM
Archetypes
▪ Dynamic
▪ KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) at the beginning
Modular structure
▪ Mixed approach – (Data and intuition-based)
– Data: Clinical, behavioral, social
Design principles of the risk-stratification approach
▪ Health maximization / potential to benefit from EECM
Archetypes
▪ Dynamic
▪ KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) at the beginning
Modular structure
▪ Mixed approach – (Data and intuition-based)
– Data: Clinical, behavioral, social
Risk-Stratification - areas for further development
▪ Two tracks of patients
▪ Disease severity and amenability to EECM
▪ Sources of behavioral & social data
▪ National variations in the disease burden
▪ Dynamic risk-stratification
Two tracks of patients
1 2 3 4 5
Vet registry
Clinical data B/S data
1 4 5
A
B
Metabolic Triad
(at least 1)
Include Exclude
CVD (1 or 2)
Respiratory disease(1 or 2)
Mental Health /
Disability (1)
Patients with no or
limited potential to benefit
from CM at PHC level
Favorable / unfavorable
Tailor response
Intuition
Exclusion: Not
amenable to change
through CM
Inclusion: “Missed” patients
Metabolic Triad
(at least 1)
Non-utilizers
Exclusion: as above
Known
Unknown
E2CM
Two tracks of patients
A
B
Known
Unknown
E2CM
Different risk profiles for the same objective▪ Example 1: Elderly patients, multiple a/o unstable chronic conditions▪ Example 2: Relatively young patients, some chronic condition
Disease severity and amenability to EECM
1 2 3 4 5
Vet registry
Clinical data B/S data
1 4 5
A
B
Metabolic Triad
(at least 1)
Include Exclude
CVD (1 or 2)
Respiratory disease(1 or 2)
Mental Health /
Disability (1)
Patients with no or
limited potential to benefit
from CM at PHC level
Favorable / unfavorable
Tailor response
Intuition
Exclusion: Not
amenable to change
through CM
Inclusion: “Missed” patients
Metabolic Triad
(at least 1)
Non-utilizers
Exclusion: as above
Known
Unknown
E2CM
Disease severity and amenability to EECM
1 2 3 4 5
Clinical data
1 4 5
A
B
Metabolic Triad
(at least 1)
Include Exclude
CVD (1 or 2)
Respiratory disease(1 or 2)
Mental Health /
Disability (1)
Patients with no or
limited potential to benefit
from CM at PHC level
Favorable / unfavorable
Exclusion: Not
amenable to change
through CM
Inclusion: “Missed” patients
Metabolic Triad
(at least 1)
Non-utilizers
Exclusion: as above
Known
Unknown
E2CM
Severity of disease ->
Example:< 4 admissions / 12
months
Am
enab
ility
->
Importance of Behavioral and Social Data
Who are the high-need patients that are amenable to EECM?
Importance of Behavioral and Social Data
Who are the high-need patients that are amenable to EECM?
▪Social and behavioral factors are as important as actual medical needs
▪Behavioral/mental illnesses impact how well patients can handle their other chronic conditions
▪Social needs (loneliness, financial worries, etc.) critically define a patient’s health condition
Behavioral Social
x/✓ x/✓
Behavioral & social data - Tapping the great data existing data sources
Amenability to EECM
Behavioral▪ Info on missed visits (to become available)▪ Number of medications/number of medications picked up▪ Emergency visits▪ Avoidable specialist visits
Social▪ Living alone▪ Mother tongue & knowledge of Estonian▪ Socio-economic status (household income)▪ Education level▪ Employment status▪ Place of residence
Medical complexityPatient
behaviorSocial
determinants
Clinical data Behavioral & social data
National variations in the disease burden
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1
14
27
40
53
66
79
92
10
5
11
8
13
1
14
4
15
7
17
0
18
3
19
6
20
9
22
2
23
5
24
8
26
1
27
4
28
7
30
0
31
3
32
6
33
9
35
2
36
5
37
8
39
1
40
4
41
7
43
0
44
3
45
6
46
9
48
2
49
5
50
8
52
1
53
4
54
7
56
0
57
3
58
6
59
9
61
2
62
5
63
8
65
1
66
4
67
7
69
0
70
3
71
6
72
9
74
2
75
5
76
8
78
1
79
4
For about 500 GP lists, the % is 20 <-> 40. For the rest the % is lower or higher…
% of patients with >= 1 condition(s) from metabolic triad (DM/HTN/Hyperlipidemia)
National variations in the disease burden
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1
14
27
40
53
66
79
92
10
5
11
8
13
1
14
4
15
7
17
0
18
3
19
6
20
9
22
2
23
5
24
8
26
1
27
4
28
7
30
0
31
3
32
6
33
9
35
2
36
5
37
8
39
1
40
4
41
7
43
0
44
3
45
6
46
9
48
2
49
5
50
8
52
1
53
4
54
7
56
0
57
3
58
6
59
9
61
2
62
5
63
8
65
1
66
4
67
7
69
0
70
3
71
6
72
9
74
2
75
5
76
8
78
1
79
4
For about 500 GP lists, the % is 20 <-> 40. For the rest the % is lower or higher…
% of patients with >= 1 condition(s) from metabolic triad (DM/HTN/Hyperlipidemia)
▪ Homogeneity or heterogeneity of patients across FP practices▪ Balancing the size/risk-profile of patient lists across FP practices
▪ Dynamics of risk profiles– Changes in risk profiles over time (short-term acute vs. longer-term risk), need for graduation of
people from the registry according to rules
▪ Graduation/discharge rules:– How to balance the influx vs. outflow of patients through the right graduation/discharge criteria?
– How to determine whether someone stays in the CM program?
▪ Updates of the risk-stratification algorithms– Gradual but constant improvements to target the right patients
The goal - dynamic risk-stratification
Areas of further work
Risk-stratification
PHC provider competencies and skills
Involvement of other stakeholders
E-Health
Contracting and monitoring
18
Payment
systems
Impact
evaluation
Adjust to group practices
e2cm
Introduction to payment systems
19
Capitation FFS QBS Allowances
Payment methods
Classifying Counting Costing Pricing Monitoring
Payment system functions
Challenges of paying for E2CM:
• Activities are not considered under traditional payment methods (e.g. capitation, FFS,
allowances, pay for performance)
• Since they are historically not expected from primary health care providers, e.g.:
• Comprehensive assessment of care needs, considering patient’s social and contextual environment
• Development of comprehensive care plans (dual-facing, anticipatory)
• Coordination of care transitions (beyond referrals, including follow-up care)
• Coordination of social care services
20
Key principles of payment method design
• Payments can be made before services are delivered (ex-ante) or after (ex-post)
• Ex-ante payments tend to encourage efficiency, but may result in “skimping” or “cream-skimming”
• Ex-post payments encourage the delivery of priority services, but may result in unnecessary care
• Payment recipients include either:
• Structures/facilities (e.g. primary care practice) or
• Individual health care professionals (e.g. primary care physicians, nurses, primary and/or secondary care
specialists, etc.)
• Payment rates may vary based on patient severity level
21
Principle options for enhanced care management payment
22
Option 1:
Fixed-rate
payment
Option 2:
Fees for
services
Option 3:
Fees for
service
bundles
Option 4:
Performance
based
payments
Option 1: Fixed-rate payment
• Key features:
• Single payment covering costs of all program services for an average patient during a
business cycle
• Flat or risk-adjusted payment
• Ex-ante
• Example: “Experimentation of New Modes of Remuneration (ENMR)” in France
➢ Payer: National Health Insurance Fund - scheme for salaried workers
➢ Design:
➢ Separate flat, fixed-rate payments for three domains
• Care coordination
• Patient education
• Multidisciplinary approach
➢ Payments to the facilities not professionals
• 3 types of multidisciplinary primary care facilities with different governance structures and contracting arrangements
➢ Combined payments constituted approx. 5% of facility revenue
23
Option 2: Fees for services
• Key features:
• Fee-for-service
• Ex-post
• Example: “Chronic Care Management (CCM) Services” in the United States
➢ Payer: Medicare
➢ Design:
➢ Fees for two types of services:
i. initial assessment and care planning, and
ii. care coordination activities per month, including ongoing, non-face to face oversight, direction and management
➢ Fees vary depending on complexity of patient
➢ Payments to primary care physicians, certified nurse midwives, clinical nurse specialists, nurse
practitioners or physicians assistants
24
Option 3: Fees for service bundles
• Key features:
• Fees for bundles of services
• Ex-post
• Example: “Cardio-Integral” program in Germany
➢ Payer: AOK Plus - statutory sickness fund of Saxony and Thuringia
➢ Design:
➢ Three service bundles:
• Enrollment of patients, compliance monitoring (visits, treatment), adherence to clinical pathways
• Coordination of invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures
• Compliance with treatment guidelines, including drug lists
➢ Tariffs and billing frequencies dependent on care needs of patients with different cardiovascular
conditions
➢ Payments to structures – GP practices and cardiac department in University Hospital Dresden
25
Option 4: Performance-based payment
• Key features:
• Single payment, with amount contingent on provider performance
• Process or outcome indicators
• Ex-post or mixed
• Example: Second phase of “ENMR” program in France
➢ Payer: National Health Insurance Fund - scheme for salaried workers
➢ Design:
➢ Performance-based payment for care coordination domain only
➢ Distinguishes sub-domains of mandatory and optional services
➢ For each of these sub-domains, fixed and variable payments
• Fixed payments based on number of patients
• Variable component reflects improvement in care coordination processes (24 key indicators, three dimensions: (i)
quality of care, (ii) coordination and continuity and care, (iii) efficiency)
➢ Mixed: providers receive 60% of expected payment in advance with the remaining share paid at the end of
the year.
26
Some lessons
• Payment methods for enhanced care management can create strong incentives for providers to
enhance care management
• Focus is on improvements in processes rather than outcomes
• Typically constitute small share of provider revenue, however independent of the payment
method combined with close provider monitoring
• Administrative burden depends on overall payment system design
27
Potential integration with current payment methods
Presentation Title28
Capitation FFS QBS
Option 1:
Fixed-rate
payment
Option 2:
Fees for
services
Option 3:
Fees for
service
bundles
Option 4:
Performance
based
payments
Likely best design fit for Estonia
• Fixed-rate payment covering costs of all program services for an average patient during a
business cycle (Option 1)
• Reflects the comprehensive approach to enhanced care management
• Supports focus on coaching and supervision rather than billing and reporting in early stage of program
• Keeps administrative burden low (prior to a comprehensive e-health solution)
• Payment to structures (both solo and group practices)
• Facilitates shift from solo to group practices
• Eventually risk-adjusted dependent on improvements to risk-stratification
• Combined with development of contracting and provider monitoring model
29
30