Section for Long Term Care and Rehabilitation Dallas, Texas February 27-28, 2001 Brian Ellsworth and...
-
Upload
mackenzie-weeks -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Section for Long Term Care and Rehabilitation Dallas, Texas February 27-28, 2001 Brian Ellsworth and...
Section for Long Term Section for Long Term Care and RehabilitationCare and Rehabilitation
Dallas, TexasFebruary 27-28, 2001
Brian Ellsworth and Barbara MaroneSenior Associate Directors
American Hospital Association
Washington Report…
Summary of MedPAC’sView of Post-Acute CareDraft Chapter 6 of the March 1, 2001 Report to Congress:”Post-Acute Care Prospective Payment: Current Issues and Longer Term Agenda”
Post-acute Care
• Skilled nursing facilities
• Home health agencies
• Inpatient rehabilitation facilities
• Long-term care hospitals
Context for Post-acute Care:Rapid Growth, Then Cutbacks
• 34% growth in post-acute expenditures per year from 1988-94
• 25% of Medicare inpatient users went to a post-acute setting in 1997
• SNF payments declined from $11 to $9.4 billion during 1997- 99
• Home health payments declined from $17.8 to $9.5 billion during 1997-99
Post-acute: Difficult to Compartmentalize
~ Different conditions of participation
~ Differences in Medicare
coverage criteria
MedPAC Study on Post-acute Substitution: Findings and Recommendation
• Difficult to predict post-acute setting with administrative data
• “Empirical evidence on substitution weak”
• Recommendation: Secretary should conduct empirical study to assess extent of substitution across settings
MedPAC: Need for “Common Core” of Data Elements
• Goal: Improve payment systems and quality monitoring
• Likely elements: Functional status, diagnosis, comorbidities, cognitive status
• Recommendation: While implementing BIPA provision to develop patient assessment instruments with comparable common data elements, the Secretary should minimize reporting burden and unnecessary complexity while assuring that only necessary data are collected for payment and quality monitoring
MedPAC Critique of MDS-PAC
• Overly long: 400+ items
• Complex: inconsistent timeframes, different rating scales
• Does not adequately assess needs of medically complex patients
MedPAC: Medicare Needs to Pay Correctly across Settings
• Access and care delivery should not be driven by financial considerations
• Equal payment for equivalent services
• Recommendations: Secretary should develop for potential implementation a patient classification system that predicts costs within and across post-acute settings; Secretary should conduct demonstrations to test feasibility of including larger scope of services in the payment bundle
Shorter Term Payment Issues
• SNF PPS refinement
• Rehabilitation PPS implementation
• Home health PPS monitoring
Skilled Nursing Facility PPS – Problems
• MDS does not collect variables that account for higher acuity patients
• RUGs uses staff time to measure resource use
• Recommendation: Secretary should develop a new classification system for SNF care while continuing to monitor access and quality
MDS Problems
• Never explicitly tested with skilled patients
• Large intra-group variation in resource use
• Poor accuracy and inter-rater reliability
SNF PPS – Adequacy of Payment (distinct from allocation of payments)
• MedPAC found no evidence of critical need to increase base payments above current law
• Access to SNFs: No widespread problems found
• Exit and entry into SNF market: More SNFs since BBA; decline in number of hospital-based facilities
• Payment and use from 1996 to 1999 indicates overall growth
SNF PPS – Adequacy of Payment (distinct from allocation of payments)
• Number of certified skilled nursing facilities by type and year
1996 1998 2000
Hospital-based 2,080 2,171 1,897
Freestanding 12,002 12,864 12,938
All facility types 14,082 15,035 14,835
Rehabilitation PPS: Concern about MDS-PAC
• Imposes undue data collection burden and short-term disruption
• MDS-PAC does not accurately measure cognitive status
• Reverse coding of ADLs confusing to longstanding FIM users
• Lengthy form with multiple assessments during an episode
• Recommendation: Until a core set of common data elements for post-acute care is developed, the Secretary should require the Functional Independence Measure as the patient assessment tool for the inpatient rehabilitation PPS
MedPAC: Other PPS Issues
• Rehabilitation PPS Recommendation: Higher outlier percentage of
5% and study whether a different policy is needed
Recommendation: Secretary should re-examine the disproportionate share adjustment
Recommendation: Update the case mix weights over time
• Home Health PPS Recommendation: Secretary should monitor use
of significant change in condition payment adjustments and payments for wound care
AHA View of MedPAC Post-acute Chapter: Overall Comments
• Adequately presents complicated topic
• Is generally consistent with the Commission’s discussions over the last few months
• The AHA appreciates MedPAC’s attention to regulatory burden and system coherence issues
AHA View: Post-acute Chapter
• Not enough specifics on the rationales for standardization of assessment elements, which might include:
Improvement in reliability of the data Reduction of silo effect Increase in ability of providers to cross-
train nurses Increase in efficiency of information
systems
AHA View: Post-acute Chapter
• Looking across settings, more emphasis needs to be placed on:
Patient severity measurement problems Differences in coverage criteria Differences in regulatory requirements
• AHA has significant ongoing concern about adequacy of payment for medically complex patients
SNF, Home Health, Rehabilitation PPS and Regulatory Updates
Skilled Nursing Facility PPS
• BIPA changes to be implemented 4/1/01 16.66% adjustment to nursing component Modification to 20% add-ons (6.7% for rehab) Market basket changes No Part B Consolidated Billing
• Case mix refinement unlikely in 2001, HCFA to issue RFP for more research
• April proposed rule to address swing beds, and may “discuss” market basket and wage index
Skilled Nursing Facilities: Quality Indicators
• Research on 21 new quality indicators for post-acute underway, AHA commented in November: Not adequately risk adjusted Concern about reliability of the data Potential for perverse incentives
• Pilot tested in 2001, implementation timeframe unclear
Home Health PPS
• Ongoing concerns about cash flow due to unforeseen billing system problems & vendor software inadequacies
• BIPA adjustments PIP extension Market basket reduction eliminated for 2001 15% reduction delayed to 2003 Temporary 10% add-on for rural HHAs Homebound definition clarification
Home Health: 2001 agenda
• Legislative Repeal 15% reduction Medical supplies for chronically ill patients
• Promote refinements to PPS to simplify the system and improve payment accuracy
• Adverse event reports OASIS data reliability questions Not risk adjusted
• Advanced beneficiary notices
Rehabilitation PPS: AHA Supports Basic System Goals
• AHA Concerns
HCFA policy decisions System timing Specific technical features
Data Collection for Rehab PPS
AHA recommends that HCFA use FIM
• Field is familiar with FIM
• Validated by HCFA’s researchers
• Smaller number of data items
• Less paperwork burdenMedPAC recommends: Until a core set of common data elements for post-acute care is developed, the Secretary should require the Functional Independence Measure as the patient assessment tool for the inpatient rehabilitation PPS
MDS-PAC Costs
Per Case Expenses Associated with MDS-PAC
HCFA Estimates
AHA Member
Estimates Difference
Data collection—Average cost per case (@ 3x/case)
$ 70.00 $ 122.00 $ 52.00
Data Entry—Average cost per case $ 3.75 $ 9.00 $ 5.25
Sub total $ 57.25
Facility Expenses Associated with MDS-PAC
Training—Clinical (1 person for 16 hrs.) $ 368.00 $ 480.00 $ 112.00
Training—Administrative (1 person for 5.5 hours)
$ 69.00 $ 71.50 $ 2.50
Systems Acquisitions $ 0 $ 6,800.00 $ 6,800.00
Data Storage – 5 year estimate $ 0 $ 2,830.00 $ 2,830.00
Total $ 511.00 $ 10,312.00 $ 9,802.00
Timing of Rehab PPS
• Anticipate October 1, 2001 startup
• Information system changes
• Training
• Field-testing
• Response to comments – refinements of case mix system and payment features
Medical Complexity
• Payment system falls short in recognizing medically complex cases
CMG compression Shortfalls from transfer policy Inadequacy of outlier payment
Inter-relationship of the Key Elements of the Proposed Rehab PPS
PAYMENTFEATURE:
Short staytransfers
(paid as per diem)Patients with short stay twice as likely to have
comorbidities as others.
PAYMENTFEATURE:
Outlier paymentFacility costs are estimated using
routine charges, which do not vary enough by
CMG.
PAYMENT FEATURE:
Case weight compression
Routine costs do not vary enough
by CMG.
OUTCOME:Systematic under-reimbursement for inpatient
rehabilitation facilities with a high proportion of patients with multiple comorbidities.
CORE PROBLEM:
Inadequate recognition of the effect of multiple
comorbiditieson per diem
routine costs.
Rehab PPS: AHA Recommendations
• Remedy compression of the case mix weights
• Eliminate (or narrow the scope of) the transfer policy, particularly with respect to medically complex patients
• Pay 150 percent for the first day’s care under any transfer policy
• Modify the outlier policy for medically complex cases to ensure that facilities with justifiably higher high routine costs are appropriately recognized
Other Policy Concerns
• Disproportionate share hospitals
Represents 40% of payment per case on average No threshold to qualify for adjustment Indirect proxy for case mix...? Impact of DSH on provider behavior
• Indirect Medical Education
Insignificant effects on universe, significant effects on those with sizeable GME programs
MedPAC recommendation: Secretary should re-examine the disproportionate share adjustment for the inpatient rehabilitation prospective payment system
Latest RAND Analysis of Comorbidities
• Effects of comorbidities varies by FRG
• RAND seeking input on recognition of possible preventable conditions
Urinary tract infections Chronic skin ulcers Thrombophlebitis Acute osteomyelitis
Latest RAND Analysis of Comorbidities
• Proposing three payment tiers for comorbidities
• Highest cost comorbidity determines payment tier
Minimizes consequences of upcoding
Lacks explicit recognition of multiple comorbidities
Latest RAND Analysis of Comorbidities: Suggested Three Tier Model
ConditionPercent of
SampleAverage
CoefficientStandard
ErrorVentilator 0.04% 0.2810 0.0612Miscellaneous throat problems 0.02% 0.2203 0.0759Tracheostomy 0.30% 0.2188 0.0208Transfusion and selected anemias 0.05% 0.2183 0.0533Candidasis (selected) 0.07% 0.1903 0.0440Vocal cord paralysis 0.13% 0.1694 0.0314
Malnutrition 0.12% 0.1469 0.0325Thrombophlebitis (selected codes) 1.53% 0.1428 0.0092Transfusion and other anemias 1.46% 0.1409 0.0094Chronic ulcers 3.38% 0.1302 0.0064Intestinal infection clostridium 0.60% 0.1281 0.0147Dialysis 0.55% 0.1186 0.0155Cachexia 0.09% 0.1153 0.0375Meningitis and encephalitis 0.15% 0.1134 0.0293Osteomyelitis 0.34% 0.1103 0.0197Dysphagia 3.95% 0.1075 0.0060Other infections 2.45% 0.1034 0.0074
Hemiplegia 1.01% 0.0993 0.0117Urinary tract infection 12.27% 0.0929 0.0035Complications of diabetes-renal 1.07% 0.0889 0.0115Gangrene 0.11% 0.0805 0.0340Obesity 0.61% 0.0793 0.0146Major' comorbidities 5.47% 0.0682 0.0051Esophagal conditions 0.21% 0.0652 0.0245Pneumonia 1.98% 0.0589 0.0082Pseudonomas 0.51% 0.0583 0.0160Complicaitons of diabetes except renal 3.06% 0.0496 0.0068Amputation of LE 0.57% 0.0440 0.0152
Latest RAND (draft) Analysis of FRGs: Updating Patient Classification
• Incorporated 1998 and 1999 data • Explored different statistical methods
Validated original CART approach
• Examined different specifications of (13 item) motor and (5 item) cognitive scales Considering deleting transfer to tub/shower from
motor scale (inverse relationship to costs)
• Tinkered with group splits 95 group model, downplays age and cognitive
Latest RAND Analysis of FRGs: Initial AHA View
• “Inherent randomness” found at case level – suggests increased role for outliers?
• Analysis did not consider previous or new thinking on comorbidities time to further rethink cognitive scale and age
splits?
• Suggested change to motor scale (delete tub/shower) appears to make sense
• FRG cut points lack stability over time
Next Steps
• Convince HCFA to adopt FIM
Grass roots support Letters from Congress, especially Ways & Means
and Finance committee members
• Monitor HCFA progress of final rule
• Assess if legislation is needed
Medicare Part B Therapy Study:Stephanie Maxwell, PhD, The Urban Institute2100 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037(202) 261-5825 Fax (202) 223-1149 [email protected]
THE URBAN INSTITUTE:Background: Payment and Coverage Policy
• BBA 1997
1998: Costs minus 10 percent (facilities) 1999+: MFS (all providers) 1999+: $1,500 caps (implemented per facility)
• BBRA 1999
Caps suspended during 2000 and 2001
• BIPA 2000
Caps suspended during 2002
THE URBAN INSTITUTE:Background: Recommendations and Studies
• Coverage/payment policy
• Appropriate utilization
• 1998-2000 utilization comparison
• Focused medical review (emphasis on SNF claims)
THE URBAN INSTITUTE:Study Policy Issues: Alternatives to the Caps
• Fee schedule mechanisms
• Cap mechanisms
• Pre/post-payment medical review
• Case-mix classification methods
THE URBAN INSTITUTE:Study Empirical Questions
• Impact of fee schedule (1998 vs. 2000)
• Impact of caps (1999 vs. 2000)
• Patients over $1,500 thresholds
Payment distributions Patient and provider characteristics
• Prior service use, diagnoses, functional status
THE URBAN INSTITUTE:Study Data Sets
• Medicare final action claims
5 percent national sample Sample size ~ 1.9 million beneficiaries 1998, 1999, 2000
• OSCAR data (certification surveys of facilities)
• Pooled sample of MCBS data
THE URBAN INSTITUTE:Study Deliverable I: Policy Issues Report
• Background
• Private-sector coverage and payment policies
• Alternatives to the $1,500 caps
THE URBAN INSTITUTE:Study Deliverable 2: Utilization Report
• Annual, beneficiary-level analysis
• Comparison across 1998-2000
• Payments relative to $1,500 thresholds
• Therapy type (PT, OT, SLP)
• Provider type (PTIP, MD, RA, CORF, OPD, SNF, HHA)
• Patient characteristics and diagnoses
THE URBAN INSTITUTE:Study Deliverable 3: Episodes of Care Report
• Characteristics of Part B therapy episodes
• Relations to prior Medicare use
• Provider, therapy, and patient characteristics
THE URBAN INSTITUTE:Study Deliverable 4: Explore Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey
• Nationally representative, annual survey
• Annual sample size ~ 10,000 beneficiaries
• ADL/IADL items
• Survey data link to Medicare claims