Quality Reporting and Value-Based Purchasing: National and Minnesota
National Culture Strategies
AHRQ Patient
Safety Survey
(HSOPS)
Comprehensive
Unit-based Safety
Program (CUSP)
Transforming Care
at the Bedside
(TCAB)
Specific to Minnesota
SAFE Roadmap Program
CMS Incentive Programs
Hospital Valuebased Purchasing
Program (VBP)
Hospital Acquired
Condition Program
(HAC)
Hospital
Readmission
Reduction Program
(HRRP)
Hospital
Meaningful Use
eRx Incentive
Program
Physician ValueModifier/Feedback
Program
Physician Office
Meaningful Use
CMS Quality Reporting Programs
Acute Care
Hospital Inpatient
Quality Reporting
Program (IQR)
Inpatient
Psychiatric
Facilities
Quality
Reporting
Program
(IPFQR)
Inpatient
Rehab
Facility
Quality
Reporting
Program
(IRF QRP)
Episodic/Transition to Acute Care
Hospital
Outpatient
Quality
Reporting
Program
(OQR)
Ambulator
y Surgery
Center
Quality
Reporting
Program
(ASCQR)
Long Term
Care
Hospital
Quality
Reporting
Program
(LTCHQR)
PPS
Exempt
Cancer
Hospital
Quality
Reporting
Program
(PCHQR)
Ambulatory Care
Physician Quality
Reporting System
(PQRS)
Merit-Based
Incentive Payment
System (MIPS)
Home
Health
Quality
Reporting
Program
(HH QRP)
Hospice
Quality
Reporting
Program
Nursing
Home
Compare
(MDS data)
Specific to Minnesota
Statewide Quality Reporting
and Measurement System
(SQRMS)
Adverse Health Events
Reporting
Evolution of Hospital Pay for Reporting and Pay for
Performance Programs
Inpatient Quality
Reporting Program
(Supported by QIO)
Value-based
Purchasing
(Supported by QIN-QIO)
Hospital
Acquired
Condition
Program
Readmission
Reduction
Program
(Supported by RARE)
(Supported by CHAIN)
Meaningful use
Accountable Care
Organizations(ACO)
(Supported by REACH)
Practice
Transformation
Networks (PTN)
eRX Incentive
Program
(Supported by QIO)
Physician Quality
Reporting System
(Supported by QIO)
Meaningful Use
(Supported by REACH)
Physician ValueModifier
(Supported by QIN-QIO)
Merit-based Incentive Payment Program
(MIPS)
Hospital Value-based Purchasing Specifications
2017
Updated March 2016
Description
CMS incentive program for PPS hospitals. The purpose is to achieve value
by tying payment to process, outcome, patient experience and efficiency
measures.
Measure scores are either determined by improvement as compared to the
hospitals baseline performance or achievement as compared to the
achievement and benchmark targets; whichever is greater. These are rolled
up into domain scores, which are weighted to determine the total
performance score
Methodology
Specifications of individual measures are on QualityNet. The details of the
Value-based Performance program are contained in the CMS IPPS final
rule.
Measurement
Period
Data will be submitted on an annual basis on the following schedule. Final
results are reported by CMS at the beginning of the fiscal year in the 2017
final rule tables. For FY2017 the fiscal year begins with October 1, 2016
discharges and ends with September 30, 2017 discharges.
Results are published on Hospital Compare in December 2016. This will be
the data source
Performance periods for individual measures are listed below.
Allowable
Exclusions
Total
Performance
Score
•
•
•
Hospitals with less than 2 domain scores
Hospitals subject to payment reduction for the IQR program
Hospitals that have been cited for deficiencies that pose immediate
jeopardy the health or safety of patients
Measure scores are either determined by improvement as compared to
the hospitals baseline performance or achievement as compared to the
achievement and benchmark targets; whichever is greater. The domain
score is determined by summing the measure scores and dividing by the
potential points. Each domain score is weighted as determined by the
IPPS rule. For FY2017, it is as follows
•
•
•
•
30% - Clinical Care - Process
o 5% Clinical Care - Process
o 25% Clinical Care – Outcomes
25% - Patient experience of care
20% - Safety
25% - Efficiency
TPS = (Clinical Care Domain)(30%) + (Patient Experience Domain)(25%)
+(Safety Domain)(20%) + (Efficiency Domain)(25%)
Individual
measures
Listed below by domain:
Stratis Health, March 2016
Page 1
Hospital Value-based Purchasing Specifications
2017
Updated March 2016
CLINICAL CARE - PROCESS
Baseline Period
Performance Period
January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013
January 1, 2015 –
December 31, 2015
Measures
Threshold
(%)
Benchmark
(%)
AMI 7a Fibrinolytic agent received w/in 30’ of hospital arrival
95.4545
100
IMM-2 Influenza Immunization
95.1607
99.7739
PC-01 Elective Delivery Prior to 39 Completed Weeks Gestation
3.1250
0.00
CLINICAL CARE -OUTCOME
Mortality
Baseline Period
October 1, 2010 – June 30, 2012
Performance Period
October 1, 2013 – June 30, 2015
Measure (Displayed as survival rate)
Threshold (%)
Benchmark (%)
30-day mortality, AMI
85.1458
87.1669
30-day mortality, heart failure
88.1794
90.3985
30-day mortality, pneumonia
88.2986
90.8124
Stratis Health, March 2016
Page 2
Hospital Value-based Purchasing Specifications
2017
Updated March 2016
PATIENT EXPERIENCE OF CARE
Baseline Period
Performance Period
January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013
January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2015
HCAHPS
Survey Dimensions
HCAHPS Performance Standard
Floor (%)
Threshold
(%)
Benchmark
(%)
Communication with nurses
58.14
78.19
86.61
Communication with doctors
63.58
80.51
88.80
Responsiveness of hospital staff
37.29
65.05
80.01
Pain management
49.53
70.28
78.33
Communication about medications
41.42
62.88
73.36
Cleanliness and quietness
44.32
65.30
79.39
Discharge information
64.09
85.91
91.23
Overall rating of hospital
35.99
70.02
84.60
Stratis Health, March 2016
Page 3
Hospital Value-based Purchasing Specifications
2017
Updated March 2016
SAFETY
Complication/Patient Safety for Selected Indicators
Baseline Period
October 1, 2010 – June 30, 2012
Measure
AHRQ PSI 90 composite
Performance Period
October 1, 2013 – June 30, 2015
Threshold (%)
.777936
Benchmark (%)
.547889
Healthcare-Associated Infections
Baseline Period
January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013
Measure
CLABSI
CAUTI
SSI Colon‡
Abdominal Hysterectomy‡
C. difficile
MRSA
Performance Period
January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2015
Threshold (†)
0.457
0.845
0.751
0.698
0.750
0.799
Benchmark (†)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
†Standardized infection ratio.
‡There will be one SSI measure score that will be a weighted average based on predicted
infections for both procedures.
Stratis Health, March 2016
Page 4
Hospital Value-based Purchasing Specifications
2017
Updated March 2016
EFFICIENCY
Baseline Period
January 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013
Measure
Performance Period
January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2015
Threshold (%)
MSPB-1 Medicare spending per beneficiary
Median Medicare
spending per
beneficiary ratio
across all hospitals
during performance
period.
Stratis Health, March 2016
Page 5
Benchmark (%)
Mean of lowest
decile of Medicare
spending per
beneficiary ratios
across all hospitals
during performance
period.
Hospital Acquired Conditions Specifications
2017
Updated March 2016
Description
This program is a CMS incentive program for PPS hospitals to reduce harm
and increase patient safety by tying payment to hospital acquired
conditions.
Domain scores are determined by percentile ranking with other PPS
hospitals in nation. There are two domains and the scores are weighted to
determine the Total HAC score for each hospital.
Methodology
Sources used for development of the individual measures are contained on
QualityNet for the PSI 90 measure and CDC NHSN website for the HAI
measures. The details for the Hospital Acquired Condition program is
contained in the CMS IPPS final rule.
Measurement
Period
The final HAC program results are published on Hospital Compare in
December 2015. This will be the data source for measure scores, domain
scores and total HAC score
For FY2017, the fiscal year begins October 1, 2016 and includes discharges
through September 30, 2017.
The performance periods for individual measures are listed below.
Allowable
Exclusions
Composite
measure
Individual
measures
•
Less than 3 eligible discharges for at least one component indicator in
the PSI 90 composite
• Less than one predicted HAI event for any of the HAI measures
(CLABSI, CAUTI, SSI colon procedures, SSI abdominal hysterectomy
Each measure within each domain is given a measure score that relates to
its percentile ranking with other PPS hospitals in the nation. The domain
score is determined by adding the measure scores. For Domain 1 the
measure score and domain score are the same for FY2017. For Domain 2
SSI measure is based on the sum of the observed SSIs reported by
hospitals following colon and abdominal hysterectomy procedures divided
by the sum of the predicted SSIs for both procedures The three HAI
measures are averaged to obtain the Domain 2 score. Each domain score
is weighted as determined by the IPPS rule. Domain scores are weighted
15% for Domain 1 and 85% for Domain 2 to obtain the total HAC score.
Listed below by domain:
Stratis Health, March 2016
Page 1
Hospital Acquired Conditions Specifications
2017
Updated March 2016
DOMAIN 1
Performance Period
July 1, 2013 – June 30,
2015
AHRQ* PSI 90 Measure
Score 1-10
PSI 3 Pressure ulcer rate
PSI 6 Iatrogenic pneumothorax rate
PSI 7 Central venous catheter-related blood stream infection rate
PSI 8 Postoperative hip fracture rate
PSI 12 Postoperative pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis rate (DVT)
PSI 13 Postoperative sepsis rate
PSI 14 Wound dehiscence rate
PSI 15 Accidental puncture and laceration rate
*The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
DOMAIN 2
Performance Period
January 1, 2014 – December 31, 2015
CDC NHSN* Measures
CLABSI SIR rate
Average Score 1-10
1-10
CAUTI SIR rate
SSI Colon
SSI Abdominal Hysterectomy
1-10
1-10†
MRSA SIR rate
1-10
C. difficile SIR rate
1-10
*Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Healthcare Safety Network
†There will be one SSI measure score that will be a weighted average based on predicted
infections for both procedures
Stratis Health, March 2016
Page 2
Readmission Reduction Program Specifications
2017
Updated March 2016
Description
The Readmission Reduction Program CMS incentive program for PPS
hospitals to reduce unplanned rehospitalizations and cost by tying payment
to excess readmissions.
Excess readmissions are calculated as the ratio of predicted readmissions
to expected readmissions.
A composite measure will be calculated using the results from the CMS
Readmission Reduction Program.
Methodology
Specifications for individual measures is located on QualityNet. The details
of the Readmission Reduction Program (RRP) are contained in the CMS
IPPS final rule.
Measurement
Period
Data will be submitted on an annual basis on the following schedule:
Final results are released by CMS in the beginning of the fiscal year which
for FY2017 starts with October 1, 2016 discharges and ends with
September 30, 2017 discharges. A final table of results is published on the
2016 IPPS rule page. It contains the excess readmission ratio for each
condition for each hospital. This will be the source for data submission of
the individual measures listed below.
Final results are planned to be published in December 2016 on Hospital
Compare.
The composite measure will be calculated using these results
Denominator
Sum of the number of cases for each of the readmission measures
included in the readmission reduction program that the hospital has 25 or
more eligible discharges
AMI Cases + Pneumonia Cases + Heart Failure Cases + Hip/Knee Cases +
COPD Cases +CABG Cases
Allowable
Exclusions
Less than 25 eligible discharges for a measure would impact the number of
measures included in the composite measure.
Numerator
Number of readmission measures with excess readmissions (number of 1
or greater) for FY2017 which includes data from July 1, 2012 to June 30,
2015
(AMI Cases x excess ratio) +(Pneumonia Cases x excess ratio) + (Heart
Failure Cases x excess ratio) + (Hip/Knee Cases x excess ratio)+ (COPD
Cases x excess ratio) (CABG Cases x excess
ratio)
Individual
measures
contained in
•
•
•
30-day Readmissions Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI),
30-day Readmissions Heart Failure (HF)
30-day Readmissions Pneumonia (PN);
Stratis Health, March 2016
Page 1
Readmission Reduction Program Specifications
2017
Updated March 2016
the composite
measure
•
•
•
30-day Readmissions Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
(COPD)
30-day Readmissions Elective Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) and
Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA)
30 day Readmissions Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG)
surgery
Stratis Health, March 2016
Page 2
Statewide Quality Reporting and Measurement System
2016 Minnesota-Specific Measures
MN Stroke Registry: Door-to-Imaging Initiated Time
MN Stroke Registry: Time to Intravenous Thrombolytic Therapy
AHRQ Inpatient Quality Indicator: Mortality for Selected Conditions composite (IQI 91)
•
Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) Mortality Rate (IQI 15)
•
Congestive Heart Failure Mortality Rate (IQI 16)
•
Acute Stroke Mortality Rate (IQI 17)
•
Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage Mortality Rate (IQI 18)
•
Hip Fracture Mortality Rate (IQI 19)
•
Pneumonia Mortality Rate (IQI 20)
AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator: Death Rate among Surgical Inpatients with Serious Treatable
Complications (PSI 04)
AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator: Patient Safety for Selected Indicators composite (PSI 90)
•
Pressure Ulcer Rate (PSI 03)
•
Iatrogenic Pneumothorax Rate (PSI 06)
•
Central Venous Catheter-Related Blood Stream Infections Rate (PSI 07)
•
Postoperative Hip Fracture Rate (PSI 08)
•
Postoperative Hemorrhage or Hematoma Rate (PSI 09)
•
Postoperative Physiologic and Metabolic Derangement Rate (PSI 10)
•
Postoperative Respiratory Failure Rate (PSI 11)
•
Postoperative Pulmonary Embolism or Deep Vein Thrombosis Rate (PSI 12)
•
Postoperative Sepsis Rate (PSI 13)
•
Postoperative Wound Dehiscence Rate (PSI 14)
•
Accidental Puncture or Laceration Rate (PSI 15)
Health Information Technology (HIT) survey
This material was prepared by Stratis Health under a contract with MN Community
Measurement through funding from the Minnesota Department of Health.
Stratis Health | 952–854-3306 | www.stratishealth.org
Patient Safety Composite or Index
(2015 Hospital Quality Reporting Steering Committee Recommendation)
Why Measure?
Patient safety consistently emerges as a high priority for both health care delivery organizations and
for patients and families. There are many hospital safety measures currently reported at a state and
national level, yet they do not provide a comprehensive picture of how safe care is at a hospital or
health system, nor do today’s clinical only safety measures reflect the growing body of research related
to organizational properties and systems which are essential for safety. Today’s measures tend to be
condition-specific or harm-specific (e.g., surgical site infection, falls, sepsis), and do not include how
reliable a hospital’s care is, or whether the culture is set up for reliability and learning.
To make patient safety hospital measurement meaningful and comprehensive, and more
understandable to consumers, SQRMS could build upon the reporting individual hospital safety
measures with reporting of a multi-faceted patient safety index or composite measure. The index or
composite would include a balanced set of process, outcome, and structural measures, and can at least
somewhat be derived from existing measures and indices put together in a combination to meet
community needs. The composite or index approach is consistent with both national measurement
strategies from CMS (e.g., the Hospital Total Performance Score) and with composite measurement
that MN Community Measurement has developed in the ambulatory setting (e.g., the D5 for diabetes).
A composite approach meets needs identified by the Hospital Quality Reporting Steering Committee
for measuring the safety of hospital care in Minnesota. The intent is that a composite measure bring
value – it is more than an additive list of measures, rather, that the whole is greater than the sum of its
parts as the composite represents essential components of safer care. First, it is a single score, easy to
understand by patients and consumers. Second, it brings a sharp focus to what is otherwise a long list
of measures to help ensure that safety remains a priority for hospital leaders, clinicians, and staff.
Lastly, the underlying data elements which comprise the composite score are available to hospitals,
making it actionable for improvement.
Vision
Minnesota assesses and publicly reports the safety of its hospital care through a balanced set of
measures that meaningfully reflects safety in a single composite score easily understood by consumers
and actionable by hospitals.
Principles/Assumptions:
•
Methodology and calculation of the composite are transparent
•
Underlying elements of the composite will be available to the hospitals so that they can
identify their performance by indicator to be able to improve
Stratis Health | 952–854-3306 | www.stratishealth.org
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Draw on existing measures for which data are available and are widely collected to the
extent possible
Expect the composite to evolve over time as measures, evidence, and infrastructure evolves
Measure not only harm to patients but organizational and system characteristics of hospitals
o Such as reliability, culture, transparency and learning systems
Reflect evidence-based practices to the extent feasible
Be attentive to rural and small volume hospitals, such that they are neither advantaged nor
disadvantaged
Consider unintended consequences
Develop for an audience that is consumers and hospitals
o Addresses patient safety in PPS and CAH (need to clarify if Children’s hospitals would
be included)
Consider risk adjustment when appropriate
Hospitals should be able to verify their results
Proposed Process/Timeline
•
MNCM/Stratis Health would co-facilitate
•
18-24 month process
•
Includes measure testing and pilot
•
Opportunity for community and stakeholder involvement and endorsement
•
Build in opportunity for consumer and hospital input and feedback
•
Incorporate discussion and possibly measurement to ensure there are not harmful
unintended consequence
•
Explore NQF endorsement
This material was prepared by Stratis Health under a contract with MN Community
Measurement through funding from the Minnesota Department of Health.
Stratis Health | 952–854-3306 | www.stratishealth.org