HI-FIVE (Health Informatics For Innovation, Value & Enrichment) Training is an approximately 10-hour online course designed by Columbia University in 2016, with sponsorship from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). The training is role-based and uses case scenarios. No additional hardware or software are required for this course. Our nation’s healthcare system is changing at a rapid pace. Transformative health care delivery programs depend heavily on health information technology to improve and coordinate care, maintain patient registries, support patient engagement, develop and sustain data infrastructure necessary for multi-payer value-based payment, and enable analytical capacities to inform decision making and streamline reporting. The accelerated pace of change from new and expanding technology will continue to be a challenge for preparing a skilled workforce so taking this training will help you to stay current in the dynamic landscape of health care. This course is one of three related courses in the HI-FIVE training program, which has topics on population health, care coordination and interoperability, value-based care, healthcare data analytics, and patient-centered care. Each of the three courses is designed from a different perspective based on various healthcare roles. This second course is from a social or peer perspective, geared towards care coordinators, care/case managers, social workers, community health workers, patient navigators, peer coaches, behavioral health support, and other similar roles. However, we encourage anyone working in healthcare, health IT, public health, and population health to participate in any of the three trainings. If you would like to obtain continuing medical education (CME) or continuing nursing education (CNE) credits, you will need to have eligible credentials, complete the entire course, and complete the evaluation survey at the end. The HI-FIVE team verifies after each month that these requirements have been met and then a separate certificate (fee may apply) is distributed to you from our accreditation office. Please allow time for processing. If you have any further questions about continuing education, please see our website at www.hi-fivetraining.org. Accreditation Statement The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians. AMA Credit Designation Statement The College of Physcians and Surgeons designates this enduring material for 10.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. The planning committee members are: Rita Kukafka, DrPH, MA, FACMI; Bruce Forman, MD; Gil Kuperman, MD, PhD; Virginia Lorenzi, MS, CPHIMS, FHL7, and Victoria Tiase, MSN, BN. None of the members of the committee, who planned this CME Activity, have any relevant financial relationships to disclose. The release date is 3/27/17 and the expiration date is 3/26/18. This activity is eligible for 10 continuing nursing education (CNE) credits. Columbia University School of Nursing, Continuing Nursing Education Program is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation.
ACO Performance
Loading...
Из курса от партнера Columbia University
HI-FIVE: Health Informatics For Innovation, Value & Enrichment (Social/Peer Perspective)
14 оценок
Columbia University
14 оценок
Из урока
Coordinating Care with Nurse Fornado and Dr. Miles Jefferson, ED Attending
Познакомьтесь с преподавателями
Rita KukafkaAssociate Professor
Biomedical Informatics
Welcome to Value-Based Care, Healthcare Delivery.
This is Lecture c.
In this lecture, we describe how accountable care organizations, or
ACOs, are evaluated and performing.
We also introduce potential legal, ethical, and privacy issues for ACOs.
The objectives for this lecture, Accountable Care Organizations Lecture c,
are to describe the metrics used to evaluate ACO performance.
Discuss how ACOs are performing.
Describe potential legal and ethical issues facing ACOs,
and identify privacy issues in ACO models of care.
To summarize our discussion of ACOs, it is becoming increasingly apparent that
the provision of high quality care involves coordinated longitudinal care.
And that means accountability and
performance assessment at the individual provider level are no longer sufficient.
Especially when gaps in care are the result of poor coordination of care.
ACOs will need new processes and
tools and individuals with new skills to coordinate and improve care.
Individual providers often don't have the capital resources to invest,
nor do they have enough responsibility for the whole patient to look at the big
picture with regard to technology investment within the entire system.
By connecting physicians to a larger group,
they may be better able to connect and coordinate on behalf of their patients.
Although these new models of care are just beginning,
we need to give some consideration to how we can measure their impact.
One approach is to use a logic model, which is often used for
program evaluation as well as planning.
By documenting the context, environment, and inputs into the program, one can
anticipate the intermediate outcomes and ultimately the impact of the program.
There are many ways to assess the impact of ACOs.
Fisher employed the logic model concept to analyze ACO impact.
The figure on the screen provides a model for
understanding different aspects of ACO performance.
The ultimate measure of success of the ACO approach will be
assessing the three impact areas noted in the right-hand column in the figure.
Improved access and patient experience, improved health and
functioning of members and reduced costs of care,
these reflect what is known as the triple aim.
The second column to the right lists three important intermediate outcomes of ACOs.
The degree of health information technology achieved in ACOs,
the improvement in care processes and
the degree of care integration achieved by the ACO.
To achieve the desired impact and
outcomes of ACOs, it is becoming increasingly evident that ACOs
will need to do the things identified in the middle column of the figure.
That is, implement health information technology and health information exchange
across programs and across the different entities that make up the ACO.
Achieve robust data sharing by providers and with payers, and
develop the infrastructure to support public reporting on quality and
spending performance.
This section will focus on the potential ways ACO performance will be measured.
In this case, we will describe how ACOs will set spending targets and
quality of care benchmarks.
Recall that these two categories of measurement
are central to the values-based concept of the ACO.
This is different from traditional payment systems and
incentives that had been tied to the quantity or volume of care provided.
In most cases, ACO's spending performance is focused on measures
of the total cost of care for a defined set of patients.
In other cases, ACO's set spending targets related to a reduction in some measure,
such as the per member per month growth rate in spending.
The spending targets are risk adjusted,
which means that they are adjusted based on the chronic conditions and
other health measures of the patients served by physicians in the ACO.
We are just now beginning to see how ACOs are performing.
A study published in 2014 looked at the largest ACO program,
The Medicare Shared Savings Program ,and found mixed results among 220 ACOs.
About half of the ACOs met quality benchmarks and
kept spending below targets.
29 of these ACOs saved more than 2% and were eligible for sharing savings.
The ACOs received $126 million in savings and
generated $128 million in total savings for Medicare.
Slightly more ACOs, 60, did not meet their quality benchmarks or
did not reduce spending enough to share in savings.
These ACOs were able to keep total spending under the target level.
In subsequent years the results have been fairly consistent,
with overall spending reduced and, for the most part, quality indicators improving.
There are also mixed results in the Pioneer ACO Program.
In this program, there are savings generated and in some cases shared.
For instance, in year 1,
the program generated $147 million in total program savings.
In year 2 of this program, $96 million in total program savings
was generated and 11 ACOs received bonuses.
However, 3 of the ACOs faced penalties.
In each year, pioneer ACOs have left the program, most moving to the MSSP.
The quality of care measures used by ACOs in two of the Medicate ACO
models include 33 nationally recognized quality measures in
the four domains of patient/caregiver experience,
care coordination/patient safety, at-risk populations and preventive care.
We will now briefly present the measures
used to evaluate ACO quality of care performance.
For all measures,
more detailed descriptions can be found in the documentation Provided by CMS.
The Patient/Caregiver Experience domain includes eight indicators
that are all collected through patient and caregiver surveys.
The measures were developed by the Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment
of Health Care Providers and Systems, also called CG CAHPS.
ACOs must use CMS approved vendors to administer the surveys.
There are ten measures in the Care Coordination and Patient Safety domain.
This domain includes some of the most complex measures that will require
sophisticated systems for measurement, calculation, and reporting.
One example is risk-standardized all conditions re-admissions to hospitals.
Re-admission following acute care hospitalizations are costly, and
often preventable.
Medicare reports that almost 20% of Medicare beneficiaries
were readmitted within 30 days of discharge.
Others have estimated that reducing national Medicare readmission rates to
the level found in top-performing regions could save Medicare $1.9 billion annually.
Working together across multiple providers, and
focusing on local populations,
ACOs should be able to reduce the number of re-admissions for all conditions.
Another example in this domain is the percent of primary care physicians in
the ACO, who successfully meet meaningful use requirements.
Medicare focuses here, because health information technology has been
shown to improve the quality of care and the ability of the ACO to coordinate care.
The At-risk Population domain includes eight measures
focused on ACO patients in the following at risk populations,
coronary artery disease, diabetes, heart failure,
hypertension, ischemic vascular disease, and mental health.
In each at-risk population,
there are measures of various patient-care processes and outcomes.
These measures are intended to keep ACOs focused on improving the clinical care of
patients with these diseases.
They are collected through claims data.
The final domain of ACO quality measures focuses on preventive care.
The measures include things like immunizations and also screenings and
followup plans for conditions, such as obesity,
body mass index, tobacco use, high blood pressure, and clinical depression.
These measures are typically identified through data collected in clinical
information systems.
The challenges of managing care in an ACO cannot be met without
a significant investment in information technology.
The increase in adoption of EHR that was facilitated by the HITECH Act
of 2009 has paved the way for the kind of technology need for ACOs.
In an effort to meet the meaningful use criteria,
many providers began to use technology for clinical decision support,
health information exchange, and patient engagement.
Clinical decision support focused on the quality indicators.
Exchange of information across the ACO and
engagement of patients through patient portals or other means are all needed
to support care management, quality improvement and care coordination and
data sharing both among providers and between providers and patients.
Since ACOs must also monitor and report on their metrics
across a population of patients and across multiple provider entities,
a means of aggregating data and facilitating reporting is needed.
A data warehouse that ideally combines both cost and
clinical data can facilitate that reporting.
In addition, there are specialized applications like patient registries, for
instance, that would keep track of all patients with a given condition.
As well as specialized population health applications that facilitate
the monitoring and caring for a population.
The American Hospital Association identified several potential legal and
regulatory issues associated with ACOs.
The heart of the matter is how ACOs develop and share financial incentives and
rewards.
ACO arrangements could potentially be in violation of several federal laws,
including the Medicare ban or self-referrals, fraud and abuse statutes,
the Anti-Kickbacks statute, and the Civil Monetary Penalty Law.
In addition, nonprofit hospitals will need to make sure
ACO participation does not make them out of compliance
with the Internal Revenue Service guidelines for nonprofit institutions.
As ACOs have developed, many of these issues have been raised and
successfully overcome.
ACOs may also raise ethical issues for providers.
DeCamp and colleagues have outlined some of these issues,
including one issue is balancing health care providers' need to achieve cost
savings with patients' freedom to choose their health care providers.
Hospitals may need to balance the way they establish provider networks and
control physician referrals with the rights of patients to choose providers.
Focusing on preventing illness may lead to financial conflicts of interest for
the organizations.
As ACO models develop, quality indicators may give incentives for
hospitals to reduce unnecessary readmissions.
At the same time, hospitals may still receive more payment with more admissions.
These unintended financial effects may lead to difficult decisions for
hospital leaders.
There is also a risk that in focusing on specific quality measures,
less attention will be given to other aspects of quality care
that are not part of the required metrics.
ACOs will undoubtedly raise new questions about relationships,
what to focus on when Medicare requires 33 different quality of care measures,
and how benefits, that is savings, are distributed among providers.
Strong leadership and governance will be necessary to ensure appropriate responses
to these and other ethical issues that may arise as ACOs are implemented fully.
DeCamp and colleagues identify specific potential ethical issues
facing leaders, clinicians and patients in ACOs.
They also describe management strategies to appropriately manage and
overcome these ethical challenges.
For example, leaders who involve clinicians in the design of shared savings
plans may ameliorate the ethical issues of resource allocation and fairness.
Similarly, ACOs can monitor clinicians' experiences in the organization,
as it relates to potential perceptions of pressure to withhold care, or
up-code, in order to improve ACO financial performance.
Focused efforts to develop teams of providers, collaboration across primary
and specialty care, and communication strategies may also help
clinicians manage perceived competition among primary and specialty care.
Finally, ACOs can work to use proven patient engagement strategies
in the design and operations of ACO programs and services,
which would mitigate the conflicts between patient and provider needs.
It will be important for ACOs to make sure patient privacy is protected at all times.
This will be more challenging than ever as the ACO must share information across many
different providers and programs.
ACO participants are HIPAA covered entities.
That means they must manage protected health information, or
PHI, in compliance with HIPAA.
ACOs can address potential privacy issues by including privacy and
security obligations in all agreements.
By updating risk assessment and management plans.
By developing a strong breach response plan and by training their
workforce on these matters, particularly as they relate to information sharing.
If the Health Information Exchange mechanism is managed outside the ACO,
the ACO must assure that strong privacy and security protections
are in place before agreeing to contract with an outside entity.
This concludes Healthcare Delivery Lecture c.
In summary, CMS requires ACOs to report on 33 measures in four domains.
In terms of assessing how ACOs have performed,
there are many measures that can be used.
In general,
evaluations have found that the overall early performance of ACOs is mixed.
Many have achieve both equality and cost savings desired, but some have not.
As they develop further, ACOs must work to understand and
deal with potential legal, regulatory, ethical, and
privacy issues that will arise with this new model of care.
Ознакомьтесь с нашим каталогом
Присоединяйтесь бесплатно и получайте персонализированные рекомендации, обновления и предложения.
Coursera делает лучшее в мире образование доступным каждому, предлагая онлайн-курсы от ведущих университетов и организаций.
© Coursera Inc., 2018 Все права защищены.
