View
222
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
The role of nurses in new incentive-based hospital payment models
Olga Yakusheva, Ph.D.
University of Michigan
Outline
• Conceptual framework• Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program
– Targeted outcomes– Financial implications
• VBP-targeted outcomes, nurse sensitive outcomes
• What can be done to improve hospital performance through nursing?
Introduction
• Value and healthcare reform; role of hospitals• Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS):
– Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) program– Hospital-Acquired Conditions (HAC) reduction program– Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program
*Reimbursement tied to outcomes and costs*
• Many of the outcomes are endorsed by National Quality Forum (NQF) as nursing-sensitive
Conceptual Framework
Intersection of NDNQI indicators and CMS-targeted outcomes
=
Conceptual core of the nurses’ influence on hospital’s performance ratings under CMS’s incentive-based programs
National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators (NDNQI)
Structure ProcessNursing-sensitiveOutcomes
Targeted by
CMS
Nurse-sensitive
& targeted by CMS
Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program
• Incentive-based payments• Hospital VBP Performance Score:
– Process of care, – Patient Experience of Care, – Outcome and Safety, – Efficiency and Cost Reduction
Process of Care DomainFY
2014FY
2015FY
2016FY*
2017FY*
2018
Domain Weight 45% 20% 10% 10%
AMI-7a Fibrinolytic Therapy Received Within 30 Minutes of Hospital Arrival
X X X X
AMI-8a Primary PCI Received Within 90 Minutes of Hospital Arrival
X X X
IMM-2 Influenza Immunization X X
HF-1 Discharge Instructions X X
PN-3b Blood Cultures Performed in the ED Prior to Initial Antibiotic Received in Hospital
X X
PN-6 Initial Antibiotic Selection for CAP in Immunocompetent Patient
X X X
SCIP-Inf-1 Prophylactic Antibiotic Received Within One Hour Prior to Surgical Incision
X X
Perinatal Care: Elective Delivery < 39 completed weeks of gestation
X X*
Patient Experience of Care DomainFY
2014FY
2015FY
2016FY
2017FY
2018Domain Weight 30% 30% 25% 25%
Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) 8 dimensions:
Communication with NursesCommunication with Doctors
Responsiveness of Hospital Staff Pain Management
Communication About Medicines Cleanliness and Quietness of Hospital Environment
Discharge InformationOverall Rating of Hospital
X X X X X
3-Item Care Transition MeasurePatient/family preferences taken into account in post-discharge
planningPatient had good understanding of self-management after leaving
hospitalPatient had clear understanding of medications after leaving hospital
X
Patient Outcomes and Safety Domain
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
Domain Weight 25% 30% 40% 40%
MORT-30-AMI
Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) 30-Day Mortality Rate
X X X X X
MORT-30-HF
Heart Failure (HF) 30-Day Mortality Rate
X X X X X
MORT-30-PN
Pneumonia (PN) 30-Day Mortality Rate X X X X X PSI 90 Patient safety for selected indicators
(composite) X X X X
CLABSI Central Line-Associated Blood Stream Infection
X X X X
CAUTI Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection
X X X
SSI Surgical Site Infection (Colon, Abdominal Hysterectomy)
X X X
Efficiency and Cost Reduction Domain
FY2014
FY2015
FY2016
FY2017
FY2018
Domain Weight 0% 30% 25% 25%
Medicare Spending per Beneficiary X X X X
Relative VBP Domain Weights over Time
FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY20170%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Efficiency and Cost Reduc-tionOutcomes and Safety Patient ExperiencesProcesses of Care
Hospital VBP Performance Score
• Points assigned for each measure depending on:– How hospital performed on the outcome relative to
benchmark– How much hospital improved relative to benchmark
in closing the performance gap
• Hospitals that have better outcomes OR improved more from baseline score higher
(Source)
Financial implications• Hospitals’ base operating DRG Medicare
payments are reduced by 1.5%• Performance score linearly transformed to
incentive payment ranging from 0 to 2 x initial payment reduction (1.5%)
• Effective incentive range (-1.5% to +1.5%), or 3%– FY2015: reduction - 1.5%, range - 3%– FY2016: reduction - 1.75%, range - 3.5%– FY2017: reduction - 2%, range - 4%
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97
-1.50%
-1.00%
-0.50%
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
VBP Payment Adjustment
VBP Payment adjustments
010
020
030
0N
um
ber
of H
osp
itals
-1 0 1 2VBP_payment_2015
Distribution of VBP payment adjustments, FY2015
Intersection of NDNQI and VBP
• Four NDNQI nurse-sensitive outcomes intersect with VBP-targeted outcomes:– Central-Line Associated Blood Stream
Infections (CLABSI)– Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections
(CAUTI)– Pressure Ulcer (PU) prevalence– Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP)
CLABSINDNQI VBP Program
CLABSI Central Line-Associated Blood Stream Infection Rates
FY 2015: 6% (direct measure, Outcome and Patient Safety Domain) + 0.55% (indirect as part of PSI 90, Outcome and Patient Safety Domain) = 6.55% of total VBP Performance Score
FY 2016: 5.71% (direct measure, Outcome and Patient Safety Domain) + 0.52% (indirect as part of PSI 90, Outcome and Patient Safety Domain) = 6.23% of total VBP Performance Score
CAUTINDNQI VBP Program
CAUTI Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection Rates
FY 2015: 6% (direct measure, Outcome and Patient Safety Domain) of total VBP Performance Score FY 2016: 5.71% (direct measure, Outcome and Patient Safety Domain) of total VBP Performance Score
PU prevalenceNDNQI VBP Program
Pressure Ulcer Incidence Rates from Electronic Health Records
FY 2015: 0.55% (indirect as part of PSI 90, the Outcome and Patient Safety Domain) of total VBP Performance Score
FY 2016: 0.52% (indirect as part of PSI 90, the Outcome and Patient Safety Domain) of total VBP Performance Score
VAP rateNDNQI indicator VBP Program
Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Rates Related to the outcome measures of “30-day pneumonia
mortality rate” (Outcome and Patient Safety Domain) accounting for 6% of total VBP Performance Score in FY 2015 and 5.71% of total VBP Performance Score in FY 2016
What outcomes should be targeted by nurses?
• CAUTI/ CLABSI together account for over 12% of the hospital’s performance score – primary focus
• PU prevalence, VAP are also important
Where are we now?
• HAC-prevention bundles =>– Up to 41% CLABSI – 6-14% CAUTI– Up to 40% VAP
• However, adoption and adherence are low:– CLABSI 87-97% adoption, 37-71% adherence – CAUTI 27-68% adoption, 6-27% adherence– VAP 69-91% adoption, 45-55% adherence
• Improving adoption and adherence is key
What can we do to improve?• Educating all physician and nursing staff on evidence-
based practices• Empowering nurses to ensure compliance with check lists• Providing feedback on infection rates at the nursing unit
level• Shared ownership of infection rates between infection
prevention specialists and nurses• Physician and nurse champions to facilitate nurse
interceptions of checklist breach
(Source)
Importance of nursing structure
• Structure: – staffing, skill mix, education =>
• Improved outcomes of 30-day mortality, pressure ulcers, readmissions, lower costs of care
– work environment (collaboration between physicians and nurses, opportunities to participate in hospital- and unit-level decisions, and continuing education opportunities)
• Reduced mortality, readmissions, lower costs, lower failure to rescue
Conclusion
Structure:- staffing, skill mix,
and education- Improved nurse
work environment
Process: - increased
adoption/ adherence with HAC prevention bundles
Nursing-sensitiveOutcomes
Targeted by
CMS
CLABSICAUTI
PU VAP
National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators (NDNQI)
Formula for SuccessHigh-value provider of patient care
=
Focuses on outcomes-specific evidence-based nursing interventions +
Invests in training and education of nurses +
Committed to a positive nurse work environment
Recommended