17
Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma Approach Prepared by: WO’L December 8, 2008 Define Problem Statement

Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma Approach

Prepared by:

WO’L

December 8, 2008

Define Problem Statement

Page 2: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs Project WO’L December 8, 2008 2

As healthcare costs continue to outpace inflation and rise over 6% each year since 2000, hospital reimbursement does not keep up with the increased costs. Most often payments to hospitals are increased at a lower percentage than inflation. Insurance companies are always looking for ways to cut hospital payments either through denials or reduced payments.

The federal government insures our elderly population through the Medicare program which pays for inpatient hospital care using diagnosis related groups (DRGs). The DRG is assigned using ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes which are analyzed through a payment grouper and a DRG assignment is made. The payment mechanism is a standardized case rate, adjusted by a wage index based on geographic location and adjusted by a predetermined case weight which reflects the complexity of the individual DRG. Starting in 2007, all hospitals were subject to a new Medicare payment methodology which transitioned the use of hospital charges to hospital costs over a 3 year period and expanded the existing number of DRGs from 538 to 745 DRGs called MS DRGs. The use of the expanded DRG listing meant that some inpatients who were previously assigned to a single DRG would now be assigned to multiple DRGs which separate patients with and without major comorbidities and complications (CCs). The new payment methodology would result in reduced payments for patients without CCs, slightly higher payments for cases with CCs and the highest payment is provided for cases with major CCs. For a Medicare inpatient, payments are out of our control and Century Health is constantly faced with potential payment reductions through proposed regulations. In addition, unless the length of stay is significant enough to put the patient into an outlier status, the payment is the same whether a patient stays for 3 days, 5 days or 10 days. Century Health recognizes that the only way to maintain contribution margin is to manage the costs of the patient’s stay as best as possible. Century Health needs to determine if our Medicare payments cover the cost for services rendered and as payment changes occur, to what extent are we managing our costs and resources in conjunction with these changes.

Goal Statement

Century Health would like to identify where opportunities for improvement exist in managing resources for taking care of Medicare inpatients and the appropriate tool(s) to address these opportunities.

Project Scope

Our initial baseline data identified the top 12 highest volume DRGs for an analysis of the variance between payments and costs. For DRG 127, Heart Failure & Shock, the data reflected that our Division A division had a high length of stay (LOS) and carried the highest variance of $542,059 when total payments were compared to direct costs. Our Division B division, however, reflected a low LOS and the lowest variance of $190,005 when total payments were compared to direct costs. The scope of the project will be limited to reviewing resource utilization for Medicare inpatients for DRG 127 at our Division A and Division B divisions. Our assumption is that there is opportunity to manage resources to ensure that costs are covered and can adjust to future payment reductions. Individuals from the following departments will provide valuable insight into the project: Information Systems, Medical Records, Quality, Case Management and Patient Business Services.

Page 3: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs Project WO’L December 8, 2008 3

MEASURE

Through an extensive validation of the baseline data, it was determined that detailed charges were missing for some inpatients (see Figure 1, below, for a description of the validation process).

Figure 1: Resource Utilization Scoping Project Process

Within our database, it is possible for patients to have a total charge without having accompanying cost detail because our costing methodology utilizes a ratio of cost to charges (RCC) to calculate the actual costs. This indeed turned out to be the case. Investigation of the specific patients revealed that there was a problem with an outside vendor interface from the patient billing system. Approximately 8,000 patients had a total charge amount in their balance record, but no supporting detail in the charge detail table. Information Systems (IS) implemented additional validation procedures to ensure data integrity.

In addition to missing cost detail data, there were a few instances where data that was present was erroneous. An analysis of several patients with high RCCs revealed that a formula in the spreadsheet had been replaced with hard coded numbers causing some of the costing information to be inaccurate. This error was corrected and revised costing for all patients was completed and loaded into the data warehouse.

Due to normal payment timing issues, patients with no payments were manually investigated and updated with the appropriate payment information. All unbilled admissions and patients with zero charges were deleted.

Determine top 12 DRGs Virtua wide (excluding Moms &

Babies)

Analyze data for following attributes:

delete unbilled admissions & zero charges, RCC, pts with no payments, pts with no costs, 3 payor categories

Extract data and set up Excel

spreadsheet

Select data elements for top 12 DRGs to pull from

warehouse

Add data elements to spreadsheet,

arithmetic & geometric means

and primary/secondary POE

categories

Researched anomalies in the

data: RCC, patients with no payments

and patients with no costs

Reports stratified by division and major

pay category, volume, LOS, ALOS, total

payments, costs & variances, avg cost/

case & cost/day

Prepare reports and presented to team

for discussion

Present to team for discussion and POE

directors

Team scoped to 1 DRGs

for analysis ofvariance

Resource Utilization Scoping Project Process

DemographicDivisionPatient NumberAdmission & Discharge DatePatient AgePhysician & Physician GroupPrimary & Secondary POE

ReimbursementCMS DRGCMS MDCPayor CategoryMajor Payor GroupingDischarge DispositionVolume & LOS

FinancialTotal ChargesTotal BilledTotal AdjustmentsTotal PaymentsTotal Costs

Determine top 12 DRGs Virtua wide (excluding Moms &

Babies)

Analyze data for following attributes:

delete unbilled admissions & zero charges, RCC, pts with no payments, pts with no costs, 3 payor categories

Extract data and set up Excel

spreadsheet

Select data elements for top 12 DRGs to pull from

warehouse

Add data elements to spreadsheet,

arithmetic & geometric means

and primary/secondary POE

categories

Researched anomalies in the

data: RCC, patients with no payments

and patients with no costs

Reports stratified by division and major

pay category, volume, LOS, ALOS, total

payments, costs & variances, avg cost/

case & cost/day

Prepare reports and presented to team

for discussion

Present to team for discussion and POE

directors

Team scoped to 1 DRGs

for analysis ofvariance

Resource Utilization Scoping Project Process

DemographicDivisionPatient NumberAdmission & Discharge DatePatient AgePhysician & Physician GroupPrimary & Secondary POE

ReimbursementCMS DRGCMS MDCPayor CategoryMajor Payor GroupingDischarge DispositionVolume & LOS

FinancialTotal ChargesTotal BilledTotal AdjustmentsTotal PaymentsTotal Costs

Page 4: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs Project WO’L December 8, 2008 4

Standard operating procedures were developed for the chart audit and the chart review form used to capture inpatient admission and continued stay criteria was gaged. The gage results identified 93% accuracy and agreement.

A test of equal variances for all costs was performed and since the data was non-normal, the Levene’s test revealed a p-value of .018, which suggested there is a statistically significant difference in variation for costs between Division A and Division B (see Figure 2, below).

Figure 2: Baseline Data Test for Equal Variances (All Costs)

A further evaluation of costs by revenue departments identified three (3) areas where costs differed, Room and Board (R&B), the Emergency Department (ED) and Respiratory Therapy (RT), see Figure 3, below.

Figure 3: Baseline Data Percent of Cost Distribution by Revenue Grouping

Fa

cil

ity

95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs

Memorial C ost

Marlton C ost

700065006000550050004500

Fa

cil

ity

A ll Costs

Memorial C ost

Marlton C ost

700006000050000400003000020000100000

F-Test

0.018

Test Statistic 1.61P-Value 0.000

Levene's Test

Test Statistic 5.60P-Value

Test for Equal Variances for All Costs

A

B

A

B

Page 5: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs Project WO’L December 8, 2008 5

% Total Cost Distribution by Revenue GroupingsBaseline

52%

13%

14%

5%

7%

3%

3%

1%

58%

11%

10%

7%

5%

5%

2%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Room & Board

Lab/Blood Bank

Pharmacy

ED

Radiology

Respiratory

Other

PT/OT/Speech

Rev

enue

Gro

upin

gs

Percentage of Total Costs

Memorial Marlton

A test of equal variances for LOS was performed and the Levene’s test identified a p-value of .001 which suggested a statistically significant difference in variation with LOS between Division A and Division B,. See Figure 4, below. Additionally, a look at historical information from 2003 through 2006 revealed that Division A’s LOS was between 6.1 and 7.2 patient days when Division B’s LOS had been between 4.7 and 4.9 patient days.

Page 6: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs Project WO’L December 8, 2008 6

Figure 4: Baseline Data Test for Equal Variances (Length of Stay (LOS))

ANALYZE

Room and Board (R&B)

The R&B category includes the cost of nursing care which is a large component of the Division A-Division B cost variance. Average cost per day for nursing care at each facility was impacting the cost variance. Century Health utilizes a standard for direct patient care hours per patient day for each nursing unit. We found that the Division A division was over the standard on the nursing units (hours per patient day, HPPD), whereas the Division B division complied with the established standards of care. The number of premium pay hours, such as agency hours and overtime hours as a percentage of total hours were higher at Division A than Division B and were also contributing to the cost variances. See summary Table below.

Div

isio

n

95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs

Memorial Los

Marlton LOS

6.56.05.55.04.54.03.53.0

Div

isio

n

ALL LOS

Memorial Los

Marlton LOS

50403020100

F-Test

0.001

Test Statistic 2.63P-Value 0.000

Levene's Test

Test Statistic 11.47P-Value

Test of Equal Variance LOS

A

B

A

B

Page 7: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs Project WO’L December 8, 2008 7

Patient Care Area

Division A

Division B

Variance

HPPD

Progressive Care Unit (PCU)

9.9 8.6 1.3

Intensive Care Unit (ICU)

14.5 14.3 0.2

Premium Pay Hours - Agency (% of total hours)

Progressive Care Unit (PCU)

5% 1%

Intensive Care Unit (ICU)

11% 10%

The amount of non-productive time was also analyzed and ruled out as a driver of the cost variance. All of these variables are constantly monitored by our Nursing Directors as they are critical metrics for them.

Emergency Department

The ED analysis failed to reveal any statistical differences in the Level of Care (LOC) of patients being seen at the Division A division versus the patients at the Division B division. A comparison of average cost per case between the Division B and Division A divisions did not show a significant difference aside from one aberrant observation. Again, HPPD were evaluated for each division and although Division A was higher than Division B, their numbers were declining over time. A recommendation was made to share the information gathered with the ED practice group in order to support continued performance improvement on the metrics being monitored.

Page 8: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs Project WO’L December 8, 2008 8

Respiratory Therapy

Finally, a detailed cost analysis of the Respiratory department revealed that the number of respiratory units per CHF patient were 21.8 at Division A and 6.8 at Division B. The difference was identified as the number of units per patient for hand-held nebulizer treatments at each division. Where Division B indicated less than 1 unit/patient of nebulized medication, Division A recorded 8.2 units/patient of nebulized medication. Further investigation revealed differences in who provides the treatment between divisions. At Division A, respiratory therapists provided the treatment resulting in a detailed charge to each patient and at Division B, the treatments were provided by nursing staff, where no charges were entered for the treatment. Since this discrepancy accounted for 54% of the cost variance, no further investigation was warranted because the remaining cost variance was immaterial. A recommendation was made to share the information gathered during our project with another team who was anticipating a future project specifically related to RT.

As mentioned in the Measure section above, the test of equal variance for LOS revealed a statistically significant difference in the variation with LOS between Division A and Division B. A regression analysis (R-Sq=81.2% for Baseline and R-Sq=89.7% for Interim (pre-implementation)) supported our theory that LOS was the primary driver of the cost variance at Division A. For this reason, we began to analyze possible X’s that may be driving the LOS variance. The average excess LOS of 1.2 days at Division A accounted for over $258,000 in additional costs. The average nursing cost variance of $130 per day, accounted for another $200,000 in costs.

The following possible X’s were analyzed for LOS using box plots and individual graphical summaries to determine whether there were any differences requiring further evaluation (see Figure 5, below). None of the variables identified below warranted additional investigation.

Cardio versus non Cardio physicians Patient Age Additional procedures and Type of procedures Physician Specialty

Page 9: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs Project WO’L December 8, 2008 9

Figure 5: Box Plots of Length of Stay for Possible Xs

However, the two (2) possible X’s which did reveal statistically significant variances driving LOS were discharge disposition and severity. Discharge disposition refers to the place where the patient was discharged to after they leave the hospital. The typical discharge disposition codes are as follows:

01 – Discharge to home

02 – Transfer to another acute care institution

03 – Discharge/transfer to a skilled nursing facility (SNF)

05 – Discharge/transfer to a rehab facility

06 – Discharge/transfer to home health

Both Division A and Division B’s p value of 0.00 using a Mood’s median test showed that there is a statistically significant difference between LOS with disposition levels 3 and 6 as compared to disposition levels 1 and 2. Further analysis using a chi square test showed there was a statistically significant difference (p-value < .05) with LOS for patients with disposition 3 (discharge/transfer to a SNF) between divisions, with Division A’s observed counts worse than expected counts. When we looked at severity, the chi square indicated a statistically significant difference in LOS between the

transfusionothernullinjectionimagingchf related

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Procedure Category

los

Box Plot of Length of Stay by Procedure Type

4321

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Code Specialty

los

Box Plot of Length of Stay by Physician Specialty

21

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Cardio vs non Cardio

los

Box Plot of Length of Stay by Physician Cardiologist vs Non-Cardiologist

321

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Age Category

los

Box Plot of Length of Stay by Patient Age Cohort

transfusionothernullinjectionimagingchf related

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Procedure Category

los

Box Plot of Length of Stay by Procedure Type

4321

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Code Specialty

los

Box Plot of Length of Stay by Physician Specialty

21

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Cardio vs non Cardio

los

Box Plot of Length of Stay by Physician Cardiologist vs Non-Cardiologist

321

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Age Category

los

Box Plot of Length of Stay by Patient Age Cohort

Page 10: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs Project WO’L December 8, 2008 10

divisions with severity scores of 2 and 3. From the pareto charts (see Figure 6, below), you can see that Division B’s non defect counts are higher than Division A’s. Division B is doing better than expected for both severity levels and Division A is doing worse than expected for both severity levels.

Figure 6: Pareto of Patient Severity Levels (Division B & Division A)

Using the Medicare geometric mean LOS of 4.0 days as our guide, we performed a chart audit on the patients with discharge dispositions of 3 and 6. Since severity scores of 2 and 3 also seemed to impact LOS, we would anticipate that patients not ready for discharge on day 4 would have CCs to support their extended stay. The inter-qual criteria were utilized to determine if the acute stay was appropriate.1 Two sources of data were utilized to review the patient stay, Canopy data and when that data was not available, we pulled the actual patient chart to review physician progress notes, nurse’s notes, case management and home care notes and lab results.2

Division

The following table provides the results of our review.

Division A Division B

Comorbidities/Complications 23% 54%

Placement Delays 15% 15%

No Documentation 62% 32%

Totals 100% 100%

1 Inter-qual refers to the inpatient admission criteria utilized to deem medical necessity. 2 Canopy refers to the internal case management documentation system utilized by Century Health.

Severity

Coun

t

1432

200

150

100

50

0

1432

Defect 1 = Defect Defect 1 = Non-Defect Severity 12341

Memorial Severity 2006-2007

Severity

Coun

t

4132

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

4132

Defect = Defect Defect = Non-Defect Severity2314

Marlton Severity 2006-2007A B

Page 11: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs Project WO’L December 8, 2008 11

As the table indicates, the acute stay was appropriate in 23% of the cases at Division A and 54% of the cases at Division B. For both divisions, 15% of the days beyond the criteria were related to placement delays mostly due to family issues. In 62% of the Division A cases and 32% of the Division B cases, we were unable to determine the reason for the extended stay. At the very least, there is an opportunity for better physician documentation in the patient chart for extended patient stays. In spite of the missing documentation, it was noted that every case was paid by Medicare, therefore, there was no evidence of lost or reduced payments to the hospitals.

Our final analysis of possible X’s included several physician analyses (See Exhibit A). The physicians were stratified into groups with small patient volumes (between 11 and 20) and large patient volumes (>20). The analysis of physician groups using a Mood’s median test revealed that there was a statistically significant difference with LOS between physician groups at Division A. Further testing also indicated that there was a statistically significant difference for LOS between small volume groups at both Division A and Division B. A chi square test indicated that there was a statistically significant difference with LOS compared against the geometric mean for large volume physician practices between divisions with Division B performing better than Division A. Another cut of the data compared hospitalists to other physicians. Our Division B division utilizes hospitalists, whereas, the same model is not employed at our Division A division. For the Division B division, we tested whether the use of the Hospitalist model had an impact on the LOS at Division B. The LOS for the hospitalists was not statistically significant as compared with the large volume physician groups, the small volume physician groups or all physician groups at Division B. This result indicated to us that the physician practice patterns for treating CHF patients were consistent among the hospitalists and independent physician practices. This result also indicated that there was an opportunity to share best practices with Division A’s large volume physician groups in order to reduce LOS.

Our ability to affect physician practice patterns is difficult at best, since the majorities of our physicians are independent and are not employed by Century Health. There is no incentive for physicians to reduce LOS because they, unlike the hospital, receive their payments based on the number of days they see their patients in the hospital. However, our findings were shared with the senior management teams at both divisions and they were not surprised by our initial report. At the Division A division, the Medical Director could name the physician outliers even before we provided the supporting data for his review. Their reaction was immediate and they embraced the data in order to begin steps towards improving the LOS at the Division A division.

IMPROVE

The Medical Management Committee, comprised of the Medical Directors from each of our hospital divisions and Medical Affairs and the following other members; VP Physician Relations, Case Management Physician Advisor, Medical Director – Division B Hospitalists, Chief Medical Information Officer, AVP Case Management and Directors, AVP Patient Business Services, AVP Internal Audit and a representative from our Operations Improvement department, was formed at Century Health in 2007. Among other responsibilities, the Committee is chartered to address LOS issues across the system. DRG 127 (Heart Failure & Shock) has been a focus at Century Health. The committee’s initial approach to

Page 12: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs Project WO’L December 8, 2008 12

physicians was through verbal communication to individual physician outliers and physician group outliers. This approach did not bear any fruit, according to the Medical Director at the Division A division. The Committee then implemented an alternative approach by sending letters to physicians addressing ALOS and denial issues (see Exhibit B). While the Medical Directors cannot force a physician to change their behaviors and decisions, the physicians cannot claim they were not aware of the issues. This documentation becomes a part of the physician’s evaluation as a member of the Medical Staff and could possibly be utilized for future sanctions on the physician. The Medical Management Committee has also developed a standard operating procedure for LOS, utilization and severity issues.

It was clearly demonstrated as the project was being completed that our focus needed to be directed at our physicians since they drive the patient LOS. In order to impact physician behavior, the following interventions were discussed, developed and implemented:

Elimination of a physician’s inpatient hospital practice who was a chronic abuser of inappropriate and unnecessary inpatient days

Focused outreach efforts to Emergency Department physician leaders and physician staff to address the proper classification of patients as either an inpatient admission or an observation case through the Case Management Physician Advisor

Physician rounding by Division A’s Medical Director and Chief Operating Officer to address LOS issues, with more intense rounding being done with known physician outliers

Reached an agreement with 2 physicians for another physician practice to take care of their patients on the weekends in order to get them discharged earlier, when appropriate.

CONTROL

As a result of their efforts, the Division A division has decreased their ALOS for DRG 127 by 0.6 patient day from the interim (pre-implementation) time frame to the full implementation time frame. The length of stay reduction has resulted in an average cost per case decrease of $346. Additionally, the average variance between payments and costs has been reduced by $34. For the post implementation time frame, compared to the full implementation time frame, the LOS has been reduced even further by another 0.8 patient day with an average cost per case decrease of $1,061. The average variance between payments and costs has been reduced by $571. The following table depicts the LOS and average cost per case improvement over multiple time frames measured during the project.

Page 13: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs Project WO’L December 8, 2008 13

These results are compelling and substantive as true cost savings has been achieved. To test whether the decreased length of stay is indeed statistically significant (comparing post implementation to baseline medians), the team employed the Mann-Whitney test since the sample data is non-normally distributed. For the Mann-Whitney test results to be valid, the population distributions must have equal variances. The test for equal variances (see Figure 7, below), with a resulting Levine’s Test p-value of 0.903 shows this to be the case.

Figure 7: Test for Equal Variances

Post

Baseline

4.44.24.03.83.63.43.23.0

Tim

e P

erio

d

95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs

Post

Baseline

35302520151050

Tim

e P

erio

d

los

Test Statistic 1.25P-Value 0.284

Test Statistic 0.01P-Value 0.903

F-Test

Levene's Test

Test for Equal Variances for LOS: Baseline vs Post Implementation

The Mann-Whitney Test indicates a p-value of 0.0487, which means that the null hypothesis, that is, the baseline and post implementation LOS medians are equal, and can be rejected. In other words, the median of 4.0 after improvement is significantly shorter than the 5.0 median LOS baseline performance.

Time Frame Division

Sum of Length of

StaySum of Volume

Sum of ALOS

Sum of Total Cost

Sum of Avg Cost per Case

Sum of Avg Cost per Day

Net Revenues

Avg Variance per Case

Baseline Marlton 1,590 265 6.00 2,175,403 8,209 1,368 1,633,344 (2,046)Interim (pre-implementation) Marlton 1,416 215 6.59 2,015,841 9,376 1,424 1,482,865 (2,479)

Early Implementation Marlton 747 118 6.33 1,162,962 9,856 1,557 814,021 (2,957)Full Implementation Marlton 749 125 5.99 1,128,784 9,030 1,507 823,181 (2,445)Post Implementation Marlton 340 65 5.23 517,960 7,969 1,523 396,137 (1,874)

A A A A A

Page 14: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs Project WO’L December 8, 2008 14

Minitab Output: Mann-Whitney Test and CI: Baseline, Post

N Median Baseline 262 5.000 Post 65 4.000 Point estimate for ETA1-ETA2 is 1.000 95.0 Percent CI for ETA1-ETA2 is (0.001,2.000) W = 44305.0 Test of ETA1 = ETA2 vs ETA1 not = ETA2 is significant at 0.0501

The test is significant at 0.0487 (adjusted for ties)

With these results the Division A team is confident that the measures they employed to improve length of stay, thereby reducing operating costs, have been effective and the team is committed to sustaining these favorable results through the interventions implemented thus far. Monitoring of these metrics will be ongoing and any slippage will be addressed immediately by Division A’s administrative team which will work collaboratively with the Medical Management Committee.

Page 15: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs Project WO’L December 8, 2008 15

EXHIBIT A

Data Summary Analysis

Poss

ible

XR

espo

nse

Dat

a (L

OS)

Gra

phic

al A

naly

sis

Tool

Stat

istic

al T

ool

Res

pons

e

LOS

abov

e G

eom

etric

Mea

n be

twee

n D

ivis

ion

A an

d D

ivis

ion

BC

ontin

uous

Des

crip

tive

Stat

istic

sC

hi-S

quar

eP-

valu

e <

0.05

a s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ce fo

r LO

S be

twee

n D

ivis

ion

A an

d D

ivis

ion

B

Car

dio

vs. N

on-C

ardi

o Ph

ysic

ians

Con

tinuo

usBo

x Pl

ot, I

ndiv

idua

l Gra

phic

al S

umm

arie

sN

/AD

id n

ot re

veal

any

diffe

renc

es re

quiri

ng fu

rther

eva

luat

ion

Patie

nt A

geC

ontin

uous

Box

Plot

, Ind

ivid

ual G

raph

ical

Sum

mar

ies

N/A

Did

not

reve

al a

nydi

ffere

nces

requ

iring

furth

er e

valu

atio

n

Proc

edur

eC

ontin

uous

Box

Plot

, Ind

ivid

ual G

raph

ical

Sum

mar

ies

N/A

Did

not

reve

al a

ny d

iffer

ence

s re

quiri

ng f

urth

er

eval

uatio

n

Rea

dmis

sion

Dis

cret

eC

hi-S

quar

eP

valu

e >

0.05

no

stat

istic

ally

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

with

re

adm

issi

ons

betw

een

divi

sion

s

Phys

icia

n Sp

ecia

ltyC

ontin

uous

Indi

vidu

al g

raph

ical

sum

mar

ies,

box

plo

tM

oods

Med

ian

Did

not

reve

al a

ny d

iffer

ence

s re

quiri

ng f

urth

er

eval

uatio

n

Dis

posi

tion

Con

tinuo

usIn

divi

dual

gra

phic

al s

umm

arie

s, b

ox p

lot,

scat

ter p

lot

Moo

ds M

edia

n

Chi

-Squ

are

Div

isio

n A:

P-va

lue

< 0.

05 a

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

w

ith L

OS

by d

ispo

sitio

n ca

tego

ries

Div

isio

n B

:P-

valu

e <

0.05

a s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ce

with

LO

S by

dis

posi

tion

cate

gori

esD

ivis

ion

A vs

. Div

isio

n B

:P-

valu

e <

0.05

a s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t di

ffere

nce

for L

OS

with

Dis

posi

tion

cate

gory

3 b

etw

een

Div

isio

n A

and

Div

isio

n B

, with

Div

isio

n A’

s ob

serv

ed c

ount

gre

ater

than

exp

ecte

d fo

r abo

ve

geom

etri

c m

ean

and

obse

rved

cou

nt lo

wer

than

ex

pect

ed c

ount

Seve

rity

Con

tinuo

usIn

divi

dual

gra

phic

al s

umm

arie

s, b

ox p

lot,

scat

ter p

lot

Moo

ds M

edia

n

Chi

-Squ

are

Cor

rela

tion

Div

isio

n A:

P-va

lue

< 0.

05 a

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

w

ith L

OS

by s

ever

ity le

vels

D

ivis

ion

B:

P-va

lue

< 0.

05 a

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

w

ith L

OS

by s

ever

ity le

vels

Div

isio

n A

vs. D

ivis

ion

B:

P-va

lue

< 0.

05 a

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

w

ith L

OS

for p

atie

nts

with

Sev

erity

3 b

etw

een

divi

sion

s, D

ivis

ion

B p

erfo

rmin

g be

tter

P-va

lue

= <

0.05

a s

tatis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ce

with

LO

S fo

r pat

ient

s w

ith a

Sev

erity

of 2

bet

wee

n di

visi

ons,

Div

isio

n B

per

form

ing

bette

r

Pear

son

corr

elat

ion

= .4

23P-

valu

e <

0.05

Page 16: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs Project WO’L December 8, 2008 16

Data Summary Analysis, Cont’d

Poss

ible

XR

espo

nse

Dat

a (L

OS)

Gra

phic

al A

naly

sis

Tool

Stat

istic

al T

ool

Res

pons

e

Phys

icia

n G

roup

s-gr

oupe

d by

pat

ient

vo

lum

e :

•Det

erm

ined

sm

all v

olum

e ph

ysic

ian

grou

ps to

hav

e 11

-20

CH

F pa

tient

s

•Det

erm

ined

larg

e vo

lum

e ph

ysic

ian

grou

ps to

hav

e gr

eate

r th

an 2

0 C

HF

patie

nts

Con

tinuo

usIn

divi

dual

gra

phic

al s

umm

arie

s, b

ox p

lot

Moo

ds M

edia

n

Chi

Squ

are

Moo

ds M

edia

n

Chi

Squ

are

Div

isio

n A:

P-va

lue

< 0.

05 a

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

with

LO

S be

twee

n ph

ysic

ian

grou

ps

P-va

lue

< 0.

05 a

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

with

LO

S be

twee

n sm

all v

olum

e gr

oups

P-

valu

e >

0.05

no

stat

istic

ally

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

with

LO

S be

twee

n la

rge

volu

me

grou

ps

P-va

lue

> 0.

05 n

o st

atis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ce w

ith L

OS

com

pare

d ag

ains

t geo

met

ric m

ean

betw

een

smal

l and

larg

e vo

lum

e ph

ysic

ian

grou

ps

Div

isio

n B

:P-

valu

e >

0.05

no

stat

istic

ally

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

for L

OS

betw

een

ph

ysic

ian

grou

ps

P-va

lue

> 0.

05 n

o st

atis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ce fo

r LO

S be

twee

n la

rge

volu

me

grou

ps

P va

lue

< 0.

05 a

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

for L

OS

betw

een

smal

l vol

ume

grou

ps

Div

isio

n B

vs.

Div

isio

n A:

P-va

lue

> 0.

05 n

o st

atis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ce w

ith L

OS

com

pare

d ag

ains

t geo

met

ric m

ean

for s

mal

l vol

ume

prac

tices

bet

wee

n di

visi

ons

P va

lue

< 0.

05 a

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

with

LO

S co

mpa

red

agai

nst g

eom

etri

c m

ean

for l

arge

vol

ume

prac

tices

be

twee

n di

visi

ons,

Div

isio

n B

per

form

ing

bette

r

Hos

pita

lists

vs.

Oth

er P

hysi

cian

sC

ontin

uous

Indi

vidu

al g

raph

ical

sum

mar

ies,

box

plo

tM

oods

Med

ian

Chi

-Squ

are

Div

isio

n B

:P-

valu

e >

0.05

with

LO

S of

Hos

pita

list g

roup

s co

mpa

red

to L

OS

with

la

rge

volu

me

grou

ps a

t D

ivis

ion

BP

valu

e >

0.05

with

LO

S of

Hos

pita

list g

roup

s co

mpa

red

to L

OS

with

sm

alle

r vol

ume

grou

ps a

t Div

isio

n B

P-va

lue

> 0.

05 H

ospi

talis

t gr

oups

ver

sus

all p

hysi

cian

s D

ivis

ion

B

Div

isio

n B

vs.

Div

isio

n A:

P-va

lue

< 0.

05 a

sta

tistic

ally

sig

nific

ant d

iffer

ence

bet

wee

n LO

S be

low

geo

met

ric

mea

n fo

r D

ivis

ion

B H

ospi

talis

t phy

sici

ans

com

pare

d to

LO

S be

low

geo

met

ric

mea

n fo

r Div

isio

n A

larg

e vo

lum

e ph

ysic

ians

Page 17: Managing Hospital Costs in an Era of Uncertain Reimbursement – A Six Sigma …confluence.engin.umich.edu/download/attachments/3958/onlinecasestudy... · Reimbursement – A Six

Managing Hospital Costs Project WO’L December 8, 2008 17

Letter to Medical Staff

Dear Dr. ____________

I want to bring to your attention Case Management performance statistics specific to you/your group, for the previous three months – April 2008 through June 2008. The summary below includes:

-Your average Medicare Length of Stay (Med LOS)

- Your Managed Care LOS (MC LOS)

- Your Managed Care denial rate

(Place the data, with Division A averages here)

Your Med LOS/MC LOS/Denial Rate are tracked, on a monthly basis, by each Division’s Case Management team, and is shared with the Administrative team and the Century Health Medical Management Committee. Individual physician performance will be submitted to Medical Affairs to be included in each physician’s file, to be reviewed at reappointment. Additionally, significant individual outliers will be shared with, and discussed at, the Medical Executive Committee, as provided for within the Century Health Medical Staff Bylaws.

Our Physician Advisor for Case Management is available each day to discuss and assist physicians with case management, utilization review, and LOS guidance. He can be reached at 555-xxx-xxxx, or through the Case Management Office, 555-xxx-xxxx.

Finally, please free to contact me directly to discuss this further or should you have any questions.