Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Some of the new 2013 HEDIS measures may get more interest than previously though unfortunately Part 1

Some of the new 2013 HEDIS measures may get more interest than previously though unfortunately

  • Diabetes Screening for People With Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder Who Are
    Using Antipsychotic Medications.Diabetes 
  • Monitoring for People With Diabetes and Schizophrenia.
  • Cardiovascular Monitoring for People With Cardiovascular Disease and
    Schizophrenia.
  •  Adherence to Anti-psychotic Medications for Individuals With Schizophrenia.

I think there may be some serious discussion this year with mental health treatment and this may be one of the few areas that will get significant support.

I'll start breaking these down

Diabetes Screening for People With Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder Who Are Using Anti psychotic Medications (SSD)

The percentage of members 18–64 years of age with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, who were dispensed an antipsychotic medication and had a diabetes screening test during the measurement year

Product lines Medicaid.
Ages 18–64 years as of December 31 of the measurement year.
Continuous enrollment  The measurement year.
Allowable gap No more than one gap in enrollment of up to 45 days during the measurement year. To
determine continuous enrollment for a Medicaid beneficiary for whom enrollment is
verified monthly, the member may not have more than a 1-month gap in coverage (i.e.,
a member whose coverage lapses for 2 months [60 days] is not considered
continuously enrolled).


Anchor date December 31 of the measurement year.

Benefits Medical and pharmacy.

Event/diagnosis
Follow the steps below to identify the eligible population.
Step 1 Identify members with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder as those who met at least one
of the following criteria during the measurement year.
  •  At least one acute inpatient claim/encounter (Table SSD-A) with any diagnosis
    of schizophrenia (Table SSD-B) or bipolar disorder (Table SSD-C).
  • At least two visits in an outpatient, intensive outpatient, partial hospitalization,
    ED or nonacute inpatient setting (Table SSD-A), on different dates of service,
    with any diagnosis of schizophrenia (Table SSD-B).
  •  At least two visits in an outpatient, intensive outpatient, partial hospitalization,
    ED or nonacute inpatient setting (Table SSD-A), on different dates of service,
    with any diagnosis of bipolar disorder (Table SSD-C)
Step 2:
Required exclusions
  • Members with diabetes. There are two ways to identify members with diabetes: by
    pharmacy data and by claim/encounter data. The organization must use both
    methods to identify members with diabetes, but a member need only be identified by
    one method to be excluded from the measure. Members may be identified as having
    diabetes during the measurement year or the year prior to the measurement year.
    Pharmacy data. Members who were dispensed insulin or oral hypoglycemics/
    antihyperglycemics during the measurement year or year prior to the measurement
    year on an ambulatory basis (Table CDC-A).
    Claim/encounter data. Members who had two face-to-face encounters in an
    outpatient setting or nonacute inpatient setting, on different dates of service, with a
    diagnosis of diabetes (Table CDC-B), or one face-to-face encounter in an acute
    inpatient or ED setting, during the measurement year or the year prior to the
    measurement year. The organization may count services that occur over both years.
    Refer to Table CDC-C for codes to identify visit type.
  •  Members who had no antipsychotic medications (Table SSD-D) dispensed during the
    measurement year.
Administrative Specification

Denominator The eligible population.
Numerator
Diabetes Screening
A glucose test (Table SSD-E) or an HbA1c test (Table CDC-D) performed during the
measurement year, as identified by claim/encounter or automated laboratory data.

I'll be honest this may be a hard measure to get good results for. The Medicaid Population can be tricky when trying to fill gaps. Plus  trying to accurate identify members with correct diagnosis codes for physch disorder could be tough.  Various support service may or may not bill in a way that will be accessible by a plan.



Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Stealing some thunder from another blog

This from John Lynch's blog(Not the former NH Governor)

http://ourhealthcaresucks.com/health-care/healthcare-cuts-or-sequestration/

 The entire sequestration process – a byproduct of the last debt ceiling debacle in Congress that would make broad cuts in government spending effective on March 1, 2013 (delayed from a January 1, 2013 start as part of the “fiscal cliff” deal) – could be avoided if we’d only tackle our medical misspending that she estimates at 44% of our current healthcare costs. The twin pillars of overhead and overuse are cited as the core causes of this overspending.

While I don't agree with everything said in the blog it provides some excellent reading and discussion on what is going and what can be done.  One topic touched on was defensive medicine.  It's something that I don't think was addressed with the ACA.  Doctors order far more tests and procedures not because its needed but because if they don't do it they could be sued for malpractice if something goes wrong.  We really need to focus on quality not quantity and get lawyers out of the equation. Some of the accepted performance measures being used do touch on these. For example AAB Avoidance of Antibiotic Treatment in Adults with Acute Bronchitis or URI Treatment of Children with Upper Respiratory Infection. Between unneeded tests and prescriptions plus frivolous lawsuits we are hiking up our costs and wasting money.  Even though I'm a compliance professional having these rules in place keep me gainfully employed we do need to realize that the system is broken and needs to be fixed






John does know what he is talking about

John Lynch has several decades of diverse healthcare experience informing a unique perspective that can help you and your family navigate our turbulent – and dangerous – healthcare system.

These range from consumer advocacy and hospital management to regional planning and developing innovative service delivery models, including:

  • Founded and served as Chairman, President and CEO of a company that developed a network of mobile MRI clinics (Medical Diagnostics, Inc., or MDI) that he took public as the only profitable mobile MRI company in the country; MDI was twice ranked among Business Week’s top ten “Best Small Businesses” in America;

  • Former independent consultant for hospital planning and program development projects; developed an early methodology for projecting patient need for an emerging diagnostic technology (MRI) recognized by the American Hospital Association;

  • Served on the Boards of a hospital and consumer advocacy group for the medically uninsured, as well as the Hospital Trustee Committee of his state hospital association;

  • Served on Boards of health centers, Harvard-affiliated mental health center, & statewide drug rehabilitation program;

  • Managed the emergency room, outpatient, and community-based programs of a large teaching hospital; &

  • Served as Planning Director for a regional health planning agency & reviewed dozens of hospital expansion plans.



Thursday, January 10, 2013

Interesting view on US Health Care

I was reading over this blog that I follow
http://diseasemanagementcareblog.blogspot.com/
it's Posted by Jaan Sidorov

Jaan's takeaways was this based on the research that was presented in his blog.

DMCB takeaways:

If other developed nations are role models for the U.S., large clinic systems are not necessarily the way to go.

There may be an inverse correlation between patients' ability to pay for care and access to specialist care.

The U.S. is in the middle of the pack when it comes to EHR use.

Nurse-led care manage is not uncommon overseas and a 43% rate in the U.S. is higher than generally realized.

Timely transmittal of emergency room and hospital discharge information seems to be a problem everywhere.


I find it interesting because we are at a crossroads where we look to fundamentally change how we do healthcare  in the US.  The ACA is beginning to get implemented at a much higher rate in 2013.  The results to be honest have been less than impressive.  The goal was to make health better and cheaper not created endless bureaucracy,  Jaan's last 2 points I find really interesting. In many countries your provider is a nurse and not a doctor. Sometimes it's because there isn't a doctor available or because the system in place has you go through a "triage" before you get to see a physician.  In the US we prefer to see the "doctor" becuase that's the expectation. Working in a healthcare system setting, there are times I'd rather see a nurse who has 20 years under her belt than a resident just out of school.. It's something that we might need to consider more.  Plus its more cost effective and it give the Dr's time to work with patients rather than squeeze them in for 17 minute visits.

The other point is the exchange of info with the ER and discharge.  We frankly we stink at this and the issue is really on both the Dr. and the patient.  Most times you get out of the ER and the attending gives you the paperwork and it good bye. They usually don't follow up with the primary.  Unless they happen to work in the same hospital. On the flip side the patient needs to show an iota of common sense and let his primary know what happen.  Now if this person doesn't have coverage or a primary that's another whole issue.  I think this trend is changing with the ER. Now what needs to happen is the patient needs to show some personal responsibility and get penalized when they don't.  Because if they don't we all have to pay in the long run.

I'm not a big fan of the ACA  just because it was to huge and was way too partisan.  Though I agree with it in the spirit that the system is broken and needs to be fixed.  I really hope 2013 the Senate gets its act together and allows some bills to be voted on that could fix a few things on this act. Though based on Harry Reid's track record I won't hold my breathe.  On the other hand the house should stop wasting its time on trying repeal and focus on fixing the act incrementally with the areas that have the biggest flaws. You'll get more support that way.

Medical Device Software Verification, Validation, and Compliance By Vo (Google Affiliate Ad)
 



Tuesday, January 8, 2013

When a little knowledge can be dangerous..

One thing that you will learn in the Compliance and Accreditation role is that there always self proclaimed experts that seem to show up in your organization.  They usually tend to be folks who have good intentions but are woefully deficient in the areas they seem to profess expertise in. Usually they've assisted in some type of audit or process review but are just not up on the current requirements.  The other type is the free spirited "Requirement Cavalier".  OK, I coined this phrase myself...  basically this person uses this knowledge to push an idea or concept in order to further their personal agenda. Unfortunately their limited knowledge usually ends up causing organizational harm(usually financial) and take years to fix.

 I'll use an example, many years ago a particular client who delegated certain NCQA Health Plan requirements to a vendor also had specific requirements for member satisfaction.  These requirements somehow got pushed by an account manager as being NCQA requirements and the vendor began to base programs off these.  However several years down the road these requirements had a negative impact on the vendor.  The requirements went under review and was later revealed to be requirements not needed for NCQA Health Plan delegation.  However among account managers they were told by certain individuals that this was a requirement.  The "requirement" was based partially on fact but mostly it was to get the sale for the account manager and keep the account. . The people that had created this perception never actually consulted the accreditation team.  They also had left company previously to the issue being discovered.

Bottom line: Poor interpretation of requirements and regulations can seriously impact your company.  The compliance department is a sanity check not a road block

Friday, January 4, 2013

Accreditation and Compliance pitfall

Over the last couple of years I've heard folks say "Well since we are accredited we are fully compliant..." This should raise the hairs or the back of a compliance officer.  Just because your organization maybe accredited with NCQA or URAC that doesn't mean you may be fully compliant will all state and federal regulations.  Generally most folks in your organization don't get the complexities of the current regulatory climate.  Because many organizations run in a silo mode most don't understand that laws and regulations have changed. While accreditation may have some weight when it comes to regulations(NCQA and Medicare for instance) they always state that Federal and state laws supersede them.

When going for an accreditation you really need to do two things. Make sure that being compliant with an accreditation does not put you at risk with the state of federal regulations.  Also you need to educate your peers that getting an accreditation does not insulate from state and federal regulations.  Most folks in the compliance role tend not to do much with the accreditation role. There always seems to be this clinical/ non-clinical divide for some reason.  Frankly the accreditation role does not need to be a clinical person you just need to make sure that the required clinical works gets completed.

I will give Kudos to NCQA and URAC because when they update their requirements they do take into consideration what regulators are looking for.  They do tend to deviate slightly on what they are looking for. Just don't assume they are 100% spot on.

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Quality and Compliance

Even though the fiscal cliff was just kicked down the road for about 2 months the reality is that revenue will be tighter. The new buzz word I think will be "Medical Efficiencies". What does this mean? To me it says we need to better use our limited dollars in the most cost efficient way so by showing better "Quality" i.e targeting the right folks or showing the best results we can increase our income. Where does compliance come into it? Well we have an obligation to show in the most transparent manner that the systems work as designed and in compliance with governing regulations.

I'll do a real world example.  Let's do a HEDIS measure Glaucoma Screening Older Adults(GSO).  Your plan is trying to in increase the rates on this.  Your score was originally a 78 and you've been wanting to increase this.  You've made efforts increase the number optometrists and ophthalmologists who accept you insurance. You've made better efforts to process claims internally and have been able to maintain a 98% accuracy rate.  However you've also been able to use HEDIS supplemental data this year to increase the score.   This area since it is new for your plan will need extra scrutiny and review. You'll need to work with your HEDIS auditor to make sue you are in compliance with the technical specifications plus since you are using this data for reporting this may get reviewed by other external auditors.  This is a tricky area since most compliance professionals aren't DBA's and rely upon the IT staff for support.  Can this be smooth and work perfectly? Absolutely but it takes time planning and review.