Download:
pdf |
pdfContract No.:
500-00-0033/T.O. 05
MPR Reference No.: 6138-121
Evaluation of the
Medicare Care
Management
Performance
Demonstration:
Design Report
Final Report
May 25, 2007
Lorenzo Moreno
Stacy Dale
Suzanne Felt-Lisk
Leslie Foster
Julita Milliner-Waddell
Eric Grau
Rachel Shapiro
Anne Bloomenthal
Amy Zambrowski
Submitted to:
Submitted by:
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
P.O. Box 2393
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Princeton, NJ 08543-2393
Office of Research, Development, and Information
Telephone: (609) 799-3535
C3-23-04 Central Bldg.
Facsimile: (609) 799-0005
Mail Stop C3-19-07
7500 Security Blvd.
Project Director:
Baltimore, MD 21244-1850
Lorenzo Moreno
Project Officer:
Lorraine Johnson
CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... xi
I
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
A. RATIONALE FOR THE DEMONSTRATION ...............................................1
B. DEMONSTRATION DESIGN .........................................................................2
C. GOALS OF THE EVALUATION ....................................................................5
D. CHALLENGES FOR THE EVALUATION ....................................................9
1. Estimating Impacts......................................................................................9
2. Measuring Some Qualitative Outcomes....................................................12
3. Linking Changes in Specific HIT Functionalities to Specific
Improvements............................................................................................12
4. Assessing the Scalability and Generalizability of the
Demonstration ...........................................................................................12
E. GUIDE TO THIS REPORT ............................................................................13
II
DESIGN OF THE IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS ........................................15
A. GOALS AND KEY QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED.............................15
B. APPROACH ....................................................................................................18
1. Overview ...................................................................................................18
2. Literature Review and Review of Key Websites and Other
Background ...............................................................................................19
3. Office Systems Survey ..............................................................................19
4. Site Visits ..................................................................................................27
5. Telephone Discussions with Highly Successful Practices ........................32
6. Telephone Discussions with Unsuccessful Practices (Including
Those That Withdrew) ..............................................................................33
7. Analysis.....................................................................................................34
iii
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter
III
Page
DESIGN OF THE IMPACT ANALYSIS ....................................................................39
A. RESEARCH DESIGN.....................................................................................39
1.
2.
3.
4.
Selection of Comparison States.................................................................40
Selection of Comparison Group Practices ................................................40
Identification of Comparison Group Beneficiaries ...................................42
Estimation of Demonstration Impacts.......................................................43
B. EXPECTED EFFECTS ...................................................................................44
C. DATA SOURCES ...........................................................................................45
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Beneficiary Survey....................................................................................49
Physician Survey .......................................................................................53
OMB Clearance.........................................................................................54
Medicare Claims and Eligibility Files.......................................................55
Practice-Specific Data ...............................................................................57
D. SAMPLE SIZES..............................................................................................58
1. Minimum Detectable Differences for Impact Estimates Derived
from the Beneficiary Survey, Physician Survey, and Claims Data...........58
2. Precision for Descriptive Estimates of Clinical Outcomes
Among Demonstration Practices...............................................................60
E. OUTCOME MEASURES ...............................................................................61
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Quality of Care ..........................................................................................63
Continuity-of-Care Measures....................................................................76
Satisfaction with Care ...............................................................................77
Descriptive Measures ................................................................................82
Costs and Service Use ...............................................................................82
F. STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING IMPACTS ...........93
1.
2.
3.
4.
Regression Models ....................................................................................94
Testing Strategy.........................................................................................99
Sensitivity Analyses ................................................................................100
Control Variables for Impact Analysis....................................................101
iv
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter
IV
Page
SYNTHESIS OF IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT ANALYSES .............105
A. OVERVIEW OF THE SYNTHESIS ............................................................105
B. FRAMEWORK FOR SYNTHESIZING RESULTS ....................................106
1. For Which Types of Practices Did the Incentives Have the Largest
Impacts on Quality of Care and Costs?...................................................108
2. How Did Quality Outcomes Vary with the Incentives?..........................108
3. How Did Quality of Care, Medicare Costs, and the Incentives Vary
with HIT Use? .........................................................................................109
C. RELATING IMPACTS TO PRACTICE CHARACTERISTICS.................109
1. Exploratory Analysis...............................................................................110
2. Confirmatory Analysis ............................................................................111
D. RELATING QUALITY OUTCOMES TO THE INCENTIVES..................112
E. RELATING QUALITY OF CARE, COSTS, AND THE INCENTIVES
TO HIT USE..................................................................................................113
V
REPORTING OF DEMONSTRATION FINDINGS..........................................115
A. IMPLEMENTATION REPORT ...................................................................116
B. SITE VISITS REPORT .................................................................................116
C. COST NEUTRALITY MONITORING REPORT........................................116
D. INTERIM AND FINAL EVALUATION REPORTS...................................117
1.
2.
3.
4.
First Interim Evaluation Report...............................................................117
Second Interim Evaluation Report ..........................................................117
Third Interim Evaluation Report .............................................................118
Final Evaluation Report ..........................................................................118
E. REPORT TO CONGRESS............................................................................118
REFERENCES.....................................................................................................121
APPENDIX A: ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR THE
DEMONSTRATION AND THE EVALUATION ..................A.3
APPENDIX B: DOQ-IT OFFICE SYSTEMS SURVEY ..................................B.3
APPENDIX C: COMPARISON STATE SELECTION PROCESS..................C.3
v
TABLES
Table
Page
I.1
RESEARCH QUESTIONS, DATA SOURCES, AND ANALYSIS
METHODS FOR THE MCMP EVALUATION, BY ANALYTIC
COMPONENT..........................................................................................................7
II.1
KEY QUESTIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS ......................16
II.2
ADVANCEMENT IN USE OF HIT DURING THE DEMONSTRATION:
DEMONSTRATION-WIDE ANALYSIS..............................................................22
III.1
DATA AVAILABILITY OF QUALITY MEASURES RELATED TO
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES...................................................................................46
III.2
OVERVIEW OF TYPES OF OUTCOME MEASURES AND DATA
SOURCES FOR IMPACT ANALYSIS .................................................................48
III.3
PROJECTED RESPONSE FOR THE BENEFICIARY SURVEY .......................52
III.4
MINIMUM DETECTABLE DIFFERENCES FOR BINARY AND
CONTINUOUS OUTCOMES DERIVED FROM THE BENEFICIARY
SURVEY, PHYSICIAN SURVEY, AND CLAIMS DATA .................................59
III.5
HALF-WIDTH, 95-PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR BINARY
AND CONTINUOUS OUTCOMES DERIVED FROM A DESCRIPTIVE
ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES USING THE PHYSICIAN PRACTICE
AS THE UNIT OF ANALYSIS .............................................................................62
III.6
CARE PROCESSES USED IN CLINICAL INTERVENTIONS,
MEASURED AT THE PRACTICE LEVEL..........................................................65
III.7
CARE PROCESSES USED IN CLINICAL INTERVENTIONS,
MEASURED AT THE BENEFICIARY LEVEL ..................................................66
III.8
USE OF HIT IN OFFICE PROCESSES, MEASURED AT
THE PHYSICIAN LEVEL .....................................................................................68
III.9
BARRIERS TO HIT ADOPTION, MEASURED AT THE
PHYSICIAN LEVEL..............................................................................................69
III.10
STAFFING AND TASKS, MEASURED AT THE PHYSICIAN
LEVEL ....................................................................................................................70
III.11
OFFICE PROCESSES, MEASURED AT THE PHYSICIAN
LEVEL ....................................................................................................................71
vii
TABLES (continued)
Table
Page
III.12
PHYSICIAN-BENEFICIARY INTERACTIONS, MEASURED
AT THE BENEFICIARY LEVEL .........................................................................73
III.13
HEALTH OUTCOMES, MEASURED AT THE BENEFICIARY
LEVEL ....................................................................................................................75
III.14
COORDINATION-OF-CARE OUTCOMES, MEASURED
AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL ............................................................................78
III.15
SATISFACTION OUTCOMES, MEASURED AT THE INDIVIDUAL
LEVEL ....................................................................................................................80
III.16
PHYSICIAN EXPERIENCES WITH THE MCMP
DEMONSTRATION ..............................................................................................83
III.17
REGRESSION-ADJUSTED EFFECT OF THE DEMONSTRATION ON
PERCENTAGE USING MEDICARE SERVICES, STATE A .............................86
III.18
REGRESSION-ADJUSTED EFFECT OF THE DEMONSTRATION
ON AMOUNT OF MEDICARE SERVICES USED AMONG SERVICE
USERS, STATE A ..................................................................................................87
III.19
REGRESSION-ADJUSTED EFFECT OF THE DEMONSTRATION
ON MEDICARE EXPENDITURES PER MONTH ENROLLED,
STATE A ................................................................................................................88
III.20
REGRESSION-ADJUSTED EFFECT OF THE DEMONSTRATION
ON MEDICARE EXPENDITURES PER MONTH ENROLLED,
STATE A ................................................................................................................89
III.21
CONTROL VARIABLES AND THEIR SOURCE .............................................102
V.1
SCHEDULE OF DRAFT REPORT DUE DATES ..............................................115
viii
FIGURES
Figure
I.1
Page
LOGIC MODEL FOR THE EXPECTED EFFECTS OF THE MCMP
DEMONSTRATION ................................................................................................6
ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF THIS EVALUATION DESIGN REPORT
This report describes the evaluation design for the Medicare Care Management Performance
(MCMP) Demonstration. In it, we discuss our approach to the impact analysis, including (1)
identification of a valid, nonexperimental comparison group; (2) statistical methods; (3) data
sources; and (4) outcome measures. We also describe the goals and framework to be used in the
implementation analysis. Finally, we discuss a framework for synthesizing our quantitative and
qualitative findings to assess the scalability and generalizability of the demonstration.
RATIONALE FOR THE DEMONSTRATION
Section 649 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003 (MMA) requires the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to
establish a pay-for-performance (P4P) demonstration program with physicians to meet the needs
of eligible beneficiaries through the adoption and use of health information technology (HIT)
and evidence-based outcome measures. The goals of the three-year demonstration are to
improve quality of care to eligible fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries and encourage the
implementation and use of HIT. The specific objectives are to promote continuity of care, help
stabilize medical conditions, prevent or minimize acute exacerbations of chronic conditions, and
reduce adverse health outcomes. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is
responsible for designing and operating the MCMP demonstration.
Under the demonstration, physician practices that meet or exceed performance standards
established by CMS in clinical performance process and outcome measures will receive a bonus
payment for managing the care of eligible Medicare beneficiaries. Practices that submit
performance data electronically using a certified electronic health record (EHR) system to CMS
will also be eligible for an increase in the incentive payment. The bonuses will be in addition to
the normal fee-for-service Medicare payment they receive for services delivered. In a
predemonstration (baseline) year, the demonstration will be a pay-for-reporting (P4R) initiative
to help physicians become familiar with the process of reporting quality measures. The
demonstration builds on P4P models used in the private sector, most notably Bridges to
Excellence™.
DEMONSTRATION DESIGN
The MCMP demonstration will target practices serving at least 50 traditional fee-for-service
Medicare beneficiaries with selected chronic conditions for whom they are providing primary
care. Under this demonstration, physicians practicing primary care1 in solo or small- to medium1
The following physician specialties will be eligible to participate in the MCMP demonstration if they provide
primary care: general practice, allergy/immunology, cardiology, family practice, gastroenterology, internal
xi
size group practices (practices with 10 or fewer physicians, although there may be exceptions)
will be eligible to earn incentive payments for (1) reporting quality measures for congestive
heart failure, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and the provision of preventive health services
during a baseline (predemonstration) period; (2) achieving specified standards on clinical
performance measures during the three-year demonstration period; and (3) submitting clinical
quality measures to CMS electronically using an EHR that meets industry standards specified by
the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology (CCHIT).
The MMA authorizes a total of four sites in both urban and rural areas.2 The demonstration
sites are in Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, and Utah. The Quality Improvement
Organizations (QIOs) in these four states will recruit the practices on relationships built through
CMS’s Doctor’s Office Quality - Information Technology (DOQ-IT) project. Only practices
participating in DOQ-IT will be eligible to participate in the demonstration. It is expected that
the demonstration will enroll 250 practices per state in California and Massachusetts and 150
practices per state in Arkansas and Utah, with an estimated 2,800 physicians participating in
MCMP. These practices will represent many organizational structures, and, to participate, they
must have at least 50 Medicare beneficiaries. Recruitment of demonstration practices started in
January 2007. The demonstration will begin operations on July 1, 2007, and will end in June
2010.
Demonstration practices will be defined by one or more tax identification numbers (TINs).
Physicians will be linked to each practice using individual Medicare provider identification
numbers (PINs). Medicare beneficiaries who are treated by primary care providers, or those
medical subspecialties likely to provide primary care, for the targeted conditions and who are
covered under traditional fee-for-service Medicare for both Part A and Part B coverage will be
linked to the practices.
Demonstration practices will submit performance data to CMS on up to 26 clinical measures
covering treatment related to congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and the
provision of specific preventive and screening services for all beneficiaries assigned with a
chronic condition. Through several contractors, CMS will collect data on all the clinical
measures for the baseline period and all three years of the demonstration.
The demonstration practices will be eligible to receive up to three incentive payments. First,
demonstration practices will receive an incentive of $20 per beneficiary per category (up to
$1,000 per physician to a maximum of $5,000 per practice) for reporting baseline clinical quality
measures. The payment will not be contingent on the practice’s score on any of these measures.
Second, for each of the three demonstration years, based on the clinical measures data that the
(continued)
medicine, pulmonary disease, geriatric medicine, osteopathic medicine, nephrology, infectious disease,
endocrinology, multispecialty clinic or group practice, hematology, hematology/oncology, preventive medicine,
rheumatology, and medical oncology.
2
Appendix A contains a copy of the law.
xii
practices report, CMS will calculate a composite score for each chronic condition (as well as the
preventive measures) and compare it against performance thresholds.
Physicians will be eligible for payments of up to $70 per beneficiary for meeting standards
related to a specific chronic condition. Beneficiaries who have more than one condition will be
counted in each of the relevant groups. For preventive services, physicians will be eligible for a
payment of up to $25 per beneficiary with any chronic condition. Physicians will be eligible to
earn up to $10,000 per year for performance on all clinical measures. The maximum annual
payment to any single practice will be $50,000, regardless of the number of physicians in the
practice. Third, practices with a CCHIT certified EHR system that can extract and submit
performance data to CMS electronically will be eligible to increase the incentive payment by up
to 25 percent, or $2,500 per physician (up to $12,500 per practice) per year during the
demonstration period for electronic submission. Thus, practices could receive up to $192,500
over the three years of the demonstration (including the baseline period).
Finally, Congress also mandated an independent evaluation of the MCMP demonstration.
The evaluation must include an assessment of P4P’s impacts on improving quality of care, care
coordination, and continuity of care; reducing Medicare expenditures; and improving health
outcomes. The legislation specified that a final evaluation report must be submitted to Congress
within 12 months of the demonstration’s conclusion. CMS, with funding from the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), has contracted with Mathematica Policy Research,
Inc. (MPR) to conduct this evaluation.
GOALS OF THE EVALUATION
The main goal of the evaluation is to provide CMS with valid estimates of the incremental
effect, or impact, of providing performance-based financial incentives on the quality of care, use
of Medicare-covered services, adoption and use of HIT, and Medicare costs of the chronically ill
Medicare beneficiaries served by the demonstration practices. To provide this information, the
evaluation must generate rigorous quantitative estimates of the intervention’s impacts. In
addition, the evaluation will examine the dynamics of practice response to the incentives and
supports provided by the demonstration. Figure 1 depicts a logic model for the evaluation,
which we will discuss in more detail in this report.
The impact analysis will test the hypotheses that the financial incentives (1) improve quality
of care, (2) lower Medicare costs for services by enough to offset the costs of the incentives, (3)
influence the adoption and use of HIT, (4) improve continuity of care and care coordination, (5)
improve patient satisfaction with care, and (6) improve physician satisfaction. The quality-ofcare analysis will assess the care delivery process and the clinical outcomes of Medicare
beneficiaries. The cost analysis will include impacts on costs to the Medicare program and
Medicare service use.3 The analysis of HIT use will assess whether practices adopted or
increased their HIT use in various office procedures. The continuity-of-care analysis will assess
3
In addition, as required by OMB, we will monitor budget neutrality during the first 18 months of the
demonstration.
xiii
xiv
HIT = health information technology.
Adopts care
management
processes
Patient mix and health
status
Enhances
quality and
safety
orientation
Adapts
processes and
workflows for
HIT adoption
and use
Organizational
Changes
Practice, organization,
capabilities, and goals
Incentives
to improve
performance
Intervention
Greater use of
data to refine
care
Practice characteristics
Physician payment
arrangements
Market characteristics
Predisposing and
Enabling Factors
Improves overall
performance
Improves
performance for
target conditions
Quality
Changes
Less use of
inpatient
services and
emergency
room, and
lower costs
Improves
financial
performance
Service/Use
Cost
LOGIC MODEL FOR THE EXPECTED EFFECTS OF THE MCMP DEMONSTRATION
FIGURE 1
Improves satisfaction
with providers and
care
Improves practice
reputation
Satisfaction
whether the adoption of P4P reduces care fragmentation. In the satisfaction analysis, patient
satisfaction with care and physician satisfaction with the demonstration and its effects on their
practices also will be analyzed. Subgroup analyses will test whether the intervention is more
effective for certain types of beneficiaries and practices than for others.
The implementation analysis will study the planned interventions as envisioned by a
representative set of practices, practices’ actual experience with the adoption and use of
performance measurement technology (for example, EHRs or disease registries) and care
management processes, and the factors that helped or hindered the practices’ efforts. The
detailed description of the practices’ plans will cover the background information on the range of
HIT used before the demonstration and how the practices implemented the intervention (the
specific changes made to improve patient adherence, refine care processes, lessen fragmentation
of care, or avoid adverse drug interactions).
Finally, the synthesis will combine the practice-specific analyses, using impact estimates
and implementation analysis findings, to draw inferences about the types of practices that appear
to be most successful. It will also examine the generalizability and scalability of the
demonstration. As required by CMS, the synthesis will be the basis for the report to Congress,
and it will be included in the final evaluation report.
CHALLENGES FOR THE EVALUATION
Several technical challenges must be overcome to achieve the evaluation’s objectives. The
main challenges are to (1) obtain valid, comparable estimates of impacts for each state; (2)
measure some qualitative outcomes; (3) link specific changes in HIT use to specific
improvements; and (4) assess the scalability and generalizability of the demonstration.
Estimating Impacts
Three factors may complicate estimation and interpretation of impacts: (1) the feasibility of
credible comparison strategies, (2) the period during which the demonstration will be
operational, and (3) data completeness for linking physicians to practices.
Although random assignment is generally the strongest study design, several factors made it
infeasible for the MCMP demonstration. Therefore, the impact analysis will use a comparison
group (or quasi-experimental) design. To identify the comparison group, the evaluation will use
DOQ-IT practices in selected nondemonstration states that match most closely to those in the
demonstration states. To be considered a valid comparison practice, the practice must have
predemonstration service use and cost patterns similar to those in practices in demonstrations
states. It should also have comparable baseline characteristics. We will use statistical tests to
ensure that the demonstration and comparison practices do not differ on preenrollment
characteristics. However, comparison and demonstration practices may still differ on other
observed or unobserved factors (such as interest in, and ability to adopt and use, an EHR system)
that are difficult to control for in the impact analysis. Furthermore, the operation of a national
Medicare P4R program (Physician Quality Reporting Initiative [PQRI]) for physicians beginning
July 1, 2007, or any future Medicare P4P programs for this type of provider, will make it even
xv
more difficult to understand which factors are responsible for the estimated impacts (even after
controlling for those practices in the comparison group that decide to participate in the P4R
program, since demonstration practices will be exempt from reporting quality measures to PQRI
to obtain the bonus). Thus, because of the expected fluidity of the Medicare physician
reimbursement environment during the demonstration period, it will be difficult to measure a
credible counterfactual (that is, what would have been the experience of the physician practices
in the absence of the demonstration) to the demonstration.
The period during which the demonstration will be operational is likely to constrain our
ability to identify valid comparison groups.
Demonstration practices will be recruited in
winter/spring 2007, and many of these practices will have already received technical assistance
from the QIOs on implementing EHRs for several years, have actually implemented and adopted
this type of system, and may be using it to report quality measures. In contrast, DOQ-IT
practices in nondemonstration states that are selected to be part of the comparison group will
only be starting to decide whether to adopt an EHR system or receiving technical assistance to
reorganize themselves. Controlling for length of the interval since practices first began receiving
technical assistance from the QIOs or signed a contract for purchasing an EHR system may not
be enough to ensure comparability of demonstration and comparison practices on this dimension.
It also may complicate the interpretation of the impact estimates because of the lag between
demonstration and comparison practices in receiving technical assistance and implementing
EHRs.
Data accuracy and completeness in identifying comparison practices may also present
difficulties. The algorithm to be used for linking physicians to potential comparison practices
will be the same as the one used for linking participating physicians to demonstration practices.
However, the accuracy and completeness of the identifiers available in Medicare Part B claims
data for this process will differ and, therefore, may make it difficult to identify comparable
DOQ-IT practices in nondemonstration states. Likewise, while demonstration practices will be
required to correctly enter the practice and physician identifiers in the claims they submit in
order to receive the incentive payments, comparison practices will not be required to do so.
Thus, variations in the accuracy and completeness of the identifiers in claims data may result in
discrepancies between the two groups in how beneficiaries are assigned to practices during the
demonstration (even if the definition of the practice will remain unchanged from baseline in both
demonstration and comparison groups) and confound the interpretation of the impact estimates.
Measuring Some Qualitative Outcomes
Several organizational changes that practices may undertake, such as enhancing the
practice’s quality and safety orientation, probably will affect important qualitative outcomes.
For example, as previously discussed, it is expected that the financial incentives will improve
continuity of care, which in turn could reduce fragmentation of care through better care
coordination. Thus, it will be difficult to measure these qualitative outcomes because of the
inherent complications of identifying all the providers involved in the care of beneficiaries
assigned to specific practices and collecting the data needed to characterize whether the
interactions among providers were appropriate, clinically meaningful, and timely.
xvi
Linking Changes in Specific HIT Functionalities to Specific Improvements
Demonstration practices will have considerable latitude in deciding how to use HIT,
including EHRs, for measuring performance and submitting data electronically to CMS.
Furthermore, the demonstration will not assess the incremental effect of specific EHR
functionalities. Thus, it will be difficult to link changes in use of specific HIT functionalities to
specific outcome improvements.
Assessing the Scalability and Generalizability of the Demonstration
The number of practice characteristics potentially related to improvement in clinical
outcomes is large, so linking these characteristics to the success or failure of the practice may be
difficult. Moreover, pooling of observations across states may be inappropriate, given such
factors as the differences in state regulations; physician licensing arrangements; and P4R, P4P,
and EHR penetration. Thus, it will be difficult to generalize the evaluation findings to the
Medicare program or to other P4P programs, and to assess the scalability of the intervention,
given the demonstration’s focus on small- to medium-size practices in only four states.
OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION COMPONENTS
Implementation Analysis
The implementation analysis will examine the dynamics of practice response to the
incentives and supports provided by the demonstration. It will also identify barriers and
facilitators to (1) successful adoption of HIT to better manage care and improve patient
outcomes, (2) greater use of data by the practice to refine the care process, and (3) an enhanced
practice orientation to quality and safety. In addition, we will examine how the practice has
adapted its patient flows and documentation processes as HIT is implemented, which has
implications for efficiency and quality outcomes. Across all these topics, we will include a
specific focus on the role of financial incentives and technical assistance.
Data Sources. The analysis of implementation of the demonstration will rely on several data
sources: (1) the Office Systems Survey, (2) site visits, (3) telephone discussions with highly
successful practices, and (4) telephone discussions with unsuccessful practices, including those
that withdrew from the demonstration, if any (Table 1). A literature review will ensure that the
site visit discussion guides are consistent with recent research and that all site visitors are
knowledgeable about the latest research on P4P as we enter the field.
Office Systems Survey. The Maine Health Information Center will administer the DOQ-IT
Office Systems Survey to all demonstration and comparison practices twice during the
demonstration for both demonstration and comparison practices. These data will allow us to
identify whether demonstration practices have changed how they use electronic tools to improve
quality differently from the comparison practices. We will also draw practice characteristics so
that we can examine results by practice size and location (by state and whether the practice is
located in an urban or rural area).
xvii
TABLE 1
DATA SOURCES FOR IMPLEMENTATION, IMPACT, AND SYNTHESIS ANALYSES
Expected Sample Size for Demonstration Groupa
Data Source
Time Frame
Arkansas
California
Massachusetts
Utah
Practice-Specific Data for All Analyses
Office Systems Survey
Collected during 2007 and 2010
150
250
250
150
Site Visits
Conducted February through May
2008 and October 2009 through
January 2010
Conducted in years 2 and 3 of
demonstration operations
8 practices in each state per wave
Conducted in years 2 and 3 of
demonstration operations
Up to 6 practices (across all states) in each wave
Implementation Analysis
Telephone Discussions
with Highly Successful
Practices
Telephone Discussions
with Unsuccessful
Practices
Up to 12 practices (across all states) randomly
selected in each wave
Impact Analysis
Physician Survey
Beneficiary Survey
Medicare Claims Datab
Conducted in July 2009 (25 months
after demonstration begins)
Conducted in January 2009 (19
months after demonstration begins)
Acquired in
September 2007 (for baseline
measures) and in January of each
year from 2009 – 2011 (for followup measures)
200
200
200
200
600
600
600
600
46,000
50,000
56,000
34,000
250
250
150
Synthesis Analysis
Financial Payment Data
Acquired in December of each
demonstration year
150
a
For each data source, the comparison group sample will be approximately equal in size; however, financial
payment data are only relevant for the demonstration group.
b
Expected number of Medicare beneficiaries per participating practice estimated based on the actual number of
Medicare beneficiaries per practice in each state.
xviii
Site Visits. The site visits will provide us with an understanding of how the demonstration is
being implemented by practices and, thus, how the practice changes under way may be
influencing quality of care, practice efficiency, and patient satisfaction. We plan to conduct one
wave of site visits in year 1 (February through May 2008) and a second wave in year 3 (October
2009 through January 2010). Our recommendation to visit the same practices in both time
periods would allow us to (1) relate what the practices expected to do and to learn early in the
demonstration to what actually they did, and (2) examine how their goals changed. This
recommendation implies a reduction in the total number of practices visited on-site from the 76
we originally proposed to 40.
We plan to visit eight demonstration practices and two comparison practices in each state. It
is important to visit comparison group practices, because the congressionally mandated link
between provider reporting of quality data and financial incentives makes it likely that
comparison and demonstration sites both will be improving on the dimensions of interest during
the period. Demonstration sites to be visited in each state will be selected judgmentally from
among geographically feasible choices, while ensuring that we achieve a mix of practice sizes,
urban versus rural location and HIT sophistication. A semistructured interview protocol (which
will generally be similar for the demonstration and comparison practices) will be the central data
collection instrument.
Telephone Discussions with Highly Successful Practices. After the first and second
payouts, we plan to conduct telephone discussions with 12 practices that benefited substantially
from the program (for example, practices that received the maximum payment).
Telephone Discussions with Unsuccessful Practices. On a continuing basis beginning in
year 2 of the demonstration, we will conduct telephone discussions with unsuccessful practices,
including practices that withdrew from the demonstration, if any (up to six practices in
demonstration year 2 and six in year 3) to investigate what factors led the practice to suboptimal
performance or to withdraw from the demonstration, and what changes might have retained the
practice. If no practices withdraw, we will discuss with CMS alternative allocations of these
interviews to practices that remained in the demonstration but were unsuccessful (for example,
they did not receive performance payments).
Analysis. The implementation analysis will be conducted demonstration-wide—overall and
by practice characteristics, including state location. We will identify themes and illustrative
examples from among the many site visits and telephone interviews.
Our analysis of the site visit data should answer questions regarding physicians’
perspectives on the demonstration; practices’ direct responses to the incentives; the influence of
other incentive and reporting programs on response; practices’ adoption of care management
processes; the extent to which data are being used to refine the care process; the extent to which
practices enhanced quality and safety; and the adaptation of patient flow and documentation
processes as HIT is implemented. We will look for patterns in demonstration experience by state
as we analyze each major topic. We also will explore the relationship between practice
classifications and outcomes. Practice classifications will be developed from site visit data and
other data sources, and will be defined by characteristics such as size, fraction of Medicare
patients with targeted conditions, urban versus rural practices, state location, level of HIT use
xix
before the demonstration, practices in higher- versus lower-income areas, and practices that were
aggressively developing care management processes for one or more conditions targeted by the
demonstration versus those that were not.
Impact Analysis
Estimating impacts of the MCMP demonstration will require a rigorous research design,
data from several sources on the outcomes the P4P intervention is expected to influence, and
strong statistical models to provide unbiased and efficient estimates of program impacts. Several
factors make this task challenging, including (1) the need to rely on a quasi-experimental design;
(2) the need for separate impact estimates for each state; and (3) the considerable variation of
many factors across states, including the timing and intensity of technical assistance for
implementing EHRs, P4P and EHR penetration, physician licensure regulations, and accuracy
and completeness of key identifiers in claims data.
Research Design. The two key features for ensuring that valid estimates of impacts are
obtained are (1) the comparison group strategy (how we select the group to estimate what would
have occurred to demonstration practices and beneficiaries without the P4P incentives), and (2)
the sample size. We will estimate impacts of the demonstration through a difference-indifferences approach. With this approach, we will compare changes in quality measures and
other outcomes of practices in the demonstration states and comparison states before and after
the start of the demonstration. We will carefully select the comparison practices to minimize the
possibility of bias in our impact estimates. Having adequate sample sizes will ensure that
impacts of policy-relevant size do not go undetected.
Quasi-Experimental Design for Demonstration Impacts. The impact analysis will use a
comparison group (or quasi-experimental) design. To identify the comparison group, the
evaluation will select DOQ-IT physician practices in selected nondemonstration states that match
most closely those in demonstration states. The collection of matched comparison practices in
the nondemonstration states will form the comparison group for this evaluation.
Selection of Comparison States. Using a reproducible process, we selected
nondemonstration states using criteria that aimed to identify states with environments similar to
those of the demonstration states in that they at least had EHR and P4P programs.4 Based on this
selection process, we proposed the following states be used as comparison states for the MCMP
demonstration states: Arkansas: Nebraska, with Texas as alternate; California: for comparison
to southern California only, Arizona; for comparison to California overall, Oregon, with
Washington as alternate; Massachusetts: New York, with Connecticut as alternate; and Utah:
Idaho. Although the comparison states chosen have face validity and meet the criteria used for
selection, they are only an approximate match to the demonstration states.
Selection of Comparison Group Practices. To be considered a valid comparison practice,
the practice’s patients must have predemonstration service use and cost patterns similar to those
4
Appendix C describes in detail the process for selecting comparison states.
xx
of practices in demonstration states. The practice also should have comparable baseline
characteristics. We will use statistical matching methods to ensure that the demonstration and
comparison practices do not differ on predemonstration service use measures, costs, and baseline
characteristics. To do this, we will first stratify the sample by constructing cells defined by
practice size, and experience with HIT (for example, whether practices have a disease registry or
an EHR system). Within each cell, we will use statistical matching methods to identify the
comparison practice that best matches each demonstration practice in terms of predemonstration
service use measures, costs, and baseline characteristics. Ideally, we will have several suitable
comparison practices for each demonstration practice. If so, we will select the comparison
practice that provides the closest predemonstration match to a demonstration practice.
The measures we plan to use to match practices (in addition to practice size, and experience
with HIT) include the number of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries served by the practice,
number of evaluation and management (E&M) visits, number of hospital admissions, and
Medicare expenditures per beneficiary. However, the final list of baseline characteristics will
depend on the availability of specific data elements in the Office Systems Survey database. For
the measures of service use and expenditures, we will use claims data to be supplied by the
financial support contractor.
Identification of Comparison Group Beneficiaries. To link beneficiaries to comparison
group practices, the demonstration’s financial support contractor will use PINs available in
claims data and the practices’ demonstration application form or Office Systems Survey (for
both demonstration and comparison practices), and an algorithm for allocating beneficiaries to
only one practice. For demonstration practices, this procedure avoids double-counting of
beneficiaries on whom the incentive payments will be based. For both demonstration and
comparison practices, the algorithm assigns each beneficiary represented in the claims files to the
physician who provided the plurality of E&M services during a given period. As a tiebreaker for
beneficiaries with more than one such physician, the algorithm assigns the physician with the
most recent E&M visit, the practice with the highest Medicare expenditures for that patient, and
whether it is a demonstration practice (only for practices in demonstration states).
Estimation of Demonstration Impacts. We will use the difference-in-differences methods
to estimate impacts on claims-based outcomes, such as use of Medicare-covered services and
costs. This regression-based method implicitly accounts for all factorsboth measured and
unmeasuredthat do not change over time when estimating impacts, and thus is likely to yield
unbiased estimates. In addition, we will explore the use of statistical methods to control for
selection bias in our estimates from survey data (such as measures of satisfaction with care).
This approach may account for systematic differences between practices in the comparison and
treatment groups on preenrollment characteristics that are difficult to measure, such as the
motivation to provide higher or lower quality of care.
The practice will be the unit of analysis, because it is the unit of intervention. That is, the
practicenot the beneficiarywill receive the financial incentives. Furthermore, the physician
will not be the unit of analysis. As a result, our analytic sample for estimating impacts from the
demonstration will consist of all beneficiaries in the demonstration and comparison group
practices. In addition, we will measure relevant subgroups of beneficiaries defined, for example,
by the demonstration chronic conditions.
xxi
Because the analysis is multilevel (beneficiaries will be nested within practices), we plan to
use hierarchical (or multilevel) linear models to estimate impacts, which will include a range of
individual and practice characteristics and their interactions. For example, this type of modeling
will allow us to examine the interactions between beneficiary and practice characteristics, while
accounting for clustering of beneficiaries within practices.
Data Sources. The impact analysis will use data from four data sources: (1) a beneficiary
survey, (2) a physician survey, (3) Medicare claims and eligibility data, and (4) practice-specific
data. We will administer a mail survey (with telephone followup) to 4,800 eligible beneficiaries
(600 from the demonstration group and 600 from the comparison group in each state) 19 months
after the beginning of the demonstration’s operations (in or around January 2009). This survey
will measure demonstration and comparison group members’ well-being, access to care,
adherence to self-care management principles, continuity of care, satisfaction with care, and
awareness of the demonstration (or the DOQ-IT program, in nondemonstration states). We will
also administer a mail survey (with telephone followup) to 1,600 physicians (200 in the
demonstration group and 200 in the comparison group in each state) 25 months after the start of
the demonstration (in or around July 2009). This survey will measure demonstration and
comparison group barriers to transforming the practices’ clinical encounters with beneficiaries
and other office procedures, barriers and facilitators to adoption of HIT, experience
implementing this type of system, experience with P4R and P4P (in the demonstration sites
only), and satisfaction with EHRs. In addition, there will be a separate module for demonstration
physicians, focusing on how participation in the demonstration influenced the practice, their
perceptions of the effects of the financial incentives on their practices, and their satisfaction with
the demonstration. We will obtain data on use of Medicare-covered services and expenditures,
as well as scores for selected clinical measures, from Medicare claims data, and demographic
and eligibility data from the Medicare Enrollment Database (EDB). We will use these Medicare
data both to construct outcome measures and to construct regression control variables based on
the baseline period. Finally, we will draw practice-specific measures for the impact analysis
from the Office Systems Survey and from financial incentive payment data.
Sample Sizes. The demonstration’s budget and the number of practices likely to enroll in
the DOQ-IT program determined the minimum number of physicians and beneficiaries required
for detecting demonstration impacts.
Minimum Detectable Differences for the Full Sample. Assuming that there are 4,800
responding beneficiaries (600 in demonstration practices in each state and 600 in comparison
group practices in each state), we will be able to detect a difference in a binary outcome (with
mean equal to 50 percent) of 8 percentage points for within-state analyses and 4 percentage
points for analyses that are pooled across states (Table 2) (assuming 80 percent power and 5
percent level for a two-sided test). Moreover, when using claims data, we will be able to detect
even smaller differences in outcomes between the treatment and comparison groups (less than
one percentage point in within-state analyses and less than one-third of a percentage point for the
analyses that pool all states together). With the full sample of 1,600 physicians (200 in the
demonstration practices in each state and 200 in the comparison group practices in each state),
detectable differences are large (about 16 to 20 percentage points for within-state analyses and
about 9 percentage points for analyses that pool all states) but still adequate for identifying major
xxii
impacts. Finally, for continuous expenditure variables derived from Medicare claims data, we
will detect differences of about two percent in within-state analyses and about one percent for the
analyses that pool all states together (assuming a coefficient of variation of 2.5 and 80 percent
power).
Precision for Descriptive Estimates of Clinical Outcomes Among Demonstration
Practices. To examine changes in practice performance over time, and the correlation of these
trends with practice characteristics (including incentive payments for a preceding year), we will
consider the practice as the unit of analysis. In such analyses, for binary outcomes, the halfwidth for the 95 percent confidence interval is less than one-half of a percentage point for withinstate analyses, and is about one-fifth of a percentage point for the sample that is pooled across
states (Table 2). For continuous variables (assuming a coefficient of variation of 1.75), the halfwidth for the 95 percent confidence interval is less than 1.5 percent for within-state analyses, and
is less than 1 percent for the sample that is pooled across states. Subgroup analyses reduce the
precision, especially for continuous variables. For example, in within-state analyses, the halfwidth of a 95 percent confidence interval for a binary variable for a 50 percent subgroup is less
than 1 percentage point, while the corresponding half-width for a continuous variable ranges
from 1.9 to 2.4 percent of the comparison group mean.
Synthesis Analysis
The ultimate goal of the evaluation will be to provide guidance to CMS on whether P4P
incentives for improving quality of care and for adopting HIT in solo or small- to medium-size
group physician practices serving Medicare beneficiaries with chronic illnesses should be
implemented on a larger scale and, if so, how this intervention might best be structured.
Whether P4P should be implemented depends on whether the demonstration leads to improved
quality of care and is at least budget neutral. Structuring of the intervention requires assessing
the answers to three questions: (1) For which types of practices were the incentives most
effective? (2) How did clinical outcomes vary with the incentives? and (3) How did quality of
care, Medicare costs, and the financial incentives vary with HIT use?
To address these goals, we will synthesize our findings for the report to Congress (and for
the final evaluation report). In the synthesis, we will pull together our findings from practices in
all four states and outcome measures from both the implementation and impact analyses. We will
use this information to draw inferences about the role that financial incentives play in improving
care for Medicare beneficiaries with chronic illnesses and on the adoption and use of HIT, and
about the most successful ways to implement the incentives (and the technology for performance
reporting). The synthesis will entail determining how the intervention’s effectiveness varies with
practice characteristics.
xxiii
TABLE 2
MINIMUM DETECTABLE DIFFERENCES AND HALF-WIDTHS FOR
95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVALS
Arkansas
California
Massachusetts
Utah
All States Pooled
Number of Demonstration Practices
150
250
250
150
800
Minimum Detectable Differences, 80 Percent Power, Two-Tailed Tests
Binary Variable with Mean of .5
Physician Survey
Beneficiary Survey
Claims Data
20.4
8.1
0.7
15.6
8.1
0.6
15.6
8.1
0.6
20.1
8.1
0.7
8.8
4.2
0.3
1.8
2.3
1.0
Continuous Variable with Coefficient of Variation of 2.5
Claims Data
2.3
1.8
Half-Widths for 95 Percent Confidence Level in Practice-Level Descriptive Analysis
Binary Variable with Mean of .5
Full Sample
Subgroup Size:
80 percent
50 percent
15 percent
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.4
0.4
0.5
1.1
0.4
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.7
1.4
0.2
0.3
0.6
Continuous Variable with Coefficient of Variation of 1.75
Full Sample
Subgroup Size:
80 percent
50 percent
15 percent
1.4
1.1
1.1
1.4
0.6
1.7
2.4
4.9
1.3
1.9
3.8
1.3
1.9
3.8
1.7
2.4
4.9
0.7
1.0
2.1
xxiv
To accomplish the evaluation’s basic goals, we will draw on the state-specific
implementation and impact analyses to describe physician practices’ experiences adopting and
using HIT for performance reporting and the care management strategies they use for chronically
ill fee-for-service beneficiaries to improve quality of care. Likewise, we will describe how
impacts varied with many of the practice characteristics that could potentially influence the
efficiency of P4P programs. Our approach to the synthesis will involve three components, all of
which feed into the recommendations. In the first component, we will use exploratory and
confirmatory analyses to assess which practice characteristics seem to successfully improve
clinical outcomes and reduce costs. In the second component, we will assess how clinical
outcomes vary with the incentives the practices will receive for attaining predetermined
performance standards. Finally, in the third component, we will examine the association
between changes in clinical outcomes, costs, and the incentives, and the practice’s level of HIT
use.
Reporting of Demonstration Findings
The demonstration evaluation will produce several reports, including an implementation
report, a report on site visits, and a cost neutrality monitoring report, as well as interim and final
reports that synthesize findings across states and analytic components. The interim reports will
be adapted to develop a report to Congress. Table 3 summarizes the schedule for the
deliverables.
TABLE 3
SCHEDULE OF DRAFT REPORT DUE DATES
Draft Due
Report
Design report
Implementation report
First interim synthesis
Cost neutrality monitoring report
Second interim synthesis
Report to Congress
(Third interim synthesis)
Site visits report
Final synthesis
a
Project Montha
n.a.
13
16
24
28
40
Calendar Month
February 2007
July 2008
October 2008
June 2009
October 2009
October 2010
46
51
April 2011
September 2011
Refers to months after the start of the demonstration (July 1, 2007).
n.a.= not applicable.
xxv
I. INTRODUCTION
This report describes the evaluation design for the Medicare Care Management Performance
(MCMP) Demonstration. In it, we discuss our approach to the impact analysis, including
(1) identification of a valid, nonexperimental comparison group; (2) statistical methods; (3) data
sources; and (4) outcome measures. We also describe the goals and framework to be used in the
implementation analysis. Finally, we discuss a framework for synthesizing our quantitative and
qualitative findings to assess the scalability and generalizability of the demonstration.
A. RATIONALE FOR THE DEMONSTRATION
Section 649 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003 (MMA) requires the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to
establish a pay-for-performance (P4P) demonstration program with physicians to meet the needs
of eligible beneficiaries through the adoption and use of health information technology (HIT)
and evidence-based outcome measures.
The goals of the three-year demonstration are to
improve quality of care to eligible fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries and encourage the
implementation and use of HIT. The specific objectives are to promote continuity of care, help
stabilize medical conditions, prevent or minimize acute exacerbations of chronic conditions, and
reduce adverse health outcomes. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is
responsible for designing and operating the MCMP demonstration.
Under the demonstration, physician practices that meet or exceed performance standards
established by CMS in clinical performance process and outcome measures will receive a bonus
payment for managing the care of eligible Medicare beneficiaries. Practices that submit
performance data electronically using a certified electronic health record (EHR) system to CMS
will also be eligible for an increase in the incentive payment. The bonuses will be in addition to
1
the normal fee-for-service Medicare payment they receive for services delivered.
In a
predemonstration (baseline) year, the demonstration will be a pay-for-reporting (P4R) initiative
to help physicians become familiar with the process of reporting quality measures.
The
demonstration builds on P4P models used in the private sector, most notably Bridges to
Excellence™ (Bodenheimer et al. 2005; de Brantes 2005; Iglehart 2005).
B. DEMONSTRATION DESIGN
The MCMP demonstration will target practices serving at least 50 traditional fee-for-service
Medicare beneficiaries with selected chronic conditions for whom they provide primary care.
Under this demonstration, physicians practicing primary care1 in solo or small- to medium-size
group practices (practices with 10 or fewer physicians, although there may be exceptions) will be
eligible to earn incentive payments for (1) reporting quality measures for congestive heart
failure, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and the provision of preventive health services during a
baseline (predemonstration) period; (2) achieving specified standards on clinical performance
measures during the three-year demonstration period; and (3) submitting clinical quality
measures to CMS electronically using an electronic health record (EHR) that meets industry
standards specified by the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology
(CCHIT).
1
The following physician specialties will be eligible to participate in the MCMP demonstration if they provide
primary care: general practice, allergy/immunology, cardiology, family practice, gastroenterology, internal
medicine, pulmonary disease, geriatric medicine, osteopathic medicine, nephrology, infectious disease,
endocrinology, multispecialty clinic or group practice, hematology, hematology/oncology, preventive medicine,
rheumatology, and medical oncology.
2
The MMA authorizes a total of four sites in both urban and rural areas.2 The demonstration
sites are in Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, and Utah.
The Quality Improvement
Organizations (QIOs) in these four states will recruit the practices on relationships built through
CMS’s Doctor’s Office Quality - Information Technology (DOQ-IT) project. Only practices
participating in DOQ-IT will be eligible to participate in the demonstration. It is expected that
the demonstration will enroll 250 practices per state in California and Massachusetts and 150
practices per state in Arkansas and Utah, with an estimated 2,800 physicians participating in
MCMP. These practices will represent many organizational structures, and, to participate, they
must have at least 50 Medicare beneficiaries. Recruitment of demonstration practices started in
January 2007. The demonstration will begin operations on July 1, 2007, and will end in June
2010.
Demonstration practices will be defined by one or more tax identification numbers (TINs).
Physicians will be linked to each practice using individual Medicare provider identification
numbers (PINs). Medicare beneficiaries who live in a demonstration state and who are treated
by primary care providers, or those medical subspecialties likely to provide primary care, for the
targeted conditions and who are covered under traditional fee-for-service Medicare for both Part
A and Part B coverage will be linked to these practices.3
Demonstration practices will submit performance data to CMS on up to 26 clinical measures
covering treatment related to congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and the
provision of specific preventive and screening services for all beneficiaries assigned with a
2
In addition, the statute requires that one site be “in a state with a medical school with a Department of
Geriatrics that manages rural outreach sites and is capable of managing patients with multiple chronic conditions,
one of which is dementia.” Appendix A contains a copy of the law.
3
Beneficiaries for whom Medicare is not the primary source of insurance coverage or whose care a hospice
program manages will be excluded from the demonstration.
3
chronic condition.4 Through several contractors, CMS will collect data on all the clinical
measures for the baseline period and all three years of the demonstration.
The demonstration practices will be eligible to receive up to three incentive payments. First,
demonstration practices will receive an incentive of $20 per beneficiary per category (up to
$1,000 per physician to a maximum of $5,000 per practice) for reporting baseline clinical quality
measures. The payment will not be contingent on the practice’s score on any of these measures.
Second, for each of the three demonstration years, based on the clinical measures data that the
practices report, CMS will calculate a composite score for each chronic condition (as well as the
preventive measures) and compare it against performance thresholds. Physicians will be eligible
for payments of up to $70 per beneficiary for meeting standards related to a specific chronic
condition. Beneficiaries who have more than one condition will be counted in each of the
relevant groups. For preventive services, physicians will be eligible for a payment of up to $25
per beneficiary with any chronic condition. Physicians will be eligible to earn up to $10,000 per
year for performance on all clinical measures. The maximum annual payment to any single
practice will be $50,000, regardless of the number of physicians in the practice. Third, practices
with a CCHIT certified EHR system that can extract and submit performance data to CMS
electronically will be eligible to increase the incentive payment by up to 25 percent, or $2,500
per physician (up to $12,500 per practice) per year during the demonstration period for electronic
submission.
Thus, practices could receive up to $192,500 over the three years of the
demonstration (including the baseline period).
4
In addition to three primary target chronic conditions—congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, and
diabetes mellitus—the other eligible conditions are Alzheimer’s disease or other mental, psychiatric, or neurological
disorders; any heart condition (such as arteriosclerosis, myocardial infarction, or angina pectoris/stroke); any cancer;
arthritis and osteoporosis; kidney disease; and lung disease. These conditions will be identified through ICD-9-CM
diagnosis codes available in Medicare claims data (Wilkin et al. 2007).
4
Finally, Congress also mandated an independent evaluation of the MCMP demonstration.
The evaluation must include an assessment of P4P’s impacts on improving quality of care, care
coordination, and continuity of care; reducing Medicare expenditures; and improving health
outcomes. The legislation specified that a final evaluation report must be submitted to Congress
within 12 months of the demonstration’s conclusion. CMS, with funding from the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), has contracted with Mathematica Policy Research,
Inc. (MPR) to conduct this evaluation.
C. GOALS OF THE EVALUATION
The main goal of the evaluation is to provide CMS with valid estimates of the incremental
effect, or impact, of providing performance-based financial incentives on the quality of care, use
of Medicare-covered services, adoption and use of HIT, and Medicare costs of the chronically ill
Medicare beneficiaries served by the demonstration practices. To provide this information, the
evaluation must generate rigorous quantitative estimates of the intervention’s impacts.
In
addition, the evaluation will examine the dynamics of practice response to the incentives and
supports provided by the demonstration. Figure I.1 depicts a logic model for the expected effects
of MCMP.
It details the pathways through which the intervention (incentives to improve
performance) will influence practice organizational changes that may result in improved quality
of care, lower costs, and other outcomes. We will use this logic model as the framework for our
evaluation.
The evaluation will include an impact analysis, implementation analysis, and synthesis
analysis. We provide an overview of each analysis below, and Table I.1 summarizes the primary
research questions, data sources, and planned analysis methods.
described in detail in subsequent chapters.
5
These analyses will be
6
HIT = health information technology.
Adopts care
management
processes
Patient mix and health
status
Enhances
quality and
safety
orientation
Adapts
processes and
workflows for
HIT adoption
and use
Organizational
Changes
Practice, organization,
capabilities, and goals
Incentives
to improve
performance
Intervention
Greater use of
data to refine
care
Practice characteristics
Physician payment
arrangements
Market characteristics
Predisposing and
Enabling Factors
Improves overall
performance
Improves
performance for
target conditions
Quality
Changes
Less use of
inpatient
services and
emergency
room, and
lower costs
Improves
financial
performance
Service/Use
Cost
LOGIC MODEL FOR THE EXPECTED EFFECTS OF THE MCMP DEMONSTRATION
FIGURE I.1
Improves satisfaction
with providers and
care
Improves practice
reputation
Satisfaction
TABLE I.1
RESEARCH QUESTIONS, DATA SOURCES, AND ANALYSIS METHODS
FOR THE MCMP EVALUATION, BY ANALYTIC COMPONENT
Research Question
What were the demonstration’s
effects on:
Quality of care?
Medicare service use and
costs?
Implementation and use of
HIT?
Continuity of care and care
coordination?
Patient satisfaction?
Physician satisfaction?
What types of practices
participated?
What changes have practices
made in terms of HIT use in
response to the demonstration?
What were physicians’ views of
the demonstration and how their
practice responded to it?
For which types of practices were
the incentives most effective?
Data Source
Impact Analysis
Medicare claims data and
Beneficiary survey
Medicare claims data
Physician Survey and
Office Systems Survey
Medicare claims data,
Beneficiary Survey, and
Physician Survey
Beneficiary Survey
Physician Survey
Implementation Analysis
Office Systems Survey and
practice-level scores and financial
payment levels for demonstration
practices
Office Systems Survey
Site visit data and telephone
discussions with successful and
unsuccessful practices (or
practices that withdrew) and
Physician Survey
Synthesis Analysis
Financial payment data, Medicare
claims data, Office Systems
Survey, Beneficiary Survey
How did clinical outcomes vary
with the incentives?
Financial payment data, Medicare
claims data, Office Systems
Survey
How did quality of care,
Medicare costs, and the financial
incentives vary with HIT use?
Financial payment data, Medicare
claims data, Office Systems
Survey
7
Analysis Method
Regression-adjusted comparison
of demonstration and comparison
group means
Comparison of characteristics of
practices submitting data to those
enrolled but not submitting data
Comparison of the HIT use of
demonstration practices over the
demonstration period
Qualitative analysis
Comparison of mean
characteristics of successful and
unsuccessful practices; regression
analysis of the relationship
between practice characteristics
and outcomes
Regression analysis of the
relationship between clinical
outcomes and incentive payments
in previous year
Regression analysis of the
relationship between Medicare
costs and HIT use; regression
analysis of the relationship
between HIT use and incentive
payments in previous year
The impact analysis will compare regression-adjusted outcome measures for the treatment
and comparison groups in order to test the hypotheses that the financial incentives (1) improve
quality of care, (2) lower Medicare costs for services by enough to offset the cost of the
incentives, (3) influence the adoption and use of HIT, (4) improve continuity of care and care
coordination, (5) improve patient satisfaction with care, and (6) improve physician satisfaction
with the demonstration. The quality-of-care analysis will assess the care delivery process and
the clinical outcomes of Medicare beneficiaries. The cost analysis will include impacts on costs
to the Medicare program and Medicare service use.5 The analysis of HIT use will assess whether
practices adopted or increased their HIT use in various office procedures. The continuity-of-care
analysis will assess whether the adoption of P4P reduces care fragmentation. In the satisfaction
analysis, patient satisfaction with care and physician satisfaction with the demonstration and its
effects on their practices also will be analyzed.
Subgroup analyses will test whether the
intervention is more effective for certain types of beneficiaries and practices than for others.
Outcome measures will be drawn from Medicare claims data, the beneficiary survey, and the
physician survey.
The implementation analysis will use qualitative analysis and descriptive statistics to study
the planned interventions as envisioned by a representative set of practices, practices’ actual
experience with the adoption and use of performance measurement technology (for example,
EHRs or disease registries) and care management services, and the factors that helped or
hindered the practices’ efforts. The detailed description of the practices’ plans will cover the
background information on the range of HIT used before the demonstration and how the
practices implemented the intervention (that is, the specific changes made to improve patient
5
In addition, as required by OMB, we will monitor budget neutrality during the first 18 months of the
demonstration.
8
adherence, refine care processes, lessen fragmentation of care, or avoid adverse drug
interactions).
Data sources will include site visits, telephone interviews with practices,
financial payment data, practice-level scores, and the Office Systems Survey.
The synthesis will combine the practice-specific analyses, using impact estimates and
implementation analysis findings, to draw inferences about the types of practices that appear to
be most successful. It will use regression analyses to investigate (1) the relationship between
clinical outcomes and the previous year’s incentives, (2) Medicare costs and HIT use, and (3)
HIT use and the previous year’s incentives.
It will also examine the generalizability and
scalability of the demonstration. As required by CMS, the synthesis will be the basis for the
report to Congress, and it will be included in the final evaluation report.
D. CHALLENGES FOR THE EVALUATION
Several technical challenges must be overcome to achieve the evaluation’s objectives. The
main challenges are to (1) obtain valid, comparable estimates of impacts for each state; (2)
measure some qualitative outcomes; (3) link specific changes in HIT use to specific
improvements; and (4) assess the scalability and generalizability of the demonstration.
1.
Estimating Impacts
Three factors may complicate estimation and interpretation of impacts: (1) the feasibility of
credible comparison strategies, (2) the period during which the demonstration will be
operational, and (3) data completeness for linking physicians to practices.
Although random assignment is generally the strongest study design, several factors made it
infeasible for the MCMP demonstration. Therefore, the impact analysis will use a comparison
group (or quasi-experimental) design. To identify the comparison group, the evaluation will use
DOQ-IT practices in selected nondemonstration states that match most closely to those in the
9
demonstration states. To be considered a valid comparison practice, the practice must have
predemonstration service use and cost patterns similar to those in practices in demonstration
states. It should also have comparable baseline characteristics. We will use statistical tests to
ensure that the demonstration and comparison practices do not differ on preenrollment
characteristics. However, comparison and demonstration practices may still differ on other
observed or unobserved factors (such as interest and ability to adopt and use an EHR system)
that are difficult to control for in the impact analysis. Furthermore, the operation of a national
Medicare P4R program (Physician Quality Reporting Initiative [PQRI]) for physicians beginning
July 1, 2007, or any future Medicare P4P programs for this type of provider, will make it even
more difficult to understand which factors are responsible for the estimated impacts (even after
controlling for those practices in the comparison group that decide to participate in the P4R
program, since demonstration practices will be exempt from reporting quality measures to PQRI
to obtain the bonus).
Thus, because of the expected fluidity of the Medicare physician
reimbursement environment during the demonstration period, it will be difficult to measure a
credible counterfactual (that is, what would have been the experience of the physician practices
in the absence of the demonstration) to the demonstration.
The period during which the demonstration will be operational is likely to constrain our
ability to identify valid comparison groups.
Demonstration practices will be recruited in
winter/spring 2007, and many of these practices will have already received technical assistance
from the QIOs on implementing EHRs for several years, have actually implemented and adopted
this type of system, and may be using it to report quality measures. In contrast, DOQ-IT
practices in nondemonstration states that are selected to be part of the comparison group will
only be starting to decide whether to adopt an EHR system or receiving technical assistance to
reorganize themselves. Controlling for length of the interval since practices first began receiving
10
technical assistance from the QIOs or signed a contract for purchasing an EHR system may not
be enough to ensure comparability of demonstration and comparison practices on this dimension.
It also may complicate the interpretation of the impact estimates because of the lag between
demonstration and comparison practices in receiving technical assistance and implementing
EHRs.
Data accuracy and completeness in identifying comparison practices may also present
difficulties. The algorithm to be used for linking physicians to potential comparison practices
will be the same as the one used for linking participating physicians to demonstration practices.
However, the accuracy and completeness of the identifiers available in Medicare Part B claims
data for this process will differ and, therefore, may make it difficult to identify comparable
DOQ-IT practices in nondemonstration states. Likewise, while demonstration practices will be
required to correctly enter the practice and physician identifiers in the claims they submit in
order to receive the incentive payments, comparison practices will not be required to do so.6
Thus, variations in the accuracy and completeness of the identifiers in claims data may result in
discrepancies between the two groups in how beneficiaries are assigned to practices during the
demonstration (even if the definition of the practice will remain unchanged from baseline in both
the demonstration and comparison groups) and confound the interpretation of the impact
estimates.
6
However, the new Medicare P4R program probably will promote more complete and accurate data collection
by practices that decide to participate, including those in the comparison group. This may dampen down the
potential differences between demonstration and comparison practices in their motivation for accurately reporting
identifiers, as well as other data elements.
11
2.
Measuring Some Qualitative Outcomes
Several organizational changes that practices may undertake, such as enhancing the
practice’s quality and safety orientation, probably will affect important qualitative outcomes.
For example, as previously discussed, it is expected that the financial incentives will improve
continuity of care, which in turn could reduce fragmentation of care through better care
coordination. Thus, it will be difficult to measure these qualitative outcomes because of the
inherent complications in identifying all the providers involved in the care of beneficiaries
assigned to specific practices and collecting the data needed to characterize whether the
interactions among providers were appropriate, clinically meaningful, and timely.
3.
Linking Changes in Specific HIT Functionalities to Specific Improvements
Demonstration practices will have considerable latitude in deciding how to use HIT,
including EHRs, for measuring performance and submitting data electronically to CMS.
Furthermore, the demonstration will not assess the incremental effect of specific EHR
functionalities. Thus, it will be difficult to link changes in use of specific HIT functionalities to
specific outcome improvements.
4.
Assessing the Scalability and Generalizability of the Demonstration
The number of practice characteristics potentially related to improvement in clinical
outcomes is large, so it may be difficult to link these characteristics to the success or failure of
the practice. Moreover, pooling of observations across states may be inappropriate because of
such factors as the differences in state regulations; physician licensing arrangements; and P4R,
P4P, and EHR penetration. Thus, given the demonstration’s focus on small- to medium-size
practices in only four states, it will be difficult to generalize the evaluation findings to the
Medicare program or to other P4P programs and to assess the scalability of the intervention.
12
E. GUIDE TO THIS REPORT
In Chapter II, we describe the implementation analysis objectives and approach. Chapter III
discusses the impact analysis, including the hypotheses, research design, data sources, and
outcome measures, as well as statistical procedures we will use to overcome the methodological
challenges of the evaluation. Chapter IV explains how we will synthesize the findings from the
process that the physician practices use to adopt the technology and modify their care delivery
processes and impact analyses. Chapter V reviews the reports that will be produced. The
appendixes contain the enabling legislation and other supporting technical materials.
13
II. DESIGN OF THE IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS
A. GOALS AND KEY QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED
The goal of the demonstration is to improve quality of care for chronically ill Medicare feefor-service beneficiaries and promote the adoption and use of HIT (see Figure I.1).
The
implementation analysis will first assess the demonstration’s success in gaining widespread
participation, and then examine the dynamics of practice response to the incentives. Specifically,
we will obtain physicians’ perspectives on the effects of the demonstration on their practices, and
whether they as individuals have changed any practice behaviors in response. We will also
identify barriers and facilitators to (1) greater use of data by the practice to refine the care
process, (2) successful adoption of HIT to better manage care to improve patient outcomes, and
(3) an enhanced practice orientation to quality and safety. In addition, we will examine how the
practice has adapted its patient flows and documentation processes as HIT is implemented,
because this has implications for efficiency and quality outcomes. Across all these topics, we
will focus on the roles of financial incentives and technical assistance.
Table II.1 lists key questions to be explored related to each of these goals. The questions are
grouped into seven broad topic areas:
1. Participating Practice Perspectives on the Demonstration. Questions here include
features of the demonstration that the practices like and dislike, early expectations of
gain from the demonstration, and experience with data submission and
communication under the demonstration.
2. Direct Response to the Incentives. What, if anything, has the practice done
differently due to the incentives from the demonstration?
3. Adaptation of Patient Flow and Documentation Processes as HIT Is Implemented.
Questions include what operational changes the practice made as it implemented HIT;
whether the demonstration influenced its thinking about making changes as it
implemented HIT; and the effects of changes resulting from HIT adoption (for
15
TABLE II.1
KEY QUESTIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS
I.
II.
Participating Practice Perspectives on the Demonstration
•
Year 1 understanding of, and participation in, the demonstration: To what extent has the practice
participated to date? If the practice is not submitting data for all measures and for the baseline year,
why not?
•
Submission process: Has the data submission process gone smoothly?
•
Expectations: How much does the practice expect to gain from participation in the next year? In the
next three years? What does the practice think will be the key factors in whether its expectations are
met?
•
Views on the incentives: Which features of the demonstration does the practice particularly like or
dislike? More broadly, how much does it favor linking payment to quality of care through
incentives?
•
Communication about the incentives: Has communication between CMS and the QIO and the
practice about the incentives been clear? Does the practice feel the incentive payment it has received
has been accompanied by enough information to understand why it received the amount it did, and
whether there are specific areas in which it could improve?
Direct Response to the Incentives
•
What, if anything, has the practice done differently due to the incentives from the demonstration?
III. Adaptation of Patient Flow and Documentation Processes as HIT Is Implemented
•
Changes made: With implementation of HIT, what changes were made in how the practice operates
day to day? Which changes were essential to make the HIT function, and which were changes that
made sense more broadly to take best advantage of the HIT?
•
Factors influencing the changes (for demonstration practices): Did participation in the MCMP
influence your thinking about making changes when you implemented the HIT? What other
information sources or other factors influenced your thinking about what changes you should make
with HIT implementation?
•
Effects of the changes: Have the changes you made had any effect on the time spent on each patient
visit? On the time spent on administrative versus clinical functions? On the completeness of the
practice’s documentation? On the usefulness of the information you have immediately in hand at the
start of patient appointments?
IV. Relevant Context—Other Incentive and Reporting Programs
•
V.
Have other incentives that the practice faces from other payers or other reporting programs (such as
the PQRI) affected how the practice has responded to the incentives under the demonstration? If so,
how?
Adoption of Care Management Processes
•
Speed/extent of adoption: How quickly and extensively are the practices adopting care management
processes? Why? What are the “next steps” in implementing [more] care management and what are
the major factors affecting the timing of those steps?
•
Perceived costs and benefits: What does the practice perceive as the benefits and costs of adopting
care management for its practice? For its patients? How does it view the relative benefits and costs of
adopting care management for different conditions?
•
Smoothness of implementation: For those with full implementation of care management for one or
more conditions, how smoothly did implementation go? Why?
16
TABLE II.1 (continued)
•
Perceived effects: Has implementation of care management affected the functioning of the office? Is
it producing any results yet for the patients?
•
System support: Does the HIT the practice has adopted provide good support for care management?
Are the care management capabilities of its current system being fully used? How do practices’
implementation of, and views about, care management relate to their decisions about the type of HIT
they implement?
•
MCMP demonstration role (for demonstration practices): Has participating in the MCMP
demonstration affected the practice’s views on care management, its decision to adopt care
management processes, or the smoothness of implementation of the processes?
•
Role of other external factors: What, if any, factors outside the practice have influenced the
practice’s view on care management, its decision to adopt care management processes, or the
smoothness of implementation of the processes? For example, did particular sources of information
on care management influence these things, or a particular consultant or QIO staff member? Did P4P
programs other than the demonstration influence them?
•
Role of practice characteristics: What, if any, practice characteristics have influenced the practice’s
view on care management, its decision to adopt care management processes, or the smoothness of
implementation of the processes? For example, the characteristics of its patients? The views or skills
of its administrative staff? How busy the practice is at present? How profitable? Its comfort level
with HIT? With care management?
VI. Greater Use of Data to Refine the Care Process
•
Number of measures available: Has the number of measures and types available for review changed?
•
Key information sources: Who generates clinical measures for the practice (if used), and what patient
populations from within the practice are included? How often are the measures generated and at what
level of detail? Are results broken down by physician? If so, does each physician in the practice see
the others’ scores?
•
Perception of available benchmarks: What benchmarks are available, and how useful are the
benchmarks perceived to be? Why?
•
MCMP feedback (for demonstration practices): Has feedback on performance from the MCMP
demonstration been useful? If so, how?
•
Impact on care process: If data are being used more, has this led to any changes in the care process?
VII. Enhanced Practice Orientation to Quality and Safety
•
Awareness of performance: How aware is the practice of its performance on quality measures?
[Assess breadth and depth of this understanding.] Do the physicians in the practice meet to go over
performance reports and discuss performance?
•
Perception of opportunities for improvement: Does the practice think that there are processes that
could be implemented or changes made that could further improve the quality and/or safety for
patients of the practice? Which changes are viewed as potentially most important?
•
Changes made and planned: What, if any, changes has the practice made to improve quality or safety
for its patients? What, if any, additional changes are under way? Planned?
•
Probe for practices highly oriented to quality/safety: What, if anything, has influenced the practice to
increase the focus on quality improvement?
HIT = health information technology.
17
example, on time spent per patient visit, on documentation, on usefulness of information
during a patient visit, on administrative versus clinical time).
4. Relevant Context—Other Incentive and Reporting Programs. Have other incentives
that the practice faces from other payers or reporting programs (such as the PQRI)
affected how the practice has responded to the incentives under the demonstration? If
so, how?
5. Adoption of Care Management Processes. Questions here include how quickly and
extensively the practices are adopting care management processes; what factors are
affecting the adoption and speed of implementation of care management; degree of
support provided by HIT used by the practice; and perceived benefits and costs of
adopting care management for different conditions.
6. Greater Use of Data to Refine the Care Process. Questions include what data the
practice routinely reviews on its own performance and related benchmarks, how this
has changed, and whether this has had an impact on the care process.
7. Enhanced Practice Orientation to Quality and Safety. Questions are designed to
assess the breadth and depth of the practice’s understanding of its performance, its
perception of opportunities for improvement, improvement-focused changes made
and planned, and whether the practice meets as a group to review data and discuss
performance.
Interviews conducted for the implementation analysis will also help us classify practices by
key characteristics likely to be associated with outcomes, as discussed in Section B.8.
B. APPROACH
1.
Overview
The analysis of implementation of the demonstration will rely on several data sources: (1)
the Office Systems Survey; (2) site visits; (3) telephone discussions with highly successful
practices; and (4) telephone discussions with unsuccessful practices, including those that
withdrew from the demonstration, if any. A literature review will ensure that the site visit
discussion guides are consistent with recent research and that all site visitors are knowledgeable
about the latest research as we enter the field.
18
2.
Literature Review and Review of Key Websites and Other Background
By July 2007, we will complete a literature review and review of key websites and other
background material, focusing on physician practice responses to incentives and recommended
changes in office practice to improve quality and efficiency by implementing EHRs or registries.
We anticipate that the peer-reviewed literature will be thin but that some websites will provide
case studies and tips that can help practices make positive changes as they implement EHRs,
disease registries, or other information technology. In addition, we may identify (and seek to
obtain) other helpful background material, such as materials used by QIOs with practices in the
DOQ and DOQ-IT initiatives.
First, we will work with our library staff to search the standard databases (including
DIALOG, OCLC First Search, FACTIVA, EBSCO Host, OVID, ISI’s Web of Science, and
PubMed) for peer-reviewed literature. In addition, we will identify and search websites that may
lead us to online information designed to help physicians make the changes we are hoping to see.
For example, AHRQ’s National Resource Center for Health Information Technology
(www.healthit.ahrq.gov), which aims to promote adoption of HIT in ways that improve quality,
may contain useful background information for the study.
Key results of the literature review and review of background materials will be summarized
in an internal memorandum to be shared with CMS as an appendix to our draft site visit
protocols in September 2007.
3.
Office Systems Survey
Data from the DOQ-IT Office Systems Survey will be important for the implementation
analysis, because it can identify changes in practice across all the demonstration and comparison
practices (that respond to the survey), as opposed to our site visits and telephone contacts, which
19
are limited to a subset of sites.1 The survey will be conducted by the Maine Health Information
Center on behalf of CMS twice during the demonstration for demonstration and comparison
practices (at the beginning [2007] and end of the demonstration [2010]). We assume that the
data from the survey will be shared with MPR for the evaluation.
Specifically, if the data are fairly complete for the demonstration and comparison sites, the
survey data will allow us to identify whether demonstration practices have changed how they use
electronic tools to support quality differently from the comparison practices. The hypothesis is
that the demonstration’s incentives will increase practices’ attention as to how they can use
available means, including electronic tools, to improve quality, particularly on the measured
dimensions of care. While we expect them to be more advanced in their use of electronic tools
than the comparison sites, due to longer exposure to assistance from the QIO in the beginning of
the demonstration, it will be of interest for the evaluation to see if they progress measurably
more over the demonstration period.2 Developing a robust measure of HIT sophistication based
on the survey is beyond the scope of this project. However, our hope is that CMS (or the QIOs)
will already have created a summary measure based on the survey. We would use any such
measure to examine relative advancement in HIT use in the demonstration group compared to
the comparison group. If a summary measure is not available, we will review relative progress
on the more detailed areas covered by the survey and avoid global analysis, except where we
find a consistent pattern across areas.
In the final year of the demonstration, we plan to produce tables comparing the percentages
of the demonstration and comparison groups performing HIT-related activities on first
measurement, final measurement, and the change in these percentages, as well as the percent of
1
Appendix B includes a copy of the latest version of the survey instrument.
2
Most demonstration practices would have participated as DOQ pilot sites for several years.
20
practices with advancement in HIT use over the period for each activity. Table II.2 shows the
table for demonstration-wide analysis. In addition, we will produce the table for each state for
larger and smaller practices. We will include all demonstration and comparison sites that
responded to both the initial and final surveys.3 After the data for the first survey become
available to us, we will calculate the “initial percentage” columns for the table for the
demonstration and comparison groups (demonstration-wide) and consider whether we need to
make any adjustments to the table or analysis plan. For example, there is a detailed list of
activities associated with using registries, using EHRs, and e-prescribing. In each case, in
addition to identifying changes in the percentage of practices undertaking each activity, we
suggest summarizing by calculating the percentage of practices that conduct at least three of
these activities, and at least five of them.
However, the numbers “three” and “five” are
somewhat arbitrary as a means to summarize overall disease registry use, use of EHRs, and use
of e-prescribing; depending on practices’ initial scores, it may make more sense to use “five” and
“eight” instead or another alternative.
After we have conducted the broad-based analysis described above, we anticipate following
up with additional analysis of two or three content areas that show especially promising results.
For example, if the demonstration sites advanced especially well compared to comparison sites
with respect to the EHR activities most closely associated with managing chronic conditions, we
will use data on practice characteristics from the Office Systems Survey to examine results by
size of practice, as well as location by state and whether the practice is located in an urban or
rural area.
This will allow us to identify whether the results seem to hold
3
Separately, we will examine the implications of a dropoff in responses between the initial and final surveys, if
such a dropoff occurs. Specifically, we will examine the characteristics of those in the demonstration and
comparison groups that respond to both surveys compared with those that do not, to the extent our data allow.
21
22
a
Comparison Demonstration
Practices
Practices
Comparison Demonstration
Practices
Practices
Comparison
Practices
Demonstration
Practices
Mean Change in Percentage
Numbers in parenthesis reference the applicable question number(s) on the DOQ-IT Office Systems Survey (see Appendix B).
Percent of practices doing the following
for at least 50 percent of patient visits
(4.1 – 4.4):
a. Pulling paper, charts for scheduled
visits
b. Dictate visit notes into a tape
recorder or phone
c. Dictate visit notes directly into the
EHR
d. Use a computerized (as opposed to
paper) system to manage the
following office workflows:
i. Telephone calls
ii. Prescription refills
iii. Referrals
iv. Results followup
Redesigning Workflows
Percent with each activity at least half
completed (3.8):a
a. Perform office readiness assessment
b. Document and analyze current office
workflows
c. Redesign office flow to meet EHR
process
d. Evaluate care management and
process improvement pre-EHR
e. Full implementation of EHR
f. Use EHR to identify additional care
management and process
improvement opportunities
EHR Adoption Activities
Items from Office Systems Survey
Final Percentage
Initial Percentage
ADVANCEMENT IN USE OF HIT DURING THE DEMONSTRATION: DEMONSTRATION-WIDE ANALYSIS
TABLE II.2
Comparison Demonstration
Practices
Practices
Percent with Advancement
in HIT Use
23
Percent of practices using a registry for
at least 50 percent of relevant patients
for at least one condition: (5.3 – 5.12):
a. Notify patient who are overdue for
visits
b. Prompt clinicians to order tests, etc.
c. Remind patients about needed tests,
etc.
d. List eligible patients for each
condition
Percentage of practices using a registry
for at least half of patient visits for (5.3
– 5.12):
a. Diabetes
i. At least 1 task
ii. At least 3 tasks
iii. At least 5 tasks
b. Coronary Artery Disease
i. At least 1 task
ii. At least 3 tasks
iii. At least 5 tasks
c. Congestive Heart Failure
i. At least 1 task
ii. At least 3 tasks
iii. At least 5 tasks
d. Hypertension
i. At least 1 task
ii. At least 3 tasks
iii. At least 5 tasks
e. Preventive Care
i. At least 1 task
ii. At least 3 tasks
iii. At least 5 tasks
Mean number of conditions in the
registry when used (5.2)
Percent using a registry (5.1):
Registry Use
Items from Office Systems Survey
TABLE II.2 (continued)
Final Percentage
Comparison Demonstration
Practices
Practices
Initial Percentage
Comparison Demonstration
Practices
Practices
Comparison
Practices
Demonstration
Practices
Mean Change in Percentage
Comparison Demonstration
Practices
Practices
Percent with Advancement
in HIT Use
24
Initial Percentage
Percent of practices using an EHR for at
least 50 percent of patient visits for each
function:
(6.2 – 6.12)
a. Generate laboratory
requisitions/orders electronically
b. Review laboratory test results
electronically
c. Generate radiology
requisitions/orders electronically
d. Review radiology results
electronically
e. Enter data into documentation
templates
f. Review and act on reminders for care
activities (for example, overdue
health maintenance)
Percent of practices using an EHR for
more than 50 percent of patient
visits/encounters:
(6.2 – 6.12)
a. For at least 3 tasks
b. For at least 5 tasks
Percentage of practices using an EHR
a. At all (6.1)
b. Including all patients (6.2)
EHR Use
Comparison Demonstration
Items from Office Systems Survey
Practices
Practices
e. List patients requiring an
intervention
f. Generate specific patient care plan
g. Generate information for patients on
their condition
h. Create written, personalized, actions
plans
i. Prompt clinician and/or patients to
review self-management plan during
a visit
j. Modify self-management plan as
needed following a visit
TABLE II.2 (continued)
Comparison Demonstration
Practices
Practices
Final Percentage
Comparison
Practices
Demonstration
Practices
Mean Change in Percentage
Comparison Demonstration
Practices
Practices
Percent with Advancement
in HIT Use
25
Initial Percentage
Percent of practices using electronic or
handheld devices for e-prescribing (8.2
– 8:12):
a. At least 3 activities
b. At least 5 activities
Percent of practices using software to
generate (8.1):
a. New prescriptions only
b. Refills
c. Both
E-prescribing
Percent of practices using online
resources for at least half the patient
visits/encounters for the following tasks
(7.2 – 7.5):
a. Access online resources for patient
care, review guidelines and
evidence-based recommendations at
the time of treatment
b. Generate a care plan–set of mutually
agreed upon goals and interventions
to meet goals
c. Produce condition-specific patient
care materials
d. Connect with patients via portal or
secure email
Percent of practices using online
resources (7.1)
Online Resources
Comparison Demonstration
Items from Office Systems Survey
Practices
Practices
g. Maintain medication lists for
individual patients
h. Maintain allergy list
i. Maintain problem and/or diagnosis
list
j. Record and review patient's family
history information on the computer
k. Trend lab and/or other test results
over time
TABLE II.2 (continued)
Comparison Demonstration
Practices
Practices
Final Percentage
Comparison
Practices
Demonstration
Practices
Mean Change in Percentage
Comparison Demonstration
Practices
Practices
Percent with Advancement
in HIT Use
26
Final Percentage
Comparison Demonstration
Practices
Practices
Initial Percentage
Comparison Demonstration
Practices
Practices
EHR = electronic health record; HIT = health information technology.
Percent of practices using electronic or
handheld devices for the following eprescribing activities (8.2 – 8:12):
a. Identify generic or less expensive
brand alternatives at the time of
prescription entry
b. Reference the drug formularies of
the patient's health plans/pharmacy
benefit manager to recommend
preferred drugs at time of prescribing
c. Offer guidelines and evidence-based
recommendations when prescribing
medication for a patient
d. Calculate appropriate dose and
frequency based on patient
parameters such as age and weight
e. Maintain a list of each patient’s
current medications
f. Screen prescriptions for drug
allergies against the patient’s allergy
information
g. Screen new prescriptions for drugdrug interactions against the
patient’s list of current medications
h. Print out prescription on a computer
printer
i. Transmit prescriptions directly to
pharmacy via electronic fax (no
paper printed)
j. Transmit prescriptions directly to
pharmacy via electronic means
(without relying on a fax machine at
either clinician’s office or in the
pharmacy)
k. Provide patient-friendly information
about the medication to the patient
Items from Office Systems Survey
TABLE II.2 (continued)
Comparison
Practices
Demonstration
Practices
Mean Change in Percentage
Comparison Demonstration
Practices
Practices
Percent with Advancement
in HIT Use
across the board or appear strongest for certain subgroups of the population. Although there may
not be enough practices to generate enough statistical power to distinguish true differences
statistically, it will still be important to mine the data we have for underlying patterns in
implementation of HIT that will ultimately help us understand outcomes.4
4.
Site Visits
Through the site visits, the evaluation (and, thus, CMS) will acquire an in-depth
understanding of how practices are implementing the demonstration and how the practice
changes under way may be most likely to be influencing quality of care, practice efficiency, and
patient satisfaction. After careful consideration, we believe the best approach will be to conduct
the site visits in two waves, with wave 1 in year 1 and wave 2 in year 3.
Visits to the Same Practices in Two Waves. A concentrated site visit effort near the
beginning and end of the project (February through May 2008 and October 2009 through January
2010) will best ensure that the practices have as much time as feasible to implement
demonstration-related changes and that we thoroughly understand where they were on the
dimensions of interest before the demonstration. We also recommend that we visit the same
practices in both time periods. This will allow us to directly observe a myriad of important
factors at the two critical points in time, bringing our understanding of the demonstration
implementation into sharp focus.
We can directly relate what the practices, early in the
demonstration, expected their goals to be to what actually occurred by near the end and how their
goals changed. We can remind them of their early ambitions and probe, as appropriate, for what
helped or hindered in accomplishing them. We can notice major changes in how they are using
technology to support quality relative to the earlier site visit, and ask for relevant details (for
4
A discussion of the precision of practice-level estimates from different data sources is presented in Chapter
III, Section D.2.
27
example, perhaps they are carrying handheld devices during the wave 2 interview that we did not
observe in wave 1, and we will ask them why). In addition, the physicians would likely
remember the project team and early site visit positively, which could lead them to communicate
more freely during the critical second wave of visits.
Conversely, if we visit different practices near the end of the demonstration, we cannot
expect them to clearly recall how they operated three years earlier or what they had hoped to
achieve at that point (though, of course, we would ask). The conclusions we would be able to
draw for the implementation analysis would need to be considerably more tentative, because we
could not be sure that any changes we were observing in the themes from the wave 1 versus
wave 2 practices were influenced by selecting different practices. The recommended strategy
does imply a reduction in the total number of practices visited on-site, from 76 to 40.5 We
believe that 40 is still a sufficiently large number of practices to address the implementation
analysis questions credibly and provide useful information for the outcomes analysis and
synthesis..
Selection of Demonstration and Comparison Sites.
The 40 sites are planned to be
distributed equally among the states, with 8 demonstration participant practices and 2
comparison practices for each state.
The emergence of the congressionally mandated link
between provider reporting of quality data and a payment increase makes it likely that both
comparison and demonstration sites will be improving on the dimensions of interest during the
period. Therefore, it is even more important than at the time of our original proposal that we
5
To keep the total number of site visits the same as originally proposed, we assume that 40 practices would be
visited in year 1, and 36 in year 3. We think it is likely that four of the practices originally visited will be
unavailable for a second-round visit due to normal attrition (for example, retirement of physicians or consolidation
of practices). If all 40 practices are available, we will interview all of them, but would expect to interview four by
telephone.
28
perform some visits to comparison sites to see if we observe differences in the nature of change
or its dynamics or pace between the demonstration and comparison sites.
Demonstration sites to be visited in each state will be selected judgmentally from among
geographically feasible choices to ensure that we achieve a mix of practice sizes and urban
versus rural location. We need the practices to be clustered to some degree geographically to
make the site visit efficient, although they do not need to be tightly clustered. For example, the
sites in a state could include four from a large urban area, one from a rural area outside that
urban area, and three from or around a small urban area two hours away from the large urban
area. If comparison group sites can be chosen by December 2007, we would plan to select sites
so as to be able to visit comparison group sites on the same visit; that is, we would aim for areas
near the border of the neighboring state where the comparison practices are located. We would
also like to ensure that the selected practices vary in HIT sophistication, if any summary measure
of that or proxy for it is available from CMS by late December 2007 when the selection process
must begin. If no such measure is available across all the potential sites, we may tentatively
select sites based on their known characteristics, then ask the QIO to comment on the relative
HIT sophistication of the ones chosen to ensure substantial variation.
We have found that a good way to begin site selection with geographic components like this
one is to map the potential practices, then focus on promising areas. By mapping the zip codes
of all the demonstration and comparison group practices and comparing them to an atlas, one can
readily find areas that would be both convenient to access and offer a sizable cluster of practices
to choose from. After suitable geographic areas are located, we will construct a table with all the
practices available for selection within the targeted geographic areas, showing their practice size,
specialty, and urban/rural location. We assume the basic practice characteristics would come
from the Office Systems Survey, with the urban/rural location identified by MPR showing the
29
practice’s county based on its town and zip code, and then linking that to the Area Resource File.
We will select a set of targeted practices and a pool of replacement practices (in case some of our
initial targets fail to cooperate). We assume we would provide CMS with a memo describing the
characteristics of our selected sites, as well as all the details of the process outlined here.
If comparison group sites are not identified by December 2007, we will need to move
forward with selection of the demonstration sites and discuss alternative options for the
comparison sites with CMS. For example, we could devote more resources than initially planned
to the site visits in wave 1 by adding trips to comparison sites, then conducting the wave 2
comparison site visits by telephone. In addition, it may not be possible to meet our goal of
visiting the comparison sites as well as the demonstration sites on the same visit in all the states,
even if comparison group practices are identified by December 2007 (for example, in
California). In such a case, we will discuss options with CMS, but would probably suggest
making the first-round visit longer and adding a travel leg to it to visit the comparison sites,
conducting the second round by telephone if necessary from a budget perspective.
Background Discussions with QIOs and CMS. Before each wave of visits, it would be
helpful to the evaluation to have a one- to one-and-a-half hour discussion with key staff at each
of the QIOs and CMS who operate the demonstration (a total of five discussions). This will
allow us to enter our discussions with providers already having a solid background on the
demonstration recruitment (wave 1) and operational experience (wave 2), as well as
communication strategies and messages (both waves). Such discussions will greatly assist us in
interpreting provider comments and probing appropriately. For example, if some providers say
they are not sure how to submit the data, we will be familiar with the process and can ask
whether they have reviewed communications X, Y, and Z, and, if so, what about those
30
communications was confusing to them. In addition, the QIO interviews will help us identify
any state-specific issues to examine during the site visits.
Logistics. The first wave of site visits is planned as three four-day visits (to Arkansas,
Massachusetts, and Utah) and two two-day visits (to northern and southern California). In the
second wave, we anticipate one fewer practice per state (dropping from 10 to 9 practices per
state). Therefore, we plan for 3 to 3.5 days on-site for Arkansas, Massachusetts, and Utah, and 2
2-day site visits for northern and southern California.
Scheduling for each visit will begin nine weeks before the target date for the visit and will
be completed one month in advance. If CMS agrees, we would like to use an introductory letter
signed by a CMS official to describe the study and encourage participation. The letter will be
mailed nine weeks before the target date, and a follow-up call will be made a week later. Many
offices will need to have the letter faxed or emailed to them again. However, we have found that
it is useful to be able to reference a letter sent at least a week earlier when making the first call.
A confirmation letter will be emailed to sites, and a second confirmation call will be made the
week before the visit.
We anticipate that many of the practices will require us to visit during off-hours—either
before clinic hours, during lunch, or after hours.6 This leaves ample time between practice
interviews for traveling to the next location, with a maximum of three practice visits probably
possible on any given day. Each office visit will include a 45-minute discussion with the office
manager and a 30-minute discussion with a physician.7 We will ask to interview the physician in
6
This is confirmed by the experience of the site visits for the evaluation of the Physician Voluntary Reporting
Program.
7
Although we will request 30 minutes, it is possible that some physicians will agree only if the time frame is
shorter (for example, 15 minutes). Whether we would accept the shorter time may be a case-by-case judgment,
depending on whether there are alternatives available in the area that would retain the varied mix of practices that
we seek.
31
the practice who has been most involved with any changes in response to the demonstration. If
all are equal in this regard, we will ask to interview the physician with the largest number of
Medicare patients.
During the discussion with the office manager, we will ask to see
documentation related to the types of changes that are discussed, with any personal health
information de-identified. We may selectively request copies of illustrative documents, but we
will make sure they contain no identifiable information. Under no circumstances will any
personal health information be recorded in our notes.
Data Collection Instrument.
A semistructured interview protocol, based on the key
questions provided in Table II.1, will be the central data collection instrument. We will provide
a draft protocol to CMS in September 2007 and revise it following CMS comments. The
protocol for the demonstration and comparison practices will be similar, except that protocol
questions pertaining to the demonstration will not apply to the comparison group practices.
Staffing.
Each visit will be staffed by one senior project team member and one research
analyst. During the visits, the senior site visitor will be primarily responsible for covering the
protocol topics. The analyst will be responsible for documenting each visit and making sure the
content areas are covered.
The analyst will complete detailed notes from the site visit within two weeks of the visit, and
the senior site visitor will review the notes, and modify or add to them, promptly after that. This
schedule ensures the documentation is completed and reviewed while the visit is still fresh in the
site visitors’ minds.
5.
Telephone Discussions with Highly Successful Practices
After the first and second payouts under the demonstration (not counting the payout for
baseline-year reporting), we plan to conduct telephone discussions with 12 practices that
benefited substantially from the program. We suggest the 12 be drawn randomly after the first
32
payout from among practices that received the ceiling payment amount, if there are more than 12
such practices each year. After the second payout, we would follow a similar process but ensure
that the 12 selected practices are different from those we interviewed after the first payout.
As in the site visits, we will use a semistructured protocol. The protocol, which will be
provided to CMS with the site visit protocol in September 2007, will focus on identifying the
changes practices made to achieve their success under the demonstration, their motivation for
doing so, contributing factors that may have made it easier for them to succeed relative to others,
and lessons learned.
6.
Telephone Discussions with Unsuccessful Practices (Including Those That Withdrew)
On a continuing basis beginning in year 2 of the demonstration, we will conduct telephone
discussions with unsuccessful practices, including practices that withdrew from the
demonstration, if any (up to six practices in demonstration year 2 and six in year 3). We will
schedule the calls to minimize the likelihood of having an unproductive and emotional
discussion with the unsuccessful practices.
For instance, the best time for such calls may be
around three months after a withdrawal. We expect that emotions in a practice may run high at
the time of withdrawal and that waiting about three months should provide a “cooling off” period
that would allow for more thoughtful discussion of all the factors leading up to the practice’s
decision, while still being close enough to the practice’s experience under the demonstration for
good recall. The protocol for the discussions with unsuccessful practices will be provided with
the other protocols in September 2007. Its principal focus will be on identifying factors that led
the practice to suboptimal performance or to withdraw from the demonstration, and what, if
anything, could have been different that would have led the practice to remain in the study.
As noted in our original proposal, we will also use descriptive statistics to compare
quantifiable characteristics between withdrawing and remaining plans. If no practices withdraw
33
from the demonstration, we will discuss with CMS alternative allocations of these interviews to
practices that remained in the demonstration but were unsuccessful (that is, they did not receive
performance payments).
7.
Analysis
The implementation analysis will be conducted demonstration-wide and will include
reviewing the information for qualitative and descriptive differences within subsets of practices
(such as by size) and by state location. Atlas.ti software will be used to help the team organize
the detailed interview information to identify themes, as well as to help identify illustrative
examples as needed from among the many site visits and telephone interviews. MPR routinely
uses this software to assist in analyzing large numbers of site visit interviews.
We plan to analyze the site visit data demonstration-wide on the major dimensions, and the
factors influencing them, listed in Section A and on the table of key questions (Table II.1):
participating practices’ perspectives on the demonstration; direct responses to the incentives;
adaptation of patient flow and documentation processes as HIT is implemented; relevant context;
adoption of care management processes; greater use of data to refine the care process; and
enhanced practice orientation to quality and safety.
For each of these dimensions, we will pull relevant blocks of text from the Atlas.ti database
containing our detailed notes, and review them sorted in different ways (for example, by
demonstration and comparison site, by state, by practice size, and by physician versus office
manager responder). Reviewing the data in this way is the best method to identify patterns and
to ensure all relevant information on an issue is considered when synthesizing across the sites.
Use of Atlas.ti also allows easy exploration of alternative interpretations of a theme that may be
suggested as the senior researchers on the team discuss the key findings.
34
As we prepare for the implementation analysis, we will establish practice classifications
based on the site visit data and draw on practice characteristics identified from other data
sources. (The characteristics of each practice will be stored in an Excel file.) The characteristics
will then be used to explore relationships between characteristics and outcomes as those become
available (see Chapter IV). The classification of practices may include the following, with exact
categories set after reviewing actual demonstration data:
• Smaller versus larger practices
• Practices with higher versus lower numbers of Medicare patients with the targeted
chronic conditions
• Urban versus rural practices, and state location
• Practices that were at high, medium, and low levels of HIT use at the start of the
demonstration, assuming a summary-level measure is available based on the Office
Systems Survey
• Practices aggressively adopting care management processes for one or more
conditions in the demonstration versus those not doing so
• Practices in higher- versus lower-income areas, and/or those whose patient loads
include a lower proportion of Medicaid and uninsured patients
In analyzing the demonstration’s implementation experience, we will remain sensitive to the
possibility that patterns of experience and response may differ across these types of practices. In
addition, to support the evaluation’s synthesis analysis (see Chapter IV), midway through the
second wave of site visits, we will create additional classifications of practices that we believe
may be associated with outcomes. The specific classifications that will be most useful are
impossible to predict before the later stage of the evaluation, but our telephone interviews with
especially successful practices, combined with the site visits, might suggest that practices that
have adopted one particular type of system, or those that have been most aggressive with one or
two dimensions of response, are likely most successful in improving outcomes. We will then
35
classify the site visit practices on those suspected factors for success, so that the outcomes for
those with and without those characteristics could be compared.
Because the demonstration is being implemented at the state level, the practice characteristic
of state location will receive special attention. Immediately after each site visit in a state (or after
both the California visits), the senior site visitor and research analyst will meet to discuss
highlights and key points emerging from the set of visits as a whole. After creating an outline as
the output from this meeting, they will prepare a brief site visit summary highlighting key
findings for that state, which will become part of our implementation report. As noted above, we
will look for patterns in demonstration experience by state (as well as other characteristics) as we
analyze each major topic.
In addition, we will perform descriptive analysis of the Office
Systems Survey data by state using the table format shown in Table II.2.
As themes emerge in the implementation analysis, we will employ several means to display
and summarize them for the implementation report. Summary tables showing the numbers of
interviewed practices that reported something of interest are one important way to summarize the
analysis for the reader, even though such results cannot be presumed to be generalizable due to
small sample size and nonrandom site selection. For example, a table may summarize the
number of site visit practices that we would classify as undertaking high-, medium-, or low-level
responses to the demonstration by the time of the first site visit, broken down by other practice
characteristics noted above.
In addition, text tables can list illustrative examples of specifics that lend credibility and
clarity to overall statements. For example, we could create a table with columns for facilitating
factors and barriers, divided by the types we have found most common, and within those parts of
the table dedicated to each type of barrier or complaint, list near-verbatim quotations from our
36
notes to illustrate more specifically how X, Y, and Z were barriers and how U, V, and W were
facilitating factors.
The results from the analysis of implementation will first be presented in the implementation
report, due to CMS in draft in July 2008, with a final version by September of that year. Results
from the telephone discussions with successful and unsuccessful practices in demonstration years
2 and 3 will be incorporated into the second and third interim synthesis reports, drafts of which
are due in October 2009 and October 2010, respectively.8
Results from the second wave of site
visits will be reported first in the site visits report, due in April 2011. The final, comprehensive
analysis of implementation, assessing changes between wave 1 and wave 2 site visits, as well as
all the other data sources, will be reported in the final evaluation report, due in September 2011.
8
As discussed in Chapter V, the third interim synthesis report will be submitted as the Report to Congress.
37
III. DESIGN OF THE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Estimating impacts of the MCMP demonstration will require a rigorous research design,
data from several sources on the outcomes the P4P intervention is expected to influence, and
strong statistical models to provide unbiased and efficient estimates of program impacts. Several
factors make this task challenging, including (1) the need to rely on a quasi-experimental design;
(2) the need for separate impact estimates for each state; and (3) the considerable variation of
many factors across states, including the timing and intensity of technical assistance for
implementing EHRs, P4P and EHR penetration, physician licensure regulations, and accuracy
and completeness of key identifiers in claims data.
A. RESEARCH DESIGN
The two key features for ensuring that valid estimates of impacts are obtained are (1) the
comparison group strategy (identifying a sample of practices that will yield reliable estimates of
what would have occurred to demonstration practices and beneficiaries without the P4P
incentives), and (2) an adequate sample size. We will estimate impacts of the demonstration
through a difference-in-differences approach. With this approach, we will compare changes in
quality measures and other outcomes of practices in the demonstration states and comparison
states before and after the start of the demonstration.
The impact analysis will use a comparison group (or quasi-experimental) design.
To
identify the comparison group, the evaluation will choose DOQ-IT physician practices in
selected nondemonstration states that match most closely those in demonstration states on key
factors likely to be associated with outcomes of interest and, where possible, on
predemonstration values of the outcomes themselves. DOQ-IT practices in nondemonstration
39
states provide an ideal counterfactual for demonstration practices, because all demonstration
practices will also participate in DOQ-IT (due to demonstration eligibility requirements). Thus,
demonstration and comparison group practices will both receive the technical assistance
provided by DOQ-IT to adopt HIT, including an EHR system. In this section, we discuss how
we (1) identified potential comparison states, (2) will select comparison group practices, and (3)
will identify comparison group beneficiaries in each practice. Finally, we provide an overview
of how we will estimate impacts.
1.
Selection of Comparison States
Using a reproducible process, we selected nondemonstration states using criteria that aimed
to identify states with environments similar to those of the demonstration states in that they at
least had EHR and P4P programs.1 Based on this selection process, we proposed the following
states be used as comparison states for the MCMP demonstration states: Arkansas: Nebraska,
with Texas as alternate; California: for comparison to southern California only, Arizona; for
comparison to California overall, Oregon, with Washington as alternate; Massachusetts: New
York, with Connecticut as alternate; and Utah: Idaho. Although the comparison states chosen
have face validity and meet the criteria used for selection, they are only an approximate match to
the demonstration states.
2.
Selection of Comparison Group Practices
To be considered a valid comparison practice, the practice’s patients must have
predemonstration service use and cost patterns similar to those of the practices in demonstration
states. The practice also should have comparable baseline characteristics. Practice size and
1
Appendix C describes in detail the process for selecting comparison states.
40
experience with HIT are key determinants of practice behavior (Miller and Sim 2004).
Therefore, we will first stratify the sample by constructing cells defined by the combination of
these practice characteristics (that is, whether the practice has one physician, two physicians, or
three or more; and whether the practice has experience with an EHR system).2 Within each cell,
we will use statistical matching methods to identify the comparison practice that best matches
each demonstration practice in terms of predemonstration service use measures, costs, and
baseline characteristics.
Two methods for selecting the “closest” match for each demonstration practice are the
caliper and nearest-neighbor methods.3 From our experience selecting comparison groups for
other demonstrations, the caliper method is a more efficient approach than the nearest-neighbor
method when matching a large number of units on a limited number of characteristics, as in the
case of MCMP. Therefore, we plan to use the caliper method as our primary method for
identifying comparison practices in nondemonstration states. Ideally, we will have several
suitable comparison practices within each stratification cell for each demonstration practice. If
so, we will select the comparison practice that provides the closest predemonstration match to a
demonstration practice.
We will assess the validity of the matches by testing whether there are significant
differences between demonstration and comparison practices in the changes in outcome
2
We will consider alternate ways to stratify the sample if there is not at least one comparison practice to match
to each demonstration practice within each cell.
3
The caliper method identifies all potential comparison group units whose weighted average of characteristics
falls within a specified range, or “caliper,” of the weighted average of the characteristics to which they are being
matched. The size of the caliper is typically defined in percentage terms (for example, ± 1 percentage points of the
weighted average of the target practice). The nearest-neighbor method identifies potential comparison group units
with the closest absolute difference, on a composite measure, relative to the unit to which it is being matched. This
method assumes that all characteristics used for matching are combined into a single score or distance, which raises
the problem of determining the weights for calculating the overall score.
41
measures during the baseline period. (We will only be able to perform this test with outcome
measures available during the predemonstration period, such as those based on Medicare claims
data.) If the matches are valid, we would not expect to see significant differences.
The measures we plan to use to match practices (in addition to practice size and experience
with HIT) include the number of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries served by the practice
(ideally, for each target condition), number of evaluation and management (E&M) visits per
beneficiary in the practice, number of hospital admissions per beneficiary in the practice, and
Medicare expenditures per beneficiary.
However, the final list of baseline characteristics will
depend on the availability of specific data elements in the Office Systems Survey. To construct
the measures of service use and expenditures, we will use claims data to be supplied by the
financial support contractor (Actuarial Research Corporation [ARC]).
3.
Identification of Comparison Group Beneficiaries
To link beneficiaries to comparison group practices, the demonstration’s financial support
contractor will use provider identification numbers available in claims data and the practices’
demonstration or DOQ-IT application forms, as well as an algorithm for allocating beneficiaries
to only one practice.
For demonstration practices, this procedure avoids double-counting
beneficiaries on whom the incentive payments will be based. For both demonstration and
comparison practices, the algorithm assigns each beneficiary represented in the claims files to the
practice that provided the plurality of E&M services during the reporting period. As a tiebreaker
for beneficiaries seen by more than one such practice, the algorithm assigns the practice with the
most recent E&M visit, the practice with the highest Medicare expenditures for that beneficiary
in the previous year, and whether it is a demonstration practice (only for practices in
42
demonstration states).4 Finally, because only fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries are allowed
to participate in the demonstration, comparison group beneficiaries will not include those in
Medicare Advantage plans.
4.
Estimation of Demonstration Impacts
We will use the difference-in-differences method to estimate impacts on claims-based
outcomes, such as use of Medicare-covered services and costs. This regression-based method
implicitly accounts for all factorsboth measured and unmeasuredthat do not change over
time when estimating impacts, and thus is likely to yield unbiased estimates. As described in
Section F, we will assess whether we need to use statistical methods to control for selection bias
in models that estimate impacts from survey data (such as measures of satisfaction with care).5
If needed, we will use selection-adjusted models that attempt to account for systematic
differences between practices in the comparison group and demonstration practices in
preenrollment characteristics that are difficult to measure, such as the motivation to provide
higher or lower quality of care.
The practice will be the unit of analysis, because it is the unit of intervention. That is, the
practicenot the beneficiarywill receive the financial incentives. Furthermore, the individual
physician will not be the unit of analysis. Our analytic sample for estimating impacts from the
demonstration will consist of all beneficiaries in the demonstration and comparison group
practices. In addition, we will measure impacts for important subgroups of beneficiaries for
4
The proposed procedure codes for identifying E&M services are: 99201 through 99215 (office or other
outpatient services), 99301 through 99316 (nursing facility services), 99321 through 99333 (domiciliary, rest home,
boarding home, or custodial care services), 99341 through 99350 (home services), 99381 through 99397 (preventive
medicine services), and 99401 through 99429 (counseling and/or risk factor reduction intervention) (Wilkin et al.
2007).
5
Selection bias occurs when unmeasured differences between the demonstration and comparison groups affect
outcomes, which results in biased estimates of demonstration effects.
43
which it is reasonable to expect impacts to vary, such as which chronic condition the beneficiary
has.
Because the analysis is multilevel (beneficiaries will be nested within practices), we plan to
use hierarchical (or multilevel) linear models (HLM) to estimate impacts, which will include a
range of individual and practice characteristics and their interactions. HLM allows for efficient
estimation of model parameters and their variances. These models will also allow us to examine
the interactions between beneficiary and practice characteristics, while accounting for clustering
of beneficiaries within practices.
B. EXPECTED EFFECTS
The evaluation will measure the effects of providing financial incentives (compared to not
providing such incentives) to practices that have received technical assistance to implement HIT
or have adopted an EHR system. We expect that the demonstration will improve physicians’
adherence to the 26 recommended care guidelines rewarded by the incentive payments.
However, as discussed below, we will be able to directly assess the demonstration’s impacts on
only 13 of these 26 measures—those that can be captured through Medicare claims or
beneficiary self-reports for both demonstration and comparison practices. Therefore, we will
also examine the demonstration’s impacts on other measures related to quality of care that we
expect to be influenced as a result of physicians adhering to the care guidelines, including those
related to the process of care (such as whether the beneficiary received examinations, preventive
services, and screenings) and to health outcomes (such as health-related knowledge and
behaviors and hospitalizations).
By improving quality of care, the demonstration is also expected to reduce Medicare costs
for hospital and emergency room services. However, the demonstration could increase costs for
other Medicare services, because evidence-based practice guidelines for the target conditions
44
may recommend that beneficiaries receive specific care from physicians, thereby increasing the
average number of physician visits, as well as other Medicare costs. Overall, the demonstration
is intended to reduce total costs for Medicare services by at least enough to offset the costs for
the physician incentive payments, so that the demonstration is budget neutral. Thus, we will
measure the demonstration’s effects on total Medicare costs, Medicare costs by type of service,
and use of selected Medicare services (such as emergency room visits and hospitalizations).
To maximize profits from bonus payments, demonstration practices must provide and report
on evidence-based clinical interventions as efficiently as possible. Some practices may meet
these objectives by adopting HIT or using it more efficiently. Thus, we will measure the
demonstration’s effects on the adoption and use of HIT, in general, and EHRs, in particular.
Physicians striving to earn financial incentives might also make changes that could improve
their patients’ adherence to their recommendations and, in turn, their health outcomes. Such
changes might include improving their interactions with patients, spending more time on patient
education, and spending more time coordinating their patients’ care with other providers. As a
result, physicians might be more satisfied with the care they provide, and patients might be more
satisfied with the care they receive. Thus, our secondary outcome measures will include those
related to continuity of care, care coordination, patient satisfaction, and physician satisfaction.
C. DATA SOURCES
The impact analysis will use data from four data sources: (1) a beneficiary survey, (2) a
physician survey, (3) Medicare claims and eligibility data, and (4) practice-specific data.
Together, these data sources will allow us to directly capture the demonstration’s impacts on a
subset of the 26 quality measures for which physician practices receive incentive payments
(Table III.1), as well on a wide array of the other primary and secondary outcomes that we
expect the demonstration to influence (Table III.2).
45
TABLE III.1
DATA AVAILABILITY OF QUALITY MEASURES RELATED TO FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
Data Source
Measure
Medical
Records
Medicare
Claims
Beneficiary
Survey
Data Available
for Comparison
Group Practices?
Percentage of patients with coronary artery
disease who:
Were prescribed antiplatelet therapy
Were prescribed a lipid-lowering therapy
Were prescribed beta-blocker therapy, among
those with prior myocardial infarction
Received at least one lipid profile
Had most recent LDL cholesterol < 130 mg dl
Were prescribed ACE inhibitor therapy,
among those who also have diabetes and/or
LVSD
X
X
X
X
X
No
No
No
Yes
No
X
X
No
Percentage of patients with diabetes having:
One or more blood tests for hemoglobin A1c
Most recent A1c level > 9 percent
At least one test for microalbumin (or had
medical attention for existing nephropathy or
microalbuminuria or albuminuria)
Dilated retinal exam
At least one foot exam
Last blood pressure measurement below
140/90mm Hg (among those receiving a test)
Most recent LDL cholesterol < 130 mg/dl
Had at least one LDL cholesterol test
X
X
X
Yes
No
X
X
X
X
X
Yes
Yes
Yes
X
X
X
X
No
No
Yes
X
Percentage of patients with congestive heart
failure who:
Had left ventricular function results recorded
Left ventricular ejection tested (among those
hospitalized with heart failure)
Had weight measurement recorded
Had patient education class on disease
management and health behavior change
during one or more visits within a six- month
period
Were prescribed beta-blocker therapy, among
those who also have LVSD
Were prescribed ACE inhibitor therapy,
among those who also have LVSD
Were prescribed warfarin therapy, among
those with paroxysmal or chronic atrial
fibrillation
X
X
X
No
X
X
Yes
Yes
X
No
X
No
X
No
X
No
46
TABLE III.1 (continued)
Data Source
Measure
Percentage of those with specified chronic
diseases who:
Had blood pressure measurement during last
office visit
Had breast cancer screening during current or
previous year, among those under age 69
Had colorectal cancer screening during
recommended period
Had influenza vaccination during September
through February of year prior to measurement
year, among those over age 50
Had pneumonia vaccination, among those with
a chronic condition over age 65
Medical
Records
Medicare
Claims
X
X
Beneficiary
Survey
Data Available
for Comparison
Group Practices?
X
Yes
X
Yes
X
X
Yes
X
X
Yes
X
X
Yes
ACE = Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor; LVSD = left ventricular systolic dysfunction.
47
TABLE III.2
OVERVIEW OF TYPES OF OUTCOME MEASURES AND DATA
SOURCES FOR IMPACT ANALYSIS
Measure
Data Source
Primary Outcome Measures
Quality Measures
Outcomes directly related to financial incentives
Process measures related to care quality
Health outcomes
Medicare service use and costs
Use of HIT in office procedures
Medicare Claims Data and Beneficiary Survey
Medicare Claims Data and Beneficiary Survey
Medicare Claims Data and Beneficiary Survey
Medicare Claims Data
Physician Survey and Office Systems Survey
Secondary Outcome Measures
Coordination and continuity of care
Beneficiary Survey, Physician Survey, Medicare
Claims Data
Physician satisfaction
Physician Survey
Patient satisfaction
Beneficiary Survey
HIT = health information technology.
48
We will administer a mail survey (with telephone followup) of eligible beneficiaries about
19 months after the beginning of the demonstration. This survey will measure well-being (using
such indicators as health status, burden of illness, and quality of life), access to care, adherence
to self-care management principles, continuity of care, satisfaction with care, and awareness of
the demonstration (or the DOQ-IT program, in nondemonstration states). For physicians, we
will also administer a mail survey (with telephone followup) about 14 months after the start of
the demonstration. This survey will measure demonstration and comparison group barriers to
transforming the practices’ clinical encounters with beneficiaries and other office procedures,
barriers to adoption of HIT, experience implementing this type of technology, satisfaction with
HIT, and experience with P4R and P4P (in the demonstration sites only). We will obtain data on
use of Medicare-covered services and expenditures, indicators for whether tests were performed
related to selected clinical measures upon which the financial incentives are based, and measures
of continuity of care from Medicare claims data, and demographic and eligibility data from the
Medicare Enrollment Database (EDB). We will use these Medicare data both to construct
outcome measures and to construct regression control variables covering the baseline period.
Finally, we will obtain data for the actual financial payments made to the demonstration
practices. We will work closely with the financial support contractor, the QIOs, and CMS to use
any additional data that would enhance the evaluation, such as participation of demonstration and
comparison practices in the PQRI.
1.
Beneficiary Survey
We will administer a mail survey (with telephone followup), with a goal of completing
interviews with 4,800 eligible beneficiaries (600 from the demonstration group and 600 from the
comparison group in each state). The survey will start 19 months after the beginning of the
demonstration’s operations (in or around January 2009). The financial support contractor will
49
provide MPR with lists of Medicare beneficiaries classified as having a primary care physician
affiliated with any of the demonstration or comparison group practices for the first year of
demonstration operations. We will select a sample of 6,400 beneficiaries from these lists, evenly
split across demonstration and comparison practices in each state (800 beneficiaries in
demonstration practices and 800 beneficiaries in comparison practices in each state). We expect
to complete interviews with three-fourths of this sample, to reach our target sample size of 4,800
respondents.
We will use a “mail first” approach, in which a self-administered questionnaire will be sent
to the survey sample as part of an initial mailing package.
However, we will send more than
one mailing before contacting beneficiaries by telephone. Sample members will first receive a
packet containing (1) a letter (printed on CMS letterhead and signed by a CMS official)
describing the survey, (2) the questionnaire, (3) a fact sheet of commonly asked questions and
answers, and (4) pre-paid return mailing materials. Regular mailing service will be used for this
mailing. Advance materials will serve several important purposes. They will (1) provide a
written description of the study; (2) legitimize the study through the use of agency letterhead or
inclusion of the OMB approval number; (3) alert the sample member to an impending call; (4)
provide sample members with a ready reference of names and numbers to contact for additional
information and/or to complete the survey; and (5) provide MPR with information on bad
addresses, through the use of return service envelopes. Our use of advance letters is supported
by our past experience with CMS studies, and by a study conducted by Link et al. (2003), which
found that advance letters could improve cooperation rates and reduce initial refusals.
The questionnaire will be designed with a high level of sensitivity to the age of the target
population. For example, written materials will have a larger print size than is typical for use
with the general population. We expect that beneficiaries will be able to complete the survey in
50
15 minutes or less. The questionnaire, and all accompanying survey materials, will be available
in both English and Spanish. Sample members with Spanish surnames and those from areas that
are known to many Spanish speakers will receive survey materials in both languages. Otherwise,
materials will be mailed in English only. These materials will include a separate, Spanishlanguage insert containing a toll-free number to call to request Spanish-language materials.
The beneficiary survey will be fielded over a 12-month period. The initial survey mailing to
beneficiaries will take place in January 2009.
This mailing will be supplemented with a
reminder postcard, a second full mailing to nonresponders, and a second reminder postcard. In
addition, about halfway through the field period, we will send a final appeal to get more sample
members to return completed surveys by mail. This final appeal will use priority mail service.
We expect this multi-mail strategy to yield an estimated 50 percent response rate to the mail
survey (Table III.3), as suggested by other surveys in which these types of mailings have
achieved high rates of response (Hassol et al. 2003).
Overall, we are targeting 4,800 completed interviews, or a 75 percent response rate, for this
survey.
To complete the remaining interviews needed to achieve the targeted 75 percent
response, we will focus our remaining resources on a computer-assisted telephone interviewing
(CATI) collection effort. We will monitor late returns of mail surveys, and such cases will be
removed from the CATI sample on an ongoing basis. Interviewers will receive project-specific
training to conduct the interview by telephone, including training on sensitivity toward seniors.
We will staff the project with interviewers who are experienced at interviewing similar
populations. Attempts to interview beneficiaries by telephone will begin after the final mail
appeal, around September 2009.
51
TABLE III.3
PROJECTED RESPONSE FOR THE BENEFICIARY SURVEY
Released
Sample
Projected
Completed
Interviews
Cumulative
Completed
Interviews
Response Rate
6,400
—
—
—
Initial mailing
—
1,280
1,280
20
First postcard
—
320
1,600
25
Second mailing
—
640
2,240
35
Second postcard
—
320
2,560
40
Priority mailing
—
320
2,880
45
CATI
—
1,920
4,800
75
Data Collection Strategy
CATI = computer-assisted telephone interviewing.
52
2.
Physician Survey
We will also administer a mail survey (with telephone followup) to 1,600 physicians (200 in
the demonstration group and 200 in the comparison group in each state) 25 months after the start
of the demonstration (in or around July 2009). The physician survey will collect data on practice
and physician characteristics not captured in the Office Systems Survey (which will be
administered to all demonstration and comparison practices in 2007 and 2010), changes the
physician has made in response to the incentives, barriers and facilitators to HIT adoption, use of
HIT in office processes, coordination of care, satisfaction with care quality, and satisfaction with
Medicare financial incentives. In addition, there will be a separate module for demonstration
physicians, focusing on how participation in the demonstration influenced the practice, their
perceptions of the effects of the financial incentives on their practices, and their satisfaction with
the demonstration.
For our physician survey sample, we will select one or more physicians from each of the 400
treatment and 400 comparison group practices, while simultaneously attempting to minimize the
design effect. For solo practices, the physician will be selected with certainty. We will select a
sample of 2,376 physicians—1,144 from practices in demonstration states and 1,232 from
practices in comparison states, evenly split across the four states. This sample should yield 800
respondents from demonstration states and 800 respondents from comparison states, assuming
response rates are 70 and 65 percent, respectively. We are projecting a lower response rate for
the comparison states because comparison group physicians will have no clear incentive to
participate in a survey. Our response rate assumptions are consistent with our recent experience
interviewing physicians whose patients were participating in CMS’s care coordination or disease
management demonstrations. No financial incentive will be offered.
53
As in the beneficiary survey, we will use a self-administered mail questionnaire as our first
approach to surveying physicians.
We selected this approach because we believe that
physicians’ busy schedules may make it difficult for them to respond to an unscheduled
telephone survey. Furthermore, we are not confident that a “cold call” to a physician’s office
will get past the gatekeeper. Therefore, including the survey instrument in the essential initial
mailing is most efficient. We will mail survey materials to demonstration and comparison group
practices using official CMS letterhead and envelopes. These survey materials will include a
cover letter signed by a CMS official, a mail questionnaire, and pre-paid return mailing
materials. The advance letter will include a toll-free number giving physicians the option to call
and complete the survey by telephone.
The initial mailing to physicians will occur in or around July 2009. Two weeks after the
initial mailing, we will begin telephone contact to schedule appointments and conduct interviews
with sampled physicians. This effort will continue throughout the 11-month field period, from
July 2009 through June 2010. We will train staff experienced in interviewing physicians and
other professionals to negotiate access with gatekeepers and to conduct the estimated 10-minute
survey interview.
About midway through the field period, we will send a second mailing
appealing to physicians who have not completed surveys or scheduled appointments. We expect
that about 60 percent of the completed surveys will come from CATI and that 40 percent will be
completed by mail.
3.
OMB Clearance
We will develop draft instruments for the beneficiary and physician surveys for CMS review
and approval. Instrument content will be refined through discussions with the CMS evaluation
project officer and will draw on other relevant surveys, as discussed in Section E. We will
submit draft instruments to CMS in November 2007. We will revise the instruments based on
54
feedback from CMS and will prepare an OMB clearance package for submission in January
2008.
Both instruments will be thoroughly tested before seeking OMB approval.
MPR will
conduct nine pretests of the physician survey with physicians serving populations similar to
those in MCMP.
We will also conduct nine pretests of the beneficiary survey. The pretest
sample for the beneficiary survey will consist of Medicare beneficiaries with conditions that the
demonstration is targeting. The instruments will be cognitively tested to ensure that the target
population will understand terms and phrases used, as well as for question sequencing, skip
logic, print size, and burden. The pretests will replicate plans for the main data collection to the
fullest extent possible.
4.
Medicare Claims and Eligibility Files
We will obtain Medicare claims and eligibility files for all Medicare beneficiaries classified
as having a primary care physician affiliated with one of the demonstration practices. The files
will be obtained from two sources. First, the financial support contractor (ARC) will supply
unadjusted claims data for all Medicare beneficiaries assigned to demonstration practices. The
data will cover calendar year 2006 (the baseline period) and each of the three years of
demonstration operations. In addition, we will receive claims data for the baseline period for all
beneficiaries in nondemonstration states that we classify as being in DOQ-IT practices in these
states.
As described in Section A.1 of this chapter, we will use these data to match
demonstration and potential comparison group practices using measures of Medicare-covered
service use and expenditures during the baseline period and baseline characteristics. After we
select comparison group practices, the financial support contractor will continue to supply data
55
for these practices for all three years of the demonstration.6 The financial support contractor will
obtain the claims data from a monthly TAP of the National Claims History (NCH) File. For
demonstration practices, we expect to receive the data for the baseline period within three
months of the start of the demonstration and, for each of the three demonstration years, at about
the time the financial support contractor makes payments to the practices based on their
performance during the preceding reporting year.7 We estimate that there will be a 12-month lag
in obtaining these data.
Second, we will use Medicare HIC numbers provided by ARC to develop a finders file, or
list of beneficiaries on whom data will be requested from CMS. Our current plan is to obtain
beneficiaries’ demographic characteristics (age, sex, race), date of death, Medicare entitlement,
HMO enrollment, reason for Medicare entitlement, and dual eligibility status from the EDB. In
addition, we will use the most recent EDB file to obtain contact data for the beneficiaries in the
demonstration or comparison group practices to conduct the beneficiary survey (see Section
C.1).8
We will use Medicare claims data to construct measures of Medicare-covered service use
and reimbursement by type of service (inpatient hospital, skilled nursing facility, home health,
hospice, outpatient hospital, emergency room, and physician and other Part B providers) for both
6
The definition of a comparison practice in terms of its constituent physicians will not change during the
demonstration period. However, beneficiaries may change from period to period as they see other providers.
Therefore, the claims data that we get from the financial support contractor for both demonstration and comparison
practices may include different beneficiaries during the three-year demonstration period.
7
For comparison practices, we will receive baseline data after we select comparison practices in
nondemonstration states in winter 2008. For each of the three demonstration years, we will receive the data at about
the same time we receive them for demonstration practices, as noted above.
8
If necessary, we plan to supplement the claims data described above with final-action claims from the
Standard Analytic Files and NCH/National Medicare Utilization Database. We will extract these data for both the
baseline and demonstration years for beneficiaries assigned to demonstration or comparison group practices. For the
impact analysis, we will assume a six-month lag between the receipt of a Medicare-covered service and its
appearance on these files.
56
before and after the start of the demonstration. We will develop rules to assign hospitalizations
(or other episodic care) to the preenrollment period if the beneficiary was hospitalized (or in the
middle of an episode of care) on the day the demonstration started. We will assign expenditures
and service use this way because, in practice, the physician assigned to the beneficiary would not
be able to influence outcomes until the stay for that beneficiary was over. Thus, the costs of the
identifying hospitalization (or other episodic care), which may be substantial, will be counted as
predemonstration costs. We will use the same approach for demonstration and comparison
practices.
5.
Practice-Specific Data
Practice-specific measures for the impact analysis will be drawn primarily from the Office
Systems Survey and from financial incentive payment data. As noted, we will work closely with
the financial support contractor, the QIOs, and the Maine Health Information Center to obtain
these data.
We discussed the systems assessment survey data in Chapter II. Therefore, we state here
only that we will use some of these data as control variables in our impact analyses, as well as to
define subgroups of interest (as described in Section F of this chapter), and in our synthesis
analysis.
We will use data on the financial payments to demonstration practices to estimate the impact
of P4P on Medicare costs. Subsequently, we will use these data in the evaluation synthesis (see
Chapter IV). We will receive payment data from the financial support contractor at the end of
each demonstration year. The payment data will include the scores for each of the 26 clinical
measures on which the payments will be based. For each of the chronic conditions, the data also
will include the score, the payment per beneficiary, and the number of beneficiaries on which
payment was made. Finally, the database will also include any bonus payments for electronic
57
submission of clinical data (Wilkin et al. 2007). We will use the practice ID to link this database
to other practice-specific files.
D. SAMPLE SIZES
The demonstration’s budget and the number of practices likely to enroll in the DOQ-IT
program influence the minimum number of beneficiaries and physicians required for detecting
demonstration impacts with the desired statistical power and precision. Here, we first discuss the
statistical precision that will be obtainable for the analysis of survey-based outcomes and claimsbased outcomes, including subgroup analyses. We then discuss the precision for descriptive
estimates of clinical outcomes among demonstration practices.
1.
Minimum Detectable Differences for Impact Estimates Derived from the Beneficiary
Survey, Physician Survey, and Claims Data
For binary outcomes, we will be able to detect substantively important differences with 80
percent power with the proposed sample sizes. For the beneficiary survey, we will select a
sample of 6,400 of the patients served by demonstration and comparison group practices.9
Assuming that 4,800 of these beneficiaries respond to the survey (600 in the demonstration
practices in each state and 600 in comparison group practices in each state), we will be able to
detect a difference in a binary outcome (with mean equal to 50 percent) of about 8 percentage
points in within-state analyses and of about 4 percentage points in analyses that pool all states
together (assuming 80 percent power and 5 percent level for a two-sided test; Table III.4).
9
We assume the planned 800 demonstration practices will serve an average of 500 Medicare beneficiaries per
practice.
58
TABLE III.4
MINIMUM DETECTABLE DIFFERENCES FOR BINARY AND CONTINUOUS OUTCOMES DERIVED
FROM THE BENEFICIARY AND PHYSICIAN SURVEY AND CLAIMS DATA
Data Source
Arkansas (150
Demonstration
Practices)
Massachusetts
(250
Demonstration
Practices)
California (250
Demonstration
Practices)
Utah (150
Demonstration
Practices)
All States Pooled
(800
Demonstration
Practices)
Binarya
Physician Surveyb
Beneficiary Surveyc
Claims Datad
Claims Data
20.4
8.1
0.7
2.3
15.6
8.1
0.6
15.6
8.1
0.6
20.1
8.1
0.7
8.8
4.2
0.3
1.8
Continuouse
1.8
2.3
1.0
a
Based on the comparison between demonstration and comparison groups for a binary variable with mean equal to
0.50, given a 5 percent level for a two-sided test and 80 percent power. MDEs are expressed in percentage points.
b
Calculations assume that there will be the same number of respondents from demonstration practices in each state as
the number of practices in that state, and the same number of respondents from comparison-group practices in each
state as the number of practices in that state. Calculations also assume that, in addition to the strata defined by the
practices, we will stratify the physician sample according to practice size, and that the proportion of physicians
selected within each stratum will be the same as the actual proportion of physicians in each practice-size stratum
among practices that are eligible to participate in each state.
c
We assume there will be an average of 500 Medicare beneficiaries per practice. From these beneficiaries, we assume
there will be 600 respondents from demonstration practices and 600 respondents from comparison-group practices in
each state. Respondents are not stratified by practice. We used the following two strata for chronic conditions: (1)
claims that included at least one code for coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and/or diabetes; and (2) all
other claims.
d
Calculations assume that all claims are selected from each practice, and that there are an average of 500 Medicare
beneficiaries per practice. We used the following two strata for conditions (1) claims that included at least one code
for coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and/or diabetes; and (2) all other claims.
e
Based on the comparison between treatment and comparison groups for a continuous variable with a 2.5 coefficient
of variation, given a 5 percent level for a two-sided test and 80 percent power. MDEs are expressed as a percent of
the comparison group mean.
59
Moreover, when using claims data, we will be able to detect even smaller differences in binary
outcomes between the demonstration and comparison groups (less than one percentage point for
within-state analyses and less than one-third of a percentage point for analyses that pool all states
together). With the full sample of physicians,10 and 80 percent power, our detectable differences
in binary outcomes between the demonstration and comparison groups are large (about 16 to 20
percentage points for within-state analyses and about 9 percentage points for analyses that pool
all states) but still sufficient for identifying major impacts. Finally, for continuous expenditure
variables derived from Medicare claims data, we will be able to detect differences of about two
percent between demonstration and comparison group beneficiaries (assuming a coefficient of
variation of 2.5 and 80 percent power) in within-state analyses and of about one percent for the
sample that is pooled across states.
2.
Precision for Descriptive Estimates of Clinical Outcomes Among Demonstration
Practices
To examine changes in practice performance, and the correlation of these trends with
practice characteristics, we will consider the practice as the unit of analysis. The rest of this
section presents precision estimates for binary and continuous outcomes for each state and for a
pooled analysis of all states, as well as for subgroups representing 15, 50, and 80 percent of the
full sample.
For binary outcomes, the half-width for the 95-percent confidence interval is less than onehalf of a percentage point for within-state analyses, and is about one-fifth of a percentage point
10
Our calculations assume that there will be the same number respondents from demonstration practices in each
state as the number of practices in that state and the same number of respondents from comparison-group practices
in each state as the number of practices in that state. Calculations also assume that, in addition to the strata defined
by the practices, we will stratify the physician sample according to practice size, and that the proportion of
physicians selected within each stratum will be the same as the actual proportion of physicians in each practice-size
stratum among practices that are eligible to participate in each state.
60
for the sample that is pooled across states (Table III.5). For continuous variables,11 the halfwidth for the 95-percent confidence interval is less than 1.5 percent for within-state analyses, and
is less than 1 percent for the sample that is pooled across states.
Subgroup analyses will have less precision, especially for continuous variables.
For
example, in within-state analyses, the half-width of a 95-percent confidence interval for a binary
variable for a subgroup comprised of half the sample is less than 1 percentage point, while the
corresponding half-width for a continuous variable ranges from 1.9 to 2.4 percent of the
comparison-group mean.
E. OUTCOME MEASURES
The evaluation will estimate demonstration impacts on the range of primary measures
(including care quality measures directly or indirectly related to the financial incentives, health
outcomes, use of HIT in office procedures, and Medicare cost and service use) and secondary
outcomes (including care continuity and patient and physician satisfaction with care) that the
demonstration is expected to influence (Table III.2).
These outcomes are measured at the
practice, physician, or beneficiary level. We will use them to construct identical outcome
measures for (1) beneficiaries and physicians associated with demonstration practices, and (2)
those associated with comparison practices.
To minimize burden on physicians and beneficiaries, we will construct outcomes from
claims data to the extent possible. Medicare claims, however, only provide information about
services that can be billed to Medicare. Due to the P4P incentives, physicians might make
changes that could improve beneficiaries’ health outcomes, but that cannot be billed to Medicare,
such as spending more time on patient education or on communicating with other providers. For
11
We assume the coefficient of variation for continuous variables at the practice level is 1.75.
61
TABLE III.5
HALF-WIDTH, 95-PERCENT CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR BINARY AND CONTINUOUS
OUTCOMES DERIVED FROM A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES
USING THE PHYSICIAN PRACTICE AS THE UNIT OF ANALYSIS
Sample
Arkansas (150
Demonstration
Practices)
California (250
Demonstration
Practices)
Massachusetts
(250
Demonstration
Practices)
Utah (150
Demonstration
Practices)
All States Pooled
(800
Demonstration
Practices)
Binarya
Full sample
Subgroup Size:
80 percent
50 percent
15 percent
Full sample
Subgroup Size:
80 percent
50 percent
15 percent
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.7
1.4
0.4
0.5
1.1
0.4
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.7
1.4
0.2
0.3
0.6
1.4
Continuousb
1.1
1.1
1.4
0.6
1.7
2.4
4.9
1.3
1.9
3.8
1.3
1.9
3.8
1.7
2.4
4.9
0.7
1.0
2.1
Note: Calculations assume 218 beneficiaries are sampled from (on average) 500 Medicare beneficiaries per practice.
a
Based on estimates for a binary variable with mean equal to 0.50. Half-widths for binary variables are expressed in
percentage points.
b
Based on estimates for a continuous variable with a 1.75 coefficient of variation. Half-widths for continuous
variables are expressed as a percent of the mean.
62
example, providers might spend more time educating patients with diabetes or with coronary
artery disease on diet and exercise to improve their cholesterol levels.
It is essential for the
evaluation to collect survey data on such indicators. Thus, we will rely on the beneficiary survey
for details about certain care processes, self-care indicators, interactions with their primary care
physician, and satisfaction with care. Similarly, we will use the physician survey for key
information about use of HIT in office procedures and satisfaction with the quality of care
beneficiaries receive. Where possible, we will use claims- and survey-based indicators of quality
of care that have been developed and tested by other researchers.
1.
Quality of Care
The MCMP demonstration anticipates that financial incentives from Medicare will lead
physicians to adopt and use HIT and improve the quality of care they provide to beneficiaries
with chronic illnesses by transforming their clinical encounters with these beneficiaries and other
office procedures. Improvements in care quality should be reflected in both process and health
outcome measures.
a.
Process Measures
Clinical Interventions. Process-of-care measures reflect clinical interventions, such as
examinations, preventive services, and screenings, that are provided to beneficiaries in
ambulatory settings. In a P4P environment, we would expect beneficiaries to be more likely to
receive interventions related to the quality measures upon which the incentives are based than
they would be in an environment without P4P incentives.
An essential group of process
measures is the performance of clinical interventions that are known, or strongly believed, to be
effective in preventing morbidity and mortality. A few such measures are generic (for example,
influenza and pneumonia vaccinations, colorectal cancer screenings, and breast cancer
63
screenings in women). Other processes, such as the performance of hemoglobin A1c tests or
dilated retinal exams in beneficiaries with diabetes, are disease-specific. As noted, MCMP
demonstration practices will be eligible to receive bonus payments based on up to 26 clinical
intervention process measures.12
Because 13 of the 26 measures can be captured through
Medicare claims or survey data, they will be available for both demonstration and comparison
practices, at the practice level, and we will use them to estimate demonstration impacts on care
quality.13 We will collect six process measures, which cannot be captured through claims, in the
beneficiary survey. Two measures are condition-specific: whether beneficiaries with diabetes
received foot examinations from their primary care physician and whether beneficiaries with
congestive heart failure and coronary artery disease said their primary care physician examined
their heart and lungs with a stethoscope during their last office visit. Three additional generic
measures are influenza and pneumonia vaccinations and colorectal cancer screening. Although
these preventive measures could be derived from claims data, we decided to include them in the
beneficiary survey to be consistent with the conventions adopted by the implementation
contractor for claims-based measures. Tables III.6 and III.7 show process-of-care measures.
Use of HIT in Office Procedures. Demonstration practices may introduce or increase the
use of HIT in their daily office procedures, because HIT is thought to facilitate the provision of
high-quality ambulatory care.
Because of the financial incentives provided by the
demonstration, we expect demonstration practices will be more likely than comparison practices
to invest in technology to help physicians keep medical records, access test results, consult with
12
Table III.1 lists the 26 clinical measures to be used in the MCMP demonstration.
13
The remaining 13 quality indicators will be available for demonstration practices only. The evaluation will
use them for descriptive (as opposed to comparative) purposes. The implementation contractor (RTI International)
will provide these data to MPR.
64
TABLE III.6
CARE PROCESSES USED IN CLINICAL INTERVENTIONS, MEASURED AT THE PRACTICE LEVEL
Measure
Source of Measure
Among All Beneficiaries with Chronic Illness
Breast Cancer Screening
CMS
Data Collection Method
Medicare Part B Claims
Processed by RTI
Among Beneficiaries with Chronic Heart Failure
Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Testing
CMS
Medicare Part B Claims
Processed by RTI
Among Beneficiaries with Diabetes
Dilated retinal exam
Blood test for hemoglobin A1c
Urinalysis for microalbumin
LDL cholesterol testing
CMS
Medicare Part B Claims
Processed by RTI
Among Beneficiaries with Coronary Artery Disease
Lipid profile
CMS
Medicare Part B Claims
Processed by RTI
Note:
The outcomes in this table are a subset of 26 clinical quality measures upon which MCMP
demonstration bonus payments may be based. Because they can be captured in Medicare claims, they
will be available for both demonstration and comparison practices.
CMS = Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; RTI = Research Triangle Institute.
65
TABLE III.7
CARE PROCESSES USED IN CLINICAL INTERVENTIONS, MEASURED AT THE BENEFICIARY LEVEL
Measure
Source of Measure
Data Collection Method
Among all beneficiaries with chronic illness, whether
blood pressure, height, and weight were measured
during last visit to PCP
BRFSS
Beneficiary Survey
Whether beneficiary received appropriate colon cancer
screening test within recommended time period
CoCA
Beneficiary Survey
Whether PCP asked if the beneficiary has ever
received a pneumonia vaccination
CoCA
Beneficiary Survey
Whether beneficiary received influenza immunization
during September through February during the
previous year
CoCA
Beneficiary Survey
Among beneficiaries with congestive heart failure or
coronary artery disease, whether PCP examined
beneficiary’s heart and lungs with stethoscope
during last office visit
CoCA
Beneficiary Survey
Among beneficiaries with diabetes, whether PCP
examined beneficiary’s feet with monofilament
during last office visit
CoCA
Beneficiary Survey
BRFSS = Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; CoCA =
patient survey developed by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for the evaluation of the Medicare Coordinated Care
Demonstration (Ensor et al. 2003a); PCP = primary care physician.
66
beneficiaries outside the traditional office visit, communicate with other health care providers,
issue reminders to patients, and guide their own clinical decisions and appropriate follow-up
care. If the financial incentives of P4P are large enough, physicians in demonstration practices
may report fewer barriers to HIT adoption than physicians in comparison practices. We plan to
base measures of HIT use and barriers to HIT adoption on a recent physician survey funded by
the Commonwealth Fund (Tables III.8 and III.9). That survey, like ours, was a mail survey with
telephone followup.
To maximize profits from bonus payments, demonstration practices must provide and report
on evidence-based clinical interventions as efficiently as possible. Some practices may meet
these objectives by adjusting practice staffing and workflow—the procedures and resources used
to perform clinical and nonclinical tasks.
For example, practices might (1) change the
composition of staff; (2) assign tasks to staff members who had not performed them before; (3)
focus more attention on collecting and reviewing data on care quality for Medicare beneficiaries
with chronic illness; and (4) attempt to shift the volume of patient encounters conducted as office
visits, telephone calls, or emails to meet patient needs for information and consultation and
increase the probability of adherence to self-care. We will examine staffing and workflow
measures of these types (shown in Tables III.10 and III.11) because they may help us identify the
mechanisms underlying P4P’s effects, if any, on the 26 clinical quality indicators.
(As noted, we have proposed to measure the outcomes described in this section mostly for
their potential contextual value in interpreting the outcomes of primary interest to CMS.
However, if these measures of HIT use, barriers to use, and workflow overlap substantially with
the Office Systems Survey being administered to demonstration practices in 2007 and 2010, and
to comparison practices in 2007, we will omit them from our physician survey.)
67
TABLE III.8
USE OF HIT IN OFFICE PROCESSES, MEASURED AT THE PHYSICIAN LEVEL
Measure
Whether and How Uses EHRs, Routinely, Occasionally, or
Plans to Within Next Year
Source of Measure
Data Collection Method
CWF
Physician Survey
Whether Accesses Test Results Electronically, Routinely,
Occasionally, or Plans to Within Next Year
Whether Consults with Beneficiaries by Telephone,
Routinely, Occasionally, or Plans to Within Next Year
Whether Consults with Beneficiaries by Email, Routinely,
Occasionally, or Plans to Within Next Year
Whether Communicates with Other Providers by Email,
Routinely, Occasionally, or Plans to Within Next Year
Whether Uses Clinical Decision Support Tools, Routinely,
Occasionally, or Plans to Within Next Year
Currently Issues Reminders to Patients, by Computerized
System, by Manual System, or Plans to Within Next Year
Currently Uses Follow-Up Alerts, By Computerized
System, by Manual System, or Plans to Within Next Year
Note: The CWF is the source for all the proposed measures.
CWF = Commonwealth Fund survey of physicians (Audet et al. 2005); EHR = electronic health record;
HIT = health information technology.
68
TABLE III.9
BARRIERS TO HIT ADOPTION, MEASURED AT THE PHYSICIAN LEVEL
Measure
In Deciding Whether to Implement HIT:
Source of Measure
Data Collection Method
CWF
Physician Survey
Start-Up Costs a Major Barrier, Minor Barrier, or
Not a Barrier
Lack of Time to Acquire, Implement, and Use a
New System a Major Barrier, Minor Barrier, or Not
a Barrier
Maintenance Costs a Major Barrier, Minor Barrier,
or Not a Barrier
Lack of Evidence of Effectiveness of HIT a Major
Barrier, Minor Barrier, or Not a Barrier
Patient Privacy Concerns a Major Barrier, Minor
Barrier, or Not a Barrier
Lack of Training/Knowledge of How to Use HIT
Among Clinical and/or Administrative Staff a Major
Barrier, Minor Barrier, or Not a Barrier
Note: The CWF is the source for all the proposed measures.
CWF = Commonwealth Fund survey of physicians (Audet et al. 2005); HIT = health information technology.
69
TABLE III.10
STAFFING AND TASKS, MEASURED AT THE PHYSICIAN LEVEL
Measure
Source of Measure
Data Collection Method
In the Past 12 Months:
Draft
Physician Survey
Whether Number of Full-Time Equivalents in
Physician’s Practice Has Increased, Decreased, or
Stayed the Same for:
Physicians
Physician Assistants
Nurse Practitioners
Registered Nurses
Administrators
Business Managers
Office Managers
Other: Please Specify
Whether the Number of Office Locations
Associated with Physician’s Practice Has Increased,
Decreased, or Stayed the Same
Whether, for the Sake of Efficiency or Otherwise
Improving Office Workflow, Staff Members in the
Following Positions Began Performing Clinical or
Nonclinical Tasks They Had Not Performed
Before:a
Physicians
Physician Assistants
Nurse Practitioners
Registered Nurses
Administrators
Business Managers
Office Managers
Other: Please Specify
a
Tasks will be specified. Examples include taking medical histories, submitting prescriptions to pharmacies, and
authorizing prescription refills.
Draft = questions we will draft for this survey.
70
TABLE III.11
OFFICE PROCESSES, MEASURED AT THE PHYSICIAN LEVEL
Measure
In the Past 12 Months, Whether Physician Has Been
Involved in Efforts to:
Evaluate:
How patients of the practice get their needs met
during office visits, or by telephone or email
(Aspects of getting one’s needs met may include
time spent waiting in the reception area or exam
room, paperwork requirements, encounters with
clinical and nonclinical staff members, and
receiving notification of test results.)
How patient information (clinical and billing) is
collected and processed
Change or Improve:
How patients of the practice get their needs met
during office visits, or by telephone or email
How patient information (clinical and billing) is
collected and processed
Whether the Average Number of Patients Encountered
by the Physician Per Day Through (1) Office Visits,
(2) Telephone Calls, and (3) Email Messages Has
Increased, Decreased, or Stayed About the Same
Draft = questions we will draft for this survey.
71
Source of Measure
Data Collection Method
Draft
Physician Survey
Physician-Beneficiary Interactions.
A final set of process-of-care measures that the
demonstration may affect pertains to interactions between primary care physicians and
beneficiaries.
The primary care physician may influence (although not entirely control)
beneficiary adherence to recommended therapies and self-monitoring activities. Beneficiaries
associated with demonstration practices may be more likely than their counterparts in
comparison practices to report that their primary care physician tried to involve them in care
planning and educate them about self-monitoring, with a view toward improving adherence.
Improved adherence, in turn, might lead toward improvements in the quality indicators tied to
bonus payments.
Again, we will examine measures of physician-beneficiary interactions
because they may help us understand mechanisms underlying effects on the clinical outcomes of
primary interest to CMS. Table III.12 presents four measures we will draw from the beneficiary
survey.
b. Health Outcomes
Health outcome measures are the results of the care beneficiaries receive. These include
intermediate-term outcomes (such as improved health-related knowledge and behaviors among
beneficiaries), as well as longer-term outcomes (such as fewer hospitalizations of the type that
could be avoided if ambulatory care is properly managed and the beneficiary practices adherence
and good self-care).
We will ask beneficiary survey respondents about their adherence to several lifestyle
behaviors (such as increased physical activity, smoking cessation, and moderation of alcohol
intake) that are generally recommended to beneficiaries with chronic illness. We will also ask
about some behaviors that are more disease-specific. For example, decreased dietary fat intake
may be especially important for beneficiaries who report a diagnosis of coronary artery disease
or diabetes.
Similarly, control of dietary salt intake would be important for those with
72
TABLE III.12
PHYSICIAN-BENEFICIARY INTERACTIONS, MEASURED AT THE BENEFICIARY LEVEL
Measure
Source of Measure
Data Collection Method
Whether beneficiary reports setting health goals, and
making a plan to meet goals, with PCP
CoCA
Beneficiary Survey
Whether beneficiary reports receiving education or a
referral for education on self-care from PCP
CoCA
Beneficiary Survey
Whether beneficiary reports receiving explanation
from PCP on what symptoms or problems to look for,
and what to do if they appear
Picker
Beneficiary Survey
Whether beneficiary reports times when a health
problem could have been avoided through more
frequent contact with PCP
Picker
Beneficiary Survey
CoCA = patient survey developed by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for the evaluation of the Medicare
Coordinated Care Demonstration (Ensor et al. 2003a); PCP = primary care physician; Picker = Picker Ambulatory
Care Patient Interview (Lorig et al. 1996).
73
congestive heart failure. Beneficiaries with diabetes should inspect their feet regularly, and
beneficiaries with congestive heart failure should weigh themselves daily. Beneficiaries must
also know how to recognize and respond to symptoms of trouble, and what to do if a health
condition worsens (Table III.13).
If physicians improve the quality of care they provide to Medicare beneficiaries with the
chronic illnesses included in the demonstration, they may be able to help patients avoid the
health crises that can lead to hospitalizations. Reducing hospital admissions is important because
hospitalizations themselves often cause further declines in function, they are unpleasant for
beneficiaries, and they are costly.
Some prevention of hospitalizations is essential if P4P
programs are to be cost-effective. Beneficiaries associated with demonstration practices may be
less likely to need hospitalizations for preventable acute exacerbations or complications of
chronic illness. Preventable hospitalizations may be disease-specific or generic. Examples of
disease-specific preventable hospitalizations include those for heart failure in beneficiaries with
congestive heart failure, or for lower extremity ischemia in beneficiaries with diabetes.
Examples of generic preventable hospitalizations include admissions for pneumonia. We will
estimate the rate of preventable hospitalizations among at-risk beneficiaries during the
demonstration follow-up period. We will use the ICD-9 principal diagnosis codes in Medicare
Part A hospital claims (lists of which have been developed by other researchers) to identify risk,
restricting the rate calculations for disease-specific preventable hospitalizations to beneficiaries
with the disease in question (Table III.13 includes illustrative examples).
Assessment of
beneficiaries’ use of emergency room services, which also should decrease as the quality of
ambulatory care improves, is discussed in subsection 5 of this section.
74
TABLE III.13
HEALTH OUTCOMES, MEASURED AT THE BENEFICIARY LEVEL
Measure
Source of Measure
Data Collection Method
Health-Related Knowledge and Behavior
Self-Rated Knowledge of:
What to be aware of with his/her health condition
What to do if health condition gets worse
Picker
Beneficiary Survey
Whether, on Advice of PCP, Beneficiary Tried to:
Increase physical activity
Stop smoking
Lower alcohol intake
Lower salt intake
Lower intake of dietary fat
Draft
Beneficiary Survey
Whether Beneficiaries with Diabetes Examine Feet Daily
DSCA
Beneficiary Survey
Whether Beneficiaries with Congestive Heart Failure Weigh
Themselves Daily
CoCA
Beneficiary Survey
DM
Medicare Part A and B Claims
Culler
Medicare Part A Claims
Culler
Medicare Part A Claims
Culler
Medicare Part A Claims
Culler
Medicare Part A Claims
Visited PCP within 15 Days of any Hospital Discharge
Avoidable Hospitalizations
Among All Beneficiaries, Hospitalized for:
Pneumonia
Among Beneficiaries with Congestive Heart Failure,
Hospitalized for:
Congestive heart failure
Hypokalemia (potassium deficiency)
Hyponatremia (water overload)
Among Beneficiaries with Diabetes, Hospitalized for:
Diabetes out of control or diabetic coma
Ischemia
Surgical debridement (removal) of infected tissue
Lower extremity amputation
Diabetic foot infection
Among Beneficiaries with Coronary Artery Disease,
Hospitalized for:
Unstable angina, myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock
Coronary angiography
Coronary angioplasty
Coronary artery bypass surgery
CoCA = patient survey developed by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for the evaluation of the Medicare
Coordinated Care Demonstration (Ensor et al. 2003a); Culler = Culler et al. 1998; DM = patient survey developed
by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) for the evaluation of the Medicare Disease Management
Demonstration (Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 2005); Draft = questions that we will draft for this survey;
DSCA = Diabetes Self-Care Activities (Toobert and Glasgow 1994); PCP = primary care physician.
75
2.
Continuity-of-Care Measures
A common criticism of the U.S. health care system is that care is fragmented.
Fragmentation of care occurs when patients lack a “medical home,” in which one provider is the
patient’s usual source of care who can be relied upon for same-day appointments during illness
and knows about all the care the patient receives, or when there is a lack of coordination and
communication across providers. Fragmentation can reduce overall care quality, particularly in
patients with comorbid conditions. The opposite of care fragmentation is care continuity, which
we expect to improve as a result of P4P. For Medicare beneficiaries with chronic illnesses,
continuity of care is especially important, because these beneficiaries typically require a variety
of acute and long-term services, and many prescribed medications.
However, measuring
continuity of care is difficult, especially in a fee-for-service environment.
a.
Access to Care
We will construct both claims- and survey-based measures for whether the demonstration
improves beneficiaries’ access to a usual source of care. The claims-based measures we plan to
construct will reflect the fraction of visits that beneficiaries had with their usual provider
(referred to as the “Usual Provider Continuity Index”). For this demonstration, we will define
the “usual provider” as the one to whom the beneficiary had been assigned. We will also
construct variants of this measure, such as whether most of the beneficiaries’ physician visits
were with a single provider. To construct survey-based measures, we will ask beneficiaries who
is their primary care physician, how long they had been seeing a regular doctor, whether they had
a regular place of care, and whether they had a doctor they usually saw. We do not necessarily
expect the demonstration to have large effects on whether beneficiaries have a usual care
provider (because nearly all Medicare beneficiaries already have one). However, we do expect
the demonstration might influence other measures related to access of care that we will ask
76
about, such as whether the beneficiary was able to schedule appointments and get referrals
quickly.
b. Care Coordination
We will measure coordination of care from the perspective of beneficiaries and physicians.
We will ask beneficiaries to report instances in which their primary care physician did not speak
with other providers involved in his or her care, or did not have information the beneficiary
thought he or she should have. We will ask physicians how often beneficiaries received the
wrong drug or the wrong dose of a drug, or experienced an adverse drug-drug interaction, any of
which could result from different providers not knowing about other aspects of the beneficiary’s
care. We will also ask physicians how often they receive timely information about results after
they refer a beneficiary to a specialist, and how often they received timely information after a
beneficiary had been hospitalized or had a change in drugs prescribed by a specialist. (In
addition, we will use claims data to determine whether beneficiaries had a primary care
physician visit within 15 days of any hospital discharges as a process-of-care measure;
Table III.13). Care coordination measures, which we draw from existing surveys, are shown in
Table III.14.
3.
Satisfaction with Care
Greater satisfaction with care processes, physician-beneficiary interactions, and care
coordination on the part of beneficiaries and physicians associated with demonstration practices
could be a strong indication that P4P improves care quality. Greater beneficiary satisfaction
could also be an important mediating effect for improved health outcomes and for generating
health care savings, because beneficiaries who are highly satisfied with their health care
77
TABLE III.14
COORDINATION-OF-CARE OUTCOMES, MEASURED AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
Measure
Source of Measure
Data Collection Method
Beneficiary Perspective
Picker
Whether beneficiary reports instances in which PCP
did not speak with other providers involved in his or
her care, or did not have information beneficiary
thought he or she should
Beneficiary Survey
Physician Perspective
How often beneficiaries receive wrong drug or wrong
dose, or experienced drug-drug interaction
CWF
Physician Survey
How often notified by other providers of new or
modified prescriptions
Draft
Physician Survey
After a referral, how often receives timely information
about results
CWF
Physician Survey
In past 12 months, how often beneficiaries
experienced postdischarge problems because PCP did
not receive information in a timely manner
CWF
Physician Survey
CWF = Commonwealth Fund survey of physicians (Audet et al. 2005); PCP = primary care physician; Picker =
Picker Ambulatory Care Interview (Lorig et al. 1996).
78
providers and services may be more motivated to adhere to therapies and recommended selfcare.
For physicians, we will develop a set of survey questions that lead physicians to reflect on
facets of the components of high-quality care. These include the amount of time they can spend
with patients; beneficiary knowledge of, and adherence to, recommended therapies and self-care;
and the quality of care beneficiaries receive from other providers. Although physicians clearly
have a vested interest in giving themselves high ratings, certain types of survey questions are
useful in eliciting objective responses. For example, we will ask physicians whether they are
more likely than they were a year ago to have ready access to information about beneficiaries at
the time of office visits or other encounters, and whether they are more successful than they were
a year ago in encouraging Medicare beneficiaries with chronic illness to adhere to prescribed
treatments and self-care. Finally, we will ask physicians how satisfied they are with their
compensation from Medicare and other payers in the past 12 months; physician satisfaction with
compensation may be key to the viability of P4P programs (Table III.15).
We will ask beneficiaries to rate their satisfaction with the care they received from their
primary care physician in the past six months and with the care they received from all providers.
Satisfaction in both realms could indicate that care is better coordinated across providers under
the demonstration. The remaining measures of beneficiary satisfaction will all pertain to care
received from the primary care physician, as the demonstration directly targets only these
providers. We will ask beneficiaries to rate their satisfaction with the amount of time their
primary care physician spends with them during office visits, with the amount of time he or she
devotes to education about self-care and what to do if a health condition worsens, and with how
easy it is to contact him or her by telephone or email between office visits. We will ask
beneficiaries how satisfied they are with the advice their primary care physician gave them on
79
TABLE III.15
SATISFACTION OUTCOMES, MEASURED AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
Measure
Source of Measure
Data Collection Method
Physicians
How Satisfied with:
Overall quality of care received by Medicare
beneficiaries with chronic illness
Draft
Physician Survey
Beneficiaries’ knowledge of their conditions and
behavior
Beneficiaries’ adherence to recommended self-care
Beneficiaries’ adherence to recommended therapy
Amount of time spent with beneficiaries during
office visits
Amount of time spent educating beneficiaries
Compensation from Medicare in the past 12 months
Compensation from other payers in the past 12
months
Compared to a Year Ago:
How often has ready access to information about
beneficiaries’ history, conditions, and care plan
during office visits and other encounters
How often succeeds in encouraging beneficiaries to
adhere to prescribed treatment and self care
Beneficiaries
How Satisfied with:
Draft
Amount of time spent with PCP during office visits
Amount of time PCP devotes to education about
self-care and what to do if a condition worsens
PCP’s accessibility by telephone or email
Reminders from PCP to make or keep appointments
for medical care
Advice from PCP on ways to prevent illness and
promote health
80
Beneficiary Survey
TABLE III.15 (continued)
Measure
Source of Measure
PCP’s familiarity with medical history and
conditions
PCP’s involvement in overall care
PCP’s knowledge of care received from other
providers
Overall quality of health care in past six months
Care received from PCP in past six months
Draft = questions that we will draft for this survey; PCP = primary care physician.
81
Data Collection Method
how to prevent illness and promote health. Finally, to further assess care coordination, we will
measure beneficiary satisfaction with their primary care physician’s (1) familiarity with their
medical history and conditions, (2) involvement in overall care, and (3) knowledge of care
received from other providers. Table III.15 summarizes beneficiary satisfaction measures.
4.
Descriptive Measures
Our evaluation will include a descriptive analysis of physicians’ attitudes toward the MCMP
demonstration and its features, as well as an examination of whether participation is a burden on
their time or has other detrimental effects on the everyday practice of medicine.
Data for the
descriptive analysis will be drawn from a special module of the physician survey (administered
only to physicians associated with demonstration practices). Examined alongside practice-level
data on the 26 quality indicators on which bonus payments are based, the descriptive data should
provide insights into why scores vary across practices (see Chapter IV for details of this
analysis). The descriptive measures will also help CMS identify features of demonstration
design that may warrant modification. Table III.16 contains an illustrative list of descriptive
measures.
5.
Costs and Service Use
Medicare costs and service use are among the most critical outcomes for the evaluation.
Analysis of impacts on total Medicare costs for traditional services will indicate whether these
savings are large enough to offset the cost of the intervention. Examination of impacts on
various services will indicate the sources of such savings. Because hospitalizations represent the
largest share of total Medicare costs, we will pay particular attention to estimating program
impacts on the number of hospital admissions.
82
TABLE III.16
PHYSICIAN EXPERIENCES WITH THE MCMP DEMONSTRATION
Measure
Source of Measure
Data Collection Method
Physicians
CoCA
How or How Much the MCMP Demonstration Has
Affected:
The way you care for Medicare beneficiaries with
chronic illness
Your practice’s ability to be more in line with
recommended clinical practice guidelines or
evidence-based medicine
Your practice’s ability to monitor and follow up
with beneficiaries
The time you spend educating Medicare
beneficiaries about self-care and monitoring
The time you spend communicating with other
providers who are treating your Medicare patients
with chronic illness
Your Medicare patients undergoing unnecessary or
duplicate tests
The quality of your relationships with your
Medicare patients with chronic illness
The overall health of your Medicare patients with
chronic illness
Beneficiaries’ satisfaction with their health care
Number of times beneficiaries had office visits in
the past six months. Was the increase/decrease
medically appropriate?
Your clinical decision making? In what way?
Overall, what impact has the MCMP demonstration
had on the quality of care of Medicare beneficiaries
with chronic illness?
In what ways has the demonstration been most useful?
In what ways could it have been more useful?
83
Physician Survey
TABLE III.16 (continued)
Measure
Source of Measure
Data Collection Method
Would you recommend the demonstration to your
colleagues?
Do you have experience with other pay-forperformance programs?
How does MCMP compare to the other programs with
which you have experience?
CoCA = physician survey prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for the evaluation of the Medicare
Coordinated Care Demonstration (Ensor et al. 2003b).
84
The P4P incentives may also affect the use and cost of other services. We would expect that
modifications to practices’ workflows implemented in response to the financial incentives to
improve quality of care, adoption of EHRs, or both, would result in better management of
beneficiaries’ chronic conditions. However, the use of some services could increase if they
replace or prevent the need for hospital care. For example, evidence-based practice guidelines
for the target conditions may recommend that beneficiaries receive specific care from physicians,
thereby increasing the average number of physician visits and Part B costs. We will estimate the
impacts on the use and cost of all major Medicare-covered services (hospital, home health care,
skilled nursing facility [SNF], hospice, physician office visits, other physician costs, and
emergency room visits) to determine how any overall effects are achieved.
The outcome
measures relating to service use and costs that the evaluation will examine include:
• The probability of receiving various Medicare services
• The amount of Medicare services received
• The cost to Medicare of those services
• The cost of the incentive payments to demonstration practices
• The net savings to Medicare (to assess whether the demonstration is budget neutral)
We will measure whether beneficiaries received any care (as illustrated on Table III.17), as well
as the amount of services used among those receiving each type of service (Table III.18), for
each of the following services:
home health care, physician care, emergency room care,
outpatient services, hospital, hospice, and SNF care among those using care. In addition to
measuring impacts on the costs of each type of service (Table III.19), the analysis will estimate
the demonstration’s effects on Medicare Part A, Part B, Part D (if data become available), and
total costs (Table III.20). All costs will be reported per Medicare-covered month, to control for
85
TABLE III.17
REGRESSION-ADJUSTED EFFECT OF THE DEMONSTRATION ON PERCENTAGE
USING MEDICARE SERVICES, STATE A
Service Use Category
Percentage Having:
Demonstration
Practices
Comparison Group
Practices
Estimated Effect
(p-value)
Any home health care
Any outpatient care
Any physician visit
Any emergency room visit
Any hospital admission
Any hospice care
Any skilled nursing facility care
Source:
Medicare claims data.
Notes:
Effects estimated using regression models controlling for predemonstration
characteristics of the individual and of the practice. Truncated observations are
weighted by the number of months during the follow-up period that individuals were
alive and not in Medicare managed care.
86
TABLE III.18
REGRESSION-ADJUSTED EFFECT OF THE DEMONSTRATION ON AMOUNT OF
MEDICARE SERVICES USED AMONG SERVICE USERS, STATE A
Medicare Service Type
Among Those Using Service:
Demonstration
Practices
Comparison Group
Practices
Estimated
Effect
(p-value)
Number of home health care visits
Number of physician visits
Number of emergency room visits
Number of outpatient visits
Number of hospital admissions
Number of inpatient hospital days
Number of days of hospice care
Number of days of skilled nursing
facility care
Source:
Medicare claims data.
Note:
Effects estimated using regression models controlling for predemonstration
characteristics of the individual and of the practice. Truncated observations are
weighted by the number of months during the follow-up period that individuals were
alive and not in Medicare managed care.
87
TABLE III.19
REGRESSION-ADJUSTED EFFECT OF THE DEMONSTRATION ON MEDICARE
EXPENDITURES PER MONTH ENROLLED, STATE A
Expenditure Category
Demonstration Comparison Group
Practices
Practices
Estimated
Effect
(p-value)
Expenditures for:
Inpatient Hospital
Skilled nursing facility
Home health
Hospice
Physician visit
Other physician costs
Emergency room visits
Source:
Medicare claims data.
Note:
Effects estimated using regression models controlling for predemonstration
characteristics of the individual and of the practice. Expenditures exclude months that
beneficiaries were enrolled in Medicare managed care.
88
TABLE III.20
REGRESSION-ADJUSTED EFFECT OF THE DEMONSTRATION ON MEDICARE
EXPENDITURES PER MONTH ENROLLED, STATE A
Estimated
Demonstration
Comparison
Effect
Practices
Group Practices (p-value)
Expenditure Category
Expenditures for:
Medicare Part A Services
Medicare Part B Services
Medicare Part D Servicesa
All Medicare Services
Average Incentive Payment per Practice
n.a.
Average Medicare Savings per Practice (Effect
of the demonstration on total Medicare costs per
practice minus average incentive payment per
practice)
Source:
Medicare claims data and program data on incentive payments.
Note:
Effects estimated using regression models controlling for predemonstration
characteristics of the individual and of the practice. Expenditures exclude months that
beneficiaries were enrolled in Medicare managed care.
a
If Part D claims data become available.
n.a. = not applicable.
89
beneficiaries who were not covered by Medicare fee-for-service for the full 12-month follow-up
period.
a.
Condition-Specific Measures
The evaluation will also test whether the incentives affect service use and reduce costs for
services that are suitable for the target chronic conditions (congestive heart failure, coronary
artery disease, and diabetes), as well as the other chronic conditions for which the incentive
payment for preventive care will be made. For example, for beneficiaries with diabetes, we
would examine the use and cost of services for dilated eye examinations and hemoglobin A1c
tests (as described in Section E.1). We expect that the incentives will be more likely to influence
care related to a specific target condition, although changes in physician practice to meet the
quality targets may affect care and outcomes for other beneficiary comorbidities. Thus, our main
focus will be on examining all conditions. In addition, the condition-specific estimates may be
inaccurate. Which diagnoses are recorded for a particular visit or episode of care is somewhat
arbitrary and has been shown to differ substantially across providers. Nonetheless, examination
of service use and costs specific to the target conditions may help shed light on the sources of
any cost savings. For example, for those with diabetes or coronary artery disease, we will
examine the demonstration’s effects on whether the participant received smoking cessation
counseling.
b. Cost Savings
To assess any cost savings of P4P, the evaluation will measure the demonstration practices’
net savings per beneficiary month. While it is possible that the net savings could be negative, we
anticipate that net savings will be at lest zero due to the demonstration’s budget neutrality
requirements. To do this, we will first construct a measure of the costs of the incentives from the
90
annual payment data to each demonstration practice, to be supplied by the financial support
contractor. Based on this measure, we will estimate the program cost per beneficiary month over
the previous 12-month follow-up period for each of the three annual periods for which payments
will be made. We will compare these costs with the estimated savings to Medicare per
beneficiary month (based on our regression results) over the same follow-up period, to estimate
the demonstration’s net savings per beneficiary per month.
Due to the high variance of Medicare expenditures across beneficiaries, the analysis may
find statistically significant reductions in hospitalization rates that are not accompanied by
significant reductions in expenditures.
In this case, we will construct an alternative measure of
expenditures to determine whether savings to Medicare were produced that could not be detected
statistically due to the large variance of Medicare expenditures. For example, we will look for
the presence of outliers. A single high-cost outlier (such as a kidney transplant case), which
could be due to chance alone, could mask savings in a state that actually reduced costs for other
beneficiaries. For this reason, we will reestimate impacts with all outliers in the demonstration
and comparison groups truncated at a fixed value. For example, we would set the costs for all
cases above a given percentile (for example, the 98th percentile) at that percentile value,
reestimate the regression models, and compare the results to those from the raw, nontruncated
data to assess the sensitivity of the impact estimates to the high-cost cases.
c.
Interim Assessment of Cost Savings and Potential Revisions to the Incentives
Using data for the first 18 months of demonstration operations, we will compare the
demonstration cost per beneficiary month over the follow-up period to the estimated Medicare
savings per beneficiary month (based on regression estimates) over the same follow-up period.14
14
We will conduct the analysis with all four states pooled together.
91
If the savings in Medicare costs are not enough to offset the cost per beneficiary month of
providing the incentive, and it appears that there is no trend toward increased savings, CMS may
wish to reduce the incentive to a level that would render the demonstration budget-neutral. We
will also explore whether this budget-neutrality analysis is sensitive to outliers, by running our
analyses with trimmed outliers (for example, capped at the 98th percentile). If the analysis is
sensitive to outliers in either direction, then CMS should consider projecting cost savings, and
revising incentive payments, based on the analysis with trimmed outliers. However, any such
proposed change should be incorporated at the outset into the operational protocols under which
the demonstration will be implemented.
It is possible that the demonstration will yield no savings, or that the savings in Medicare
costs is so small that it would be impossible for the demonstration to be budget-neutral over the
entire study period even if the incentive were greatly reduced. If this is the case, we will explore
whether demonstration savings might be greater in the second half of the demonstration than in
the first half. For example, the demonstration could affect short-term clinical outcomes that will
not translate to cost savings until later in the study period. Therefore, in addition to estimating
the savings over the first half of the demonstration, we will estimate the Medicare projected
savings during the last half of the demonstration, under assumptions about how the
demonstration’s impacts might change. We will provide CMS with the estimated incentive
needed to render the demonstration budget-neutral under each of the projected savings scenarios.
If reducing the incentive payment will not be sufficient to render the demonstration budgetneutral under reasonably realistic scenarios, CMS will need to consider whether to continue the
demonstration.
92
d. Reconciling Impacts on Various Outcome Measures
To understand whether the demonstration generated cost savings in each state, we will
reconcile the estimates of impacts on aggregate and service-specific costs and service use. This
interpretative analysis will rely primarily on qualitative analysis. For example, we will array the
service impact, cost impact, and cost impact without outliers for each service category for all
target conditions and for condition-specific measures. In some states, estimates for all these
outcome measures may provide evidence that the intervention reduced Medicare expenditures, or
conversely, that the intervention increased Medicare expenditures. When the estimates produce
conflicting evidence, we will focus on whether there were statistically significant impacts on
service use for the most expensive Medicare-covered services, such as hospitalizations, SNF
stays, and home health care. If the cost estimates are not statistically significant but are sizable,
we will consider the statistical power to detect an effect of the estimated size, and whether there
were outliers. As we reconcile the impact estimates, we will draw on the insights gathered in the
implementation analysis to assess the plausibility of alternative estimates.
F. STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING IMPACTS
This section describes the statistical models that we will use to estimate demonstration
impacts and the sensitivity and robustness tests that we will conduct to increase our confidence
that the estimates truly reflect demonstration impacts. Throughout this analysis, we will estimate
impacts separately for each demonstration state, because physician practice regulations, practice
styles, practice settings, technical assistance to implement HIT, adoption of EHRs, and P4P
penetration will differ across states. Where sample sizes permit, we will estimate impacts for
subgroups defined by practice features such as size or patient mix.
Most of the analysis of claims-based quality and outcome measures will require that we
construct control variables based on claims data. Therefore, these analyses will require different
93
models than those used for survey data (beneficiary and physician), because the control variables
will be limited to what is available from claims data. Sample sizes will be much larger for the
claims-based analyses due to the expectation that the number of beneficiaries classified as having
a primary care physician who is in a demonstration practice will far exceed the beneficiary
survey sample sizes, in addition to loss of survey observations to interview nonresponse and item
nonresponse.
1.
Regression Models
To estimate impacts of P4P on outcomes, we will use hierarchical linear regression models
to analyze claims-based outcomes (related to quality, costs, and service use) available for both
the predemonstration and demonstration periods. We will use claims-based analyses to assess
whether there are likely to be unobserved differences between demonstration and comparison
group practices that will bias impact estimates based on analyses that do not include
predemonstration values of the outcome measure. Depending on the results of this assessment,
we may need to use selection-adjusted linear and probit (or logit) models for cross-sectional
survey data and clinical outcomes.
a.
Hierarchical Linear Models for Claims-Based Quality, Service Use, and Cost
Outcomes Available for the Predemonstration and Demonstration Periods
As noted in Section A, we will use a difference-in-differences approach to estimate impacts
for outcomes for which we have claims data (including quality outcomes, costs, and service use)
for a baseline period and during the demonstration for both demonstration and comparison group
practices. To implement this approach, we will use a hierarchical (or nested) linear model
(HLM) framework. Specifically, we will use a two-level HLM model to estimate the results for
each state separately: Level 1 corresponds to the beneficiary and Level 2 corresponds to the
practice (the unit of intervention). The regression model for a continuous dependent variable is:
94
l
l
l
(1) Yipq = α 0 + α1Tp + α 2 X ip + α 3 Z p + ∑ δ 0 q Fipq + ∑ δ1q (Tp Fipq ) + u p + ∑τ pq Fipq + eipq
q=2
q=2
q =2
where Yipq is the dependent variable for beneficiary i in practice p at follow-up point q (q
=1,…,l), where period q=1 corresponds to the baseline period; Fipq is an indicator variable equal
to 1 for observations at the follow-up point q; Tp is a treatment status variable indicating
whether practice p is a demonstration practice; u p are practice-specific random error terms (at
baseline) with distribution N (0, σ p2 ) ; τ pq are error terms that represent the extent to which
practice effects vary over time during the follow-up period (relative to the baseline period) with
distribution N (0, σ τ2 ) ; eipq are beneficiary-level residual error terms that are distributed
independently of u p and τ pq with distribution N (0, σ e2 ) ; and the remaining terms are parameters
(beneficiary-specific X ip or practice- specific Z p control variables).
In this formulation, δ1q represents the impact in follow-up period q, and is the
demonstration-comparison group difference between the mean dependent variable in period q
relative to the mean baseline dependent variable in period 1 (that is, Y..qT − Y..1T − Y..qC − Y..1C ).
The coefficient α1 is an estimate of the predemonstration difference between the treatment and
comparison practices.
We will estimate equation (1) using xtmixed in STATA (StataCorp 2005).15
15
For binary dependent variables, we may have to use MLwiN (Center for Multilevel Modelling 2006).
95
b. Assessing the Need for Selection-Adjusted Models
Data from the beneficiary and physician surveys will be available only once during the
demonstration period, precluding us from using the difference-in-differences method for
accounting for all measured and unmeasured factors that do not change. Therefore, before
estimating the demonstration’s effects on survey-based outcomes, we will assess whether there is
selection bias due to such unmeasured differences between demonstration practices and
comparison group practices. Specifically, for claims-based measures, we will compare the
impact estimates based on regressions that used a difference-in-differences approach to the
impact estimates based on regressions that do not control for the predemonstration value of the
outcome measure. (Such regressions would control only for predemonstration variables that will
be available for all analyses, such as practice-level characteristics from the Office Systems
Survey.)
If both sets of claims-based impact estimates are similar, we will assume impacts based on
survey-based measures will not be biased, even though these regressions will not include
predemonstration values of the outcome measure. We will then analyze survey-based outcomes
using linear regression models (for continuous outcome variables) and logit (or probit) regression
models (for binary outcome variables) that also account for the survey design (stratification,
clustering of beneficiaries among practices, and sampling weights). These regressions would
control for all relevant, available predemonstration measures, such as practice-level
characteristics drawn from the Office Systems Survey or from Medicare claims data, the
demographic characteristics and diagnoses of the beneficiary (for analyses of the beneficiary
survey), and the demographic characteristics, and educational level of the physician (for analyses
of the physician survey).
However, if the difference-in-differences impact estimates are
substantively different from the impact estimates that do not include predemonstration values of
96
the outcome measure, we will need to implement selection-adjusted regression models, as
described below.
c.
Selection-Adjusted Linear and Probit Models for Cross-Sectional Survey Data
If needed, we will use selection-adjusted linear and probit models for assessing the impacts
of the incentives on measures derived from both the beneficiary and physician surveys. In
addition, to properly account for the complex survey design, we will use estimation methods that
take into account the sampling weights and other design parameters (for example, stratification
and clustering within physician practice).
The challenge is to account for differences between demonstration and comparison group
practices due to unobserved characteristics that affect the outcome of interest. For example, we
suspect that practices that have planned to adopt an EHR, or actually began to use it, before the
demonstration are more likely to provide better quality of care and therefore enroll in the
demonstration to receive the incentives for improving care. Thus, comparing outcomes from
demonstration and comparison group practices is likely to lead to overestimates of the
effectiveness of the incentives.
To deal with this endogeneity (or self-selection) of practices into the demonstration, we will
use the two-part model developed by Maddala (1983). This model requires identification of one
or more variables that are likely to predict participation in the demonstration but that are not
likely to influence the outcomes of interest. For example, we would need to use baseline practice
characteristics (such as size or patient mix), one or more measures of the degree of sophistication
with HIT before the beginning of the demonstration (according to the Office Systems Survey), or
other characteristics we could measure from physician survey data to estimate the probability of
a practice participating in the demonstration (that is, the first part of the model). We would then
97
estimate a regression model (linear or probit, depending on the type of dependent variable) of the
outcome of interest, including an indicator for whether a practice is in the demonstration or
comparison group (that is, the second part of the model).16 In practice, both equations are jointly
estimated (by maximum likelihood), accounting for the possible correlation between their
respective error terms. The model would have the following specification:
Yip = β 0 + β1 X ip + δ Tip + ε ip
(2)
Tip* = γ o + γ 1Z ip + µip
Tip = I (Tip* > 0 )
where Yip is the dependent variable for beneficiary i in practice p; Tip is a treatment status
indicator variable for practice p (and beneficiary i); X ip are characteristics that would predict the
outcome of interest; Z ip are practice characteristics that would predict participation in the
demonstration but not the outcome of interest; I(.) is an indicator-variable function that returns a
value of one when the expression inside it takes a positive value, or zero otherwise; and ε ip and
µip have a bivariate normal distribution with zero mean and covariance matrix [σρ ρ1 ] . In this
formulation, the coefficient δ is the impact of the incentives on the outcomes of interest. In
addition, the term λ = ρσ (or lambda, as it is known in the econometric literature) is used to test
the hypothesis of independence of the two equations. We will estimate equation (2) using
treatreg in STATA.
Another challenge we face is estimating the impact estimate ( δ ) and its standard error
accounting for the complex survey design. Unfortunately, the two-part model is not supported
by standard statistical packages (such as STATA or SUDAAN) that account for the survey
16
Both beneficiaries and physicians will be nested in a given practice. Therefore, all of them will be assigned
to either the demonstration or comparison group because of their assignment to a practice.
98
design (StataCorp 2005; Research Triangle Institute 2006). Therefore, we would first need to
estimate the model to assess whether the two equations are independent, assuming that the
survey sample was randomly selected without allowing for the complex design (that is,
stratification and clustering). If they were independent, then we would use standard linear or
probit models to estimate the outcomes equation accounting for the complex survey design. If
the equations were not independent, we would use another method (called instrumental
variables), which is supported by survey data analysis packages (Johnston and DiNardo 1997),
to estimate the impacts of the demonstration. In this instance, we would write a technical
memorandum discussing the pros and cons of using the instrumental-variables method with
survey data for discussion with CMS before we proceed with the analysis.
In sum, the most critical element for estimating the selection-adjusted models for survey
data (if needed) is the identification of measures that are good predictors of practice participation
in the demonstration, but not outcomes. The likelihood that the proposed measures do not predict
participation well may limit our ability to produce robust impact estimates. We will revisit the
identification of these variables after we review all available measures from the Office Systems
Survey.
d. Practice-Level Regressions
We plan to conduct several descriptive analyses that will rely on impact estimates at the
practice level, as described in Chapter IV. We plan to modify the equations described above to
generate these practice-level estimates for each state.
2.
Testing Strategy
We will use standard procedures and significance levels to test the many hypotheses
considered in the evaluation. Most of the tests about the existence of overall demonstration
99
effects will be two-tailed tests of whether the coefficient of the indicator of whether beneficiaries
(or physicians) are enrolled in a demonstration practice is significantly different from zero using
a 0.05 significance level.
We believe that the incentives most likely will improve quality and
reduce costs, but impacts in the opposite direction are possible (Shekelle et al. 2006). For
example, as noted earlier, changes to the physicians’ workflows to accommodate EHRs may
encourage physicians to order additional tests or may reduce the satisfaction of beneficiaries
served by these physicians. Because we will be conducting many comparisons of outcomes
between demonstration and comparison practices, we will use adjustments to the significance
level (for example, the Bonferroni adjustment) to minimize the likelihood of finding any
spuriously significant impacts. We will group the outcomes according to their substantive area
(for example, cost, quality, satisfaction) and will adjust the significance levels based on the
relevant number of outcomes in each analysis.
3.
Sensitivity Analyses
We will perform tests of the robustness of our estimates, particularly because we will use a
quasi-experimental design. For example, as discussed in Section E.5, we will examine the
effects of outliers on our impacts estimates and will perform checks for consistency between cost
and utilization impact estimates.
Furthermore, we also plan to assess the sensitivity of our
estimates to different definitions of a demonstration practice.
While the definition of a
comparison practice will remain unchanged during the demonstration (those physicians assigned
to a practice at baseline will continue to be included in the definition of the practice, whether or
not they leave the practice), the definition of demonstration practices may change. At the end of
each of the three years the demonstration will run, the financial support contractor will identify
those physicians who constitute the practice at that time. Thus, the operational definition of a
practice will be dynamic, because payments to the practice need to be made only for physicians
100
who agreed to participate in the demonstration. The alternative definitions—one using the
practice’s tax identification number [TIN] and the other using the baseline definition (thus
excluding physicians who join a practice)—would allow us to assess how sensitive our impact
estimates are to the definition of a practice adopted for DOQ-IT practices in comparison states
and, indirectly, to the completeness of the practice and physician identifier numbers in claims
data. Because this analysis may involve considerable resources, we will first discuss the need for
it with CMS.
4.
Control Variables for Impact Analysis
The set of independent variables used to control for baseline differences between the
demonstration and comparison groups will depend on whether we analyze claims-based or
survey-based outcomes. In general, control variables will include both individual and practice
characteristics. For beneficiaries, individual characteristics typically will include demographics
and comorbidities. Most of these factors may influence beneficiaries’ Medicare service use and
costs and should be controlled for. For physicians, demographic characteristics may influence
the way they practice and their readiness for adopting innovations in their work, including EHRs.
Finally, practice characteristics will include size, and the degree of sophistication with HIT at
baseline, which have been suggested as likely predictors of successful EHR adoption (Miller and
Sim 2004). Table III.21 lists the control variables and their sources.
Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of beneficiaries, including age, sex, race,
original reasons for Medicare entitlement, date of death (if applicable), and HMO enrollment,
will be extracted from the Medicare EDB; education, income, living arrangements, care-seeking
attitudes, and language spoken will be drawn from the beneficiary survey; and diagnoses will be
101
TABLE III.21
CONTROL VARIABLES AND THEIR SOURCE
Medicare Enrollment Database
Age
Sex
Race
Original reason for Medicare entitlement (age or disability)
HMO enrollment (used to restrict the sample to fee-for-service beneficiaries)
Beneficiary Survey
Education
Income
Living arrangements
Care-seeking attitudes
First language other than English
Physician Survey
Age
Sex
Race
Education
Specialty and board certification
Knowledge of computers before demonstration start
Experience with EHRs or other HIT before demonstration start
Office Systems Survey
Practice size
Availability of HIT
Plans to implement an EHR system
Stage of implementation, if applicable
Length of enrollment in DOQ-IT
Practice affiliation
Scores for degree of sophistication with EHRs at baseline
Languages spoken
Medicare Claims
Number of Medicare beneficiaries served by the practice in the year before demonstration start
Average Medicare expenditures per beneficiary per practice in the year before demonstration start
Percentage of beneficiaries in practice that were hospitalized in the year before demonstration start
Number of E&M visits per beneficiary per practice in the year before demonstration start
Diagnoses (percent in practice with key diagnoses)
EHR = electronic health record; HIT = health information technology.
102
taken from Medicare claims data.17 For the analysis of the physician survey, we also will draw
demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, including age, sex, race, education, whether
board certified, knowledge of computers before demonstration start, and experience with EHRs
or other HIT before demonstration start, from the survey.
We also plan to control for several practice characteristics in the analyses of the survey data
and claims data. From the Office Systems Survey, we will take practice size, availability of HIT,
plans to implement EHRs, stage of implementation (when applicable), length of enrollment in
DOQ-IT (to measure how long practices have received technical assistance from QIOs), practice
affiliation (for example, independent or affiliation with another organization), whether at least
one physician speaks languages other than English when seeing patients, and the scores for the
degree of sophistication with EHRs at baseline. Finally, claims data will allow us to control for
several practice-level characteristics, such as number of beneficiaries served by the practice in
the year before demonstration start; average Medicare expenditures per beneficiary per practice
during the same period; and number of hospitalizations and E&M visits per beneficiary in the
practice in the year before demonstration start. We expect that some of these characteristics
(such as practice size) would be predictive of the decision to enroll in the demonstration, but not
of outcomes, so that we can minimize the likelihood that our impact estimates would be biased
because practices were not randomly assigned to the demonstration or comparison group.
However, this is an empirical issue that needs to be examined when we obtain the required data.
Finally, as noted above, because the number of control variables from Medicare claims data will
be rather limited, we will rely heavily on practice characteristics to control for important
differences between practices in assessing the impacts of the demonstration on claims-based
outcomes and expect the Office Systems Survey to be a key source of this information.
17
The diagnoses for the target chronic conditions will be available from the financial support contractor
(ARC), who will use these data to calculate the incentive payments (Wilkin et al. 2007).
103
IV. SYNTHESIS OF IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT ANALYSES
A. OVERVIEW OF THE SYNTHESIS
The ultimate goal of the evaluation will be to provide guidance to CMS on whether P4P
incentives for improving quality of care and for adopting and using HIT in solo or small- to
medium-size group physician practices serving Medicare beneficiaries with chronic illnesses
should be implemented on a larger scale and, if so, how this intervention might best be
structured. Whether P4P should be implemented depends on whether the demonstration leads to
improved quality of care and is at least budget neutral. Structuring of the intervention requires
assessing the answers to three questions: (1) For which types of practices were the incentives
most effective? (2) How did clinical outcomes vary with the incentives? and (3) How did quality
of care, Medicare costs, and the financial incentives vary with HIT use?
To address this goal, we will synthesize our findings for the report to Congress (and for the
final evaluation report). In the synthesis, we will pull together our findings from practices in all
four states and outcome measures from both the implementation and impact analyses; we will
note substantial state-to-state differences as appropriate. We will use this information to draw
inferences about the role that financial incentives play in improving care for Medicare
beneficiaries with chronic illnesses and on the adoption and use of HIT, and about the most
successful ways to implement the incentives (and the technology for performance reporting).
The synthesis will entail determining how the intervention’s impacts on quality of care and
Medicare costs vary with practice characteristics.
105
We will present the findings from this synthesis in the final report to Congress, which is due
in October 2010. We also will include a summary of our synthesis in the evaluation final report,
which is due September 2011.1
To accomplish the evaluation’s basic goals, we will draw on the state-specific
implementation and impact analyses to describe physician practices’ experiences adopting and
using an EHR system, or other HIT for performance reporting, and the care management
strategies they use for chronically ill fee-for-service beneficiaries to improve quality of care.
Likewise, we will describe how impacts varied with many of the practice characteristics that
could potentially influence the efficiency of P4P programs. Our approach to the synthesis will
involve three components, all of which feed into the recommendations. In the first component,
we will use exploratory and confirmatory analyses to assess which practice characteristics seem
to successfully improve quality outcomes and reduce costs. In the second component, we will
assess how quality outcomes vary with the incentives the practices will receive for attaining
predetermined performance standards. Finally, in the third component, we will examine the
association between quality outcomes and costs and the practice’s level of HIT use.
In Section B of this chapter, we describe the framework for organizing the synthesis. In
Sections C, D, and E, we describe how we will conduct the component parts of the synthesis.
The next chapter discusses how we will report our findings and options for large-scale
implementation.
B. FRAMEWORK FOR SYNTHESIZING RESULTS
As a first step in conducting the syntheses, we will report on the number of practices that
appear to have met the basic demonstration goal of improving quality of care,
1
See Chapter V for a detailed discussion of the content of, and schedule for, these reports.
106
reducing
Medicare costs for health care services (by enough to offset the costs of the financial incentives),
and encouraging the adoption and use of HIT using P4P. We will use our logic model (Figure
I.1), as well as our discussion of the expected effects of the demonstration (Chapter III, Section
B), to select the primary outcome measures we will use to decide whether the demonstration
reached its goals. First, we will cross-classify the practices (1) by changes in quality outcomes
that are directly related to financial incentives (full bonus payment for a given condition, some
bonus, or no bonus); and (2) by changes in the effect on the cost of Medicare-covered services
(increased, no effect, or reduced by more than enough to offset the incentive payments). Each
assessment will require integrating findings from several outcome measures, with possibly
conflicting evidence on the size and statistical significance of the effects. For example, a
practice’s estimated impact on costs may not be statistically significant even as the estimate for
quality measures for the target conditions shows significant positive effects. Similarly, estimated
impacts on some measures related to care quality and use of Medicare-covered services may be
statistically significant, whereas others may not be. Therefore, we will base inferences on the
preponderance of the evidence across practices in each dimension. In addition, we will explore
constructing a composite measure for the primary outcomes to integrate the many outcome
measures into a summary index that could allow us to examine practices along a continuum of
specific dimensions.
After this summary of the evidence has been compiled, we will use a unifying framework to
synthesize the findings across the practices in each state. The goal of the synthesis will be to
identify the wide range of practice characteristics that might be related to P4P effectiveness. For
the implementation and impact synthesis, we will focus our discussion on the following
questions:
107
• For which types of practices did the incentives have the largest impacts on quality of
care and costs?
• How did quality outcomes vary with the incentives?
• How did quality of care, Medicare costs, and the incentives vary with HIT use?
1.
For Which Types of Practices Did the Incentives Have the Largest Impacts on Quality
of Care and Costs?
A key component of the synthesis will be our assessment of the practice characteristics that
seem to successfully improve quality and reduce costs as the result of P4P incentives and the
likely adoption of HIT (most notably, an EHR system) for performance measurement. For
example, the recent literature suggests that successful implementation of EHR systems is more
the result of effective organizational changes in clinical practice than of the technology (Scott et
al. 2005). Thus, we will assess how impacts vary with the extent to which practices had
organized their workflows before they considered installing an EHR and how they are using the
technology. Likewise, we will examine the variability in impacts by practice size, because the
evidence suggests that larger practices are more likely than their smaller counterparts to adopt
EHR systems (Miller et al. 2004).
2.
How Did Quality Outcomes Vary with the Incentives?
Another key issue for the synthesis will be determining whether quality outcomes vary with
the performance incentives that demonstration practices will receive.
This is particularly
relevant because, as the number of P4P programs continues to grow, it remains unclear how the
level of payment may influence changes in quality outcomes. Thus, our analysis will be one of
the first to examine the role that incentives for achieving quality performance thresholds (that is,
achievement incentives) may play in the successful implementation of P4P among small
108
practices serving Medicare beneficiaries with chronic conditions (Rosenthal et al. 2005; Wilkin
et al. 2007).
3.
How Did Quality of Care, Medicare Costs, and the Incentives Vary with HIT Use?
A related key issue will be assessing whether changes in quality outcomes, the use and costs
of Medicare-covered services, and the financial incentives vary with the practices’ degree of HIT
use early in the demonstration and at the end of it. Recent evidence suggests that only a few
organizations have shown improvements in quality and efficiency (Chaudhry et al. 2006).
C. RELATING IMPACTS TO PRACTICE CHARACTERISTICS
A unique feature of the MCMP demonstration is the large number of practices (about 800
across the four states) that will participate in the demonstration. Having this many practices in
the demonstration will make it possible to sort out the combination of many of the characteristics
that explains why some practices have substantial impacts on the quality of care and costs and
others have no (or smaller) impacts.2 This analysis will be feasible at the state level and, if
appropriate, for all four states combined. However, in the latter case, considerable caution would
be needed to interpret the findings, because it will be possible to control for only a handful of
state characteristics simultaneously due to the likely high correlation among them.
If a substantial number of practices have significant impacts on key outcomes, we will
conduct both exploratory and confirmatory assessments of the sources of these differences. The
exploratory assessment will be accomplished by distinguishing practices that successfully
improve a given outcome from practices that do not, and by comparing the characteristics of the
successful and unsuccessful practices. The characteristics we will examine are those used to
2
For the analyses discussed in this and subsequent sections, we will estimate impacts at the practice level,
which is the unit of intervention. This requires adjustments to the models described in Chapter III.
109
develop our classification of practices, as discussed in Chapter II. The exploratory analysis will
therefore determine the extent to which practice success appears to be specific to practices with a
particular characteristic. We will also use the exploratory analysis to determine whether practice
success seems to be linked to combinations of measured characteristics.
The confirmatory analysis will be accomplished by examining whether the impact estimates
across outcomes tend to consistently show that a given characteristic was associated with better
outcomes. We will compare impacts for several outcomes, including quality outcomes directly
related to financial incentives, total Medicare cost, hospital admissions, and HIT use. We will
examine key practice characteristics, such as size and location.
1.
Exploratory Analysis
The exploratory analysis will be useful for identifying combinations of characteristics that
seem to be associated with positive impacts (assuming that some of the practices have favorable
impacts). We will take advantage of the large number of practices that will enroll in each state to
conduct this analysis (about 150 demonstration practices per state in Arkansas and Utah and
about 250 practices per state in California and Massachusetts).
We will conduct this analysis in two steps. First, we will compare the mean characteristics
of successful and unsuccessful practices.
We will use several alternative definitions of
“successful” practices to ensure that our inferences are robust to the definition used, as it is
somewhat arbitrary. For example, we will consider defining practices as successful based on the
statistical significance of impacts on some combination of key quality-of-care/cost outcomes.
Alternatively, we could include any practice if it received full incentive payments for any
chronic condition or if the average monthly Medicare cost for demonstration practices was more
than one standard deviation below that of comparison practices. The practice characteristics
110
described in Chapter II provide an illustrative list of some of the characteristics that we expect to
use in these comparisons.
Second, we will use logit or probit regression to assess the effect of a specific characteristic
on the likelihood of being a successful practice, controlling for other practice characteristics.
The dependent variable will be a binary indicator of whether a practice had a favorable impact on
a specific outcome, or combination of outcomes, and the independent variables will be the
characteristics described above. This analysis will complement the description of successful and
unsuccessful practices by identifying which practice characteristics have the largest influence on
being a successful practice. Alternatively, we will use a linear regression to assess the effect of
specific characteristics on continuous measure of success, such as the sum of the effect sizes
across outcomes.3 An advantage of this specification is that the definition of the dependent
variable does not require using an arbitrary threshold for identifying successful or unsuccessful
practices. Furthermore, using an effect-size-based measure makes comparisons across practices
and, if appropriate, states, much easier.
2.
Confirmatory Analysis
The confirmatory analysis will be useful in summarizing for which outcomes the impacts
were associated with specific characteristics, such as practice size. We will rely on descriptive
methods to examine whether the impact estimates across outcomes tend to consistently show that
a given characteristic was associated with better outcomes. For example, we will examine
whether practice size consistently showed a positive association with quality outcomes, because
3
The effect size is defined as the ratio of the impact estimate for a specific outcome divided by the standard
deviation for that outcome.
111
larger practices tend to have more resources than small practices (those with one or two
physicians) to change their processes and adopt performance measurement technologies.
D. RELATING QUALITY OUTCOMES TO THE INCENTIVES
The impact analysis will allow us to assess whether the P4P incentives affected specific
quality outcomes for each of the three years of the demonstration, or for all three years
combined. However, it will not allow us to examine whether the improvements or changes in
these indicators are associated with the level of payment the practice receives in a given year.
Because not all practices will receive the maximum bonuses for chronic and preventive care, it
will be feasible to exploit this variability to examine how the change of clinical quality indicators
from one year to the next varies with practice characteristics, especially the incentive payments
for previous years. Practice-level characteristics we will consider include (1) whether a practice
received a bonus payment in the prior year, (2) practice size, (3) location, and (4) average
Medicare payments per beneficiary served by the practice during a given period.
We will use data on clinical quality indicators for the second and third years of the
demonstration (so that the incentives for the previous year are available for the analysis) and for
both periods combined. As noted, we will conduct this analysis for each state and, if appropriate,
pool the data across the four states to maximize the sample size available. We will estimate a
linear regression model between the score of a quality indicator in a given period and the
incentive payments in the previous year, controlling for the level of the score in the previous year
and other practice characteristics (and, for serial correlation, when pooling data for the second
and third years).
112
E. RELATING QUALITY OF CARE, COSTS, AND THE INCENTIVES TO HIT USE
Another promising descriptive analysis we will conduct is to assess how impacts on key
outcomes (that is, clinical indicators and Medicare costs) vary with the degree of HIT use the
practices had at the beginning of the demonstration. We also plan to examine how changes in
the use of EHRs or other performance measurement technologies in the practice may be
correlated with impacts on claims-based outcomes since the OSS survey will be available for
both demonstration and comparison practices. Finally, we will also examine whether changes in
HIT use are associated with the size of the incentives.
We will use data from the Office Systems Survey to conduct this analysis, because this
survey will provide measures of the degree of HIT use of each demonstration and comparison
practices at the beginning and end of the demonstration (see Chapter II). Our methods will build
on those proposed for the analyses described in Sections C and D.
113
V. REPORTING OF DEMONSTRATION FINDINGS
The demonstration evaluation will produce several reports, including an implementation
report, a report on site visits, and interim and final evaluation reports that synthesize findings
across states and analytic components. The evaluation reports will be adapted to develop a
report to Congress. This chapter describes the purpose, timing, and content of each report.
Table V.1 summarizes the schedule for the deliverables.
TABLE V.1
SCHEDULE OF DRAFT REPORT DUE DATES
Draft Due
Report
Project Montha
Calendar Month
Design Report
n.a.
February 2007
Implementation Report
13
July 2008
First Interim Evaluation Report
16
October 2008
Cost Neutrality Monitoring Report
24
June 2009
Second Interim Evaluation Report
28
October 2009
Report to Congress (Third Interim
Evaluation Report)
40
October 2010
Site Visits Report
46
April 2011
Final Evaluation Report
51
September 2011
a
Refers to months after the start of the demonstration (July 1, 2007).
n.a. = not applicable.
115
A. IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
The implementation report, due in July 2008 (13 months after the start of the demonstration)
will provide an overview of implementation and the results of the wave 1 site visits. The
overview will include a summary of demonstration activities to date in each state and summary
statistics on the number of practices that enrolled and that submitted baseline data. The results of
the wave 1 site visits will be synthesized across the states, with major state-to-state differences
noted, and state-level site visit summaries provided as an appendix. As discussed in Section E
below, the implementation report will feed into the Report to Congress.
B. SITE VISITS REPORT
The site visits report, due in April 2011 (46 months after the start of the demonstration), will
provide the results from the second wave of site visits and draw implementation-related
conclusions based on both waves of visits. Similar to the implementation report, we plan to
synthesize results across the states, noting substantial state-to-state differences as appropriate.
State site visit summaries will also be provided as an appendix.
C. COST NEUTRALITY MONITORING REPORT
OMB has requested that we monitor cost neutrality over the first 18 months of the
demonstration.
This analysis will require comparing our regression estimates of the
demonstration’s effects on Medicare savings to the incentive payments made to demonstration
practices.
Assuming we will receive the data for this analysis by month 21 (that is, 21 months
after the demonstration begins), we plan to deliver a draft of this report to CMS in month 24 after
the demonstration begins (that is, June 2009). This task will be particularly challenging because,
as noted in Chapter III, it will difficult to assess whether there is a trend toward increasing
savings, given that we will only have 18 months of data.
116
D. INTERIM AND FINAL EVALUATION REPORTS
One of the most important components of the evaluation will be the synthesis of the findings
from the implementation and impacts analyses to determine whether the P4P incentives
improved quality of care for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with chronic illnesses and
influenced the adoption and use of HIT and, therefore, whether P4P should be implemented on a
larger scale.
We will conduct three interim evaluation reports (drafts due 16, 28, and 40 months after the
start of the demonstration, respectively) and a final evaluation report (draft due 51 months after
the start of the demonstration), all of which will synthesize those findings available at different
times during the demonstration.
1.
First Interim Evaluation Report
The first interim evaluation report, due in October 2008 (16 months after the start of the
demonstration), will provide qualitative descriptions of practice changes made in response to the
intervention, including changes to the processes associated with the adoption of HIT and how it
is used. It will rely only on data from the first round of site visits and the Office Systems Survey,
as data on claims, clinical measures, and financial incentive payments for the first year of
operations will not be available until May 2009.
2.
Second Interim Evaluation Report
The second interim evaluation report, due in October 2009 (28 months after the start of the
demonstration), will focus on impact estimates for the first year of program operations.
Although we will compare impacts on use of Medicare-covered services and costs across
practices and states, we will not attempt to draw inferences from them at this stage of the
evaluation. In addition, we will summarize findings from our telephone discussions with highly
117
successful practices and those that withdrew, if any, in year 2 of demonstration operations. This
report will draw heavily on the monitoring report described in Section C of this chapter.
3.
Third Interim Evaluation Report
The third interim evaluation report, due in October 2010 (40 months after the start of the
demonstration), will focus on impact estimates for the second year of program operations. We
also will include findings on the impacts of P4P on physician-beneficiary interactions (that is,
access to care, care coordination, and satisfaction with care) from the beneficiary survey.
Finally, we will summarize findings from the second wave of site visits to the practices we
visited during the first year of operations, as well as telephone discussions with highly successful
and unsuccessful practices (including those that withdrew, if any) in year 3 of demonstration
operations. As discussed in Section E below, the Report to Congress will be the third interim
report.
4.
Final Evaluation Report
The final evaluation report, due in September 2011 (51 months after the start of the
demonstration), will provide final impact estimates from claims data using data from the third,
and final, year of demonstration operations. In addition, we will present impact estimates from
the physician survey on processes associated with the adoption of HIT to improve quality of
care. The report will also include our synthesis analysis, using the approaches described in
Chapter IV, including data from the last wave of the Office Systems Survey and the
implementation synthesis (site visits) report.
E. REPORT TO CONGRESS
We will produce one report to Congress based on our evaluation. The draft report will be
due in October 2010, approximately 3 months after the end of the demonstration operations.
118
This report will analyze implementation experiences and findings of the MCMP demonstration
across the four states. Because this report is due before the final evaluation report (see above),
the third interim report will be submitted as the Report to Congress. This will pose a challenge
because we will need to present conclusions and lessons learned from the demonstration without
seeing the impact estimates for the final year of demonstration operations, given that the data for
this period will not be available until May 2011. In coordination with CMS, we will start
planning for the report to Congress shortly after we submit the final version of the second interim
evaluation report to ensure that the focus of the report to Congress addresses the key evaluation
questions with the findings available up to that point.
We will write the concise report for an
audience of high-level policymakers and decision makers who may not be familiar with the
demonstration project or evaluation methodologies.
119
REFERENCES
Audet, Anne-Marie J., Michelle M. Doty, Jamil Shamasdin, and Stephen C. Schoenbaum.
“Physicians’ Views on Quality of Care: Findings from the Commonwealth Fund National
Survey of Physicians and Quality of Care.” New York: Commonwealth Fund, May 2005.
Bodenheimer, Thomas, Jessica H. May, Robert A. Berenson, and Jennifer Coughlan. “Can
Money Buy Quality? Physician Response to Pay for Performance.” Issue Brief no. 102.
Washington, DC: Center for Studying Health System Change, December 2005.
Chaudhry, Basit, Jerome Wang, Shinyi Wu, Margaret Maglione, Walter Mojica, Elizabeth Roth,
Sally C. Morton, and Paul G. Shekelle. “Systematic Review: Impact of Health Information
Technology on Quality, Efficiency, and Costs of Medical Care.” Annals of Internal
Medicine, vol. 144, no. 10, May 16, 2006, pp. E12–E22 and W1–W18.
Center for Multilevel Modelling. MLwiN, Version 2.01. [www.mlwin.com/features/index.html].
Accessed April 6, 2006.
Culler, Steven D., Michael L. Parchman, and Michael Przybylski. “Factors Related to
Potentially Preventable Hospitalizations Among the Elderly.” Medical Care, vol. 36, no. 6,
June 1998, pp. 804–817.
de Brantes, François. “Lessons Learned.” Presentation on the Bridges to Excellence Program at
the Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC, May 4, 2005.
Ensor, Todd, Arnold Chen, and Randall Brown. “Medicare Coordinated Care Demonstration
Patient Survey Questionnaire.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., July
2003a.
Ensor, Todd, Arnold Chen, and Randall Brown. “Medicare Coordinated Care Demonstration
Physician Survey Questionnaire.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.,
February 2003b.
Hassol, A., H. Harrison, R. Jarmon, B. Rodríguez, and A. Frakt. “Survey Completion Rates and
Resource Use at Each Step of a Dillman-Style Multi-Modal Survey.” Paper presented at the
58th annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research,
Nashville, TN, May 15-18, 2003.
Iglehart, John K. “Linking Compensation to Quality—Medicare Payments to Physicians.” New
England Journal of Medicine, vol. 353, no. 9, September 1, 2005, pp. 870–872.
Johnston, J., and J. DiNardo. Econometric Methods, 4th edition. New York: McGraw Hill,
1997.
121
Link, Michael, Ali Mokdad, Machelle Town, David Roe, and Suzanne Triplette. “Use of Lead
Letters and Answering Machine Messages.” Paper presented at the 58th annual conference
of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Nashville, TN, May 15-18, 2003.
Lorig, Kate, Anita Stewart, Philip Ritter, Virginia Gonzalez, Diana Laurent, and John Lynch.
Outcome Measures for Health Education and Other Health Care Interventions. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.
Maddala, G.S. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. “Medicare Disease Management Program Evaluation:
Patient Questionnaire.” Princeton, NJ: MPR, July 2005.
Miller, Robert H., and Ida Sim. “Physicians’ Use of Electronic Medical Records: Barriers and
Solutions.” Health Affairs, vol. 23, no. 2, March/April 2004, pp. 116–126.
Miller, Robert H., John H. Hillman, and Ruth S. Given. “Physician Use of IT: Results from the
Deloitte Research Survey.” Journal of Healthcare Information Management, vol. 18, no. 1,
2004, pp. 72–80.
Research Triangle Institute. SUDAAN: Release 9. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI, 2006.
Rosenthal, Meredith, B., Richard G. Frank, Zhonghe Li, and Arnold M. Espstein. “Early
Experience with Pay-for-Performance. From Concept to Practice.” Journal of the American
Medical Association, vol. 294, no. 14, 2005, pp. 1788–1793.
Scott, J. Tim, Thomas G. Rundall, Thomas M. Vogt, and John Hsu. “Kaiser Permanente’s
Experience Implementing an Electronic Medical Record: A Qualitative Study.” British
Medical Journal, vol. 221, 2005, pp. 1313–1316.
Shekelle, P.G., S.C. Morton, and E.B. Keeler. Costs and Benefits of Health Information
Technology. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment no. 132. AHRQ Publication no. 06E006. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, April 2006.
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 9. College Station, TX: StataCorp, LP, 2005.
Toobert, D.J., and R.E. Glasgow. “Assessing Diabetes Self-Management: The Summary of
Diabetes Self-Care Activities Questionnaire.” In Handbook of Psychology and Diabetes: A
Guide to Psychological Measurement in Diabetes Research and Practice, edited by C.
Bradley. Newark, NJ: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1994.
Wilkin, John C., C. William Wrightson, David Knutson, Erika G. Yoshino, Anahita S. Taylor,
and Kerry E. Moroz. “Medicare Care Management Performance Demonstration. Design
Report.” Columbia, MD: Actuarial Research Corporation, January 5, 2007.
122
APPENDIX A
ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR THE DEMONSTRATION
AND THE EVALUATION
MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG, IMPROVEMENT,
AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003
TITLE VI—PROVISIONS RELATING TO PART B
Subtitle D—Additional Demonstrations, Studies, and Other Provisions
SEC. 649. MEDICARE CARE MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish a pay-for-performance demonstration
program with physicians to meet the needs of eligible beneficiaries through the adoption and
use of health information technology and evidence-based outcomes measures for
(A) promoting continuity of care;
(B) helping stabilize medical conditions;
(C) preventing or minimizing acute exacerbations of chronic conditions; and
(D) reducing adverse health outcomes, such as adverse drug interactions related to
polypharmacy.
(2) SITES.—The Secretary shall designate no more than 4 sites at which to conduct the
demonstration program under this section, of which
(A) 2 shall be in an urban area;
(B) 1 shall be in a rural area; and
(C) 1 shall be in a State with a medical school with a Department of Geriatrics that
manages rural outreach sites and is capable of managing patients with multiple chronic
conditions, one of which is dementia.
(3) DURATION.—The Secretary shall conduct the demonstration program under this section
for a 3-year period.
(4) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out the demonstration program under this section, the
Secretary shall consult with private sector and non-profit groups that are under taking similar
efforts to improve quality and reduce avoidable hospitalizations for chronically ill patients.
(b) PARTICIPATION.
(1) IN GENERAL.—A physician who provides care for minimum number of eligible
beneficiaries (as specified by the Secretary) may participate in the demonstration program
under this section if such physician agrees, to phase in over the course of the 3-year
demonstration period and with the assistance provided under subsection (d)(2)
A.3
(A) the use of health information technology to manage the clinical care of eligible
beneficiaries consistent with paragraph (3); and
(B) the electronic reporting of clinical quality and outcomes measures in accordance with
requirements established by the Secretary under the demonstration program.
(2) SPECIAL RULE.—In the case of the sites referred to in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of
subsection (a)(2), a physician who provides care for a minimum number of beneficiaries with
two or more chronic conditions, including dementia (as specified by the Secretary), may
participate in the program under this section if such physician agrees to the requirements in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1).
(3) PRACTICE STANDARDS.—Each physician participating in the demonstration program
under this section must demonstrate the ability
(A) to assess each eligible beneficiary for conditions other than chronic conditions, such
as impaired cognitive ability and co-morbidities, for the purposes of developing care
management requirements;
(B) to serve as the primary contact of eligible beneficiaries in accessing items and
services for which payment may be made under the medicare program;
(C) to establish and maintain health care information system for such beneficiaries;
(D) to promote continuity of care across providers and settings;
(E) to use evidence-based guidelines and meet such clinical quality and outcome
measures as the Secretary shall require;
(F) to promote self-care through the provision of patient education and support for
patients or, where appropriate, family caregivers;
(G) when appropriate, to refer such beneficiaries to community service organizations;
and
(H) to meet such other complex care management requirements as the Secretary may
specify.
The guidelines and measures required under subparagraph (E) shall be designed to take
into account beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions.
(c) PAYMENT METHODOLOGY.—Under the demonstration program under this section the
Secretary shall pay a per beneficiary amount to each participating physician who meets or
exceeds specific performance standards established by the Secretary with respect to the clinical
quality and outcome measures reported under subsection (b)(1)(B). Such amount may vary based
on different levels of performance or improvement.
(d) ADMINISTRATION
(1) USE OF QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS.—The Secretary shall
contract with quality improvement organizations or such other entities as the Secretary deems
appropriate to enroll physicians and evaluate their performance under the demonstration
program under this section.
A.4
(2) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary shall require in such contracts that the
contractor be responsible for technical assistance and education as needed to physicians
enrolled in the demonstration program under this section for the purpose of aiding their
adoption of health information technology, meeting practice standards, and implementing
required clinical and outcomes measures.
(e) FUNDING.
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall provide for the transfer from the Federal
Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund established under section 1841 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395t) of such funds as are necessary for the costs of carrying out the
demonstration program under this section.
(2) BUDGET NEUTRALITY.—In conducting the demonstration program under this section,
the Secretary shall ensure that the aggregate payments made by the Secretary do not exceed
the amount which the Secretary estimates would have been paid if the demonstration program
under this section was not implemented.
(f) WAIVER AUTHORITY.—The Secretary may waive such requirements of titles XI and
XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.; 1395 et seq.) as may be necessary for
the purpose of carrying out the demonstration program under this section.
(g) REPORT.—Not later than 12 months after the date of completion of the demonstration
program under this section, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on such program,
together with recommendations for such legislation and administrative action as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
(h) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARY.—The term ‘‘eligible beneficiary’’ means any individual
who—
(A) is entitled to benefits under part A and enrolled for benefits under part B of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act and is not enrolled in a plan under part C of such title;
and
(B) has one or more chronic medical conditions specified by the Secretary (one of which
may be cognitive impairment).
(2) HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.—The term ‘‘health information
technology’’ means email communication, clinical alerts and reminders, and other
information technology that meets such functionality, interoperability, and other standards as
prescribed by the Secretary.
A.5
APPENDIX B
DOQ-IT OFFICE SYSTEMS SURVEY
Office Systems Survey
June 5, 2006
Office Systems Survey
QIO Assigned Practice ID Number: ____________
Date: __________
Thank you for volunteering to participate in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
Office Systems Survey (OSS). The goal of this CMS Doctors Office Quality Information
Technology (DOQ-IT) initiative is to unite technology and clinical practice in the physician office
setting. This is a unique opportunity for your practice to contribute to a large-scale national
effort to improve the quality of ambulatory health care. The survey asks about three types of
electronic clinical information tools/functions that you may be using in your practice to help
manage your patient’s health needs. These tools allow for the systematic application of evidence
based medical guidelines to your patient population with a goal of developing care plans for any
given patient.
In the
•
•
•
survey you will be asked if you are currently using or are in the process of obtaining a:
Electronic Health Record (EHR)
Electronic registry software
Electronic prescribing software
Throughout the survey we will ask you to provide information about the functions of the
systems you currently have in place. The goal is to use this information to help CMS develop
additional programs that can assist physicians move toward the common goal of improving care.
Please complete all sections of the survey unless directed within it to skip a section.
Again, we thank you for your participation and look forward to continuing to work with you.
Office Systems Survey
SECTION 1 - General Information - Practice
1. Please review your practice information below for accuracy. Please make corrections where necessary:
1.1. Legal Name of Practice
1.2. Address:
1.3. City:
1.4 State
1.5. Zip Code:
1.6. Telephone No.:
1.7. Fax No.:
1.8. E-mail Address:
1.9. Practice (Group) Medicare Billing Number (PIN):
(If unknown, please check with your billing manager or HCFA 1500 Form - field 33)
1.10. Federal Tax ID for this practice:
_
Please check here if all of the above information is correct.
1.11. Is your practice affiliated with an Independent Practice Association (IPA), Physician Hospital Organization
(PHO) or medical group?
No
Yes - please indicate which IPA, PHO or medical group: ___________________
1.12. Preferred Method of Contact:
Telephone
Fax
E-mail (check all that apply)
1
Office Systems Survey
SECTION 2 – Provider Profile
Your Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) provided the following information. Please review the information
below for accuracy and make corrections/additions where necessary. Please note that physician identifiers are being
requested in this survey to ensure that the correct information corresponds with the correct physician practice. The
information you provide will be used by CMS internally, for the purposes of this project. This information will not be
shared or disseminated outside of the project staff.
First Name
MI
UPIN1
Last Name
(NPI) National Provider Identification Number
(If known)
Credentials (MD, DO)
Specialty 2
Primary Practice Location (Y/N) 3
PIN # (Individual Medicare Billing Number) 4
Yes
Language(s) spoken
No
First Name
MI
UPIN1
Last Name
(NPI) National Provider Identification Number
(If known)
Credentials (MD, DO)
Specialty 2
Primary Practice Location (Y/N) 3
PIN # (Individual Medicare Billing Number) 4
Yes
Language(s) spoken
(Other than English)
No
First Name
MI
UPIN1
Last Name
(NPI) National Provider Identification Number
(If known)
Credentials (MD, DO)
Specialty 2
Primary Practice Location (Y/N) 3
PIN # (Individual Medicare Billing Number) 4
Yes
(Other than English)
Language(s) spoken
(Other than English)
No
Footnotes:
1
2
3
4
Unique Physician Identification number, a six place alphanumeric identifier assigned to each physician/practitioner
Please use the following codes to indicate specialty: Cardiology (C); Endocrinology (E); Family Practice (F); Geriatrics (G); Internal Medicine (I); Other
(please specify)
Please indicate whether the provider listed primarily practices at this office location (50% or greater = practices primarily at this site).
Please provide the Individual Medicare Billing Number (PIN) that is assigned by the Medicare Carrier in your state for use by this physician/clinician at this
practice site only. (HCFA 1500 form field 24K or 33).
2
Office Systems Survey
SECTION 3 – QIO Experience
The purpose of this section of the survey is to learn about your experience working with your local Quality
Improvement Organization (QIO).
3.1 How satisfied is your practice with the QIO work in the following areas:
QIO Assistance
Very
satisfied
N/A
Somewhat
satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
a. Timeliness of the QIO’s response
to questions or requests for
assistance
b. The professionalism, courtesy
and respectfulness of the QIO staff
c. The ease of access to the QIO
staff (when you try to contact them)
d. Thinking about all interactions with
the QIO, how satisfied are you with
their services?
3.2 Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement about the value of the services your practice
received from the QIO:
QIO Assistance
Strongly
agree
N/A
Neither
agree or
disagree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
a. The assistance we received from
the QIO was worth the time or effort
required on the part of our staff.
b. We could not have gotten where we
are in the adoption and use of health
information technology (EHR or eprescribing and registry) without the
QIO’s help
c. We could not have gotten where we
are in care management process
improvement without the QIO’s help
3.3 Did you know about any of the following before today, not know this before today, or weren’t sure about this?
Knew this before
today
QI activity
Did not know this
before today
Not sure
a. CMS is currently testing pay for performance or
incentive programs as a means to improve quality.
b. The QIO also works with nursing homes, hospitals,
and home health agencies in quality improvement
projects.
3.4 Using a scale of 10 to 0, please rate the contribution of the QIO to your EHR efforts:
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
Office Systems Survey
Where 10 = “The QIO
contribution was
indispensable”
Where 0= “The QIO did not
contribute at all”
3.5 How satisfied is your practice with the assistance provided by the QIO in the following areas:
QIO Assistance
N/A
Very
satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Neutral
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
a. Assessing your practice’s technology
needs
b. Providing information on technology
options
c. Helping with vendor selection processes
d. Preparing for EHR implementation
e. Helping to improve quality of care in your
practice
f. Helping to improve practice efficiency
(e.g. workflow analysis and redesign, etc.)
g. Overall assistance with adoption of EHR
in your practice
3.6 When did you first begin actively working with the QIO in the planning and implementation of EHR in your
practice?
________________________________________________________________________________________
(MM/DD/YY)
3.7 The following is a list of activities related to EHR adoption. How much had already been completed on each
activity when your practice first began working with the QIO, or on August 1, 2005, whichever came later:
Activities
Not
started
0
Some
activity
completed
1
About half
way to
completion
2
Nearing completion
3
Completed
4
a. Perform office readiness assessment
b. Document and analyze current office
workflows
c. Redesign office flow to meet EHR
process
d. Evaluate care management and process
improvement pre-EHR.
e. Full implementation of EHR
f. Use EHR to identify additional care
management and process improvement
opportunities
3.8 What has been completed on each activity to date (as of the date of the survey)?
Activities
Not
started
0
Some
activity
completed
1
About half
way to
completion
2
Nearing completion
3
Completed
4
a. Perform office readiness assessment
b. Document and analyze current office
workflows
c. Redesign office flow to meet EHR
process
d. Evaluate care management and process
improvement pre EHR
4
Office Systems Survey
e. Full implementation of EHR
f. Use EHR to identify additional care
management and process improvement
opportunities
SECTION 4 – Office Practice
The implementation of information technology (IT) presents many operational challenges. As the transition from
paper to computer takes place, there are opportunities to redesign existing workflows to gain maximum efficiencies.
These questions focus on current workflow processes.
*
This series of questions refers to patient visits to ANY and ALL clinicians in your practice over the past
month.
Please estimate the proportion of patient encounters/visits for which clinicians or others in your practice engage in
each of the following activities.
Clinicians or others in your practice:
None
About ¼
About ½
About ¾
0
1
2
3
All or
nearly all
4
4.1 - Pull paper charts for scheduled patient visits
4.2 - Dictate visit notes into a tape recorder or phone.
4.3 - Dictate visit notes directly into the EHR
4.4 - Use a computerized (as opposed to paper) system
to manage the following office workflows:
a. Telephone calls
b. Prescription refills
c. Referrals
d. Results follow-up (lab, diagnostic
test, x-ray)
5
Office Systems Survey
SECTION 5 - Electronic Health Record
The Electronic Health Record (EHR) is a longitudinal electronic record of patient health information generated by one
or more encounters in any care delivery setting. This record may include patient demographics, diagnoses, progress
notes, problems, medications, vital signs, past medical history, immunizations, laboratory data, and radiology reports.
The EHR has the capability of generating a complete record of a clinical patient encounter, as well as supporting
other care-related activities, such as evidence-based decision support, quality management, and outcomes
reporting. (The EHR covers all conditions that the patient might have and is distinct from a registry that covers a
specific disease or a limited set of diseases). Implementation of the EHR may vary based on the goals set by a
practice and the intended functions such as: enter progress notes; provide decision support within the patient
encounter; and utilize computerized physician order entry for laboratory and prescriptions.
This section asks about the use/planned use of an EHR in your practice.
This series of questions refers to patient visits to ANY and ALL clinicians in your practice over the past
month.
*
5.1 Does your practice have an Electronic Health Record (EHR)?
Yes
When was the vendor contract signed? __________________(mm/dd/yy)
When was the system installed? _________________(mm/dd/yy)
What is the name and version of the EHR system you use? ________________________
Are you currently using the system?
Yes Please proceed to question 5.2.
No Please proceed to Section 6 – Patient Registry/Care Management Processes
No
If no, when do you plan to implement an EHR?
Within 1 year
1-2 years
3-4 years
Not known at this time
Please proceed to Section 6 – Patient Registry/Care Management Processes
Please estimate the proportion of patient visits/encounters for which clinicians or others in your practice use the EHR
to perform each of the following tasks.
None
About ¼
About ½
About ¾
0
1
2
3
Clinicians in your practice use the EHR to:
All or
nearly all
4
5.2 - Generate laboratory requisitions/orders
electronically
5.3 - Enter/retrieve laboratory test results electronically
5.4 - Generate radiology requisitions/orders
electronically
5.5 - Enter/retrieve radiology results electronically
5.6 - Enter data into documentation templates
5.7
Review and act on reminders for care activities
(e.g. overdue health maintenance)
6
Office Systems Survey
None
About ¼
About ½
About ¾
0
1
2
3
Clinicians in your practice use the EHR to:
All or
nearly all
4
5.8 - Maintain medication lists for individual patients
5.9 - Maintain allergy list
5.10 - Maintain problem and/or diagnosis list
5.11- Trend lab and/or other test results over time
5.12 Does your EHR include ALL or essentially all patients in your practice?
Yes
No
7
Office Systems Survey
SECTION 6 – Patient Registry/Care Management Processes
For purposes of this survey, a registry is defined as an electronic system that is designed to identify patients with
specific diagnoses or medications; identify patients overdue for specific therapies; prompt ordering of specific
laboratory tests or recommended drugs, and prompt communication with patients requiring follow-up. For example,
a practice may use a diabetes registry to document care at visits, and to create reports that indicate which patients
are due for certain blood tests, or are not meeting specific treatment goals for diabetes. A registry may also be used
to ensure all suggested preventive screenings take place. A Registry is usually a stand-alone system that tracks
specific information regarding a limited number of disease states, but otherwise lacks additional functionality. An
EHR can also be used for Patient Registry/Tracking purposes. If your practice uses either an EHR, or a Registry,
answer as appropriate the questions in this section.
These next questions ask about the existence and use of electronic registries in your practice.
*
This series of questions refers to patient visits to ANY and ALL clinicians in your practice over the past
month.
6.1 Does your practice have or use a freestanding e-registry to track patients who have a specific chronic illness, or
receive preventive care for at least one condition? Note - if your practice uses an EHR for this purpose,
please be certain that question 5.1 was completed and begin with question 6.2.
Yes
When was the e-registry contract signed? ________________________(mm/dd/yy)
When was the e-registry system installed? _______________________(mm/dd/yy)
What is the name of the e-registry system? _______________________
Are you currently using the e-registry system?
Yes Please proceed to question 6.2
No
Please proceed to Section 7
No
If No when do you plan to start a registry?
at this time
Please proceed to Section 7
Within 1 year
1-2 years
3-4 years
not known
* Preventive care is defined as immunizations, mammography and other cancer screening.
6.2 Which of the following conditions are included in your practice’s registry/EHR:
Yes
No
Adult Asthma
Yes
Diabetes
Yes
No
Depression
Yes
Coronary Artery Disease
Yes
No
Anticoagulation
Yes
Hypertension
Yes
No
Congestive Heart Failure
Yes
No
*Preventive Care
Yes
No
Other
If Others, please list:
No
No
No
8
Office Systems Survey
Following is a list of tasks that may be performed by registries. For each task, please estimate the proportion of
patients or patient encounters for which clinicians or others in your practice use each type of registry.
Registry Tasks
6.3 - Prompt your practice to
notify patients who are
overdue for office visits
6.4 - Prompt clinicians to order
tests, studies, and other
services (e.g.,
immunizations)
6.5 - Produce reminders for
patients about needed
tests, studies, and other
services immunizations)
6.6 - Generate a list of eligible
patients for each
disease/condition
6.7 - Generate a list of
patients requiring
intervention
6.8 - Generate a specific
patient care plan.
6.9 - Generate written or
electronic information to
help patients understand
their condition
6.10 Create written action
plans (personalized to
patient’s condition) to
help guide patients in
self-management at
home/school/work.
6.11- Prompt clinician and/or
patient to review selfmanagement plan
together during a visit.
Types of Disease/Condition Registries
0= none
1= about ¼
2= about ½
3= about ¾
4= all or nearly all
Preventive
Coronary
Congestive
Diabetes
Hypertension
Care
Artery Disease
Heart Failure
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
9
Office Systems Survey
6.12- Modify self management
plan as needed following
a patient visit
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
6.13 Generate laboratory
requisitions/orders
electronically
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
6.14 Enter/retrieve laboratory
test results electronically
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
10
Office Systems Survey
SECTION 7 - Electronic Prescribing
With electronic prescribing tools, clinicians can generate prescriptions electronically using either a freestanding
product, or as a component of the EHR. The next series of questions ask to what extent your practice uses an
electronic prescribing tool and whether that tool is stand-alone, or part of your EHR.
*
This series of questions refers to patient visits to ANY and ALL clinicians in your practice over the past
month.
7.1 Does your practice use electronic software to generate the following types of prescriptions (as part of an EHR or
a freestanding e-prescribing):
Yes
New prescriptions only
Refills
Both
Is e prescribing accomplished within your EHR?
Yes
Please skip to question 7.2
No
What is the name and version of the e-prescribing system you use?
_____________________________________________________
When was the contract signed? __________________(mm/dd/yy)
When was the system installed? _________________(mm/dd/yy)
Please skip to Question 7.2
No
When do you plan to implement e-prescribing?
Within 1 year 1-2 years
Not known at this time
3-4 years
Please skip to Section 8
Please estimate the proportion of patient visits/encounters for which clinicians or others in your practice use an
electronic or hand-held device for each of the following e-prescribing activities.
0= none
1= about ¼
2= about ½
E-prescribing activities:
3= about ¾
4= all or nearly all
None
About ¼
About ½
About ¾
0
1
2
3
All or
nearly all
4
7.2- Identify generic or less expensive brand
alternatives at the time of prescription entry
7.3 - Reference the drug formularies of the patient's
health plans/pharmacy benefit manager to
recommend preferred drugs at time of
prescribing
7.4- Offer guidelines and evidence-based
recommendations when prescribing medication
for a patient
7.5- Calculate appropriate dose and frequency
based on patient parameters such as age and
weight
7.6 - Maintain a list of each patient's current
medications
11
Office Systems Survey
E-prescribing activities (continued):
None
About ¼
About ½
About ¾
0
1
2
3
All or
nearly all
4
7.7 - Screen prescriptions for drug allergies against
the patient's allergy information
7.8 - Screen new prescriptions for drug-drug
interactions against the patient's list of current
medications
7.9 - Select individual medication for prescription
7.10 - Print prescriptions on a computer printer
7.11 - Transmit prescriptions directly to pharmacy via
electronic fax (no paper printed)
7.12 - Transmit prescriptions directly to pharmacy via
electronic means (without relying on a fax
machine at either clinician’s office or in the
pharmacy)
7.13 - Provide patient-friendly information about the
medication to the patient
SECTION 8 - Data Attestation
I have reviewed the data submitted in this survey and agree that it is a correct assessment of this practice.
Agree
Disagree
Name: _______________________________________
Signature: ____________________________________
Title: ________________________________________
SECTION 9 - Attestation
I understand that I may be chosen to participate in an on-site validation of this survey.
Agree
Disagree.
Comments
This material was prepared by MassPRO, the Medicare Quality Improvement Organization for Massachusetts, under contract with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS),
an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The contents presented do not necessarily represent CMS policy. 8sow-ma-OSS-06-01 survey-jan-5pilot
12
APPENDIX C
COMPARISON STATE SELECTION PROCESS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Lorraine Johnson
FROM:
Lorenzo Moreno and Judy Ng
SUBJECT:
Proposed Comparison States
P.O. Box 2393
Princeton, NJ 08543-2393
Telephone (609) 799-3535
Fax (609) 799-0005
www.mathematica-mpr.com
7/8/2005
MCMP-032 (Revised)
DATE:
This memorandum describes the process that we used to select potential comparison states
for the evaluation of the Medicare Care Management Performance (MCMP) demonstration. We
developed this process based on the assumption that Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
(CMS) wants us to use a quasi-experimental design in the evaluation of MCMP in each of the
four states participating in the demonstration, namely Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, and
Utah. Specifically, the evaluation will rely on practices in the Doctor’s Office Quality—
Information Technology (DOQ-IT) in non-demonstration states.1 Still unresolved, however, is
how to select physician practices in non-demonstration states.
This memorandum is a revised version of a draft document we sent to you on June 7, 2005.
In revising this document, we included the comments we received from CMS during a telephone
conference on July 5, 2005.
A. RATIONALE
Our approach to the selection of comparison states relied on selection criteria discussed with
CMS staff, as well as on information provided by representatives of a health plan in Utah. As
noted below, these criteria aim at identifying states with similar environments than the
demonstration states in that they at least had electronic health records and pay-for-performance
programs. The selection process also was designed to be reproducible and open to inspection by
stakeholders at CMS and in the demonstration states. The comparison states were then selected
from a list of 18 that were most likely to reasonably compare to the demonstration states in terms
of high-priority characteristics. These states are listed in Table 1:
1
See the description of Comparison Design 3 in memorandum MCMP-027 (Revised), page 1, dated February
16, 2005.
An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PAGE:
Lorraine Johnson
Lorenzo Moreno and Judy Ng
7/8/2005
2
TABLE 1
LIST OF 18 STATES IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL COMPARISON STATES
New York
New Hampshire
Oklahoma
Oregon
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Washington
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Idaho
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
Note:
Entries in bold correspond to the recommendations for Utah made by Intermountain Health Care (IHC)
representatives in February 2005. Entries in italics correspond to the recommendations made by CMS in
July 2005.
B. SELECTION CRITERIA
The selection of comparison states was based on four high-priority criteria (see entries
marked with an A in Table 2), as well as three other criteria for which we need to obtain
information from CMS.2
TABLE 2
CHARACTERISTICS FOR SELECTING COMPARISON STATES, BY TYPE AND PRIORITY RATING
Characteristic
Physician Practice
1. Small practices (3 to 9 physicians) as a percent of group practices (3 or more physicians)
2. Ratio of specialists to general practice/family medicine physicians
3. Percentage of office-based physicians using electronic health records
State
1. Medicare physician and other professional services expenditures per beneficiary
2. Medicare managed care penetration rate
3. Geographic representation
4. Number of health plans that have implemented pay-for-performance programs
5. Whether the state has a Bridges to Excellence program in operation
2
states.
Priority Rating
A
A
1
B
A
A
B+
B
B
Table A.1 lists the selected characteristics of the 18 states identified in Table 1 for selection as comparison
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PAGE:
Lorraine Johnson
Lorenzo Moreno and Judy Ng
7/8/2005
3
Characteristic
6. Whether the state has a participant in the Medicare Benefits Improvement and Protection Act
(BIPA) Disease Management Demonstration
7. Whether the state has a participant in the Chronic Care Improvement Program (CCIP)
8. Whether the state has a participant in the Care Management for High Cost Beneficiaries
(HCB) demonstration
9. Number and amount of AHRQ grants for implementing electronic health records
Other
1. Whether QIOs would participate in MCMP in the comparison state
2. Number of practices in non-demonstration states interested in electronic health records
3. Input from the QIO in the demonstration state
4. Start date of DOQ-IT program in non-demonstration state
1
2
Priority Rating
B
B
B
C
2
A
2
A
2
A
C
Only regional or nationwide estimates are currently available (Burt and Hing 2005).
No data are currently available for these characteristics. Thus, we excluded them from the selection criteria.
AHRQ= Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; DOQ-IT = Doctor’s Office Quality—Information
Technology; QIO = Quality Improvement Organization.
We do not currently have information on whether the Quality Improvement Organizations
(QIO) in the non-demonstration states are willing to participate in the demonstration, the number
of practices in non-demonstration states interested in implementing electronic health records, and
the reactions to our selection from the QIO in demonstration states. Therefore, these three
characteristics were not used to select the proposed comparison states. Should any of these three
criteria make our proposed comparison states unacceptable, however, we will select an alternate
state matched as closely as possible in physician-practices and state characteristics.
C. COMPARISON STATE SELECTION PROCESS
The process for selecting comparison states used a hierarchical, non-probability
(reproducible) method based on the priority rating of the characteristics shown in Table 2. With
this method, we arrived at our preliminary list of comparison states in five steps. These steps are
described below and summarized in Table 3.
Step 1. Stratification of States. Each demonstration state was viewed as a separate stratum.
This stratification accounts for differences across states on the adoption of health information
technology, economic and regulatory environments, demographic features, physician licensing
and board certification, and practice patterns. The stratification also accounts for differences in
how the QIOs are implementing DOQ-IT in the four demonstration states.
Step 2. Identification of States with Closest Priority Characteristics to the Demonstration
State. We listed potential comparison states based on the four highest-priority characteristics
that are available: (1) small physician practices (3 to 9 physicians) as a percent of all group
practices (3 or more physicians); (2) ratio of specialists to general practice/family medicine
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PAGE:
Lorraine Johnson
Lorenzo Moreno and Judy Ng
7/8/2005
4
physicians; (3) Medicare physician and other professional services expenditures per beneficiary;
and (4) Medicare managed care penetration rate. For each characteristic, we rank-ordered the
potential comparison states in terms of their similarity to the demonstration state.
Step 3. Selection of States Identified with Highest-Priority Characteristics. We identified
potential comparison states based on their similarity to the demonstration states in their highestpriority characteristics (see Table 3, column [5]). For Arkansas, we selected Missouri or
Nebraska, because these states tied on their sum of draws. For California, we selected Arizona
(for comparison to Southern California only) and Oregon (for comparison to California overall).
For Massachusetts, we selected Connecticut or New York, because they, too, tied on their sum of
draws. For Utah, we selected Idaho.
Step 4. Selection of States to Ensure Similar Geographic Representation. We selected
potential comparison states that were in the same geographic area as the demonstration states.
Most states selected in Step 3 are in the same census subregion as the demonstration state, with
the exception of Arizona, Missouri, Nebraska, and New York.3 However, Missouri and
Nebraska are in the same census region as Arkansas – that is, the Midwest; Arizona is in the
same census region as California – that is, the West; and New York is in the same census region
as Massachusetts— that is, the Northeast. Thus, keeping Arizona, Missouri, Nebraska, and New
York as potential comparison states do not affect substantively the geographic representation of
the comparison states.
Step 5. Selection of States that Have Adopted Pay-for-Performance Programs, Participate in
Bridges to Excellence or in Three CMS Demonstrations. The last step required is the
identification of states that implemented pay-for-performance programs, at least one Bridges to
Excellence program, or participate in the Medicare Benefits Improvement and Protection Act
(BIPA) Disease Management demonstration, the Chronic Care Improvement Program (CCIP), or
the Care Management for High Cost Beneficiaries (HCB) demonstration.4 As noted above, these
five criteria ensure that (1) the comparison states have environments similar to those of
demonstration states with regard to electronic health records and pay-for-performance programs
3
Missouri and Nebraska are in the West North Central subregion, whereas Arkansas is in the West South
Central subregion; Arizona – which is to be compared to Southern California only – is in the Mountain subregion,
whereas California is in the Pacific subregion; New York is in the Mid-Atlantic subregion, whereas Massachusetts is
in the New England subregion (Table A.1)
4
We also examined the amount and scope of funding in FY 2005 by the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality (AHRQ) (See columns [12] and [12a] in Table A.1). However, it is difficult to establish similarities
between demonstration and potential comparison states, because of considerable variability in the grantees, the
amount of funding, and the scope of the grants.
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PAGE:
Lorraine Johnson
Lorenzo Moreno and Judy Ng
7/8/2005
5
and (2) exclude CMS demonstrations that target similar populations as the MCMP
demonstration:
• For Arkansas, which neither has a pay-for-performance program nor participates in
CCIP or HCB, Nebraska is preferred over Missouri, despite both having tied with the
highest scores in Step 3, since the former also neither has a pay-for-performance
program nor participates in CCIP, BIPA, or HCB. Since Texas resembled Arkansas
more than either Nebraska or Missouri on the census subregion and pay-forperformance criteria (neither has a program), we considered it as an alternate
comparison state.5
• For California, which has the largest number of pay-for-performance programs
among the 22 states examined and participates in Bridges to Excellence, BIPA, and
HCB, Arizona is preferred over Oregon or Washington as a comparison state to
Southern California only because the former scored the highest in Step 3. As a
comparison state to California overall, Oregon is preferred over Washington because
it scored higher on Step 3, despite Washington resembling California more on the
pay-for-performance criterion (both have programs).
• For Massachusetts, which has five pay-for-performance programs and participates in
Bridges to Excellence and HCB, New York is preferred, because it is the closest match
in terms of pay-for-performance programs.6 But because New York is not in the
same subregion as Massachusetts, and participates in CCIP and HCB, we considered
Connecticut, which is in the New England subregion and participates in none of the
CMS demonstrations, an alternate comparison state.
• For Utah, which has one pay-for performance program and participates in Bridges to
Excellence, Idaho is preferred over the other four states because it scored highest in
Step 3 and participates in none of the CMS demonstrations, although it differs from
Utah with regard to the presence of pay-for-performance programs and participation
in Bridges of Excellence.
5
As noted in Table 3, and following CMS’s advice, we will exclude the Houston and San Antonio metropolitan
regions from the potential comparison areas in Texas.
6
As noted in Table 3, we will exclude New York City (except Manhattan Borough) and Suffolk and Nassau
Counties in Long Island from the potential comparison areas in New York.
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PAGE:
Lorraine Johnson
Lorenzo Moreno and Judy Ng
7/8/2005
6
D. SUMMARY
Based on the selection process described above, we propose that the following states be used
as comparison states for the MCMP demonstration states:
• Arkansas: Nebraska, with Texas as alternate
• California: For comparison to Southern California only, Arizona; for comparison to
California overall, Oregon, with Washington as alternate
• Massachusetts: New York, with Connecticut as alternate
• Utah: Idaho
This list of states appears to be face valid and to meet the criteria shown in Table 2.
However, given the numerous dimensions in which states differ, that are not included in the
selection criteria, the proposed comparison states are expected only to reasonably match the
demonstration states.
We look forward to receiving your comments on our proposal and to discuss alternatives, if
needed.
REFERENCES
Burt, Catharine, and Esther Hing. “Use of Computerized Clinical Support Systems in Medical
Settings: United States, 2001—03.” Advance Data for Vital and Health Statistics, no. 353,
March 15, 2005. Available online at [www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad353.pdf]. Accessed on
June 3, 2005.
cc: Sheldon Retchin (VCU), J. Milliner-Waddell, S. Felt-Lisk, L. Foster, A. Bloomenthal, A.
Zambrowski, File
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
3
0
2
2
1
0
2
0
4
2
1
1
0
2
2
1
1
1
West
West
West
West
West
West
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
West
West
West
West
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Northeast
Midwest
Census
Region
(6)
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
PA
NE
NE
NE
NE
MA
NE
PA
MT
PA
PA
WSC
WNC
WSC
WNC
WNC
WSC
ESC
WSC
Census
Subregion
(6a)
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Adoption of Participates in
P for P
B to E
(7)
(8)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y**
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Participates in
CCIP
(9)
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Participates in
BIPA
(10)
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Participates in
HCB
(11)
Idaho
New York****
Connecticut
Arizona
Oregon
Washington
Texas***
Nebraska
State
Selected
(12)
Shaded cells represent states selected at a specific stage. Bold-italic entries in column (10) correspond to alternate states.
****Excluding New York City (except Manhattan Borough) and Suffolk and Nassau Counties in Long Island.
***Excluding Houston and San Antonio.
**Only in New York City.
*For comparison to Southern California only.
Y = yes; N = no; MS = most similar
PGP = Physician Group Practice Demonstration; P for P = Pay for Performance
B to E = Bridges to Excellence; BIPA = Benefits Improvement and Protection Act Disease Management Demonstration; CCIP = Chronic Care Improvement Program; FM = family medicine; GP = general practice; HCB = High-Cost Beneficiaries Demonstration;
NE = New England; ESC = East South Central; MA = Mid-Atlantic; WNC = West North Central; WSC = West South Central; MT = Mountain; PA = Pacific
0
0
1
0
1
Utah
Arizona
Colorado
Idaho
Nevada
Oregon
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
Sum of Draws
(5)
Notes:
0
1
0
0
0
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Maine
New Hampshire
New York
Vermont
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
Selected Based on
Managed Care
Penetration Rate
(4)
Table A.1
1
1
1
California
Arizona*
Oregon
Washington
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Selected Based on
Medicare Physician
Expenditures
per Beneficiary
(3)
Sources:
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
Arkansas
Kansas
Louisiana
Missouri
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
State
Selected Based
on Practice Size
(1)
Selected Based on
Ratio of Specialists
to GP/FM Physicians
(2)
TABLE 3
PROCESS OF SELECTION OF COMPARISON STATES
75%
79%
76%
83%
81%
80%
73%
78%
79%
74%
67%
72%
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Maine
New Hampshire
New York
Vermont
Utah
Arizona
Colorado
Idaho
Nevada
Oregon
Notes:
5.86
6.52
5.36
3.18
6.61
5.82
19.13
18.25
4.60
5.88
16.38
5.57
6.99
6.52
5.82
4.36
3.43
4.14
7.41
8.42
3.45
4.41
6.54
6.05
Ratio of Specialists
to GP/FM
Physicians
(2)
39%
40%
41%
44%
42%
42%
35%
37%
44%
42%
39%
42%
40%
40%
42%
42%
43%
43%
38%
39%
43%
43%
40%
40%
$1,007
$1,744
$1,476
$989
$1,731
$1,340
$1,590
$1,732
$1,020
$1,150
$1,775
$852
$1,927
$1,744
$1,340
$1,345
$1,222
$1,381
$1,666
$1,226
$1,017
$1,231
$1,243
$1,588
Non-Federal PCPs Medicare
as a Percent of
Expenditures
Total Physicians
per Beneficiary
(3)
(4)
3%
10%
13%
7%
13%
21%
13%
3%
0%
0%
12%
0%
16%
10%
21%
9%
0%
2%
7%
6%
2%
5%
7%
4%
Medicare
Managed Care
Penetration Rate
(5)
West
West
West
West
West
West
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
West
West
West
West
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Northeast
Midwest
Census
Region
(6)
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
PA
NE
NE
NE
NE
MA
NE
PA
MT
PA
PA
WSC
WNC
WSC
WNC
WNC
WSC
ESC
WSC
Census
Subregion
(6a)
1
1
1
0
2
0
5
1
0
1
11
1
17
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
Number of State
P-for-P Programs*
(7)
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
*This table does not include P-for-P programs operating at a national or regional level; it is possible that national/regional programs also have operations in the states listed above.
**For comparison to Southern California only.
+ Only in New York City.
Y = yes; N = no; N.A. = not applicable
NE = New England; ESC = East South Central; MA = Mid-Atlantic; WNC = West North Central; WSC = West South Central; MT = Mountain; PA = Pacific
B to E = Bridges to Excellence; BIPA = Benefits Improvement and Protection Act Disease Management Demonstration; CCIP = Chronic Care Improvement Program; FM = family medicine; GP = general practice;
HCB = High-Cost Beneficiaries Demonstration; PCP = primary care physician; P for P = Pay for Performance
CMS = Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; AHRQ = Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
HIT = health information technology; EHR = electronic health records
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y+
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Participates in Participates
B to E
in CCIP
(8)
(9)
(1) American Medical Association. Medical Group Practices in the US, 2005 Edition.
(2) American Medical Association. Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the US, 2005 Edition.
(3) Kaiser Family Foundation State Health Facts. Non-Federal PCPs as a Percent of Total Physicians. Available online at [www.statehealthfacts.org]. Accessed June 3, 2005.
(4) CMS, Office of the Actuary, National Health Statistics Group. State Estimates - 1998 Medicare Expenditures per Enrollee Physician & Other Professional Services (most recent year available).
(5) CMS. March 2005 Medicare Managed Care Quarterly State/County Penetration Rates. (state estimates = arithmetic average across all state-county rates for that state).
(6 and 6a): Bureau of the Census. Census Regions and Divisions of the United States. Available online at [www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf]. Accessed on June 1, 2005.
(7) Med-Vantage, Inc. Case Studies in Health Plan Pay-for-Performance Programs (edited by James Gutman), November 2004.
(8) Bridges to Excellence. Program Participants. Available online at [www.bridgestoexcellence.org/bte]. Accessed June 3, 2005.
(9) CMS list of sites participating in the Voluntary Chronic Care Improvement Program (CCIP), July 5, 2005.
(10) CMS list of sites participating in the Physician Group Practice (PGP) Demonstration, July 5, 2005.
(11) CMS list of sites participating in the High-Cost Beneficiaries (HCB) Demonsration, July 5, 2005.
(12) and (12a) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Health Information and Technology Programs. Availabe online at [www.ahrq.gov/research/hitfact.htm]. Accessed on November 11, 2004.
77%
78%
72%
73%
California
Arizona**
Oregon
Washington
Sources:
78%
72%
81%
77%
83%
70%
76%
76%
Small Practices (3 to 9 Physicians)
as a Percent of Group Practices
(3 or more Physicians)
(1)
Arkansas
Kansas
Louisiana
Missouri
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
State
TABLE A.1
SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 15 STATES IDENTIFIED FOR SELECTION OF COMPARISON STATES
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Participates in Participates
BIPA
in HCB
(10)
(11)
3 ($8.0)
none
1 ($5.0)
2 ($1.1)
none
5 ($4.8)
10 ($13.4)
2 ($2.7)
4 ($3.2)
1 ($0.2)
4 ($4.5)
2 ($1.7)
6 ($6.2)
none
5 ($4.8)
3 ($2.5)
1 ($1.5)
none
4 ($1.7)
1 ($1.5)
2 ($0.4)
3 ($1.3)
4 ($6.8)
2 ($3.0)
AHRQ HIT Funding:
Number of Grants
($ in millions)
(12)
N
N.A.
Y
Y
N.A.
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N.A.
N
N
N
N.A.
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
EHR
(12a)
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | Microsoft Word - DES-CP.doc |
| Author | CMcClure |
| File Modified | 2007-05-24 |
| File Created | 2007-05-23 |