Tag Archives: payment reform

Going the Distance: What We Heard at the OCM Workshop

By Leah Ralph, DIrector of Health Policy, ACCC

ACCC-OCM-CollaborativeWe are now 10 months into the groundbreaking Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) Oncology Care Model (OCM). Just a few weeks ago during the ACCC 43rd Annual Meeting, a number of OCM practices came together to share updates, pain points and successes, and to collaborate on innovative approaches to meeting OCM requirements during ACCC’s OCM Workshop.

Shaping Up
Participation in the OCM has been likened to “training for a marathon,” requiring cancer programs to do an honest self-assessment of their financial and operational capabilities, and double down on their investment in workflows, staffing, and data collection—all while trying to reduce costs and meet a number of beneficiary-level reporting requirements. EHRs (electronic health records) play a critical role in these efforts, and practices are finding that much of the quality and clinical data CMS is asking for is not readily accessible, requiring time-consuming chart abstraction and manual reporting. In addition to data analytics, other major challenges include:

  • increased staffing needs,
  • investment in IT systems, and
  • clinician education and engagement.

Some practices have hired full-time patient care coordinators—similar to research coordinators for clinical trials—to manage OCM requirements, including identifying and tracking patients, coordinating episodes and required measures, and billing the Monthly Enhanced Oncology Services (MEOS) payments.

While there is agreement that the OCM’s policy goals—improving care quality and reducing costs—are the right ones, operationalizing the program has proven to be far more complex than originally anticipated. Even by CMS. And, like all major payment reform initiatives, course corrections will be needed along the way.

Some Pain, Some Gain
Despite challenges, ACCC OCM Workshop participants are also finding that the OCM’s  “practice transformation” requirements are strengthening their programs. Many have taken a “good, hard look” at palliative care and pain documentation, care coordination, and end-of-life conversations. Others have implemented social work and dietitian services that they were not previously able to make available to patients. While many cancer programs were engaged in these activities in some form before the OCM, participation in CMMI’s demonstration program has made these components robust and consistent, improving patient care. One practice called it an “awesome byproduct” of the program.

Another byproduct? Practices are also finding that the OCM is creating an imperative for the C-suite to make certain investments and providing leverage with EHR vendors; requests that were previously considered optimization items are now considered “must haves” to meet OCM requirements.

Dealing with Data
Last month OCM practices faced their first big data reporting deadline and they also received their first feedback reports following the first episode of care, breaking out cost per episode and comparing performance to other OCM practices. These data came in a format that was not easy to interpret, and required several practices to outsource the data analysis and interpretation. With the feedback reports practices are seeing their spending on OCM patients, and getting a sense of how they may fare with performance-based payments down the road, but practices won’t see reconciliations against target prices until early 2018.

Watchful Waiting
Where OCM practices succeed and struggle carry important implications for all cancer programs and the transition to value-based care. As one practice put it, the OCM is “the pebble in the pond for us.” We should all be watching the ripples closely. And taking notes.

To learn more about the ACCC OCM Collaborative, visit  accc-cancer.org/OCM. All OCM participating programs are invited to join our online community at ocmcollaborative.org to hear what else your colleagues are saying.

 

Oncology Care Model: Updates from CMS

ThinkstockPhotos-469044147By Maureen Leddy, JD, Policy Coordinator, ACCC

As the clock ticks down to the May 7 deadline for CMMI Oncology Care Model (OCM) provider Letters of Intent (LOIs), some ACCC members may still be on the fence about submitting an LOI. CMS introduced the Oncology Care Model—the agency’s first specialty-specific alternative payment model—back in February. Those physician practices selected for OCM participation will begin receiving reimbursement for chemotherapy treatment episodes of care under the Oncology Care Model in spring 2016.

Since the introduction of the OCM, ACCC members have raised numerous questions as they weigh whether to apply for participation. In general, these questions have focused on three main issues: performance benchmarking methodology, payer collaboration, and the financial feasibility of achieving the practice transformation requirements. CMS has responded to some of these concerns, but we hope the agency will continue to provide clarity as the LOI submission period closes and our members prepare final applications for the June 18 deadline. Read on for a summary of CMS’s responses on these three key issues.

Performance Benchmarking Methodology

The initial Request for Applications (RFA) from CMS generated questions about the benchmarking methodology used to calculate a provider’s baseline or target price for specific episodes of care. Providers raised concerns about outliers with extremely high costs of care. CMS has responded that it will use Winsorization, resetting the outlying episode to a specific percentile within the provider’s total average care costs. Providers also raised concerns about how an already lean practice may benefit from OCM participation, where the benchmark for performance is based on the specific practice’s past performance. CMS has responded that the baseline period will likely be a three-year period beginning in 2012. The agency believes that this will help account for any very recent practice improvements. CMS has also indicated that the baseline for the entire five-year model will remain that same three-year period, ensuring practices that quickly adopt performance targets are not penalized in later years.

Payer Collaboration

In CMS’s applicant scoring methodology, participation with other payers (i.e., in addition to Medicare) will represent 30 points out of 100, a signal that the agency highly values the expansion of the OCM beyond Medicare. CMS has announced that 48 payers have submitted LOIs, and providers have raised concerns about whether to apply if no payer will be participating in their region. CMS has indicated that while it is an advantage for provider practices to partner with other payers, it is possible for a practice to be selected to participate in the OCM with only Medicare. There have also been indications that once the list of providers submitting LOIs is made public, there may be opportunity for payers to expand their participation regions.

Financial Feasibility

ACCC members have also raised concerns about whether the $160 per beneficiary per month fee is sufficient to achieve all of the practice transformations called for in the OCM. CMS has noted that other payers are expected to provide enhanced payments, which can also be used for the infrastructure changes called for in the OCM. For patients that do not fall within the OCM, practices may also continue to bill for chronic care management and transitional care management. CMS believes that this will provide sufficient revenue to support the required infrastructure changes. However, ACCC welcomes further feedback from members.

As we enter the post-SGR era, ACCC will be working to keep members informed on alternative payment model initiatives. We are pleased to hear that several members will apply to participate in the CMMI Oncology Care Model, and will continue to provide updates on this and other relevant alternative payment models as details become available.

Questions or comments on the OCM? Contact us at ocm@accc-cancer.org or visit our Oncology Care Model Resource Center.

SGR is Over: What Does it Mean for Providers?

By Maureen Leddy, Policy Coordinator, ACCC

U.S. Capitol On April 14, 2015, after years of uncertainty and 17 short-term “doc fix” patches to prevent severe annual cuts to physician payments, Congress approved H.R. 2, Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). This bipartisan, bicameral compromise finally puts an end to the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula. MACRA provides physicians with the predictability in payments needed to continue to provide high-quality cancer care, while transitioning over a 10-year period to a new dual Medicare reimbursement system.

What’s in Store?

Under MACRA physicians must eventually participate in a Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) or an Alternative Payment Model System. Through June 2015, MACRA calls for Medicare physician reimbursement at the rate set by last year’s “doc fix” patch. Then, for five years, through 2019, annual 0.5% increases to payment rates are established.

In 2020, a second five-year phase begins during which reimbursement rates remain flat. During this second phase, providers will need to transition to the Merit-Based or Alternative Payment Model Systems. Ultimately MACRA encourages providers to participate in Alternative Payment Model Systems through higher incentive payments; beginning in 2026, physicians will receive automatic payment updates of 0.75% if participating in an APM, and 0.25% if participating in MIPS, with an opportunity to receive additional bonus payments based on performance. Payments under the MIPS will be subject to positive or negative adjustments based on the following performance criteria:

  • quality of care
  • resource use
  • clinical practice improvement activities
  • use of electronic health records (EHR) technology.

During the second five-year phase through 2024, providers participating in an Alternative Payment Model will  be eligible for annual lump-sum bonuses equaling 5% of the prior year’s payments upon achieving specified targets in transitioning from fee-for-service payments.  Providers participating in MIPS will be eligible during this second five-year period for additional positive adjustments in rates for exceptional performance.

Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee

MACRA encourages the development of Alternative Payment Models applicable to specialties and small practices, as well as models that align private and state-based payers. The legislation calls for creation of a Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee that will recommend additional Alternative Payment Models to CMS. CMMI’s recently launched Oncology Care Model (OCM) already provides one venue for many cancer providers to participate in an Alternative Payment Model. Visit ACCC’s Oncology Care Model Resource Center for answers to providers’ questions on eligibility, reimbursement, and key considerations for participation in this new payment model, plus links to application forms and CMMI OCM materials.

Going forward, ACCC will be vigilantly monitoring the Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee recommendations for other Alternative Payment Models that may be relevant to oncology practices.

ACCC looks forward to working with our members to effectively implement the bill and transition towards a new future for physician reimbursement.

On Wednesday, April 22, ACCC is hosting a members-only conference call with presenter Dan Todd, former Senior Health Counsel, Senate Finance Committee, and a primary author of MACRA, that will provide an in-depth look at what MACRA means for oncology providers and the future of physician reimbursement. ACCC members can access call-in information here.

Stay tuned.

CANCERSCAPE Session on OCM Brings Insights

by Amanda Patton, ACCC Communications

20150317_ACCC_41st_190On Tuesday, March 17, at ACCC’s Annual Meeting, Ron Kline, MD, Medical Officer with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), and Kavita Patel, MD, MS, of the Brookings Institution helped bring a little more clarity to CMMI’s Medicare’s Oncology Care Model (OCM).

The OCM has been developed by CMMI to test new payment and service delivery models, as part of its overarching triple aim of better care, smarter spending, and healthier people. OCM goals center on care coordination; appropriateness of care; and access for beneficiaries going through chemotherapy, Dr. Kline said. Learn more here.

In his overview of the five-year pilot, Dr. Kline pointed to the multi-payer nature of the OCM. “Payers are encouraged to work as part of the model. The point is to leverage the OCM to bring in more and more payers and patients to this model.”

Finally, he stressed the OCM is not intended to be a one-size-fits-all model.

“Part of the point of OCM is that we don’t have all the right answers for all the parts of the country…and the best way to move forward is to learn best practices [through the model].”

CMMI plans to hold webinars, site visits, and meetings at ASCO and elsewhere to share OCM best practices, he said.

So, What’s Everyone Asking?

According to Dr. Patel, the top OCM hot topics are:

# 1 Eligibility. CMMI wants the OCM to “include everyone as much as possible as long as we adhere to the principles of the OCM, attribute, and benchmark appropriately,” said Dr. Kline.

“ACCC is exactly the audience the Oncology Care Model is tailored for—those providing ongoing services for cancer care,” said Dr. Patel.

#2 If you have a practice, can only some providers participate? The short answer is, if you participate, anyone in the practice who is prescribing chemotherapy would be automatically included in the OCM. This includes NPs or PAs who might be prescribing. Simply put: It’s an inclusive model.

#3 Data requirements. Participants need the administrative and technological resources to support these.

For those contemplating OCM participation Patel suggests the following steps:

  • Evaluate what infrastructure investment you will need to make.
  • Perform a serious “gut check” with providers on what OCM participation will mean.
  • Consider how you’ll get all those involved in the OCM to understand the model’s total cost of care framework. (This last item is likely the biggest organizational hurdle, Patel said.)
  • Finally, consider the staffing requirements for participation.

What components will be needed for OCM success? Dr. Patel identified three:

  • Bringing on primary care physicians
  • Learning how to do robust data exchange inside the practice, e.g., having an EMR able to deliver clinicians what they need at point of service
  • Being able to predict which patients in your population will need more intensive services (risk stratify).

Perhaps it’s not surprising that even during the OCM discussion, the SGR made a cameo appearance. Dr. Patel noted that details of an SGR fix currently being negotiated on Capitol Hill will likely include some provisions that will force doctors to enter into alternative payment models in the next five years.

Transformation ⇒ From Volume to Value

Centers_for_Medicare_and_Medicaid_Services_logoBy Leah Ralph, Manager, Provider Economics and Public Policy, ACCC

This week the CMS Innovation Center announced the launch of the Oncology Care Model—the agency’s newest payment and service delivery model, described as a multi-payer, oncology practitioner-focused model designed to improve the quality of cancer care while lowering cost.

According to the CMS announcement, key facets of the model include:

  • Episode-based payment that targets chemotherapy and related care during a six-month period following the start of chemotherapy treatment.
  • Multi-payer design with Medicare fee-for-service and other payers working in tandem to promote care redesign for oncology patients.
  • Requiring physician practices to engage in practice transformation to improve quality and coordination of care.

This is the latest signal that the shift from volume-based reimbursement to payment for value and quality is gaining momentum. The interest in moving healthcare payment away from a system that incentivizes quantity has been reflected in every major healthcare law in recent years—from the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) in 2003 to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010.

In fact, the ACA created the $10 billion Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) with the sole aim of developing and testing innovative ways to pay providers. And on Feb. 12 the Innovation Center provided its first model for oncology care.

The launch of this model is not unexpected given that in January 2015, for the first time in Medicare’s history, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced explicit goals for tying Medicare payments to alternative payment models and value-based payments. According to the HHS timeline, 30 percent of all fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare payments will be tied to alternative payment models by 2016—including, but not limited to, Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), medical homes, and bundled payments for episodes of care. By 2018, 50 percent of payments will be tied to these models. CMS also set a goal of tying 85 percent of traditional Medicare payments to quality or value by 2016 and 90 percent by 2018 through such programs as the Hospital Value Based Purchasing or Hospital Readmissions Reduction programs.

Ambitious Goals

The initial benchmark of 2016 sets a laudable, but ambitious, goal. Certainly the announcement signals the Obama Administration is making this issue a priority, and we can expect to see an accelerated push to transition Medicare payments and, in turn, private payers.

This shift is a huge undertaking that will not only affect payments, but fundamentally change incentives for how providers deliver care. Implementation will take time, and will require the right balance of forward momentum and important safeguards to ensure that patients continue to receive the most appropriate, quality care. As HHS moves full steam ahead, the provider community must speak up and urge policymakers to:

  • continue to work to find consensus on appropriate quality measures,
  • establish a sound, fair methodology for calculating financial benchmarks and risk adjustment, and
  • allow providers the time, resources, and flexibility they need to implement these new payment models.

The just-announced Oncology Care Model (OCM) will test the bundling of payments for chemotherapy administration. But with other models, such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program (Medicare ACOs) that are primary care focused, it’s still unclear how oncologists will be included or even participate. Caring for cancer patients is complex and often expensive, leaving inherent challenges in how to account for cancer care in alternative models. How will high-cost drugs and innovative therapies be treated in the construct of an ACO? Will high-cost cancer patients be included in the financial benchmark? What is oncology’s role in shared risk and savings? ACCC and other organizations are continuing to work with CMS to answer these questions.

Call to Action

ACCC encourages the provider community to remain informed and active participants in the policy-making dialogue to ensure that we do, in fact, achieve meaningful, realistic payment reform. One of the best ways to get engaged is meeting with your legislators at ACCC’s upcoming Capitol Hill Day on March 16. The next day, at ACCC’s Annual Meeting, CANCERSCAPE on March 17, we’ll be hearing from Ron Kline, MD, Medical Officer with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation – an author of the Oncology Care Model. Now is the time to come to Washington D.C. – get your questions answered and voices heard at a pivotal moment for oncology care. Join us!

 

Payment Reform—Beyond the Buzzwords

dollarsignby Amanda Patton, Manager, Communications, ACCC

Pay for performance. Bundling. Episodic payments. ACOs. PCMHs. Payment reform buzzwords are now part of the oncology landscape as providers try to envision what the future will look like.

As healthcare reforms move us away from a volume-based payment model toward new value-based models—it’s hard for those on the front lines of cancer care to gauge exactly where oncology is in the transition process.

On April 1, ACCC Annual National Meeting keynote speaker Kavita Patel, MD, MS, will present an insider’s view of the progress to date in the shift from fee for service payment in oncology to quality and value-based models. Dr. Patel is a Fellow and Managing Director in the Engelberg Center for Healthcare Reform at the Brookings Institution.  She has been leading efforts around payment reform in oncology in the private and public sector, including advising the recent Specialty Physician Payment Model Opportunities Assessment and Design (SPPMOAD) project of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI).  Additionally, her current research focuses on payment models in cardiology, gastroenterology, and primary care.  Her knowledge is built on practical clinical experience as a primary care physician as well as her experience serving as a senior advisor to President Barack Obama and the late Senator Ted Kennedy.

In a recent conversation, Dr. Patel gave us a preview of the issues she’ll discuss at the ACCC’s upcoming Annual National Meeting. Read on for a glimpse into how she thinks oncology care delivery may look in the future.

In the near term, Patel believes oncology is likely to experience more pressure to drive down the cost of drugs by forcing doctors not to use high-cost drugs; more pressure for demonstration of adherence to guidelines and pathways; and increasing documentation requirements about patient-reported measures such as pain and symptom management.

Looking further down the road, the many new payment models under consideration make the future a little fuzzier. “Right now in cancer it’s really just fee for service; anything that’s not fee for service would be interesting—ACOs, medical homes, pay for performance, bundled payments, capitation, global budgets,” Patel said. But the move away from fee-for-service is a certainty.

Whatever shape new payment systems take, Dr. Patel thinks it could affect the composition of the oncology workforce. “Our traditional roles might have to be adapted,” she said. “Right now doctors are getting paid to see a lot of patients.” If oncology shifts to value-based payment models, there may be a change in who delivers some patient care. “It might not be doctors and it might not even be nurse practitioners; it may be oncology community health workers.”  Who might fill the role of oncology community health worker? Often these staff are lay persons who can help patients navigate the delivery system and serve as a point of coordination and outreach on the many issues which impact health beyond the four walls of a doctor’s office, such as transportation, housing and nutrition, she said.

Dr. Patel will share more insights and help set the stage for meeting sessions that will provide a deeper dive on topics such as strategies for growth in cancer care delivery, alternate payment models in oncology, the role of physician extenders on the cancer care team, and more at the ACCC Annual National Meeting, March 31-April 2, in Arlington, Virginia.