Risk Adjustment Flashcards
Factors when building a clinical algorithm
- Diagnoses
- Source of the diagnosis (claims, lab values, medical charts, etc.)
- If source is claims, what claims should be considered?
- If claim contains more than one diagnosis, how many diagnoses will be considered for identification?
- Over what time span will a diagnosis have to appear to be incorporated in the algortihm?
- What procedures may help determine the level of severity of diagnosis?
- What prescription drugs may be used to identify conditions?
Challenges when constructing a condition-based model
- Impact of co-morbidities for conditions often found together
- Type of benefit design underlying the data
- Degree of certainty with which the diagnosis has been identified
- Extent of “coverage” of the data (e.g. self-reported data may not be complete)
- Level of severity at which to recognize the condition
- Large number and different types of codes for procedures and drugs
HINT: CB DESC (Condition Based Description)
Definitions of sensitivity and specificity
When building clinical identification algorithms, the proper balance between sensitivity and specificity must be found.
- Sensitivity - the percentage of members correctly identified as having a condition (“true positives”)
- Specificity - the percentage of members correctly identified as not having a condition (“true negatives”)
External sources of clinical identification algorithms
- NCQA/HEDIS
- Population Health Alliance
- CMS
- Quality reporting and improvement organizations
- Grouper models
- Literature
Uses of HEDIS data
- Select the best health plan for their needs (by employers, consultants, and consumers)
- Health plans seeking accreditation
- Plans participating in Medicare must submit data on HEDIS-developed measures of quality
- Many state governments require plans participating in Medicaid to report HEDIS data
- May be used in “Pay for Performance” programs
Major publishers of health care quality measures (used for sources of algorithms)
- National Quality Forum (NQF)
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
- Joint Commission
- CMS
- Hospital Quality Alliance (HQA)
- Measures Applications Partnership (MAP)
- American Medical Association Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (PCPI)
Reasons for using commercially-available grouper models
- Building algorithms from scratch requires considerable time and work
- Models must be maintained to accommodate new codes
- Risk adjustment, providers, and plans may require a commercially available, consistent model to be used, and it must be available for review and validation
Principles of Grouper Model Design
- Diagnostic categories should be clinically meaningful
- Diagnostic categories should predict medical expenses
- Diagnostic categories should have adequate sample sizes for stable estimates
- Hierarchies should be used to characterize illness level within each disease process
- Diagnostic classification shyould encourage specific coding
- Diagnostic classification should not reward coding proliferation
- Providers should not be penalized for recording additional diagnoses
- Classification system should be internally consistent
- Diagnostic system should assign all codes (ICD-9/10)
- Discretionary diagnostic categories should be excluded
Commercially-available diagnosis-based grouper models
- DRG - case mix to hospital costs incurred
- CMS-HCC - condition categories
- HHS-HCC - ACA normalization
- CRG - Clinical Risk Groups - identifies total resources
- CDPS Chronic Illness and Disability Payment System - Adjusting payments (Medicaid, disabled, TANF)
- CDPS+Rx - Adjusting payments with Rx
- DxCG - High cost cases and profiling
- ACG - Adjusted Clinical Groups system- Uses ADGs
- MARA - More detailed level
- SCIO - Clinical classification software
- Risk/Severity - Inpatient regression
- WRA - Wakely Risk Assessment model - Transparent additive
- EGM - Medicare performance
- ETG - Episodes of Care
- MEG - Medicare Episode Groups - Medicare, disease staging
Useful dimensions of the MARA model
- Comprehensive set of risk scores by service category
- IP and ER scores correlate strongly with the probability of admission and ER events
- Individual condition profiles
- Recency of care
- Persistency of care
- Risk drivers
- Chronic and non-chronic mapping of each condition group
- Identification of issues related to frailty
Core principles of episode grouper models
Followed for the Truven Medical Episode Groups model
- Groups all care for one condition, one patient
- Describes diagnosed condition, not treated condition
- Levels of severity
- Ability for diagnosis to evolve within one episode of care
- Classifications that are clinically meaningful to providers
- Comprehensive and transparent
Types of drug grouper models
- Therapeutic class groupers - they group drugs into a hierarchy of therapeutic classes. Examples are American Hospital Formulary Service and Generic Product Identifier
- Drug-based risk adjustment models - they infer the member’s diagnosis from the therapeutic class of drugs the member uses, and generate a relative risk score. Examples are Medicaid Rx, Pharmacy Risk Groups, and RxGroups (DxCG).
Common features of Medicare prospective payment systems
- System of averages
- Increased complexity
- Relative weights
- Conversion factor
- Outliers
- Updates
- Access and Quality
Challenges with patient classification systems based on coding systems
- Need for new DRGs
- ICD Coding
- Upcoding
- New coding systems
Goals of risk adjustment for the Arizona Medicaid program
- Align payment with relative health risk of members at each health plan
- Be accurate and unbiased
- Accurate means relatively high correlation between projected and actual costs
- Unbiased means methodology should not over-compensate for some risk factors at the expense of others
- Be as simple as possible while accomplishing these goals
- Minimize the administrative burden of developing and implementing the methodology
- Be budget neutral
Medicaid costs that were excluded from weights in calibrated model (reimbursed in other ways)
- Prior Period Coverage (PPC)
- Behavior Health covered by Arizona Dept of Health Services
- Costs above reinsurance thresholds
- Children’s rehab services
- Maternity costs covered by delivery supplement
Medicaid groups that will NOT have claims based risk adjustment
- Reconciled risk groups - actual claims used to determine reimbursement
- Delivery supplemental rates - case rates paid for deliveries
- Option 1 and 2 transplant members - case rates paid for transplants
- SOBRA family planning - supplemental payments for women eligible for family planning services but not other Medicaid benefits
Categories for risk adjustment in MA
For existing enrollees:
- Community, non-dual eligible, aged
- Community, non-dual eligible, disabled
- Community, dual eligible - full benefits, aged
- Community, dual eligible - full benefits, disabled
- Community, dual eligible - partial benefits, aged
- Community, dual eligible - partial benefits, disabled
- Institutional
For new enrollees:
- Non-Medicaid and not originally disabled
- Medicaid and not originally disabled
- Non-Medicaid and originally disabled
- Medicaid and originally disabled
Experience items to be included in the Medicare BPT
- Average population risk score
- Enrollment
- Revenue
- Claims
- Non-benefit expense
- Profit
Ways in which the ACA addresses the antiselection and instability created by the guarantee issue requirement
- Subsidies for applicants with limited income
- Employer and individual mandates
- Risk adjustment to transfer revenue from plans with low-risk populations to plans with high risk
Rating factors allowed under the ACA
- Age (3:1 max ratio)
- Geographic location
- Family size
- Tobacco use (1.5:1 max ratio)
Reasons ACA used concurrent model for risk adjustment
- First year of ACA didn’t have historical data for prospective calculation
- Prospecitve models are less accurate than concurrent models
- Churn rates of members through exchanges means that many plans wouldn’t have claims data on members
ACA risk transfer formula
Practical issues with applying risk adjustment models
- Risk transfer models assume that risk and cost are linearly correlated
- MedPac identified these issues with Medicare HCCs:
- Only 70 HCCs for risk scoring
- Considerable variation within HCCs of patient severity
- Doesn’t account for certain racial groups and income levels likely being higher utilizers
- Model only uses 1 year of data, may miss chronic conditions
- Does not include a factor for the number of conditions
Problems with the Massachusetts risk adjustment model
- Applies to gross premium, not cost of insurance or pure premium
- Bias against zero-condition members
- Bias against limited network and other low cost plans
- Risk adjustment operates on state level instead of regional
Potential sources of bias in risk adjustment transfers (ACA)
- Partial year enrollment
- Lack of historical data
- Only a fraction of members trigger conditions
- High-cost cases - costs and risk score don’t line up
- Prospective vs. concurrent models
- Market-share
Key learnings from DM programs that ACOs should apply to be successful
- High quality data analytics
- Emphasis on EMR/EHR
- Importance of economics
- Difficult to change patient behavior in a way that produces a measurable financial outcome
- Focus on patients with greatest opportunity for cost reduction
- Importance of planning and understanding the opportunity
Basic CMS beneficiary assignment process
- Determine ACO cohorts using TIN
- ACO submits and certifies participant list
- Patients assessed against list of participating professionals to determine if the ACO has plurality of primary care services
Criteria for beneficiary to be assigned to a participating ACO
- Record of Medicare enrollment
- At least one month of Part A and B enrollment (no months of A or B only)
- No months of Medicare group private enrollment (FFS plans only)
- Assigned to only one Medicare shared savings initiative
- Lives in US state, territory, or province
- Have a primary care service with physician at the ACO
- Receive largest share of primary care services from the participating ACO
Medicare eligibility enrollment types for separate expenditure calculations for ACO beneficiaries
- ESRD
- Disabled
- Aged/dual-eligible Medicare and Medicaid
- Aged/non dual-eligible (eligible for Medicare, not Medicaid)
ACO risk adjustment - blending risk scores of new and existing members to create single risk ratio
- Subpopulation & risk adjustment
- Continuously-assigned - CMS-HCC claims-based risk adjustment (when avg risk ratio < 1)
- Continuously-assigned - Demographic risk adjustment (when avg risk ratio > 1)
- Newly-assigned - CMS-HCC risk adjustment (always)
- Create a single risk ratio, weighted by relative membership of new and continuous members
Adaptations made to CMS-HCCs to develop HHS-HCCs
- Prediction year (prospective vs concurrent)
- Population (aged and disabled vs private individual and small group)
- Type of spending (medical only vs medical+drug)
Criteria for including HCCs in the HHS risk adjustment model
- Represent clinically significant, well defined, and costly medical conditions that are likely to be diagnosed, coded, and treated if they are present
- Are not especially subject to discretionary diagnostic coding or diagnostic discovery
- Do not primarily represent poor quality or avoidable complications of medical care
- Identify chronic, predicatble, or other conditions that are subject to insurer risk selection, risk segmentation, or provider network selection
Options for improving the HHS-HCC risk adjustment methodology
- Improve accuracy for partial year enrollees
- Use drug utilization
- Pooling of high cost enrollees
- Evaluate concurrent vs prospective risk adjustment models
Benefits and concerns of adding prescription drug utilization to the HHS-HCC risk adjustment model
- Benefits
- Imputing missing diagnoses
- Severity indicator for a specific diagnosis
- More timely, standardized data
- Mitigates financial disincentive to prescribe expensive medications
- Concerns
- Finding a model
- Gaming, perverse incentives, and discretionary prescribing
- Sensitivity of risk adjustment to variations in prescription drug utilization
- Added administrative burden, complexity, and costs
- Availability of outpation drug data only
- Multiple indications for most drugs
Criteria for selecting drug-diagnosis pairs for a hybrid model
- Drugs with pattern of non-discretionary prescribing
- Avoid drugs with incentives for over-prescribing
- Avoid drugs with variations in prescribing across providers, areas, etc
- Carefully consider high-cost drugs
- Avoid drugs indicated for multiple diagnoses
- Avoid drugs indicated for diagnoses not included in HHS-HCC model
- Carefully consider drugs in areas with rapid rate of technological changes
Criteria for evaluating hybrid risk adjustment models
- Clinical/face validity
- Empirical/predictive validity
- Incentives for prescription drug utilization
- Sensitivity to variations in prescription drug utilization
- Incentives for diagnosis reporting
Necessary items for stable and a sustainable individual health insurance market
- Individual enrollment at sufficient levels and a balanced risk pool
- Stable regulatory environment that facilitates fair competition
- Sufficient insurer participation and plan offerings
- Slow spending growth and high quality of care
Key factors for a healthy balanced risk pool with limited market selection
- Risk stabilization programs (3 R’s)
- Outreach and advertising
- Medicaid expansion
- Ability to develop adequate rates
Changes made to the ACA risk adjustment program
- Duration impact - 2017 - adjustment added for partial year enrollees
- Administrative load - 2018 - admin load reduced by 14%
- Inclusion of pharmacy data - 2018
- Updated weights - 2017/2018
- Large claim pooling mechanism - 2018
ASOP 12 - Considerations for testing the risk classification system
- Test long-term viability of the system
- Effect of adverse selection
- Risk classes used for testing
- Effect of changes
- Quantitative analysis
ASOP 12 - Considerations in selection of risk characteristics to use in a risk classification system
- Relationship of risk characteristics and expected outcomes
- Causality
- Objectivity
- Practicality
- Applicable law
- Industry practices
- Business practices
ASOP 12 - Considerations when establishing risk classes
- Intended use
- Actuarial considerations
- Adverse selection
- Credibility
- Practicality
- Other Considerations - legal compliance, industry practice, business practice limitations
- Reasonableness of results
ASOP 45 - Considerations when selecting a risk adjustment model
- Transparency
- Pratical considerations
- Predictive ability
- Model version
- Reliance on experts
- Impact on program
- Timing of data collection, measurement, and estimation
- Intended use
- Population and program
HINT: T PAVE IT UP
ASOP 45 - Considerations regarding consistency of input data
- Provider contracts
- Diagnostic services
- Coding and other data issues