© Remington Group - RemingtonReport.com

Remington Report | Logo

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Resources to Drive Performance and Profitability:

FutureFocus & TrendLens Executive Resource

ff tl home thumbs
 
FutureFocus and TrendLens, an executive resource, helps our healthcare leaders to see around corners, navigate disruption, build futures, broaden their views of the industry, and embrace change.
 
 

FutureFocus: Payment Changes for the Future of Home Health: Bundled versus Stay-Based

By: Lisa Remington, President, Remington Health Strategy Group, Publisher, The Remington Report

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) is discussing how to proceed on creating a unified prospective payment system to improve the accuracy of Medicare fee-for-service payments for post-acute care settings (HHA, SNF, IRF, and LTCH).

A report from MedPAC staff outlined the pros and cons of an episode-based approach compared to a stay-based approach. Under an episode-based system, one fixed payment would be made for the combination of stays that a patient would make throughout an episode of post-acute care.

Carol Carter, a principal policy analyst on MedPAC’s staff, presented both options to the commissioners: A stay-based model would not change fee-for-service incentives, while a bundled payment approach could lead providers to stint care to maximize. She warned that there is a significant downside to each.

“A stay-based design is more like what we have,” Carter said. “There are fewer unknowns than going to an episode-based payment and going to a whole different amount of risk.” 

According to Carter’s report is the concern that post-acute care is highly variable. One patient may need a long-term stay in a skilled nursing facility, another may need brief home healthcare and a third a combination of the two. A major downside is that a post-acute care facility will get less money for a longer episode than a shorter one because of the extended costs of care.

"Our analysis indicated that an episode-based payment design would create an incentive for providers to furnish shorter episodes over longer ones," said Carter. "If past industry behavior is any guide, the large differences in profitability could influence provider behavior."

The commissioners did not take action on either proposal, however they favored the stay-based approach. Others noted that there’s room to build a value-based model on top of that approach, which could push providers to more high-quality referrals and improved discharge planning. 

“Episode-based makes a lot of sense, but in practice, it’s more complicated,” Commissioner David Grabowski, Ph.D., a health policy professor at Harvard Medical School, said. He said, though, that if in the future the commission wishes to recommend the stay-based model, quality measures and greater accountability would need to be included. 

MedPAC’s Comparison Of Stay-And Episode-Based Design

Aspect                                Stay-Based Design             Episode-Based Design

Payment Accuracy              Accurate for most               Accurate for most patient

                                              groups                                groups; less accurate for   

                                                                                          short or long episodes

Patient Selection                  Less likely                          More likely

Stinting on care                    Less likely                          More likely

Unnecessary                        More likely                          Less likely

Volume

Care Coordination               More handoffs                    Fewer handoffs

Implementation and            Easier                                 More complications

Administration

 

MedPAC’s Conclusions

  1. Current policy results in inaccurate and in equitable payments.
  1. Commission evaluated stay-based and episode-based designs
    • Compared with current policy, both designs would establish more accurate and equitable payments, but each has strengths and weaknesses
  1. Stay-based design would extend undesirable FFS incentives, but less likely to result in patient selection and stinting.
  1. Episode-based design has features that are attractive in theory but could result in unintended adverse consequences (eg: patient selection withholding of care, basing decisions to transfer or extend care on financial considerations).

Remington’s Takeaway

Fee-for-service for post-acute care is high relative to the cost of care, which also distorts Medicare Advantage and ACO benchmarks. For those that attended the 2019 Think Tank in March, this relates back to our discussion on why the healthcare infrastructure has to change to align to value-based payments. The fee-for-service payment does not align with value-based payments. Expect in the future that PAC payments either have a stay-based or episode-based design or a hybrid of one or the other. These MedPAC discussions are in preparation for the future IMPACT Act.

Read the full report http://www.medpac.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/pac-pps-episode-march-2019.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Article Search

Current Trending Story

Seven guided questions for strategic planning. Six external trends for home care companies to keep an eye on. 10 challenges ahead for home care companies. We explore how your organization can strategically plan based on predictability, and how your organization can respond effectively with...
Read More

The Remington Report Magazine

May/June 2019

MayJune 2019 Cover for website postingSPECIAL REPORT

Positioning Home Care Companies As Chronic Care Management Partners

• Increasing Patient Engagement Strategies

• Exploring Readmission Data

• Chronic Care Capacity Coaching

• Managing ED Visits

 

 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                                  
 
(Must be logged-in and current subscriber)
 
 
  

Insights You Don't Want To Miss

Does the Current 30-Day Readmission Penalty Over-Simplify “High-Risk” Timing

Does the Current 30-Day Readmission Penalty Over-Simplify “High-Risk” Timing

Findings suggest that the 30-days following hospital discharge are not the same with regard to what influences outcomes for sick patients.

A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine findings suggest readmissions in the week after discharge are more preventable and more likely to be caused by factors over which the hospital has direct control than those later in the 30-day window.

Read more ...

Home Health Value-Based Purchasing: The Top 5 Things You Should Know

Home Health Value-Based Purchasing: The Top 5 Things You Should Know

By: Connie Christopher, RN, BSN, Connie Christopher, RN, BSN, Director Care Transitions, FirstHealth of the Carolinas, Inc.

 FirstHealth Home Care, a division of FirstHealth of the Carolinas, a comprehensive not-for-profit health care system in the mid-Carolinas, has always kept the focus on high quality patient care and actionable data to drive performance improvement. With the advent of the five year Home Health Value-Based Purchasing Model Pilot in 2016, FirstHealth was already demonstrating consistently high outcomes.

Read more ...

Analyzing the Readmission Cycle: News Ways to Look at Preventability

Analyzing the Readmission Cycle: News Ways to Look at Preventability

By: Lisa Remington, President Remington Health Strategy Group, Publisher The Remington Report

Significant studies are questioning whether a 30-day interval for readmissions is the best measurement for penalties. We provide findings that can help providers look at their own data and explore solutions. 

Read more ...

More Insight Articles

Remington Report Login

Access to public content on the site
does not require login.