1 / 8

Matching Revenue Flows with the Population's Needs: The Experience in Maryland

This article discusses the experience of Maryland in aligning revenue flows with the healthcare needs of its population. It explores the role of the Health Services Cost Review Commission (HSCRC), the rate system implemented, and the impact of these measures on bending the cost curve. The article also highlights the rate innovations and quality payment mechanisms introduced in Maryland.

guerreroa
Download Presentation

Matching Revenue Flows with the Population's Needs: The Experience in Maryland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Matching Revenue Flows with the Population’s Needs: The Experience in Maryland John M. Colmers VP, Health Care Transformation and Strategic Planning, Johns Hopkins Medicine Chairman, HSCRC

  2. HSCRC – 30,000 ft. • Independent Commission created in 1971 – 7 members, 31 FTE staff • Broad statutory authority and flexible tools • Costs are reasonable • Rates are reasonably related to costs • Rates are set equitably without undue discrimination • Authority to experiment with alternative methods • Includes provision for uncompensated care in rates • Medicare waiver granted July 1, 1977 as demonstration • It’s what makes the system “all-payer” • Waiver test • Rate of increase in Medicare payment/admission from 1/1/81. • Must remain all payer • Significant transparency for payers, providers, and patients • Hospital rates are regulated, not physician rates • Lowest “markup” in the US

  3. Basic Components of HSCRC Rate System • Departmental Unit Rates • Hospitals have departmental unit rates that are established by the Commission and are reflective of the relative cost of services through rate realignment • Hospitals must charge Commission approved rates to all payers– significant penalties • Only variation from rates are cost justified differentials • Cost Per Case Constraint • Inpatient CPC • Each hospital is constrained to case-mix/severity adjusted $/case • Outpatient CPV • Hospitals are held to adjusted cost/visit standard • Reasonableness of Charges – Charge per Case Comparison • Overall comparison among all hospitals • Identifies high cost hospitals for greater scrutiny • Accounts for factors • Regulate costs not profits • Relies on accurate and timely financial and case mix information

  4. Bending the Cost Curve • Lowest Rate of Cost Growth of any State 1976-2009 • From 25% ABOVE the US average in ‘76 to 3% BELOW the US average (1) • 2009: Maryland Hospital cost per case estimated $45 billion savings to the State over the period 1976-2009 “Bending the Curve” Growth in Hospital Costs per Case (MD vs. US) Indexed Rate of Growth Had Maryland grown at the more rapid US rate – hospital expenditures would have been $45 billion higher US hospital cost growth Maryland hospital slower cost growth • Had the US grown at the slower Maryland rate of growth – hospital spending would have been $2.0 trillion lower • Only caveat to this performance is savings is all “Per Case” Note (1): Medpac identified a “most efficient” cohort of hospitals nationally with high quality scores – that are 9 -11% below average US cost per adjusted admission

  5. Effect of Payer Inequity

  6. Mark Up and Cost Shifting • Lowest markup and charges in US • These are “charges” but payment levels follow closely US Hospital markups MD Hospital markups Source: American Hospital Association statistics 1980 - 2009

  7. Rate Innovations • Total Patient Revenue • Admission/Readmissions • Bundling - Alternative Rate Applications • Quality Payment Mechanisms • Process measures • 21 Quality Based Reimbursement (QBR) measures • $7.1 million for FY2012 • Outcome measures • Measured by 49 Maryland Hospital Acquired Conditions (MHACs) • e.g. UTI, septicemia • $13.3 million for FY2012 • System Redesigns • Response to CMMI solicitations

  8. Why Maryland? • Role of hospital trustees • Political support, non-political process • Focus on cost, less on price manipulation • Broad authority has allowed system to evolve over time • Waiver/demonstration authority is critical

More Related