Medicare Value Based Purchasing Overview

South Carolina Hospital Association

DataGen Susan McDonough

Bill Shyne October 29, 2015

Today’s Objectives

• Overview of Medicare Value Based Purchasing Program

• Review Methodologies

• Review South Carolina’s VBP Report

Medicare Quality Based Payment Reform (QBPR) Programs

• Mandated by the ACA of 2010

• VBP Program (redistributive w/ winners and losers) • Readmissions Reduction Program (remain whole or lose)

• HAC Reduction Program (remain whole or lose)

• National pay-for-performance programs

• Most acute care hospitals must participate; CAHs excluded

• Program rules, measures, and methodologies adopted well in advance (2013-2021)

Medicare Quality Programs

• Payment adjustments based on facility-specific performance compared to national standards

• Performance metrics are determined using historical data

• Program components change every year

• Financial exposure increases every year

• Program became effective FFY 2013 (October 1, 2012)

• The only Medicare quality program that provides rewards and penalties (redistributive)

• The only Medicare quality program to recognize improvement as well as achievement

• Funded by IPPS payment “contribution” (1.75% in FFY 2016)

• $1.5 Billion program (for FFY 2016)

• Contribution increases by 0.25% per year (2% in FFY 2017 is the cap)

Medicare Value Based Purchasing (VBP) Program

• Performance is evaluated on a measure-by-measure basis

• Quality achievement and improvement are both recognized • Hospital performance is compared to national performance standards

• Measures are grouped into domains

• Process of Care • Patient Experience of Care • Outcomes of Care • Efficiency

Value Based Purchasing: Program Overview

Measure Scores

Domain

Scores

Total Performance

Score

Payout Percentage

VBP SlopeAdjustment

FactorProgram Impact

VBP Efficiency Measure

Medicare Spending per Beneficiary:

South Carolina Medicare Spending per Beneficiary

• Performance is evaluated on a measure-by-measure basis

• Quality achievement and improvement are both recognized • Hospital performance is compared to national performance standards

• Measures are grouped into domains

• Process of Care • Patient Experience of Care • Outcomes of Care • Efficiency

• Domain scores are combined to calculate a Total Performance Score (TPS)

• Total Performance Score is converted to an Adjustment Factor

Value Based Purchasing: Program Overview

Measure Scores

Domain

Scores

Total Performance

Score

Payout Percentage

VBP SlopeAdjustment

FactorProgram Impact

VBP Program Trends

• Continually evolving

• Program rules established in advance

• The final 2016 IPPS rule establishes parameters through 2021

• Increasing emphasis on outcomes and efficiency

• Moving targets

70%

45%

20%10% 5%

25%

30%40%

25%

30% 30%

30% 25%

25%

25%

20% 25%

25%

25%

20%

25%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Process of Care Patient Outcomes Patient Experience of Care Efficiency Safety Clinical Care

+

• National Benchmarks • High achievement levels

(average performance score for top 10% of hospitals nationwide)

• National Thresholds • Minimum achievement levels

(median performance score for hospitals nationwide)

• National Floors (HCAHPS only;

lowest scores nationwide)

VBP Performance Standards

Floor Threshold Benchmark

Communication with Nurses 53.99% 77.67% 86.07%

Communication with Doctors 57.01% 80.40% 88.56%

Responsiveness of Hospital Staff 38.21% 64.71% 79.76%

Pain Management 48.96% 70.18% 78.16%

Measure Name

National Performance Standards

Established by CMS (3)

VBP Measure Scoring: Achievement Points

Case Count Measure Score Case Count Measure Score Threshold Benchmark

SCIP_INF

_3

Prophylactic Antibiotics Discontinued Within 24

Hours After Surgery End Time392 99% 440 98% 97.494% 100% 6 5 6

Achievement

Points

Earned (4)

Measure Name

Hospital PerformanceMeasure

ID

Performance Period

Analyzed (1)

Baseline Period

Analyzed (2)

Hospital Performance

Final Points

Earned (6)

Improvement

Points

Earned (5)

National Performance

Standards Established

by CMS (3)

VBP Measure Scoring: Improvement Points

Case Count Measure Score Case Count Measure Score Threshold Benchmark

SCIP_INF

_3

Prophylactic Antibiotics Discontinued Within 24

Hours After Surgery End Time392 99% 440 98% 97.494% 100% 6 5 6

Achievement

Points

Earned (4)

Measure Name

Hospital PerformanceMeasure

ID

Performance Period

Analyzed (1)

Baseline Period

Analyzed (2)

Hospital Performance

Final Points

Earned (6)

Improvement

Points

Earned (5)

National Performance

Standards Established

by CMS (3)

For each individual measure, the hospital received the higher point value of achievement or improvement. In this example, a score of 6 is assigned to the SCIP_INF_3 measure.

Domain Score and TPS Calculation

VBP Total Performance Score

Unweighted Domain

Score

Original Domain

Weight

Proportionally

Reweighted Domain

Weight *

Weighted Score(Unweighted Domain Score X

Reweighted Domain Weight)

68.57% 10.00% 10.00% 6.86%

58.00% 25.00% 25.00% 14.50%

24.29% 40.00% 40.00% 9.71%

20.00% 25.00% 25.00% 5.00%

36.07%

Patient Experience Domain

Efficiency Domain

Process Domain

Patient Outcomes Domain

Total VBP Performance Score (TPS) (Sum of weighted scores)

• Each domain score is calculated separately by adding measure components and taking percentage

• Domain scores are then weighted together

Slope Calculation

VBP Linear Function (Payout Percentage) = [Total Performance Score x VBP Slope]

VBP Adjustment Factor = [1 + (Program Contribution Percentage x Payout Percentage) – Program Contribution Percentage]

Annual Program Impact = [IPPS Base Operating Dollars x VBP Adjustment Factor – IPPS Base Operating Dollars]

VBP Payment Adjustment Calculation

F $93,951,800

G 1.75%

H $1,644,200

I 3.22

J 46.49%

K $764,300

L ($879,900)

M 0.9906

N 2.00

O 28.86%

P $474,500

Q ($1,169,700)

R 0.9876

Estimated Payment Adjustment Factor (1+ (( G X J ) - G )

Program Contribution ( F X G )

VBP Payout ( H X O )

Linear Payout Function Factor (slope of dashed line in chart set at 2.0)

VBP Payment Percentage ( I X E)

Net Gain/Loss ( K - H )

Linear Payout Function Factor (slope of solid line in chart - based on U.S. distribution of hospital TPS)

VBP Program Impact (Current Estimate)

VBP Payout ( J X H )

Program Contribution Percentage

Estimated Total IPPS Operating Payments

Estimated Payment Adjustment Factor (1+ (( G X O ) - G )

VBP Contribution

Amount

Net Gain/Loss ( P - H )

VBP Program Impact (Conservative Estimate)

**

VBP Payment Percentage ( N X E )

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%140%160%180%200%220%240%260%280%300%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

VB

P P

ay

me

nt

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Total Performance Score (TPS)

Linear Exchange Function Graph

Hospital's TPS and Corresponding VBP Payment Percentage

Breakeven Score

Payment Conversion Line (Current Estimate)

Payment Conversion Line (Conservative Estimate)

VBP Impact Analysis Worksheet

1

Unweighted Domain

Score

Original Domain

Weight

Proportionally

Reweighted Domain

Weight *

Weighted Score(Unweighted Domain Score X

Reweighted Domain Weight)

A 72.73% 20.00% 20.00% 14.55%

B 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 9.00%

C 20.00% 30.00% 30.00% 6.00%

D 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 4.00%

E 33.55%

F $65,081,300

G 1.50%

H $976,200

I 2.72

J 91.37%

K $891,900

L ($84,300)

M 0.9987

N 2.00

O 67.09%

P $654,900

Q ($321,300)

R 0.9951

VBP Trends (Based on Current Estimate)

Hospital Compare's

Sept. 2013 Update

(3Q2013)

Hospital Compare's

Dec. 2013 Update

(4Q2013)

Hospital Compare's

March 2014 Update

(1Q2014)

Hospital Compare's

June 2014 Update

(2Q2014)

59.09% 64.55% 72.73%

969 of 3040 850 of 3036 597 of 3029

20 of 60 19 of 59 15 of 59

35.00% 35.00% 30.00%

1535 of 3155 1644 of 3135 2007 of 3128

41 of 65 45 of 65 52 of 65

26.00% 20.00% 20.00%

1843 of 2831 2085 of 2834 2085 of 2835

42 of 64 49 of 64 48 of 64

20.00% 20.00% 20.00%

1101 of 3150 1096 of 3144 1095 of 3139

26 of 65 26 of 65 26 of 65

Efficiency Domain

Raw Score

Rank within State

Rank within U.S.

Patient Experience

Domain Rank within U.S.

Patient Outcomes

Domain

Raw Score

Rank within State

Rank within U.S.

Insufficient Data

Insufficient Data

Insufficient Data

Estimated Payment Adjustment Factor (1+ (( G X O ) - G )

Rank within State

Rank within State

Rank within U.S.

Raw Score

VBP Program Impact (Conservative Estimate)

**

VBP Program Impact (Current Estimate)

VBP Payout ( J X H )

Linear Payout Function Factor (slope of solid line in chart - based on U.S. distribution of hospital TPS)

VBP Payment Percentage ( I X E)

Net Gain/Loss ( K - H )

VBP Payment Percentage ( N X E )

Estimated Payment Adjustment Factor (1+ (( G X J ) - G )

Raw Score

Insufficient DataProcess Domain

Linear Payout Function Factor (slope of dashed line in chart set at 2.0)

VBP Payout ( H X O )

Net Gain/Loss ( P - H )

Patient Experience Domain

Program Contribution ( F X G )

Efficiency Domain

Estimated Total IPPS Operating Payments

Patient Outcomes Domain

Program Contribution Percentage

Medicare Hospital VBP Analysis

Estimated FFY 2015 Program Performance

Update Based on Hospital Compare's June 2014 (2nd quarter 2014) Data Release

VBP Contribution

Amount

Score, Impact, and Trend Estimates

VBP Score

Estimates

Total VBP Performance Score (TPS) (Sum of weighted scores)

Sample Hospital

Process Domain

0%20%40%60%80%

100%120%140%160%180%200%220%240%260%280%300%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

VB

P P

aym

en

t P

erc

en

tage

Total Performance Score (TPS)

Linear Exchange Function Graph

Hospital's TPS and Corresponding VBP Payment Percentage

Breakeven Score

Payment Conversion Line (Current Estimate)

Payment Conversion Line (Conservative Estimate)

Calculation of Total Performance score from domain scores

Adjustment Factor calculation and estimated program impacts

Quarterly Performance Trends Comparison to nation

VBP Performance Scorecard Worksheet

• Actual VBP scores and estimated scores

• Year-to-year improvement in performance on a measure does not guarantee improved score

AMI-7a N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

AMI-8a N/A 87.5% 0 96.4% ▲ 3 ▲

SCIP-Inf-1 2 97.8% ▲ 5 ▲ 99.3% ▲ 8 ▲

SCIP-Inf-2 2 99.2% ▲ 6 ▲ 99.5% ▲ 7 ▲ 99.0% ▼ 0 ▼

SCIP-Inf-3 0 94.5% ▲ 2 ▲ 95.8% ▲ 5 ▲ 96.0% ▲ 2 ▼

SCIP-Inf-4 9 94.3% ▼ 0 ▼ 96.4% ▲ 2 ▲

SCIP-Inf-9 93.1% 5 95.5% ▲ 6 ▲ 96.0% ▲ 4 ▼

HF-1 4 92.0% ▲ 3 ▼ 93.9% ▲ 3 ▲

PN-3b 0 96.7% ▲ 2 ▲ 97.0% ▲ 4 ▲

PN-6 5 94.1% ▼ 0 ▼ 96.7% ▲ 2 ▲ 94.0% ▼ 0 ▼

SCIP-Card-2 3 98.3% ▲ 8 ▲ 98.6% ▲ 7 ▼ 99.0% ▲ 6 ▼

SCIP-VTE-1 5 99.3% ▲ 8 ▲

SCIP-VTE-2 2 95.9% ▲ 2 ▲ 98.2% ▲ 6 ▲ 99.0% ▲ 7 ▲

IMM-2 90.0% 1

Unweighted Domain Score ▲ ▲ ▼28.6%

gggggg

gg

gggggg

ggg

gggg

gg

ggggggg

ggg

gggggggg

ggggggg

ggggg

Measure Not Evaluated for VBP 2013

gg gg

34.2%

Measure Not Evaluated for VBP 2015

Measure Not Evaluated for VBP 2014

gggggggg gggggg

98.9%

90.6%

95.6%

95.8%

95.0%

gg

ggg

Measure Not Evaluated for VBP 2015

gg

gggg

Measure Not Evaluated for VBP 2016

Measure Not Evaluated for VBP 2016

Measure Not Evaluated for VBP 2016

g

ggggggg

Hospital

PerformanceVBP Measure Score

gg

gggggg

Measure Not Evaluated for VBP 2016ggggg

Projected to be Eligible

ggggg

FFY 2013 Program ACTUAL Performance FFY 2014 Program ACTUAL Performance

Measure and Domain Score Comparison

48.2%

ggg

97.6%

Hospital

Performance

N/A

gggggggg

Hospital

PerformanceHospital Performance

ggggg

93.6%

95.1% gg

gg

VBP Measure Score

Eligible Eligible

VBP Measure Score VBP Measure Score

Eligible

FFY 2016 Program ESTIMATED PerformanceFFY 2015 Program ACTUAL Performance

Pro

ce

ss o

f C

are

ggggggggg

94.1%

32.0%

Measure Not Evaluated for VBP 2013

ggggg

97.4%

gggg

N/A

Program Eligibility

Value Based Purchasing Program Trends

• Chasing a moving target

• Measures/Domains

• National Improvement Trends

• Performance Standards

Scheduled Quarterly Release June 2011 Sept. 2011 Dec. 2011 Mar. 2012 June 2012 Sept. 2012 Dec. 2012 Mar. 2013 June 2013 Sept. 2013 Dec. 2013 Mar. 2014 June 2014

Data Collection DatesOct. 1, 2009 - Sept.

30, 2010

Jan. 1, 2010 - Dec.

31, 2010

Apr. 1, 2010 - Mar.

31, 2011

Jul. 1, 2010 - June

30, 2011

Oct. 1, 2010 - Sept.

30, 2011

Jan. 1, 2011 - Dec.

31, 2011

Apr. 1, 2011 - Mar.

31, 2012

Jul. 1, 2011 - June

30, 2012

Oct. 1, 2011 - Sept.

30, 2012

Jan. 1, 2012 - Dec.

31, 2012

Apr. 1, 2012 - Mar.

31, 2013

Jul. 1, 2012 - June

30, 2013

Oct. 1, 2012 - Sept.

30, 2013

Hospital Performance 96% 97% 97% 97% 98% 98% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 100%CASES 247 273 303 301 291 292 290 307 312 315 298 282 300

U.S. Top 10% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

U.S. Average 89% 90% 90% 91% 92% 92% 93% 93% 93% 94% 94% 94% 94%

U.S. Rank 943 of 3269 820 of 3264 876 of 3248 944 of 3243 772 of 3233 760 of 3209 586 of 3176 611 of 3169 619 of 3144 647 of 3131 683 of 3122 718 of 3133 1 of 3119

State Rank 3 of 8 2 of 7 3 of 8 2 of 7 3 of 8 3 of 8 2 of 7 2 of 7 2 of 6 2 of 6 1 of 7 1 of 7 1 of 7

Applicable to the 2013, 2014 and 2015 VBP Programs.

HF_1: Discharge Instructions

96%

100%100% 100%

89%

94%

88%

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%

102%

Providence Alaska MedicalCenter

U.S. Top 10%

U.S. Average

Value Based Purchasing: Hospital Case Study

• Total Performance Score drops from 81.6% to 34.1% due to its poorer performance in HCAPHPs, and the addition of Outcomes/Efficiency and increased domain weight

• Hospital Payout Percentage drops from 149.9% to 88.0% from FFY 2013 to 2015

• As CMS shifts more and more weight towards these Outcomes/Efficiency domains, this hospital may experience larger losses in future program years

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

2013 2014 2015

Total Performance Score

Process

HCAHPs

Outcomes

Efficiency

2013 2014 2015

Process 95.6% 94.0% 90.0%

HCAHPs 49.0% 32.0% 27.0%

Outcomes N/A 50.0% 13.3%

Efficiency N/A N/A 20.0%

Total Performance Score 81.6% 64.4% 34.1%

VBP Slope 1.8374 2.0962 2.5801

Adjustment Factor 1.0050 1.0044 0.9982

Payout Percentage 149.9% 135.0% 88.0%

South Carolina Performance Trends

Key Drivers of Statewide Performance:

• New Domains • FFY 2014: Outcomes Domain

• FFY 2015: Efficiency Domain

• New/Removed Measures • FFY 2014: Added - SCIP-9, AMI, Heart Failure, and Pneumonia Mortality Measures

• FFY 2015: Added - PSI-90, CLABSI, Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary; Removed - SCIP-VTE-1

• FFY2016: Added – Removed - IMM-2: Influenza Immunization (2018+) and AMI-7A: Fibrinolytic Therapy Received within 30 Minutes of Hospital Arrival (2018+); Removed - process domain (2018+) with remaining PC-01 measure to move to Safety Domain

• Changing Eligibility

• Update performance periods/standards • Nationwide Improvement

• Changing Domain Weights • Increased weight towards Outcomes/Efficiency

Domain Ranking (Lower is Better) 2013

Process of Care 7 of 50 15 of 50 ▲ 17 of 50 ▲

Patient Experience of Care 5 of 50 8 of 50 ▲ 4 of 50 ▼

Outcomes of Care N/A 34 of 50 - 19 of 50 ▼

Effic iency N/A N/A - 36 of 50 -

Total Performance Score (TPS) 3 of 50 8 of 50 ▲ 15 of 50 ▲

2014 2015

VBP Measure Updates

• Reference population update to CDC measures • To be updated to CY 2015, effective for CY 2016 reporting • Reference Population effects denominator of SIR – Expected Infections • CMS proposes to recalculate performance period SIRs to allow for

Improvement Point Calculation

• Potential Expansion of CAUTI/CLABSI measures to non-ICU wards • Current Measure: Adult, pediatric, and neonatal intensive care unit

(ICU) data only • Expanded Measure: Adds non-ICU adult or pediatric medical, surgical,

and medical/surgical wards • Proposed expansion would be effective for FFY 2019 VBP and future

years

=Standardized Infection Ratio (SIR)1

Number of Observed CLABSI Infections

Number of Expected CLABSI Infections

0.000

South Carolina VBP Performance Trends

2013 2014 2015

Payout Percentage 112.6% 104.8% 105.3%

Total Impact $1,678,800 $805,600 $1,081,300

Eligible Hospitals 51 48 53

Number of Winners 35 26 34

Number of Losers 16 22 19

112.6%

104.8% 105.3%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

Statewide Payback Percentage

VBP Program Timeframes

FFY 2016 VBP Program Timeframes

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

Outcomes of Care

(Mortality & PSI-90):

Baseline Period6

Outcomes of Care

(Mortality & PSI-90):

Performance Period7

Efficiency of Care:

Baseline Period6

Efficiency of Care:

Performance Period7

FFY 2016

Payment Adjustment

2014 2015 2016

Process of Care:

Baseline Period6

Process of Care:

Performance Period7

Outcomes of Care

(HAI Measures):

Baseline Period6

Outcomes of Care

(HAI Measures):

Performance Period7

Patient Experience of Care:

Baseline Period6

Patient Experience of Care:

Performance Period7

2010 2011 2012 2013

VBP Program Timeframes

FFY 2017 VBP Program Timeframes

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

Efficiency and Cost Reduction:

Baseline Period

Efficiency and Cost Reduction:

Performance Period

2010

Clinical Care - Outcomes:

Baseline Period

Clinical Care - Outcomes:

Performance Period

Safety of Care (PSI-90):

Baseline Period

2015 2016 2017

Clinical Care - Process:

Baseline Period

Clinical Care - Process:

Performance Period

FFY 2017

Payment Adjustment

Patient Experience of Care:

Baseline Period

Patient Experience of Care:

Performance Period

Safety of Care (All other):

Performance Period

Safety of Care (All other):

Baseline Period

Safety of Care (PSI-90):

Performance Period

2011 2012 2013 2014

QBPR Reference Guide Quality Based Payment Reform (QBPR) Reference Guide

Value Based Purchasing (VBP) Overview: FFY 2018 Program

Measures, Performance Standards, Evaluation Periods, and Other Program Details for the FFY 2018 VBP Program

Safe

ty o

f C

are

Measure ID Measure Description National

Threshold1

National Benchmar

k2

Minimum Standards

4

HAI_1* Central Line-Associated Blood Stream Infection (CLABSI) 0.3690 0.0000

1 Predicted Infection

HAI_2* Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI) 0.9060 0.0000

HAI_5* Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) Blood Laboratory-identified Events

0.7670 0.0000

HAI_6* Clostridium difficile (C.diff.) 0.7940 0.0020

PSI-90* Patient Safety Indicator Composite (FFY 2016 IPPS final rule standards used AHRQ v4.4)

TBD (v4.5a)

TBD (v4.5a)

3 Cases

PC-01* (MOVED) Elective Delivery Prior to 39 completed Weeks Gestation

2.0408% 0.0000% 10 Cases

Pooled Surgical Site Infection (SSI) Measure**:

HAI-3 * Surgical Site Infection - Colon 0.8240 0.0000 1 Predicted Infection

HAI-4 * Surgical Site Infection - Abdominal Hysterectomy 0.7100 0.0000

Clin

ica

l Car

e: O

utc

om

es

Measure ID Measure Description National

Threshold1

National Benchmar

k2

Minimum Standards

4

MORT–30–AMI Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) 30-Day Mortality Rate (converted to survival rate for VBP)

85.1458% 87.1669%

25 Cases

MORT–30–HF Heart Failure (HF) 30-Day Mortality Rate (converted to survival rate for VBP)

88.1794% 90.3985%

MORT–30–PN Pneumonia (PN) 30-Day Mortality Rate (converted to survival rate for VBP)

88.2986% 90.8124%

Pat

ien

t Ex

per

ien

ce o

f C

are

Measure ID Measure Description National

Floor3

National Threshold

1

National Benchmar

k2

Minimum Standards

4

Communication with Nurses 55.27% 78.52% 86.68%

100 Surveys

Communication with Doctors 57.39% 80.44% 88.51%

Responsiveness of Hospital Staff 38.40% 65.08% 80.35%

Pain Management 52.19% 70.20% 78.46%

Communication about Medicines 43.43% 63.37% 73.66%

Hospital Cleanliness & Quietness 40.05% 65.60% 79.00%

Discharge Information 62.25% 86.60% 91.63%

Overall Rating of Hospital 37.67% 70.23% 84.58%

CTM-3 (NEW) 3-Item Care Transitions Measure 25.21% 51.45% 62.44%

Effi

cien

cy a

nd

Co

st R

edu

ctio

n

Measure ID Measure Description National

Threshold1

National Benchmar

k2

Minimum Standards

4

SPP-1* (MSPB-1) Spending Per Hospital Patient With Medicare

Median Ratio

Across All Hospitals*

**

Mean Ratio of Lowest

Decile of Hospitals*

**

25 Cases

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Total Performance Score: Original Domain Weighting5

Efficiency and Cost

Reduction 25%

Safety of Care 25%

Clinical Care:

Outcomes 25%

Clinical Care: Process 5%

Patient Experience

of Care 25%

Other SCHA / DataGen Quality Webinars

• Readmission Reduction Program – Nov 17 @ 1p.m.

• Invitation to all South Carolina hospitals

– Finance teams

– Quality teams

– Executive team

• Registration is required

Questions?