Upload
gertrude-hood
View
217
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Spine Health:A Payer’s Perspective
Janet R Maurer, MD, MBAAssociate CMOVP, Quality & ComplianceNIA Magellan HealthMember, Board of Directors NASF
NASF 10/252
Who Are the Payers?
• Private Sector• Commercial Insurance Companies (Private Sector Employers)• Individuals
• Public Sector• Medicare (Original and through Commercial Insurers)• Medicaid (Mostly through Commercial Insurers)
• Private and Public Sectors• Worker’s Compensation Insurance
July 18, 2015
NASF 10/253
Why Do Payers and Individuals Care About Spine Health?
$$$Comorbid:
anxiety, depression, obesity, other
chronic conditions, etc
Medical/DME:
imaging, interventional pain
management, surgery,
conservative care modalities,
assistive devices
Pharmacy: opioids, non-
opioids, relaxants, anxiolytics, etc.
Disability Insurance Costs
Productivity/Absenteeism
Worker’s Compensation
July 18, 2015
NASF 10/254
Costs of Back and Neck Problems Through 2012
July 18, 2015
From Variation in the Care of Surgical Conditions, Dartmouth Atlas Project, Sept 2014 http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/pages/variation_surgery_2
NASF 10/255
What is Causing the Payer Concern?
July 18, 2015
Back pain health care costs are increasing*
Disability rates, other outcomes do not seem to be improving
*
Top cause of Global Disability 1990 and 2013 from Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 Collaborators, published online by The Lancet, June 8, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60692-4
Payer, Employer, Back Pain Patient, Provider
NASF 10/256
How Does the Payer Think About Health Care Outcomes and Costs?
• Payer’s (Private and Public) Goal is best Value for the health care purchased• Value = Outcomes/$$ spent• Focus is on achieving best outcomes (best achievable health state) at reasonable cost• Ensure use of evidence-based guidelines (standard of care)• Avoid unnecessary duplication in diagnostic tests• Ensure least invasive approach used when results similar• Ensure qualified providers deliver care (networks)• High cost, clearly defined areas payers address, e.g. spine health• Spine MRI, Interventional Pain Management, Spine surgery• Other potentially high cost care: PT, chiropractic, Devices
July 18, 2015
NASF 10/257
Payer Approaches to Improving Value in Spine-related Health Care• Prior Authorization of Requested Tests/Procedures/Devices, etc.• Pre-approval by medical management of insurer• Insurer medical personnel: nurses, physicians using evidence-based guidelines
• Creation of Networks • Contract with providers (physician, PT, etc) that are moderate cost; have high
quality ratings• Contract with accredited, moderate cost rendering facilities or imaging centers
(spine MRI cost can vary from <$500 to >$1500 even in same city)
• Case Management• Identify high cost/risk patients and help ensure appropriate management plan
• Integrated Care• Identify spine patients early and ensure transparency in all aspects of care from
pharmacy, behavioral health, imaging, interventions, devices, etc.
July 18, 2015
Spine MRIs
8
Source: Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of 2013 OECD data: "OECD Health Data: Health expenditure and financing: Health expenditure indicators", OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/health-data-en (Accessed on September 10, 2014).
Why Focus on MRIs? The Rise of MRIs and MRI USE in the USA
1995 2000 2005 2010 20150.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
12.3
35.46
4.5
10.2
United States
Comparable Country Average
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) units per million population
Australia
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Austria
Comparable Country Average
Canada
France
United States
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
26
41
50
50
51
54
82
105
More availability of medical technology does not always equate to higher utilization; But in the USA It Does
United Kingdom
France
Canada
Netherlands
Comparable Country Average
Australia
Austria
United States
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
7
9
9
12
12
15
19
34
Number of MRI units available per million population (2012) Number of MRI exams performed per 1,000 population (2012)
Sources: Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of 2013 OECD data: "OECD Health Data: Health care resources", OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/health-data-en (Accessed on September 10, 2014). Notes: In cases where 2011 data were unavailable, data from the countries' last available year are shown. Some countries, such as Japan, are omitted because data are not available for both indicators.
•Requests undergoing clinical review that do not meet medical necessity guidelines:*
Focus on Cervical and Lumbar Spine MRIs:NIA Magellan Snapshot• NIA Provides Spine MRI Prior Authorization for:• 76 Customers • 34 states• 25.7 million lives• Mix of Commercial, Medicare, Medicaid
• Spine MRI Requests• >30K lumbar/mo; > 17K cervical/mo• > 564K/yr = 21.9/1000 request rate
• Of the 564K, 9% approve immediately• Tumor, infection, trauma post-op,
progressive neurological deficit, immunosuppression, etc.
Lumbar MRI Cervical MRI Average % Average %
Commercial 35 32Medicare 26 25Medicaid 44 38
*Office records documentation available
NASF 10/2512
Why the High Percent Not Meeting Medical Necessity Guidelines?• More than 90% of not medically necessary Spine MRI requests is related to lack of (or lack of documentation of) an adequate period of conservative care
Per NASS and multiple other societies and guidelines, conservative care is required prior to advanced imaging:NASS Choosing Wisely: ‘Don’t recommend advanced imaging (e.g., MRI) of the spine within the first six weeks in patients with non-specific acute low back pain in the absence of ‘red flags’
• How many second requests for MRI for same patient are received between 6 weeks and 6 months after the initial non-approval (presumed failed conservative care)?• 9 % of initial ‘Does not meet medical necessity’ requests
July 18, 2015
Interventional Pain Management
13
NASF 10/2514
Rapid Increase in Interventional Pain Management Procedures in Medicare Fee-For-Service
July 18, 2015
Manchikanti L, et. al. Pain Physician 2015: 18: E115-27
Provider Variation is Observed in the Use of Repeat Facet Joint Injections (FJI) Each diamond below reflects a provider with 15 or more patients during the data period. Generally, NIA would expect the average patient to receive 1 to 2 Facet Joint Injections and rarely more than 3 in a
six month period. 15% of high volume FJI providers have more than one patient receiving in excess of 3 FJI in a six month period. Providers designated with orange diamonds represent care that is well outside the standard of care represented
by the clustering of IPM Providers whose patients receive 1-2 FJI and 0% of patients with more than 3 in a six month period.
IPM Provider VariationFacet Joint Injection Sample
Outlier Provider Care(orange diamonds)
Provider A is a mid volume provider with an average of 3.3 visits per patient. 54% of provider’s patients had 4 or more Facet Joint injections in a 6 month period. (highest %)
Provider B is the 4th highest volume provider for the plan with an average of 3.0 visits per patient. This provider had 29% of patients with 4 or more Facet Joint injections in a 6 month period.
15
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.00%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Avg Facet Joint Visits per Patient
% P
atien
ts >
=4 in
6 m
onth
s
Provider A
Provider B
NASF 10/2516
How to Manage the Rapid Increase in Interventional Pain Procedures?
• Is the increase in IPM procedures justified? • Standard of care elusive; guidelines often vague and based on poor data• Many ‘medical necessity’ determinations made on expert consensus standards• Recent articles question overall impact of IPM and suggest need for better
studies/approaches‒ Pain Management Injection Therapies for Low Back Pain, AHRQ Technology
Assessment, pub. March 20, 2015 www.AHRQ.gov‒ Several studies question impact of steroids in spinal stenosis, e.g., NEJM 2014;
371:11•NIA Magellan initial experience with IPM (epidural, facet, sacroiliac)
July 18, 2015
Requests/1000 ‘Not medically necessary’ Rate
12 30%
Lumbar Spine Surgery
NASF 10/2518
Lumbar Spine Surgery for Spinal Stenosis: Example of Issues that Concern Payers
•Medicare Fee-For-Service: rates of surgical decompressions• Increased 67% between 2001-2011 from 31.6 to 52.7/100,000• Variation in rates is huge across country
July 18, 2015
From Variation in the Care of Surgical Conditions, Dartmouth Atlas Project, Sept 2014 http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/pages/variation_surgery_2
NASF 10/2519
Lumbar Spine Surgery for Spinal Stenosis: Example of Issues that Concern Payers
•Medicare Fee-For-Service: rates of surgical fusions• Rate of fusions between 2001-2011 was 41.1/100,000• Variation in rates is huge across country: from 9.2 to 127.5/100,000
July 18, 2015
From Variation in the Care of Surgical Conditions, Dartmouth Atlas Project, Sept 2014 http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/pages/variation_surgery_2
NASF 10/2520
Lumbar Spine Surgery for Spinal Stenosis: Is The Treatment Worse Than The Disease?
July 18, 2015
From Variation in the Care of Surgical Conditions, Dartmouth Atlas Project, Sept 2014 http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/pages/variation_surgery_2
NASF 10/2521
Summary: The Payer’s View
Payers are Confused:• Why is care so variable for these diseases across the country?• Where is the definitive research on outcomes to allow the creation of truly evidence-based
standards of care (guidelines)?• Why don’t many of the practitioners in this area follow the guidelines that are there?
What Payers Want:• Better comparative effectiveness studies that truly compare outcomes of different approaches
• Development of a holistic model of care‒ Including conservative management, pharmacy, weight loss approach, behavioral health, appropriate interventional management, culture change?‒ Able to be implemented by payers
• Overall better outcomes for patients
July 18, 2015
IOM, 2011