by Rowan Report | Apr 26, 2024 | CMS, Medicare Advantage, Regulatory
By Beth Noyce, RN, BSJMC, BCHH-C, COQS
CHAP-certified home health & hospice consultant
This is part 3 of the 3 in the series, outlining the discussions and implications in adopting new outcome and process measures for Hospice care. The final segment addresses future process and outcome measures that the board discussed, but did not yet implement. Read Part 1 on Outcome Measures and Part 2 on Process Measures.
The TEP discussed potential future process and outcome measure concepts that Abt Associates presented to the panel as well.
The process measures included:
- Education for Medication Management
- Wound Management Addressed in Plan of Care
- Transfer of Health Information to Subsequent Provider
- Transfer of Health Information to Patient/Family Caregiver
Hope-based outcome measures were:
- Patient Preferences Followed throughout Hospice Stay
- Hospitalization of Persons with Do-Not-Hospitalize Order
Developing education for medication management as a process measure was a popular concept, and the top priority of the recommended measures with the TEP as they “broadly agreed that CMS should develop this measure,” the report says, citing “a significant need for training in medication management for patients and their caregivers.” They recommended that the measure weigh more heavily when care is provided in a home setting than in a facility setting because hospices are unable to control facility training and hiring practices. One panelist commented that including the phrase “during today’s visit” in the measure is important.
Whether CMS should further develop the process measure addressing wound management in the plan of care was less straight-forward, as panelists provided varied feedback. They generally agreed that this measure is important, as having a record of wound management addressed in the plan of care can hold the staff accountable for treating the wounds. But some members recommended measuring wound management with outcome measures rather than process measures. One panelist cited potential problems from patients’ deterioration over time and another noted that the time frame of this measure is important, and encouraged recording the process of getting care in place once a wound is identified. The panel agreed CMS should carefully define the measure’s specifications.
Because standard practice for most agencies is, when a patient is discharged live, to transfer health information to the subsequent provider and to the patient and family or caregiver, TEP members expressed that the two measures were likely to “top out,” meaning they would almost always be marked “Yes,” making them of no value in differentiating between hospice providers. The group generally discouraged developing these process measures.
The group strongly rejected any merit in developing two outcome measures concerning Patient Preferences Followed Throughout Hospice Stay and Hospitalization of Persons with Do-Not-
Hospitalize Order. The report says “Multiple TEP members described situations in which patients who had preferred not to be hospitalized changed their minds when a crisis occurred. Patients’ preferences and unexpected crises are usually out of the hospice’s control. Although it is still important for hospices to ask patients about their preferences as part of patient-centered care, the TEP did not believe these two items would be practical measures of a hospice’s care quality.”
Dr. McNally expects that Abt. Associates will apply the HQEP TEP’s suggestions to the HOPE tool.
“Oh yeah, they did it,” he says. “Abt would come to a specific meeting with information, data, suggestions, and specific information about how these things would be measured. We’d give feedback. Then they’d come back to the next meeting having incorporated our suggestions,” he explains. “All of us felt very much heard and responded to. It didn’t feel in the least bit perfunctory.”
Whatever specific measures are eventually included in the HOPE tool, Lund Person sees value in its implementation. “Hospice providers have had a woeful lack of outcome measures for hospice patients, which has made the evaluation of quality hospice care based only on process measures and the family’s evaluation of hospice care in the CAHPS® Hospice Survey, she explains. “Implementing HOPE will begin to identify outcome measures that can be compared between providers.”
Lund Person warns of potential challenges as well. “The selection of risk adjustment and stratification must be carefully done to minimize bias and maximize effectiveness of measures,” she says. “In addition, hospice providers have been awaiting the release of the HOPE tool with significant anxiety about content and administrative burden.”
Dr. McNally is confident the HOPE tool will be a healthy change for hospices.
“A lot of my role as a medical director and hospice physician is supporting our nurses,” he says. “They do 95% of the work. I really would like to see this not be burdensome for our hospice nurses. I’m looking forward to seeing what the [HOPE tool] beta testing translates to in our own hospice world.” He added “What I would hope to see is that the tool feels user-friendly to the hospice team, the people who have to use it, and that it also provides useful information to patients and families.”
NAHC’s Wehri says that standardizing processes through the HOPE tool is the key foundational element for the hospice industry. “High quality care is driven by reducing variance through standardized processes, Wehri writes. “Also, CMS will have a better idea of how the type of population a hospice serves impacts some of the clinical care.” This small glimpse into hospice variances that CMS does not currently have could be very helpful in future policy and payment decisions, according to Wehri. “What CMS finds in terms of differences between hospices and their care for patients may be a bit of a surprise to CMS,” she says. “I hope they are pleasantly surprised with the overall quality of care that is revealed.”
# # #
Beth Noyce provides education, consulting, mentoring, compliance assessments and auditing services to home health and hospice agencies and their clinicians in several states. She also now provides patient and family guidance concerning hospice and home health services. Beth loves teaching and helping others succeed. She also makes available recordings of much of her education for her clients’ convenience.
©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com
by Rowan Report | Apr 18, 2024 | Clinical, CMS, Regulatory
by Beth Noyce, RN, BSJMC, HCS-C, BCHH-C, COQS
CHAP-certified home health & hospice consultant
Process Measures
The outcome measures being considered look at effectiveness of hospice clinical efforts to decrease pain and other symptoms. The process measures paired with them focus on the hospice’s follow up with the patient after moderate or severe symptoms are found during assessment.
Exhibit 6 (below) shows the numerator and denominator for these.
TEP members determined that these two process measures have high face validity. This means the measure items clearly state, or “look like” they will measure what CMS intends them to measure. This allows consumers to see what hospices are assessing and treating. It can also help hospices track how well they are reducing or treating patients’ symptoms.
Katie Wehri, Director of Home Health & Hospice Regulatory Affairs for the National Association for Home Care & Hospice says the face validity of process items is the most important information the HQRP TEP provided to CMS. “Having HOPE items and subsequent measures that actually measure what is intended is key to success,” she says.
Exclusions from Process Measures Success
Exclusions from calculating a hospice’s process measures’ success need careful consideration. Here is the list of options of which patients to exclude:
- Patient desired tolerance level for symptoms
- Patient preferences for symptom management
- Neuropathic pain
- Actively Dying (death is imminent)
- Other conditions
The report says that reassessing a symptom within two days of identifying that symptom as moderate or severe is fundamental. This is true regardless of the beneficiary’s stated tolerance-level for symptoms. It also said that process measure calculations should include patients with no symptom-management preference. Further, exclusion criteria should be the same for pain and non-pain symptoms.
Neuropathic Pain
The TEP’s recommends including neuropathic pain in the HOPE tool’s pain-reassessment process measure. Including rather than excluding patients suffering neuropathic pain prompts nurses to reassess these patients for changes. The report references research that suggests 40% of hospice patients may experience neuropathic pain. Patients who experience neuropathic pain have more severe and more distressing pain symptoms. [Tofthagen, C., Visovsky, C., Dominic, S., & McMillan, S. (2019). Neuropathic symptoms, physical and emotional well-being, and quality of life at the end of life. Supportive Care in Cancer, 27(9), 3357-3364. doi:10.1007/s00520-018-4627-x]
The TEP agrees that patients with neuropathic pain should be part of the process measure. However, they recommend excluding the same patients from the outcome measure addressing the patient’s pain impact. The report cited TEP discussion that such pain is chronic and not likely to be resolved or decreased within two days when the reassessment captures outcome data.
The TEP broadly agreed that a nurse who assesses a patient who is actively dying (life expectancy of 3 days or fewer based on clinicians’ assessment) as suffering moderate or severe pain should attempt to reassess the patient. Such patientsshould not be excluded.
The panelists agreed that process measures should include patients of all ages. Several TEP members noted that all patients experience pain and non-pain symptoms, and therefore the measures should apply to adults and children alike.
Exclusion Due to Inability to Reassess
When a hospice is unable to reassess a patient for a valid reason process measures should exclude those patients.
Identified exclusion reason were:
- discharge, alive or dead
- visit refusal
- inability to access the patient due to an emergency department or hospitalization event
- the patient traveling outside of the hospice’s service area
- inability of the hospice to contact the patient or caregiver.
However, the report says, “…hospices should be penalized if reassessment is missing or delayed due to hospice staffing or scheduling issues.”
This article is the second in a series about implementation of HOPE. Next week, Beth Noyce shares details from the panel as it discussed potential future process and outcome measure concepts.
# # #
©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com
by Rowan Report | Apr 11, 2024 | Clinical, CMS, Regulatory
By Beth Noyce, RN, BSJMC, HCS-C, BCHH-C, COQS
Home health & hospice consultant
The Hospice Outcome Patient Evaluation is a step closer to implementation.
After four years of considering options, the Technical Expert Panel (TEP) has finished its work that will inform future Hospice Quality Reporting Program results. The TEP considered quality measures to include in hospice’s future assessment tool and best choices for risk adjustment and exclusion.
The panel convened in 2019 “[we are] committed to improving the quality of care given to hospice patients,” says the 2022-2023 TEP Summary Report: Hospice Quality Reporting Program. The panel aimed to ensure that hospice quality measures are meaningful for hospice beneficiaries, transparent to hospice providers, and useful to consumers. They considered quality measures from both HOPE and claims data.
“From day one it was very clear Medicare wanted to make this a very different experience for hospice teams and make it a more valuable thing for consumers,” says Dr. Jeff McNally, Hospice Medical Director at Utah’s Intermountain Hospice,” describing his participation on the HQRP TEP. “I was actually encouraged and inspired by it,” he says. “It was the first time I had first-hand experience working with any kind of CMS entity.
“The reality is some clinicians in the field and leaders don’t have the best things to say about CMS,” he explains, but “whatever we were considering we always circled back to whether it would be burdensome to the clinical team and would it be valuable to consumers.”
The panel initially planned to meet multiple times in person, with two meetings per year and potential virtual meetings as needed. “Then COVID hit,” Dr. McNally says. “It slowed the process considerably. We never did meet again in person.”
The HQRP TEP met eight times over four years, virtually after the initial meeting. McNally described participants as coming to each meeting prepared with data and proposals for HOPE measures for which they would request input from panelists.”
From TEP recommendations early in their work, Abt Associates developed two outcome measures and two process measures in harmony with hospice’s central tenet to manage symptoms:
- Process measures:
- Timely Reassessment of Pain Impact
- Timely Reassessment of Non-Pain Symptom Impact
- Outcome measures:
- Timely Reduction of Pain Symptom Impact
- Timely Reduction of Non-Pain Symptom Impact
“The most important [recommendations] were some of the outcome measures about symptom management,” McNally explains. “What should we be helping agencies show that they’re doing well? And how do we do that? Deciding which ones, and how many symptom management measures to use and the most valuable way to show it in a fair way.”
During the past two years, TEP members prioritized which of the risk-adjustment factors suggested by Abt. Associates should apply to outcome measures and which exclusions should apply to both outcome and process measures.
The report describes risk adjustment as using statistics to exclude “confounding factors,” or elements that are outside of a hospice’s control, from calculations that could make a hospice’s performance appear either better or worse than it is. In essence, risk adjustment increases the fairness in outcome-measure calculations while exclusions do the same for both outcome and process measures.
For the outcome measures being considered, the report says that the “TEP broadly agreed that risk adjustment is very important because it accounts for external factors outside hospices’ control and more accurately reflects the quality of care provided.”
Judi Lund Person, Principal of LundPerson & Associates, LLC, agrees. “The discussion of risk-adjustment factors is vitally important to the success of upcoming process measure implementation,” says Lund Person.
Determining which risk-adjustment factors to bring to the table was not easy. “There were some nuance things that we hashed out to try and decide how to weigh some factors in risk adjustment” for outcome measures, McNally explains.
Exhibit 5 (below) summarizes the TEP’s rankings of risk adjustors suggested.
While the TEP’s priorities seem clear, the discussion concerning each risk adjustor was more complex. The TEP broadly agreed that the most important risk-adjustment factors are age and diagnosis. Some diseases are more difficult to manage than others, and patient condition tends to decline with age regardless of provider activity. Therefore, the TEP recommended that CMS adjust for these factors to ensure that common external factors do not adversely affect reported hospice care quality.
Here’s part of the nuance – the TEP also raised concerns that how well other patients with certain diseases or of certain age groups are treated might be valuable to some patients and their families seeking care for someone of the same age group or condition. Panelists fretted over possibly obscuring that information for consumers seeking hospice care by adjusting for those risk factors.
Living situation as a risk adjustor ranked as important to TEP members because hospices have no control over what level of assistance is available to patients. Similarly, site of service ranked high as a risk adjustor because, said some panelists, care is delivered very differently across settings, and patients and/or caregivers tend to provide higher hospice satisfaction ratings for hospices in home settings than for those in facilities,” according to the report.
Lund Person, who is also former Vice President of Regulatory and Compliance at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (NHPCO), notes that the TEP recognized living situation and site of service as “important” risk adjustment recommendations.
“Identifying site of service will help to distinguish between care at home and care in a facility,” she says. Also vital, she continues, “is the recommendation from the TEP to consider length-of-stay as a risk-adjustment factor, including the differences between a 4-day length of stay and a 6-month length of stay.”
One TEP member cautioned that using payment sources, IV therapy, and risk of hospitalization as risk adjustors might tempt some hospices to use them to distort a hospices’ apparent care quality.
TEP members did not recommend using as risk adjustors gender, clinical symptoms, functional status and management of care needs. They did not discuss why they rejected gender, but several agreed that using clinical symptoms would not be of value because of their high correlation with diagnoses. Because hospice providers typically see hospice patients decline in ADL and IADL abilities, and hospice goals are focused on comfort rather than functional improvement, functional status was on the TEP’s “Do Not Include” as a risk adjustor list. And finally, one TEP member strongly opposed adjusting for patients’ medication management, supervision or safety assistance needs (management of care needs), explaining that “the public and CMS should hold hospices accountable for planning around oral medication, injectable medication management, and supervision and safety assistance,” the report says.
The TEP did suggest that using some risk adjustment factors as part of the HQRP could assist hospices internally with quality improvement while others would be more valuable to patients and families. For example, Patients and families would benefit from more straightforward risk adjustment that helps them select a hospice,” the report says, “including factors such as diagnosis. For publicly reported data used to select a hospice, the TEP suggested using demographic factors (including age but excluding gender), socioeconomic factors, living situation, and diagnoses.”
Dr. McNally hopes eventually to use HPRP data to promote Intermountain Hospice’s care. Intermountain Hospice is part of Intermountain Health, a health care provider with presence in multiple states. “You can’t take the current metrics to doctors’ offices and families to show anything meaningful,” he says. “It’d be great to have metrics we could take to our neurology docs and other docs,” he says. “I really think we provide better care and more options when patients stay within our system.
This article is the first in a series about implementation of HOPE. Next week, Beth Noyce shares details from the panel as it evaluated process measures.
# # #
©2024 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in Healthcare at Home: The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com
