Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download 180 KB - Treatment Action Group
Document related concepts
Transcript
Given the election results, how will the ACA and Medicaid expansion affect the service delivery mix? What are the opportunities to use these mechanisms to optimize HIV programmatic success? Revitalizing the US Domestic HIV/AIDS Response: New Science and New Approaches to Improve Outcomes and Reduce Costs December 11, 2012 Julia Hidalgo, ScD, MSW, MPH Positive Outcomes, Inc. & George Washington University [email protected] With Contributions From Naomi Seiler, JD, Katherine Horton JD, Mary-Beth Harty, JD, Maureen Byrnes George Washington University Introduction The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Medicaid expansion, and other health reforms is impacting the HIV care continuum through changes in Coverage Enrollment mechanisms Health benefits Health care system redesign Payment systems Information gathering and reporting Current Opportunities Available Through the ACA Coverage changes Expanded Medicaid coverage for childless adults with income up to 138%, with 8 states expanding coverage Established Preexisting Condition Insurance Plans (PCIP) Extended dependent coverage for adult children up to 26 years of age Health benefit changes Prohibited individual and group health plans from placing lifetime limits on coverage, rescinding coverage, and denying children coverage due to pre-exiting medical conditions New health plans must provide Prevention services with an A or B rating by the USPSTF for free including HIV screening for individuals at high risk Insurers must provide free coverage for certain women’s preventive services such as annual HIV counseling and screening for all sexually active women Provides financial incentive to Medicaid programs offering coverage with no cost sharing for preventive services rated A or B by the USPSTF Current Opportunities Available Through the ACA Health care systems redesign New Medicaid State option for beneficiaries with chronic conditions to designate a provider as a medical home, with HIV added recently as a designated condition Grants awarded to design person-centered models coordinating services to Medicaid/Medicare dual eligibles Payment systems Medicaid payments to primary care doctors will increase to 100% of the Medicare payment rates Increased funding for federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and planning grants for agencies seeking to become federally qualified Opportunities Available Through the ACA in 2014 Coverage changes Expanded Medicaid coverage for most individuals with incomes up to 138% of the FPL, with 100% federal funding from 2014-2016 and step-wise decreases in 2017 and onward Creates state-based American Health Benefit Exchanges and Small Business Health Options Program Exchanges through which coverage can be purchased Provides refundable and advanceble tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies to eligible individuals Prohibits pre-existing condition exclusions in issuing and renewing health insurance Prohibits annual limits on the dollar value of coverage Requires US citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage and a phased-in tax penalty for individuals without coverage Health benefit changes Creates a Basic Health Plan for uninsured individuals with incomes between 138-200% of the FPL who are eligible to receive premium subsidies Health plans in the individual and small group markets, Medicaid benchmark and equivalent packages, and the Basic Health Plan must include an essential health benefits package Minimum Essential Health Benefits (EHBs) Ambulatory patient services Emergency services Hospitalization Maternity and newborn care Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment Prescription drugs Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices Laboratory services Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management Pediatric services, including oral and vision care Health Care System Re-design: Patient-Centered Medical Homes “Medical home,” “health home,” and “patient-centered medical home” are terms used interchangeably One provider or group of providers is responsible for providing or coordinating a given patient’s care, with some kind of financial incentive(s) to do so Joint Principles of the Patient-Centered Medical Home from the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians and American Osteopathic Association (2007) Personal physician for continuous, comprehensive care Physician directed medical practice, where the physician leads a team of individuals at practice level who take responsibility for ongoing care Whole person orientation, where the physician responsible for all of the patient’s health care needs or arranging care with other qualified professionals Care is coordinated and/or integrated across all elements of the health care system and community (e.g., family, public and private community-based services) Quality and safety achieved through accountability, evidence-based medicine, decision support tools and other mechanisms Enhanced access to care Payment that appropriately recognizes the added value provided to patients Application of the PCMH Model About half of States Medicaid programs are currently implementing medical home initiatives of some form New or revised payments to primary care providers to function as PCMHs Case management fees, performance payments, payments to support shared teams or networks, support for transformation to PCMHs Some, but not all, states require PCMH accreditation by the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) or another national accrediting body CMS and HRSA fund the FQHC Advanced Primary Care Practice Demonstration (500 FQHCs) Three-year demonstration to evaluate the effect of the advanced primary care practice model, in improving care, promoting health, and reducing the cost of care provided to Medicare beneficiaries served by FQHCs Monthly care management fee of $6 each eligible Medicare beneficiary attributed to their practice CMS’s Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative Multi-payer- Medicare works with commercial payers and State plans Primary care providers in selected markets Monthly care management fee ($20 PMPM for two years, then $15 for two years) After two years, possibility of sharing in regional Medicare savings Medicaid Health Homes in the ACA: Definition CMS requires States that provide this optional benefit, and the health home providers with which the State collaborates, to operate under a “whole-person” philosophy – caring not just for an individual’s physical condition, but providing linkages to long-term community care services and supports, social services, and family services Eligible Medicaid beneficiaries include individuals with at least two chronic conditions, OR one chronic condition and at risk for another, OR one serious and persistent mental health condition States can target specific diseases or regions, and may set more restrictive criteria, but may not exclude dual-eligibles A chronic condition can be a mental health condition, substance use disorder, asthma, diabetes, heart disease, or being overweight (BMI >25), or HIV Entities serving as a health home include designated providers, a team of health care professionals, or a health team Medicaid Health Home Services Enhanced federal match is offered for services that provide the glue to coordinate care Comprehensive care management, care coordination, and health promotion Comprehensive transitional care from inpatient to other settings, including appropriate follow-up Patient and family support Referral to community and social support services Health information technology to link services States receive 90% federal match for 8 consecutive quarters All other services (underlying medical services, etc.) matched at usual Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) States can do more than one health home state plan amendment, or can do a geographic expansion of an amendment to new enrollees But states can only receive eight quarters of enhanced match for any individual enrollee After 8 quarters, the state may continue to provide health home services at usual FMAP Managed care enrollees must be permitted to enroll in health homes if offered in their area and otherwise eligible Key Considerations for the HIV+ Community In Implementing the ACA HIV is not the foremost concern of State policy makers, health exchange panels, Medicaid program staff, and insurers HIV community must organize and mobilize to ensure that HIV+ beneficiaries’ need are met There will be significant variability in state-level coverage, benefits, and payment systems Will States build, buy, or borrow HIV care? Systems-level changes will be swift and hard to monitor accurately at the federal level People will be confused, and will need to be educated Many HIV+ individuals and their family members will need significant help in choosing the insurance plan that best meets their needs Managed care service delivery and payment models are likely to be adopted Many HIV programs are likely to be unfamiliar with these models, may not participate in insurance plans, and their staff may not be sufficiently credentialed to serve as providers Key Considerations for the HIV+ Community In Implementing the ACA HIV clinical and support providers must learn to market their services to ensure they have a role in HIV care delivery The essential HIV benefit package is likely to vary considerably geographically and by public and commercial systems, insured population, by insurer, and by service delivery systems (e.g., fee for service or managed care) Payment models are also likely to vary considerably The impact of the ACA on HIV surveillance systems is unclear Surveillance systems will likely rely on lab reporting Ensuring access to HIV screening, medication education, treatment adherence, access to PrEP, and HERR will be challenging unless financial incentives are in play The prevention with positives paradigm may be unsustainable in a new financing and delivery system Access to HIV-experienced providers may be decreased Medication benefits may not be sufficiently covered Key Considerations for the HIV+ Community In Implementing the ACA Physical and behavioral service payment systems may implemented separately Access to HIV care in rural areas will continue to be limited HIV clinical providers are likely to insufficiently reimbursed for their services unless Ryan White (RW) Program funds are used for balanced billing STI, TB, family planning, and other public health systems will experience significant pressure to integrate in the broader health care financing system Roles for community-based organizations may be available, but will need to defined and marketed to health care plans and insurers Linkage from testing to treatment, patient navigation, and peer coaches The ACA is unlikely to reduce HIV stigma and concerns about disclosure and discrimination Violations of ACA protections are likely and must be documented The ACA does not address the need for equity and transportability of health insurance benefits when HIV+ individuals move to another state Key Considerations for the HIV+ Community In Implementing the ACA Some HIV+ individuals will not be included in expanded coverage The District of Columbia is addressed as a state in the ACA Puerto Rico and other territories will not enjoy benefits comparable to states Application of HIV quality measures and improvement processes to public and commercial health insurance systems will be challenging Significant data granularity will be lost as we rely on insurance claims systems It will be very difficult to measure the impact of the ACA implementation on HIV+ individuals and the HIV care continuum Caution should be used in making a business model or cost saving rationale for HIV prevention and treatment Meanwhile in the RW HIV/AIDS Program Results of efforts to reauthorize the RW Program are unclear Transition of core services from RW Program grant-based budgeting to public and commercial payment systems, including fee for service reimbursement and prospective capitation payment Increased monitoring of HAB and the RW Program’s grantees and providers to ensure adherence to statutory requirements (e.g., payer of last resort, client charges) Balanced billing in which RW Program funds are used to supplement insurance payments likely to be eliminated Demand for RW Program-funded health insurance premium, co-payment, and deductible assistance is likely to increase sharply as HIV+ individuals enroll in health insurance As medication costs are shifted to insurers, ADAPs’ revenue from rebates will decrease sharply Many ADAPs use rebates to support services or employees Meanwhile in the RW HIV/AIDS Program Demand for RW Program-funded health insurance premium, co-payment, and deductible assistance is likely to increase sharply as HIV+ individuals enroll in health insurance An increasing number of RW Parts A and B grantees will seek a waiver from the 75% core / 25% support service requirement RW client-level data systems vary highly in maturity Much critical accurate data are missing It is important to acknowledge that the RW Program has some profound limitations, the quality of clinical and support services vary considerable, and we have limited capacity to demonstrate the direct impact of the RW Program Our failure to convert the “cascade effect” to a “golden pond effect” must be acknowledge by the HIV prevention and care community Efforts to help transition HIV+ individuals into insurance systems must be spear headed by RW-funded Programs Design Used to Assess Eligibility Determination (ED) Activities Funded Five Part A Grantees Key Facts Grantee 1 Grantee 2 Grantee 3 Grantee 4 Grantee 5 Region Southwest Northeast South South South Service Area Large urban, and adjoining rural areas Suburban, and adjoining rural counties Moderate urban, and adjoining rural counties Large urban Large urban, and adjoining rural areas Providers 1 hospitalbased HIV clinic, 2 FQHCs, 1 CHC 2 ASO, 2 hospital-based HIV clinic2, 1 FQHC, 1 county health dept 3 ASOs (1 colocated in HIV clinic), 1 county health dept Centralized Part A ED Unit 3 ASOs, 2 community ID practices, 1 county health dept Assessment Design Chart review Chart review Chart review Electronic records Chart review Chart Review Tool # Charts Reviewed Tool measures attainment of HAB and grantee monitoring standards, and assesses key components of RW Program and third party insurance eligibility 285 407 325 144 493 Findings of ED Quality Assessments Among Providers Funded by Five Part A Grantees Grantee 2 Grantee 3 Grantee 4 Average Error Rate Grantee 1 Grantee 5 Region Southwest Northeast South South South Average Household Size Not Assessed 38% 58% Not Assessed Not Assessed Household Income Not Assessed 74% 77% 35% Not Assessed Health Insurance 32% 39% 27% 11% 44%
