Introducing ... Provider Rating Report Scanner!

As you are probably aware, Broad River Rehab created Staffing Navigator to make it easier for facilities to understand the interaction between staffing levels and star ratings. (If you haven’t heard of Staffing Navigator, check your app store. It’s free and we’ll train you.)

We learned a lot of things creating that app. The original plan was to create a “Quality Measures Navigator” app after Staffing Navigator. We wanted to create something to give people a starting point when it comes to quality measures; a road-map to improving quality measures. There were a lot of disadvantages to doing that. Two of the biggest problems:

  • The data we used for Staffing Navigator comes from the 5 Star Data set. That data is useful for long-term changes like hiring and acuity, but less so for quality measures. Using the 5 star database for quality measures is akin to steering with the rear view mirror. The data is pretty old.

  • When it comes to Quality Measures, we believe that CMS is going to continue to make changes. The quality measures are a moving target. As a result of this, data.medicare.gov is not so great. The data is spread across at least three tables. Making things more difficult, some measures have different supporting data. In short, CMS doesn’t provide enough data on data.medicare.gov to accurately recreate the data.

So, we decided to take things in a different direction. We built a tool that will analyze the latest information from your CMS reports and help you find opportunities to improve your quality measures. It even has a simple drag and drop interface.

We’d Like YOUR Help

This tool is brand new and we’d like your help testing it. All you have to do is drop your report on the webpage (link below) and look at the results. We’ll even help you interpret your data!

How?

It’s pretty simple.

Capture.PNG
  1. Download your “Provider Rating Report”. The date of the report doesn’t matter, but it must be the correct report. The first page should look like the image to the right. If the report doesn’t say “Provider Rating Report”, it isn’t the correct report and will not work.

  2. Head over to our CASPER Report Scanner and upload your report. (Yes, we need a better name. You can use the form below to suggest one!) You can either drag and drop the report onto the tool or click the link to browse to your file.

  3. After the upload completes, results are displayed automatically.

Interpreting Results

The rest of this posting will show you what the results mean.

The summary is the place to start. In this case we can see this is a 2 star quality measure facility. We can also see that this facility is 120 points away from three stars and 76 points away from 1 star. The metric CPP is a measurement that tells you where you are positioned between the cutpoints. A CPP of 0.5 means you are exactly between cutpoints. This facility has an overall CPP of 0.39 meaning it is on the low side of 2 stars.

Taking a look at the long-stay, The CPP of 0.91 means we are very close to the next level of 3 stars. This building is only 9 points away. That means there may be opportunities to pick up a quick 15 or 20 points and hit 3 stars for Long-Stay. The short stay section works the same way. (Keep in mind that the short-stay metric is scaled to match the long stay. If you don’t know what that means then don’t worry about it.)

Long-Stay QM

Moving on to Long-Stay QM. (Note that I’ve switched to a different report for illustrative purposes.)

Capture.PNG

You can see that this facility is color-coded red, meaning this measure is on the low end of the scale with only 40 points. The rest of the measures are designed to help you understand where you’d need to be in the next quarter.

In this example, the 4.7% is the oldest quarter and will be rolling off. Take a look at the Target column. This represents the value you would need in the new quarter to achieve those points. In this particular case, this facility can do as poorly as 6.96% and still get 40 points. To get to 60 points, this facility would have to get down to 0.64%. This is a level that far lower than they’ve demonstrated recently. This means that while falls are obviously a great concern in this facility, it’s unlikely to net any additional points in the coming quarter. That’s not great news, but it’s better know what you’re up against, right?

Other Metrics:

  • CPP tells us we are on the low end of the cutpoints, but not terribly close to moving to 20 points.

  • Departure from 3Q tells us we could be 2.43% worse than our 3 quarter average and still maintain 40 points.

  • The Up and Down targets are simple differences between your 4 quarter average and the cutpoints. (This is similar to CPP, but some people understand one of the other more easily.)

I’m including a couple more metrics between so you can get a sense of how this works. Try uploading your report to get a better idea. Short-Stay QMs work the same way.

Claims-based measures are displayed a slightly different way since CMS provides different information about those. Take a look at that section on your own.

If you have any questions or comments about this tool, I’d love to hear from you. Use the form below.

We are also looking for a name for this tool. Send me your suggestions!

Capture.PNG

We’d like to hear from you!

Is this tool helpful? Would you like more? Staffing? Health Inspections? Some other report?

Please send us your feedback, good and bad!

Name *
Name

The DOs and DON’Ts when signing a PDPM Pricing Amendment

DO

  • Options – PDPM is not “one size fits all”, ask for 2 to 3 pricing options from your therapy provider so you can choose the one that you think is best for your facility.

  • Simplicity – You should be able to clearly understand what it is you are paying.

  • Flexibility – Many therapy providers have extensive knowledge of PDPM, no therapy provider has ever implemented PDPM. We have modeled and “hypothesized” what it would look like. Your contract should have an option to review PDPM pricing in 3 to 6 months. This is the only way both the SNF and the therapy provider can ensure their contract is working for both parties.

  • MPPR – Make sure your Medicare Part B services contract has this acronym. IF it does not, there is a strong possibility you are paying more for this service than you are getting reimbursed.

DON’T

  • A Contract Extension! – Many Therapy Providers are taking this opportunity to slip in a “non-cancellable” 12-month or 24-month contract extension into this PDPM Payment Amendment. So if you current provider is not as good at PDPM as you had hoped, you are stuck with them for a year or more?! They now get to practice PDPM for a year or two at your expense…… That makes NO SENSE for the SNF, but does make a lot of sense for the Therapy Company that is not confident in their PDPM ability and/or knowledge).

DO NOT DO IT! Just say “No” 

PDPM Navigator™ Updated with Final Rule

You might have noticed we’ve been absent on the blog for a while. That’s because we have a couple of big projects going on. While I can’t announce anything just yet, stay tuned…

I can say we’ve updated PDPM Navigator to reflect the changes in the Final Rule. Your phone will update automatically or you can visit your app store to force an update. The changes are relatively minor, but do impact rates.

We’ve also updated Staffing Navigator to include the data released in July.

How does case-mix drive staffing ratings?

Changes in patient acuity change the case-mix or “expected” hours used to determine staffing stars. That’s not news for anyone who reads this blog. The problem is the relationship is difficult to tease out. This is because CMS does not publish the exact criteria they use to select assessments that are included in calculating acuity and don’t give us any documentation showing the ones they used.

This leads to questions like “If my case-mix increased by X, how much pressure would that put on my staffing rating?” This is a common question for anyone who is considering implementing a program to improve documentation. ADL coding is a classic example of this. Improved ADL documentation nearly always increases case-mix, which increases the number of hours required to maintain or improve staffing ratings. (For the record, never let anything get in the way of improving your documentation. Better, more complete documentation should always be the goal, regardless of star ratings or quality metrics.)

Let’s see if we can create a surrogate measure.

Estimating Overall Case-Mix Hours

For this analysis we combined the detailed Medicaid assessment data from the state of North Carolina with the latest data extract from Nursing Home Compare. Once those were linked up we just use a simple linear regression analysis like so:

What that chart is telling you is that there appears to be a relationship Medicaid case-mix index and overall nursing case-mix (or required hours). This makes intuitive sense because at least some of the Medicaid assessments are used to calculate case-mix hours. (Or even all, who really knows?)

Specifically, we are explaining slightly less than 60% of the variation in the data using just Medicaid case-mix. This isn’t too bad if you consider in North Carolina we use a “point in time date”, often called a “picture date” in other states. CMS uses a much more complex criteria to select assessments to include.

The slope of our regression line is 1.307. This means that for every 1 point change in Medicaid case-mix, the overall nursing hours expected by CMS for staffing ratings increases by 1.3 hours per patient per day. If you happen to be close to the lower cut-point for staffing ratings and your acuity increases, you could drop a star. (As luck would have it, we have a great tool for checking how close you are to the next staffing cut point. Check out Staffing Navigator™. It’s free!)

How do I use this?

Using this estimate, we can figure out the break even point between case-mix “slope” and hourly nursing pay. Bear with me a moment:

First we can use the CMI “slope” to estimate the change in Medicaid pay like this: (I am using North Carolina data as well as the 34 grouper for this experiment. I am ignoring changes in Medicare Part A.)

Here is the equation to calculate daily change in revenue for Medicaid for a given change in case-mix:

CodeCogsEqn (7).gif

Here’s the equation for the change in nursing expense for a given change in case-mix index using our slope from the regression analysis:

CodeCogsEqn (8).gif

To find the break-even point we just set those two equations equal and solve. We end up with this beauty. Fee free to admire it’s elegant simplicity. I’ll wait. (This will set the mood as you take it in.)

CodeCogsEqn (9).gif

So if you believe your case-mix “slope” is $77 per point, divide that by 1.307 and you get $58.91. That means that as long as your fully loaded expense to hire and pay nursing staff (ALL nursing staff) is less than $58.91 per hour per nurse/assistant, an increase in case-mix index will cover the cost of increased nursing hours. (This is an oversimplification since nursing hours can’t typically be adjusted in fine increments, very large facilities excepted.)

If the average fully loaded pay of all nursing staff in your facility is greater than $58.91 per hour, you have my sympathy but with all due respect, check your math. Additionally, $77 is probably low. The take-away: Increased acuity (either real or due to improved documentation) may indeed increase the need for nursing staff to maintain a star rating, but increased pay from Medicaid should always cover it.

The sub-take-away: Always be closing improving documentation!

P.S. You can get an exact number for slope by examining your reimbursement report. It may be as high as 100. If you aren’t comfortable with that, let me know. I will help you.

Want to talk? Let’s.