Currently Viewing:
The American Journal of Managed Care March 2010
Ratio of Controller to Total Asthma Medications: Determinants of the Measure
Michael S. Broder, MD; Benjamin Gutierrez, PhD; Eunice Chang, PhD; David Meddis, PhD; and Michael Schatz, MD
An Intervention for VA Patients With Congestive Heart Failure
Laurel A. Copeland, PhD; Gregory D. Berg, PhD; Donna M. Johnson, MHS; and Richard L. Bauer, MD
Cost-Effectiveness of Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine Among Healthcare Workers During an Influenza Pandemic
Kenneth J. Smith, MD, MS; Mahlon Raymund, PhD; Mary Patricia Nowalk, PhD, RD;Mark S. Roberts, MD, MPP; and Richard K. Zimmerman, MD, MPH
Currently Reading
Health Plan Use of Immunization Information Systems for Quality Measurement
Alan C. O'Connor, MBA; Christine M. Layton, PhD, MPH; Todd J. Osbeck, MM; Therese M. Hoyle; and Bobby Rasulnia, PhD
Mail-Order Versus Local Pharmacies on Adherence: Study Methods Make for Unfair Comparison
Todd A. Brown, MHP and Nathaniel M. Rickles, PhD. Reply by O. Kenrick Duru, MD, MSHS; Julie A. Schmittdiel, PhD; Wendy T. Dyer, MSc; Melissa M. Parker, MS; Connie S. Uratsu, MS; James Chan, PharmD; and Andrew J. Karter, PhD
Adoption and Use of Stand-Alone Electronic Prescribing in a Health Plan-Sponsored Initiative
Joshua M. Pevnick, MD, MSHS; Steven M. Asch, MD, MPH; John L. Adams, PhD; Soeren Mattke, MD, DSc; Mihir H. Patel, PharmD; Susan L. Ettner, PhD; and Douglas S. Bell, MD, PhD
Risk Adjustment for Medicare Beneficiaries With Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias
Pei-Jung Lin, PhD; Matthew L. Maciejewski, PhD; John E. Paul, PhD;and Andrea K. Biddle, PhD
Economics of Influenza Vaccine Administration Timing for Children
Bruce Y. Lee, MD, MBA; Julie H. Y. Tai, MD; Rachel R. Bailey, MPH; Kenneth J. Smith, MD, MS; and Andrew J. Nowalk, MD, PhD
Inpatient Rehabilitation Utilization for Acute Stroke Under a Universal Health Insurance System
Hsuei-Chen Lee, PhD; Ku-Chou Chang, MD; Yu-Ching Huang, BS, RN; Chung-Fu Lan, DDS, DrPH; Jin-Jong Chen, MD, PhD; and Shun-Hwa Wei, PhD
Medical Care Costs Among Patients With Established Cardiovascular Disease
Gregory A. Nichols, PhD; Timothy J. Bell, MHA; Kathryn L. Pedula, MS; and Maureen O'Keeffe-Rosetti, MS
List of Peer Reviewers (2009)

Health Plan Use of Immunization Information Systems for Quality Measurement

Alan C. O'Connor, MBA; Christine M. Layton, PhD, MPH; Todd J. Osbeck, MM; Therese M. Hoyle; and Bobby Rasulnia, PhD

Health plans may benefit from using a state immunization information system as the primary data source for HEDIS and physician incentive and quality programs.

Objective: To evaluate a health plan’s business case for using a state immunization information system (IIS) as the primary data source for members’ immunization histories.

 

Study Design: Case study of Priority Health, a Michigan managed care organization, to investigate use of IIS data for Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) compliance, quality measurement, and a provider incentive program.

 

Methods: Primary data were collected through key informant interviews and group discussions with Priority Health and IIS managers. Priority Health’s information systems were populated with claims data and supplemental data, before chart reviews, to simulate immunization and health plan quality measures for 2004 to 2007 in the absence of IIS data. Simulated rates were compared with historical rates that included IIS data. The study included a cost-benefit analysis.

 

Results: For 2007, IIS data increased observed immunization rates from 6.49 to 54.13 percentage points for childhood immunizations and 57.63 to 77.97 percentage points for adolescent immunizations. The HEDIS administrative rate for childhood immunizations doubled from 43.38% in 2003 to 88.08% in 2007. The most significant source of savings was in administration of the health plan’s Physician Incentive Program, which saw 18,881 fewer chart reviews from 2004 to 2007 when IIS data were used compared with when they were not used. Total costs of using IIS data were estimated to be $14,318 and net benefits were $107,854—corresponding to a benefit-to-cost ratio of 8.06.

 

Conclusions: Health plans using a state IIS as a single point of data entry may realize cost savings and have improved assurance of immunization coverage.

 

(Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(3):217-224)

This case study examines the business case for a health plan to use its state immunization information system (IIS) as its primary data source.

 

  • The IIS provides Priority Health, a managed care organization, with more timely and comprehensive data on members’ immunization status.
  • IIS data reduced chart reviews for the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set and physician quality and incentive programs by nearly 20,000 reviews in 2004 to 2007.
  • Savings over a 4-year period corresponded to an 8.06 benefit-to-cost ratio.
Immunization information systems (IIS) are confidential, computerized information systems that collect and consolidate vaccination data from multiple healthcare providers, generate reminder and recall notifications, and assess vaccination coverage within a defined geographic area. Most IIS have additional capabilities such as vaccine management, adverse event reporting, birth-to-death vaccination histories, and interoperability with other health information systems.1 The benefits of IIS are believed to be so great that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention established a national objective for at least 95% of US children age 6 years or younger to be included in fully operational population-based immunization registries.2

Health plans have been described as “natural partners” for IIS because they use data similar to those in IIS to measure product performance.3 The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) established the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS, formerly known as the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set) as a set of performance benchmarks against which health plans can be compared, including up-to-date immunization status for children at 2 years of age. HEDIS reporting permits data collected from patient chart reviews, claims, and (when approved by NCQA) IIS.

Studies have been conducted to determine the costs associated with implementing IIS4-8 and to illustrate that provider participation is critical for IIS success.9,10 Yet there is little in the literature examining relationships between health plans and IIS.11 This case study reviews the business case for Priority Health, a managed care organization, to establish Michigan’s IIS, the Michigan Care Improvement Registry (MCIR), rather than claims as its primary mechanism for acquiring members’ immunization data. Kilpatrick et al12 define a business case as a scenario in which an organization realizes a positive return on investment for a particular intervention. We examined Priority Health’s decisional processes for establishing MCIR as the primary data source for immunization histories, the use of IIS data for quality and physician performance programs, and the incremental costs and benefits accruing to Priority Health as a consequence. We concluded that, although attributes of the case may be specific to Priority Health and MCIR, the data interchange partnership is replicable for other IIS and health plans.

BACKGROUND

Priority Health is a Michigan-based health plan with 480,000 members. Quality, as reflected by HEDIS measures, is integral to Priority Health’s corporate strategy. Priority Health’s performance on quality measures is used heavily in marketing products and programs to employers and healthcare providers. Indeed,  Chernew et al13 conducted a study of 17 large employers and found that, although price was the predominant factor in health plan selection, these employers were more likely to offer plans with strong absolute and relative HEDIS performance measures. In 2003, NCQA affirmed MCIR’s acceptability for HEDIS, and Priority Health began populating its information systems with IIS data in 2004.

The Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) established MCIR in 1996, and childhood immunization providers are required by law to record immunizations within 72 hours of administration. As of 2007, 95% of children ages 19 to 35 months had 2 or more immunization records in MCIR. The provider participation rate is 94% and MCIR has approximately 12,000 users per day.14

Priority Health uses IIS data in 3 efforts: HEDIS reporting, a physicians’ incentive program, and a physician quality rating program. HEDIS reporting was described in the introduction. The second effort, the Physician Incentive Program (PIP), was implemented in 1997 when Priority Health moved from a risk-based  business model to capitation. Immunization for children was among Priority Health’s first incentive measures and remained among its 17 measures for 2007. Adolescent immunization was incentivized from 2004 through 2006, after which it was retired as a HEDIS measure by NCQA.

To receive incentive payments, providers must meet the 90th percentile HEDIS benchmark for Priority Health members participating in commercial health maintenance organization (HMO) and point-of-service plans who have been continuously enrolled for 12 months. For 2006, providers received $175 per eligible member if they demonstrated that at least 87% of Priority Health members in their practice who turned 2 years old during the reporting year completed the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended series by their second birthday. Priority Health awarded $1.1 million in incentive payments for 2006’s immunization performance, one-sixth of that year’s $6.5-million incentive payout.

The third effort is a physician quality reporting program called the “apples on the Web.” Physician performance toward meeting HEDIS benchmarks is monitored and reported on Priority Health’s public Web site using a scale of 1 to 4 apples. Priority Health has not quantified the extent to which apples influence patients’ choice of physicians; however, it is believed that physicians monitor the apples closely.

Therefore, Priority Health rewards providers for meeting the up-to-date immunization coverage benchmark twice: first with a financial incentive and second with a high-quality rating on its Web site. Because the data informing these programs play a critical role, Priority Health has an interest in data capture and management becoming more effective and efficient.

METHODS

The case study relied on data collected through key informant interviews, simulations of Priority Health’s data systems with and without IIS data, and a cost-benefit analysis.

Primary Data Collection

Primary data were collected over the course of 2 visits to Priority Health’s headquarters in February and April 2008. Fifteen individuals from Priority Health, MDCH, and the Michigan Public Health Institute, which operates MCIR under contract from MDCH, participated in key informant interviews and group discussions facilitated by a semistructured interview guide. The purpose of the interviews was to elucidate the history of Priority Health’s programs relying  on IIS data and to clarify the processes involved in the collection, exchange, and use of immunization data. Priority Health representatives included managers for Provider Services, Medical Outcomes and Quality Improvement, Network Expansion, Information Systems, and Medical Affairs. The MDCH and the Michigan Public Health Institute were represented by MCIR’s project coordination team. Interviews were guided by the 2 study leaders from RTI International (an economist and a public health scientist) and were attended by a representative from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Immunization Information Systems Support Branch. Notes were taken and exchanged among study authors to ensure accurate characterization of participants’ comments. All interviews were recorded to resolve any disagreement between authors’ assessments of any particular discussion topic. Data collection protocols were approved  by RTI International’s institutional review board.

Simulations With and Without IIS Data

Following methodologies pioneered by Griliches15 and Mansfield et al,16 the impact of IIS data on Priority Health’s immunization coverage was measured by simulating Priority Health’s HEDIS and PIP measures with claims data only for 2004 to 2007 and comparing the results with historical data that included IIS data. Priority Health already incentivized immunization, and the existence of its incentive and ratings programs was not contingent on MCIR’s availability. Our approach was to measure the incremental benefits of using IIS data for these programs and not the benefits of the programs themselves.

First, we assessed the impact of IIS data on Priority Health’s HEDIS rates prior to patient chart reviews. HEDIS reporting requires health plans to review a random sample of 411 patient charts annually for up-to-date immunization status for each population group in each commercial product. The number of charts to  be reviewed may be reduced if, for each member in the sample, the health plan has a complete internal up-to-date immunization record. The up-to-date immunization rate from internal records is referred to as the final-sample-size administrative rate. The higher this rate is, the fewer charts that must be reviewed at providers’ offices. The coverage rate that includes chart reviews is referred to as the hybrid reported rate—the final HEDIS measure reported to NCQA. To simulate the impact of IIS data on Priority Health’s final-sample-size administrative rate, Priority Health’s MedMeasures software (ViPS, Inc, Baltimore, MD) was loaded with historical claims files only to regenerate final-sample-size administrative rates for 2004 to 2007. That enabled us to simulate how IIS data reduced chart reviews for HEDIS.

Next, we simulated the impact of IIS data on Priority Health’s annual PIP settlement, which calculates and distributes incentive payments, by estimating how IIS data reduced chart reviews for PIP. The number of doses from claims, MCIR, and supplemental submissions for 2003 to 2007 were reviewed. During the settlement, when Priority Health has no IIS data or claims record for a dose, providers are permitted to use a supplemental submission to document that the dose was administered and should be counted toward the incentive payment calculation. Currently, that submission is required to be a printed record from MCIR.

Before 2004, providers were alerted to missing doses via an automated message from Priority Health’s patient registries. Providers then faxed patient charts,  which Priority Health reviewed to update patient registries. (All supplemental submissions were assumed to be for members in commercial products: only members in HMO and point-of-service plans may be counted toward an incentivized measure, and providers have no incentive to furnish data beyond claims for members participating in other products. Data for members not in HMO or point-of-service plans were excluded from the analysis.) Priority Health indicated hat the historical provider response rate to the automated messages was approximately 90%. The final-sample-size administrative rate and the 90% response rate from 2003 were held constant and applied to the annual number of members reaching the birthday milestone in each of the following years. This calculation yielded the number of supplemental submissions Priority Health would have expected to receive and process had it not downloaded IIS data. The difference between simulated and observed submissions was used to estimate the additional chart reviews that would have otherwise been conducted.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2020 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up