outcomes based commissioning: diabetes practical case study · 2020-03-16 · diabetes practical...
TRANSCRIPT
Click to edit Master title styleClick to edit Master text styles
12/12/2019 1 1
Outcomes Based Commissioning: Diabetes Practical Case Study
Alison Verhoeven, Jay Rebbeck
2
Defining commissioning for outcomes
3
We need to start by defining what we mean by an outcome
“Changes that happen in the lives of people for the
better.”
4
OBC starts by understanding needs, identifying outcomes, then designing responses
Needs
Inputs Activities Outputs
Outcomes
Responses
Who are we trying to help?
1
What are we doing to help?
3
What will change for people?
2
5
Commissioning for outcomes for patients with diabetes
6
Start by understanding the program logic for patients with type 2 diabetes
What
resources are
used to do the
work
What is doneWhat is
delivered
What needs
exist for our
patients
Historical focus
Present and future focus
Commissioning for outcomes
NeedsShort-term
outcomes
Medium-term
outcomes
Long-term
outcomes
Outcomes
Activities OutputsInputs
Responses
GP,
Endocrinologist,
Dietician,
diabetes
Educator
Medication
review, diet,
exercise,
monitoring
GP diabetes
Care Plan
Patients with
poorly controlled
type 2 diabetes
at risk of loss of
sight, limbs &
mobility
What we want people to achieve
Primarily attributed
to the program
Partly attributed to
program, beginning
of shared attribution
Shared attribution
across healthcare
providers / sectors
Well controlled
blood sugar
levels
Retained eye
sight and limb
extremities
Maintained
Activities of Daily
Living (ADL) and
Quality of Life
7
Differentiating commissioning for outcomes from paying for outcomes
8
‘Outcomes-based commissioning’ does not mean ‘paying for outcomes’
Identify, Measure
and Drive Outcomes
Pay for Outcomes
Outcomes
Based
Commissioning= Pay for Outcomes
Outcomes
Based
Commissioning
Commissioning myth Commissioning reality
9
‘Outcomes based commissioning’ encompasses measuring, driving and paying for outcomes
Outcomes
Based
Commissioning
Measure and Drive Outcomes
Outcomes Based Payments
Setting up programs that are focussed on
outcomes, building the foundation for
outcomes contracting
Designing contracts whereby payments are
contingent on outcomes
Readiness considerations for implementing
outcomes based contract payments
10
Measuring and driving outcomes for diabetes patients
11
Select a balanced set of KPIs to monitor progress towards diabetes outcomes
What clinical
resources are
used to do the
work
What is doneWhat is
delivered
What needs
exist for our
patients
NeedsShort-term
outcomes
Medium-term
outcomes
Long-term
outcomes
Outcomes
Activities OutputsInputs
Responses
GP,
Endocrinologist,
Dietician,
diabetes
Educator
Medication
review, diet
advice, physical
activity advice,
patient activation
GP
Management
Plan (GPMP)
with Team Care
Arrangement &
Review
Patients with
poorly controlled
type 2 diabetes
at risk of loss of
sight, limbs &
mobility
What we want people to achieve
Primarily attributed
to the program
Partly attributed to
program, beginning
of shared attribution
Shared attribution
across healthcare
providers / sectors
Well controlled
blood sugar
levels
Retained eye
sight and limb
extremities
Maintained
Activities of Daily
Living (ADL) and
Quality of Life
• Clinical
staffing levels
adequate for
caseload &
case mix
• % of patients
under active
diabetic
treatment and
counselling
• % of patients
with a GPMP
• % of patients
with a TCA
• % of patients
with timely
GPMP
reviews
• Prevalence of
type 2
diabetes in
cohort
• Prevalence of
pre-diabetes
in cohort
• % of patients
within
recommended
HbA1C levels
• % of patients
with
peripheral
neuropathy
• % of patients
maintaining
eyesight
• % of patients
maintaining
Activities of
Daily Living
(ADL)
• Patient
reported
Quality of Life
• QALYs
KPIs
12
Measure and drive diabetes outcomes by tracking each provider’s trajectory towards outcomes
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Needs Activities Outputs Outcomes
Pro
gre
ss
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Needs Activities Outputs Outcome 1
ILLUSTRATIVE
Provider 1On track to achieving
outcomes target
Provider 2Needs attention
No. of patients
within
recommended
HbA1C levels
No. of patients
with a GP
Management
Plan
No. of patients
under active
diabetic
treatment and
counselling
No. of patients
with type 2
diabetes in
cohort
No. of patients
within
recommended
HbA1C levels
No. of patients
with a GP
Management
Plan
No. of patients
under active
diabetic
treatment and
counselling
No. of patients
with type 2
diabetes in
cohort
Target
ActualKey
13
Paying for outcomes for diabetes
14
Consider whether paying for outcomes makes sense for the diabetes care providers in question
Consensus around the outcomes to measure
0 1 2 3 4 5
15
Inputs Activities Outputs
Outcomes
(adjusted for
need)
When to use
Large
outcomes
payment
when circumstances
are highly favourable
Small
outcomes
payment
when circumstances
are less favourable
The outcomes payment size depends on provider-specific considerations
35% 10%35%20%
50%10% 20% 20%
16
Here is an illustrative payment mix
What
resources are
used to do the
work
What is doneWhat is
delivered
What needs
exist for our
patients
NeedsShort-term
outcomes
Medium-term
outcomes
Long-term
outcomes
Outcomes
Activities OutputsInputs
Responses
• GP
• Endocrinologi
st
• Dietician
• diabetes
Educator
• Medication
review
• Diet
• Exercise
• Monitoring
• GP diabetes
Care Plan
• Patients with
poorly
controlled
type 2
diabetes at
risk of loss of
sight, limbs &
mobility
KP
IsD
escriptio
n
What we want people to achieve
Primarily attributed
to the program
Partly attributed to
program, beginning
of shared attribution
Shared attribution
across healthcare
providers / sectors
• Well
controlled
blood sugar
levels
• Retained eye
sight and limb
extremities
• Maintained
Activities of
Daily Living
(ADL) and
Quality of Life
10%30% 30% 30%
17
Consider whether to use a ‘carrot’ or ‘stick’
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
Traditional paymentmechanism
Risk only Reward only Risk and reward
Risk / reward outcomes payment mechanisms
Non-outcomes payment Outcomes risk payment Outcomes reward payment
18
The risks of paying for outcomes
19
‘Gaming’ may be inadvertently encouraged by outcomes payments
Gaming type Description
Cherry pickingService providers ‘cherry pick’ less complex clients for whom outcomes can
more easily be achieved
Goal displacementProviders attempt to achieve the outcome performance targets at the expense
of other non-measured outcomes
Threshold effectsService providers only focus on achieving the target outcomes up to the
threshold of the target
Ratchet effectsService providers attempt not to exceed performance targets, even if easily
achieved, to ensure these targets are not increased in future
20
Considering outcomes across the wider social determinants of health
21
Consider the two-way linkages of outcomes between health and other parts of government
Home
Empower-
ment
Safety
Health
Social &
Community
Education
& skills
Economic
Client needsShort-term
outcomes
Medium-term
outcomes
Long-term
outcomes
Client outcomes
Activities OutputsInputs
Responses
Maintaining
eyesight & limbs
(for diabetics)
Reduced death
(from rheumatic
heart disease)*
Increased
sustainable
employment
Improved
housing
conditions
* Note the rheumatic disease example provided is unrelated to diabetes!
22
Thank you
If you have any questions about this presentation or would like to hear more about commissioning for outcomes, please get in touch with Jay Rebbeck:
+61 414 400 [email protected]
Rebbeck Consulting
Unit 222 Lifestyle Working
117 Old Pittwater Road
Brookvale
NSW 2100
Australia
+61 414 400 524
www.rebbeckconsulting.com