Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Exchanges and Qualified Health Plans, Quality Rating System (QRS), Framework Measures and Methodology, 69418-69426 [2013-27649]
Download as PDF
69418
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices
LeRoy Richardson,
Chief, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of
the Associate Director for Science, Office of
the Director, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2013–27653 Filed 11–18–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163–18–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
[CMS–3288–NC]
Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act; Exchanges and Qualified Health
Plans, Quality Rating System (QRS),
Framework Measures and
Methodology
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Notice with comment.
AGENCY:
This notice with comment
describes the overall Quality Rating
System (QRS) framework for rating
Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) offered
through an Exchange. The purpose of
this notice is to solicit comments on the
list of proposed QRS quality measures
that QHP issuers would be required to
collect and report, the hierarchical
structure of the measure sets and the
elements of the QRS rating
methodology. In addition, this notice
solicits comments on ways to ensure the
integrity of QRS ratings, and on priority
areas for future QRS measure
enhancement and development.
DATES: To be assured consideration,
comments must be received at one of
the addresses provided below, no later
than 5 p.m. on January 21, 2014.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, refer to file
code CMS–3288–NC. Because of staff
and resource limitations, we cannot
accept comments by facsimile (FAX)
transmission.
You may submit comments in one of
four ways (please choose only one of the
ways listed):
1. Electronically. You may submit
electronic comments on this regulation
to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the ‘‘Submit a comment’’ instructions.
2. By regular mail. You may mail
written comments to the following
address only: Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Department of
Health and Human Services, Attention:
CMS–3288–NC, P.O. Box 8016,
Baltimore, MD 21244–8016.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed
comments to be received before the
close of the comment period.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:21 Nov 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
3. By express or overnight mail. You
may send written comments to the
following address only: Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Department of Health and Human
Services, Attention: CMS–3288–NC,
Mail Stop C4–26–05, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
4. By hand or courier. Alternatively,
you may deliver (by hand or courier)
your written only to the following
addresses:
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Room 445–G, Hubert
H. Humphrey Building, 200
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20201.
(Because access to the interior of the
Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not
readily available to persons without
Federal government identification,
commenters are encouraged to leave
their comments in the CMS drop slots
located in the main lobby of the
building. A stamp-in clock is available
for persons wishing to retain a proof of
filing by stamping in and retaining an
extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–1850.
If you intend to deliver your
comments to the Baltimore address, call
telephone number (410) 786–9994 in
advance to schedule your arrival with
one of our staff members.
Comments erroneously mailed to the
addresses indicated as appropriate for
hand or courier delivery may be delayed
and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public
comments, see the beginning of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nidhi Singh Shah, (301) 492–5110, for
general information. Elizabeth FlowDelwiche, (410) 786–1718, for matters
relating to the Quality Rating System.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Inspection
of Public Comments: All comments
received before the close of the
comment period are available for
viewing by the public, including any
personally identifiable or confidential
business information that is included in
a comment. We post all comments
received before the close of the
comment period on the following Web
site as soon as possible after they have
been received: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the search
instructions on that Web site to view
public comments.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Comments received timely will also
be available for public inspection as
they are received, generally beginning
approximately 3 weeks after publication
of a document, at the headquarters of
the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday
through Friday of each week from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an
appointment to view public comments,
phone 1–800–743–3951.
I. Background
A. Legislative Background
The Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–148) as
amended by the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
(Pub. L. 111–309) (collectively referred
to as the Affordable Care Act) establish
Affordable Insurance Exchange or
Exchange (also known as a Health
Insurance Marketplace or Marketplace)
within each state. Qualified individuals
and qualified employers in each state
will be able to shop for affordable health
insurance through Exchanges.
The Department of Health and Human
Services (the Secretary) holds primary
responsibility for establishing the
standards and guidelines for the
Exchanges. The Affordable Care Act
provides States with the flexibility to
establish and operate their own
Exchange (State-based Exchange).
However, if a state elects not to establish
a State-based Exchange or if a state will
not have an Exchange that is operational
by January 1, 2014, pursuant to section
1321(c)(1) of the Affordable Care Act,
the Secretary will establish and operate
a Federally-facilitated Exchange in those
states. The Affordable Care Act and
applicable Exchange regulations
establish that health plans offered
through an Exchange must meet specific
standards to be certified as QHPs and to
offer coverage in an Exchange beginning
in January 2014.
The Affordable Care Act also requires
the Secretary to develop a number of
reporting requirements to support the
delivery of quality health care coverage
offered in the Exchanges. Specifically,
sections 1311(c)(3) and (c)(4) of the
Affordable Care Act direct the Secretary
to develop—(1) a system that rates
qualified health plans (QHPs) based on
the relative quality and price; and (2) an
enrollee satisfaction survey system that
assesses the level of enrollee experience
(that is, consumer experience) with
QHPs. Because we believe that QHP
consumer experience is an important
part of rating the overall quality of a
QHP, we intend to use some of the
information collected from the Enrollee
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices
Satisfaction Survey in the Quality
Rating System (QRS).
In addition to consumer experience,
we believe that the QRS should provide
ratings of QHPs based on health care
quality, health outcomes, and cost of
care. We intend for all QHP issuers to
report data at the product level for the
initial years of QRS implementation (for
example, at the Health Maintenance
Organization level or Preferred Provider
Organization level). We expect QHPs to
provide product-level quality
performance data for the QRS in general
topics, such as clinical effectiveness of
care, patient safety, care coordination,
prevention of disease and illness, access
to care, member experience, plan
services and efficiency, and cost
reduction. The QRS ratings should
demonstrate sound, reliable, and
meaningful information on the
performance of QHPs to ultimately
support informed decisions by
consumers.
We have already promulgated
regulations at 45 CFR 155.200(d) that
direct Exchanges to oversee
implementation of the QRS, and 45 CFR
156.200(b)(5) 1 that directs QHP issuers
to report health care quality information
to an Exchange. In this notice, we
describe the overall QRS framework and
the factors that guided the development
of the QRS. We solicit comments on the
QRS measure sets for QHPs offered to
adult individuals and families, (QRS)
and for child-only QHPs (Child QRS),
the hierarchical structure of the measure
sets, and the elements of the rating
methodology. We also solicit comments
on ways to ensure the integrity of QRS
ratings, and the identification of priority
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act;
Establishment of Exchanges and Qualified Health
Plans; Exchange Standards for Employers, 77 FR
18310 (Mar. 27, 2012) (to be codified at 45 CFR
parts 155, 156, & 157).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:21 Nov 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
areas for future QRS measure
enhancement and development.
In future rulemaking, we intend to
propose requirements for QHPs and
Exchanges regarding the collection and
submission of specific quality-related
information. In addition, we intend to
provide future technical guidance for
QHP issuers and Exchanges related to
the QRS measure specifications,
detailed rating methodology guidelines,
and data reporting and procedures.
B. QRS Goals and Principles
We believe that the overarching goal
of the QRS is based on two fundamental
tenets: (1) Providing comparable and
useful information regarding the quality
of QHPs offered through the Exchanges
to inform consumer and employer
choice; and (2) facilitating regulatory
oversight of QHPs with regard to the
quality standards set forth in the
Affordable Care Act. Consequently, we
believe that the QRS should provide
QHP ratings based on health care
quality and outcomes, consumer
experience, and cost. We developed the
following five general QRS principles to
guide the design of the QRS:
• The QRS should produce QHP
quality performance information to
encourage the delivery of higher-quality
health care services, expand access to
care, and improve health outcomes for
QHP enrollees.
• The QRS should provide sound,
reliable, and meaningful quality-related
QHP information, which could be used
by consumers when comparing health
plans, by QHPs for quality
improvement, as well as by Exchanges
and CMS for QHP certification and
regulatory oversight activities.
• The QRS should reflect the goals of
the National Strategy for Quality
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69419
Improvement in Health Care priorities,2
which includes reporting cross-cutting
performance areas (that is, patient
safety, prevention, population health,
patient engagement, patient experience,
and efficient resource use). The QRS
should also facilitate reporting on
conditions or procedures of significant
prevalence and importance (for
example, heart disease or breast cancer
screening).
• The QRS measures set should be
evidence-based and align, to the
maximum extent possible, with priority
measures currently implemented in
federal, state, and private sector
programs to minimize QHP issuer
burden. We have drawn on our
experience administering the Medicare
Advantage 5-star rating system in
developing this framework, and intend
that the development and evolution of
the QRS should be public and
transparent and should allow for
flexibility to incorporate changes in
measures and methodologies as medical
treatments and technology evolve and
the Exchanges mature.
C. QRS Framework
We have developed a framework for
creating, implementing, maintaining
and revising the QRS. The overall
framework consists of the following
components that are guided by the QRS
goals and principles:
• Performance Information
• Rating Methodology
In total, there are ten associated
elements that further clarify the
Performance Information and Rating
Methodology components (see Table 1
below).
2 See Report to Congress: National Strategy for
Quality Improvement in Health Care available at
https://www.ahrq.gov/workingforquality/nqs/
nqs2013annlrpt.htm.
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices
The goals and principles for the QRS
serve as the common thread throughout
the QRS framework. The Performance
Information component consists of four
elements: (1) Measures Selection; (2)
Hierarchical Structure; (3) Organization
of Measures; and (4) Data Strategy. The
Measures Selection element represents
the process for selecting and evaluating
the measure sets of the QRS. The
Hierarchical Structure element
establishes how the QRS measure sets
are organized for scoring, rating, and
reporting purposes. The Organization of
Measures element establishes the
approach to create composites, domains,
and summary indicators ratings. The
Data Strategy element, which is
discussed in section IV, refers to the
procedures for how the measures data
will be collected, calculated, submitted
and will help to inform how data will
be displayed.
The Rating Methodology component
aims to define how QHPs will be scored
and compared, and as proposed,
consists of six elements:
• Aggregation Rules would be used to
determine how measures should be
combined to create useful quality
information on health care areas such as
diabetes care or preventive health care.
• Sampling and Attribution would
establish the selection criteria for
determining appropriate population
samples that yield reliable and valid
information.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:21 Nov 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
• Scoring would be the process used
to convert the raw QRS measures data
to points or percentiles on a common
numeric scale.
• Performance Classification would
be used to assign values to the QHP
scores; these values would then be used
to categorize the QHP’s performance.
• Population and other adjustments
would refer to changes made to raw data
or measures to remove potential bias
introduced by factors that are not
modifiable by the QHP.
• Peer Groups would be used to
establish a benchmark dataset for
comparison of the individual QHP in
the performance classification work,
most often based on the geographic and
time period considerations (for example,
current annual distribution of all plans
nationally).
II. Performance Information
Component
A. Measures Selection
The process used to select the QRS
measure sets included a review of
existing health plan measures, so that
the QRS measures promote consistency
and harmonization across State, Federal
government entities (for example, CMS)
and private-sector efforts. Our review
included national measure sets that
were relevant to the intended purpose of
the QRS and incorporate health plan
measures such as the Initial Adult
Medicaid Core Set of Health Care
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Quality Measures, Initial Core Set of
Children’s Health Care Quality
Measures, Clinical Quality Measures for
Eligible Professionals, and Medicare
Part C and Part D Reporting
Requirements, as well as a variety of
other quality measurement programs,
including health plan accreditation
programs.3 We believe it’s important
that measures, in the initial years, be
specified for health plans (rather than
specified for health care providers) to
ensure reliable data, reduce QHP burden
and facilitate consumer use and
comprehension.
Measures selection and measure set
evaluation criteria were developed
using the National Quality Forum (NQF)
Measure Evaluation Criteria and the
Measures Application Partnership
(MAP) Measure-Selection Criteria.4 5
3 In addition to the programs and measure sets
mentioned above, CMS included the following
program measure sets in the environmental scan:
eValue8, Consumer Reports Health Plan Rankings,
Office of Personnel Management Federal Employee
Health Benefit Program; Health Plan Accreditation
programs: URAC, National Committee for Quality
Assurance, Accreditation Association for
Ambulatory Health Care; State Health Monitoring
Programs: Maryland HealthChoice Consumer
Report Card, California Healthcare Quality Report
Card, NY Electronic Quality Assurance Reporting
Requirements, Maryland Health Plan Report Card,
California Medi-CAL Health Plan Quality Ratings;
State Based Exchanges: Oregon Health Insurance
Exchange, New York State Health Benefit Exchange
California Health benefits Exchange
4 National Quality Forum. ‘‘Measure Evaluation
Criteria, November 2012.’’ accessed January 23,
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
EN19NO13.003
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
69420
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The measure selection criteria, which
represent industry-tested criteria and
were supported as measure inclusion
criteria based on discussions with
stakeholders and public comment
received in response to a Request for
Information (RFI),6 focuses on the
following areas:
• Importance: the extent to which the
measure is important to making
significant gains in health care quality,
improving health outcomes, has a high
impact (high priority) and is relevant to
the Exchange population and benefits
covered by QHPs.
• Performance Gap: the extent to
which the measure demonstrates
opportunities for performance
improvement based on variation in
current health plan performance.
• Reliability and Validity: the extent
to which the measure produces
consistent (reliable) and credible (valid)
results.
• Feasibility: the extent to which the
data related to the measure are readily
available or could be captured without
undue burden and can be implemented
by QHPs.
• Alignment: the extent to which the
measure is included in one or more
existing federal, state or private sector
health plan quality reporting programs.
The QRS measure set evaluation
criteria were applied to identify
measurement gaps in the QRS measure
sets and helped to ensure that the
proposed QRS measure sets as a whole
would best meet the needs of consumers
and the Exchanges.
The draft QRS measure sets were
evaluated to determine the extent to
which the measures were NQF-endorsed
and aligned with the NQS priorities.
Relevance to the Exchange consumer
was evaluated by assessing whether the
measure set addressed clinical
conditions of moderate or high
prevalence or high disease burden
(applicable only to the clinical care
measures) and whether the measure sets
identified the needs of the consumer
related to health-plan operations and
satisfaction. Relevance of the QRS
measure sets to QHPs was evaluated by
assessing how well each of the sets
addressed the benefit categories
required of QHPs as part of the
Affordable Care Act essential health
benefits requirement; 7 and if the sets
2013, https://www.qualityforum.org/docs/measure_
evaluation_criteria.aspx.
5 Measure Applications Partnership. ‘‘MAP
Working Measure Selection Criteria and Working
Guide.’’ National Quality Forum, December 2012.
6 Request for Information Regarding Health Care
Quality for Exchanges: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
pkg/FR–2012–11–27/pdf/2012–28473.pdf.
7 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act;
Standards Related to Essential Health Benefits,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:21 Nov 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
complemented other information used
by the Exchange to support consumer
comparison of health plans or to assist
with QHP certification and plan
monitoring. The comprehensiveness of
the draft QRS measure sets were
assessed by examining the measures and
ensuring that, to the extent possible
based on the availability of health-plan
specified measures, the sets included an
appropriate mix of clinical care measure
types, such as structure, process and
outcome measures; experience of care
measures; and measures that assess
cost/resource use/appropriateness of
care and plan management. The draft
QRS measure sets were evaluated for the
degree to which they promoted
equitable access and treatment by
considering healthcare disparities, and
ways in which the measure sets can
capture data to promote strategies that
address variations in care. In addition,
the draft QRS measure sets were
evaluated based on the percentage of
measures that demonstrated parsimony,
an efficient use of resources,
including—(1) the ready availability of
automated data (available through
existing claims, administrative, survey,
and health plan management databases);
or (2) whether the measures are publicly
reported or currently in use as
contractual performance standards
between plans and public/private
purchasers or between plans and
provider organizations or as in
accordance with statutory or regulatory
requirements.
The draft measure sets were revised
and the proposed QRS measure sets
were created following this evaluation.
The proposed QRS measure sets were
also evaluated and reviewed internally
by CMS, externally by industry and
stakeholders and in a field test using
available health plan data. Listening
sessions were also conducted for
insurers, states and consumer groups.
Although the measures contained in
the QRS are consistent with the state-ofscience for measuring health care
quality, science and technology do not
yet allow us to measure or represent the
quality of all care delivered through the
QHPs. Therefore, the QRS measure set
should not be viewed as representative
of all care delivered by QHPs.
B. Individual Measures for QRS and
Child-Only QRS
QHPs offered in the Exchange may
provide family/adult self-only coverage
or child-only coverage (child-only
QHPs) and therefore, there are two
Actuarial Value, and Accreditation; Final Rule 78
FR 12834 (Feb. 25, 2013) (to be codified at 45 CFR
parts 147, 155 and 156).
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69421
proposed measure sets; the QRS
measure set (for family and adult selfonly coverage) and a Child-only QRS
measure set. Both measure sets were
selected based on the above described
key criteria. We solicit comments on the
proposed measures in the QRS and
Child-only QRS listed below in Table 2.
The proposed QRS measure set for
family/adult self-only coverage consists
of a total of 42 measures—29 clinical
measures, which encompass health care
topics of clinical effectiveness,
prevention, access and efficiency; and
13 Consumer Assessment of Healthcare
Providers and Systems® (CAHPS)
survey measures, which encompass
topics such as member experiences with
the QHP, providers and health care
services, including preventive care. The
QRS measure set addresses the essential
health benefits for which health plan
measures are currently available. The
majority (76 percent) of the measures
are presently NQF-endorsed and
address all six National Quality Strategy
priorities. Approximately, 83 percent of
the QRS measures are included in at
least one of the reviewed Federallyestablished measure sets (for example,
Office of Personnel Management Federal
Employee Health Benefit (OPM FEHB),
CMS Medicare Stars, CMS Adult
Medicaid Core Set,8 CMS Initial
Children’s Core Set,9 Medicare Part C&D
Plan Reporting). The remaining
measures are used in other state based
and private sector health plan reporting
programs such as Consumer Reports
Health Plan Rankings 10 or through
accreditation. QHPs offering family or
adult self-only coverage would be
required to report on all 42 measures in
the QRS measure set.
The Child-only QRS measure set
consists of a total of 25 measures—15
clinical measures and 10 CAHPS
measures. The Child-only measure set
includes a combination of process and
outcome measures. The Child-only QRS
measure set addresses many of the
essential health benefits. The majority of
the measures (84 percent) are NQFendorsed and largely address the six
National Quality Strategy priorities.
Approximately 80 percent of the
measures are included in either the
OPM FEHB Set or the CMS Initial
Children’s Core Set. As with the QRS
measure set, the remaining measures in
8 Initial Core Set of Health Care Quality Measures
for Adults Enrolled in Medicaid (Medicaid Adult
Core Set). February 2013.
9 SHO: #13–002. Letter to State Health Official
and State Medicaid Director. Re: 2013 Children’s
Core Set of Health Care Quality Measures. January
24, 2013.
10 https://www.consumerreports.org/health/
insurance/health-insurance-plans.htm.
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
69422
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices
the child-only set are used state based
and private sector health plan reporting
programs. Child-only QHPs would be
required to report on all 25 measures in
the Child-only QRS measure set.
TABLE 2—PROPOSED MEASURE SETS FOR THE QRS AND CHILD-ONLY QRS
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Measure title
NQF ID 11
QRS
Child-only QRS
Adolescent Well-Care Visits ..............................................................
Adult BMI Assessment ......................................................................
Adults’ Access to Preventive and Ambulatory Health Services ........
Annual Dental Visit ............................................................................
Annual Monitoring for Patients on Persistent Medications ...............
Antidepressant Medication Management ..........................................
Appropriate Testing for Children With Pharyngitis ............................
Appropriate Treatment for Children With Upper Respiratory Infection.
Avoidance of Antibiotic Treatment in Adults with Acute Bronchitis ..
Breast Cancer Screening ..................................................................
CAHPS—Aspirin Use and Discussion ...............................................
CAHPS—Coordination of Members’ Health Care Services ..............
CAHPS—Cultural Competency .........................................................
CAHPS—Customer Service ..............................................................
CAHPS—Flu Shots for Adults ...........................................................
CAHPS—Getting Care Quickly .........................................................
CAHPS—Getting Needed Care .........................................................
CAHPS—Global Rating of Health Plan .............................................
CAHPS—Medical Assistance With Smoking and Tobacco Use
Cessation.
CAHPS—Plan Information on Costs .................................................
CAHPS—Rating of All Health Care ...................................................
CAHPS—Rating of Personal Doctor .................................................
CAHPS—Rating of Specialist Seen Most Often ...............................
Cervical Cancer Screening ................................................................
Child and Adolescent Access to PCPs .............................................
Childhood Immunization Status .........................................................
Chlamydia Screening in Women (Ages 16–20) ................................
Cholesterol Management for Patients With Cardiovascular Conditions: LDL–C Control (<100 mg/Dl).
Cholesterol Management for Patients With Cardiovascular Conditions: LDL–C Screening.
Colorectal Cancer Screening .............................................................
Controlling High Blood Pressure .......................................................
Diabetes Care: Eye Exam (Retinal) Performed ................................
Diabetes Care: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) Control <8.0% ................
Follow-Up After Hospitalization for Mental Illness: 7 days ................
Follow-Up Care for Children Prescribed ADHD Medication: Initiation Phase.
Follow-Up Care for Children Prescribed ADHD Medication: Continuation and Maintenance Phase.
HPV Vaccination for Female Adolescents ........................................
Immunizations for Adolescents ..........................................................
Medication Management for People With Asthma ............................
Medication Management for People With Asthma (Ages 5–18) .......
Plan All—Cause Readmissions .........................................................
Prenatal and Postpartum Care: Postpartum Care ............................
Prenatal and Postpartum Care: Timeliness of Prenatal Care ...........
Relative Resource Use for People with Cardiovascular Conditions—Inpatient Facility Index.
Relative Resource Use for People with Diabetes—Inpatient Facility
Index.
Use of Imaging Studies for Low Back Pain ......................................
Weight Assessment and Counseling for Nutrition and Physical Activity for Children and Adolescents.
Weight Assessment and Counseling for Nutrition and Physical Activity for Children and Adolescents: BMI Percentile Documentation.
Well-Child Visits in the First 15 Months of Life .................................
Well-Child Visits in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Years of Life
Not currently endorsed ................
Not currently endorsed ................
Not currently endorsed ................
1388 ............................................
Not currently endorsed ................
0105 ............................................
0002 ............................................
0069 ............................................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..............................
X
..............................
..............................
X
..............................
..............................
X
X
0058 ............................................
Not currently endorsed ................
Not currently endorsed ................
Not currently endorsed 12 ............
Not currently endorsed 13 ............
0006 ............................................
0039 ............................................
0006 ............................................
0006 ............................................
0006 ............................................
0027 ............................................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
..............................
..............................
..............................
X
X
X
..............................
X
X
X
..............................
0006 ............................................
0006 ............................................
0006 ............................................
0006 ............................................
0032 ............................................
Not currently endorsed ................
0038 ............................................
0033 ............................................
Not currently endorsed ................
X
X
X
X
X
..............................
X
..............................
X
X
X
X
X
..............................
X
X
X
Not currently endorsed ................
X
0034 ............................................
0018 ............................................
0055 ............................................
0575 ............................................
0576 14 .........................................
0108 15 .........................................
X
X
X
X
X
X
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
X
0108 ............................................
..............................
X
1959
1407
1799
1799
1768
1517
1517
1558
..............................
X
X
..............................
X
X
X
X
X
X
..............................
X
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
1557 ............................................
X
..............................
0052 ............................................
0024 ............................................
X
..............................
..............................
X
0024 16 .........................................
X
..............................
1392 ............................................
1516 ............................................
..............................
X
X
X
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:21 Nov 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
............................................
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices
C. Organization and Hierarchical
Structure of the QRS Measures
The Performance Information
component of the QRS framework
guided the proposed structure and
hierarchy, as well as the measures that
will be included within each level of the
hierarchy. In order to be most useful to
consumers, rating systems that can
present a large collection of measures
must be organized into a hierarchical
structure. We considered organizing the
measures in a manner to maximize the
approachability and understandability
of the information provided by the QRS.
We are proposing hierarchical structures
for the QRS and Child-only QRS that
allow consumers to easily use
information from the QRS in their
health plan comparisons for selection of
a QHP in the Exchange. We solicit
comments on the proposed hierarchical
structures outlined in Tables 3 and 4
below.
The fundamental building block of
the QRS structure is the individual
indicator or measure. The hierarchical
structures include composites, which
represent the combination of two or
more individual indicators or measures
that result in a single score. Measures
are grouped into composites so large
amounts of information can be
streamlined and reported in formats that
are easy for consumers to comprehend.
Grouping measures into composites also
helps to reduce random variability,
differentiate performance across health
plans and provide meaningful
information to the consumer. Not all
measures in the QRS are part of a
composite. Table 3 provides the
organization of the proposed QRS
measure set for family/adult self-only
69423
coverage. The QRS organizes measures
and composites into a set of eight
domains that represent unique and
important aspects of quality: (1) Clinical
Effectiveness, (2) Patient Safety, (3) Care
Coordination, (4) Prevention, (5) Access,
(6) Doctor and Care, (7) Efficiency and
Affordability (8) Plan Services. The
domains are grouped into three
summary indicators which align with
CMS priority areas: (1) Clinical Quality
Management; (2) Member Experience;
and (3) Plan Efficiency, Affordability
and Management. The summary
indicators organize the domains into
broad categories that the consumer may
use when evaluating health plan
options. All three summary indicators
would then be grouped into a single
Global Rating. The Global Rating is a
score that summarizes all measures,
composites and domains in the
hierarchical structure of the QRS.
TABLE 3—PROPOSED QRS STRUCTURE
QRS summary indicator
QRS domain
QRS composite
Measure title
Clinical Quality Management
Care Coordination .............
No Composite ....................
Clinical Effectiveness ........
No Composite ....................
Behavioral Health ..............
CAHPS—Coordination of Members’ Health Care Services.
Medication Management for People With Asthma.
Antidepressant Medication Management.
Follow-Up After Hospitalization for Mental Illness: 7
days.
Follow-Up Care for Children Prescribed ADHD Medication: Initiation Phase.
Cholesterol Management for Patients With Cardiovascular Conditions: LDL–C screening.
Cholesterol Management for Patients With Cardiovascular Conditions: LDL–C control (<100 mg/Dl).
Controlling High Blood Pressure.
Diabetes Care: Eye Exam (Retinal) Performed.
Diabetes Care: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) Control
<8.0%.
Annual Monitoring for Patients on Persistent Medications.
Plan All-Cause Readmissions.
Breast Cancer Screening.
Cervical Cancer Screening.
Colorectal Cancer Screening.
Prenatal and Postpartum Care: Postpartum Care.
Prenatal and Postpartum Care: Timeliness of Prenatal
Care.
Adult BMI Assessment.
CAHPS—Aspirin Use and Discussion.
CAHPS—Flu Shots for Adults.
CAHPS—Medical Assistance With Smoking and Tobacco Use Cessation.
Annual Dental Visit.
Childhood Immunization Status.
Immunizations for Adolescents.
Weight Assessment and Counseling for Children and
Adolescents: BMI Percentile Documentation.
Adolescent Well-Care Visits.
Adults’ Access to Preventive and Ambulatory Health
Services.
Cardiovascular Care ..........
Diabetes Care ...................
Patient Safety ....................
No Composite ....................
Prevention .........................
Checking for Cancer .........
Maternal Health .................
Staying Healthy Adult ........
Staying Healthy Child ........
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Member Experience ............
Access ...............................
11 Definitions of NQF endorsed measures can be
found here: https://www.qualityforum.org/
Home.aspx.
12 Only one question within the CAHPS
Coordination of Members’ Health Care Services
composite is currently endorsed (#0007): ‘‘Did your
personal doctor seem informed and up-to-date
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:21 Nov 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
Access Preventive Visits ...
about the medical care you got?’’. The remaining
questions in the composite are new and have not
yet been endorsed.
13 One of the questions within this CAHPS
composite was modified from CAHPS Clinician and
Group 2.0, Adult Supplemental (NQF #1904) and
the other question is new.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14 Measure includes only one indicator of the
NQF-endorsed measure.
15 Measure includes only one indicator of the
NQF-endorsed measure for the child-only QRS.
16 Measure includes only one indicator of the
NQF-endorsed measure.
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
69424
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices
TABLE 3—PROPOSED QRS STRUCTURE—Continued
QRS summary indicator
QRS domain
QRS composite
Measure title
Access to Care ..................
Doctor and Care ................
Plan Efficiency, Affordability
and Management.
Doctor and Care ................
Efficiency and Affordability
Efficient Care .....................
Plan Service ......................
Member Experience with
Health Plan.
Well-Child Visits in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth
Years of Life.
CAHPS—Getting Care Quickly.
CAHPS—Getting Needed Care.
CAHPS—Cultural Competency.
CAHPS—Rating of All Health Care.
CAHPS—Rating of Personal Doctor.
CAHPS—Rating of Specialist Seen Most Often.
Appropriate Testing for Children With Pharyngitis.
Avoidance of Antibiotic Treatment in Adults with Acute
Bronchitis.
Relative Resource Use for People with Cardiovascular
Conditions—Inpatient Facility Index.
Relative Resource Use for People with Diabetes—Inpatient Facility Index.
Use of Imaging Studies for Low Back Pain.
CAHPS—Customer Service.
CAHPS—Global Rating of Health Plan.
CAHPS—Plan Information on Costs.
The hierarchical structure for the
proposed Child-only QRS is similar to
the proposed QRS. The 25 measures of
the Child-only QRS provide the basic
foundation of the structure. Not all
measures in the Child-only QRS are part
of a composite. Table 4 below provides
the organization of the proposed Child-
only QRS measure set. The Child-only
QRS organizes measures and composites
into a set of seven domains: (1) Care
Coordination, (2) Clinical Effectiveness,
(3) Prevention, (4) Access, (5) Doctor
and Care, (6) Efficiency and
Affordability (7), and Plan Service. The
domains are grouped into the same
three summary indicators as the QRS:
(1) Clinical Quality Management; (2)
Member Experience; and (3) Plan
Efficiency, Affordability and
Management. All three summary
indicators would then be grouped into
a single Global Child-only Rating.
TABLE 4—PROPOSED CHILD-ONLY QRS STRUCTURE
Child-only summary
indicator
Child-only domain
Child-only composite
Measure title
Clinical Quality Management
Care Coordination .............
No Composite ....................
Clinical Effectiveness ........
No Composite ....................
CAHPS—Coordination of Members’ Health Care Services.
Medication Management for People With Asthma
(Ages 5–18).
Follow-Up Care for Children Prescribed ADHD Medication: Initiation Phase
Follow-Up Care for Children Prescribed ADHD Medication: Continuation and Maintenance (C and M)
Phase.
Annual Dental Visit.
Childhood Immunization Status.
Chlamydia Screening in Women (Ages 16–20).
Immunizations for Adolescents.
Weight Assessment and Counseling for Children and
Adolescents.
HPV Vaccination for Female Adolescents.
Adolescent Well-Care Visits.
Child and Adolescent Access to PCPs.
Well-Child Visits in the First 15 Months of Life.
Well-Child Visits in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth
Years of Life.
CAHPS—Getting Care Quickly.
CAHPS—Getting Needed Care.
CAHPS—Rating of All Health Care.
CAHPS—Rating of Personal Doctor.
CAHPS—Rating of Specialist Seen Most Often.
CAHPS—Cultural Competency.
Appropriate Testing for Children With Pharyngitis.
Appropriate Treatment for Children With Upper Respiratory Infection.
CAHPS—Customer Service.
Behavioral Health Child .....
Prevention .........................
Member Experience ............
Staying Healthy Child ........
Access ...............................
Access Preventive Visits
Child.
Access to Care ..................
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Doctor and Care ................
Efficiency and Affordability
Efficient Care Child ...........
Plan Service ......................
Plan Efficiency, Affordability
and Management.
Doctor and Care ................
Member Experience with
Health Plan.
CAHPS—Global Rating of Health Plan.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:21 Nov 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices
69425
TABLE 4—PROPOSED CHILD-ONLY QRS STRUCTURE—Continued
Child-only summary
indicator
Child-only domain
Child-only composite
Measure title
CAHPS—Plan Information on Costs.
III. QRS Rating Methodology
Component
Once the QRS measures are organized
and the hierarchical structure is
established, the QRS rating
methodology would combine health
plan measure scores into performance
ratings using a set of rules and formulae.
We solicit comments on the proposed
six elements of the Rating Methodology
component that will guide the
calculation of the ratings (refer to
Section I for the definitions of the
elements of the Rating Methodology
component). The six elements of the
proposed Rating Methodology are
grouped within three broad categories
(Measure Scoring Rules, Aggregation
Rules, and Reference Standards). See
Table 5.
TABLE 5—RATING METHODOLOGY CATEGORIES OF ELEMENTS
Category
Rating category elements
Measure scoring rules ..................................................................................................................................
Aggregation Rules ........................................................................................................................................
Reference Standards ....................................................................................................................................
Measure Scoring Rules will
standardize the individual measure
scores so that scores are on the same
scale (for example, all percentiles) and
can be combined meaningfully.
Aggregation Rules will be used to
combine measures to create quality
constructs, such as diabetes care or
preventive health. Reference Standards
will determine how scores are converted
to categorical ratings (for example, star
groups on a scale of one to five) that can
be easily understood, compared, and
used by consumers. We intend to
publish, for review and comment,
technical guidance that identifies
further details regarding the Rating
Methodology component, elements and
measure specifications.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
IV. QRS Data Strategy
The QRS data strategy refers to how
QRS data are collected, calculated, and
submitted and will help to inform how
data is displayed. We intend to develop
a data strategy that would facilitate
consistent data collection and
calculation across QHPs; and help to
ensure the integrity and accuracy of
QRS ratings. We solicit comments on
potential ways to enhance the QRS data
strategy for QHP issuers. We intend to
direct QHP issuers to submit validated
data to ensure that QRS data displayed
for public reporting are accurate, valid
and comparable, and to allow
consumers objective and meaningful
comparisons of the QHPs’ quality data.
We believe that the ratings assigned
must reflect true differences in quality.
We intend to display Global Ratings
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:21 Nov 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
using a five-star scale. While it is our
intention for all QHPs in Exchanges to
have publicly available ratings, some
QHPs may have missing data due to
data quality issues or low enrollment in
the initial years.
We plan to use a full-scale rule at the
global and summary indicator levels, so
that these scores are true representations
of what they are intended to represent.
This method allows the consumer to
compare Global Ratings with the
important concepts at highest levels of
the hierarchy represented (refer to Table
3 for proposed QRS structure).
Therefore, we are considering that, for
QHPs that are missing any of the
domain ratings used for creating the
Member Experience or Plan Efficiency,
Cost Reduction and Management
summary indicators would not have an
associated summary indicator rating
publically displayed. For the Clinical
Quality Management indicator, QHPs
must have the Care Coordination,
Clinical Effectiveness, and Prevention
domains present to have the summary
indicator rating publically displayed.
We have conducted preliminary testing
that demonstrates that a Clinical Quality
summary indicator can be reported as
long as Care Coordination, Clinical
Effectiveness, and Prevention domains
are present even if the Patient Safety
domain is not reportable because this
domain did not impact QHP
comparability. We believe that Patient
Safety is important to measure and it is
a CMS priority. We plan to further
develop this domain of the QRS as more
health-plan patient safety measures
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Sampling and Attribution.
Scoring.
Aggregation Rules.
Performance Classification values.
Population and Other Adjustments.
Peer Groups.
become available. We are also proposing
that a Global Rating will be displayed
only when all three summary indicator
ratings are available. For the lower
levels of the hierarchy, the half-scale
rule would be applied, meaning that at
a minimum, half of the components of
the domain or composite must be
present for the rating to be displayed.
Thus, if a domain is composed of three
composites, two would have to be
present for it to be displayed or if a
composite is composed of two measures
at least one would have to be present for
it to be displayed. Specifically, we
solicit comment to inform future
technical guidance regarding the fullscale and half-scale rules described as
well as any additional ways to address
data quality issues or potential low
enrollment in QHPs in the initial years.
V. Future Considerations
We solicit comments to inform future
technical guidance on priority areas for
additional measure enhancements and
development of the QRS. We intend to
continually monitor the QRS and make
necessary adjustments to ensure that the
methodology and measures remain
consistent with the intended goals and
principles of the QRS. As advancements
in health plan quality measurement and
reporting are made, we will consider
ways in which the QRS may evolve
(such as the potential selection of
measures that are reportable through
disease registries or all-payer claims
databases). In addition, we will consider
potential factors for the retirement of
measures.
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
69426
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Notices
As the Exchanges mature and
enrollment in QHPs expands, we will
consider reporting the QRS at more
granular levels (that is, QHP metal
levels as defined in section 1302(d)(1) of
the Affordable Care Act). We will also
consider the development of a quality
rating system applicable to other
Exchange offerings, such as stand-alone
dental plans, catastrophic plans and
health care saving accounts.
VI. Collection of Information
Requirements
This document does not impose
information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. However,
it does make reference to an information
collection activity. The aforementioned
Enrollee Satisfaction Survey is currently
seeking OMB approval via notice and
comment periods separate from this
proposed notice. The 60-day Federal
Register notice published on June 28,
2013. Additionally, in future
rulemaking, we will identify
information collection requirements
associated with the QRS and solicit
public comment at that time.
Dated: November 6, 2013.
Marilyn Tavenner,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
[FR Doc. 2013–27649 Filed 11–14–13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day
Comment Request: NIH NCI Central
Institutional Review Board (CIRB)
Initiative (NCI)
Under the provisions of
Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), has submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) a request for review and
SUMMARY:
Need and Use of Information
Collection: The National Cancer
Institute (NCI) Central Institutional
Review Board (CIRB) provides a
centralized approach to human subject
protection and provides a cost efficient
approach avoiding duplication of effort
at each institution. The CIRB provides
the services of a fully constituted IRB
and provides a comprehensive and
efficient mechanism to meet regulatory
requirements pertaining to human
subject protections including: initial
reviews, continuing reviews, review of
amendments, and adverse events. The
Initiative consists of three central IRBs:
Adult CIRB—late phase emphasis,
Adult CIRB—early phase emphasis, and
Pediatric CIRB. CIRB membership
includes oncology physicians, surgeons,
nurses, patient advocates, ethicists,
statisticians, pharmacists, attorneys and
other health professionals. The benefits
of the CIRB Initiative reaches research
participants, investigators and research
staff, Institutional Review Boards (IRB),
and Institutions. Benefits include: study
participants having dedicated review of
NCI-sponsored trials for participant
protections, access to more trials more
quickly and access to trials for rare
diseases, accrual to trials begin more
rapidly, ease of opening trials,
elimination of need to submit study
materials to local IRBs, and elimination
of the need for a full board review. The
benefits to the National Clinical Trials
Network and Experimental TherapyClinical Trials Network include a cost
efficient approach that avoids
duplication of efforts at each institution.
A variety of information collection tools
are needed to support NCI’s CIRB
activities which include: worksheets,
forms and a survey that is provided to
all customers contacting the CIRB
helpdesk.
OMB approval is requested for 3
years. There are no costs to respondents
other than their time. The total
estimated annualized burden hours are
2,199.
approval of the information collection
listed below. This proposed information
collection was previously published in
the Federal Register on August 22,
2013, Vol. 78, P. 52204 and allowed 60days for public comment. There were no
public comments received. The purpose
of this notice is to allow an additional
30 days for public comment. The
National Cancer Institute (NCI),
National Institutes of Health, may not
conduct or sponsor, and the respondent
is not required to respond to, an
information collection that has been
extended, revised, or implemented on or
after October 1, 1995, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
Direct Comments to OMB: Written
comments and/or suggestions regarding
the item(s) contained in this notice,
especially regarding the estimated
public burden and associated response
time, should be directed to the: Office
of Management and Budget, Office of
Regulatory Affairs, OIRA_submission@
omb.eop.gov or by fax to 202–395–6974,
Attention: NIH Desk Officer.
Comment Due Date: Comments
regarding this information collection are
best assured of having their full effect if
received within 30-days of the date of
this publication.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: To obtain a
copy of the data collection plans and
instruments or request more information
on the proposed project contact: CAPT
Michael Montello, Pharm. D., MBA,
Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program,
Operations and Informatics Branch,
9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville,
MD 20850 or call non-toll-free number
240–276–6080 or Email your request,
including your address to:
mike.montello@nih.gov. Formal requests
for additional plans and instruments
must be requested in writing.
Proposed Collection: NIH NCI Central
Institutional Review Board (CIRB)
Initiative (NCI), 0925–0625, Expiration
Date 1/31/2014, Revision, National
Cancer Institute (NCI), National
Institutes of Health (NIH).
ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS
Type of respondents
CIRB Customer Satisfaction Survey ........................
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Form name
Number of
respondents
Participants/Board
Members.
Participants ................
Participants ................
Request for 30 Day Website Access Form .............
Authorization Agreement and Division of Responsibilities between the NCI CIRB and Signatory
Institution.
NCI CIRB Signatory Enrollment Form .....................
IRB Staff at Signatory Institution’s IRB ....................
Investigator at Signatory Institution .........................
Research Staff at Signatory Institution ....................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:21 Nov 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Participants
Participants
Participants
Participants
Frm 00065
................
................
................
................
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Frequency of
responses per
respondent
Average
burden per
response
(in hours)
Total annual
burden hours
1,500
1
10/60
250
25
340
1
1
10/60
30/60
4
170
40
25
65
65
1
1
1
1
4
10/60
10/60
10/60
160
4
11
11
E:\FR\FM\19NON1.SGM
19NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69418-69426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27649]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
[CMS-3288-NC]
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Exchanges and
Qualified Health Plans, Quality Rating System (QRS), Framework Measures
and Methodology
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Notice with comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice with comment describes the overall Quality Rating
System (QRS) framework for rating Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) offered
through an Exchange. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments
on the list of proposed QRS quality measures that QHP issuers would be
required to collect and report, the hierarchical structure of the
measure sets and the elements of the QRS rating methodology. In
addition, this notice solicits comments on ways to ensure the integrity
of QRS ratings, and on priority areas for future QRS measure
enhancement and development.
DATES: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of
the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on January 21, 2014.
ADDRESSES: In commenting, refer to file code CMS-3288-NC. Because of
staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile
(FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one
of the ways listed):
1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this
regulation to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the ``Submit a
comment'' instructions.
2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following
address only: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of
Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-3288-NC, P.O. Box 8016,
Baltimore, MD 21244-8016.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received
before the close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to
the following address only: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-3288-NC, Mail
Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
4. By hand or courier. Alternatively, you may deliver (by hand or
courier) your written only to the following addresses:
a. For delivery in Washington, DC--Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert
H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20201.
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building
is not readily available to persons without Federal government
identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in
the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-
in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing
by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being
filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD--Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address,
call telephone number (410) 786-9994 in advance to schedule your
arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as
appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received
after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nidhi Singh Shah, (301) 492-5110, for
general information. Elizabeth Flow-Delwiche, (410) 786-1718, for
matters relating to the Quality Rating System.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Inspection of Public Comments: All comments
received before the close of the comment period are available for
viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or
confidential business information that is included in a comment. We
post all comments received before the close of the comment period on
the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been
received: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on
that Web site to view public comments.
Comments received timely will also be available for public
inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3
weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments,
phone 1-800-743-3951.
I. Background
A. Legislative Background
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L.
111-148) as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act
of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-309) (collectively referred to as the Affordable
Care Act) establish Affordable Insurance Exchange or Exchange (also
known as a Health Insurance Marketplace or Marketplace) within each
state. Qualified individuals and qualified employers in each state will
be able to shop for affordable health insurance through Exchanges.
The Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) holds
primary responsibility for establishing the standards and guidelines
for the Exchanges. The Affordable Care Act provides States with the
flexibility to establish and operate their own Exchange (State-based
Exchange). However, if a state elects not to establish a State-based
Exchange or if a state will not have an Exchange that is operational by
January 1, 2014, pursuant to section 1321(c)(1) of the Affordable Care
Act, the Secretary will establish and operate a Federally-facilitated
Exchange in those states. The Affordable Care Act and applicable
Exchange regulations establish that health plans offered through an
Exchange must meet specific standards to be certified as QHPs and to
offer coverage in an Exchange beginning in January 2014.
The Affordable Care Act also requires the Secretary to develop a
number of reporting requirements to support the delivery of quality
health care coverage offered in the Exchanges. Specifically, sections
1311(c)(3) and (c)(4) of the Affordable Care Act direct the Secretary
to develop--(1) a system that rates qualified health plans (QHPs) based
on the relative quality and price; and (2) an enrollee satisfaction
survey system that assesses the level of enrollee experience (that is,
consumer experience) with QHPs. Because we believe that QHP consumer
experience is an important part of rating the overall quality of a QHP,
we intend to use some of the information collected from the Enrollee
[[Page 69419]]
Satisfaction Survey in the Quality Rating System (QRS).
In addition to consumer experience, we believe that the QRS should
provide ratings of QHPs based on health care quality, health outcomes,
and cost of care. We intend for all QHP issuers to report data at the
product level for the initial years of QRS implementation (for example,
at the Health Maintenance Organization level or Preferred Provider
Organization level). We expect QHPs to provide product-level quality
performance data for the QRS in general topics, such as clinical
effectiveness of care, patient safety, care coordination, prevention of
disease and illness, access to care, member experience, plan services
and efficiency, and cost reduction. The QRS ratings should demonstrate
sound, reliable, and meaningful information on the performance of QHPs
to ultimately support informed decisions by consumers.
We have already promulgated regulations at 45 CFR 155.200(d) that
direct Exchanges to oversee implementation of the QRS, and 45 CFR
156.200(b)(5) \1\ that directs QHP issuers to report health care
quality information to an Exchange. In this notice, we describe the
overall QRS framework and the factors that guided the development of
the QRS. We solicit comments on the QRS measure sets for QHPs offered
to adult individuals and families, (QRS) and for child-only QHPs (Child
QRS), the hierarchical structure of the measure sets, and the elements
of the rating methodology. We also solicit comments on ways to ensure
the integrity of QRS ratings, and the identification of priority areas
for future QRS measure enhancement and development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Establishment of
Exchanges and Qualified Health Plans; Exchange Standards for
Employers, 77 FR 18310 (Mar. 27, 2012) (to be codified at 45 CFR
parts 155, 156, & 157).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In future rulemaking, we intend to propose requirements for QHPs
and Exchanges regarding the collection and submission of specific
quality-related information. In addition, we intend to provide future
technical guidance for QHP issuers and Exchanges related to the QRS
measure specifications, detailed rating methodology guidelines, and
data reporting and procedures.
B. QRS Goals and Principles
We believe that the overarching goal of the QRS is based on two
fundamental tenets: (1) Providing comparable and useful information
regarding the quality of QHPs offered through the Exchanges to inform
consumer and employer choice; and (2) facilitating regulatory oversight
of QHPs with regard to the quality standards set forth in the
Affordable Care Act. Consequently, we believe that the QRS should
provide QHP ratings based on health care quality and outcomes, consumer
experience, and cost. We developed the following five general QRS
principles to guide the design of the QRS:
The QRS should produce QHP quality performance information
to encourage the delivery of higher-quality health care services,
expand access to care, and improve health outcomes for QHP enrollees.
The QRS should provide sound, reliable, and meaningful
quality-related QHP information, which could be used by consumers when
comparing health plans, by QHPs for quality improvement, as well as by
Exchanges and CMS for QHP certification and regulatory oversight
activities.
The QRS should reflect the goals of the National Strategy
for Quality Improvement in Health Care priorities,\2\ which includes
reporting cross-cutting performance areas (that is, patient safety,
prevention, population health, patient engagement, patient experience,
and efficient resource use). The QRS should also facilitate reporting
on conditions or procedures of significant prevalence and importance
(for example, heart disease or breast cancer screening).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Report to Congress: National Strategy for Quality
Improvement in Health Care available at https://www.ahrq.gov/workingforquality/nqs/nqs2013annlrpt.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The QRS measures set should be evidence-based and align,
to the maximum extent possible, with priority measures currently
implemented in federal, state, and private sector programs to minimize
QHP issuer burden. We have drawn on our experience administering the
Medicare Advantage 5-star rating system in developing this framework,
and intend that the development and evolution of the QRS should be
public and transparent and should allow for flexibility to incorporate
changes in measures and methodologies as medical treatments and
technology evolve and the Exchanges mature.
C. QRS Framework
We have developed a framework for creating, implementing,
maintaining and revising the QRS. The overall framework consists of the
following components that are guided by the QRS goals and principles:
Performance Information
Rating Methodology
In total, there are ten associated elements that further clarify
the Performance Information and Rating Methodology components (see
Table 1 below).
[[Page 69420]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19NO13.003
The goals and principles for the QRS serve as the common thread
throughout the QRS framework. The Performance Information component
consists of four elements: (1) Measures Selection; (2) Hierarchical
Structure; (3) Organization of Measures; and (4) Data Strategy. The
Measures Selection element represents the process for selecting and
evaluating the measure sets of the QRS. The Hierarchical Structure
element establishes how the QRS measure sets are organized for scoring,
rating, and reporting purposes. The Organization of Measures element
establishes the approach to create composites, domains, and summary
indicators ratings. The Data Strategy element, which is discussed in
section IV, refers to the procedures for how the measures data will be
collected, calculated, submitted and will help to inform how data will
be displayed.
The Rating Methodology component aims to define how QHPs will be
scored and compared, and as proposed, consists of six elements:
Aggregation Rules would be used to determine how measures
should be combined to create useful quality information on health care
areas such as diabetes care or preventive health care.
Sampling and Attribution would establish the selection
criteria for determining appropriate population samples that yield
reliable and valid information.
Scoring would be the process used to convert the raw QRS
measures data to points or percentiles on a common numeric scale.
Performance Classification would be used to assign values
to the QHP scores; these values would then be used to categorize the
QHP's performance.
Population and other adjustments would refer to changes
made to raw data or measures to remove potential bias introduced by
factors that are not modifiable by the QHP.
Peer Groups would be used to establish a benchmark dataset
for comparison of the individual QHP in the performance classification
work, most often based on the geographic and time period considerations
(for example, current annual distribution of all plans nationally).
II. Performance Information Component
A. Measures Selection
The process used to select the QRS measure sets included a review
of existing health plan measures, so that the QRS measures promote
consistency and harmonization across State, Federal government entities
(for example, CMS) and private-sector efforts. Our review included
national measure sets that were relevant to the intended purpose of the
QRS and incorporate health plan measures such as the Initial Adult
Medicaid Core Set of Health Care Quality Measures, Initial Core Set of
Children's Health Care Quality Measures, Clinical Quality Measures for
Eligible Professionals, and Medicare Part C and Part D Reporting
Requirements, as well as a variety of other quality measurement
programs, including health plan accreditation programs.\3\ We believe
it's important that measures, in the initial years, be specified for
health plans (rather than specified for health care providers) to
ensure reliable data, reduce QHP burden and facilitate consumer use and
comprehension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In addition to the programs and measure sets mentioned
above, CMS included the following program measure sets in the
environmental scan: eValue8, Consumer Reports Health Plan Rankings,
Office of Personnel Management Federal Employee Health Benefit
Program; Health Plan Accreditation programs: URAC, National
Committee for Quality Assurance, Accreditation Association for
Ambulatory Health Care; State Health Monitoring Programs: Maryland
HealthChoice Consumer Report Card, California Healthcare Quality
Report Card, NY Electronic Quality Assurance Reporting Requirements,
Maryland Health Plan Report Card, California Medi-CAL Health Plan
Quality Ratings; State Based Exchanges: Oregon Health Insurance
Exchange, New York State Health Benefit Exchange California Health
benefits Exchange
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measures selection and measure set evaluation criteria were
developed using the National Quality Forum (NQF) Measure Evaluation
Criteria and the Measures Application Partnership (MAP) Measure-
Selection Criteria.4 5
[[Page 69421]]
The measure selection criteria, which represent industry-tested
criteria and were supported as measure inclusion criteria based on
discussions with stakeholders and public comment received in response
to a Request for Information (RFI),\6\ focuses on the following areas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Quality Forum. ``Measure Evaluation Criteria,
November 2012.'' accessed January 23, 2013, https://www.qualityforum.org/docs/measure_evaluation_criteria.aspx.
\5\ Measure Applications Partnership. ``MAP Working Measure
Selection Criteria and Working Guide.'' National Quality Forum,
December 2012.
\6\ Request for Information Regarding Health Care Quality for
Exchanges: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-11-27/pdf/2012-28473.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importance: the extent to which the measure is important
to making significant gains in health care quality, improving health
outcomes, has a high impact (high priority) and is relevant to the
Exchange population and benefits covered by QHPs.
Performance Gap: the extent to which the measure
demonstrates opportunities for performance improvement based on
variation in current health plan performance.
Reliability and Validity: the extent to which the measure
produces consistent (reliable) and credible (valid) results.
Feasibility: the extent to which the data related to the
measure are readily available or could be captured without undue burden
and can be implemented by QHPs.
Alignment: the extent to which the measure is included in
one or more existing federal, state or private sector health plan
quality reporting programs.
The QRS measure set evaluation criteria were applied to identify
measurement gaps in the QRS measure sets and helped to ensure that the
proposed QRS measure sets as a whole would best meet the needs of
consumers and the Exchanges.
The draft QRS measure sets were evaluated to determine the extent
to which the measures were NQF-endorsed and aligned with the NQS
priorities. Relevance to the Exchange consumer was evaluated by
assessing whether the measure set addressed clinical conditions of
moderate or high prevalence or high disease burden (applicable only to
the clinical care measures) and whether the measure sets identified the
needs of the consumer related to health-plan operations and
satisfaction. Relevance of the QRS measure sets to QHPs was evaluated
by assessing how well each of the sets addressed the benefit categories
required of QHPs as part of the Affordable Care Act essential health
benefits requirement; \7\ and if the sets complemented other
information used by the Exchange to support consumer comparison of
health plans or to assist with QHP certification and plan monitoring.
The comprehensiveness of the draft QRS measure sets were assessed by
examining the measures and ensuring that, to the extent possible based
on the availability of health-plan specified measures, the sets
included an appropriate mix of clinical care measure types, such as
structure, process and outcome measures; experience of care measures;
and measures that assess cost/resource use/appropriateness of care and
plan management. The draft QRS measure sets were evaluated for the
degree to which they promoted equitable access and treatment by
considering healthcare disparities, and ways in which the measure sets
can capture data to promote strategies that address variations in care.
In addition, the draft QRS measure sets were evaluated based on the
percentage of measures that demonstrated parsimony, an efficient use of
resources, including--(1) the ready availability of automated data
(available through existing claims, administrative, survey, and health
plan management databases); or (2) whether the measures are publicly
reported or currently in use as contractual performance standards
between plans and public/private purchasers or between plans and
provider organizations or as in accordance with statutory or regulatory
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Standards
Related to Essential Health Benefits, Actuarial Value, and
Accreditation; Final Rule 78 FR 12834 (Feb. 25, 2013) (to be
codified at 45 CFR parts 147, 155 and 156).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The draft measure sets were revised and the proposed QRS measure
sets were created following this evaluation. The proposed QRS measure
sets were also evaluated and reviewed internally by CMS, externally by
industry and stakeholders and in a field test using available health
plan data. Listening sessions were also conducted for insurers, states
and consumer groups.
Although the measures contained in the QRS are consistent with the
state-of-science for measuring health care quality, science and
technology do not yet allow us to measure or represent the quality of
all care delivered through the QHPs. Therefore, the QRS measure set
should not be viewed as representative of all care delivered by QHPs.
B. Individual Measures for QRS and Child-Only QRS
QHPs offered in the Exchange may provide family/adult self-only
coverage or child-only coverage (child-only QHPs) and therefore, there
are two proposed measure sets; the QRS measure set (for family and
adult self-only coverage) and a Child-only QRS measure set. Both
measure sets were selected based on the above described key criteria.
We solicit comments on the proposed measures in the QRS and Child-only
QRS listed below in Table 2. The proposed QRS measure set for family/
adult self-only coverage consists of a total of 42 measures--29
clinical measures, which encompass health care topics of clinical
effectiveness, prevention, access and efficiency; and 13 Consumer
Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems[supreg] (CAHPS) survey
measures, which encompass topics such as member experiences with the
QHP, providers and health care services, including preventive care. The
QRS measure set addresses the essential health benefits for which
health plan measures are currently available. The majority (76 percent)
of the measures are presently NQF-endorsed and address all six National
Quality Strategy priorities. Approximately, 83 percent of the QRS
measures are included in at least one of the reviewed Federally-
established measure sets (for example, Office of Personnel Management
Federal Employee Health Benefit (OPM FEHB), CMS Medicare Stars, CMS
Adult Medicaid Core Set,\8\ CMS Initial Children's Core Set,\9\
Medicare Part C&D Plan Reporting). The remaining measures are used in
other state based and private sector health plan reporting programs
such as Consumer Reports Health Plan Rankings \10\ or through
accreditation. QHPs offering family or adult self-only coverage would
be required to report on all 42 measures in the QRS measure set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Initial Core Set of Health Care Quality Measures for Adults
Enrolled in Medicaid (Medicaid Adult Core Set). February 2013.
\9\ SHO: 13-002. Letter to State Health Official and
State Medicaid Director. Re: 2013 Children's Core Set of Health Care
Quality Measures. January 24, 2013.
\10\ https://www.consumerreports.org/health/insurance/health-insurance-plans.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Child-only QRS measure set consists of a total of 25 measures--
15 clinical measures and 10 CAHPS measures. The Child-only measure set
includes a combination of process and outcome measures. The Child-only
QRS measure set addresses many of the essential health benefits. The
majority of the measures (84 percent) are NQF-endorsed and largely
address the six National Quality Strategy priorities. Approximately 80
percent of the measures are included in either the OPM FEHB Set or the
CMS Initial Children's Core Set. As with the QRS measure set, the
remaining measures in
[[Page 69422]]
the child-only set are used state based and private sector health plan
reporting programs. Child-only QHPs would be required to report on all
25 measures in the Child-only QRS measure set.
Table 2--Proposed Measure Sets for the QRS and Child-Only QRS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measure title NQF ID \11\ QRS Child-only QRS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adolescent Well-Care Visits............... Not currently endorsed...... X X
Adult BMI Assessment...................... Not currently endorsed...... X ..................
Adults' Access to Preventive and Not currently endorsed...... X ..................
Ambulatory Health Services.
Annual Dental Visit....................... 1388........................ X X
Annual Monitoring for Patients on Not currently endorsed...... X ..................
Persistent Medications.
Antidepressant Medication Management...... 0105........................ X ..................
Appropriate Testing for Children With 0002........................ X X
Pharyngitis.
Appropriate Treatment for Children With 0069........................ .................. X
Upper Respiratory Infection.
Avoidance of Antibiotic Treatment in 0058........................ X ..................
Adults with Acute Bronchitis.
Breast Cancer Screening................... Not currently endorsed...... X ..................
CAHPS--Aspirin Use and Discussion......... Not currently endorsed...... X ..................
CAHPS--Coordination of Members' Health Not currently endorsed \12\. X X
Care Services.
CAHPS--Cultural Competency................ Not currently endorsed \13\. X X
CAHPS--Customer Service................... 0006........................ X X
CAHPS--Flu Shots for Adults............... 0039........................ X ..................
CAHPS--Getting Care Quickly............... 0006........................ X X
CAHPS--Getting Needed Care................ 0006........................ X X
CAHPS--Global Rating of Health Plan....... 0006........................ X X
CAHPS--Medical Assistance With Smoking and 0027........................ X ..................
Tobacco Use Cessation.
CAHPS--Plan Information on Costs.......... 0006........................ X X
CAHPS--Rating of All Health Care.......... 0006........................ X X
CAHPS--Rating of Personal Doctor.......... 0006........................ X X
CAHPS--Rating of Specialist Seen Most 0006........................ X X
Often.
Cervical Cancer Screening................. 0032........................ X ..................
Child and Adolescent Access to PCPs....... Not currently endorsed...... .................. X
Childhood Immunization Status............. 0038........................ X X
Chlamydia Screening in Women (Ages 16-20). 0033........................ .................. X
Cholesterol Management for Patients With Not currently endorsed...... X
Cardiovascular Conditions: LDL-C Control
(<100 mg/Dl).
Cholesterol Management for Patients With Not currently endorsed...... X
Cardiovascular Conditions: LDL-C
Screening.
Colorectal Cancer Screening............... 0034........................ X ..................
Controlling High Blood Pressure........... 0018........................ X ..................
Diabetes Care: Eye Exam (Retinal) 0055........................ X ..................
Performed.
Diabetes Care: Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 0575........................ X ..................
Control <8.0%.
Follow-Up After Hospitalization for Mental 0576 \14\................... X ..................
Illness: 7 days.
Follow-Up Care for Children Prescribed 0108 \15\................... X X
ADHD Medication: Initiation Phase.
Follow-Up Care for Children Prescribed 0108........................ .................. X
ADHD Medication: Continuation and
Maintenance Phase.
HPV Vaccination for Female Adolescents.... 1959........................ .................. X
Immunizations for Adolescents............. 1407........................ X X
Medication Management for People With 1799........................ X ..................
Asthma.
Medication Management for People With 1799........................ .................. X
Asthma (Ages 5-18).
Plan All--Cause Readmissions.............. 1768........................ X ..................
Prenatal and Postpartum Care: Postpartum 1517........................ X ..................
Care.
Prenatal and Postpartum Care: Timeliness 1517........................ X ..................
of Prenatal Care.
Relative Resource Use for People with 1558........................ X ..................
Cardiovascular Conditions--Inpatient
Facility Index.
Relative Resource Use for People with 1557........................ X ..................
Diabetes--Inpatient Facility Index.
Use of Imaging Studies for Low Back Pain.. 0052........................ X ..................
Weight Assessment and Counseling for 0024........................ .................. X
Nutrition and Physical Activity for
Children and Adolescents.
Weight Assessment and Counseling for 0024 \16\................... X ..................
Nutrition and Physical Activity for
Children and Adolescents: BMI Percentile
Documentation.
Well-Child Visits in the First 15 Months 1392........................ .................. X
of Life.
Well-Child Visits in the Third, Fourth, 1516........................ X X
Fifth, and Sixth Years of Life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69423]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Definitions of NQF endorsed measures can be found here:
https://www.qualityforum.org/Home.aspx.
\12\ Only one question within the CAHPS Coordination of Members'
Health Care Services composite is currently endorsed
(0007): ``Did your personal doctor seem informed and up-to-
date about the medical care you got?''. The remaining questions in
the composite are new and have not yet been endorsed.
\13\ One of the questions within this CAHPS composite was
modified from CAHPS Clinician and Group 2.0, Adult Supplemental (NQF
1904) and the other question is new.
\14\ Measure includes only one indicator of the NQF-endorsed
measure.
\15\ Measure includes only one indicator of the NQF-endorsed
measure for the child-only QRS.
\16\ Measure includes only one indicator of the NQF-endorsed
measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Organization and Hierarchical Structure of the QRS Measures
The Performance Information component of the QRS framework guided
the proposed structure and hierarchy, as well as the measures that will
be included within each level of the hierarchy. In order to be most
useful to consumers, rating systems that can present a large collection
of measures must be organized into a hierarchical structure. We
considered organizing the measures in a manner to maximize the
approachability and understandability of the information provided by
the QRS. We are proposing hierarchical structures for the QRS and
Child-only QRS that allow consumers to easily use information from the
QRS in their health plan comparisons for selection of a QHP in the
Exchange. We solicit comments on the proposed hierarchical structures
outlined in Tables 3 and 4 below.
The fundamental building block of the QRS structure is the
individual indicator or measure. The hierarchical structures include
composites, which represent the combination of two or more individual
indicators or measures that result in a single score. Measures are
grouped into composites so large amounts of information can be
streamlined and reported in formats that are easy for consumers to
comprehend. Grouping measures into composites also helps to reduce
random variability, differentiate performance across health plans and
provide meaningful information to the consumer. Not all measures in the
QRS are part of a composite. Table 3 provides the organization of the
proposed QRS measure set for family/adult self-only coverage. The QRS
organizes measures and composites into a set of eight domains that
represent unique and important aspects of quality: (1) Clinical
Effectiveness, (2) Patient Safety, (3) Care Coordination, (4)
Prevention, (5) Access, (6) Doctor and Care, (7) Efficiency and
Affordability (8) Plan Services. The domains are grouped into three
summary indicators which align with CMS priority areas: (1) Clinical
Quality Management; (2) Member Experience; and (3) Plan Efficiency,
Affordability and Management. The summary indicators organize the
domains into broad categories that the consumer may use when evaluating
health plan options. All three summary indicators would then be grouped
into a single Global Rating. The Global Rating is a score that
summarizes all measures, composites and domains in the hierarchical
structure of the QRS.
Table 3--Proposed QRS Structure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QRS summary indicator QRS domain QRS composite Measure title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinical Quality Management........ Care Coordination..... No Composite.......... CAHPS--Coordination of
Members' Health Care
Services.
Clinical Effectiveness No Composite.......... Medication Management for
People With Asthma.
Behavioral Health..... Antidepressant Medication
Management.
Follow-Up After
Hospitalization for Mental
Illness: 7 days.
Follow-Up Care for Children
Prescribed ADHD
Medication: Initiation
Phase.
Cardiovascular Care... Cholesterol Management for
Patients With
Cardiovascular Conditions:
LDL-C screening.
Cholesterol Management for
Patients With
Cardiovascular Conditions:
LDL-C control (<100 mg/
Dl).
Controlling High Blood
Pressure.
Diabetes Care......... Diabetes Care: Eye Exam
(Retinal) Performed.
Diabetes Care: Hemoglobin
A1c (HbA1c) Control <8.0%.
Patient Safety........ No Composite.......... Annual Monitoring for
Patients on Persistent
Medications.
Plan All-Cause
Readmissions.
Prevention............ Checking for Cancer... Breast Cancer Screening.
Cervical Cancer Screening.
Colorectal Cancer
Screening.
Maternal Health....... Prenatal and Postpartum
Care: Postpartum Care.
Prenatal and Postpartum
Care: Timeliness of
Prenatal Care.
Staying Healthy Adult. Adult BMI Assessment.
CAHPS--Aspirin Use and
Discussion.
CAHPS--Flu Shots for
Adults.
CAHPS--Medical Assistance
With Smoking and Tobacco
Use Cessation.
Staying Healthy Child. Annual Dental Visit.
Childhood Immunization
Status.
Immunizations for
Adolescents.
Weight Assessment and
Counseling for Children
and Adolescents: BMI
Percentile Documentation.
Member Experience.................. Access................ Access Preventive Adolescent Well-Care
Visits. Visits.
Adults' Access to
Preventive and Ambulatory
Health Services.
[[Page 69424]]
Well-Child Visits in the
Third, Fourth, Fifth, and
Sixth Years of Life.
Access to Care........ CAHPS--Getting Care
Quickly.
CAHPS--Getting Needed Care.
Doctor and Care....... Doctor and Care....... CAHPS--Cultural Competency.
CAHPS--Rating of All Health
Care.
CAHPS--Rating of Personal
Doctor.
CAHPS--Rating of Specialist
Seen Most Often.
Plan Efficiency, Affordability and Efficiency and Efficient Care........ Appropriate Testing for
Management. Affordability. Children With Pharyngitis.
Avoidance of Antibiotic
Treatment in Adults with
Acute Bronchitis.
Relative Resource Use for
People with Cardiovascular
Conditions--Inpatient
Facility Index.
Relative Resource Use for
People with Diabetes--
Inpatient Facility Index.
Use of Imaging Studies for
Low Back Pain.
Plan Service.......... Member Experience with CAHPS--Customer Service.
Health Plan.
CAHPS--Global Rating of
Health Plan.
CAHPS--Plan Information on
Costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hierarchical structure for the proposed Child-only QRS is
similar to the proposed QRS. The 25 measures of the Child-only QRS
provide the basic foundation of the structure. Not all measures in the
Child-only QRS are part of a composite. Table 4 below provides the
organization of the proposed Child-only QRS measure set. The Child-only
QRS organizes measures and composites into a set of seven domains: (1)
Care Coordination, (2) Clinical Effectiveness, (3) Prevention, (4)
Access, (5) Doctor and Care, (6) Efficiency and Affordability (7), and
Plan Service. The domains are grouped into the same three summary
indicators as the QRS: (1) Clinical Quality Management; (2) Member
Experience; and (3) Plan Efficiency, Affordability and Management. All
three summary indicators would then be grouped into a single Global
Child-only Rating.
Table 4--Proposed Child-Only QRS Structure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child-only summary indicator Child-only domain Child-only composite Measure title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinical Quality Management........ Care Coordination..... No Composite.......... CAHPS--Coordination of
Members' Health Care
Services.
Clinical Effectiveness No Composite.......... Medication Management for
People With Asthma (Ages 5-
18).
Behavioral Health Follow-Up Care for Children
Child. Prescribed ADHD
Medication: Initiation
Phase
Follow-Up Care for Children
Prescribed ADHD
Medication: Continuation
and Maintenance (C and M)
Phase.
Prevention............ Staying Healthy Child. Annual Dental Visit.
Childhood Immunization
Status.
Chlamydia Screening in
Women (Ages 16-20).
Immunizations for
Adolescents.
Weight Assessment and
Counseling for Children
and Adolescents.
HPV Vaccination for Female
Adolescents.
Member Experience.................. Access................ Access Preventive Adolescent Well-Care
Visits Child. Visits.
Child and Adolescent Access
to PCPs.
Well-Child Visits in the
First 15 Months of Life.
Well-Child Visits in the
Third, Fourth, Fifth, and
Sixth Years of Life.
Access to Care........ CAHPS--Getting Care
Quickly.
CAHPS--Getting Needed Care.
Doctor and Care....... Doctor and Care....... CAHPS--Rating of All Health
Care.
CAHPS--Rating of Personal
Doctor.
CAHPS--Rating of Specialist
Seen Most Often.
CAHPS--Cultural Competency.
Plan Efficiency, Affordability and Efficiency and Efficient Care Child.. Appropriate Testing for
Management. Affordability. Children With Pharyngitis.
Appropriate Treatment for
Children With Upper
Respiratory Infection.
Plan Service.......... Member Experience with CAHPS--Customer Service.
Health Plan.
CAHPS--Global Rating of
Health Plan.
[[Page 69425]]
CAHPS--Plan Information on
Costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. QRS Rating Methodology Component
Once the QRS measures are organized and the hierarchical structure
is established, the QRS rating methodology would combine health plan
measure scores into performance ratings using a set of rules and
formulae. We solicit comments on the proposed six elements of the
Rating Methodology component that will guide the calculation of the
ratings (refer to Section I for the definitions of the elements of the
Rating Methodology component). The six elements of the proposed Rating
Methodology are grouped within three broad categories (Measure Scoring
Rules, Aggregation Rules, and Reference Standards). See Table 5.
Table 5--Rating Methodology Categories of Elements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Rating category elements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measure scoring rules......................... Sampling and Attribution.
Scoring.
Aggregation Rules............................. Aggregation Rules.
Reference Standards........................... Performance Classification values.
Population and Other Adjustments.
Peer Groups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measure Scoring Rules will standardize the individual measure
scores so that scores are on the same scale (for example, all
percentiles) and can be combined meaningfully. Aggregation Rules will
be used to combine measures to create quality constructs, such as
diabetes care or preventive health. Reference Standards will determine
how scores are converted to categorical ratings (for example, star
groups on a scale of one to five) that can be easily understood,
compared, and used by consumers. We intend to publish, for review and
comment, technical guidance that identifies further details regarding
the Rating Methodology component, elements and measure specifications.
IV. QRS Data Strategy
The QRS data strategy refers to how QRS data are collected,
calculated, and submitted and will help to inform how data is
displayed. We intend to develop a data strategy that would facilitate
consistent data collection and calculation across QHPs; and help to
ensure the integrity and accuracy of QRS ratings. We solicit comments
on potential ways to enhance the QRS data strategy for QHP issuers. We
intend to direct QHP issuers to submit validated data to ensure that
QRS data displayed for public reporting are accurate, valid and
comparable, and to allow consumers objective and meaningful comparisons
of the QHPs' quality data. We believe that the ratings assigned must
reflect true differences in quality. We intend to display Global
Ratings using a five-star scale. While it is our intention for all QHPs
in Exchanges to have publicly available ratings, some QHPs may have
missing data due to data quality issues or low enrollment in the
initial years.
We plan to use a full-scale rule at the global and summary
indicator levels, so that these scores are true representations of what
they are intended to represent. This method allows the consumer to
compare Global Ratings with the important concepts at highest levels of
the hierarchy represented (refer to Table 3 for proposed QRS
structure). Therefore, we are considering that, for QHPs that are
missing any of the domain ratings used for creating the Member
Experience or Plan Efficiency, Cost Reduction and Management summary
indicators would not have an associated summary indicator rating
publically displayed. For the Clinical Quality Management indicator,
QHPs must have the Care Coordination, Clinical Effectiveness, and
Prevention domains present to have the summary indicator rating
publically displayed. We have conducted preliminary testing that
demonstrates that a Clinical Quality summary indicator can be reported
as long as Care Coordination, Clinical Effectiveness, and Prevention
domains are present even if the Patient Safety domain is not reportable
because this domain did not impact QHP comparability. We believe that
Patient Safety is important to measure and it is a CMS priority. We
plan to further develop this domain of the QRS as more health-plan
patient safety measures become available. We are also proposing that a
Global Rating will be displayed only when all three summary indicator
ratings are available. For the lower levels of the hierarchy, the half-
scale rule would be applied, meaning that at a minimum, half of the
components of the domain or composite must be present for the rating to
be displayed. Thus, if a domain is composed of three composites, two
would have to be present for it to be displayed or if a composite is
composed of two measures at least one would have to be present for it
to be displayed. Specifically, we solicit comment to inform future
technical guidance regarding the full-scale and half-scale rules
described as well as any additional ways to address data quality issues
or potential low enrollment in QHPs in the initial years.
V. Future Considerations
We solicit comments to inform future technical guidance on priority
areas for additional measure enhancements and development of the QRS.
We intend to continually monitor the QRS and make necessary adjustments
to ensure that the methodology and measures remain consistent with the
intended goals and principles of the QRS. As advancements in health
plan quality measurement and reporting are made, we will consider ways
in which the QRS may evolve (such as the potential selection of
measures that are reportable through disease registries or all-payer
claims databases). In addition, we will consider potential factors for
the retirement of measures.
[[Page 69426]]
As the Exchanges mature and enrollment in QHPs expands, we will
consider reporting the QRS at more granular levels (that is, QHP metal
levels as defined in section 1302(d)(1) of the Affordable Care Act). We
will also consider the development of a quality rating system
applicable to other Exchange offerings, such as stand-alone dental
plans, catastrophic plans and health care saving accounts.
VI. Collection of Information Requirements
This document does not impose information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. However, it does make reference to an
information collection activity. The aforementioned Enrollee
Satisfaction Survey is currently seeking OMB approval via notice and
comment periods separate from this proposed notice. The 60-day Federal
Register notice published on June 28, 2013. Additionally, in future
rulemaking, we will identify information collection requirements
associated with the QRS and solicit public comment at that time.
Dated: November 6, 2013.
Marilyn Tavenner,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
[FR Doc. 2013-27649 Filed 11-14-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P