How to propose a model as an alternative payment model (apm) by steven lash

Steven lash

How to propose a model as an Alternative Payment Model (APM) • Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has begun to develop the application which could be made to propose an APM for the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to consider. According to noted healthcare consultant Steven Lash the proposed questions seek information on how the proposed APM would improve quality and lower costs, along with some technical details of its operation.

• Steven Lash has put together a list of criteria and data points which must be included in any proposal to the TAC. • Target population, its definition and size • Ways in which the model would improve quality and efficiency of care • Whether the model would provide for payment for covered professional services based on • quality measures, and if so, whether the measures are comparable to quality measures under • the Merit based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) quality performance category

•Quality measures in the model and their prior validation including –experience of care –quality of life –and functional status •How the model would affect access to care for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

•How the model will affect disparities (race, ethnicity, gender, and disabilities) •Proposed geographical location(s) of the model.

•Scope of Eligible Participants for the model, including participation by specialists •The number of Eligible Participants expected to participate, their support •Requirements for certified EHR technology.

•An assessment of financial opportunities for model participants including a business case for •their participation •Mechanisms for how the model fits into existing Medicare payment systems, or replaces them

•in part or in whole and would interact with or complement existing alternative payment models •Payment mechanisms (such as incentive payments, performance‐based payments, or shared savings) •Whether the model would include financial risk for monetary losses for participants in excess of •a minimal amount and the type and amount of financial performance risk assumed by model •participants.

•Method for attributing beneficiaries to participants.

•Estimated percentage of Medicare spending impacted by the model and expected amount of •any new Medicare/Medicaid payments to model participants.

•Mechanism and amount of anticipated savings to Medicare and Medicaid from the model, and any incentive payments, performance‐based payments, shared savings, or other payments made from Medicare to model participants.

•Information about any similar models used by private payers, and how the current proposal is •similar to or different from private models and whether and how the model could include •additional payers other than Medicare, including Medicaid.

•

•

Whether the model engages payers other than Medicare, including Medicaid and/or private

•

payers. If not, why not? If so, what proportion of the model’s beneficiaries is covered by

•

Medicare as compared to other payers?

•

Potential approaches for CMS to evaluate the proposed model (study design, comparison

•

groups, and key outcome measures).

•

Opportunities for potential model expansion if successful.

•

According to Steven Lash while the process may seem daunting is totally achievable and can and will provide significant upside in future financial viability and stability for a physician practice.