NZ743565A - Health management system with multidimensional performance representation - Google Patents
Health management system with multidimensional performance representationInfo
- Publication number
- NZ743565A NZ743565A NZ743565A NZ74356516A NZ743565A NZ 743565 A NZ743565 A NZ 743565A NZ 743565 A NZ743565 A NZ 743565A NZ 74356516 A NZ74356516 A NZ 74356516A NZ 743565 A NZ743565 A NZ 743565A
- Authority
- NZ
- New Zealand
- Prior art keywords
- performance
- expected
- patients
- care
- measures
- Prior art date
Links
- 230000036541 health Effects 0.000 title claims abstract description 108
- 239000011159 matrix material Substances 0.000 claims abstract description 62
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 15
- 201000010099 disease Diseases 0.000 claims description 20
- 230000000474 nursing Effects 0.000 claims description 11
- 230000000875 corresponding Effects 0.000 claims description 9
- 230000001154 acute Effects 0.000 claims description 7
- 150000002500 ions Chemical class 0.000 claims description 7
- 230000001684 chronic Effects 0.000 claims description 4
- 230000015654 memory Effects 0.000 description 14
- 238000010586 diagram Methods 0.000 description 8
- 206010007559 Cardiac failure congestive Diseases 0.000 description 7
- 201000006233 congestive heart failure Diseases 0.000 description 7
- 238000003058 natural language processing Methods 0.000 description 7
- 206010012601 Diabetes mellitus Diseases 0.000 description 6
- 239000000203 mixture Substances 0.000 description 6
- 238000011156 evaluation Methods 0.000 description 5
- 238000007374 clinical diagnostic method Methods 0.000 description 4
- 238000004891 communication Methods 0.000 description 4
- 239000003814 drug Substances 0.000 description 4
- WQZGKKKJIJFFOK-GASJEMHNSA-N D-Glucose Natural products OC[C@H]1OC(O)[C@H](O)[C@@H](O)[C@@H]1O WQZGKKKJIJFFOK-GASJEMHNSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 230000002411 adverse Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000006399 behavior Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000000052 comparative effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 239000008103 glucose Substances 0.000 description 2
- 238000004519 manufacturing process Methods 0.000 description 2
- NLZUEZXRPGMBCV-UHFFFAOYSA-N Butylhydroxytoluene Chemical compound CC1=CC(C(C)(C)C)=C(O)C(C(C)(C)C)=C1 NLZUEZXRPGMBCV-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 230000004931 aggregating Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000003466 anti-cipated Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000007486 appendectomy Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000036772 blood pressure Effects 0.000 description 1
- -1 but not limited to Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 239000000969 carrier Substances 0.000 description 1
- 150000001768 cations Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 230000001413 cellular Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000004590 computer program Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000002950 deficient Effects 0.000 description 1
- 201000009910 diseases by infectious agent Diseases 0.000 description 1
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000003862 health status Effects 0.000 description 1
- 201000010238 heart disease Diseases 0.000 description 1
- 230000004630 mental health Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000004048 modification Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000006011 modification reaction Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000003287 optical Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000007781 pre-processing Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000011084 recovery Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000006467 substitution reaction Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000004642 transportation engineering Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000002255 vaccination Methods 0.000 description 1
Abstract
With the trend of comprehensive healthcare systems, has come an increased volume of data that is overwhelming and often paralyzing. Prior approaches use extensive sets of reports or big data techniques for identifying patterns. The prior approaches have had limited success in solving operational healthcare problems. A health management system includes a processor, a searchable multi-dimensional data representation of the performance of an entire health care delivery system accessible by the processor, in which the performance of every healthcare provider, including downstream providers, that are delivering services is distilled down to a clinically credible measure of actual versus expected performance at analytic points across a comprehensive set of quality outcomes and resource utilization measures wherein the performance matrix has multiple dimensions, and a memory device coupled to the processor and having a program stored thereon for execution by the processor to perform operations. The operations include creating the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance measures of a selected healthcare provider and accessing the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance measures of the selected healthcare provider. By including analytic points in a unique new multidimensional data structure, querying the data structure is more efficient for a search engine to analyze and derive actual performance results and determination of actions to improve healthcare provider performance. ealthcare problems. A health management system includes a processor, a searchable multi-dimensional data representation of the performance of an entire health care delivery system accessible by the processor, in which the performance of every healthcare provider, including downstream providers, that are delivering services is distilled down to a clinically credible measure of actual versus expected performance at analytic points across a comprehensive set of quality outcomes and resource utilization measures wherein the performance matrix has multiple dimensions, and a memory device coupled to the processor and having a program stored thereon for execution by the processor to perform operations. The operations include creating the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance measures of a selected healthcare provider and accessing the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance measures of the selected healthcare provider. By including analytic points in a unique new multidimensional data structure, querying the data structure is more efficient for a search engine to analyze and derive actual performance results and determination of actions to improve healthcare provider performance.
Description
Health Management System with Multidimensional Performance Representation
Related Application
This application claims priority to United States Provisional Application serial number
,024 (entitled REAL TIME POPULATION HEALTH MANAGEMENT, filed December 22,
2016) and to United States Provisional Application serial number 62/270,735 (entitled HEALTHCARE
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MATRIX AND SEARCH ENGINE, filed December 22, 2016), both of
which are incorporated herein by reference.
Background
The implementation of electronic health record systems has increased the volume of data
available for healthcare management to the point that it can be overwhelming and often paralyzing.
Attempts to find a solution to healthcare management improvement have tended to go in one oftwo
extremes. The first approach is to provide extensive sets of structured comparative s that the user
must search through in order to draw any conclusions and to develop an action plan. The second ch
is to use “big data” techniques to search through the vast amounts of data to identify patterns and insights.
While the big data approach holds great e, actual examples of real world operational healthcare
problems that have been solved by this ch have been very limited. Furthermore, there is a
2O fiindamental difference between identifying a pattern and ultimately finding a solution to the issue
identified by the n.
Summary
A health management system includes a processor, a searchable multi-dimensional data
representation of the performance of an entire health care ry system accessible by the processor, in
which the performance of every healthcare provider, including downstream providers, that are delivering
services is distilled down to a clinically credible measure of actual versus expected performance at
analytic points across a comprehensive set of y es and resource ation measures wherein
the performance matrix has multiple dimensions including individual health care providers, sites of
3O service, quality outcomes and resource use measures, type of ts, time periods covered, geographic
location of provider and patient, and the patient’s payer, and a memory device coupled to the processor
and having a program stored thereon for execution by the processor to perform operations. The
operations include creating the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance measures of
a selected care provider and ing the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain
performance measures of the selected healthcare provider.
A non-transitory e readable storage device has instructions for execution by a
processor of the machine to perform accessing payer data for multiple ers in a health care delivery
system, conforming the accessed payer data to a standard format, populating, based on the accessed payer
data, a multi—dimensional data representation of the performance of an entire health care ry system
accessible by the processor, in which the performance of every healthcare provider, including
ream providers, that are delivering services is distilled down to a clinically credible measure of
actual versus expected performance at analytic points across a comprehensive set of quality outcomes and
resource utilization measures wherein the performance matrix has multiple dimensions including
individual health care providers, sites of service, quality outcomes and resource use measures, type of
ts, time periods covered, geographic on of provider and patient and the patient’s payer,
creating the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance measures of a ed
healthcare er, and accessing the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance
measures ofthe selected healthcare provider.
A health management system includes a searchable multi-dimensional data representation
of the performance of an entire health care delivery system accessible by one or more sors, in
which the performance of every healthcare provider, including downstream providers, that are delivering
services, is distilled down to a clinically credible measure of actual versus expected performance at
analytic points across a comprehensive set of y outcomes and resource utilization measures, a
memory device d to the processor and having a program stored thereon for execution by the one or
more processors to perform operations. The ions include creating the multi-dimensional data
representation to obtain performance measures of a selected healthcare er and accessing the multi-
dimensional data representation to obtain performance es ofthe selected care provider.
Brief Description ofthe Drawings
is a block diagram representation of a system for integrating information from
multiple health care delivery systems to provide a data matrix that is searchable Via a search engine
according to an example embodiment.
is a block perspective representation of a three dimensional version of the
performance matrix ing to an example embodiment.
is a block schematic flow diagram illustrating population of analytic points in the
performance matrix according to an e embodiment.
is a block diagram of a health management system that includes a real time
tion health management tool according to an example embodiment.
is a block diagram of a circuitry adaptable to perform one or more methods and
processors with memory according to an example embodiment.
Detailed Description
In the following description, nce is made to the accompanying drawings that form a
part hereof, and in which is shown by way of illustration specific ments which may be practiced.
These embodiments are described in sufficient detail to enable those skilled in the art to practice the
invention, and it is to be understood that other ments may be utilized and that structural, logical
and electrical changes may be made t departing from the scope of the present invention. The
following description of example embodiments is, therefore, not to be taken in a limited sense, and the
scope ofthe present invention is defined by the appended claims.
The functions or algorithms described herein may be implemented in software in one
embodiment. The software may consist ofcomputer executable instructions stored on computer readable
media or computer readable storage device such as one or more non-transitory memories or other type of
hardware based storage devices, either local or networked. Further, such functions correspond to
modules, which may be software, hardware, firmware or any combination thereof. Multiple functions
may be performed in one or more s as desired, and the embodiments described are merely
examples. The software may be executed on a digital signal processor, ASIC, microprocessor, or other
type of processor operating on a computer system, such as a personal computer, server or other computer
system, turning such er system into a ically programmed e.
[0013] The rapidly accelerating trend toward provider idation and the on of provider
based comprehensive health systems and payment reforms focus on payment bundles such as capitation
has created the need for effective population health management. Simultaneously, the implementation of
electronic health record systems has increased the volume of data ble to the point that it can be
overwhelming and often paralyzing. Attempts to find a solution have tended to go in one oftwo es.
The first approach is to provide extensive sets of structured comparative reports that the user must search
through in order to draw any sions and to develop an action plan. The second approach is to use
“big data” techniques to search through the vast amounts of data to identify patterns and ts. While
the big data approach holds great promise, actual examples of real world ional healthcare problems
that have been solved by this approach have been very limited. Furthermore, there is a fimdamental
difference between identifying a pattern and ultimately g a solution to the issue fied by the
pattern.
is a block diagram representation of a system 100 for integrating information from
multiple health care delivery systems 105 to provide a data matrix 110 that evaluates performance and is
searchable via a search engine 115. The health care delivery systems 105 may be coupled via a network
120 to a system 125 for integration and pre-processing of the data from such health care delivery systems
105 into the matrix 110. System 125 may also be a health care delivery system and include health care
data which is also integrated into matrix 110.
In one embodiment, the data matrix is implemented as a performance matrix that is a
searchable multi-dimensional data representation of the performance of an entire health care delivery
system in which the performance of every healthcare provider who is delivering services is distilled down
to a clinically credible measure of actual versus expected performance across a comprehensive set of
y es (readmission rate, complication rate, etc.) and resource use measures (hospital length of
stay, ceutical expenditures, etc.). The performance matrix may have multiple ions
including, but not limited to, individual health care providers, quality es and resource use
measures, type of patients, time periods covered, and the patient’s payer.
An example representation of a three dimensional version of the performance matrix is
shown in a perspective block diagram form in at 200. The entation may be thought of as a
database schema rating an overall data base structure comprising multiple analytic points, where
each analytic point, also referred to as a cell, incudes actual and expected results of provider performance.
In some embodiments, there may be trillions of such analytic points which are in a form that makes it
more efficient for a search engine to analyze and derive actual performance results, as well as show areas
of performance that are below expected, and why such performance is adversely affected. Such results
allow communication of the performance as well as actions that can be taken to improve performance,
such as using a different lab for diagnostics, or a ent post operation discharge care facility.
The performance matrix 200 represents a new approach that allows the cost and quality
performance of an entire health delivery system to be simultaneously evaluated. The perfomiance matrix
distills key performance data into an integrated data representation that is able allowing the
identification of succinct and prioritized information that is clinically credible and at a level of specificity
that is actionable and can lead to sustainable behavior changes that lower cost and improve quality.
The perfomiance matrix 200 may be thought of as an integrated data representation that
allows the cost and y performance of an entire health delivery system to be simultaneously
2O evaluated across a multitude of performance measures across all sites of service and providers. The
mance matrix distills key performance information into a succinct data representation that is
searchable allowing for the identification of ation that is at a level of specificity that is actionable
and can lead to sustainable behavior changes that lower cost and improve quality.
Matrix 200 includes several dimensions that intersect to form the analytic . A
providers dimension 210 es hospitals 212, nursing homes 214, home health care 216, specialists
218, and ians 220. A patients dimension 230 includes procedures 232, disease cohorts 234,
episodes 236, and population 238. A performance dimension 240 is broken into a resources portion 242
and outcomes 244. Resources 242 includes length of stay 246, laboratory 248, pharmacy 250, and
radiology 252. Outcomes 244 includes ssions 254, complications 256, emergency room visits 258,
and mortality 260.
At its most basic level, excess cost is due to either high unit production cost or an excess
volume of services. High or inefficient unit tion cost is typically the result of an inability to
manage the level of inputs or site of service selection. An excess volume of services is often the result of
poor y since more services will generally be needed to treat the problems caused by the poor
quality. To facilitate the development of an action plan to address poor performance, the poor
mance needs to be attributed to specific e categories and ic providers. The performance
matrix 200 provides a means of simultaneously evaluating performance across the entire healthcare
delivery system. The performance matrix 200, in one embodiment, is a cross tabular representation ofthe
performance of the healthcare delivery system across multiple performance dimensions as previously
mentioned, including
Providers or sites of service (hospitals, physicians, specialists, g homes, etc.)
Efficiency performance measures (unit itures per hospitalization and outpatient
visit, per enrollee annual expenditures, expenditures by cost categories such as a laboratory, etc)
Quality performance measures (excess complications, excess readmissions, excess
emergency room visits, under-utilization of outpatient mental health services, etc)
Site of service substitution (Over use of skilled nursing facilities versus home health,
over utilization of the ncy versus office based primary care, etc)
Expenditure type (total cost of care, dual cost categories such a laboratory, etc.).
Expenditure types are only applicable to expenditure performance measures.
Patient Categories (disease cohort such as patients with diabetes, types of encounters
such as patients admitted for an appendectomy, etc)
Population ts (total population, disease cohorts, etc.)
Time period (month, year)
Payer (Medicare, Medicaid, commercial insurance company A, insurance company B,
etc.)
Geographic location (location of patient, location of site of service, urban/rural, census
region, etc)
Individual provider (physician, specialist, hospital, etc)
Thus, the mance matrix has an evaluation of every provider in the care
delivery system on every performance measure for every type of expenditure for every population
segment for every time period, across a wide range of attributes such as payer and phic region. For
e, the performance matrix includes detailed identification of poor performance such as specifying
that the high per patient tion expenditures for a primary care ian were due to the high
pharmaceutical use by the specialists to whom the primary care physician is referring diabetic patients.
Implementations of the performance matrix may be very large, with trillions of analytic points. Each
analytic point in the performance matrix contains the following y performance information that is
ocessed prior to use:
Continuous variables (e.g., expenditures): count, actual average, expected average, test of
statistical significance, and binary variables (e.g., readmissions): count, actual rate, expected rate, cost of
difference between actual and expected, test of statistical cance.
Thus, each analytic point in the performance matrix contains a pre-processed specific
measure of performance expressed as a difference n actual and expected along with the financial
impact ofthe difference. The ed values are risk ed to account for differences in case mix. The
test of significance provides a determination of whether the observed ence between actual and
2016/068253
expect is meaningfiil (as opposed the result of chance variation). Essentially the mance Matrix
creates a data entation that distills all aspects of delivery system performance down to manageable
units of comparison and does every possible drill down providing the basis for identifying the source of
performance problems.
Each measure of performance has a pre-computed expected value for every analytic point
in the performance matrix. There are many ways to e an expected value of a performance measure.
One ofthe most common is indirect rate standardization using an exhaustive and mutually exclusive set
of risk groups for risk adjustment. Using indirect rate standardization the expected value in the analytic
points in the mance matrix is ed based on the following steps:
[0024] For each risk group (g) for each performance measure (m), a target value (T(g,m)) is
established based on the actual ical average value in a reference database.
For service provider (p) for measure (m). the expected value (E(p,m)) is the sum of
overall risk groups of the product of the number of patients/enrollees in each risk group (N(p,m,g) times
the corresponding target value (T(g,m) divided by the total number of patients/enrollees:
E(p,m) = sum over g [N(p,m,g)*T(g,m)] / sum over g N(p,m,g)
For service provider (p) for measure (m), the difference between the service er’s
actual value and the expected value can be either above expected (negative performance) or below
expected (positive performance). Once the Performance Matrix is populated, it is searchable allowing the
identification of the sources of poor performance and report the s in a meaningful way that
2O empowers interventions that can lower costs and improve quality.
The performance matrix es distilled mance down to a financial measure of
the difference between actual and expected spending. The financial measures in the performance matrix
are essentially a measure of relative internal ce use (production efficiency focusing on volume of
services and unit cost). An example of identification of performance differences generated Via a search of
the performance matrix and presented to the health delivery system is as follows:
In the enrolled population ofthe health system there are 1,342 patients with CHF
(congestive heart failure) who are incurring annual expenditures of $69,752 which is 32 percent higher
than would be expected resulting $21.4 million in annual excess itures.
80 percent of the excess expenditures are concentrated in high severity CHF patients who
have multiple comorbid diseases. The high severity severity CHF patients have a potentially table
hospital admission rate that is 41 percent higher than expected and a potentially preventable ER Visit rate
that is 24 percent higher than would be expected.
Although the inpatient hospital expenditures for high severity CHF patients are consistent
with expectations the 30 day post-acute care itures for these patients are 38 percent higher than
would be ed.
52 percent of the excess post-acute care for high severity CHF patients are the result of a
potentially preventable readmission rate (that is 62 t higher than would be expected.
62 percent of the excess post acute care readmission rate is due readmissions from one
nursing home (ElderCare) which has a potentially preventable readmission rate that 88 percent higher
than would be expected.
78 percent ofthe patients discharged to this nursing home are for patients discharged by
physician James Smith and physician Donald Jones both ofwhom have a disproportionate number of
their high severity CHF patients being discharge to a nursing home.
The overarching objective of the performance matrix is to provide a data model that
allows the fication of succinct and prioritized information that is at a level of specificity that is
actionable.
[0035] is a block schematic flow diagram illustrating population of analytic points in the
performance matrix generally at 300. Several sites of service are indicated at 310, 315, and 320 coupled
by a network 325 to a healthcare delivery system 330. Sites of service 310, 315, and 320 may be
downstream providers which each have their own health care databases with ation regarding
patients and services provided, as well as performance data, medical records, and other information.
System 330 has longitudinally integrated delivery system data 335 that represents all ation
regarding healthcare services ed by healthcare ers covered by system 330. The data 335 may
be gathered from multiple different databases for the delivery system, but provides a consistent interface
to that data.
At 340, processing is performed on the data to computer performance measures. Enrollee
health status is determined at 345. In one embodiment, the enrollee corresponds to a patient receiving
services at delivery system 330 and the various network coupled sites of service. At 350, a risk adjusted
expected value for each performance measure is computed. The risk adjusted expected value may include
external target mance measure values 355, corresponding to the networked ted sites of
service 310, 315, and 320.
[0037] A difference between actual and expected value for each performance measure is
calculated at 365 and may include sion factors 370 to convert data from the connected sites of
service 310, 315, and 320 that may not be stored using the same schema as data 335, which may be a
cal form of data. In some ments, both data 335 and data from the connected sites of service
may be converted to a cal form.
In one embodiment, the difference between actual and expected value for each
mance measure is a representation of the , such as a financial impact for each mance
measure. At 375, the impact from 365 is used to populate each analytic point or cell in the performance
matrix 200, resulting in a ted performance matrix 380 ready for use.
In one embodiment, longitudinal historical claims data, such as data from one or more
insurance companies (payer) for multiple patients and multiple ers is obtained at 335 from one or
more systems. The data obtained may be run through a classification system to obtain a consistent
representation of the data at 340, 345 and define what each service corresponding to the claims was. One
e fication system includes a 3M Patient Classification System. The data may be used to
determine the actual performance at 346. The classification data from classification 340, 345 is also used
to generate performance norms for y outcomes and resource use at 355. At 360, the actual and
ed performance is compared to generate performance differences by subtracting the actual
performance measure from the expected performance. The result is used to determine the financial
impact of negative quality outcomes at 365, which may involve aggregating data from multiple patients
over multiple providers and other dimensions. This information is then used to populate the performance
matrix at 380.
In various embodiments, the use ofthe performance matrix may provide for real time
population health care management. As the healthcare industry moves towards increasing use of
Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and the shift to bundled payment (meaning a single payment to
cover all aspects of care for a given condition), there is an increased need for tools to actively manage the
healthcare of populations of patients across a wider range of settings and contexts. This management
extends beyond those times where the patient is an admitted patient or in the provider’s office for a visit
to e factors such as but not limited to prescription compliance, tative checkups, tative
vaccinations, healthy living activities, and living arrangements such as assisted living centers, etc. Both
private and public healthcare payers singly mandate sets of care guidelines and criteria that need to
be ed by providers. If they are not followed, providers may not be fully reimbursed for services
provided, t care may be adversely affected, and the overall health ofthe t population may be
less than optimal.
In many cases, healthcare provider organizations are required to not only manage
adherence to such care ines on a per patient level, but also to report their ance at a population
level to various payers and government health agencies. Typically, in the industry today this is a time
ing process that requires a significant amount of manual effort to complete. Determining whether
or not ed care is within appropriate guidelines requires the review of a wide range of data sources
including but not limited to the Electronic Health Records, Visit Scheduling information, Lab and
Diagnostic reports, Pharmacy data, and even a patient’s own health tracking data. The process of bringing
such data sets together for complete review is usually a cumbersome one. Timing of access to data sets,
for one thing, can be an issue: not all cases are usually able to be reviewed in time for interventions to
correct cases where proper guidelines are not followed as the reviews are often pective to the patient
having left the hospital or provider. For the provider organization this can result in costly claims denials
or loss of reimbursement, and for the patient it can result in sub-optimal health treatments when, for
example, an incorrect site of service is selected, necessary diagnostics are not performed, diagnostics are
performed unnecessarily, medications are not filled and used by the t, and so on.
[0042] Many ofthe challenges ated with beginning to manage care in this new way come
from data being housed in multiple systems that are not integrated and which span organizational
boundaries. A fiill review of patient care from all settings requires knowledge of multiple systems, review
of paper documentation, review of visit schedules, development of a longitudinal view of a t and
their associated health issues, and then tracking and coordinating that t’s care in accordance with
the necessary guidelines across this myriad of systems.
is a block m of a health ment system 400 that includes a real time
population health management tool 405 to improve an organization’s ability to care for its population of
patients while simultaneously ng the manual efforts required to do so and enabling better use of the
organization’s resources to focus on the ry ofproper care. The tool in one embodiment is
implemented in software for execution on a processor in a local or cloud computing environment.
Tool 405 includes l components, including but not limited to a guideline/rule
repository 410, a patient information store 415, natural language processing (NLP) 420, enterprise master
person index (EMPI) 425, and ia evaluation logic 430. The tool 405 also has access to a
mance matrix 435 and performance matrix search engine 440. The components may execute on the
search engine 440, or other local or remote processing resources 445, or a combination thereof.
Guideline/rule repository 410 contains rule sets needed to satisfy a given care protocol,
reporting guideline, or compliance standard. These may apply at a particular patient or population level
Examples of these include Core Measures, Patient Safety Incidents, Hospital Acquired
Conditions/Infections, Preventable Complication or ssion Requirements, Site of Service
assignment criteria, criteria in determining patient transportation, t placement, and care criteria for
specific disease, condition, or risk cohorts.
[0046] Patient Information Store 415 is a repository that contains the universe of data known
about a c patient. It extends beyond just data that is ble in the Electronic Health Record to
include information such as scheduled care follow ups, iption refill information, diagnostics
ordered, and patient captured data such as glucose monitoring information. The term “Patient Information
Store” is a generic term for this collection of data as in y the store may actually be comprised of
multiple repositories able to be ed collectively, to assemble the total longitudinal picture of a
patient’s health care information. Data elements may be populated via direct interface with structured data
from other systems and may be represented in a variety of formats or code sets such as ICD9, ICDlO,
SNOMED-CT, LOINC, etc.. Unstructured data in the Patient Information Store may be processed using
Natural Language Processing (NLP) to extract clinical facts from text narrative and other unstructured
data sources. In one embodiment, the data is aggregated from a variety of care settings, and includes
financial data, patient tracked data, and disease specific items. All data elements are represented with
unique concept identifiers that are in turn mapped to care guidelines and rules that makes use of particular
types of data. The concept identifiers may be combined to construct a longitudinal t problem list
and care history, which may be compared to relevant care guidelines for patients based on plan
membership, quality reporting guidelines, and other factors.
Natural ge processing (NLP) 420 component is used to extract data, including
clinical facts, from semi-structured and unstructured data s. The NLP also maps the clinical facts
found in those sources to discrete ts of the data sources needed to evaluate against rules. Also
used to facilitate the question/answer process needed to query the longitudinal patient record as updates
are made which affect the Coordination of Care document.
Enterprise Master Person Index (EMPI) 425 is used to consolidate data from various
systems and sources around a single t record. Includes ability to match patient data from systems
using identifiers from systems and other identifying ation such as Date of Birth, Government ID
numbers, Insurance Identifiers, etc. Several s provide the ability to match patient data based on
multiple, such as 12 or more such pieces of information to provide an assurance that patients are tly
identified and their corresponding data is accurate.
[0049] Criteria evaluation logic 430 is used to apply sets of care guidelines and criteria to the
data for a particular patient to determine which have been satisfied and which are deficient.
ionalizes the Guideline / Rule Repository and the Patient ation Store together to produce
data for the system outputs. Compares data for patient being evaluated against es for similar
patients (based on available data ts) to offer insights into likely successful care steps. Considers
output of tools such as the performance matrix which will inform the evaluation of next care steps for the
patient against the current state of the health system’s ability to successfiJlly deliver those steps. Care
deficiencies and needed care may be identified and prioritized.
The tool 405 may take a variety of different types of patient health data as input. While
the more available data, the more complete the tool’s review and recommendations will be, not all data
sources are required for the Tool to provide valuable ck. Types of data that the Tool may make use
of include but are not limited to: patient claims data, pharmacy / medication refill data, pre/post hospital
care setting data, clinical documents, visit scheduling information, and personal health information
d by the patient (e.g. weights, blood pressure, glucose ation, se data).
The tool 405 will initially enable two primary outputs. One output is a Coordination of
Care Document 450. As new clinical documents and diagnostic information about a patient becomes
available to the tool, the system evaluates the new data against any known care guidelines that apply to
the patient based on the t’s existing health conditions. The tool updates any criterion met by the
new data and identifies any new deficiencies that may be introduced by the new data. For example, a
particular result on one diagnostic test may warrant a next test be conducted, or the completion of one
type of follow up or preventative visit will then trigger the next required visit to be determined.
The new data will also be evaluated to determine if it warrants adding the patient to new
care guideline groups. Adding the patient to care ine groups may be done automatically by the
Tool, either by the Tool itself or by the Tool calling a sub-process in r , or the Tool may flag
the record for evaluation by a human reviewer who may add the patient to the new group. This may occur
for e if the new incoming data suggests or definitively diagnoses a new disease such as diabetes.
The system will evaluate the known data about the patient against the new care guideline membership as
a diabetic, indicate the initial care steps that need to be applied to the patient, and also flag the patient for
inclusion in any reporting on the population of diabetic ts.
The Coordination of Care Document 450 is ible by users ofthe system such as
providers and Care Managers as needed through a user interface as is commercially available, such as the
360 ass MD user interface provided by 3M Health Information Systems.
Users will also have the ability to request that the system update the record in “real-time”
if needed to incorporate newly added data elements and receive immediate feedback on additional care
suggestions or necessary steps to take with the patient. This might also occur for example when a patient
currently being seen in the Emergency ment needs to be evaluated against criteria for assignment
to a particular site of service or against inpatient admission criteria.
The Coordination of Care Document 450 will offer prioritized guidance for necessary
care that is informed by ing outcomes of care for patients deemed to be similar to a particular
patient based on available data elements within the population. Prioritization will also incorporate
feedback from tools such as the 3M Health System mance Matrix, which can assist in prioritizing
care options based on current performance of the healthcare delivery system . This guidance may
also include querying the al records ofthe population using NLP in addition to structured / coded
data — e.g. to generate ad-hoc population information relevant to the current patient based on patient
specific characteristics.
In one embodiment, prioritized worklists may be presented for individual patients.
Prioritization may be infomied by outcome data from a population of like ts within populations.
Reports 455 on Extracted Data may also be provided as an output. The system may
generate reports on a scheduled basis for es fied by different care guideline groups.
Examples of this would include reporting to national or state quality agencies, compliance with care
ols for particular diseases, effectiveness of preventative care measures, rates of ance with
prescription medication refills, etc. Automated ing of population care delivered versus care
guidelines may be generated.
Care Managers may also see a tized list of patients within their tion in
varying states of care that need attention to stay within care guidelines. Examples of this would be: all
patients currently admitted within the healthcare system, all patients due for a particular type of follow up
visit, call or diagnostic, or patients needing follow up on medication refills. A prioritized worklist may
also be generated for an overall population.
Anticipated benefits to users of the system, depending on entation, may include a
reduction in manual effort required to do mandated reporting, which would in turn enable cost savings or
redeployment of resources to more directly affect patientcare. A r benefit may include an increase
of case review for compliance with varying care guidelines from current percentage to 100%. A
reduction in denials, reduction in Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) audits, ion in payment
penalties related to: readmissions, hospital acquired ions, patient safety indicators, and lost
2016/068253
reimbursement due to issues such as ect site of service assignment, patients not meeting admission
criteria. An Improved ability may be provided to produce prioritized lists of patients at risk for not
meeting care guidelines based on specific disease conditions (e.g. diabetes, heart disease) or other criteria.
Yet a further benefit may include an improved y to predict future care needs of population based on
a more comprehensive review of tion status. The tool may fiirther provide for integration of
population ment into a single workflow within a single system rather than many ate
systems. l, a reduction in complexity of care management process may also be provided.
is a block schematic diagram of a computer system 500 to implement methods
according to example embodiments. All ents need not be used in various embodiments. One
example computing device in the form of a computer 500, may include a processing unit 502, memory
503, removable storage 510, and non-removable storage 512. gh the example ing device is
illustrated and described as computer 500, the computing device may be in ent forms in different
ments. For example, the computing device may instead be a smartphone, a tablet, smartwatch, or
other computing device including the same or similar elements as illustrated and described with regard to
Devices such as smartphones, tablets, and smartwatches are generally collectively referred to as
mobile devices. Further, although the various data storage elements are illustrated as part of the computer
500, the storage may also or alternatively include cloud-based storage ible via a network, such as
the et.
Memory 503 may include volatile memory 514 and non—volatile memory 508. Computer
2O 500 may include — or have access to a computing nment that includes — a variety of er-
readable media, such as volatile memory 514 and non-volatile memory 508, removable storage 510 and
non—removable storage 512. Computer storage includes random access memory (RAM), read only
memory (ROM), erasable programmable nly memory (EPROM) & electrically erasable
mmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory or other memory technologies, compact disc
read-only memory (CD ROM), Digital Versatile Disks (DVD) or other optical disk storage, magnetic
cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices capable of storing
computer-readable instructions for execution to perform functions described herein.
Computer 500 may include or have access to a computing environment that includes
input 506, output 504, and a communication connection 516. Output 504 may include a display device,
such as a touchscreen, that also may serve as an input device. The input 506 may include one or more of
a touchscreen, touchpad, mouse, keyboard, camera, one or more device-specific buttons, one or more
sensors integrated within or coupled via wired or wireless data connections to the computer 500, and
other input devices. The computer may operate in a networked environment using a communication
connection to connect to one or more remote computers, such as database servers, including cloud based
servers and storage. The remote computer may include a personal computer (PC), server, router, network
PC, a peer device or other common k node, or the like. The communication connection may
include a Local Area Network (LAN), a Wide Area Network (WAN), cellular, WiFi, Bluetooth, or other
networks.
Computer-readable instructions stored on a computer-readable e device are
executable by the processing unit 502 of the er 500. A hard drive, CD-ROM, and RAM are some
es of articles including a non-transitory computer-readable medium such as a storage . The
terms computer-readable medium and storage device do not include carrier waves. For example, a
computer program 518 may be used to cause processing unit 502 to perform one or more methods or
algorithms described herein.
Examples:
[0065] In e 1, a health management system includes a processor, a searchable multi-
ional data representation of the performance of an entire health care delivery system accessible by
the sor, in which the performance of every healthcare provider, including downstream providers,
that are ring services is distilled down to a clinically credible measure of actual versus expected
performance at analytic points across a comprehensive set of quality outcomes and resource utilization
measures wherein the performance matrix has multiple dimensions including individual health care
providers, sites of service, quality outcomes and resource use measures, type of patients, time s
covered, geographic on of provider and patient, and the patient’s payer, and a memory device
coupled to the processor and having a program stored thereon for execution by the processor to perform
operations. The operations include creating the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain
performance measures of a selected healthcare provider and accessing the multi-dimensional data
representation to obtain performance measures of the selected healthcare provider.
Example 2 includes the health management system of example 1 wherein the ally
credible measure comprises at least one of ssion rate and complication rate.
Example 3 includes the health management system of any of examples 1-2 wherein the
healthcare providers include at least multiple of hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies,
specialists, and physicians.
Example 4 includes the health management system of any of examples 1-3 wherein the
types of patients include at least one of encounters for a procedure, encounters for c or acute
disease ment, disease cohorts of patients, episodes of care, and population management.
Example 5 es the health ment system of any of examples 1—4 wherein a
performance dimension of the performance matrix is broken into a resources portion and a quality
outcomes portion.
Example 6 includes the health management system of example 5 wherein the resource
portions includes at least one of length of stay, laboratory, pharmacy, and radiology.
[0071] Example 7 includes the health management system of any of examples 5-6 wherein the
outcomes portion includes at least one of ssions, cations, emergency room visits, and
mortality.
Example 8 includes the health management system of any of examples 1-7 wherein each
analytic point in the performance matrix contains a pre-processed specific measure of performance
sed as a ence between actual and ed along with the financial impact of the difference.
Example 9 includes the health management system of example 8 wherein expected values
are risk adjusted to account for differences in case mix.
Example 10 includes the health management system of any of examples 8—9 wherein the
pre-processed c measure of mance of each analytic point is lculated using indirect rate
standardization based on an tive and mutually exclusive set of risk groups for risk adjustmentr
Example 11 includes the health ment system of example 10 wherein for each risk
group (g) for each performance measure (m), a target value (T(g,m)) is established based on an actual
historical average value in a reference database.
Example 12 includes the health management system of example 11 wherein for service
provider (p) for measure (m), an expected value (E(p,m)) is the sum of overall risk groups of the product
of the number of patients/enrollees in each risk group ,g) times the corresponding target value
(T(g,m) divided by the total number of patients/enrollees expressed as: E(p,m) = sum over g
[N(p,m,g)*T(g,m)] / sum over g N(p,m,g), and wherein the difference between the service provider’s
actual value and the expected value is expressed as above expected (negative performance) or below
expected (positive performance).
In example 13, a non-transitory machine readable storage device has ctions for
execution by a processor ofthe machine to perform accessing payer data for multiple providers in a health
care delivery system, ming the accessed payer data to a standard format, populating, based on the
accessed payer data, a multi—dimensional data representation of the mance of an entire health care
delivery system accessible by the processor, in which the performance of every healthcare er,
including downstream providers, that are delivering services is distilled down to a clinically credible
measure of actual versus expected mance at analytic points across a comprehensive set of quality
outcomes and resource utilization measures wherein the performance matrix has multiple dimensions
ing individual health care providers, sites of service, quality outcomes and resource use measures,
type of patients, time periods covered, geographic location of provider and t and the patient’s payer,
creating the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance measures of a selected
healthcare provider, and accessing the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain mance
measures of the selected healthcare er.
Example 14 includes the non-transitory machine readable storage device of e 13
wherein the clinically credible e comprises at least one of readmission rate and complication rate.
Example 15 includes the non-transitory machine readable storage device of any of
examples 13-14 wherein the healthcare providers include at least multiple of hospitals, nursing homes,
home health care agencies, specialists, and physicians.
Example 16 includes the non-transitory machine readable storage device of any of
examples 13-15 wherein the types of patients include at least one of encounters for a procedure,
encounters for chronic or acute disease management, disease cohorts of patients, episodes of care, and
population management.
e 17 includes the non-transitory machine readable storage device of any of
examples 13-16 wherein a performance dimension of the performance matrix is broken into a resources
portion and an quality outcomes portion.
Example 18 includes the non-transitory machine readable storage device of example 17
wherein the resource portions include at least one of length of stay, laboratory, pharmacy, and ogy.
[0083] Example 19 includes the non-transitory machine readable e device of any of
examples 17—18 wherein the outcomes portion es at least one of readmissions, complications,
emergency room visits, and mortality.
Example 20 includes the non-transitory machine readable storage device of example 13
wherein each ic point in the mance matrix contains a pre-processed specific measure of
performance expressed as a difference n actual and expected along with the financial impact of the
difference.
Example 21 includes the ansitory machine readable e device of example 20
wherein expected values are risk adjusted to t for differences in case mix.
e 22 includes the non-transitory machine readable e device of any of
2O examples 20-21 wherein the pre-processed specific measure of performance of each analytic point is pre-
calculated using indirect rate standardization based on an exhaustive and ly exclusive set of risk
groups for risk adjustment.
Example 23 includes the non-transitory machine readable storage device of example 22
wherein for each risk group (g) for each performance measure (m), a target value (T(g,m)) is established
based on an actual historical average value in a reference database.
Example 24 includes the non—transitory machine le storage device of example 23
wherein for e provider (p) for measure (m), an expected value (E(p,m)) is the sum of l risk
groups of the product of the number of patients/enrollees in each risk group (N(p,m,g) times the
ponding target value (T(g,m) divided by the total number of patients/enrollees expressed as:
E(p,m) = sum over g [N(p,m,g)*T(g,m)] / sum over g N(p,m,g), and wherein the
difference between the service er’s actual value and the expected value is expressed as above
expected (negative performance) or below expected (positive performance).
In example 25, a health management system includes a searchable multi-dimensional data
representation of the mance of an entire health care delivery system accessible by one or more
processors, in which the performance of every healthcare provider, including downstream providers, that
are delivering services, is distilled down to a clinically credible measure of actual versus expected
performance at analytic points across a hensive set of quality outcomes and resource utilization
measures, a memory device coupled to the processor and having a program stored thereon for execution
by the one or more processors to perform operations. The ions include creating the multi-
dimensional data representation to obtain performance es of a selected healthcare provider and
accessing the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance measures of the selected
healthcare provider.
Example 26 includes the health management system of example 25 wherein the clinically
le measure comprises at least one of readmission rate and complication rate.
Example 27 includes the health management system of any of examples 25-26 wherein
the performance matrix has multiple dimensions including individual health care providers, sites of
service, quality outcomes and resource use measures, type of patients, time periods covered, geographic
location of provider and patient and the patient’s payer, wherein the healthcare providers include at least
multiple of hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies, specialists, and physicians.
Example 28 includes the health management system of example 27 wherein the types of
ts include at least one of encounters for a procedure, encounters for chronic or acute e
management, disease s of patients, episodes of care, and population management.
e 29 includes the health ment system of any of examples 27-28 wherein a
performance dimension of the performance matrix is broken into a resources portion and an outcomes
portion.
Example 30 includes the health management system of example 29 wherein the resource
portions include at least one of length of stay, laboratory, pharmacy, and radiology.
Example 31 includes the health management system of any of es 29-30 wherein
the outcomes portion es at least one of readmissions, complications, emergency room visits, and
mortality.
Example 32 includes the health management system of any of examples 25—31 wherein
each analytic point in the performance matrix contains a pre-processed specific measure of mance
expressed as a difference between actual and expected along with the financial impact of the ence.
Example 33 includes the health management system of example 32 wherein expected
values are risk adjusted to t for differences in case mix.
Example 34 includes the health management system of any of es 32-33 wherein
the pre-processed specific measure of performance of each analytic point is pre-calculated using indirect
rate standardization based on an exhaustive and mutually exclusive set of risk groups for risk adjustment.
Example 35 includes the health management system of example 34 wherein for each risk
group (g) for each performance measure (m), a target value (T(g,m)) is established based on an actual
historical average value in a reference database.
[00100] Example 36 includes the health management system of e 35 wherein for service
provider (p) for measure (m), an expected value (E(p,m)) is the sum of l risk groups of the t
of the number of ts/enrollees in each risk group (N(p,m,g) times the corresponding target value
(T(g,m) divided by the total number of ts/enrollees expressed as: E(p,m) = sum over g
[N(p,m,g)*T(g,m)] ;’ sum over g N(p,m,g), and wherein the difference between the service provider’s
actual value and the expected value is expressed as above expected (negative performance) or below
expected (positive performance).
Although a few embodiments have been described in detail above, other modifications
are le. For example, the logic flows depicted in the figures do not require the ular order
shown, or sequential order, to achieve desirable results. Other steps may be provided, or steps may be
eliminated, from the described flows, and other components may be added to, or removed from, the
described systems. Other ments may be within the scope ofthe following claims.
2016/068253
Claims (15)
1. A health management system comprising: a processor; a searchable multi-dimensional data representation of the performance of an entire health care delivery system accessible by the processor, in which the performance of every healthcare provider, including ream providers, that are delivering services is distilled down to a clinically credible measure of actual versus expected performance at analytic points across a comprehensive set of quality outcomes and ce utilization measures wherein the performance matrix has multiple dimensions including individual health care providers, sites of service, quality outcomes and resource use measures, 10 type of patients, time periods covered, geographic location of provider and patient, and the patient’s payer; a memory device coupled to the processor and having a program stored thereon for execution by the sor to perform ions comprising: creating the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance measures of a 15 selected healthcare provider; and accessing the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance es of the selected healthcare provider.
2. The health management system of claim 1 wherein the clinically credible measure comprises at 20 least one of readmission rate and complication rate.
3. The health management system of claim 1 wherein the care providers include at least multiple of hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies, specialists, and physicians. 25
4. The health management system of claim 1 wherein the types of patients include at least one of encounters for a procedure, encounters for c or acute disease management, disease cohorts of ts, es of care, and population ment.
5. The health management system of claim 1 wherein a performance dimension ofthe performance matrix is broken into a resources n and a quality outcomes portion.
6. The health management system of claim 5 wherein the resource ns includes at least one of length of stay, laboratory, pharmacy, and radiology, and wherein the outcomes portion includes at least one of readmissions, complications, emergency room visits, and mortality.
7. The health management system of claim 1 wherein each analytic point in the performance matrix ns a pre-processed specific measure of performance expressed as a difference between actual and expected along with the financial impact of the difference wherein ed values are risk adjusted to account for differences in case mix, and wherein the pre-processed specific measure of performance of each analytic point is pre-calculated using indirect rate rdization based on an exhaustive and mutually exclusive set of risk groups for risk adjustment.
8. The health management system of claim 7 wherein for each risk group (g) for each performance e (m), a target value (T(g,m)) is established based on an actual historical average value in a reference database, and wherein for service provider (p) for measure (m), an expected value (E(p,m)) is the sum of overall risk groups of the product of the number of patients/enrollees in each risk group 10 (N(p,m,g) times the corresponding target value (T(g,m) divided by the total number of patients/enrollees expressed as: E(p,m) = sum over g [N(p,m,g)*T(g,m)] / sum over g N(p,m,g) and n the difference between the service provider’s actual value and the expected value is sed as above expected (negative performance) or below expected (positive performance).
9. A non-transitory e readable e device having instructions for execution by a processor of the machine to perform: accessing payer data for multiple providers in a health care delivery system, conforming the accessed payer data to a standard format; 20 populating, based on the accessed payer data, a multi-dimensional data representation of the performance of an entire health care ry system accessible by the sor, in which the mance of every healthcare provider, including downstream providers, that are delivering es is distilled down to a clinically credible measure of actual versus expected performance at analytic points across a comprehensive set of quality outcomes and resource utilization measures wherein the 25 mance matrix has multiple dimensions including individual health care providers, sites of service, quality outcomes and resource use measures, type of patients, time periods covered, geographic location of provider and patient and the patient’s payer, creating the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance es of a selected healthcare provider; and accessing the multi-dimensional data representation to obtain performance measures of the selected healthcare provider.
10. The non-transitory machine readable storage device of claim 9 wherein the clinically credible e comprises at least one of readmission rate and complication rate, n the healthcare 35 providers include at least multiple of hospitals, nursing homes, home health care es, specialists, and physicians, wherein the types of ts include at least one of encounters for a procedure, encounters for chronic or acute disease management, disease s of patients, episodes of care, and population management, and wherein a performance dimension of the performance matrix is broken into a resources portion and an quality outcomes portion, wherein the resource portions include at least one of length of stay, laboratory, pharmacy, and ogy, wherein the outcomes portion includes at least one of readmissions, complications, emergency room visits, and mortality, and wherein each analytic point in the performance matrix contains a pre-processed specific measure of performance expressed as a ence between actual and expected along with the al impact of the difference, wherein expected values are risk adjusted to account for differences in case mix.
11, The non-transitory machine readable storage device of claim 10 wherein the pre-processed 10 specific measure of mance of each analytic point is pre-calculated using indirect rate rdization based on an exhaustive and mutually exclusive set of risk groups for risk adjustment.
12. The non-transitory machine readable storage device of claim 11 wherein for each risk group (g) for each performance measure (m), a target value (T(g,m)) is established based on an actual historical 15 average value in a reference database, and wherein for service provider (p) for e (m), an expected value )) is the sum of overall risk groups ofthe product ofthe number of patients/enrollees in each risk group (N(p,m,g) times the corresponding target value (T(g,m) divided by the total number of ts/enrollees expressed as: E(p,m) = sum over g [N(p,m,g)*T(g,m)] / sum over g g) 20 and wherein the difference between the service provider’s actual value and the expected value is expressed as above expected (negative performance) or below expected (positive performance).
13. A health ment system comprising: a searchable multi-dimensional data representation of the performance of an entire health care 25 delivery system accessible by one or more processors, in which the performance of every healthcare provider, including downstream providers, that are delivering es, is distilled down to a clinically le measure of actual versus expected performance at analytic points across a comprehensive set of quality outcomes and resource utilization measures; a memory device coupled to the sor and having a m stored thereon for execution by the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: creating the multi-dimensional data entation to obtain performance measures of a selected care provider; and accessing the multi—dimensional data representation to obtain performance measures of the selected healthcare er.
14. The health management system of claim 13 wherein the clinically credible measure comprises at least one of readmission rate and complication rate, wherein the performance matrix has multiple dimensions including dual health care providers, sites of service, quality outcomes and resource use measures, type of patients, time periods covered, geographic location of provider and t and the t’s payer, wherein the healthcare providers e at least multiple of hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies, lists, and physicians, wherein the types of patients include at least one of encounters for a procedure, encounters for chronic or acute disease management, disease cohorts of patients, es of care, and population management, wherein a performance ion of the performance matrix is broken into a resources portion and an outcomes portion, wherein the resource portions e at least one of length of stay, laboratory, pharmacy, and radiology, wherein the outcomes portion includes at least one of readmissions, complications, emergency room visits, and mortality.
15. The health management system of claim 13 wherein each analytic point in the performance matrix contains a pre-processed specific measure of mance expressed as a difference between actual and expected along with the financial impact ofthe difference, wherein expected values are risk adjusted to account for differences in case mix, wherein the ocessed specific measure of performance of each 15 analytic point is pre—calculated using indirect rate standardization based on an exhaustive and mutually exclusive set of risk groups for risk ment, wherein for each risk group (g) for each performance measure (In), a target value (T(g,m)) is established based on an actual historical average value in a nce database, and wherein for service provider (p) for measure (m), an ed value (E(p,m)) is the sum of overall risk groups of the product of the number of patients/enrollees in each risk group 20 (N(p,m,g) times the corresponding target value (T(g,m) divided by the total number of patients/enrollees expressed as: E(p,m) = sum over g [N(p,m,g)*T(g,m)] / sum over g N(p,m,g) and wherein the difference between the service er’s actual value and the expected value is expressed as above expected (negative performance) or below expected (positive performance). WO 12851 SYSTEM 125 105 SYSTEM SYSTEM SEARCH ° 105 ENGWE SYSTEM
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US62/270,735 | 2015-12-22 |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
NZ743565A true NZ743565A (en) |
Family
ID=
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
AU2019219783B2 (en) | Health management system with multidimensional performance representation | |
US20210012904A1 (en) | Systems and methods for electronic health records | |
US11551792B2 (en) | Identification, stratification, and prioritization of patients who qualify for care management services | |
US10867696B2 (en) | Data processing systems and methods implementing improved analytics platform and networked information systems | |
US20200335219A1 (en) | Systems and methods for providing personalized prognostic profiles | |
US10922774B2 (en) | Comprehensive medication advisor | |
Walker et al. | The Value of Health Care Information Exchange and Interoperability: There is a business case to be made for spending money on a fully standardized nationwide system. | |
US9953385B2 (en) | System and method for measuring healthcare quality | |
US20170185723A1 (en) | Machine Learning System for Creating and Utilizing an Assessment Metric Based on Outcomes | |
US20150347599A1 (en) | Systems and methods for electronic health records | |
US20140324472A1 (en) | Method and system for extraction and analysis of inpatient and outpatient encounters from one or more healthcare related information systems | |
US20140316797A1 (en) | Methods and system for evaluating medication regimen using risk assessment and reconciliation | |
US20150039343A1 (en) | System for identifying and linking care opportunities and care plans directly to health records | |
JP2018506779A (en) | Healthcare data interchange system and method | |
EP3327727A2 (en) | Data processing systems and methods implementing improved analytics platform and networked information systems | |
Harman et al. | Electronic medical record availability and primary care depression treatment | |
US20190051411A1 (en) | Decision making platform | |
US20080195420A1 (en) | Method, computer program product and apparatus for generating integrated electronic health records | |
NZ743565A (en) | Health management system with multidimensional performance representation | |
CA2917027C (en) | Method and system for generating a clinical intervention report | |
Attride | Big Data Enables Population Health |