2477_sejda-DYJ.pdf - Chapter 12 References http/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920902/pdf/ehp-118-1021(Accessed March 2 2018 McDonald R T Kroeger

2477_sejda-DYJ.pdf - Chapter 12 References...

  • No School
  • AA 1
  • 4

This preview shows page 1 out of 4 pages.

Unformatted text preview: Chapter 12 References . (Accessed: March 2, 2018). McDonald, R., T. Kroeger, T. Boucher, W. Longzhu, R. Salem. 2016. Planning Healthy Air; A global analysis of the role of urban trees in addressing particulate matter pollution and extreme heat. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA. Available at: . (Accessed: March 2, 2018). McDonald, J. 2017. China sets target for electric car quota, but delays rollout. USA Today. Available at: . (Accessed: February 15, 2018). McGrath, J.M. and D.B. Lobell. 2013. Regional Disparities in the CO2 Fertilization Effect and Implications for Crop Yields. Environmental Research Letters 8(1):014054. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014054 Available at: . (Accessed: March 2, 2018). McGrath, J.M. and D.B. Lobell. 2013. citing Ainsworth, E.A. and A. Rogers. 2007. The Response of Photosynthesis and Stomatal Conductance to Rising [CO2]: Mechanisms and Environmental Interactions. Plant, Cell & Environment 30(3):258–270. McGrath, J.M. and D.B. Lobell. 2013. citing Bernacchi, C.J., B.A. Kimball, D.R. Quarles, S.P. Long, and D.R. Ort. 2007. Decreases in Stomatal Conductance of Soybean under Open-air Elevation of [CO2] Are Closely Coupled with Decreases in Ecosystem Evapotranspiration. Plant Physiology 143(1):134–144. McGrath, J.M. and D.B. Lobell. 2013. citing Conley, M.M., B.A. Kimball, T.J. Brooks, P.J. Pinter, D.J. Hunsaker, G.W. Wall, and J.M. Triggs. 2001. CO2 Enrichment Increases Water‐use Efficiency in Sorghum. New Phytologist 151(2):407–412. McGrath, J.M. and D.B. Lobell. 2013. citing Hunsaker, D.J., B.A. Kimball, P.J. Pinter Jr., G.W. Wall, R.L. LaMorte, F.J. Adamsen, and T.J. Brooks. 2000. CO2 Enrichment and Soil Nitrogen Effects on Wheat Evapotranspiration and Water Use Efficiency. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 104(2):85–105. McGrath, J.M. and D.B. Lobell. 2013. citing Leakey, A.D. 2009. Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration and the Future of C4 Crops for Food and Fuel. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276(1666):2333–2343. McGrath, J.M. and D.B. Lobell. 2013. citing Leakey, A.D.B., C.J. Bernacchi, F.G. Dohleman, D.R. Ort, and S.P. Long. 2004. Will Photosynthesis of Maize (zea mays) in the US Corn Belt Increase in Future [CO2] Rich Atmospheres? An Analysis of Diurnal Courses of CO2 Uptake under Free‐Air Concentration Enrichment (face). Global Change Biology 10(6):951–962. McGrath, J.M. and D.B. Lobell. 2013. citing Leakey, A.D., C.J. Bernacchi, D.R. Ort, and S.P. Long. 2006. Long‐term Growth of Soybean at Elevated [CO2] Does Not Cause Acclimation of Stomatal Conductance under Fully Open‐Air Conditions. Plant, Cell & Environment 29(9):1794–1800. Medina-Ramón, M. and J. Schwartz. 2007. Temperature, Temperature Extremes, and Mortality: A Study of Acclimatisation and Effect Modification in 50 US Cities. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 12-82 TABLE 15–3 Illustration of hospital payment adjustments using peer groups under potential HVIP model Enhanced pool of dollars based on 3 percent of hospitals’ IPPS payments Average: Peer group 1 (lowest share of fully dual-eligible beneficiaries) Share of fully dual-eligible beneficiaries Total HVIP points Pool of dollars (in millions) Payment multiplier Pool of dollars (in millions) 6.3 $308 10.7 5.8 332 0.52 664 1.04 3 12.9 5.7 405 0.52 810 1.04 4 15.0 5.7 333 0.52 665 1.04 5 17.0 5.7 313 0.52 626 1.04 6 19.0 5.6 316 0.54 633 1.10 7 21.8 5.6 259 0.54 518 1.10 8 25.0 5.5 253 0.56 505 1.11 9 30.0 5.3 286 0.56 573 1.12 10 (highest share of fully dual-eligible beneficiaries) 47.6 4.7 230 0.66 459 1.32 Note: $616 Payment multiplier 2 6.5% 0.50% Enhanced pool of dollars based on 6 percent of hospitals’ IPPS payments 1.00% HVIP (hospital value incentive program), IPPS (inpatient prospective payment system). There are about 287 hospitals in each of the 10 hospital peer groups. Peer groups are assigned based on the share of the hospital’s Medicare patients who are fully eligible for Medicare and Medicaid benefits for a majority of the year. Fully dual-eligible beneficiaries qualify for a full range of Medicaid benefits. The 3 percent enhanced pool of dollars for each peer group includes a 2 percent withhold of each hospital’s IPPS payments and 1 percent of each hospital’s IPPS payments from the current-law hospital payment update. The 6 percent enhanced pool of dollars for each peer group includes a 5 percent withhold of each hospital’s IPPS payments and 1 percent of each hospital’s IPPS payments from the currentlaw hospital payment update. The payment multiplier is the percentage adjustment to payments per point. Source: MedPAC analysis of hospital quality data, 2014–2017. Distribute enhanced pool of dollars within each peer group Our HVIP model is designed to redistribute a peer group’s pool of dollars to hospitals in the peer group based on their performance on the quality measures.7 Each peer group’s pool of dollars is based on two sources. One source is a percentage payment withhold from each of the peer group’s inpatient payments. The VBP Program currently uses a 2 percent total base payment withhold. Other options under consideration include a 2 percent withhold amount that scales up to 5 percent over a two- to three-year period. Alternatively, CMS could immediately begin with a higher withhold amount (e.g., 5 percent). The second source for the pool of dollars is part of the current-law hospital payment update. For the HVIP model, we assumed that 0.8 percentage point of the total hospital payment update, which applies to both inpatient and outpatient payment, would be added to the HVIP pool. This amount roughly translates to a little more than 1 percent of inpatient spending. We therefore modeled hospital performance using a pool of dollars based on a 2 percent withhold and 1 percent of total base inpatient spending (or a 3 percent pool), as well as a 5 percent withhold and 1 percent of total base spending (or a 6 percent pool). By eliminating the current readmissions penalty program and hospital-acquired condition programs, hospitals will no longer face those penalties in their hospital payment rates. Therefore, the HVIP will result in higher spending than under current law. In our HVIP model, we followed five steps to convert performance points to payment adjustments based on the 3 percent and 6 percent pools of dollars, using currently available hospital quality and payment data. (See text box Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy  |  March 2019 439 Chapter 12 References 64(12):827–833. doi:10.1136/oem.2007.033175. Available at: . (Accessed: March 2, 2018). Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver, and Z.C. Zhao. 2007. Global Climate Projections. p.p. 747–846. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (Eds.)]. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY. 996 pp. Available at: . (Accessed: March 2, 2018). Meinshausen, M., S.C.B. Raper, and T.M.L. Wigley. 2011. Emulating Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean and Carbon Cycle Models with a Simpler Model, MAGICC6–Part 1: Model Description and Calibration. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11(4):1417–1456. doi:10.5194/acp-11-1417-2011. Available at: . (Accessed: March 2, 2018). Mengel, M. and A. Levermann. 2014. Ice Plug Prevents Irreversible Discharge from East Antarctica. Nature Climate Change 4(6):451–455. doi:10.1038/nclimate2226. Merklein, M., M. Johannes, M. Lechner, and A. Kuppert. 2014. A review of tailored blanks—Production, applications and evaluation. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214(2):151-164. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2013.08.015. Available at: . (Accessed: April 13, 2018). Michalek, J.J., M. Chester, P. Jaramillo, C. Samaras, C.S.N. Shiau, and L.B. Lave. 2011. Valuation of Plug in Vehicle Life-Cycle Air Emissions and Oil Displacement Benefits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(40):16554-16558. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1104473108. Available at: . (Accessed: March 21, 2018). Millar, J.D., J.S. Fuglestvedt, P. Friedlingstein, J. Rogelj, M.J. Grubb, H.D. Matthews, R.B. Skeie, P.M. Forster, D.J. Frame, and M.R. Allen. 2017. Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C. Nature Geoscience 10: 741-747. doi: 10.1038/ngeo3031. Available at: . (Accessed: June 12, 2018). Moawad, A. and A. Rousseau. 2012. Impact of Transmission Technologies on Fuel Efficiency—Final Report. Technical Report DOT HS 811 667. Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne, IL. Available at: . (Accessed: March 2, 2018). Modaresi, R., S. Pauliuk, A.N. Løvik, and D.B. Müller. 2014. Global Carbon Benefits of Material Substitution in Passenger Cars until 2050 and the Impact on the Steel and Aluminum Industries. Environmental Science and Technology 48(18):10776–10784. doi:10.1021/es502930w. Available at: . (Accessed: February 26, 2018). 12-83 TABLE 15–4 Illustrative HVIP payment adjustments by hospital peer groups Enhanced pool of dollars based on 3 percent of hospital’s IPPS payments Peer group Net payment adjustment (after 2 percent withhold) 1 (lowest share of fully dual-eligible beneficiaries) Bonus payment as a percentage of withhold Enhanced pool of dollars based on 6 percent of hospital’s IPPS payments Net payment adjustment (after 5 percent withhold) Bonus payment as a percentage of withhold –0.43% to 2.97% 79% to 248% –1.85% to 4.93% 63% to 199% 2 –0.28 to 2.64 86 to 232 –1.55 to 4.28 69 to 186 3 –0.45 to 2.63 78 to 231 –1.89 to 4.26 62 to 185 4 –0.96 to 2.54 52 to 227 –2.92 to 4.08 42 to 182 5 –0.65 to 2.42 67 to 221 –2.31 to 3.85 54 to 177 6 –0.85 to 2.65 57 to 233 –2.30 to 4.31 46 to 186 7 –0.31 to 2.58 65 to 229 –2.42 to 4.17 52 to 183 8 –1.08 to 3.01 46 to 250 –3.16 to 5.01 37 to 200 9 –1.27 to 3.01 37 to 251 –3.53 to 5.02 37 to 200 10 (highest share of fully dual-eligible beneficiaries) –1.16 to 4.14 42 to 307 –3.32 to 7.28 34 to 246 Note: HVIP (hospital value incentive program), IPPS (inpatient prospective payment system). There are about 287 hospitals in each of the 10 hospital peer groups. Peer groups are assigned based on the share of the hospital’s Medicare patients who are fully eligible for Medicare and Medicaid benefits for a majority of the year. Fully dual-eligible beneficiaries qualify for a full range of Medicaid benefits. The 3 percent enhanced pool of dollars for each peer group includes a 2 percent withhold of each hospital’s IPPS payments and 1 percent of each hospital’s IPPS payments from the current-law hospital payment update. The 6 percent enhanced pool of dollars for each peer group includes a 5 percent withhold of each hospital’s IPPS payments and 1 percent of each hospital’s IPPS payments from the currentlaw hospital payment update. Source: MedPAC analysis of hospital quality data, 2014–2017. describing the process to convert each hospital’s HVIP points to a quality-based payment adjustment, pp. 442–443.) Overall, we found that it was feasible to compute incentive payments that support the Commission’s HVIP goals. After scoring each hospital on the same continuous performance-to-points scale, we divided the 2,875 hospitals in our HVIP sample into 10 equal-sized peer groups based on the share of a hospital’s patient population represented by fully dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries (text box Steps 1 and 2). The average share of a hospital’s patient population represented by fully dual-eligible Medicare beneficiaries in each peer group ranged from less than 7 percent (Peer Group 1) to about 48 percent (Peer Group 10) (Table 15-3, p. 439). The average total HVIP points that hospitals in each peer group received ranged from 6.3 (Peer Group 1) to 4.7 (Peer Group 10). Peer Group 10 had fewer total HVIP 440 R e d e s i g n i n g M e d i c a r e ’s h o s p i t a l q u a l i t y i n c e n t i v e p r o g r a m s points mainly because of higher average readmission rates and lower patient experience ratings compared with Peer Group 1 hospitals. Although Peer Group 10’s point total was lower on average, some hospitals in the peer group were high performers and received more HVIP points than the average for all hospitals. Nevertheless, while hospitals with high shares of fully dual-eligible beneficiaries on average earn fewer HVIP points, for any given level of performance they receive a higher bonus payment (e.g., percent payment adjustment per HVIP point) than hospitals with few fully dual-eligible beneficiaries (Table 15-3, p. 439). For each peer group, we calculated a pool of dollars for expected HVIP payments based on both 3 percent and 6 percent of the peer-group hospitals’ combined base inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) payments (text box Step 3). Intrinsic to the peer group’s pool of ...
View Full Document

  • Fall '19
  • Percentage point, Peer group, Sociological terms, Peer pressure

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern

Ask Expert Tutors You can ask 0 bonus questions You can ask 0 questions (0 expire soon) You can ask 0 questions (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes