Bill Text: MN HF2774 | 2013-2014 | 88th Legislature | Introduced
Bill Title: Health Department-collected performance data required to be based on race, ethnicity, language, and other patient characteristics; and risk adjustment methodology development required.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2014-03-06 - Introduction and first reading, referred to Health and Human Services Policy [HF2774 Detail]
Download: Minnesota-2013-HF2774-Introduced.html
1.2relating to health care; requiring performance data collected by the Department
1.3of Health to be collected based on race, ethnicity, language, and other patient
1.4characteristics; requiring the Department of Health to develop a risk adjustment
1.5methodology; appropriating money;amending Minnesota Statutes 2012, section
1.662U.02, subdivisions 1, 3.
1.7BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.8 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 62U.02, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
1.9 Subdivision 1. Development. (a) The commissioner of health shall develop
1.10a standardized set of measures by which to assess the quality of health care services
1.11offered by health care providers, including health care providers certified as health care
1.12homes under section256B.0751 . In developing the measures, the commissioner shall,
1.13as appropriate, consider national measures that are agreed to or endorsed by national
1.14quality groups. Quality measures must be based on medical evidence and be developed
1.15through a process in which providers participate. The measures shall be used for the
1.16quality incentive payment system developed in subdivision 2 and must:
1.17 (1) include uniform definitions, measures, and forms for submission of data, to the
1.18greatest extent possible;
1.19 (2) seek to avoid increasing the administrative burden on health care providers;
1.20 (3) be initially based on existing quality indicators for physician and hospital
1.21services, which are measured and reported publicly by quality measurement organizations,
1.22including, but not limited to, Minnesota Community Measurement and specialty societies;
1.23 (4) place a priority on measures of health care outcomes, rather than process
1.24measures, wherever possible;and
2.1 (5) incorporate measures for primary care, including preventive services, coronary
2.2artery and heart disease, diabetes, asthma, depression, and other measures as determined
2.3by the commissioner.;
2.4 (6) ensure that data used for measurement are collected or can be sorted by
2.5categories of race, ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status, and other relevant patient
2.6characteristics that research and data show are correlated with health, access, and quality of
2.7care. The categories and data collection methods must be developed in consultation with
2.8organizations led by and representing these categories of individuals. Additional sources
2.9of data, other than the outcomes and process data submitted by a clinic or hospital under
2.10subdivision 3, may be used to attribute patient characteristics to a patient population served
2.11by a clinic or hospital, including, but not limited to, census data, geocoded data, and clinic
2.12or hospital reports on the demographics and characteristics of their patient population; and
2.13 (7) ensure that the measures are risk-adjusted for patient characteristics identified
2.14under clause (6) that have an impact on provider quality and cost.
2.15(b) The commissioner shall ensure that the data collected is sufficient to allow for
2.16the calculation and reporting of measures by categories of race, ethnicity, language,
2.17socioeconomic status, and other relevant variables and patient characteristics for use in
2.18identifying and eliminating health disparities.
2.19(b) (c) The measures shall be reviewed at least annually by the commissioner.
2.20 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 62U.02, subdivision 3, is amended to read:
2.21 Subd. 3. Quality transparency. The commissioner shall establish standards
2.22for measuring health outcomes, establish a system for risk adjusting quality measures,
2.23and issue annual public reports on provider quality beginning July 1, 2010. The risk
2.24adjustment system shall take into consideration patient characteristics identified under
2.25subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (6), that have an impact on performance, quality,
2.26and cost measures. By January 1, 2010, physician clinics and hospitals shall submit
2.27standardized electronic information on the outcomes and processes associated with patient
2.28care to the commissioner or the commissioner's designee. In addition to measures of
2.29care processes and outcomes, the report may include other measures designated by the
2.30commissioner, including, but not limited to, care infrastructure and patient satisfaction.
2.31The commissioner shall ensure that any quality data reporting requirements established
2.32under this subdivision are not duplicative of publicly reported, communitywide quality
2.33reporting activities currently under way in Minnesota. Nothing in this subdivision is
2.34intended to replace or duplicate current privately supported activities related to quality
2.35measurement and reporting in Minnesota.
3.1 Sec. 3. HEALTH DISPARITIES REPORTING AND RISK ADJUSTMENT
3.2METHODOLOGY.
3.3(a) The commissioner of health shall conduct analysis, design, testing, and
3.4implementation activities needed to develop and implement the new data collection,
3.5reporting, and risk-adjustment methods required under Minnesota Statutes, section 62U.02,
3.6subdivisions 1, paragraph (a), clauses (6) and (7), and 3. The commissioner may contract
3.7with a vendor or vendors as needed to meet the requirements described in paragraph (b).
3.8(b) The commissioner shall:
3.9(1) provide possible options for risk-adjustment methods, including both existing
3.10risk-adjustment methods currently in use and proposed methods yet to be developed, with
3.11the advantages and disadvantages of each method;
3.12(2) work with other state agencies and stakeholders to evaluate the risk-adjustment
3.13options identified under clause (1) and select an option for testing in Minnesota;
3.14(3) develop a work plan for the development, testing, and implementation of the
3.15risk-adjustment method to be used in Minnesota for performance; and
3.16(4) undertake data analysis to evaluate options, select an option, and develop and
3.17test the methodology selected for implementation.
3.18(c) If the commissioner contracts with a vendor to implement any or all of the
3.19requirements under this section, the vendor must have the following qualifications:
3.20(1) knowledge of and experience working with research and data on health
3.21disparities and the impact of socioeconomic status and risk factors on health, quality of
3.22care, and health care costs;
3.23(2) knowledge of existing and proposed new risk-adjustment methods of provider
3.24and health plan quality and performance data based on the socioeconomic risk factors of
3.25the patients served; and
3.26(3) the ability to perform data analysis to develop and test risk-adjustment methods
3.27that could be used to adjust provider and health plan quality, cost, and performance data to
3.28reflect the socioeconomic status and risk factors of the patients or enrollees.
3.29(d) The commissioner shall ensure that any advisory committee or work group
3.30convened by the commissioner or by the vendor to provide information, expertise, and
3.31advice in the development, testing, and implementation of the risk-adjustment method
3.32must include representatives of health care providers and consumer organizations who
3.33serve a high proportion of patients or enrollees who are low-income, racially or culturally
3.34diverse, or have other socioeconomic risk factors.
3.35 Sec. 4. APPROPRIATION.
4.1$....... is appropriated from the general fund to the commissioner of health for the
4.2fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, for purposes of implementing sections 1 to 3.
1.3of Health to be collected based on race, ethnicity, language, and other patient
1.4characteristics; requiring the Department of Health to develop a risk adjustment
1.5methodology; appropriating money;amending Minnesota Statutes 2012, section
1.662U.02, subdivisions 1, 3.
1.7BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.8 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 62U.02, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
1.9 Subdivision 1. Development. (a) The commissioner of health shall develop
1.10a standardized set of measures by which to assess the quality of health care services
1.11offered by health care providers, including health care providers certified as health care
1.12homes under section
1.13as appropriate, consider national measures that are agreed to or endorsed by national
1.14quality groups. Quality measures must be based on medical evidence and be developed
1.15through a process in which providers participate. The measures shall be used for the
1.16quality incentive payment system developed in subdivision 2 and must:
1.17 (1) include uniform definitions, measures, and forms for submission of data, to the
1.18greatest extent possible;
1.19 (2) seek to avoid increasing the administrative burden on health care providers;
1.20 (3) be initially based on existing quality indicators for physician and hospital
1.21services, which are measured and reported publicly by quality measurement organizations,
1.22including, but not limited to, Minnesota Community Measurement and specialty societies;
1.23 (4) place a priority on measures of health care outcomes, rather than process
1.24measures, wherever possible;
2.1 (5) incorporate measures for primary care, including preventive services, coronary
2.2artery and heart disease, diabetes, asthma, depression, and other measures as determined
2.3by the commissioner
2.4 (6) ensure that data used for measurement are collected or can be sorted by
2.5categories of race, ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status, and other relevant patient
2.6characteristics that research and data show are correlated with health, access, and quality of
2.7care. The categories and data collection methods must be developed in consultation with
2.8organizations led by and representing these categories of individuals. Additional sources
2.9of data, other than the outcomes and process data submitted by a clinic or hospital under
2.10subdivision 3, may be used to attribute patient characteristics to a patient population served
2.11by a clinic or hospital, including, but not limited to, census data, geocoded data, and clinic
2.12or hospital reports on the demographics and characteristics of their patient population; and
2.13 (7) ensure that the measures are risk-adjusted for patient characteristics identified
2.14under clause (6) that have an impact on provider quality and cost.
2.15(b) The commissioner shall ensure that the data collected is sufficient to allow for
2.16the calculation and reporting of measures by categories of race, ethnicity, language,
2.17socioeconomic status, and other relevant variables and patient characteristics for use in
2.18identifying and eliminating health disparities.
2.19
2.20 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 62U.02, subdivision 3, is amended to read:
2.21 Subd. 3. Quality transparency. The commissioner shall establish standards
2.22for measuring health outcomes, establish a system for risk adjusting quality measures,
2.23and issue annual public reports on provider quality beginning July 1, 2010. The risk
2.24adjustment system shall take into consideration patient characteristics identified under
2.25subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (6), that have an impact on performance, quality,
2.26and cost measures. By January 1, 2010, physician clinics and hospitals shall submit
2.27standardized electronic information on the outcomes and processes associated with patient
2.28care to the commissioner or the commissioner's designee. In addition to measures of
2.29care processes and outcomes, the report may include other measures designated by the
2.30commissioner, including, but not limited to, care infrastructure and patient satisfaction.
2.31The commissioner shall ensure that any quality data reporting requirements established
2.32under this subdivision are not duplicative of publicly reported, communitywide quality
2.33reporting activities currently under way in Minnesota. Nothing in this subdivision is
2.34intended to replace or duplicate current privately supported activities related to quality
2.35measurement and reporting in Minnesota.
3.1 Sec. 3. HEALTH DISPARITIES REPORTING AND RISK ADJUSTMENT
3.2METHODOLOGY.
3.3(a) The commissioner of health shall conduct analysis, design, testing, and
3.4implementation activities needed to develop and implement the new data collection,
3.5reporting, and risk-adjustment methods required under Minnesota Statutes, section 62U.02,
3.6subdivisions 1, paragraph (a), clauses (6) and (7), and 3. The commissioner may contract
3.7with a vendor or vendors as needed to meet the requirements described in paragraph (b).
3.8(b) The commissioner shall:
3.9(1) provide possible options for risk-adjustment methods, including both existing
3.10risk-adjustment methods currently in use and proposed methods yet to be developed, with
3.11the advantages and disadvantages of each method;
3.12(2) work with other state agencies and stakeholders to evaluate the risk-adjustment
3.13options identified under clause (1) and select an option for testing in Minnesota;
3.14(3) develop a work plan for the development, testing, and implementation of the
3.15risk-adjustment method to be used in Minnesota for performance; and
3.16(4) undertake data analysis to evaluate options, select an option, and develop and
3.17test the methodology selected for implementation.
3.18(c) If the commissioner contracts with a vendor to implement any or all of the
3.19requirements under this section, the vendor must have the following qualifications:
3.20(1) knowledge of and experience working with research and data on health
3.21disparities and the impact of socioeconomic status and risk factors on health, quality of
3.22care, and health care costs;
3.23(2) knowledge of existing and proposed new risk-adjustment methods of provider
3.24and health plan quality and performance data based on the socioeconomic risk factors of
3.25the patients served; and
3.26(3) the ability to perform data analysis to develop and test risk-adjustment methods
3.27that could be used to adjust provider and health plan quality, cost, and performance data to
3.28reflect the socioeconomic status and risk factors of the patients or enrollees.
3.29(d) The commissioner shall ensure that any advisory committee or work group
3.30convened by the commissioner or by the vendor to provide information, expertise, and
3.31advice in the development, testing, and implementation of the risk-adjustment method
3.32must include representatives of health care providers and consumer organizations who
3.33serve a high proportion of patients or enrollees who are low-income, racially or culturally
3.34diverse, or have other socioeconomic risk factors.
3.35 Sec. 4. APPROPRIATION.
4.1$....... is appropriated from the general fund to the commissioner of health for the
4.2fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, for purposes of implementing sections 1 to 3.
