FY 2007 HHS Annual PlanStategic Goal 3
|
Performance Measure Table |
||
---|---|---|
Performance Measure: Increase new and expanded health center sites. |
||
Year |
Target |
Result |
2007 |
302* |
10/2007 |
2006 |
121 |
10/2006 |
2005 |
153 |
158 |
2004 |
124 |
129 |
2003 |
180 |
188 |
2002 |
260 |
302 |
Data Source: HRSA/BPHC's Bureau of Health Care Delivery and Assistance Network (BHCDANET), which maintains data on health center sites that are included in the grantees' scope of project. |
||
Data Validation: BHCDANET is an agency mainframe system with business rules to generate unique grantee and site identifiers and has hard code editing procedures. Site development is also monitored via OMB Circular A-133 audit reports. |
||
Performance Budget Reference: HRSA FY 2007 CJ. |
The FY 2007 target based on the President's budget request to Congress is subject to change based on the actual FY 2007 appropriation. |
Performance Measure Table |
||
---|---|---|
Performance Measure: Increase the number of uninsured and underserved persons served by health centers. |
||
Year |
Target |
Result |
2007 |
15.8 million* |
08/2008 |
2006 |
14.6 million |
08/2007 |
2005 |
14.0 million |
08/2006 |
2004 |
13.2 million |
13.12 million |
2003 |
12.5 million |
12.4 million |
2002 |
11.75 million |
11.32 million |
Data Source: HRSA/BPHC Uniform Data System (UDS), based on data provided by grantees. |
||
Data Validation: UDS data are validated through edit checks and onsite reviews. |
||
Performance Budget Reference: HRSA FY 2007 CJ. |
The FY2007 target based on the President's budget request to Congress is subject to change based on the actual FY 2007 appropriation. |
Performance Measure: Address the proportion of patients with diagnosed diabetes that have demonstrated glycemic control at the ideal level (HbA1c<7).
The IHS Division of Diabetes Treatment and Prevention (DDTP) is an integral part of the IHS Hospitals and Health Clinics Program. The mission of the DDTP is to develop, document, and sustain a public health effort to prevent and control diabetes in AI/ANs. IHS currently has seven diabetes performance measures within its annual Performance Budget.
Glycemic control refers to how well blood sugars are controlled in a person with diabetes. It is measured with a blood test called the hemoglobin A1C (A1C). A lower A1C percentage indicates better blood sugar control. Keeping Hemoglobin A1C levels below 7 (ideal glycemic control) can slow or prevent the onset and progression of complications, including cardiac, eye, kidney, and nerve disease caused by diabetes.
The IHS Diabetes Care and Outcomes (DCO) Audit process divides these levels of glycemic control into percentage categories: "Ideal" (<7); "Good" (7.0-7.9); "Fair" (8.0-9.9); "Poor" (10-11.9); and "Very Poor" (>12), based on national diabetes care standards. The first graph illustrates IHS' ongoing ability to improve glycemic control in AI/AN populations (broken into age categories for patients under 55 years, 55 to 64 years and 65 years and older). The second graph illustrates improving glycemic control over time among the IHS population as a whole.
Diabetes Care and Outcomes Audit |
Diabetes Care and Outcomes Audit |
In FY 2007, IHS will maintain the 36 percent of patients with diagnosed diabetes that have demonstrated glycemic control at the ideal level (HgbA1C<7) based on the IHS DCO Audit. Since 1998, IHS has met the targets for this measure based on the IHS DCO Audit data. The FY 2005 indicator was to maintain the proportion of AI/AN patients with diabetes that have ideal glycemic control; IHS exceeded the target by two percent. IHS also met and surpassed the FY 2004 ideal glycemic control indicator by two percent.
IHS targets continue to be ambitious in overcoming the diabetes epidemic in AI/AN populations. There is a historical and projected annual increase in diabetes prevalence of four percent. Since 1997, the number of patients with diabetes served by the I/T/U system has increased by 45 percent, according to a review of diabetes program data by diabetes statisticians.
The elimination of diabetes-related health disparities that AI/AN patients experience depends on meeting the growing demand for treatment services, as well as identifying additional cost-effective preventive interventions.
The CY 2002 PART process included a review of the IHS Direct Federal Programs and the Hospital and Clinics Budget, where the diabetes funding resides; the program received a rating of Moderately Effective. The PART assessment focused attention on the continued importance of assuring valid and reliable performance data; thus, the diabetes measure has also been addressed in later PART reviews. It was included in both the Urban Indian Health Program and RPMS/IT PART reviews during the CY 2003 PART process. In addition, the CY 2004 Facilities PART and the CY 2005 Tribally Operated Health Facilities include the proportion of patients achieving ideal glycemic control as one of the program measures.
Performance Measure Table |
||
---|---|---|
Performance Measure: Address the proportion of patients with diagnosed diabetes that have demonstrated glycemic control at the ideal level (HbA1c<7). |
||
Year |
Target |
Result |
2007 |
36% |
1/2008 |
2006 |
36% |
1/2007 |
2005 |
34% |
36% |
2004 |
32% |
34% |
2003 |
30% |
31% |
2002 |
30% |
30% |
Data Source: yearly IHS Diabetes Care and Outcome Audit. |
||
Data Validation: Annual aggregation/comparison of data using CRS and Diabetes Audit results. |
||
Performance Budget Reference: IHS FY 2007 CJ |
Performance Measures:
CMS is helping the Department meet its goal of expanding consumer choice and access to healthcare by implementing the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) which extends Medicare prescription drug coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. CMS is also collaborating with health care providers to improve the health status for Medicare beneficiaries and, through the survey and certification of providers, ensure the safety and quality of healthcare services and devices provided to beneficiaries. To inform beneficiaries of their benefits and choices within the Medicare program CMS administers comprehensive outreach and education programs including, regular and continuous surveys, complaint investigations and mediation with healthcare providers.
Performance Measure Table |
||
---|---|---|
Performance Measure: Implement the new Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. |
||
Year |
Target |
Result |
2007 |
1) Increase beneficiary awareness of the different features and options of the new drug benefit by through outreach and production of educational materials:
2) TBD (Note: FY 2007 operational goals will be identified in 07/2006 after baselines have been established.) |
1) 09/2007 |
2006 |
1) Increase beneficiary awareness of the different features and options of the new drug benefit by 5% through outreach and production of educational materials:
2) Implement a Part D Claims Data system, oversight system, and contractor management system. |
1) 07/2007 |
2005 |
1) Develop and publish the Final Rule in the Federal Register with requirements for the new benefit. |
1) Goal met. Final rule published 01/2005 |
2004 |
Develop and Publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register with requirements for the new benefit. |
Goal met. Notice published 08/2004 |
Data Source: The data source is the NMEP Assessment Survey, which is a nationally representative survey of approximately 2,000 beneficiaries. |
||
Data Validation: The questions on this survey have been extensively tested with Medicare beneficiaries and the survey has been tested for reliability and validity. The NMEP Assessment Survey is subject to verification typical of survey work, including data range checks and internal consistency checks, which are done electronically at the time the responses are entered in the Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) device. |
||
Performance Budget Reference: CMS FY 2007 CJ. Pg. 205. |
In 2003, Medicare received a rating of Moderately Effective in the PART process, in part because the program needed to be updated, including making prescription drugs part of the benefits model. Since that time, as a result of MMA, the Medicare program has taken steps to address program challenges identified in the PART, including implementing the new prescription drug benefit.
Performance Measure Table |
||
---|---|---|
Performance Measure: Improve satisfaction of Medicare beneficiaries with the health care services they receive. |
||
Year |
Target |
Result |
2007 |
Collect data, set baselines/targets. |
09/2007 |
2006 |
Refocused to capture MMA performance |
09/2006 |
2005 |
Collect (& share) data by the end of CY 2004 (in FY 2005): |
1) MA data available 07/2006. |
2004 |
Collect (& share) data by the end of CY 2004 (in FY 2005). |
Goal met: data collected and shared. |
2003 |
Collect (& share) data by the end of CY 2004 (in FY 2005). |
Goal met: data collected and shared. |
2002 |
Collect (& share) data by the end of CY 2004 (in FY 2005). |
Goal met: data collected and shared. |
Data Source: Consumer Assessment Health Plans Survey, using Medicare Advantage (MA) and fee-for-service (FFS) measures for access to care and access to specialist |
||
Data Validation: The Medicare CAHPS are administered according to the standardized protocols as delineated in the CAHPS 2.0 Survey and Reporting Kit developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). This protocol includes two mailings of the survey instruments to randomized samples of Medicare beneficiaries in health plans and geographic areas, with telephone follow-up of non-respondents with valid telephone numbers. CAHPS data are carefully edited and cleaned prior to the creation of composite measures using techniques employed comparably in all surveys. Both non-respondent sample weights and managed care-FFS comparability weights are employed to adjust collected data for differential probabilities of sample selection, under-coverage, and item response. |
||
Performance Budget Reference: CMS FY 2007 CJ, Pg.200 |
As of January 2006, Medicare beneficiaries have access to a standard prescription drug benefit. People with limited assets and low income will receive a more generous benefit package. Data collection will begin in 2006 to monitor the effectiveness of the implementation phase.
One of CMS' ultimate goals is to assure satisfaction of its primary customer - the Medicare beneficiary. In 2006 and beyond, CMS will work to improve the already high satisfaction levels beneficiaries have with the Medicare program. CMS measures satisfaction using beneficiary responses to questions on the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Health Plan Survey (CAHPS) regarding access to care and specialists in both Medicare fee-forservice and Medicare Advantage. CMS will make modifications to the Medicare CAHPS to reflect MMA program changes, including measurement of experience and satisfaction with the care and services provided through the new Medicare Prescription Drug Plans as well as the Medicare Advantage and Medicare Fee-For-Service health plans. CMS will develop the revised survey instruments in FY 2006 with data collection to begin in FY 2007.
Performance Measure: Improve the Quality of Health Care for Medicaid Beneficiaries through Demonstrated Enhancements to Overall State Quality Strategies.
The Medicaid program directly supports HHS Strategic Goal 3 by providing the primary source of health care coverage for a large population of medically vulnerable Americans, including poor families, people with disabilities, and people with long-term care needs. Additionally, many other low-income uninsured individuals, who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid, receive coverage through the use of waivers. In FY 2005, there were 49.1 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid, including those enrolled through the use of waivers.
In 2005, CMS released a Quality Roadmap with a vision for the "right care for every person every time" and a detailed strategy to improve the quality of care for Medicaid beneficiaries. To complement this vision, CMS developed a new performance measure to improve Medicaid beneficiary access to quality health care. The measure, to improve access to quality health care for Medicaid beneficiaries through demonstrated enhancements to overall State quality strategies, supports HHS Strategic Goal 3. This new quality improvement goal will evaluate State quality strategy assessments and use findings to improve efficiency and effectiveness in State quality improvement activities. In FY 2007, CMS will provide technical assistance to a minimum of five States with Managed Care Organizations or Prepaid Inpatient Health Plans. The technical assistance is intended to guide States through the process, including enhancing State Quality Strategies, through participation in activities such as regional collaboratives, and improving performance reporting.
Performance Measure Table |
||
---|---|---|
Performance Measure: Improve the Quality of Health Care for Medicaid Beneficiaries through Demonstrated Enhancements to Overall State Quality Strategies. |
||
Year |
Target |
Result |
2007 |
Following technical assistance from CMS, demonstrate that a minimum of five states with Managed Care Organizations (MCO) and/or Prepaid Inpatient Health Plans (PIHP):
|
02/2007 |
Data Source: Developmental. States report quality improvement efforts via several vehicles including state quality improvement strategies (CFR 438.204 Subpart D), External Quality Review Organizations (EQRO) Reports (CFR 438.310-438.70 Subpart E), program evaluation reports, and performance measurement reports. A combination of these data sources will be analyzed, when available and appropriate, to ensure a comprehensive review of state quality improvement activities. |
||
Data Validation: Developmental. CMS has developed standardized templates and protocols for review and validation of quality improvement strategies, selected EQRO requirements, and program evaluations. The elements of the template are stored electronically and help to facilitate objective and consistent reviews between the states. |
||
Performance Budget Reference: FY 2007 CJ, Pg 270. |
Performance Measure: Improve Health Care Quality Across SCHIP.
In direct support of HHS Strategic Goal 3, SCHIP is the largest expansion of health insurance coverage for children in more than 30 years. Its implementation has improved access to health care and the quality of life for millions of vulnerable children under 19 years of age. SCHIP was created through the Balance Budget Act of 1997 and was authorized through FY 2007. Under title XXI of the Social Security Act, States are given the option of creating their SCHIP program by expanding Medicaid (title XIX) coverage, setting up a separate SCHIP program, or creating a combination of the two. To date, SCHIP has 6.9 million beneficiaries enrolled and continues its focus on increasing healthcare enrollment for low income children.
The performance measure related to improving the quality of health care across the SCHIP program supports HHS Strategic Goal 3 by continuing to focus on the number of children who have access to quality healthcare. To focus on improving access to quality healthcare, CMS began collecting SCHIP performance data through State annual reports in FY 2003. Using this data, CMS is providing technical assistance to States on measurement methodologies and appropriate targets for SCHIP core measures to improve children's access to quality healthcare. Through the analysis of these reports, CMS has successfully tracked State progress since FY 2003. In order to increase the value of these reports for FY 2007, CMS will revise the FY 2006 annual report template to include state quality improvement effort data.
Performance Measure Table |
||
---|---|---|
Performance Measure: Improve Health Care Quality Across SCHIP. |
||
Year |
Target |
Result |
2007 |
Revise FY 2006 Annual report template to reflect states' quality improvement efforts. |
12/2006 |
2006 |
Improve reporting by States on core performance measures in order to have at least 25% of States reporting at least one core performance measure in FY 2004 Annual Report. |
06/2006 |
2005 |
Continue to collect core performance measurement data from States through the State annual reports; Use the new automated State Annual Report Template System (SARTS) to analyze and evaluate performance data; and Provide technical assistance to States on establishing baselines, measurement methodologies, and targets for SCHIP core measures. |
Goal met. Performance data has been collected and analyzed in SARTS. Technical assistance has been provided |
2004 |
Refine data submission, methodological processes, and reporting; Produce 2002 performance measures in standardized reporting format; and Collect 2003 data (baseline) from States. |
Goal met. Data collection process refined and FY 2003 data collected. |
2003 |
To begin working on States on the PMPP; Report on results of the meeting with States and identify a timeline for implementing recommendations; Identify a strategy for improving health care delivery and/or quality, and specify measures for gauging improvement; Initiate action steps for implementing recommendations; and Begin to implement core SCHIP performance measures. |
Goal met. Identified a timeline for implementing recommendations and a strategy for improving health care delivery and/or quality, specified measures for gauging improvement and began to implement core SCHIP performance measures. |
Data Source: Developmental. Beginning in FY 2003, CMS began collecting SCHIP performance measures through the SCHIP annual reports. In addition, CMS created an automated web-based system, SARTS, which allows States to input and submit their annual reports to CMS via the internet. This system allows CMS to better analyze data submitted by States, specifically the progress States are making toward meeting their individual SCHIP goals. |
||
Data Validation: Developmental. CMS will monitor performance measurement data related to the SCHIP core performance measures through SARTS. In addition, State performance data submitted through SARTS will be monitored to assure that individual State goals are consistent with the approved Title XXI SCHIP State plan. |
||
Performance Budget Reference: FY 2007 CJ, Pg. 280 |
Last revised: February 20, 2006