Council on Employee Health

1
Council on Employee Health Productivity
Creating an EMPAQSM Why Standardized
Metrics Are Important to Your Organization
Presentation to the 3rd IFDM October 11, 2006
2
About The Business Group

• The Business Group is the only national,
  non-profit organization exclusively devoted to
  representing the perspective of large employers
  and providing practical solutions to its members'
  most important health care problems.

3
Who is Behind the Project?

• Council on Employee Health Productivity (CEHP)
• Formed early in 2001
• Most active innovative Council established by
  the National Business Group on Health
• Major priority is to address problems and issues
  facing employers regarding absence, productivity
  disability programs

4
2006 CEHP Member Listing
Aon Consulting Ascension Health Boston
Scientific Cisco Dell EDS Emdeon General
Electric GlaxoSmithKline Hannaford Bros. H-E-B
Grocery IBM
Ingenix Johnson Johnson JPMorganChase LCG Lockhe
ed Martin Mercer HR Consulting Pitney
Bowes QuadGraphics Sedgwick CMS 3M
Company Watson-Wyatt
5
When Senior Management Asks

• Do we have an absence problem?
• How do we compare against our competition?
• Why are our numbers increasing?

6

• Can you answer?

7

• Creating Value for Employers
• via
• Standardized Metrics

8
The Branding of EMPAQ
Employers, Insurers, TPAs, Brokers, Consultants
and Academia all provided input to create the
chosen brand name
(E) mployer (M) easures of (P) roductivity, (A)
bsence and (Q) uality
October 2002 NBGH Conference
9

• . Is EMPAQSM
• Inside your
• Benchmarking Program?

10
Categories and Metrics
Administrative Effectiveness 10. Timeliness of
Claim Payment 11. Accuracy of Payment of
Benefits 12. Timely Decision of
ClaimAcceptance 13. Accuracy of Decision of
Claim Acceptance

• Cost
• 1. Benefit Cost per Employee
• 2. Average Benefit Cost Per Claim
• 3. Benefit Cost as a of Payroll
• Productivity Outcomes
• 4. Lost Days per 100 Employees
• 5. Average Claim Duration
• 6. Annual Claim Incidence
• 7. Employee Satisfaction
• 8. Return to Work Effectiveness
• 9. Family Medical Leave Measures

These protocols serve as recommendations to
employers to measure various claim services. At
this time, data are not collected and reported on
these protocols
11
The Metrics, By Program
12
Limited Answers, But Why?

• In Healthcare
• HEDIS provides definitions and standards against
  which delivery of medical care is measured
• In Health and Safety
• OSHA has developed standards and measures
  programs against them
• In Absence and Disability
• there was no standardization of measures, no
  regulatory body, no answers

13
Making the Business Case

14
Making the BusinessCase in Texas

The New York Self-Insurance Association is
targeting an EMPAQSM presentation in January
2007, for similar in-state use of the metrics.
15
Making the BusinessCase in Texas
EMPAQ can help to DWC possibly

• Create a research and evaluation function for
  workers compensation (WC) to conduct various
  studies and data analysis.

• 2. Meet their requirements to publish consumer
  report cards on the costs, quality, EE
  satisfaction, utilization and effectiveness of WC
  networks.

16
Evolution Phases 2001 2003
Describe Project
Proof of Concept

• HIGHLIGHTS
• Define Project Scope
• Establish Funding
• Environmental Scan
• Thought Leader Input
• Create Data Definitions
• Complete CEHP Feasibility Pilot
• Define Collaboration Goals
• Build Consensus Strategy Industry-Wide

• HIGHLIGHTS
• Kicked Off Industry-Wide Consensus Campaign
• Partnered with IBI, DMEC NCQA
• Established Tech Advisory Board
• Refined metrics for FMLA, RTW, Employee
  Satisfaction
• Expanded Employer Participation in IBIs Full
  Cost Study
• Devised 2004 Delivery Model

17
Evolution2003 - 2005
Including Employer Focus Groups
18
Who Helped?
Companies Participating in Development of New
Metrics

• Pfizer
• DMEC
• ULR
• Watson-Wyatt
• Qwest
• Prudential
• SHPS/eBenX
• LewisCo., Inc.
• AAA of California
• Sedgwick CMS
• General Mills
• Cornell University

• IBI
• Ingenix
• Aetna
• VPA
• FedEx
• Ford Motor Company
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield
• Verizon
• CORE
• VPA
• Reed Group, Ltd.
• Work Loss Data Institute

19
Technical Advisory Board
Participating Organizations

• IBI
• Aon
• MEDSTAT
• CIGNA
• Prudential
• Watson-Wyatt
• Hughes Electronics
• LewisCo., Inc.
• GlaxoSmithKline
• Merck
• Towers Perrin

• Sedgwick CMS
• Mercer HR Consulting
• Qwest
• VPA
• AHPM
• Ingenix
• Hewitt
• SHPS/eBenX
• DMEC
• HealthPartners
• GUAA

20
Collaboration

• Comprehensive Coverage
• Local DMEC Membership Chapters grass roots
  awareness education
• IBI manages benchmarking process
• 27 EMPAQ Presentations to major industry groups
• 9 Articles in well-known publications
• From October, 2002 to present
• over 750 representatives from 500 organizations
  have provided input to EMPAQSM Project

21
TODAY, A Company Can

• Improve its Outcomes
• Ability to track, assess manage to standards
  over time
• Validate relationship between health and
  productivity
• Enhance its Quality
• Improve services for employees
• Establish standards measures for credible data
  analysis
• Collect evidence-based results to correlate
  initiatives with clear outcomes
• Effectively Manage its Costs
• Improve program industry credibility
• Quantify outcomes with reproducible methods
• Establish clear and consistent ROI document
  return on human capital investment

22
Value Proposition -Employers Suppliers

• Employers can
• a.   Use standardized metrics within their
  organization, with other EMPAQ certified
  employers, or with their supplier partners.
• b. Operate with confidence that data was
  gathered utilizing established criteria, ensuring
  data integrity.
• c. Implement protocols for determining the
  effectiveness of health and productivity
  management programs.
• d. Obtain current, comparative results for
  internal analysis.

• Suppliers will
• a.   Provide value and confidence to clients
  that data reported is certified accepted by the
  industry.
• b. Set uniform standards for measurement that are
  Employer/Client focused Outcome Driven.
• c. Assist clients with collection and submission
  of program data to ease burden on employers.

23
EMPAQSM InsideWhy Participate?

• Metrics are standardized and certified by
  employer and industry leaders
• A company is able to examine and benchmark their
  Cost, Incident, and Duration of Absence
• Via IBIs Benchmarking Programs
• Employers and their various strategic partners
  can establish a starting point for education,
  discussion, and examination

24
2006 CEHP Sponsors and Partners

Business Group Founding Sponsor
25
Process Map
Process Map
Potential Data Provider
Provide Data
Benchmarking/ Data Collection
EMPAQ Certification Activities
EMPAQSM Inside RESULTS Certified Data Reported
by Industry with Individual Reports Annual
Reports
26
Training

• Four Interactive e-based Training Modules
• Workers Compensation
• STD
• LTD
• Family Medical Leave

27
Workers' Compensation Metrics  
EMPAQSM metrics defined for Workers
Compensation include
Please refer to the EMPAQ Metrics At A Glance
Handout
28
Employee Satisfaction

• The Value of Employee Satisfaction Surveys
• For the initial phase of EMPAQSM, the
  satisfaction survey was developed for employees
  who had an STD claim that was approved (at least
  initially) and returned to work.
• Identifying Your Sample Group
• By Claim Type, Status Closed Claim Reason
• Communicating With Your Sample Group
• By E-mail or Postal Delivery
• Survey Results
• Demographics, Question Specific Responses,
  Internal Use

29
Employee Satisfaction Metrics   For the first
generation of EMPAQSM data collection, there are
two metrics for Employee Satisfaction
30
Certification

• Required to pass on-line Post Test to achieve
  certification
• Certification is proof of your knowledge and
  understanding of the process to collect the
  standardized EMPAQSM metrics
• Certification is for submission of data

31
Benchmarking Crossing Boundaries
Key Question
How do I optimize performance across
benefit programs?
32
Crossing Boundaries
Benefits/HR
Risk/Finance
Group Health
Workers Comp
Incid. Abs.
STD
LTD
FMLA
33
Data Submission Benchmarking

• 2005 Data Collection Timeframe - April 1 Sept
  15, 2006
• 2 IBI Benchmarking Programs with EMPAQ SM
  Inside
• Single Program for
• Covering WC, STD, LTD and/or FML programs
• Full-Cost Program
• Includes 4 single programs PLUS Group Health
  Incidental Absence

34
The Challenge

• Sufficient data for robust metrics calculations
  and comparisons
• Aggregate data vs. claim-specific data
• Analysis of experience drivers
• Data sources

35
Single-Program SAMPLE REPORT

• Metrics Scorecard
• Employer Issues and Metrics
• Results by Metric
• Participant Plan-Specific Results
• Analysis Results of Key Drivers
• Methodology for Calculating Lost Productivity

36
Full-Cost Program SAMPLE REPORT

• The Employers Economic Burden What it Costs
  the Company
• Claims Experience Where the Money Goes
• Lost Time A Key Driver of Lost Productivity
• Program-Specific Results

37
Results 2004 - 2005

• Since 2004
• 247 employers participated
• 556 data sets collected
• 15 different industry sectors
  represented
• Over 400 Employer Supplier Representatives
  Trained Certified

Reflects 2003 and 2004 program years
38
Sample of Participating Companies

• AOL
• Ascension Health
• The Auto Club Group
• The Boeing Company
• Campbell Soup
• Coca Cola Bottling
• Coors Brewing Co.
• Dell
• General Electric Co.
• General Motors Corp.
• Georgia-Pacific Corp.
• Hannaford Bros. Co.
• H. E. B. Grocery Co.
• Highmark

• Honda of America Mfg.
• IBM
• Kraft Foods
• Levi Strauss
• Microsoft
• PepsiCo
• Pfizer
• Pitney Bowes
• SBC Communications
• Target Corporation
• Texas Health Resources
• UnitedHealth Group
• US Steel Corp.
• Wells Fargo Company

39
15 Different Industry Sectors

40
KEY LESSONS LEARNED

• Employers embrace the concept of standardized
  data elements
• New EMPAQSM Single-Program approach to
  benchmarking appears to make participation more
  accessible for employers
• Participation levels and data completeness
  initially posed a challenge
• but vastly improved for WC in 2005
• New data collection strategy needed in 2006

41
Results2006

• For 2005 data
• Supplier Data Consortium established
• To submit client claim level data
• Easing collection burden for ERs
• Data sets from 1,200-1,500 employers to be
  collected

42
The 2006 IBI Benchmarking Data Consortium

• Aetna
• Aon
• Broadspire
• Cambridge
• CIGNA
• Crawford

• Gates, McDonald
• Hartford Life
• Matrix
• MetLife
• Sedgwick CMS

43
EMPAQSM Employer Focus Group Discussion Points

• WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES?
• WHAT COULD EMPAQSM DO BETTER?
• WHAT SHOULD FUTURE PROGRAM YEARS CONSIDER?

• WHY STANDARDIZED METRICS?
• WHAT BENEFIT(S) DO WE DERIVE?
• WHAT BENEFITS HAVE WE SEEN?
• WHAT ACTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN?

This feedback is collected from all employer
discussion meetings and, is used for process
improvement and new metric development.
44
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 1ST YEAR

• What did the data show?

45
BENEFIT PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
gt by 85 in 2005
46
PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
47
INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION
48
PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
By industry
49
METRICS AVAILABILITY
Proof for need!
50
SAMPLE WORKERS COMPENSATION METRICS
51
SAMPLE STD METRICS
52
Manufacturing Group Claim Payments by Benefit
Type
53
VISIT WWW.EMPAQ.ORG
FOR MORE INFORMATION