There is no excerpt because this is a protected post.
Tag Archives: cost reduction claims
Shorter KPI Ninja/Nextera SVVSD report
“We used a statistically valid risk measurement tool and determined that there was a a non-Nextera population had a 7.5% difference greater level of risk then our Nextera population. But don’t believe that result, because it was not statistically valid.” “We reduced inpatient hospital 92.7%. Want to know how great we are? Our statistically validContinue reading “Shorter KPI Ninja/Nextera SVVSD report”
KPI Ninja/Nextera report: every single cost comparison has a 10% benefit design error.
In KPI Ninja’s “School District Claims Analysis” comparing claims costs under the Nextera plan and the competing fee for service (Choice) plan, the “Analyst” overlooked two major differences between the plans in how the “School District” pays “Claims“. Nextera members pay post-deductible coinsurance at a 20% rate and the district pays an 80% share. ButContinue reading “KPI Ninja/Nextera report: every single cost comparison has a 10% benefit design error.”
KPI Ninja’s Nextera risk measurement charade
Abstract: The Nextera “study” by KPI Ninja misappropriated the prestige of a Johns Hopkins research team to support its risk measurement claims; relied on an undisclosed and unvalidated methodology for obtaining population risk measurements; obtained highly dubious risk measurement results; and sharply mischaracterized the significance of those results. In the end, because applying even theirContinue reading “KPI Ninja’s Nextera risk measurement charade”
KPI Ninja’s Nextera analysis: more than enough problems.
Three major adjustments are needed, even without correcting the IP admit rate problem or arriving at a more reasonable risk adjustment. Comparing data from Nextera patients and non-Nextera patients in the SVVSD programs requires three major adjustments which KPI Ninja never attempted. Computations here. Because of the different benefit structures, the district’s claim costs forContinue reading “KPI Ninja’s Nextera analysis: more than enough problems.”
KPI Ninja’s Nextera study: a “single blunder” introduction
The KPI Ninja report on Nextera’s school district program claims big savings when employees chose Nextera’s direct primary care rather than traditional primary care. But the analysis reflects inadequacy of a high order. Here’s a starter course of cluelessness, actually one the report’s smaller problems. The report ignored the effect of an HRA made availableContinue reading “KPI Ninja’s Nextera study: a “single blunder” introduction”
Nextera did not reduce inpatient hospital admissions by 92.7%.
Abstract: KPI Ninja’s report on Nextera’s direct primary care plan for employees of a Colorado school district clinic claims profoundly good results: nearly $1000 per year in savings for every Nextera clinic member and a staggering 92.7% reduction in inpatient hospital admissions. Both claims rest on the proposition that a population of middle-aged. middle-class, white-collar,Continue reading “Nextera did not reduce inpatient hospital admissions by 92.7%.”
Nextera’s Next Era in Cherry-Picking Machine Design
Note: revised and redated for proximity to related material. Original version June 27, 2020. In June of 2020, Nextera HealthCare had a hot new brag: These results were not risk adjusted. But they desperately needed to be. The St Vrain Valley School District had this health benefit structure for its employees during the period studied:Continue reading “Nextera’s Next Era in Cherry-Picking Machine Design”
Medi-Share gives its Christian take on DPC downstream cost savings: $31 — a year.
Christian Care Ministry (“Medi-Share”), whose 400,000 members account for more than a quarter of health cost sharing members nationally, recently acted to allow some of its members to receive credit for their entire direct primary care membership fees up to $1800 per year. That there is a certain synergy between DPC and health cost sharingContinue reading “Medi-Share gives its Christian take on DPC downstream cost savings: $31 — a year.”
Downstream consequences when employers fall for non-risk-adjusted data brags.
Do you remember when Union County’s three year DPC commitment for 2016-2018 was claimed to be saving Union County $1.25 Million per year? So why did Union County’s health benefits expenditure rise twice as fast as can be explained by the combined effect of medical price inflation* and workforce growth? For the first year orContinue reading “Downstream consequences when employers fall for non-risk-adjusted data brags.”