Good afternoon and good morning, and welcome everyone. Thank you for joining today's state focused discussion on advanced primary care. My name is Amy Masajowski, Deputy Director for State Affairs at NCQA, and we are excited to bring this topic to you today. We hope today's presentation will be both informative on how NCQA is defining advanced primary care and serve as a forum to gather feedback from our partners on how this program could impact the care delivery space. We look forward to a thoughtful and engaging conversation. Thanks again for being here, and let's get started. Next slide, please. Just some housekeeping before we jump into the content. We will be sharing a lot of information during our time today. If you have a question that you would like the speakers to address, please insert it into the Q and A box on Zoom. Or during the end of the presentation, during the Q and A portion, feel free to raise your hand and we can unmute you. This session will be recorded and sent to you after, as well as links that'll direct you to make public comments on the program we will be discussing today. Next slide. What can you expect from our call? During today's webinar, our speakers will provide an overview of NCQA's Advanced Primary Care Accreditation Program that is now out for public comment. They will delve into the APC standard domains and the measure domains of the program. This webinar serves as one way to gather your feedback during the public comment period, so please participate in the polling questions that are sprinkled throughout. So without further ado, I'd like to transition to Jeff Sicko, NCQA's Assistant Vice President of Product Management. Jeff? Thank you very much, Amy, and good afternoon or good morning, everyone, depending upon your time zone. Thank you, again, as Amy said, for joining us today. If we can go into the next slide. So I'm going to state something that I'm sure is obvious for everyone in this room, but nonetheless, I'm going to say it out loud. Primary care is the front door to our entire health care system. It is the most foundational, the most personal, the single most consequential point of contact that a patient consistently has with their care. And yet and yet, for decades, primary care has continued to be undervalued, under resourced, and under supported. We have been on that path, and it is not a path that is sustainable. Something has to change if we want to impact the single most powerful opportunity to have the greatest effect on the most patients and on their health care quality. What we are building with our advanced primary care accreditation is a new standard pun intended. That's an NCQA joke one that finally recognizes care delivery organizations that are actually doing the hard, unglamorous, deeply human work of team based, person centered care at scale. Care that integrates behavioral health instead of siloing it. Care that confronts social needs and disparities instead of looking past them. Care that is accountable, that is data driven, that is measured by outcomes, not by visit volume, not by check the box compliance. So why now? Why are we developing this advanced primary care program now? We've been working with the patient centered medical home model for a long time. And this model, I should say, does not replace that. We consider the patient centered medical home model foundational for the work that builds into advanced primary care. But we're doing this work now because the market has sufficiently matured, to be very honest with you. Value based contracting is no longer an experiment. It is the direction in which every one of your states is moving. Bilateral data exchange is finally technologically real, technologically implementable today. Provider consolidation has changed the shape of who is actually delivering care and how. And because of that consolidation, advanced primary care, this particular accreditation program, is designed to accredit at the highest level of organizational accountability. So that may often be a clinically oriented clinically integrated network, a parent health system, an accountable care organization, or a medical group that is answerable for quality, that is answerable for contracts, for performance across all the applicable practice sites. So that gives your state a single accountable entity to anchor Medicaid and value based payment arrangements to. So the infrastructure now exists. What has been missing is a shared, credible definition of what truly excellent primary care looks like when delivered at scale. That is exactly what this advanced primary care model is intending to deliver, and your voice as states is what will help to shape it. Next slide, please. Perfect. So why does advanced primary care even matter? And why does it matter to you as states right now? CMS has rolled out the advanced primary care management billing codes, creating bundled payments for coordinated primary care. And advanced primary care, our accreditation model, aligns directly with those service criteria. We've heard a lot from plans, from employers, and in terms of cross payer initiatives, they're all signaling the same thing. They all want a shared quality framework including demonstrable outcomes, but that goes beyond the patient centered medical home model. Something that states can anchor Medicaid value based payment and multi payer alignment to, and let's be honest about the gaps that advanced primary care is built to close. Today, as I mentioned earlier, there's no standard definition of what quote unquote advanced primary care looks like beyond PCMH. Nothing to really signal value based payment readiness in your state programs. We have measurement chaos. Every program counts quality a little bit differently. Providers are drowning in different measures across different contracts trying to juggle it all. And in the Patient Centered Medical Home Model, as I mentioned, it is foundational. It has important capabilities that set one up for success. But today, it is binary. You're either in or you're out. There's no maturity pathway today. No way to tier incentives. No way to track an organization's growth over time. That is a problem that advanced primary care was purpose built to solve. So what does this mean for your state? Three things. First, you can verify verify value based payment readiness up front before delivery systems sign a contract or anyone sends a payment instead of relying on lagging performance data and hoping for the best. So we've worked to build leading indicators of value based payment success into this model. That reduces risk in every payment model you or MCOs run. Second, you finally have a standardized graduated quality framework that you can reference in Medicaid value based payment, managed care, contracting, and multi payer initiatives. And third, advanced primary care gives you a way to align incentives across the entire care continuum. Plans, providers, states all pulling in the same direction, measuring the same way, accountable for the same outcomes. The reason we are here in public comment is simple. We will not get this right without you. Your feedback, your state's lived reality is what will make this program actually work on the ground. So please, please engage in public comment with us. Please push back. Please tell us what is missing. That is exactly how we're going to build something that's worthy of the patients and providers that we're working with. So if we can go to the next slide. I am going to transition to the overview of standards and pass the presentation to Faith Hossel on the product team who is our analyst who supports the development of our primary care work, our senior product analyst who supports the work of advanced primary care. Faith? Thank you so much, Deb. Trying to be one of Jeff's side of Faith, project analyst, also the WNS standardider for this project. So today I'm going to walk through the actual standard content that we have currently for the advanced primary care organization program. This program, have developed and sent to public comment last week, and we've leveraged a lot of market and pilot feedback that we've collected of this. I see Christine's comment. Can you guys hear me now? Maybe? Let's see. Okay. Thanks, Christine. Sorry. I'm upstairs on my rooftop because my Wi Fi is not working in my apartment, which is always great. So, yeah, that being said, we can go to the next slide, please. So at a glance, APC is really an outcomes driven accreditation that is built on a maturity model to allow organizations to progress in their maturity and grow over time. From January to about May of this year, we've tested our draft pilot standards and measures with four diverse organizations that represent health systems, a network of FQHCs, and an accountable care organization. This feedback has allowed us to refine and make meaningful changes ahead of public comment. So our program's public comment standards currently consist of seventeen standards and forty four elements spread across six domains. These domains are population health management, coordinated team based care, patient safety and experience, behavioral health, clinical quality, and data management and exchange. So the program design is pretty similar to the accreditation design that your states may already be familiar with. This is a three year accreditation cycle. And if accredited, you will get a tier depending on the organization's total score that they accumulate at the end. These comments are scored as met, meaning they get either full points, partially meaning organizations get half points, and not met, meaning the organizations get no points. So from the state perspective, like Jeff said, we believe that this design and these domains are actually elevating the accountability from the practice to the organization level and are aligned with managed care oversight today. In addition, the graduated tiers could potentially enable states to differentiate incentives and benchmarks, depending on the organization. And finally, the same set of measures that I'll allow my colleague in the next section to talk about will allow for share accountability framework that can be applied consistently to compare organizations at the same scale. Next slide, please. So I'll go ahead and start with our first domain, which is the population health management section. We have four standards that make up this domain. Starting at the top, our first standard really focuses on population health program oversight. So this is where organizations establish their governance structure, develop an annual population health plan, communicate about their programs to both patients and clinicians, and then conduct an annual evaluation of those programs. So here, it's really about setting the strategy and making sure there's accountability for the execution and quality improvement for the population as a whole. The second is PHM two, which is our population identification. Here, we're asking organizations to system systematically collect and integrate patient data and then use that data to assess the needs of their population, including targeting and segmenting their population with an evaluation for bias. So here, we believe this is what lets organizations actually understand who they're serving and then edit or modify their programs based on the needs. PHM three is complex care management. So once organizations have identified their highest risk patients, this standard expects the organizations to provide access to care management and define and follow a defined care management process so those patients can connect the highest risk patients to the services and resources that they need. And finally, the last standard here is PHM four. This is about self management tools. This ensures that organizations have evidence based resources available to help patients manage their own health between their visits with their providers. Now turning us to why all this matters for states. We believe that these standards give a structured way to target those high risk populations, which is critical for Medicaid programs where a small share of members typically drive a large share of spend and outcomes. We've heard that a lot from the market. And then we believe that all of these requirements do raise the bar on that population health management accountability. So states can point to a clear governance structure and improvement cycle inside of their accredited organizations rather than relying solely on a downstream reporting structure. And because the standards require population assessments and disparity we're targeting, they can directly support state priorities around closing health care gaps. Next slide, please, which I believe takes us into our first polling question. So the first question we want to ask is, which PHM capability is the most important for advancing your state's Medicaid program or value based payment strategy? We'll give about thirty seconds for you folks to respond. Okay. Great. So I think from the results, it's kind of split across the board. But it looks like the PHN program oversight and the population identification were the two highest rated things. So thank you so much for that input. We can go to the next slide. So next, we have our second category, which is coordinated team based care. This really focuses on how care teams work together and how patients move through the care delivery system. Starting with our first standard, this is a strategy based standard. So for this one, we're asking organizations to articulate and produce a clear team based care strategy that they use so we can see that care is being delivered in a consistent, coordinated, and efficient way across the organization. This kind of feeds into the next standard, which is our, CTC two care coordination. This has the most elements in this domain, but it covers a lot of things. So we're looking at referral management, transitions of care, and reporting on both readmission rates and acute care utilization. The intent for the standard is really to try to optimize care coordination processes so there are fewer gaps as patients are moving between different providers and different care settings. The third standard is about staff culture and experience. So here, we're asking organizations to assess staff experience and actively monitoring and mitigating that clinician or staff burnout. So the idea here is we're really asking organizations to show that their workforce is being supported and heard, so that way they can deliver the high quality care that's expected of them. And then the last standard is our alternative payment arrangement standard. This standard is really looking at organizations' participation in alternative based payment arrangements, the organization's capacity to absorb risk, and then how they are taking those dollars that they have received from these payment arrangements and then reinvesting them into primary care specific activities or infrastructure. So we believe that these standards are designed to reduce, gaps in care and improve coordination, which is one of the most consistent pain points we've heard from not only Medicaid agencies but, managed care plans and across the board. So we think that the focus on transitions, referrals, readmissions, acute care utilization will help reduce avoidable utilization and then directly, hopefully, support state goals around better outcomes and lower total cost of care. I think we can go to the next slide, which is our next polling question. So we would like to know what is the biggest gap in care coordination specifically that your state faces today? Okay. And to no surprise, the highest rate gap, was the data sharing across providers. This came up a lot throughout our pilot, and then the second most was referral management. So team will definitely take that into consideration and, look and show you what we get from public comment because I'm sure that'll come up a lot. And we can move to the next slide. So next, we have, patient safety and experience. It's worth flagging upfront that if you are familiar with our PCMH, criteria, this is probably the most closely mapped to PCMH. So a lot of these concepts will probably feel familiar. We'll spend a ton of time here. But we try to take similar concepts and then raise the bar with organizational level expectations and a little bit more emphasis on, driving those outcomes that we're trying to allow organizations to demonstrate. So our first standard here is, PSC one, which is access to services. Here, we're asking to talk about the access to their care team, any enhanced communication opportunities that they provide, such as virtual visits or any asynchronous, communication channels. And then also, we're asking them to demonstrate appointment availability. The second standard is medication management, covering typical things like medication reconciliation. A little bit of a harder thing we've heard in the pilot, but deemed important, medication response and adherence, and then analyzing prescribing patterns. The third standard we have here is patient centered experience. So similar to the standard that assesses clinician and staff experience, here, we're asking organizations to assess the patient experience and then demonstrate improvement on that experience over time. So not just about collecting survey data, but actually setting measurable goals and then acting on what patients tell you to improve the experience. So, for states, we think that these standards are promoting better access to care and timely services, which is, again, a challenge we hear most commonly across the different organizations and Medicaid populations. We've spoken to some agencies about this already. But in addition, the medication management expectations, we're hoping can reduce medication risks and improve safety in addition to directly lowering costs and bettering the outcomes within state programs. And finally, we think that the patient experience standard, it's a little open ended. We're allowing organizations right now at this point to use either a homegrown survey and covering some core domains or using a commonly used validated tool. But we believe that this gives states the confidence that the accredited organizations are not only measuring experience, but, again, trying to actively improve for the patients that they serve. So we can go to the next slide, which is our third polling question. And the question we want to know is what is the biggest access challenge that within your state's primary care system at this time? Awesome. So the highest or the biggest access challenge reported kinda split across the board, but the top two, timely appointment access or excuse me, timely appointment availability and then behavioral health access. So behavioral health access kind of feeds into our next slide. So we can move to the next slide and talk a little bit about what APC is trying to do to address that. So behavioral health was definitely one of the more well received and important domains in our pilot. So across our four organizations, this is the area where I wouldn't say there was the strongest consensus necessarily, but overall, all the organizations believe the standards were meaningful, actionable, and really trying to address a gap in primary care today. We have three standards within this domain. The first is access and integration. This is where we're trying to allow organizations to demonstrate what type of access to behavioral health services they have. We're also asking about referrals. And then if they do have services within their organization, what services? So the intent here is really to ensure that patients can get behavioral health care in some way through their primary care organization and that behavioral health services, excuse me, are integrated into medical care rather than just siloed off on the side. The next standard is about behavioral health screenings. We're asking organizations to conduct routine behavioral health screenings, which include anxiety, depression, substance use disorder, alcohol use disorder, as well as any clinically integrated screenings that are of the organization's choice. Right now, we have screenings such as post traumatic stress disorder. I believe we have postpartum depression in there as well. But, if they have the ability to conduct those screenings, we wanna see that embedded in the standard care workflow. So the goal here, again, is to, provide consistent proactive identification of behavioral needs. And then feeding into the last standard, which is our, evidence based care standard, this standard requires organizations to provide brief interventions based on how they're screening and then monitoring those patients over time. This is to hopefully ensure that, behavioral health in the primary care setting, is not just being identified at intake, but is actually trying to be managed with evidence based guidelines. We're also trying to promote a little bit of measurement based care. We're asking organizations to use their screening or use their measurement evaluation to ensure that patients are improving. And if they're not improving, what are they doing in response to that? So again, here in this domain, we're really trying to go beyond just the screen and refer idea that typically happens in behavioral health care within primary care settings and move to ongoing management and accountability for outcomes. So what we've heard is that this domain aligns directly with some state incentives or, excuse me, initiatives to expand beyond behavioral health capacity and integration, and giving states a structured way to hold some organizations, accountable for integrating whole person care. And we can move to the next slide, which I think is another polling question. Which behavioral health capability is the highest priority for your state right now? Great. So, majority of people said expanding access to behavioral health services, was the highest priority for your state right now. The second was improving screening and early identification. Next slide, which I think is the final polling question from me, which is just trying to gauge, do a temperature check overall. From your perspective, how well do the advanced primary care standard align with your state's goals and value based payment strategy? And you can be honest. Okay. Well, good news. It looks like it aligns very well. That was what majority of people said. Of course, we have some somewhat aligns. We really appreciate that feedback as we continue to refine the standards post public comment. I'm sure we'll get a plethora of feedback from public comment, but I really enjoy your feedback and, your responses on the polling questions today. Thank you very I will turn it over to Adriana who will talk about our last two standards categories as well as our measure strategy for this. So, Adriana? Great. Thank you so much, Faith. Again, my name is Adriana Nav. I'm an applied research scientist here at NCQA, and I'll be talking about the last two standards that have to do with the measures. Next slide, please. So our first standard is related to clinical quality, and this standard has four elements in it. And the intent really is to look at the reporting of clinical quality measures and that the organization is able to demonstrate performance and improvement and, also able to identify performance gaps and address those. So as you can see, this is important because it promotes standardization across the care delivery system or network and alignment across measures with the, greater health care ecosystem, but it also supports value based care and payment models, and it really builds a foundation for population health management. Next slide. The next standard is looking at data management and exchange, and this domain has two standards in it. The first one looking at data integration and exchange and just making sure that there is standardization in core data elements that the organization is able to capture, but also looking at the use of advanced data integration, especially pulling in data from behavioral health, for example, or other specialty organizations. And then lastly, in this standard, looking at that bidirectional exchange of data and information within the EHR. With the DME two, this is looking at the use of FHIR. So looking to see if there's the ability for organizations to integrate FHIR data, be able to produce FHIR data, in the form of bundles and validate that data, and then at the last one of element c, looking if they can report on a FHIR digital quality measure. For this domain, NCQA has developed, FHIR digital quality measures that you'll notice will be denoted with the CD behind it, and that stands for care delivery. So those measure specifications are blended HEDIS measures, but they have been, specified for the care delivery system. And this is important because it builds the technical foundation for digital quality measurement within healthcare organizations, and the goal is to support interoperability and enhance states' ability to monitor performance across delivery systems. So I'll go into the measures on the next slide. So here you can see that we've included two types of measures within the APC program. The first one for the clinical quality standard domain, where we're looking at organization's ability to, demonstrate performance metrics, but also quality improvement, they'll be submitting data on ECQMs, and they will submit this annually at the network or, ACO level. And then for the FHIR DQMs, those are the ones that I just talked about that NCQA has created for care delivery, and this will assess the FHIR maturity and capabilities at the network level over time. So for the clinical quality standard domain, these are the eleven eCQMs that are included, or pending to be included in the, product by launch in November. And these measures align with measures that are found in the CMS Universal Foundation within the MIPS program as well as, Medicaid core sets. And we've also aligned and gotten feedback, from health plans about aligning with health plan ratings. So we wanted to make sure that there was standardization across different programs. We did get feedback from our pilot participants about additional measures for us to consider, such as kidney health evaluation, depression remission at twelve months, or even a child measure looking at weight assessment. Right now, we've included measures that, NCQA has eCQM measure is the measure steward. So as we look at other measures where we're not the steward, we'll work on integrating specific measures, over time. For the data management and exchange standard domain, we are introducing three FHIR DQMs, and these are, measures that have been specified for care delivery. And you can see here we have appropriate treatment for upper respiratory infection, blood pressure control for patients with hypertension, and colorectal cancer screening. These FHIR DQMs are optional within the program, so sites do not have to submit data on these, But the intent there is to build the FHIR capacity for organizations to, in the future, be able to submit FHIR DQMs. And since we don't currently have within our current measure set access or utilization measures just because they're not in an eCQM or in a DQM, measure specification. We will be collecting rates, and you can see four rates that we have introduced, for public comment to see if there's any feedback on these rates that we have currently within our care coordination standard domain. Next slide, please. So as NCQA begins to develop additional FHIR DQMs, the intent here is for us to build these new measure specifications, creating an an opportunity for, sites to submit more advanced data capabilities. And a lot of these measures that you see in our road map are the ECQM versions that have been respecified for the FHIR DQM measure specification. But as we continue to build out this road map, we are interested in, including new measures within this, measure set. So you can see, for example, you, in twenty twenty eight, we're looking at the adults' access to preventive health care services as well as child and adolescents' well care visit. We're also looking at a continuity measure, which we would adapt from ABFM, potentially. So this roadmap is also, in our public comment materials, and we're open to feedback on additional measures. You can see that the ones in bold are related to access, care coordination, and utilization. And those typically take additional time for us to build into a FHIR DQM format, and that's why you see them, a little bit staggered throughout this roadmap. Next slide, please. So for public comment, we are requesting feedback on the measure list within both the clinical quality standard as well as our FHIR DQM measures that we introduced. Measure specifications are also included in the public comment and just requesting feedback on the narratives and workflows. We've gotten a request for different levels of attribution for us to be looking at, whether it's by payer or, high risk groups. And then there's additional ones in public comment that we're also asking for feedback. In terms of benchmarking, we're thinking about aligning with the CMS MIPS program but are open to additional suggestions. So this is also open for public comment. And then when we were working with our pilot sites, there was a request for looking at potential adjustments for those organizations serving high risk or large uninsured populations, so requesting feedback on this as well. And our data exchange and integration standards specifically are pretty new, so, wanted to see if there was feedback on, that standard specifically. Next slide, question here is how well does the APC measure set align with your state's current quality priorities and reporting methods? And if you could please select one of the choices. And, Adriana, just as we're waiting for responses to come in there, I did just want to make one quick note along the lines of the measure strategy overview slide that Adriana had presented earlier. We had these standards associated with care coordination. We felt it was important in this model to start asking organizations to report on utilization rates where the data is available in terms of admissions, ED visits, readmissions. Again, when they have the ability to report that, we're very interested in that. Again, as we talk about how we're building this model to support performance in a value based ecosystem, we can have conversation if we're not talking about utilization rates. So just wanted to add that quick note on why we felt it was important to inject that into the program from a care coordination standpoint. We know, obviously, that those particular categories matter a great deal to you all, so just wanted to make that note quickly as we move on. Sorry to jump in, Adriana. No. It's great. Alright. So we got about fifty percent saying the measures and reporting methods align, and then a few say it aligns somewhat, and then a couple hearsay it aligns somewhat, but they're not reflective of states' quality priorities. And then we have one more additional question. And this one is related to data capabilities. So which data capability is most challenging for primary care and health systems? And we have a few selections there as well as all of the above. Alright. A good amount of states are reporting all of the above, but we also see a mix of challenges with integrating data from multiple sources, the bidirectional data exchange, buyer based reporting, and data standardization. So appreciate your feedback. And I'll pass it back to Amy. Great. Thanks, Adriana, for that overview, and Faith and Jeff. So I hope everyone now is furiously typing in their questions into the Q and A box. We have a moment in a few slides to go over any questions you may have on the information that was presented. But first, I want to thank everyone for your attention and for providing input during our polling questions. But wait, there's more ways for you to provide feedback. We encourage our partners to submit comments on our program during the public comment period. And on the next slide, I'll walk you through how. So to view the full recommendations for public comment, visit NCQA's public comment homepage linked on this slide, and click the Submit Comment button under the twenty twenty seven APC Accreditation Public Comments section. From there, you'll see a web page with what we've gone over in today's discussion. This is where you'll see a memo explaining the new accreditation, the public comment standards, and the measures. These go into the real details of the program. Please read these through before preparing to submit your comments. Next slide. So once you have reviewed the content, visit my. Ncqa dot org and log into your account, or create one if you don't already have one. On the home page, select the public comments button. From the next screen, you'll select the blue add comment button in the top right corner of the comments box. In the pop up box, find the box labeled twenty twenty seven APC accreditation public comment and select take survey. A new window will open up with a public comment survey form to collect your responses. Now if you have participated in public comment before, you will notice that the format is slightly different. It's more streamlined and more similar to submitting a survey. There is no longer a requirement to answer every question but to only comment on what you wish, so we hope this saves you a little time as well. So thank you in advance for submitting those comments. And you do have until eleven fifty nine Eastern Time on July tenth to do so. Next slide. All right. Here's the time now for our questions. So if you do have any questions, I don't see any open right now in the Q and A function. You can also raise your hand if you'd like to come off mute and ask a question, but I'll give everyone a few moments as they're typing questions in. We did get one question, Amy, that I I just wanted to quickly field to ask us to explain a little bit more about our pilot participants. Happy to go through that for a moment while we have some time. Perfect. So it was really important for us as we were organizing around the pilot to cut across different personas of primary care delivery. We have both care delivery and care enablement represented in the pilot. No trade secrets around our participants, so I'll I'll go ahead and name them for you. Bluegrass Community Health Center. So it's a multisite federally qualified health center. They have a few different locations familiar with our PCMH model. Jefferson Health, obviously known for their work as an innovative academic health system. New York City Health and Hospitals, so the nation's largest safety net system, obviously very important for us in terms of making sure that the provision of services for a substantial Medicaid driven population was accounted for in the program. And we had Alidade, the nation's largest care enabler represented, given that they represent significant footprint across independent practices and set them up for success. How does this align with their different models? And you can tell each one of them is very different from the other in how they approach success in this arena. So we felt that if it's going to be something that these organizations are able to validate for us, that it's something that's likely to work at scale. So we're very, very fortunate to have all of them represented and to help us to refine what the program ultimately is. Great. Thank you, Jeff. Yeah. I am not seeing other questions, but we would like to ask the the group if there are topics the states would like to see us create, additional education resources on to support the adoption of APC, as we develop the program. We would welcome that feedback. Either you could just put in the Q and A if the chat's not popping up for you, or you can always email us at publicpolicyncua dot org as well. We want to be able to support our state partners as we launch the new program and develop it further. Thanks, Amy. And I am happy to have any follow-up conversations with with anyone who's interested in continuing the discussion. You have other questions. Maybe you're feeling a little bit shy today. That's okay. I don't turn into a pumpkin after we hang up from this call, so happy to have any other discussions you'd like. Thanks, Rob. I think that seeing no other questions come in, we could go to our next slide to address that point as well. It is another polling question which I will launch, and it's really just to see if folks on the call are interested in learning more about APC more than what we've delved into this conversation or speaking to a member of NCQA's team. All right. Thank you to those who have responded to that polling question. If we can go to the next slide. And then one more. We have a final question. As promised, we are providing PCMH CCE credits to those who have attended today's webinar. So if you are interested in seeking that, please fill this polling question out, and we can assign the credits accordingly. So I'll leave that up, and we can go on to the next slide. All right. We invite you to join us and other health care leaders, innovators, and change makers at NCQA's Health Innovation Summit in Atlanta, Georgia this October. The summit hosts dynamic sessions on topics like digital transformation and value based care, and it's the premier forum to connect, learn, and drive meaningful impact. As always, there is a government discount available, and you can find more information at ncqasummit dot com. Next slide. If you scan the QR code on the screen, you can subscribe to our quarterly public policy notes newsletter, where we share details on state and federal initiatives, state resources, and other happenings at NCQA, including public comment. Next slide. As always, if you are at the following conferences, a member of our public policy team will be there. We will be attending the following three conferences into the summer, so stop by our booth or email us to schedule a time to connect. Next slide. Alright. Thank you again for your time today, for your input, and your dedication to advancing care delivery. See you next time.