Health Equity Adjustment and Hospital Performance in the Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Program.

Importance: Medicare's Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program will provide a health equity adjustment (HEA) to hospitals that have greater proportions of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and that offer high-quality care beginning in fiscal year 2026. However, which hospitals will benefit most from this policy change and to what extent are unknown. Objective: To estimate potential changes in hospital performance after HEA and examine hospital patient mix, structural, and geographic characteristics associated with receipt of increased payments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed all 2676 hospitals participating in the HVBP program in fiscal year 2021. Publicly available data on program performance and hospital characteristics were linked to Medicare claims data on all inpatient stays for dual-eligible beneficiaries at each hospital to calculate HEA points and HVBP payment adjustments. Exposures: Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program HEA. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reclassification of HVBP bonus or penalty status and changes in payment adjustments across hospital characteristics. Results: Of 2676 hospitals participating in the HVBP program in fiscal year 2021, 1470 (54.9%) received bonuses and 1206 (45.1%) received penalties. After HEA, 102 hospitals (6.9%) were reclassified from bonus to penalty status, whereas 119 (9.9%) were reclassified from penalty to bonus status. At the hospital level, mean (SD) HVBP payment adjustments decreased by $4534 ($90 033) after HEA, ranging from a maximum reduction of $1 014 276 to a maximum increase of $1 523 765. At the aggregate level, net-positive changes in payment adjustments were largest among safety net hospitals ($28 971 708) and those caring for a higher proportion of Black patients ($15 468 445). The likelihood of experiencing increases in payment adjustments was significantly higher among safety net compared with non-safety net hospitals (574 of 683 [84.0%] vs 709 of 1993 [35.6%]; adjusted rate ratio [ARR], 2.04 [95% CI, 1.89-2.20]) and high-proportion Black hospitals compared with non-high-proportion Black hospitals (396 of 523 [75.7%] vs 887 of 2153 [41.2%]; ARR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.29-1.51]). Rural hospitals (374 of 612 [61.1%] vs 909 of 2064 [44.0%]; ARR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.30-1.58]), as well as those located in the South (598 of 1040 [57.5%] vs 192 of 439 [43.7%]; ARR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.10-1.42]) and in Medicaid expansion states (801 of 1651 [48.5%] vs 482 of 1025 [47.0%]; ARR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.06-1.28]), were also more likely to experience increased payment adjustments after HEA compared with their urban, Northeastern, and Medicaid nonexpansion state counterparts, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Medicare's implementation of HEA in the HVBP program will significantly reclassify hospital performance and redistribute program payments, with safety net and high-proportion Black hospitals benefiting most from this policy change. These findings suggest that HEA is an important strategy to ensure that value-based payment programs are more equitable.

First Year of Skilled Nursing Facility Value-based Purchasing Program Penalizes Facilities With Poorer Financial Performance.

BACKGROUND: The Skilled Nursing Facility Value-based Purchasing Program (SNF-VBP) incentivizes facilities to coordinate care, improve quality, and lower hospital readmissions. However, SNF-VBP may unintentionally punish facilities with lower profit margins struggling to invest resources to lower readmissions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the SNF-VBP penalty amounts by skilled nursing facility (SNF) profit margin quintiles and examine whether facilities with lower profit margins are more likely to be penalized by SNF-VBP. RESEARCH DESIGN: We combined the first round of SNF-VBP performance data with SNF profit margins and characteristics data. Our outcome variables included estimated penalty amount and a binary measure for whether facilities were penalized by the SNF-VBP. We categorized SNFs into 5 profit margin quintiles and examined the relationship between profit margins and SNF-VBP performance using descriptive and regression analysis. RESULTS: The average profit margins for SNFs in the lowest profit margin quintile was -14.4% compared with the average profit margin of 11.1% for SNFs in the highest profit margin quintile. In adjusted regressions, SNFs in the lowest profit margin quintile had 17% higher odds of being penalized under SNF-VBP compared with facilities in the highest profit margin quintile. The average penalty for SNFs in the lowest profit margin quintile was $22,312. CONCLUSIONS: SNFs in the lowest profit margins are more likely to be penalized by the SNF-VBP, and these losses can exacerbate quality problems in SNFs with lower quality. Alternative approaches to measuring and rewarding SNFs under SNF-VBP or programs to assist struggling SNFs is warranted, particularly considering the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, which requires resources for prevention and management.

Evaluating the robustness of the CMS Hospital Value-Based Purchasing measurement system.

BACKGROUND: The Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (HVBP) is a pay for performance system that impacts traditional Medicare fee-for-service payments to hospitals through rewards and penalties. OBJECTIVES: To explore variation in overall and individual-hospital total performance score (TPS) and embedded domains for hospitals during 2014-2018. DATA SOURCE: Hospital data were retrieved from the publicly available HOSArchive dataset. STUDY DESIGN: Distribution of annual TPS and HVBP domain scores for 2014-2018 was evaluated using descriptive statistics. Transitional probabilities were analyzed to evaluate annual movement in the TPS ranking for outlier hospitals in the Top and Bottom 5%. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: TPS scores are positively skewed while the distribution of domain scores vary with patient experience, (clinical) outcome, and efficiency domains having a large number of (positive) outliers. Mean TPS score decreased from 40.54 in 2014 to 38.04 by 2018. Improvement was shown in mean domain scores for clinical process of care and clinical outcome using 95% confidence intervals, with hospitals gaining 10 points over the study period in clinical outcome. Changes in the mean scores for other domains did not show consistent increases or decreases. Chi-square analyses of hospital ranking categories showed some evidence that, as a group, hospitals initially ranked in the Bottom 5% are making consistent annual movements to higher categories. In contrast, over half of the hospitals ranking in the initial Top 5% remained in the top category across all study years. CONCLUSIONS: It may be time for CMS to redesign the HVBP incentive program to assure the measures accurately demonstrate sustained improvement, the domain weights appropriately reflect the level of importance, and the TPS comparative ranking methodology does not discourage lower-performing hospitals from actively improving the care they deliver and achieving top ranks.

Nearly One In Five Skilled Nursing Facilities Awarded Positive Incentives Under Value-Based Purchasing.

Medicare's Skilled Nursing Facility Value-Based Purchasing Program, which awards value-based incentive payments based on hospital readmissions, distributed its first two rounds of incentives during fiscal years 2019 and 2020. Incentive payments were based on achievement or improvement scores-whichever was better. Incentive payments were as low as -2.0 percent in both program years and as high as +1.6 percent in FY 2019 and +3.1 percent in FY 2020. In FY 2019, 26 percent of facilities earned positive incentives and 72 percent earned negative incentives, compared with 19 percent positive and 65 percent negative incentives in FY 2020. Larger, rural, and not-for-profit facilities were more likely to earn positive incentives, as were those with the highest registered nurse staffing levels. Although these findings indicate the potential to reward high-quality care at skilled nursing facilities, intended and unintended outcomes of this new value-based purchasing program should be monitored closely for possible program refinements, particularly in light of the disproportionate impacts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on nursing facilities.

Association Between Federal Value-Based Incentive Programs and Health Care-Associated Infection Rates in Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Hospitals.

Importance: In the US, federal value-based incentive programs are more likely to penalize safety-net institutions than non-safety-net institutions. Whether these programs differentially change the rates of targeted health care-associated infections in safety-net vs non-safety-net hospitals is unknown. Objective: To assess the association of Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) and Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) implementation with changes in rates of targeted health care-associated infections and disparities in rates among safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This interrupted time series included all US acute care hospitals enrolled in the Preventing Avoidable Infectious Complications by Adjusting Payment study that participated in mandatory reporting to the National Healthcare Safety Network from January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2018. Hospital characteristics were obtained from the 2015 American Hospital Association annual survey. Penalty statuses for 2015 to 2018 were obtained from Hospital Compare. Data were analyzed between July 9, 2018, and October 1, 2019. Exposures: HACRP and HVBP implementation in fiscal year 2015 or 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were rates of 4 health care-associated infections: central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), surgical site infection (SSI) after colon surgical procedures, and SSI after abdominal hysterectomy procedures. Regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations to assess the association of HACRP and HVBP implementation with health care-associated infection rates and disparities in infection rates. Results: Of the 618 acute care hospitals included in this study, 473 (76.5%) were non-safety net and 145 (23.5%) were considered safety net. In these hospitals, HACRP and HVBP implementation was not associated with improvements in level or trend for any health care-associated infection examined (eg, CAUTI in safety-net hospitals: incidence rate ratio [IRR] for level change, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.79-1.23; P = .89]; IRR for change in slope, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.97-1.03; P = .80]). Before program implementation, infection rates were statistically significantly higher for safety-net than for non-safety-net hospitals for CLABSI (IRR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42; P = .004), CAUTI (IRR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.16-1.64; P < .001), and SSI after colon surgical procedure (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.50; P = .009). The disparity persisted over time when comparing the last year of the study with the first year (CLABSI: ratio of ratios [ROR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77-1.13; P = .48]; CAUTI: ROR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.73-1.10; P = .31]; SSI after colon surgical procedures: ROR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.78-1.20; P = .75]). Rates of SSI after abdominal hysterectomy procedure were similar in safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals before implementation (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40; P = .27) but higher after implementation (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.11-1.83; P = .006), although this change was not significant (ROR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.91-1.59; P = .20). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that HACRP and HVBP implementation was not associated with any improvements in targeted health care-associated infections among safety-net or non-safety-net hospitals or with changes in disparities in infection rates. Given the persistent health care-associated infection rate disparities, these programs appear to function as a disproportionate penalty system for safety-net hospitals that offer no measurable benefits for patients.

Association between degree of exposure to the Hospital Value Based Purchasing Program and 30-day mortality: experience from the first four years of Medicare's pay-for-performance program.

BACKGROUND: The Hospital Value Based Purchasing Program (HVBP) in the United States, announced in 2010 and implemented since 2013 by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), introduced payment penalties and bonuses based on hospital performance on patient 30-day mortality and other indicators. Evidence on the impact of this program is limited and reliant on the choice of program-exempt hospitals as controls. As program-exempt hospitals may have systematic differences with program-participating hospitals, in this study we used an alternative approach wherein program-participating hospitals are stratified by their financial exposure to penalty, and examined changes in hospital performance on 30-day mortality between hospitals with high vs. low financial exposure to penalty. METHODS: Our study examined all hospitals reimbursed through the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) - which include most community and tertiary acute care hospitals - from 2009 to 2016. A hospital's financial exposure to HVBP penalties was measured by the share of its annual aggregate inpatient days provided to Medicare patients ("Medicare bed share"). The main outcome measures were annual hospital-level 30-day risk-adjusted mortality rates for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) and pneumonia patients. Using difference-in-differences models we estimated the change in the outcomes in high vs. low Medicare bed share hospitals following HVBP. RESULTS: In the study cohort of 1902 US hospitals, average Medicare bed share was 61 and 41% in high (n = 540) and low (n = 1362) Medicare bed share hospitals, respectively. High Medicare bed share hospitals were more likely to have smaller bed size and less likely to be teaching hospitals, but ownership type was similar among both Medicare bed share groups.. Among low Medicare bed share (control) hospitals, baseline (pre-HVBP) 30-day mortality was 16.0% (AMI), 10.9% (HF) and 11.4% (pneumonia). In both high and low Medicare bed share hospitals 30-day mortality experienced a secular decrease for AMI, increase for HF and pneumonia; differences in the pre-post change between the two hospital groups were small (< 0.12%) and not significant across all three conditions. CONCLUSIONS: HVBP was not associated with a meaningful change in 30-day mortality across hospitals with differential exposure to the program penalty.

High-Value Care Culture Among the Future Physician Workforce in Internal Medicine.

PURPOSE: Training in high-spending regions correlates with higher spending patterns among practicing physicians. This study aimed to evaluate whether trainees' exposure to a high-value care culture differed based on type of health system in which they trained. METHOD: In 2016, 517 internal medicine residents at 12 California graduate medical education programs (university, community, and safety-net medical centers) completed a cross-sectional survey assessing perceptions of high-value care culture within their respective training program. The authors used multilevel linear regression to assess the relationship between type of medical center and High-Value Care Culture Survey (HVCCS) scores. The correlation between mean institutional HVCCS and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) scores was calculated using Spearman rank coefficients. RESULTS: Of 517 residents, 306 (59.2%), 83 (16.1%), and 128 (24.8%) trained in university, community, and safety-net programs, respectively. Across all sites, the mean HVCCS score was 51.2 (standard deviation [SD] 11.8) on a 0-100 scale. Residents reported lower mean HVCCS scores if they were from safety-net-based training programs (ß = -4.4; 95% confidence interval: -8.2, -0.6) with lower performance in the leadership and health system messaging domain (P < .001). Mean institutional HVCCS scores among university and community sites positively correlated with institutional VBP scores (Spearman r = 0.71; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Safety-net trainees reported less exposure to aspects of high-value care culture within their training environments. Tactics to improve the training environment to foster high-value care culture include training, increasing access to data, and improving open communication about value.

Value-based arrangements may be more prevalent than assumed.

OBJECTIVES: To better understand the prevalence of US value-based payment arrangements (VBAs), their characteristics, and the factors that facilitate their success or act as barriers to their implementation. STUDY DESIGN: Surveys were administered to a convenience sample of subject matter experts who were senior representatives from payer organizations and biopharmaceutical manufacturers. These data were supplemented with qualitative interviews in a subsample of survey respondents. METHODS: Descriptive statistics, including percentages for categorical values and mean (SD) and median (interquartile range) for continuous variables, were assessed for quantitative questions. Trained reviewers collated responses to free-text survey questions and the qualitative interviews to identify themes. RESULTS: Of the 25 respondents, 1 manufacturer and 4 payers reported not having explored or negotiated any VBAs. Subsequently, questionnaire results from 11 biopharmaceutical manufacturers and 9 payers who had experience with VBAs were analyzed. More than 70% of VBAs implemented between 2014 and 2017 were not publicly disclosed. Furthermore, although consideration of VBAs as a coverage and payment tool is increasing, VBA implementation is relatively low, with manufacturers and payers reporting that approximately 33% and 60% of early dialogues translate into signed VBA contracts, respectively. Respondents' reasoning for VBA negotiation process breakdowns generally differed by sector and reflected each sector's respective priorities. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that the majority of VBAs are not publicly disclosed, which could underestimate their true prevalence and impact. Given the effort required to implement a VBA, future arrangements would likely benefit from a framework or other evaluative tool to help assess VBA pursuit desirability and guide the negotiation and implementation process.

Hospital Value-Based Purchasing and Trauma-Certified Hospital Performance.

INTRODUCTION: Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) is an initiative that rewards acute-care hospitals with incentive payments for the quality of care they provide. A hospital's trauma certification has the potential to influence HVBP scores as attaining the certification provides indication of the service quality offered by the hospital. As such, this study focuses on hospitals' level of trauma certification attainment through the American College of Surgeons and whether this certification is associated with greater HVBP. METHODS: A retrospective review of the 2015 HVBP database, 2015 Area Health Resources Files (AHRF) database, and the 2015 American Hospital Association (AHA) database is utilized, and propensity score matching was employed to determine the association between level of trauma certification and scores on HVBP dimensions. RESULTS: Results reveal trauma certification is associated with lower HVBP domain scores when compared to hospitals without trauma certification. In addition, hospitals with a greater degree of trauma specialization were associated with lower total performance score and efficiency domain scores. CONCLUSIONS: Although payers attempt to connect hospital reimbursements with quality and outcomes, unintended consequences may occur. In response to these results, HVBP risk adjustment and scoring methods should receive further scrutiny.

Effect of Implementing a Bundled-Payment Program for Heart Failure at a Safety-Net Community Hospital.

Safety net community hospitals face unique challenges when entering risk-based contracts. The financial viability of such programs in these settings has not been well studied. This study analyzed a bundled-payment program for congestive heart failure at one such facility. To assess financial performance, the authors calculated the net patient payment by quarter after bundle implementation, and also compared the leading cost drivers before and after bundle implementation, specifically the next site of care and readmission rate. After 21 months of participating in the bundle, the program has saved money, been financially feasible, and generated positive returns for the hospital. Admission to skilled nursing facilities decreased from 21.3% to 16.0% after bundle implementation. The readmission rate was not significantly different, but trended downward. This study shows that safety net community hospitals can successfully participate in a bundled-payment program. For heart failure patients, decreasing admission to skilled nursing facilities and lowering the readmission rate are essential for program success.

Association between Hospitalist Productivity Payments and High-Value Care Culture.

BACKGROUND: Given the national emphasis on affordability, healthcare systems expect that their clinicians are motivated to provide high-value care. However, some hospitalists are reimbursed with productivity bonuses, and little is known about the effects of these reimbursements on the local culture of high-value care delivery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if hospitalist reimbursement models are associated with high-value culture in university, community, and safety-net hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS: Internal medicine hospitalists from 12 hospitals across California completed a cross-sectional survey assessing their perceptions of high-value care culture within their institutions. Sites represented university, community, and safety-net centers with different performances as reflected by the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Service's Value-based Purchasing (VBP) scores. MEASUREMENT: Demographic characteristics and High-Value Care Culture Survey (HVCCSTM) scores were evaluated using descriptive statistics, and associations were assessed through multilevel linear regression. RESULTS: Of the 255 hospitalists surveyed, 147 (57.6%) worked in university hospitals, 85 (33.3%) in community hospitals, and 23 (9.0%) in safety-net hospitals. Across all 12 sites, 166 (65.1%) hospitalists reported payment with salary or wages, and 77 (30.2%) with salary plus productivity adjustments. The mean HVCCS score was 50.2 (SD 13.6) on a 0-100 scale. Hospitalists reported lower mean HVCCS scores if they reported payment with salary plus productivity (ß = -6.2, 95% CI -9.9 to -2.5) than if they reported payment with salary or wages. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalists paid with salary plus productivity reported lower high-value care culture scores for their institutions than those paid with salary or wages. High-value care culture and clinician reimbursement schemes are potential targets of strategies for improving quality outcomes at low cost.

Hospital quality indicators are not unidimensional: A reanalysis of Lieberthal and Comer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the dimensionality of hospital quality indicators treated as unidimensional in a prior publication. DATA SOURCE/STUDY DESIGN: Pooled cross-sectional 2010-2011 Hospital Compare data (10/1/10 and 10/1/11 archives) and the 2012 American Hospital Association Annual Survey. DATA EXTRACTION: We used 71 indicators of structure, process, and outcomes of hospital care in a principal component analysis of Ridit scores to evaluate the dimensionality of the indicators. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis using only the indicators in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Hospital Value-Based Purchasing. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: There were four underlying dimensions of hospital quality: patient experience, mortality, and two clinical process dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital quality should be measured using a variety of indicators reflecting different dimensions of quality. Treating hospital quality as unidimensional leads to erroneous conclusions about the performance of different hospitals.

Success In Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcer Prevention: A Tale In Two Data Sets.

Chart-based surveillance reviews indicate that the incidence of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) declined 23 percent during 2010-14, equating to an estimated savings of $1 billion during that period. Yet it remains unclear whether the administrative data used to implement three Medicare value-based purchasing programs that target HAPUs indicate similar improvements, and how success varied by HAPU severity. These programs measure and penalize only for more severe ulcers (stage 3 or 4 or unstageable), which are much more costly than less severe cases (stage 1 or 2). We assessed HAPU incidence, severity, and trends using administrative data for 2009-14 from three states. The HAPU incidence we found was approximately one-twentieth of that found in chart-based surveillance review data. HAPU incidence in administrative data declined, but 96 percent of the change was due to a decline in the incidence of less severe HAPUs. Transitioning from administrative data to chart-based surveillance review to measure HAPUs (mirroring changes that have already been made in reporting hospital-acquired infections) and accounting for HAPU severity could improve the validity of HAPU measures for assessing the clinical and financial impact of value-based purchasing interventions.

Resource Dependency and Hospital Performance in Hospital Value-Based Purchasing.

To help influence the health care environment as well as the flow of resources into and out of hospitals, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has implemented a performance incentive initiative called the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program. As such, this study utilizes the lens of Resource Dependency Theory to evaluate the effect of the external environment on hospital performance as measured by the HVBP program. This study utilizes data from the 2014 American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey database, 2014 Area Health Resource File (AHRF), the 2014 Medicare Final Rule Standardizing File, and the 2014 Medicare Hospital Compare database. The associations between external environment and hospital performance are assessed through multiple regression analysis. Hospital performance scores in the HVBP program are sensitive to environmental factors; however, not all domains are influenced to the same degree. It would seem that hospitals do not have either the same ability or motivation to make changes in each of the value-based purchasing domains. Ultimately, the findings from this study indicate that environmental forces do play a role in hospitals' performance in the HVBP program.

The Impact of Hospitalists on Value-Based Purchasing Program Scores.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As part of the provisions of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adjusts payments made to hospitals through its Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program. In light of the increasing aim to improve efficiency, healthcare organizations are exploring innovative strategies for care delivery, including the use of hospitalists. Supporters of the hospitalist model suggest use of these specialists offers several advantages over the traditional model of physician care in the inpatient setting, including improved coordination, reduced costs, and improved quality indicator scores. This study explores the effect of hospitalists on hospitals' scores in the four domains of the fiscal year 2016 HVBP program: clinical process of care, patient experience of care (PEOC), outcome, and efficiency. Data from the 2015 HVBP database, the 2015 Medicare Final Rule Standardizing File, and the 2015 American Hospital Association database were used for the analysis. The study used multivariate regression analysis in Stata 12. Results from this study suggest that hospitals employing a higher percentage of hospitalists see related improvement in their overall total performance score. In light of improvements within the PEOC, outcome, and efficiency scores, it would appear that hospitalists are primarily providing linking services, which helps provide better coordination of care that is otherwise lacking in more traditionally fragmented approaches to care.

Dually Enrolled Beneficiaries Have Higher Episode Costs On The Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary Measure.

Cost measures are a growing part of Medicare's value-based payment programs. Medicare Spending per Beneficiary (MSPB) is the cost measure included in Medicare's Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program. Beneficiaries who are dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid are known to have higher spending on care, but it is unknown whether spending on the MSPB measure varies based on dual enrollment and whether this has implications for the performance of safety-net hospitals. We found that after adjustment for comorbidities, dually enrolled beneficiaries had 4.3 percent higher spending, which was primarily driven by higher costs in the postacute setting associated with use of institutional postacute care. Hospitals in the highest quintile of the disproportionate share hospital index had poorer performance on the MSPB measure, and were more likely to be penalized under VBP. After adjustment for dual status, differences in MSPB performance between safety-net and non-safety-net hospitals were no longer significant. This suggests that differences in performance between the two types of hospitals were driven at least in part by differences in their patient populations. However, overall VBP payment impacts were largely unchanged after the MSPB measure was adjusted for dual-enrollment status.

Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Performance: Do Organizational and Market Characteristics Matter?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP) program of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services challenges hospitals to deliver high-quality care or face a reduction in Medicare payments. How do different organizational structures and market characteristics enable or inhibit successful transition to this new model of value-based care? To address that question, this study employs an institutional theory lens to test whether certain organizational structures and market characteristics mediate hospitals' ability to perform across HVBP domains.Data from the 2014 American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database, Area Health Resource File, the Medicare Hospital Compare Database, and the association between external environment and hospital performance are assessed through multiple regression analysis. Results indicate that hospitals that belong to a system are more likely than independent hospitals to score highly on the domains associated with the HVBP incentive arrangement. However, varying and sometimes counterintuitive market influences bring different dimensions to the HVBP program. A hospital's ability to score well in this new value arrangement may be heavily based on the organization's ability to learn from others, implement change, and apply the appropriate amount of control in various markets.

A state-led framework for value-based purchasing to incent integration.

Addressing healthcare costs requires incenting providers to address both physical and behavioral health conditions, as well as social determinants of health. The most complex, and expensive, patients are often those with comorbid mental illness and/or addiction, who are at higher risk for exposure to violence, food insecurity, unstable housing and other adversities that negatively affect health. Yet today's value-based payment models and associated quality measures do not incent providers to address patients' behavioral and social needs. We propose a state-led framework for moving towards fully integrated accountability through improved value-based payment and measurement.