Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Performance Measures in Alternative Payment Models: Current Use, Implementation Barriers, and Principles to Succeed.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based performance measures (PRO-PMs) offer opportunities to aggregate survey data into a reliable and valid assessment of performance at the entity-level (eg, clinician, hospital, and accountable care organization). Our objective was to address the existing literature gap regarding the implementation barriers, current use, and principles for PRO-PMs to succeed. METHODS: As quality measurement experts, we first highlighted key principles of PRO-PMs and how alternative payment models (APMs) may be integral in promoting more widespread use. In May 2023, we reviewed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Measures Inventory Tool for active PRO-PM usage within CMS programs. We finally present principles to prioritize as part PRO-PMs succeeding within APMs. RESULTS: We identified 5 implementation barriers to PRO-PM use: original development of instrument, response rate sufficiency, provider burden, hesitancy regarding fairness, and attribution of desired outcomes. There existed 54 instances of active PRO-PM usage across CMS programs, including 46 unique PRO-PMs within 14 CMS programs. Five principles to prioritize as part of greater PRO-PM development and incorporation within APMs include the following: (1) clinical salience, (2) adequate sample size, (3) meaningful range of performance among measured entities and the ability to detect performance change in a reasonable time frame, (4) equity focus, and (5) appropriate risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Identified barriers and principles to prioritize should be considered during PRO-PM development and implementation phases to link available and novel measures to payment programs while ensuring provider and stakeholder engagement.

Transitioning ifosfamide chemotherapy regimens to the ambulatory setting: reviewing cost savings and safety profile.

PURPOSE: To characterize and compare both the outcome and cost of treatment of outpatient (OP) and inpatient (IP) ifosfamide therapy. METHODS: A single-center retrospective chart review of patients 18 years and older receiving ifosfamide therapy. The primary endpoint compares and evaluates the side effect profiles of ifosfamide-treated patients in the OP/IP settings. The adverse event grading system was characterized using the CTCAE Version 5.0. The highest grade was documented per cycle. The secondary endpoint of this study compares the costs of OP/IP therapy. It was assumed that the cost of medication was equivalent for IP/OP treatments. The cost saved with OP administration was determined by the average cost of hospital stay for IP admission. RESULTS: Ifosfamide therapy of 86 patients (57 OP, 29 IP) was reviewed. The predominant OP regimens were doxorobucin-ifosfamide-mesna (AIM) with 43.9% and ifosfamide-etoposide (IE) with 29.8%. Grade 4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were most frequent in IP vs OP therapies (22.9% IP vs 4.3% OP, 21.6% IP vs 9.2% OP, and 22.8% IP vs 19.6% OP respectively). Neutropenic fever (NF) occurred in 20 OP patients which were predominantly treated with AIM or IE and led to average hospital stay of 6 days. Neurotoxicity, treated with methylene blue (MB) occurred in 4 OP patients. OP therapy saved a total of 783 hospital days, leading to a cost savings of $2,103,921. CONCLUSIONS: Transitioning ifosfamide to the OP setting is feasible for academic and community infusion centers with the OP administration being safe, well-tolerated, and associated with decreased total cost of care. The current processes allow for safe transition of chemotherapy of chemotherapy under times of COVID.

The Inpatient Only Rule, Alternative Payment Models, and the Relative Value Update Committee Reimbursement and Coding Changes: What Do They Mean?

BACKGROUND: The unsustainable rising costs of healthcare, a greater portion of which is being borne by the federal government, has resulted in the government's development of programs aimed to control costs without adversely affecting outcomes. METHODS/RESULTS: Alternative Payment Models, the shift from inpatient to outpatient and ambulatory surgery centers' surgical venues, and Relative Value Update Committee coding and reimbursement strategies are all designed to achieve the aforementioned goal. These programs will continue to influence our practice patterns. CONCLUSION: It is clear that we must continue to advocate for access to high quality care reimbursed at a fair price. It is also clear that the successful adult reconstructive surgeon will understand these programs and adjust his/her practice to take full advantage of the opportunities that these programs present.

The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model Task Force report on opportunities for value-based reimbursement in care for patients with peripheral artery disease.

The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model (APM) Taskforce document explores the drivers and implications for developing objective value-based reimbursement plans for the care of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The APM is a payment approach that highlights high-quality and cost-efficient care and is a financially incentivized pathway for participation in the Quality Payment Program, which aims to replace the traditional fee-for-service payment method. At present, the participation of vascular specialists in APMs is hampered owing to the absence of dedicated models. The increasing prevalence of PAD diagnosis, technological advances in therapeutic devices, and the increasing cost of care of the affected patients have financial consequences on care delivery models and population health. The document summarizes the existing measurement methods of cost, care processes, and outcomes using payor data, patient-reported outcomes, and registry participation. The document also evaluates the existing challenges in the evaluation of PAD care, including intervention overuse, treatment disparities, varied clinical presentations, and the effects of multiple comorbid conditions on the cost potentially attributable to the vascular interventionalist. Medicare reimbursement data analysis also confirmed the prolonged need for additional healthcare services after vascular interventions. The Society for Vascular Surgery proposes that a PAD APM should provide patients with comprehensive care using a longitudinal approach with integration of multiple key medical and surgical services. It should maintain appropriate access to diagnostic and therapeutic advancements and eliminate unnecessary interventions. It should also decrease the variability in care but must also consider the varying complexity of the presenting PAD conditions. Enhanced quality of care and physician innovation should be rewarded. In addition, provisions should be present within an APM for high-risk patients who carry the risk of exclusion from care because of the naturally associated high costs. Although the document demonstrates clear opportunities for quality improvement and cost savings in PAD care, continued PAD APM development requires the assessment of more granular data for accurate risk adjustment, in addition to largescale testing before public release. Collaboration between payors and physician specialty societies remains key.

The impact of capitated payment on preventive care utilization in community health clinics.

Only half of the United States population regularly receives recommended preventive care services. Alternative payment models (e.g., a per-member-per-month capitated payment model) may encourage the delivery of preventive services when compared to a fee-for-service visitbased model; however, evaluation is lacking in the United States. This study assesses the impact of implementing Oregon's Alternative Payment Methodology (APM) on orders for preventive services within community health centers (CHCs). This retrospective cohort study uses electronic health record data from the OCHIN, Inc., 2012-2018, analyzed in 2018-2019. Twenty-seven CHCs which implemented APM in 2013-2016 were compared to six non-APM CHCs. Clinic-level quarterly rates of ordering nine preventive services in 2012-2018 were calculated. For each phase and preventive service, we used difference-in-differences analysis to assess the APM impact on ordering preventive care. We found greater increases for APM CHCs compared to non-APM CHCs for orders of mammograms (difference-in-differences estimates (DDs) across four phases:1.69-2.45). Both groups had decreases in ordering cervical cancer screenings, however, APM CHCs had smaller decreases (DDs:1.62-1.93). The APM CHCs had significantly greater decreases in influenza vaccinations (DDs:0.17-0.32). There were no consistent significant differences in pre-post changes in APM vs. non-APM CHCs for cardiometabolic risk screenings, smoking status and depression assessments. There was nonsignificant change in the proportion of nontraditional encounters in APM clinics compared to controls. Transition from fee-for-service to an APM did not negatively impact delivery of preventive care. Further studies are needed to understand how to change encounter structures to best deliver recommended preventive care.

Medicare's Bundled Payment Initiatives for Hospital-Initiated Episodes: Evidence and Evolution.

Policy Points Evidence suggests that bundled payment contracting can slow the growth of payer costs relative to fee-for-service contracting, although bundled payment models may not reduce absolute costs. Bundled payments may be more effective than fee-for-service payments in containing costs for certain medical conditions. For the most part, Medicare's bundled payment initiatives have not been associated with a worsening of quality in terms of readmissions, emergency department use, and mortality. Some evidence suggests a worsening of other quality measures for certain medical conditions. Bundled payment contracting involves trade-offs: Expanding a bundle's scope and duration may better contain costs, but a more comprehensive bundle may be less attractive to providers, reducing their willingness to accept it as an alternative to fee-for-service payment. CONTEXT: Bundled payments have been promoted as an alternative to fee-for-service payments that can mitigate the incentives for service volume under the fee-for-service model. As Medicare has gained experience with bundled payments, it has widened their scope and increased their duration. However, there have been few reviews of the empirical literature on the impact of Medicare's bundled payment programs on cost, resource use, utilization, and quality. METHODS: We examined the history and features of 16 of Medicare's bundled payment programs involving hospital-initiated episodes of care and conducted a literature review of articles about those programs. Database and additional searches yielded 1,479 articles. We evaluate the studies' methodological quality and summarize the quantitative findings about Medicare expenditures and quality of care from 37 studies that used higher-quality research designs. FINDINGS: Medicare's bundled payment initiatives have varied in their design features, such as episode scope and duration. Many initiatives were associated with little to no reduction in Medicare expenditures, unless large pricing discounts for providers were negotiated in advance. Initiatives that included post-acute care services were associated with lower expenditures for certain conditions. Hospitals may have been able to reduce internal production costs with help from physicians via gainsharing. Most initiatives were not associated with significant changes in quality of care, as measured by readmission and mortality rates. Of the significant changes in readmission rates, the results were mixed, showing increases and decreases associated with bundled payments. Some evidence suggested that worse patient outcomes were associated bundled payments, although most results were not statistically significant. Results on case-mix selection were mixed: Several initiatives were associated with reductions in episode severity, whereas others were associated with little change. CONCLUSIONS: Bundled payments for hospital-initiated episodes may be a good alternative to fee-for-service payments. Bundled payments can help slow the growth of payer spending, although they do not necessarily reduce absolute spending. They are associated with lower provider production costs, and there is no overwhelming evidence of compromised quality. However, designing a bundled payment contract that is attractive to both providers and payers proves to be a challenge.

Telehealth: Advances in Alternative Payment Models.

Introduction: The hospital sector has shifted its focus to advanced information and communication technologies to facilitate health care delivery through telehealth services to alleviate the industry's most pressing challenges in quality care and access, especially under changing reimbursement payment approaches. The aim of this study was to examine the association between alternative payment models (APMs), market competition, and telehealth provisions in the hospital setting. Materials and Methods: A secondary cross-sectional design to analyze 2018 census data of nonfederal short-term acute care hospitals in the United States was used. Multilevel logistic regressions models were used to analyze data from 4,257 hospitals across 1,874 counties. Counties with less than one hospital were excluded. Results: Regarding APMs, we found that hospital participation in accountable care organizations and participation in a bundled payment risk arrangement are significantly associated with the provision of telehealth services. From the market perspective, competitive advantage was found to be statistically associated with hospitals providing telehealth services. In addition, other hospital characteristics such as ownership, part of a system, part of a network, and major teaching affiliation also have impact on the provision of telehealth. Conclusions: The increase uptake of telehealth-related capabilities and their strong integration into care-delivery systems under APMs present exciting opportunities to enhance the merit of clinical care, and challenges as clinical professionals are not adept to using such technologies. There is a need to provide comprehensive of evidence on telehealth.

Society of Gynecologic Oncology Future of Physician Payment Reform Task Force report: The Endometrial Cancer Alternative Payment Model (ECAP).

Health care in the United States is in the midst of a significant transformation from a "fee for service" to a "fee for value" based model. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 has only accelerated this transition. Anticipating these reforms, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology developed the Future of Physician Payment Reform Task Force (PPRTF) in 2015 to develop strategies to ensure fair value based reimbursement policies for gynecologic cancer care. The PPRTF elected as a first task to develop an Alternative Payment Model for thesurgical management of low risk endometrial cancer. The history, rationale, and conceptual framework for the development of an Endometrial Cancer Alternative Payment Model are described in this white paper, as well as directions forfuture efforts.

No Permanent Fix: MACRA, MIPS, and the Politics of Physician Payment Reform.

Organized medicine long yearned for the demise of Medicare's Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula for updating physician fees. Congress finally obliged in 2015, repealing the SGR as part of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). MACRA established value-based metrics for physician payment and financial incentives for doctors to join alternative delivery models like patient-centered medical homes. Throughout the law's initial implementation, the politics of accommodation prevailed, with federal officials crafting final rules that made MACRA more favorable for physicians. However, the era of accommodation could be short-lived. The discretion that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had during the first two years of implementation is ending. Additionally, euphoria over the SGR's repeal has given way to concerns over the new program's value-based purchasing arrangements and uncertainty over their sustainability. MACRA eliminated the SGR, but not the politics of physician payment.

An APM That Would Actually Work.

Think of this alternative payment model as a large set of event-driven care packages that get triggered by consumer-patients. Each care package can be priced and adjusted for the individual's medical history. Providers who want to bid for the care package can, and what they're offering will be available and comparable to other providers.

Future considerations for clinical dermatology in the setting of 21st century American policy reform: The Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

As the implementation of the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act begins, many dermatologists who provide Medicare Part B services will be subject to the reporting requirements of the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Clinicians subject to MIPS will receive a composite score based on performance across 4 categories: quality, advancing care information, improvement activities, and cost. Depending on their overall MIPS score, clinicians will be eligible for a positive or negative payment adjustment. Quality will replace the Physician Quality Reporting System and clinicians will report on 6 measures from a list of over 250 options. Advancing care information will replace meaningful use and will assess clinicians on activities related to integration of electronic health record technology into their practice. Improvement activities will require clinicians to attest to completion of activities focused on improvements in care coordination, beneficiary engagement, and patient safety. Finally, cost will be determined automatically from Medicare claims data. In this article, we will provide a detailed review of the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act with a focus on MIPS and briefly discuss the potential implications for dermatologists.

How alternative payment models in emergency medicine can benefit physicians, payers, and patients.

While there has been considerable effort devoted to developing alternative payment models (APMs) for primary care physicians and for episodes of care beginning with inpatient admissions, there has been relatively little attention by payers to developing APMs for specialty ambulatory care, and no efforts to develop APMs that explicitly focus on emergency care. In order to ensure that emergency care is appropriately integrated and valued in future payment models, emergency physicians (EPs) must engage with the stakeholders within the broader health care system. In this article, we describe a framework for the development of APMs for emergency medicine and present four examples of APMs that may be applicable in emergency medicine. A better understanding of how APMs can work in emergency medicine will help EPs develop new APMs that improve the cost and quality of care, and leverage the value that emergency care brings to the system.

Should All Patients Be Included in Alternative Payment Models for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty and Total Knee Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Alternative payment models in total joint replacement incentivize cost effective health care delivery and reward reductions in length of stay (LOS), complications, and readmissions. If not adjusted for patient comorbidities, they may encourage restrictive access to health care. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 802 consecutive primary total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty patients evaluating comorbidities associated with increased LOS and readmissions. RESULTS: During this 9-month period, 115 patients (14.3%) required hospitalization >3 days and 16 (1.99%) were readmitted within 90 days. Univariate analysis demonstrated that preoperative narcotic use, heart failure, stroke, chronic kidney disease (CKD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and liver disease were more likely to require hospitalization >3 days. In multivariate analysis, CKD and COPD were independent risk factors for LOS >3 days. A Charlson comorbidity index >5 points was associated with increased LOS and readmissions. CONCLUSION: Patients with CKD, COPD, and Charlson comorbidity index >5 points should not be included in alternative payment model for THA and TKA.

How CPC+ supported patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons for alternative payment models.

BACKGROUND: A growing literature documents how primary care practices adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic. We examine a topic that has received less attention-how participants in an advanced alternative payment model perceive the model influenced their ability to meet patients' care needs during the pandemic. METHODS: Analysis of closed- and open-ended questions from a 2021 survey of 2496 practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) model (92% response rate) and a 2021 survey of 993 randomly selected primary care physicians from these practices (55% response rate). Both surveys asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed that they or their practice was "better positioned to meet patients' care needs during the coronavirus pandemic" because of participation in CPC+. Both also included an open-ended question about CPC+'s effects. RESULTS: Half of practices and one-third of physicians agreed or strongly agreed that participating in CPC+ better positioned them to meet patients' care needs during the pandemic. One in 10 practices and 2 in 10 physicians, disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 4 in 10 practices and slightly more than half of physicians neither agreed nor disagreed (or, for physicians, didn't know). The most commonly identified CPC+ activities that facilitated meeting patient care needs related to practices' work on care management (e.g., risk stratification), access (e.g., telehealth), payment outside of fee-for-service (FFS), and staffing (e.g., supporting care managers). CONCLUSIONS: Most CPC+ practices and physicians were positive or neutral about participating in CPC+ in the context of COVID-19, indicating more benefit than risk to payment alternatives to FFS.

Investing in Child Health Through Alternative Payment Models: Lessons From North Carolina Integrated Care for Kids.

Pediatric value-based payment reform has been hindered by limited return on investment (ROI) for child-focused measures and the accrual of financial benefits to non-health care sectors. States participating in the federally-funded Integrated Care for Kids (InCK) models are required to design child-centered alternative payment models (APMs) for Medicaid-enrolled children. The North Carolina InCK pediatric APM launched in January 2023 and includes innovative measures focused on school readiness and social needs. We interviewed experts at NC Medicaid managed care organizations, NC Medicaid, and actuaries with pediatric value-based payment experience to assess the NC InCK APM design process and develop strategies for future child-focused value-based payment reform. Key principles emerging from conversations included: accounting for payer priorities and readiness to implement measures; impact of data uncertainty on investment in novel measures; misalignment of a short-term ROI framework with whole child health measures; and state levers like mandates and financial incentives to promote implementation.

Building alternative payment models in health care.

Introduction: Global interest is growing in new value-based models of financing, delivering, and paying for health care services that could produce higher-quality and lower cost outcomes for patients and for society. However, research indicates evidence gaps in knowledge related to alternative payment models (APMs) in early experimentation phases or those contracted between private insurers and their health care provider-partners. The aim of this research was to understand and update the literature related to learning how industry experts design and implement APMs, including specific elements of their models and their choice of stakeholders to be involved in the design and contractual details. Methods: A literature review was conducted to guide the research focus and to select themes. The sample was selected using snowball sampling to identify subject matter experts (SMEs). Researchers conducted 16 semi-structured interviews with SMEs in the US, the Netherlands, and Germany in September and October 2021. Interviews were transcribed and using Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach to thematic analysis, researchers independently read, reviewed, and coded participants' responses related to APM design and implementation and subsequently reviewed each other's codes and themes for consistency. Results: Participants represented diverse perspectives of the payer, provider, consulting, and government areas of the health care sector. We found design considerations had five overarching themes: (1) population and scope of care and services, (2) benchmarking, metrics, data, and technology; (3) finance, APM type, risk adjustment, incentives, and influencing provider behavior, (4) provider partnerships and the role of physicians, and (5) leadership and regulatory issues. Discussion: This study confirmed several of the core components of APM model designs and implementations found in the literature and brought insights on additional aspects not previously emphasized, particularly the role of physicians (especially in leadership) and practice transformation/care processes necessary for providers to thrive under APM models. Importantly, researchers found significant concerns relevant for policymakers about regulations relating to health data sharing, rigid price-setting, and inter-organizational data communication that greatly inhibit the ability to experiment with APMs and those models' abilities to succeed long-term.

Impact of a commercial accountable care organization on prescription drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-run impact of a commercial accountable care organization (ACO) on prescription drug spending, utilization, and related quality of care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) health maintenance organization (HMO) member enrollment data and pharmacy benefit claims, including both retail and mail-order generic and brand-name prescription drugs. STUDY DESIGN: We applied a longitudinal retrospective cohort study design and propensity-weighted difference-in-differences regression models. We examined the relative changes in outcome measures between two ACO cohorts and one non-ACO cohort before and after the ACO implementation in 2010. The ACO directed provider prescribing patterns toward generic substitution for brand-name prescription drugs to maximize shared savings in pharmacy spending. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The study sample included members continuously enrolled in a CalPERS commercial HMO from 2008 through 2014 in the Sacramento area. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The cohort differences in baseline characteristics of 40 483 study participants were insignificant after propensity-weighting adjustment. The ACO enrollees had no significant differential changes in either all or most of the five years of the ACO operation for the following measures: (1) average total spending and (2) average total scripts filled and days supplied on either generic or brand-name prescription drugs, or the two combined; (3) average generic shares of total prescription drug spending, scripts filled or days supplied; (4) annual rates of 10 outpatient process quality of care metrics for medication prescribing or adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the commercial ACO was associated with negligible differential changes in prescription drug spending, utilization, and related quality of care measures. Capped financial risk-sharing and increased generics substitution for brand names are not enough to produce tangible performance improvement in ACOs. Measures to increase provider financial risk-sharing shares and lower brand-name drug prices are needed.