Lessons learned from value-based pediatric appendectomy care: A shared savings pilot model.

PURPOSE: We aim to assess the healthcare value achieved from a shared savings program for pediatric appendectomy. METHODS: All appendectomy patients covered by our health plan were included. Quality targets were 15% reduction in time to surgery, length of stay, readmission rate, and patient satisfaction. Quality targets and costs for an appendectomy episode in two 6-month performance periods (PP1, PP2) were compared to baseline. RESULTS: 640 patients were included (baseline:317, PP1:167, PP2:156). No quality targets were met in PP1. Two quality targets were met during PP2: readmission rate (-57%) and patient satisfaction. No savings were realized because the cost reduction threshold (-9%) was not met during PP1 (+1.7%) or PP2 (-0.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Payer-provider partnerships can be a platform for testing value-based reimbursement models. Setting achievable targets, identifying affectable quality metrics, considering case mix index, and allowing sufficient time for interventions to generate cost savings should be considered in future programs.

Enhanced recovery in liver transplantation: A value-based approach to complex surgical care.

BACKGROUND: Value-based healthcare focuses on improving outcomes relative to cost. We aimed to study the impact of an enhanced recovery pathway for liver transplant recipients on providing value. METHODS: In total, 379 liver recipients were identified: pre-enhanced recovery pathway (2017, n = 57) and post-enhanced recovery pathway (2018-2020, n = 322). The enhanced recovery pathway bundle was defined through multidisciplinary efforts and included optimal fluid management, end-of-case extubation, multimodal analgesia, and a standardized care pathway. Pre- and post-enhanced recovery pathway patients were compared with regard to extubation rates, lengths of stay, complications, readmissions, survival, and costs. RESULTS: Pre- and post-enhanced recovery pathway recipient model for end-stage liver disease score and balance of risk scores were similar, although post-enhanced recovery pathway recipients had a higher median donor risk index (1.55 vs 1.39, P = .003). End-of-case extubation rates were 78% post-enhanced recovery pathway (including 91% in 2020) versus 5% pre-enhanced recovery pathway, with post-enhanced recovery pathway patients having decreased median intraoperative transfusion requirements (1,500 vs 3,000 mL, P < .001). Post-enhanced recovery pathway recipients had shorter median intensive care unit (1.6 vs 2.3 days, P = .01) and hospital stays (5.4 vs 8.0 days, P < .001). Incidence of severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) complications during the index hospitalization were similar between pre-enhanced recovery pathway versus post-enhanced recovery pathway groups (33% vs 23%, P = .13), as were 30-day readmissions (26% vs 33%, P = .44) and 1-year survival (93.0% vs 94.5%, P = .58). The post-enhanced recovery pathway cohort demonstrated a significant reduction in median direct cost per case ($11,406; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Implementation of an enhanced recovery pathway in liver transplantation is feasible, safe, and effective in delivering value, even in the setting of complex surgical care.

Defining the 90-day cost structure of lower extremity revascularization for alternative payment model assessment.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. healthcare system is undergoing a broad transformation from the traditional fee-for-service model to value-based payments. The changes introduced by the Medicare Quality Payment Program, including the establishment of Alternative Payment Models, ensure that the practice of vascular surgery is likely to face significant reimbursement changes as payments transition to favor these models. The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model taskforce was formed to explore the opportunities to develop a physician-focused payment model that will allow vascular surgeons to continue to deliver the complex care required for peripheral arterial disease (PAD). METHODS: A financial analysis was performed based on Medicare beneficiaries who had undergone qualifying index procedures during fiscal year 2016 through the third quarter of 2017. Index procedures were defined using a list of Healthcare Common Procedural Coding (HCPC) procedure codes that represent open and endovascular PAD interventions. Inpatient procedures were mapped to three diagnosis-related group (DRG) families consistent with PAD conditions: other vascular procedures (codes, 252-254), aortic and heart assist procedures (codes, 268, 269), and other major vascular procedures (codes, 270-272). Patients undergoing outpatient or office-based procedures were included if the claims data were inclusive of the HCPC procedure codes. Emergent procedures, patients with end-stage renal disease, and patients undergoing interventions within the 30 days preceding the index procedure were excluded. The analysis included usage of postacute care services (PACS) and 90-day postdischarge events (PDEs). PACS are defined as rehabilitation, skilled nursing facility, and home health services. PDEs included emergency department visits, observation stays, inpatient readmissions, and reinterventions. RESULTS: A total of 123,180 cases were included. Of these 123,180 cases, 82% had been performed in the outpatient setting. The Medicare expenditures for all periprocedural services provided at the index procedure (ie, professional, technical, and facility fees) were higher in the inpatient setting, with an average reimbursement per index case of $18,755, $34,600, and $25,245 for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility interventions had an average reimbursement of $11,458, and office-based index procedures had costs of $11,533. PACS were more commonly used after inpatient index procedures. In the inpatient setting, PACS usage and reimbursement were 58.6% ($5338), 57.2% ($4192), and 55.9% ($5275) for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility cases required PACS for 13.7% of cases (average cost, $1352), and office-based procedures required PACS in 15% of cases (average cost, $1467). The 90-day PDEs were frequent across all sites of service (range, 38.9%-50.2%) and carried significant costs. Readmission was associated with the highest average PDE expenditure (range, $13,950-$18.934). The average readmission Medicare reimbursement exceeded that of the index procedures performed in the outpatient setting. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of PAD interventions extends beyond the index procedure and includes relevant spending during the long postoperative period. Despite the analysis challenges related to the breadth of vascular procedures and the site of service variability, the data identified potential cost-saving opportunities in the management of costly PDEs. Because of the vulnerability of the PAD patient population, alternative payment modeling using a bundled value-based approach will require reallocation of resources to provide longitudinal patient care extending beyond the initial intervention.

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 Affordable Care Act and Its Impact on Plastic and Gender-Affirmation Surgery.

SUMMARY: The Affordable Care Act's provisions have affected and will continue to affect plastic surgeons and their patients, and an understanding of its influence on the current American health care system is essential. The law's impact on pediatric plastic surgery, craniofacial surgery, and breast reconstruction is well documented. In addition, gender-affirmation surgery has seen exponential growth, largely because of expanded insurance coverage through the protections afforded to transgender individuals by the Affordable Care Act. As gender-affirming surgery continues to grow, plastic surgeons have the opportunity to adapt and diversify their practices.

The Role of Value-Based Payment in Promoting Innovation to Address Social Risks: A Cross-Sectional Study of Social Risk Screening by US Physicians.

Policy Points One of the most important possibilities of value-based payment is its potential to spur innovation in upstream prevention, such as attention to social needs that lead to poor health. Screening patients for social risks such as housing instability and food insecurity represents an early step physician practices can take to address social needs. At present, adoption of social risk screening by physician practices is linked with having high innovation capacity and focusing on low-income populations, but not exposure to value-based payment. Expanding social risk screening by physician practices may require standardization and technical assistance for practices that have less innovative capacity. CONTEXT: One of the most important possibilities of value-based payment is its potential to spur innovation in upstream prevention, such as attention to social needs that lead to poor health. However, there is uncertainty about the conditions under which value-based payment will encourage health care providers to innovate to address upstream social risks. METHODS: We used the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS), a nationally representative survey of physician practices (n = 2,178), to ascertain (1) the number of social risks for which practices systematically screen patients; (2) the extent of practices' participation in value-based payment models; and (3) measures of practices' capacity for innovation. We used multivariate regression models to examine predictors of social risk screening. FINDINGS: On average, physician practices systematically screened for 2.4 out of 7 (34%) social risks assessed by the survey. In the fully adjusted model, implementing social risk screening was not associated with the practices' overall exposure to value-based payment. Being in the top quartile on any of three innovation capacity scales, however, was associated with screening for 0.95 to 1.00 additional social risk (p < 0.001 for all three results) relative to the bottom quartile. In subanalysis examining specific payment models, participating in a Medicaid accountable care organization was associated with screening for 0.37 more social risks (p = 0.015). Expecting more exposure to accountable care in the future was associated with greater social risk screening, but the effect size was small compared with practices' capacity for innovation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that implementation of social risk screening-an initial step in enhancing awareness of social needs in health care-is not associated with overall exposure to value-based payment for physician practices. Expanding social risk screening by physician practices may require standardized approaches and implementation assistance to reduce the level of innovative capacity required.

A pain relieving reimbursement program? Effects of a value-based reimbursement program on patient reported outcome measures.

BACKGROUND: Value-based reimbursement programs have become increasingly common. However, little is known about the effect of such programs on patient reported outcomes. Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze the effect of introducing a value-based reimbursement program on patient reported outcome measures and to explore whether a selection bias towards less complicated patients occurred. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study with a before and after design based on the introduction of a value-based reimbursement program in Region Stockholm, Sweden. We analyzed patient level data from inpatient and outpatient care of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery during 2006-2015. Patient reported outcome measures used was Global Assessment, EQ-5D-3L and Oswestry Disability Index. The case-mix of surgically treated patients was analyzed using medical and socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: The value-based reimbursement program did not have any effect on targeted or non-targeted patient reported outcome measures. Moreover, the share of surgically treated patients with risk factors such as having comorbidities and being born outside of Europe increased after the introduction. Hence, the value-based reimbursement program did not encourage discrimination against sicker patients. However, the income was higher among patients surgically treated after the introduction of the value-based reimbursement. This indicates that a value-based reimbursement program may contribute to increased inequalities in access to healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: The value-based reimbursement program did not have any effect on patient reported outcome measures. Our study contributes to the understanding of the effects of a value-based reimbursement program on patient reported outcome measures and to what extent cherry-picking arises.

Risk-adjustment models in patients undergoing head and neck surgery with reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: With the current focus on value-based outcomes and reimbursement models, perioperative risk adjustment is essential. Specialty surgical outcomes are not well predicted by the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP); the Head and Neck-Reconstructive Surgery NSQIP was created as a specialty-specific platform for patients undergoing head and neck surgery with flap reconstruction. This study aims to investigate risk prediction models in these patients. METHODS: The Head and Neck-Reconstructive Surgery NSQIP collected data on patients undergoing head and neck surgery with flap reconstruction from August 1, 2012 to October 20, 2016. Multivariable logistic regression models were created for 9 outcomes (postoperative ventilator dependence, pneumonia, superficial recipient surgical site infection, presence of tracheostomy/nasoenteric (NE)/gastrostomy/gastrojejunostomy(G/GJ) tube 30 days postoperatively, conversion from NE to G/GJ tube, unplanned return to the operating room, length of stay > 7 days). External validation was completed with a more contemporary cohort. RESULTS: A total of 1095 patients were included in the modelling cohort and 407 in the validation cohort. Models performed well predicting tracheostomy, NE, G/GJ tube presence at 30 days postoperatively and conversion from NE to G/GJ tube (c-indices = 0.75-0.91). Models for postoperative pneumonia, superficial recipient surgical site infection, ventilator dependence > 48 h, and length of stay > 7 days were fair (concordance [c]-indices = 0.63-0.69). The predictive model for unplanned return to the operating room was poor (c-index = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Reliable and discriminant risk prediction models were able to be created for postoperative outcomes using the specialty-specific Head and Neck-Reconstructive Surgery Specific NSQIP.

Choosing Wisely® in Hematology: Have We Made a Difference?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The Choosing Wisely® initiative, led by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation in collaboration with national professional medical societies, aims to help patients choose care that is essential, free from harm, and evidence-based. The American Society of Hematology has advocated practices specific to hematology for physicians and patients to examine carefully. Here, we summarize various barriers to adopting these practices, interventions used to improve adoption, and challenges in measuring the effectiveness of these interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: The Choosing Wisely® campaign has become an international effort with more than 20 countries worldwide having embraced it. Such widespread interest indicates that the campaign initiated an important dialog between patients and physicians about overutilization of resources. Evidence showing the positive impact of interventions on adopting these practices is accumulating, but their effect on improving clinical outcomes is uncertain. Decreasing overuse of resources is a cultural change in perspective for practitioners and patients alike. We believe that healthcare delivery is transitioning from being volume-based to value-based. As we continue to support the Choosing Wisely® campaign, we need to implement strategies to document and measure the influence of our value-based recommendations on physician practices, patient care and attitudes, and healthcare costs.

Deimplementation of the Choosing Wisely Recommendations for Low-Value Breast Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Overtreatment of early-stage breast cancer results in increased morbidity and cost without improving survival. Major surgical organizations participating in the Choosing Wisely campaign identified 4 breast cancer operations as low value: (1) axillary lymph node dissection for limited nodal disease in patients receiving lumpectomy and radiation, (2) re-excision for close but negative lumpectomy margins for invasive cancer, (3) contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in patients at average risk with unilateral cancer, and (4) sentinel lymph node biopsy in women 70 years or older with hormone receptor-positive cancer. Objective: To evaluate the extent to which these procedures have been deimplemented, determine the implications of decreased use, and recognize possible barriers and facilitators to deimplementation. Evidence Review: A systematic review of published literature on use trends in breast surgery was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The Ovid, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane databases were searched for original research with relevance to the Choosing Wisely recommendations of interest. Eligible studies were examined for data about use, and any patient-level, clinician-level, or system-level factors associated with use. Findings: Concordant with recommendations, national rates of axillary lymph node dissection for patients with limited nodal disease have decreased by approximately 50% (from 44% in 2011 to 30% to 34% in 2012 and 25% to 28% in 2013), and national rates of lumpectomy margin re-excision have decreased by nearly 40% (from 16% to 34% before to 14% to 18% after publication of a consensus statement). Conversely, national rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy continue to rise each year, accounting for up to 30% of all mastectomies for breast cancer (range in all mastectomy cases: 2010-2012, 28%-30%; 1998, <2%), and rates of sentinel lymph node biopsy in women 70 years or older with low-risk breast cancer are persistently greater than 80% (range, 80%-88%). Factors associated with high rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy use are younger age, white race, increased socioeconomic status, and the availability of breast reconstruction; limited data exist on factors associated with high rates of sentinel lymph node biopsy in women 70 years or older. Successful deimplementation of axillary lymph node dissection and lumpectomy margin re-excision were associated with decreased costs and improved patient-centered outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This review demonstrates variable deimplementation of 4 low-value surgical procedures in patients with breast cancer. Addressing specific patient-level, clinician-level, and system-level barriers to deimplementation is necessary to encourage shared decision-making and reduce overtreatment.

Interventional Pharmacoeconomics: A Novel Mechanism for Unlocking Value.

Cancer care's sustainability is challenged by drug expenditures. In the absence of systemic change, innovation is needed to curtail drug costs. Interventional pharmacoeconomics (IVPE) utilizes clinical research to identify safe, efficacious, cost-conscious dosing regimens to extract maximum value from expensive therapies. Strategies include de-escalation of dosage, treatment duration and administration frequency, and substitution with therapeutic alternatives. In this review, we discuss how IVPE strategies have been successfully used and could be implemented going forward.

Value-based care for the treatment and evaluation of benign prostatic hyperplasia: an analysis of a metropolitan service area claims database.

PURPOSE: With an aging population, cost containment and improved outcomes will be crucial for a sustainable healthcare ecosystem. Current data demonstrate great variation in payments for procedures and diagnostic workup of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). To help determine the best financial value in BPH care, we sought to analyze the major drivers of total payments in BPH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Commercial and Medicare claims from the Truven Health Analytics Markestscan® database for the Austin, Texas Metropolitan Service Area from 2012 to 2014 were queried for encounters with diagnosis and procedural codes related to BPH. Linear regression was utilized to assess factors related to BPH-related payments. Payments were then compared between surgical patients and patients managed with medication alone. RESULTS: Major drivers of total payments in BPH care were operative, namely transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) [$2778, 95% CI ($2385-$3171), p < 0.001) and photoselective vaporization (PVP) ($3315, 95% CI ($2781-$3849) p < 0.001). Most office procedures were also associated with significantly higher payments, including cystoscopy [$708, 95% CI ($417-$999), p < 0.001], uroflometry [$446, 95% CI ($225-668), p < 0.001], urinalysis [$167, 95% CI ($32-$302), p = 0.02], postvoid residual (PVR) [$245, 95% CI ($83-$407), p < 0.001], and urodynamics [$1251, 95% CI ($405-2097), p < 0.001]. Patients who had surgery had lower payments for their medications compared to patients who had no surgery [$120 (IQR: $0, $550) vs. $532 (IQR: $231, $1852), respectively, p < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: Surgery and office-based procedures are associated with increased payments for BPH treatment. Although payments for surgery were more in total, surgical patients paid significantly less for BPH medications.

Clinical outcome indicators in chronic hepatitis B and C: A primer for value-based medicine in hepatology.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Chronic liver diseases (CLDs) are major health problems that require complex and costly treatments. Liver-specific clinical outcome indicators (COIs) able to assist both clinicians and administrators in improving the value of care are presently lacking. The Value-Based Medicine in Hepatology (VBMH) study aims to fill this gap, devising and testing a set of COIs for CLD, that could be easily collected during clinical practice. Here we report the COIs generated and recorded for patients with HBV or HCV infection at different stages of the disease. METHODS/RESULTS: In the first phase of VBMH study, COIs were identified, based on current international guidelines and literature, using a modified Delphi method and a RAND 9-point appropriateness scale. In the second phase, COIs were tested in an observational, longitudinal, prospective, multicentre study based in Lombardy, Italy. Eighteen COIs were identified for HBV and HCV patients. Patients with CLD secondary to HBV (547) or HCV (1391) were enrolled over an 18-month period and followed for a median of 4 years. The estimation of the proposed COIs was feasible in the real-word clinical practice and COI values compared well with literature data. Further, the COIs were able to capture the impact of new effective treatments like direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in the clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The COIs efficiently measured clinical outcomes at different stages of CLDs. While specific clinical practice settings and related healthcare systems may modify their implementation, these indicators will represent an important component of the tools for a value-based approach in hepatology and will positively affect care delivery.