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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Toward Value Based Health Care in pituitary surgery: application of a comprehensive outcome set in perioperative care.

OBJECTIVE: Although widely advocated, applying Value Based Health Care (VBHC) in clinical practice is challenging. This study describes VBHC-based perioperative outcomes for patients with pituitary tumors up to 6 months postoperatively. METHODS: A total of 103 adult patients undergoing surgery were prospectively followed. Outcomes categorized according to the framework of VHBC included survival, degree of resection, endocrine remission, visual outcome (including self-perceived functioning), recovery of pituitary function, disease burden and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 6 months (Tier 1); time to recovery of disease burden, HRQoL, visual function (Tier 2); permanent hypopituitarism and accompanying hormone replacement (Tier 3). Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) analysis was performed to describe outcomes over time. RESULTS: Regarding Tier 1, there was no mortality, 72 patients (70%) had a complete resection, 31 of 45 patients (69%) with functioning tumors were in remission, 7 (12%, with preoperative deficits) had recovery of pituitary function and 45 of 47 (96%) had visual improvement. Disease burden and HRQoL improved in 36-45% at 6 months; however, there were significant differences between tumor types. Regarding Tier 2: disease burden, HRQoL and visual functioning improved within 6 weeks after surgery; however, recovery varied widely among tumor types (fastest in prolactinoma and non-functioning adenoma patients). Regarding Tier 3, 52 patients (50%) had persisting (tumor and treatment-induced) hypopituitarism. CONCLUSIONS: Though challenging, outcomes of a surgical intervention for patients with pituitary tumors can be reflected through a VBHC-based comprehensive outcome set that can distinguish outcomes among different patient groups with respect to tumor type.

Deprescribing in Advanced Illness: Aligning Patient, Clinician, and Health Plan Goals.

Polypharmacy has been linked to adverse outcomes including increased risk of hospitalization, falls, and death and contributes to unnecessary healthcare spending. Deprescribing efforts aim to reduce medication burden while improving or maintaining patients' quality of life. While the practice of deprescribing is gaining momentum, quality measurement and provider reimbursement are barriers that must be addressed for deprescribing to achieve widespread adoption. Because many quality measures are focused on medication use and adherence, deprescribing efforts may negatively impact primary care provider and health plan quality ratings and value-based reimbursement. In addressing this conflict, there are opportunities to proactively align the priorities and incentives of patients, providers, and plans to promote deprescribing. In this report, we propose several actionable steps to address quality and reimbursement-based barriers such as facilitating the exclusion of those engaged in deprescribing efforts from quality measures and the development of deprescribing-based quality measures.

Individual preferences on the balancing of good and harm of cardiovascular disease screening.

OBJECTIVE: Transition towards value-based healthcare requires insight into what makes value to the individual. The aim was to elicit individual preferences for cardiovascular disease screening with respect to the difficult balancing of good and harm as well as mode of delivery. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was conducted as a cross-sectional survey among 1231 male screening participants at three Danish hospitals between June and December 2017. Participants chose between hypothetical screening programmes characterised by varying levels of mortality risk reduction, avoidance of overtreatment, avoidance of regretting participation, screening duration and location. A multinomial mixed logit model was used to model the preferences and the willingness to trade mortality risk reduction for improvements on other characteristics. RESULTS: Respondents expressed preferences for improvements on all programme characteristics. They were willing to give up 0.09 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.09) lives saved per 1000 screened to avoid one individual being over treated. Similarly, respondents were willing to give up 1.22 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.55) or 5.21 (95% CI 4.78 to 5.67) lives saved per 1000 screened to upgrade the location from general practice to a hospital or to a high-tech hospital, respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed important preference heterogeneity with respect to smoking status, level of health literacy and self-perceived risk of cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals are able to express clear preferences about what makes value to them. Not only health benefit but also time with health professionals and access to specialised facilities were important. This information could guide the optimal programme design in search of value-based healthcare.

Considerations in the Care of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Value Imperative.

Cancer costs in the United States continue to escalate at an alarming and unsustainable rate. These costs are not driven exclusively by a higher demand for services or by an aging population; rather, a number of systemic failures, highlighted by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), continue to plague our cancer care delivery systems and need to be rectified. Drug costs, plus expensive diagnostic tests, hospital admissions/readmissions, and unreasonable end-of-life care, combine to inflate the total cost of care. Cancer, particularly lung cancer, is one of the most expensive diseases in the United States. While individual oncologists are unlikely to influence costs in the short term, they can become more proficient at evaluating the value derived from new treatment options and maximizing the clinical benefit for their patients. Discussions of cost and patient values need not hinder patient-physician relationships, and, in fact, can strengthen them. This article discusses ways in which the oncologist can incorporate value into the management of patients with lung cancer and comply with the underlying principles of the Choose Wisely Campaign, as well as recent American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology initiatives, to bend the cost curve downwards while maintaining efficacy.

Payer Type and Low-Value Care: Comparing Choosing Wisely Services across Commercial and Medicare Populations.

OBJECTIVE: To compare low-value health service use among commercially insured and Medicare populations and explore the influence of payer type on the provision of low-value care. DATA SOURCES: 2009-2011 national Medicare and commercial insurance administrative data. DESIGN: We created claims-based algorithms to measure seven Choosing Wisely-identified low-value services and examined the correlation between commercial and Medicare overuse overall and at the regional level. Regression models explored associations between overuse and regional characteristics. METHODS: We created measures of early imaging for back pain, vitamin D screening, cervical cancer screening over age 65, prescription opioid use for migraines, cardiac testing in asymptomatic patients, short-interval repeat bone densitometry (DXA), preoperative cardiac testing for low-risk surgery, and a composite of these. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Prevalence of four services was similar across the insurance-defined groups. Regional correlation between Medicare and commercial overuse was high (correlation coefficient = 0.540-0.905) for all measures. In both groups, similar region-level factors were associated with low-value care provision, especially total Medicare spending and ratio of specialists to primary care physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Low-value care appears driven by factors unrelated to payer type or anticipated reimbursement. These findings suggest the influence of local practice patterns on care without meaningful discrimination by payer type.

Clinical Pathways: Recommendations for Putting Patients at the Center of Value-Based Care.

Two major trends that have been affecting the provision of oncology care in the United States are a shift from volume-based to value-based care and a push toward patient-centered healthcare. However, these two trends are not always completely aligned with each other. Value-based payment models, including clinical pathways, are one strategy being implemented by oncology stakeholders to help encourage the uptake of value-based oncology care. If structured with the patient in mind, they can improve quality of care for patients with cancer, decrease inappropriate care while enabling appropriate personalization of care, and constrain rising prices by demanding a stronger link between cost and value. If not structured appropriately, they can limit patient choice, impede access to innovative treatments, and encourage one-size-fits-all oncology care. Clin Cancer Res; 23(16); 4545-9. ©2017 AACR.