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.

Are Drugs Priced in Accordance With Value? A Comparison of Value-Based and Net Prices Using Institute for Clinical and Economic Review Reports.

OBJECTIVES: The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is an independent organization that reviews drugs and devices with a focus on emerging agents. As part of their evaluation, ICER estimates value-based prices (VBP) at $50 000 to $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained thresholds. We compared actual estimated net prices to ICER-estimated VBPs. METHODS: We reviewed ICER final evidence reports from November 2007 to October 2020. List prices were combined with average discounts obtained from SSR Health to estimate net prices. If a drug had been evaluated more than once for the same indication, only the more recent VBP was included. RESULTS: A total of 34 ICER reports provided unique VBPs for 102 drugs. The net price of 81% of drugs exceeded the $100 000 per QALY VBP and 71% exceeded the $150 000 per QALY VBP. The median change in net price needed to reach the $150 000 per QALY VBP was a 36% reduction. The median decrease in net price needed was highest for drugs targeting rare inherited disorders (n = 15; 62%) and lowest for cardiometabolic disorders (n = 6; 162% price increase). The reduction in net prices needed to reach ICER-estimated VBPs was higher for drugs evaluated for the first approved indication, rare diseases, less competitive markets, and if the drug approval occurred before the ICER report became available. CONCLUSION: Net prices are often above VBPs estimated by ICER. Although gaining awareness among decision makers, the long-term impact of ICER evaluations on pricing and access to new drugs continues to evolve.

Discrete choice experiment on educating value-based healthcare.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying costs and values in healthcare interventions as well as the ability to measure and consider costs relative to value for patients are pivotal in clinical decision-making and medical education. This study explores residents' preferences in educating value-based healthcare (VBHC) during postgraduate medical education. Exploring residents' preferences in VBHC education, in order to understand what shapes their choices, might contribute to improved medical residency education and healthcare as a whole. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) examined which conditions for educating VBHC are preferred by residents. DCE gives more insight into the trade-off's residents make when choosing alternatives, and which conditions for educating VBHC have the most influence on residents' preference. RESULTS: This DCE shows that residents prefer knowledge on both medical practice as well as the process of care-to be educated by an expert on VBHC together with a clinician. They prefer limited protected time to conduct VBHC initiatives (thus while at work) and desire the inclusion of VBHC in formal educational plans. CONCLUSION: When optimising graduate and postgraduate medical education curricula, these preferences should be considered to create necessary conditions for the facilitation and participation of residents in VBHC education and the set-up of VBHC initiatives.

Paying for Performance Improvement in Quality and Outcomes of Cardiovascular Care: Challenges and Prospects.

Over the past two decades, Medicare and other payers have been looking at ways to base payment for cardiovascular care on the quality and outcomes of care delivered. Public reporting of hospital performance on a series of quality measures began in 2004 with basic processes of care such as aspirin use and influenza vaccination, and it expanded in later years to include outcomes such as mortality and readmission rates. Following the passage of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010, Medicare and other payers moved forward with pay-for-performance programs, more commonly referred to as value-based purchasing (VBP) programs. These programs are largely based on an underlying fee-for-service payment infrastructure and give hospitals and clinicians bonuses or penalties based on their performance. Another new payment mechanism, called alternative payment models (APMs), aims to move towards episode-based or global payments to improve quality and efficiency. The two most relevant APMs for cardiovascular care include Accountable Care Organizations and bundled payments. Both VBP programs and APMs have challenges related to program efficacy, accuracy, and equity. In fact, despite over a decade of progress in measuring and incentivizing high-quality care delivery within cardiology, major limitations remain. Many of the programs have had little benefit in terms of clinical outcomes yet have led to marked administrative burden for participants. However, there are several encouraging prospects to aid the successful implementation of value-based high-quality cardiovascular care, such as more sophisticated data science to improve risk adjustment and flexible electronic health records to decrease administrative burden. Furthermore, payment models designed specifically for cardiovascular care could incentivize innovative care delivery models that could improve quality and outcomes for patients. This review provides an overview of current efforts, largely at the federal level, to pay for high-quality cardiovascular care and discusses the challenges and prospects related to doing so.

Value-Based Payment Reforms in Cardiovascular Care: Progress to Date and Next Steps.

In an effort to curb excessive health care spending and incentivize high-quality care, many payers have implemented value-based payment reforms designed to pay for the quality rather than the quantity of health care services. Medicare, the largest payer in the United States, has implemented numerous value-based payment policies over the past decade, many of which affect cardiovascular care. In this review, we discuss some of these major nationwide value-based payment reforms as they relate to cardiovascular care and what we may expect in the future from cardiovascular value-based policies.

Using the Delphi method to identify meaningful and feasible outcomes for pharmaceutical value-based contracting.

In an effort to demonstrate measurable value of pharmaceuticals in the United States, many payers and drug manufacturers have entered into value-based purchasing contracts that link payment for prescription medications to patient outcomes, creating shared risk between the 2 entities. These agreements have emerged as part of a larger movement within the health care landscape to transition away from volume-based payment models and towards value-based designs that promote high-quality and affordable care. Key to the success of pharmaceutical value-based contracting is agreement on meaningful and measurable outcomes that reflect drug performance. Traditional value-based contracts are developed by pharmaceutical companies and payers and may not reflect values of other important stakeholders, such as patients, providers, and employers (when applicable). One approach to more effectively align the interests of all key stakeholders and to maximize the effect and transparency of value-based pharmaceutical contracts is to use the validated Delphi surveying technique, which can gather information and build stakeholder consensus on key elements before contract development. In this Viewpoints article, we describe our experience conducting Delphi studies in 5 disease contexts to inform pharmaceutical value-based contract development, including insights learned and practical considerations for real-world application. In addition, we outline advantages to using this validated consensus-building tool to solicit vital and underrepresented stakeholder input, foster transparency in the contract development process, and promote shared learning for future value-based initiatives. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this project. All authors are or were employed by UPMC Health Plan at the time of this study and have no other disclosures to declare.

Power and Purchasing: Why Strategic Purchasing Fails.

Policy Points Strategically purchasing health care has been and continues to be a popular policy idea around the world. Key asymmetries in information, market power, political power, and financial power hinder the effective implementation of strategic purchasing. Strategic purchasing has consistently failed to live up to its promises for these reasons. Future strategies based on strategic purchasing should tailor their expectations to its real effectiveness. CONTEXT: Strategic purchasing of health care has been a popular policy idea around the world for decades, with advocates claiming that it can lead to improved quality, patient satisfaction, efficiency, accountability, and even population health. In this article, we report the results of an inquiry into the implementation and effects of strategic purchasing. METHODS: We conducted three in-depth case studies of England, the Netherlands, and the United States. We reviewed definitions of purchasing, including its slow acquisition of adjectives such as strategic, and settled on a definition of purchasing that distinguishes it from the mere use of contracts to regulate stable interorganizational relationships. The case studies review the career of strategic purchasing in three different systems where its installation and use have been a policy priority for years. FINDINGS: No existing health care system has effective strategic purchasing because of four key asymmetries: market power asymmetry, information asymmetry, financial asymmetry, and political power asymmetry. CONCLUSIONS: Further investment in policies that are premised on the effectiveness of strategic purchasing, or efforts to promote it, may not be worthwhile. Instead, policymakers may need to focus on the real sources of power in a health care system. Policy for systems with existing purchasing relationships should take into account the asymmetries, ways to work with them, and the constraints that they create.

Moving from Volume to Value with Hospital Funding Policies in Canada.

Canada's two most populous provinces are moving toward activity-based funding (ABF) of hospitals. Although ABF may encourage greater value by improving cost-efficiency, it may decrease value in other respects. To address this trade-off, many jurisdictions have implemented value-based payment programs that modify ABF payments based on hospital performance on other aspects of value, such as outcomes and patient experience. In this article, the design and implementation of two value-based programs are reviewed: Australia's Pricing for Safety and Quality Program and Medicare's Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. The contrasts of these programs highlight key questions facing provincial payers in Canada to increase value from hospital spending.

Streamlining and Reimagining Prior Authorization Under Value-Based Contracts: A Call to Action From the Value in Healthcare Initiative's Prior Authorization Learning Collaborative.

Utilization management strategies, including prior authorization, are commonly used to facilitate safe and guideline-adherent provision of new, individualized, and potentially costly cardiovascular therapies. However, as currently deployed, these approaches encumber multiple stakeholders. Patients are discouraged by barriers to appropriate access; clinicians are frustrated by the time, money, and resources required for prior authorizations, the frequent rejections, and the perception of being excluded from the decision-making process; and payers are weary of the intensive effort to design and administer increasingly complex prior authorization systems to balance value and appropriate use of these treatments. These issues highlight an opportunity to collectively reimagine utilization management as a transparent and collaborative system. This would benefit the entire healthcare ecosystem, especially in light of the shift to value-based payment. This article describes the efforts and vision of the multistakeholder Prior Authorization Learning Collaborative of the Value in Healthcare Initiative, a partnership between the American Heart Association and the Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University. We outline how healthcare organizations can take greater utilization management responsibility under value-based contracting, especially under different state policies and local contexts. Even with reduced payer-mandated prior authorization in these arrangements, payers and healthcare organizations will have a continued shared need for utilization management. We present options for streamlining these programs, such as gold carding and electronic and automated prior authorization processes. Throughout the article, we weave in examples from cardiovascular care when possible. Although reimagining prior authorization requires collective action by all stakeholders, it may significantly reduce administrative burden for clinicians and payers while improving outcomes for patients.

Value in Healthcare Initiative: Summary and Key Recommendations.

In spring 2018, the American Heart Association convened the Value in Healthcare Summit to begin an important conversation about the challenges patients with cardiovascular disease face in accessing and deriving quality and value from the healthcare system. Following the summit and recognizing the collective momentum it created, the American Heart Association, in collaboration with the Robert J. Margolis Center for Health Policy at Duke University, launched the Value in Healthcare Initiative-Transforming Cardiovascular Care. Four areas of focus were identified, and learning collaboratives were established and proceeded to conduct concrete, actionable problem solving in 4 high-impact areas in cardiovascular care: Value-Based Models, Partnering with Regulators, Predict and Prevent, and Prior Authorization. The deliverables from these groups are being disseminated in 4 stand-alone articles, and their publication will initiate further work to test and evaluate each of these promising areas of reform. This article provides an overview of the initiative's findings and highlights key cross-cutting themes for consideration as the initiative moves forward.

Relationship between Hospital Characteristics and Value-Based Program Measure Performance: A Literature Review.

Determining if the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid's value-based programs accurately represent the quality of care provided by acute-care hospitals is critical. We performed an integrative literature review to summarize research articles examining hospital characteristics associated with overall performance on the value-based program measures. The literature review was conducted by searching the PubMed and CINAHL databases. The initial search returned 18 relevant articles, 12 of which met all inclusion criteria. The emergent hospital characteristics that heavily influenced value-based program performance included size, safety-net status, geographical location, and teaching status. This review determined that many factors largely outside of acute-care hospitals' control create observed differences in value-based program performance. Additional factors such as a hospital's patient populations, socioeconomic status, and level of acuity may need to be considered prior to assigning financial penalties to under-performing hospitals.