Evaluation of claims data from a commercial value-based insurance product shows pediatric imaging is not a major driver of overall or pediatric healthcare expenditures.

BACKGROUND: Initiatives to reduce healthcare expenditures often focus on imaging, suggesting that imaging is a major driver of cost. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate medical expenditures and determine if imaging was a major driver in pediatric as compared to adult populations. METHODS: We reviewed all claims data for members in a value-based contract between a commercial insurer and a healthcare system for calendar years 2021 and 2022. For both pediatric (<18 years of age) and adult populations, we analyzed average per member per year (PMPY) medical expenditures related to imaging as well as other categories of large medical expenses. Average PMPY expenditures were compared between adult and pediatric patients. RESULTS: Children made up approximately 20% of members and 21% of member months but only 8-9% of expenditures. Imaging expenditures in pediatric members were 0.2% of the total healthcare spend and 2.9% of total pediatric expenditures. Imaging expenditures per member were seven times greater in adults than children. The rank order of imaging expenditures and imaging modalities was also different in pediatric as compared to adult members. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of claims data from a commercial value-based insurance product shows that pediatric imaging is not a major driver of overall, nor pediatric only, healthcare expenditures.

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.

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.

Association of Medicare Mandatory Bundled Payment System for Hip and Knee Joint Replacement With Racial/Ethnic Difference in Joint Replacement Care.

Importance: There are marked racial/ethnic differences in hip and knee joint replacement care as well as concerns that value-based payments may exacerbate existing racial/ethnic disparities in care. Objective: To examine changes in joint replacement care associated with Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model among White, Black, and Hispanic patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare claims from 2013 through 2017 among White, Black, and Hispanic patients undergoing joint replacement in 67 treatment (selected for CJR participation) and 103 control metropolitan statistical areas. Exposures: The CJR model holds hospitals accountable for spending and quality of joint replacement care during care episodes (index hospitalization through 90 days after discharge). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were spending, discharge to institutional postacute care, and readmission during care episodes. Results: Among 688 346 patients, 442 163 (64.2%) were women, and 87 286 (12.7%) were 85 years or older. Under CJR, spending decreased by $439 for White patients (95% CI, -$718 to -$161; from pre-CJR spending in treatment metropolitan statistical areas of $25 264) but did not change for Black patients and Hispanic patients. Discharges to institutional postacute care decreased for all groups (-2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to -0.4, from pre-CJR risk of 46.2% for White patients; -6.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -2.2, from pre-CJR risk of 59.5% for Black patients; and -4.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.6 to -1.0, from pre-CJR risk of 54.3% for Hispanic patients). Readmission risk decreased for Black patients by 3.1 percentage points (95% CI, -5.9 to -0.4, from pre-CJR risk of 21.8%) and did not change for White patients and Hispanic patients. Under CJR, Black-White differences in discharges to institutional postacute care decreased by 3.4 percentage points (95% CI, -6.4 to -0.5, from the pre-CJR Black-White difference of 13.3 percentage points). No evidence was found demonstrating that Black-White differences changed for other outcomes or that Hispanic-White differences changed for any outcomes under CJR. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients receiving joint replacements, CJR was associated with decreased readmissions for Black patients. Furthermore, Black patients experienced a greater decrease in discharges to institutional postacute care relative to White patients, representing relative improvements despite concerns that value-based payment models may exacerbate existing disparities. Nonetheless, differences between White and Black patients in joint replacement care still persisted even after these changes.

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.