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.

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.

Advancing Value-Based Models for Heart Failure: A Call to Action From the Value in Healthcare Initiative's Value-Based Models Learning Collaborative.

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of hospitalizations and readmissions in the United States. Particularly among the elderly, its prevalence and costs continue to rise, making it a significant population health issue. Despite tremendous progress in improving HF care and examples of innovation in care redesign, the quality of HF care varies greatly across the country. One major challenge underpinning these issues is the current payment system, which is largely based on fee-for-service reimbursement, leads to uncoordinated, fragmented, and low-quality HF care. While the payment landscape is changing, with an increasing proportion of all healthcare dollars flowing through value-based payment models, no longitudinal models currently focus on chronic HF care. Episode-based payment models for HF hospitalization have yielded limited success and have little ability to prevent early chronic disease from progressing to later stages. The available literature suggests that primary care-based longitudinal payment models have indirectly improved HF care quality and cardiovascular care costs, but these models are not focused on addressing patients' longitudinal chronic disease needs. This article describes the efforts and vision of the multi-stakeholder Value-Based Models Learning Collaborative of The Value in Healthcare Initiative, a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University. The Learning Collaborative developed a framework for a HF value-based payment model with a longitudinal focus on disease management (to reduce adverse clinical outcomes and disease progression among patients with stage C HF) and prevention (an optional track to prevent high-risk stage B pre-HF from progressing to stage C). The model is designed to be compatible with prevalent payment models and reforms being implemented today. Barriers to success and strategies for implementation to aid payers, regulators, clinicians, and others in developing a pilot are discussed.

Moving Toward High-Value Health Care: Integrating Delivery System Reform into 2020 Policy Proposals.

Issue: Delivery system reform has been a focus of regulatory and legislative policy to date, but it is unclear how policymakers will integrate reforms into their plans for 2020 and beyond. Goal: To present and evaluate options for integrating delivery system reform into upcoming legislative proposals. Methods: Literature review. Findings and Conclusions: Policymakers should integrate delivery system reform into their 2020 plans to continue driving value in the health care system. Several options exist for promoting delivery system reform either through a state-based block grant approach or federal public plan approach. We identify three main principles that are critical for success of reform efforts: information sharing and infrastructure, flexibility to innovate, and alignment and stability of efforts.

Moneyball in Medicare.

US policymakers place high priority on tying Medicare payments to the value of care delivered. A critical part of this effort is the Hospital Value-based Purchasing Program (HVBP), which rewards or penalizes hospitals based on their quality and episode-based costs of care and incentivizes integration between hospitals and post-acute care providers. Within HVBP, each patient affects hospital performance on a variety of quality and spending measures, and performance translates directly to changes in program points and ultimately dollars. In short, hospital revenue from a patient consists not only of the DRG payment, but also of that patient's marginal future reimbursement. We estimate the magnitude of the marginal future reimbursement for individual patients across each type of quality and performance measure. We describe how those incentives differ across hospitals, including integrated and safety-net hospitals. We find evidence that hospitals improved their performance over time in the areas where they have the highest marginal incentives to improve care, and that integrated hospitals responded more than non-integrated hospitals.

Employee knowledge of value-based insurance design benefits.

BACKGROUND: Value-based insurance designs (VBD) incorporate evidence-based medicine into health benefit design. Consumer knowledge of new VBD benefits is important to assessing their impact on health care use. PURPOSE: To assess knowledge of features of a VBD. METHODS: The eligible study population was employees receiving healthcare benefits in an integrated care system in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. In 2010, participants completed a web-based survey 2 months after rollout of the plan, including three true/false questions about benefit design features including copays for preventive care visits and chronic disease medications and premium costs. Analysis was completed in 2012. Knowledgeable was defined as correct response to all three questions; self-reported knowledge was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 3,463 people completed the survey (response rate=71.7%). The majority of respondents were female (80.1%) Caucasians (79.6%) aged 35-64 years (79.0%), reflecting the overall employee population. A total of 45.7% had at least a 4-year college education, and 69.1% were married. About three quarters of respondents correctly answered each individual question; half (52.1%) of respondents answered all three questions correctly. On multivariate analysis, knowledge was independently associated with female gender (OR=1.80, 95% CI=1.40, 2.31); Caucasian race (OR=1.72, 95% CI=1.28, 2.32); increasing household income (OR for ≥$100,000=1.86, 95% CI=1.29, 2.68); nonunion job status (OR compared to union status=1.63, 95% CI=1.17, 2.26); and high satisfaction with the health plan (OR compared to low satisfaction=1.26; 95% CI=1.00, 1.57). CONCLUSIONS: Incomplete knowledge of benefits is prevalent in an employee population soon after VBD rollout.

Community oncology in an era of payment reform.

Patients and payers (government and private) are frustrated with the fee-for-service system (FFS) of payment for outpatient health services. FFS rewards volume and highly valued services, including expensive diagnostics and therapeutics, over lesser valued cognitive services. Proposed payment schemes would incent collaboration and coordination of care among providers and reward quality. In oncology, new payment schemes must address the high costs of all services, particularly drugs, while preserving the robust distribution of sites of service available to patients in the United States. Information technology and personalized cancer care are changing the practice of oncology. Twenty-first century oncology will require increasing cognitive work and shared decision making, both of which are not well regarded in the FFS model. A high proportion of health care dollars are consumed in the final months of life. Effective delivery of palliative and end-of-life care must be addressed by practice and by new models of payment. Value-based reimbursement schemes will require oncology practices to change how they are structured. Lessons drawn from the principles of primary care's Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) will help oncology practice to prepare for new schemes. PCMH principles place a premium on proactively addressing toxicities of therapies, coordinating care with other providers, and engaging patients in shared decision making, supporting the ideal of value defined in the triple aim-to measurably improve patient experience and quality of care at less cost. Payment reform will be disruptive to all. Oncology must be engaged in policy discussions and guide rational shifts in priorities defined by new payment models.

Understanding and surviving the transition to value-based oncology.

This paper and the three presentations it supports are drawn from the theme of the 2012 Cancer Center Business Summit (CCBS): "Transitioning to Value-Based Oncology: Strategies to Survive and Thrive." The CCBS is a forum on oncology business innovation, and the principal question the organizers address each year is "What are the creative, innovative, and best business models and practices that are being conceived or piloted today that may provide a responsible and sustainable platform for the delivery of cancer care tomorrow?" At this moment in health care-when so much is in flux and new business models and solutions abound-the oncology sector has a solemn responsibility: to forge the business models and relationships that will help to define a new cancer care value proposition and a sustainable health care system of tomorrow for the benefit of the patients it serves to get it "right."