Transition to Value-based Healthcare: Development, Implementation, and Results of an Optimal Surgical Care Framework at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: The continued rise in healthcare expenditures has not produced commensurate improvements in patient outcomes, leading US healthcare stakeholders to emphasize value-based care. Transition to such a model requires all team members to adopt a new strategic and organizational framework. OBJECTIVE: To describe and report a strategy for the implementation of a novel patient-centered value-based "optimal surgical care" (OSC) framework, with validation and cost analysis in kidney surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An observational study of care episodes at a single institution from 2014 to 2019 was conducted. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Multidisciplinary teams defined OSC by core and procedure-specific metrics using a combination of provider-based ("bottom-up") and "clinical leadership"-based ("top-down") strategies. Baseline OSC rates across were established, while identifying proportions of OSC achieved by coefficient of variation (CV) in total direct costs. Multivariable linear regression comparing cost between OSC and non-OSC encounters was performed, adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: An analysis of 30 261 perioperative care episodes was performed. Following the implementation of an OSC framework, there was an increase in OSC rates across all procedure buckets using core (25%) and procedure-specific (26%) metrics. Among the tumors tested, kidney cancer surgical episodes held the highest OSC rate improvement (67%) with lowest variability in cost (CV 0.5). OSC was associated with significant total cost savings across all tumor types after adjusting for inflation (p < 0.05). Compared with non-OSC episodes, a significant reduction in the cost ratio of OSC was noted for renal surgery (p < 0.01), with estimated costs savings of $2445.87 per OSC encounter. CONCLUSIONS: Institutional change directing efforts toward optimizing surgical care and emphasizing value rather than focusing solely on expense reduction is associated with improved outcomes, while potentially reducing costs. The strategy for implementation requires serial performance analyses, engaging and educating providers, and continuous ongoing adjustments to achieve durable results. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we report our strategy and outcomes for transitioning to a value-based healthcare model using a novel "optimal surgical care" framework at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. We observed an increase in optimal surgical care episodes across all specialties after 5 yr, with a potential associated reduction in cost expenditure. We conclude that the key to a successful and sustained transition is the implementation strategy, focusing on continual review and provider engagement.

Payer perceptions and use of value assessment tools in the United States.

BACKGROUND: As the United States transitions toward value-based payment, value assessment tools to measure the value of health care interventions are emerging. As the field evolves, it is important to evaluate how these tools are influencing treatment and coverage decisions. OBJECTIVE: To examine payer perceptions and use of US value assessment tools and identify how these tools inform payer decision-making. METHODS: A double-blind, web-based survey was conducted from June to July 2022 to assess health care payers' perceptions and use of value assessment tools developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Drug Pricing Lab, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), Innovation and Value Initiative, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network. RESULTS: 51 respondents completed the survey. 86% of payers were familiar with at least 4 of 5 value assessment tools. Both ICER and National Comprehensive Cancer Network tools are perceived as very useful for informing formulary decisions (57% and 49%, respectively). When selecting a value assessment tool, payers identified the inclusion of appropriate metrics and outcomes (92%), comparative clinical effectiveness information (88%), and reliance on rigorous, unbiased methods (86%) to be very/extremely important. Payers reported the inclusion of the patient, provider, and societal perspectives as lower importance (32%, 31%, and 20% identify these elements as very/extremely important, respectively). Payers reported using ICER evidence reports to both expand and restrict coverage decisions. To advance more useful and relevant value assessment tools, payers identified the need for greater stakeholder awareness of existing tools, and some recommended that value assessors increase the volume of assessments conducted. CONCLUSIONS: US health care payers perceive select value assessment tools to be useful for informing health care decisions. As policy momentum behind value assessment builds, additional examination of value assessment tools is needed to inform appropriate application of value assessment in US health care decision-making. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Xcenda/AmerisourceBergen. Ms Buelt, Ms Loo, Ms Westrich, and Drs Hydery and Zheng report employment with Xcenda/AmerisourceBergen. Drs Dharbhamalla and Graff report employment with AMCP.