Physician Compensation Arrangements and Financial Performance Incentives in US Health Systems.

Importance: Public and private payers continue to expand use of alternative payment models, aiming to use value-based payment to affect the care delivery of their contracted health system partners. In parallel, health systems and their employment of physicians continue to grow. However, the degree to which health system physician compensation reflects an orientation toward value, rather than volume, is unknown. Objective: To characterize primary care physician (PCP) and specialist compensation arrangements among US health system-affiliated physician organizations (POs) and measure the portion of total physician compensation based on quality and cost performance. Design Setting and Participants: This study was a cross-sectional mixed-methods analysis of in-depth multimodal data (compensation document review, interviews with 40 PO leaders, and surveys conducted between November 2017 and July 2019) from 31 POs affiliated with 22 purposefully selected health systems in 4 states. Data were analyzed from June 2019 to September 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The frequency of PCP and specialist compensation types and the percentage of compensation when included, including base compensation incentives, quality and cost performance incentives, and other financial incentives. The top 3 actions physicians could take to increase their compensation. The association between POs' percentage of revenue from fee-for-service and their physicians' volume-based compensation percentage. Results: Volume-based compensation was the most common base compensation incentive component for PCPs (26 POs [83.9%]; mean, 68.2% of compensation; median, 81.4%; range, 5.0%-100.0% when included) and specialists (29 POs [93.3%]; mean, 73.7% of compensation; median, 90.5%; range, 2.5%-100.0% when included). While quality and cost performance incentives were common (included by 83.9%-56.7% of POs for PCPs and specialists, respectively), the percentage of compensation based on quality and cost performance was modest (mean, 9.0% [median, 8.3%; range, 1.0%-25.0%] for PCPs and 5.3% [median, 4.5%; range, 0.5%-16.0%] for specialists when included). Increasing the volume of services was the most commonly cited action for physicians to increase compensation, reported as the top action by 22 POs (70.0%) for PCPs and specialists. We observed a very weak, nonsignificant association between the percentage of revenue of POs from fee for service and the PCP and specialist volume-based compensation percentage (r = 0.08; P = .78 and r = -0.04; P = .89, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that PCPs and specialists despite receiving value-based reimbursement incentives from payers, the compensation of health system PCPs and specialists was dominated by volume-based incentives designed to maximize health systems revenue.

The importance of understanding and measuring health system structural, functional, and clinical integration.

OBJECTIVE: We explore if there are ways to characterize health systems-not already revealed by secondary data-that could provide new insights into differences in health system performance. We sought to collect rich qualitative data to reveal whether and to what extent health systems vary in important ways across dimensions of structural, functional, and clinical integration. DATA SOURCES: Interviews with 162 c-suite executives of 24 health systems in four states conducted through "virtual" site visits between 2017 and 2019. STUDY DESIGN: Exploratory study using thematic comparative analysis to describe factors that may lead to high performance. DATA COLLECTION: We used maximum variation sampling to achieve diversity in size and performance. We conducted, transcribed, coded, and analyzed in-depth, semi-structured interviews with system executives, covering such topics as market context, health system origin, organizational structure, governance features, and relationship of health system to affiliated hospitals and POs. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Health systems vary widely in size and ownership type, complexity of organization and governance arrangements, and ability to take on risk. Structural, functional, and clinical integration vary across systems, with considerable activity around centralizing business functions, aligning financial incentives with physicians, establishing enterprise-wide EHR, and moving toward single signatory contracting. Executives describe clinical integration as more difficult to achieve, but essential. Studies that treat "health system" as a binary variable may be inappropriately aggregating for analysis health systems of very different types, at different degrees of maturity, and at different stages of structural, functional, and clinical integration. As a result, a "signal" indicating performance may be distorted by the "noise." CONCLUSIONS: Developing ways to account for the complex structures of today's health systems can enhance future efforts to study systems as complex organizations, to assess their performance, and to better understand the effects of payment innovation, care redesign, and other reforms.

Outcomes and toxicity for hypofractionated and single-fraction image-guided stereotactic radiosurgery for sarcomas metastasizing to the spine.

PURPOSE: Conventional radiation treatment (20-40 Gy in 5-20 fractions, 2-5 Gy per fraction) for sarcoma metastatic to the spine provides subtherapeutic doses, resulting in poor durable local control (LC) (50%-77% at 1 year). Hypofractionated (HF) and/or single-fraction (SF) image-guided stereotactic radiosurgery (IG-SRS) may provide a more effective means of managing these lesions. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with pathologically proven high-grade sarcoma metastatic to the spine treated with HF and SF IG-SRS were included. LC and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by the use of Kaplan-Meier statistics. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed by the use of Cox regression with competing-risks analysis; all confidence intervals are 95%. Toxicities were assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. RESULTS: From May 2005 to November 11, 2012, 88 patients with 120 discrete metastases received HF (3-6 fractions; median dose, 28.5 Gy; n=52, 43.3%) or SF IG-SRS (median dose, 24 Gy; n=68, 56.7%). The median follow-up time was 12.3 months. At 12 months, LC was 87.9% (confidence interval [CI], 81.3%-94.5%), OS was 60.6% (CI, 49.6%-71.6%), and median survival was 16.9 months. SF IG-SRS demonstrated superior LC to HF IG-SRS (12-month LC of 90.8% [CI, 83%-98.6%] vs 84.1% [CI, 72.9%-95.3%] P=.007) and retained significance on multivariate analysis (P=.030, hazard ratio 0.345; CI, 0.132-0.901]. Treatment was well tolerated, with 1% acute grade 3 toxicity, 4.5% chronic grade 3 toxicity, and no grade >3 toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest series of metastatic sarcoma to the spine to date, IG-SRS provides excellent LC in the setting of an aggressive disease with low radiation sensitivity and poor prognosis. Single-fraction IG-SRS is associated with the highest rates of LC with minimal toxicity.

Positron emission tomography (PET) evaluation after initial chemotherapy and radiation therapy predicts local control in rhabdomyosarcoma.

PURPOSE: 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) is already an integral part of staging in rhabdomyosarcoma. We investigated whether primary-site treatment response characterized by serial PET imaging at specific time points can be correlated with local control. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively examined 94 patients with rhabdomyosarcoma who received initial chemotherapy 15 weeks (median) before radiotherapy and underwent baseline, preradiation, and postradiation PET. Baseline PET standardized uptake values (SUVmax) and the presence or absence of abnormal uptake (termed PET-positive or PET-negative) both before and after radiation were examined for the primary site. Local relapse-free survival (LRFS) was calculated according to baseline SUVmax, PET-positive status, and PET-negative status by the Kaplan-Meier method, and comparisons were tested with the log-rank test. RESULTS: The median patient age was 11 years. With 3-year median follow-up, LRFS was improved among postradiation PET-negative vs PET-positive patients: 94% vs 75%, P=.02. By contrast, on baseline PET, LRFS was not significantly different for primary-site SUVmax≤7 vs >7 (median), although the findings suggested a trend toward improved LRFS: 96% for SUVmax≤7 vs 79% for SUVmax>7, P=.08. Preradiation PET also suggested a statistically insignificant trend toward improved LRFS for PET-negative (97%) vs PET-positive (81%) patients (P=.06). CONCLUSION: Negative postradiation PET predicted improved LRFS. Notably, 77% of patients with persistent postradiation uptake did not experience local failure, suggesting that these patients could be closely followed up rather than immediately referred for intervention. Negative baseline and preradiation PET findings suggested statistically insignificant trends toward improved LRFS. Additional study may further understanding of relationships between PET findings at these time points and outcome in rhabdomyosarcoma.