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.

International Experience in Therapeutic Value and Value-Based Pricing: A Rapid Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize at a global level the concept of therapeutic value (TV) and describe the experience of value-based pricing (VBP) policies in 6 reference countries. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review of the literature that addressed 2 exploratory research questions. A systematic and exhaustive search was carried out up to July 2018 in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. RESULTS: The concepts of TV and VBP are related; value frameworks for medicines should include social preferences, comparative effectiveness, safety, adoption viability, social impact, high quality of evidence, severity of illness, and innovation. The added therapeutic value (ATV) is the manner of measuring the therapeutic advantages of new medicines compared with existing ones in terms of comparative effectiveness and safety. There are variations in the mechanisms of reimbursement and drug pricing regulation between the countries of study. CONCLUSION: In a VBP system it is essential to establish the TV and ATV of a new medicine. Although there are no methodological guidelines for the implementation of VBP policies, the process implies from the beginning the definition of TV categories that will be included in the drug pricing and reimbursement systems. Agreements between the pharmaceutical industry and governments have become a useful tool as a negotiating mechanism in most countries.

Value-based insurance design in Louisiana: Blue Cross Blue Shield's Zero Dollar Co-pay program.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a program that eliminated pharmacy co-pays, the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana (BCBSLA) Zero Dollar Co-pay (ZDC) program, decreased health care spending. Previous studies have found that value-based insurance designs like the ZDC program have little or no impact on total health care spending. ZDC included an expansive set of medications related to 4 chronic diseases rather than a limited set of medications for 1 or 2 chronic diseases. Additionally, ZDC focused on the most at-risk patients. STUDY DESIGN: ZDC began in 2014 and enrolled patients over time based on (1) when a patient answered a call from a nurse care manager and (2) when a patient or their employer changed the benefit structure to meet the program criteria. During 2015 and 2016, 265 patients with at least 1 chronic condition (asthma, diabetes, hypertension, mental illness) enrolled in ZDC. METHODS: Observational study using within-patient variation and variation in patient enrollment month to identify the impact of the ZDC program on health spending measures. We used 100% BCBSLA claims data from January 2015 to June 2018. Monthly level event studies were used to test for differential spending patterns prior to ZDC enrollment. RESULTS: We found that total spending decreased by $205.9 (P = .049) per member per month, or approximately 18%. We saw a decrease in medical spending ($195.0; P = .023) but did not detect a change in pharmacy spending ($7.59; P = .752). We found no evidence of changes in spending patterns prior to ZDC enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: The ZDC program provides evidence that value-based insurance designs that incorporate a comprehensive set of medications and focus on populations with chronic disease can reduce spending.

The Impact of Medicare's Alternative Payment Models on the Value of Care.

Over the past decade, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have led the nationwide shift toward value-based payment. A major strategy for achieving this goal has been to implement alternative payment models (APMs) that encourage high-value care by holding providers financially accountable for both the quality and the costs of care. In particular, the CMS has implemented and scaled up two types of APMs: population-based models that emphasize accountability for overall quality and costs for defined patient populations, and episode-based payment models that emphasize accountability for quality and costs for discrete care. Both APM types have been associated with modest reductions in Medicare spending without apparent compromises in quality. However, concerns about the unintended consequences of these APMs remain, and more work is needed in several important areas. Nonetheless, both APM types represent steps to build on along the path toward a higher-value national health care system.

Preparing for a value-driven future.

At this month's staff meeting of your integrated primary care practice, the medical director makes an announcement: Your health system just signed a contract that includes a value-based payment (VBP) arrangement with a local managed care organization (MCO). The medical director suggests that this will lead to big changes in your practice because you will now focus on producing patient outcomes rather than on volume of care delivered. You wonder: What is a VBP arrangement? What kinds of patient outcomes? What does this mean for integrated care? and How do I help our organization succeed? Value-based care is the future, and it will impact the way that all of us practice. In value-based arrangements, the delivery of care fundamentally changes because payment for care shifts from our current fee-for-service model, in which provider productivity is key to financial survival, to payment for positive clinical outcomes where quality of care rules. And this change is happening now. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced aggressive national VBP targets, with a goal of tying 50% of all Medicare payments to alternative payment models by the end of 2018 (New York State Department of Health, 2015). Since then, many states have adopted similar targets for their Medicaid programs in light of ongoing state budget challenges and unsustainable cost growth trends. As these changes take hold, health care providers are increasingly expected to make fundamental changes to service delivery, financial, and organizational operations. As health care providers, VBP will require us and our health centers to develop new skills, capacities, and systems for managing clinical, financial, and operational performance and risk. We must all make sure we understand and are ready to play our part in the transition to VBP. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Differences in the Receipt of Low-Value Services Between Publicly and Privately Insured Children.

BACKGROUND: Children frequently receive low-value services that do not improve health, but it is unknown whether the receipt of these services differs between publicly and privately insured children. METHODS: We analyzed 2013-2014 Medicaid Analytic eXtract and IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters databases. Using 20 measures of low-value care (6 diagnostic testing measures, 5 imaging measures, and 9 prescription drug measures), we compared the proportion of publicly and privately insured children in 12 states who received low-value services at least once or twice in 2014; the proportion of publicly and privately insured children who received low-value diagnostic tests, imaging tests, and prescription drugs at least once; and the proportion of publicly and privately insured children eligible for each measure who received the service at least once. RESULTS: Among 6 951 556 publicly insured children and 1 647 946 privately insured children, respectively, 11.0% and 8.9% received low-value services at least once, 3.9% and 2.8% received low-value services at least twice, 3.2% and 3.8% received low-value diagnostic tests at least once, 0.4% and 0.4% received low-value imaging tests at least once, and 8.4% and 5.5% received low-value prescription drug services at least once. Differences in the proportion of eligible children receiving each service were typically small (median difference among 20 measures, public minus private: +0.3 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS: In 2014, 1 in 9 publicly insured and 1 in 11 privately insured children received low-value services. Differences between populations were modest overall, suggesting that wasteful care is not highly associated with payer type. Efforts to reduce this care should target all populations regardless of payer mix.

Accountable Care Organizations Serving Deprived Communities Are Less Likely to Share in Savings.

PURPOSE: Primary care physicians are increasingly participating in accountable care organizations (ACOs). While prior studies have identified ACO and patient characteristics associated with savings, none have examined characteristics of the communities served by ACOs. Our objective was to assess the relationship between an ACO's service area characteristics and its savings rate. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we used the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2014 Medicare Shared Savings Program ACO Provider and Beneficiary, and Public Use Files to identify ACO and beneficiary characteristics. We used the American Community Survey to measure community deprivation at the ACO service area-level by using the social deprivation index. The outcome of interest was the ACO savings rate. We conducted bivariate analyses and regressions, adjusting for ACO organization and beneficiary characteristics. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 320 ACOs participating in the Shared Savings Plan. The savings rate for ACOs serving the most deprived communities was 1.19% compared with 1.14% for those serving the least deprived. Adjusting for ACO and beneficiary characteristics, however, ACOs serving the most deprived had a savings rate that was 2.3 percentage points lower than those serving the least deprived. CONCLUSIONS: ACOs serving deprived communities generate less savings. These findings are important to primary care practices, payers, and policy makers anticipating continued ACO expansion, if population health is to be achieved equitably.

Insurers' perspectives on MA value-based insurance design model.

OBJECTIVES: Value-based insurance design (VBID) lowers cost sharing for high-value healthcare services that are clinically beneficial to patients with certain conditions. In 2017, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation began a voluntary VBID model test in Medicare Advantage (MA). This article describes insurers' perspectives on the MA VBID model, explores perceived barriers to joining this model, and describes ways to address participation barriers. STUDY DESIGN: A descriptive, qualitative study. METHODS: In spring/summer 2017, we conducted semistructured interviews with 24 representatives of 10 nonparticipating MA insurers to learn why they did not join the model test. We interviewed 73 representatives of 8 VBID-participating insurers about their participation decisions and implementation experiences. All interview data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Fewer than 30% of eligible insurers participated in the first 2 years of the model test. The main barriers to entry were a perceived lack of information on VBID in MA, an expectation of low return on investment, concerns over administrative and information technology (IT) hurdles, and model design parameters. Most VBID participants encountered administrative and IT hurdles but overcame them. CMS made changes to the model parameters to increase the uptake. CONCLUSIONS: The model uptake was low, and implementation challenges and concerns over VBID effectiveness in the Medicare population were important factors in participation decisions. To increase uptake, CMS could consider providing in-kind implementation assistance to model participants. Nonparticipants may want to incorporate lessons learned from current participants, and insurers should engage their IT departments/vendors early on.

How to make value-based health insurance designs more effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Value-based health insurance designs (VBIDs) are one approach to increase adherence to highly effective medications and simultaneously contain rising health care costs. The objective of this systematic review was to identify VBID effects on adherence and incentive designs within these programs that were associated with higher effects. Eight economic and medical databases were searched for literature. Random effects meta-analyses and mixed effects meta-regressions were used to synthesize VBID effects on adherence. Thirteen references with evaluation studies, including 12 patient populations with 79 outcomes, were used for primary meta-analyses. For qualitative review and sensitivity analyses, up to 19 references including 20 populations with 119 outcomes were used. Evidence of synthesized effects was good, because references with high risk of bias were excluded. VBIDs significantly increased adherence in all indication areas. Highest effects were found in medications indicated in heart diseases (4.05%-points, p < 0.0001). Each additional year increased effects by 0.15%-points (p < 0.01). VBIDs with education were more effective than without education, but the difference was not significant. Effects of VBIDs with full coverage were more than twice as high as effects of VBID without that option (4.52 vs 1.81%-points, p < 0.05). These findings were robust in most sensitivity analyses. It is concluded that VBID implementation should be encouraged, especially for patients with heart diseases, and that full coverage was associated with higher effects. This review may provide insight for policy-makers into how to make VBIDs more effective.

Value-Based Health Care in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with significant resource utilization and health care burden. It is emerging as a global disease affecting an increasing proportion of the population. Along with evolving epidemiological trends, the paradigm of managing IBD has also changed. With a burgeoning repertoire of therapeutic options, improved use of health informatics, and emphasis on health care value, the treatment paradigm for IBD has experienced seismic shifts. In this review, we focused on value-based health care (VBHC)-a health care model that emphasizes monitoring outcomes to emphasize patient-centered, cost-effective IBD patient care. Several quality initiatives have been developed worldwide, and successful models of care were created for proper implementation of these initiatives. Although there are significant challenges to scale these models to a national level, it is still possible to successfully implement VBHC models within health systems to improve the quality of care provided to patients with IBD.

Practice Rurality of Family Physicians Enrolled in a Practice Transformation Network.

The Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative prioritized the delivery of free practice transformation assistance by Practice Transformation Networks (PTNs) to small and rural practices that may otherwise lack the resources needed to succeed in Medicare's value-based payment (VBP) programs. We assessed the enrollment of rural practices in PTNs using 2016 TCPI enrollment data and American Board of Family Medicine recertification examination registration data from 2013 to 2016. PTNs enrolled a higher proportion of rural family medicine practices than are represented across the general workforce (P < .0001). We await more comprehensive data releases to fully understand enrollment to this important initiative.

How Evolving United States Payment Models Influence Primary Care and Its Impact on the Quadruple Aim.

INTRODUCTION: Prior research has demonstrated the associations between a strong primary care foundation with improved Quadruple Aim outcomes. The prevailing fee-for-service payment system in the United States reinforces the volume of services over value-based care, thereby devaluing primary care, and obstructing the health care system from attaining the Quadruple Aim. By supporting a shift from volume-based to value-based payment models, the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act may help fortify the role of primary care. This narrative review proposes a taxonomy of the major health care payment models, reviewing their ability to uphold the functions of primary care, and their impacts across the Quadruple Aim. METHODS: An Ovid MEDLINE search and expert opinion from members of the Family Medicine for America's Health payment and research tactic teams were used. Titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance to the topic, and expert opinion further narrowed the literature for inclusion to timely and relevant articles. FINDINGS: No payment model demonstrates consistent benefits across the Quadruple Aim across a limited evidence base. Several cross-cutting lessons from available payment models several recommendations for primary care payment models, including the following: implementing per member per month-based models, validating risk-adjustment tools, increasing investments in integrated behavioral health and social services, and connecting payments to patient-oriented and primary care-oriented metrics. Along with ongoing research in emerging payment models, data systems integrated across health care and social services settings using metrics that can capture the ideal functions of primary care will be critical to the development of future payment models that most optimally enhance the role of primary care in the United States. CONCLUSIONS: Although the ideal payment model for primary care remains to be determined, lessons learned from existing payment models can help guide the shift from volume-based to value-based care. To most effectively pay for primary care, future payment models should invest in a primary care infrastructure, one that supports team-based, community-oriented care, and measures the delivery of the functions of primary care.

Complex care models to achieve accountable care readiness: Lessons from two community hospitals.

Massachusetts' community hospitals face the challenge of achieving accountable care readiness with fewer financial and operational resources and a higher share of publicly-insured patients than their academic medical center counterparts. They are thus doubly constrained to make the investments necessary to perform in a value-based payment environment. Hallmark Health System and Lowell General Hospital are among 25 community hospital awardees engaged with the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission's Community Hospital Acceleration, Revitalization, and Transformation (CHART) investment program to implement clinical transformation programs to reduce unnecessary hospital utilization; enhance care for individuals with social, behavioral, and medical complexity; and improve post-acute community-based care, as means to advance accountable care readiness. The programs are payer-blind and designed to operate at-scale based on clinical and/or utilization criteria. Using examples from Hallmark Health System and Lowell General Hospital, we report on early lessons learned, representative of experiences from across the Phase 2 cohort: 1) locally-derived data enables hospitals to plan and implement action-oriented initiatives that are tailored to their communities; 2) investments in appropriate technologies facilitate near real-time patient engagement upon presentation to the acute care setting and/or immediately post-discharge; 3) non-medical providers are a cost-effective and high-value addition to complex care teams serving individuals with complex needs; and 4) collaboration with community partners improves care continuity and promotes stability outside the hospital-a promising approach to cost-effective population health management.

Payer Type and Low-Value Care: Comparing Choosing Wisely Services across Commercial and Medicare Populations.

OBJECTIVE: To compare low-value health service use among commercially insured and Medicare populations and explore the influence of payer type on the provision of low-value care. DATA SOURCES: 2009-2011 national Medicare and commercial insurance administrative data. DESIGN: We created claims-based algorithms to measure seven Choosing Wisely-identified low-value services and examined the correlation between commercial and Medicare overuse overall and at the regional level. Regression models explored associations between overuse and regional characteristics. METHODS: We created measures of early imaging for back pain, vitamin D screening, cervical cancer screening over age 65, prescription opioid use for migraines, cardiac testing in asymptomatic patients, short-interval repeat bone densitometry (DXA), preoperative cardiac testing for low-risk surgery, and a composite of these. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Prevalence of four services was similar across the insurance-defined groups. Regional correlation between Medicare and commercial overuse was high (correlation coefficient = 0.540-0.905) for all measures. In both groups, similar region-level factors were associated with low-value care provision, especially total Medicare spending and ratio of specialists to primary care physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Low-value care appears driven by factors unrelated to payer type or anticipated reimbursement. These findings suggest the influence of local practice patterns on care without meaningful discrimination by payer type.

Quality Measures in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The importance of providing quality care over quantity of care, and its positive effects on health care expenditure and health, has motivated a transition toward value-based payments. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and private payers are establishing programs linking financial incentives and penalties to adherence to quality measures. As payment models based on quality measures are transitioned into practice, it is beneficial to identify current quality measures that address breast reconstruction surgery as well as understand gaps to inform future quality measure development. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of quality measures for breast reconstruction surgery by searching quality measure databases, professional society clinical practice guidelines, and the literature. Measures were categorized as structure, process, or outcome according to the Donabedian domains of quality. RESULTS: We identified a total of 27 measures applicable to breast reconstruction: 5 candidate quality measures specifically for breast reconstruction surgery and 22 quality measures that relate broadly to surgery. Of the breast reconstruction candidate measures, 3 addressed processes and 2 addressed outcomes. Seventeen of the general quality measures were process measures and 5 were outcome measures. We did not identify any structural measures. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, an overrepresentation of process measures exists, which addresses breast reconstruction surgery. There is a limited number of candidate measures that specifically address breast reconstruction. Quality measure development efforts on underrepresented domains, such as structure and outcome, and stewarding the measure development process for candidate quality measures can ensure breast reconstruction surgery is appropriately evaluated in value-based payment models.