Assessing Medicare's Approach To Covering New Drugs In Bundled Payments For Oncology.

New oncology therapies can contribute to survival or quality of life, but payers and policy makers have raised concerns about the cost of these therapies. Similar concerns extend beyond cancer. In seeking a solution, payers are increasingly turning toward value-based payment models in which providers take financial risk for costs and outcomes. These models, including episode payment and bundled payment, create financial gains for providers who reduce cost, but they also create concerns about potential stinting on necessary treatments. One approach, which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services adopted in the Oncology Care Model (OCM), is to partially adjust medical practices' budgets for their use of novel therapies, defined in this case as new oncology drugs or new indications for existing drugs approved after December 31, 2014. In an analysis of the OCM novel therapies adjustment using historical Medicare claims data, we found that the adjustment may provide important financial protection for practices. In a simulation we performed, the adjustment reduced the average loss per treatment episode by $758 (from $807 to $49) for large practices that use novel therapies often. Lessons from the OCM can have implications for other alternative payment models.

The site of care matters: An examination of the relationship between high Medicaid burden hospitals and the use, cost, and complications of immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Diminished use and worse outcomes after immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) have been documented for Medicaid beneficiaries. However, to the authors' knowledge, the contribution of patient clustering at hospitals with a high percentage of Medicaid patients to these inequalities in IBR delivery is unknown. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of patients undergoing IBR after mastectomy using the 2007 to 2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was performed. Hospital Medicaid status was calculated as the percentage of all patients with Medicaid as a primary payer. Tertile groupings were generated to enable statistical analysis. Hierarchical regression models were used to investigate the link between Medicaid status and IBR use, outcomes, and costs. A subgroup of patients undergoing IBR for noninvasive cancer or those with increased genetic risk were used to study IBR use. RESULTS: A total of 30,086 IBR cases in 1199 hospitals were analyzed. Hierarchical regression analysis demonstrated an association between high Medicaid burden hospitals and significantly decreased odds of IBR among patients with in situ disease and/or an elevated risk of cancer (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.507-0.806). Increasing age, obesity, being nonwhite, having more comorbid conditions, and having government insurance were found to be associated with diminished odds of IBR (P<.001 in all instances). In-hospital surgical and medical complication rates were comparable across the 3 strata of hospital Medicaid status. Log-adjusted costs of care were found to be positively associated with a higher hospital Medicaid burden status (coefficient of 0.038 [95% CI, 0.011-0.066] for medium Medicaid burden hospitals and coefficient of 0.053 [95% CI, 0.015-0.093] for high Medicaid burden hospitals). CONCLUSIONS: High Medicaid burden hospital status is associated with an attenuation of IBR use and increased total inpatient costs. Structures of care such as hospital resources partially explain disparities in IBR delivery. Cancer 2018;124:346-55. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Design Challenges of an Episode-Based Payment Model in Oncology: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Oncology Care Model.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services developed the Oncology Care Model as an episode-based payment model to encourage participating practitioners to provide higher-quality, better-coordinated care at a lower cost to the nearly three-quarter million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with cancer who receive chemotherapy each year. Episode payment models can be complex. They combine into a single benchmark price all payments for services during an episode of illness, many of which may be delivered at different times by different providers in different locations. Policy and technical decisions include the definition of the episode, including its initiation, duration, and included services; the identification of beneficiaries included in the model; and beneficiary attribution to practitioners with overall responsibility for managing their care. In addition, the calculation and risk adjustment of benchmark episode prices for the bundle of services must reflect geographic cost variations and diverse patient populations, including varying disease subtypes, medical comorbidities, changes in standards of care over time, the adoption of expensive new drugs (especially in oncology), as well as diverse practice patterns. Other steps include timely monitoring and intervention as needed to avoid shifting the attribution of beneficiaries on the basis of their expected episode expenditures as well as to ensure the provision of necessary medical services and the development of a meaningful link to quality measurement and improvement through the episode-based payment methodology. The complex and diverse nature of oncology business relationships and the specific rules and requirements of Medicare payment systems for different types of providers intensify these issues. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services believes that by sharing its approach to addressing these decisions and challenges, it may facilitate greater understanding of the model within the oncology community and provide insight to others considering the development of episode-based payment models in the commercial or government sectors.

Association Between Hospital Participation in a Medicare Bundled Payment Initiative and Payments and Quality Outcomes for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Episodes.

IMPORTANCE: Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) is a voluntary initiative of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to test the effect of holding an entity accountable for all services provided during an episode of care on episode payments and quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether BPCI was associated with a greater reduction in Medicare payments without loss of quality of care for lower extremity joint (primarily hip and knee) replacement episodes initiated in BPCI-participating hospitals that are accountable for total episode payments (for the hospitalization and Medicare-covered services during the 90 days after discharge). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A difference-in-differences approach estimated the differential change in outcomes for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who had a lower extremity joint replacement at a BPCI-participating hospital between the baseline (October 2011 through September 2012) and intervention (October 2013 through June 2015) periods and beneficiaries with the same surgical procedure at matched comparison hospitals. EXPOSURE: Lower extremity joint replacement at a BPCI-participating hospital. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Standardized Medicare-allowed payments (Medicare payments), utilization, and quality (unplanned readmissions, emergency department visits, and mortality) during hospitalization and the 90-day postdischarge period. RESULTS: There were 29 441 lower extremity joint replacement episodes in the baseline period and 31 700 in the intervention period (mean [SD] age, 74.1 [8.89] years; 65.2% women) at 176 BPCI-participating hospitals, compared with 29 440 episodes in the baseline period (768 hospitals) and 31 696 episodes in the intervention period (841 hospitals) (mean [SD] age, 74.1 [8.92] years; 64.9% women) at matched comparison hospitals. The BPCI mean Medicare episode payments were $30 551 (95% CI, $30 201 to $30 901) in the baseline period and declined by $3286 to $27 265 (95% CI, $26 838 to $27 692) in the intervention period. The comparison mean Medicare episode payments were $30 057 (95% CI, $29 765 to $30 350) in the baseline period and declined by $2119 to $27 938 (95% CI, $27 639 to $28 237). The mean Medicare episode payments declined by an estimated $1166 more (95% CI, -$1634 to -$699; P < .001) for BPCI episodes than for comparison episodes, primarily due to reduced use of institutional postacute care. There were no statistical differences in the claims-based quality measures, which included 30-day unplanned readmissions (-0.1%; 95% CI, -0.6% to 0.4%), 90-day unplanned readmissions (-0.4%; 95% CI, -1.1% to 0.3%), 30-day emergency department visits (-0.1%; 95% CI, -0.7% to 0.5%), 90-day emergency department visits (0.2%; 95% CI, -0.6% to 1.0%), 30-day postdischarge mortality (-0.1%; 95% CI, -0.3% to 0.2%), and 90-day postdischarge mortality (-0.0%; 95% CI, -0.3% to 0.3%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the first 21 months of the BPCI initiative, Medicare payments declined more for lower extremity joint replacement episodes provided in BPCI-participating hospitals than for those provided in comparison hospitals, without a significant change in quality outcomes. Further studies are needed to assess longer-term follow-up as well as patterns for other types of clinical care.