Strengthening the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation's Approach to Constructing Alternative Payment Models.

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) seeks to develop evidence-based alternative payment models (APM) to improve health care quality and reduce costs, but its performance in achieving these goals has been mixed. In October 2021, CMMI released its Innovation Strategy Refresh to highlight challenges faced by payment models and suggest new strategic approaches for the upcoming decade. While a welcome recast of organizational goals, the Refresh leaves space for how CMMI will address persistent issues. These include how CMMI can best engage physicians and patients in APMs, minimize conflicting incentives among APMs, reduce selection bias in model participation, and, ultimately, transition away from the fee-for-service framework that underlies much of Medicare reimbursement. This article provides guidance to CMMI's vision by examining challenges within CMMI's strategy for model building and offering solutions to mitigate these issues. These strategies include engaging beneficiaries in APM incentives, expanding operational flexibility to improve clinical behaviors (e.g., waivers), rectifying issues with conflicting model incentives, building voluntary short-term and mandatory long-term incentives to mitigate selection bias, and transitioning to an overriding population-based model to constrain net costs. Policy Points The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) seeks to develop evidence-based alternative payment models (APM) to improve care quality and reduce health care cost, but its performance in achieving these goals has been mixed. In October 2021, CMMI released a "strategic refresh" of its goals but left space for how persistent issues to model development would be addressed. We propose strategies to engage physicians and patients in APMs, minimize conflicting incentives among APMs, reduce selection bias in model participation, and, ultimately, transition away from the fee-for-service framework that underlies much of Medicare reimbursement.

Gaps in residency training should be addressed to better prepare doctors for a twenty-first-century delivery system.

Many observers have been concerned about a mismatch between the knowledge, skills, and professional values of newly trained physicians and the requirements of current and future medical practice. We surveyed and interviewed Kaiser Permanente's clinical department chiefs for internal medicine, pediatrics, general surgery, and obstetrics/gynecology to ascertain their views of the perceived gaps in the readiness of newly trained physicians. Nearly half of those surveyed reported deficiencies among new physicians in managing routine conditions or performing simple procedures often encountered in office-based practice. A third of the chiefs noted deficiencies in coordinating care for patients. Filling these and other training gaps will require changes at many levels-from residency programs to Medicare reimbursement policies-to better prepare new physicians for the challenges of working in a health care system evolving to emphasize accountability, quality outcomes, cost control, and information technology.

Analysis & commentary: The accountable care organization: whatever its growing pains, the concept is too vitally important to fail.

The success of health reform efforts will depend, in part, on creating new and better ways to organize, deliver, and pay for health care. Increasingly central to this idea is the accountable care organization model proposed for Medicare and a slightly different model for commercial health care. But these new health care delivery and payment models face considerable skepticism. Can Medicare succeed with accountable care organizations if physicians can't determine whether patients are in the organization or not? Will commercial hospitals use their clout to create accountable care organizations, leaving physician practices in a weaker position? This article answers those and other criticisms of the developing accountable care organization movement. If the concept fails, the nation may face indiscriminate cuts to health care payments, with resulting reductions in access, service, and quality.

Delivery system reform tracking: a framework for understanding change.

The health care delivery system is changing rapidly, with providers forming patient-centered medical homes and exploring the creation of accountable care organizations. Enactment of the Affordable Care Act will likely accelerate these changes. Significant delivery system reforms will simultaneously affect the structures, capabilities, incentives, and outcomes of the delivery system. With so many changes taking place at once, there is a need for a new tool to track progress at the community level. Many of the necessary data elements for a delivery system reform tracking tool are already being collected in various places and by different stakeholders. The authors propose that all elements be brought together in a unified whole to create a detailed picture of delivery system change. This brief provides a rationale for creating such a tool and presents a framework for doing so.

Meaningful variation in performance: what does variation in quality tell us about improving quality?

BACKGROUND: Variance reduction is sometimes considered as a goal of clinical quality improvement. Variance among physicians, hospitals, or health plans has been evaluated as the proportion of total variance (or intraclass correlation, ICC) in a quality measure; low ICCs have been interpreted to indicate low potential for quality improvement at that level. However, the absolute amount of variation, expressed in clinically meaningful units, is less frequently reported. Moreover, changes in variance components have not been studied as quality improves. OBJECTIVES: To examine changes in variance components at primary care physician and medical facility levels as performance improved for 4 quality indicators: systolic blood pressure levels in hypertension; low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels in hyperlipidemia; patient-reported care experience scores after primary care visits; and mammography screening rates. POPULATION: Adult members (n = 62,596-410,976) of Kaiser Permanente in Northern California, served by more than 1000 primary care physicians in 35 facilities, from 2001 to 2006. METHODS: Multilevel linear and logistic regression to examine the interphysician and interfacility variances in 4 quality indicators over 6 years, after case-mix adjustment. RESULTS: ICCs were low for all 4 indicators at both levels (0.0021-0.086). Nevertheless, variances at both levels were statistically and clinically significant. For systolic blood pressure and the care experience score, interfacility and interphysician variance as well as ICCs decreased further as quality improved; declines were greater at the facility level. For low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, variability at both levels increased with quality improvement; and for screening mammography, small declines were not statistically significant for either physicians or facilities. CONCLUSIONS: Low proportions of variance do not predict low potential for quality improvement. Despite low ICCs for facilities, quality improvement efforts directed primarily at facilities improved quality for all 4 indicators.

How can Medicare lead delivery system reform?

The current fee-for-service system of paying for health care emphasizes volume and complexity, and often discourages attempts to improve effectiveness and efficiency. This brief discusses several policies that could begin to move away from the adverse incentives embedded in the current system to incentives that encourage better care and better value. The authors believe that U.S. health care would be better and more efficient if the system as a whole functioned the way top-performing providers do, with greater accountability for specific populations and for the totality of care delivered. They argue that the Medicare program is an ideal starting point for delivery system reform.

Toward a 21st-century health care system: recommendations for health care reform.

The coverage, cost, and quality problems of the U.S. health care system are evident. Sustainable health care reform must go beyond financing expanded access to care to substantially changing the organization and delivery of care. The FRESH-Thinking Project (www.fresh-thinking.org) held a series of workshops during which physicians, health policy experts, health insurance executives, business leaders, hospital administrators, economists, and others who represent diverse perspectives came together. This group agreed that the following 8 recommendations are fundamental to successful reform: 1. Replace the current fee-for-service payment system with a payment system that encourages and rewards innovation in the efficient delivery of quality care. The new payment system should invest in the development of outcome measures to guide payment. 2. Establish a securely funded, independent agency to sponsor and evaluate research on the comparative effectiveness of drugs, devices, and other medical interventions. 3. Simplify and rationalize federal and state laws and regulations to facilitate organizational innovation, support care coordination, and streamline financial and administrative functions. 4. Develop a health information technology infrastructure with national standards of interoperability to promote data exchange. 5. Create a national health database with the participation of all payers, delivery systems, and others who own health care data. Agree on methods to make de-identified information from this database on clinical interventions, patient outcomes, and costs available to researchers. 6. Identify revenue sources, including a cap on the tax exclusion of employer-based health insurance, to subsidize health care coverage with the goal of insuring all Americans. 7. Create state or regional insurance exchanges to pool risk, so that Americans without access to employer-based or other group insurance could obtain a standard benefits package through these exchanges. Employers should also be allowed to participate in these exchanges for their employees' coverage. 8. Create a health coverage board with broad stakeholder representation to determine and periodically update the affordable standard benefit package available through state or regional insurance exchanges.