A Framework for the Design of Risk-Adjustment Models in Health Care Provider Payment Systems.

Prospective payments for health care providers require adequate risk adjustment (RA) to address systematic variation in patients' health care needs. However, the design of RA for provider payment involves many choices and difficult trade-offs between incentives for risk selection, incentives for cost control, and feasibility. Despite a growing literature, a comprehensive framework of these choices and trade-offs is lacking. This article aims to develop such a framework. Using literature review and expert consultation, we identify key design choices for RA in the context of provider payment and subsequently categorize these choices along two dimensions: (a) the choice of risk adjusters and (b) the choice of payment weights. For each design choice, we provide an overview of options, trade-offs, and key references. By making design choices and associated trade-offs explicit, our framework facilitates customizing RA design to provider payment systems, given the objectives and other characteristics of the context of interest.

Who participates in value-based care models? Physician characteristics and implications for value-based care.

Value-based care (VBC) payment models are becoming increasingly prevalent as alternatives to the traditional fee-for-service paradigm. This research quantifies the relationship between physician characteristics and participation in VBC payment models using the Association of American Medical Colleges' 2022 National Sample Survey of Physicians. We specified logistic regressions using physician-level variables to assess associations with current and new participation in Accountable Care Organizations, Primary Care First model, capitation, and bundled payments. Our results indicate that most respondents engaged in at least 1 VBC. Participation varied based on several characteristics, and physician specialty was highly predictive of overall participation. Compared with primary care physicians (PCPs), hospital-based physicians (odds ratio [OR] = 0.6, P < .001), medical specialists (OR = 0.5, P < .001), psychiatrists (OR = 0.4, P < .001), and surgeons (OR = 0.5, P < .001) were less likely to participate in VBC models. Medical specialists and surgeons were less likely to participate in commercial capitation than PCPs, while medical specialists and obstetricians/gynecologists were more likely to participate in certain bundles than PCPs. We suggest several policies to close the cross-specialty participation gap by including specialists and appealing to providers and patients.

Value of interventional radiology and their contributions to modern medical systems.

Interventional radiology (IR) is a unique specialty that incorporates a diverse set of skills ranging from imaging, procedures, consultation, and patient management. Understanding how IR generates value to the healthcare system is important to review from various perspectives. IR specialists need to understand how to meet demands from various stakeholders to expand their practice improving patient care. Thus, this review discusses the domains of value contributed to medical systems and outlines the parameters of success. IR benefits five distinct parties: patients, practitioners, payers, employers, and innovators. Value to patients and providers is delivered through a wide set of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Payers and hospital systems financially benefit from the reduced cost in medical management secondary to fast patient recovery, outpatient procedures, fewer complications, and the prestige of offering diverse expertise for complex patients. Lastly, IR is a field of rapid innovation implementing new procedural technology and techniques. Overall, IR must actively advocate for further growth and influence in the medical field as their value continues to expand in multiple domains. Despite being a nascent specialty, IR has become indispensable to modern medical practice.

Association between mandatory bundled payments and changes in socioeconomic disparities for joint replacement outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether mandatory participation by hospitals in bundled payments for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) was associated with changes in outcome disparities for patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: We used Medicare claims data for beneficiaries undergoing LEJR in the United States between 2011 and 2017. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective observational study using a differences-in-differences method to compare changes in outcome disparities between dual-eligible and non-dual eligible beneficiaries after hospital participation in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program. The primary outcome was LEJR complications. Secondary outcomes included 90-day readmissions and mortality. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified hospitals in the US market areas eligible for CJR. We included beneficiaries in the intervention group who received joint replacement at hospitals in markets randomized to participate in CJR. The comparison group included patients who received joint replacement at hospitals in markets who were eligible for CJR but randomized to control. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The study included 1,603,555 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age, 74.6 years, 64.3% women, 11.0% dual-eligible). Among participant hospitals, complications decreased between baseline and intervention periods from 11.0% to 10.1% for dual-eligible and 7.0% to 6.4% for non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. Among nonparticipant hospitals, complications decreased from 10.3% to 9.8% for dual-eligible and 6.7% to 6.0% for non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. In adjusted analysis, CJR participation was associated with a reduced difference in complications between dual-eligible and non-dual-eligible beneficiaries (-0.9 percentage points, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.1). The reduction in disparities was observed among hospitals without prior experience in a voluntary LEJR bundled payment model. There were no differential changes in 90-day readmissions or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Mandatory participation in a bundled payment program was associated with reduced disparities in joint replacement complications for Medicare beneficiaries with low income. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence of reduced socioeconomic disparities in outcomes under value-based payments.

Experiences and Interest in Value-Based Payment Arrangements for Medical Products Among Medicaid Agencies: An Exploratory Analysis.

Policy Points State Medicaid experience with value-based payment (VBP) arrangements for medical products is still relatively limited, and states face a number of challenges in designing and implementing such arrangements, particularly because of the resource-intensive nature of arrangements and data needed to support measurement of desired outcomes. A number of success factors and opportunities to support VBP arrangement efforts were identified through this study, including leveraging established venues or processes for collaboration with manufacturers, engaging external and internal partners in VBP efforts to bolster capabilities, acquiring access to new data sources, and utilizing annual renegotiation of contracts to allow for adjustments. CONTEXT: To date, uptake of value-based payment (VBP) arrangements for medical products and knowledge of their design and impact have been mainly concentrated among private payers. Interest and activity are expanding to Medicaid; however, their experiences and approaches to VBP arrangements for medical products are not well characterized. METHODS: This study sought to characterize the use of VBP arrangements for medical products among state Medicaid agencies through the use of a two-staged, mixed-methods approach. A survey and semistructured interviews were conducted to gain an understanding of state experiences with VBP arrangements for medical products. The survey and interviews were directed at senior leaders from nine states through the survey, with respondents from seven of these states additionally participating in the semistructured interviews. FINDINGS: Although experience with VBP arrangements for medical products among states varied, there were similarities across their motivations and general processes or phases employed in their design and implementation. States collectively identified a number of significant challenges to VBP arrangements, such as manufacturer engagement, outcomes measurement, and the time, expertise, and resources required to design and implement them. We outline a range of strategies to help address these gaps and make it easier for states to pursue VBP arrangements, including more direct engagement from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, state-to-state peer learning and collaboration, data infrastructure and sharing, and additional research to inform fit-for-purpose VBP arrangement approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that it may be easier for states to pursue VBP arrangements for medical products if there is greater clarity on processes employed that support design and implementation as well as effective strategies to address common challenges associated with contract negotiations. As states gain more experience, it will be important to monitor the design and implementation of common VBP arrangements to assess impact on the Medicaid program and the populations it serves.

A Transplant-Inclusive Value-Based Kidney Care Payment Model.

In the United States, kidney care payment models are migrating toward value-based care (VBC) models incentivizing quality of care at lower cost. Current kidney VBC models will continue through 2026. We propose a future transplant-inclusive VBC (TIVBC) model designed to supplement current models focusing on patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). The proposed TIVBC is structured as an episode-of-care model with risk-based reimbursement for "referral/evaluation/waitlisting" (REW, referencing kidney transplantation), "primary hospitalization to 180 days posttransplant," and "long-term graft survival." Challenges around organ acquisition costs, adjustments to quality metrics, and potential criticisms of the proposed model are discussed. We propose next steps in risk-adjustment and cost-prediction to develop as an end-to-end, TIVBC model.

On the Willingness to Pay for social media/messenger services taking into account personality and sent/received messages among WhatsApp users.

WhatsApp has billions of users worldwide. Instead of paying a subscription fee, users provide their data for the use allowance. This data is used by Meta - the company behind WhatsApp - to obtain insights into user characteristics and monetize those insights. However, this data business model is among others criticized for fostering a loss of privacy that arises when platforms analyze user data, and for the use of design elements to attract users to the platform when they are not online or to extend their online time. Therefore, an increasing number of scientists are discussing whether other payment models are needed to overcome those disadvantages, like a monetary payment model. However, users would probably only pay for improved social media products. This paper provides an empirical basis for understanding the user perspective and, in particular, whether and how much users are willing to pay for improved social media products. For this, 2924 WhatsApp users' perspectives on this topic were investigated. They were asked whether and how much they are willing to pay money for a messenger/social media service when its quality would be improved. Variables potentially influencing Willingness to Pay (i.e., personality, sent/received messages) were studied as well. 47% of the participants were unwilling to pay for a healthier messenger service, and about a quarter were willing or stayed neutral. Further analysis revealed that more agreeable people were more willing to pay. Further: Higher Extraversion was associated with more sent/received messages, but the number of sent/received messages was not linked to Willingness to Pay. The present study shows that many users still are not willing to pay for social media (here messengers), which indicates that the advantages of paying for social media with money instead of with one's own data might need to be better communicated.

Association of Hospitals' Experience with Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Model with the Diffusion of Acute Hospital Care at Home.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether hospitals' experience in a prior payment model incentivizing care coordination is associated with their decision to adopt a new payment program for a care delivery innovation. DATA SOURCES: Data were sourced from Medicare fee-for-service claims in 2017, the list of participants in Bundled Payment for Care Improvement initiatives (BPCI and BPCI-Advanced), the list of hospitals approved for Acute Hospital Care at Home (AHCaH) between November 2020 and August 2022, and the American Hospital Association Survey. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. Hospitals' adoption of AHCaH was measured as a function of hospitals' BPCI experiences. Hospitals' BPCI experiences were categorized into five mutually exclusive groups: (1) direct BPCI participation, (2) indirect participation through physician group practices (PGPs) after dropout, (3) indirect participation through PGPs only, (4) dropout only, and (5) no BPCI exposure. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: All data are derived from pre-existing sources. General acute hospitals eligible for both BPCI initiatives and AHCaH are included. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of 3248 hospitals included in the sample, 7% adopted AHCaH as of August 2022. Hospitals with direct BPCI experience had the highest adoption rate (17.7%), followed by those with indirect participation through BPCI physicians after dropout (11.8%), while those with no exposure to BPCI were least likely to participate (3.2%). Hospitals that adopted AHCaH were more likely to be located in communities where more peer hospitals participated in the program (median 10.8% vs. 0%). After controlling for covariates, the association of the adoption of AHCaH with indirect participation through physicians after dropout was as strong as with early BPCI adopter hospitals (average marginal effect: 5.9 vs. 6.2 pp, p < 0.05), but the other categories were not. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that participated in the bundled payment model either directly or indirectly PGPs were more likely to adopt a care delivery innovation requiring similar competence in the next period.

Disentangling the impact of alternative payment models and associated service delivery models on quality of chronic care: A scoping review.

Payment reforms are frequently implemented alongside service delivery reforms, thus rendering it difficult to disentangle their impact. This scoping review aims to link alternative payment arrangements within their context of service delivery, to assess their impact on quality of chronic care, and to disentangle, where possible, the impact of payment reforms from changes to service delivery. A search of literature published between 2013 and 2022 resulted in 34 relevant articles across five types of payment models: capitation/global budget (n = 13), pay-for-coordination (n = 10), shared savings/shared risk (n = 6), blended capitation (n = 3), and bundled payments (n = 1). The certainty of evidence was generally low due to biases associated with voluntary participation in reforms. This scoping review finds that population-based payment reforms are better suited for collaborative, person-centred approaches of service delivery spanning settings and providers, but also highlights the need for a wider evidence base of studies disentangling the impact of financing from service delivery reforms. Limited evidence disentangling the two suggests that transforming service delivery to a team-based model of care alongside a purchasing reform shifting to blended capitation was more impactful in improving quality of chronic care, than the individual components of payment and service delivery. Further comparative studies employing causal inference methods, accounting for biases and quantifying aspects of service delivery, are needed to better disentangle the mechanisms impacting quality of care.

Factors affecting Accountable Care Organizations' decisions to remain in or exit the Medicare Shared Savings Program following Pathways to Success.

The Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) is an alternative payment model launched in 2012, creating Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to improve quality and lower costs for Traditional Medicare patients. Most MSSP participants were expected to shift from bearing no financial risk to a 2-sided risk model (ie, bonus if spending reduced below historical benchmarks, penalty if not), yet fewer than 20% did. Therefore, in 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services launched the Pathways to Success program, which required shifting to a 2-sided model within 12 months. For the first time, more ACOs exited than entered the MSSP. To understand these participation decisions, we conducted qualitative interviews with ACO leaders. Pathways caused ACOs to reassess their potential shared savings vs losses, particularly in light of benchmarking methodology changes; reconsider perceived nonrevenue benefits; and reassess participation in the MSSP vs other programs. As ACOs, particularly those assuming downside risk, have contained costs and enhanced care quality, policymakers should strive to improve MSSP enrollment rates in downside-risk models through strategies that allow ACOs to achieve shared savings and deliver accountable care.

Differential Hospital Participation in Bundled Payments in Communities with Higher Shares of Marginalized Populations.

BACKGROUND: Medicare's voluntary bundled payment programs have demonstrated generally favorable results. However, it remains unknown whether uneven hospital participation in these programs in communities with greater shares of minorities and patients of low socioeconomic status results in disparate access to practice redesign innovations. OBJECTIVE: Examine whether communities with higher proportions of marginalized individuals were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-Advanced). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using ordinary least squares regression controlling for patient and community factors. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service patients enrolled from 2015-2017 (pre-BPCI-Advanced) and residing in 2,058 local communities nationwide defined by Hospital Service Areas (HSAs). Each community's share of marginalized patients was calculated separately for each of the share of beneficiaries of Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, or dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid. MAIN MEASURES: Dichotomous variable indicating whether a given community had at least one hospital that ever participated in BPCI-Advanced from 2018-2022. KEY RESULTS: Communities with higher shares of dual-eligible individuals were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced than communities with the lowest quartile of dual-eligible individuals (Q4: -15.1 percentage points [pp] lower than Q1, 95% CI: -21.0 to -9.1, p < 0.001). There was no consistent significant relationship between community proportion of Black beneficiaries and likelihood of having a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced. Communities with higher shares of Hispanic beneficiaries were more likely to have a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced than those in the lowest quartile (Q4: 19.2 pp higher than Q1, 95% CI: 13.4 to 24.9, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Communities with greater shares of dual-eligible beneficiaries, but not racial or ethnic minorities, were less likely to be served by a hospital participating in BPCI-Advanced Policymakers should consider approaches to incentivize more socioeconomically uniform participation in voluntary bundled payments.

Financing Thresholds for Sustainability of Community Health Worker Programs for Patients Receiving Medicaid Across the United States.

States have turned to novel Medicaid financing to pay for community health worker (CHW) programs, often through fee-for-service or capitated payments. We sought to estimate Medicaid payment rates to ensure CHW program sustainability. A microsimulation model was constructed to estimate CHW salaries, equipment, transportation, space, and benefits costs across the U.S. Fee-for-service rates per 30-min CHW visit (code 98960) and capitated rates were calculated for financial sustainability. The mean CHW hourly wage was $23.51, varying from $15.90 in Puerto Rico to $31.61 in Rhode Island. Overhead per work hour averaged $43.65 nationwide, and was highest for transportation among other overhead categories (65.1% of overhead). The minimum fee-for-service rate for a 30-min visit was $53.24 (95% CI $24.80, $91.11), varying from $40.44 in South Dakota to $70.89 in Washington D.C. The minimum capitated rate was $140.18 per member per month (95% CI $105.94, $260.90), varying from $113.55 in South Dakota to $176.58 in Washington D.C. Rates varied minimally by metro status but more by panel size. Higher Medicaid fee-for-service and capitated rates than currently used may be needed to support financial viability of CHW programs. A revised payment estimation approach may help state officials, health systems and plans discussing CHW program sustainability.

A Cautionary Tale: Malaligned Incentives in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Payment Model Reforms Threaten Promising Innovation and Access to Care.

Over the past several years, there have been notable changes and controversies involving Medicare reimbursement for total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We have seen the development and implementation of experimental bundled payment model pilot programs goals of improving quality and decreasing overall costs of care during the last decade. Many orthopaedic surgeons have embraced these programs and have demonstrated the ability to succeed in these new models by implementing strategies, such as preservice optimization, to shift care away from inpatient or postdischarge settings and reduce postoperative complications. However, these achievements have been met with continual reductions in surgeon reimbursement rates, lower bundle payment target pricings, modest increases in hospital reimbursement rates, and inappropriate valuations of THA and TKA Common Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. These challenges have led to an organized advocacy movement and spurred research involving the methods by which improvements have been made throughout the entire episode of arthroplasty care. Collectively, these efforts have recently led to a novel application of CPT codes recognized by payers to potentially capture presurgical optimization work. In this paper, we present an overview of contemporary payment models, summarize notable events involved in the review of THA and TKA CPT codes, review recent changes to THA and TKA reimbursement, and discuss future challenges faced by arthroplasty surgeons that threaten access to high-quality THA and TKA care.

Stakeholder perspectives on payment reform in maternity care in the Netherlands: A Q-methodology study.

Based on theoretical notions, there is consensus that alternative payment models to the common fee-for-service model have the potential to improve healthcare quality through increased collaboration and reduced under- and overuse. This is particularly relevant for maternity care in the Netherlands because perinatal mortality rates are relatively high in comparison to other Western countries. Therefore, an experiment with bundled payments for maternity care was initiated in 2017. However, the uptake of this alternative payment model remains low, as also seen in other countries, and fee-for-service models prevail. A deeper understanding of stakeholders' perspectives on payment reform in maternity care is necessary to inform policy makers about the obstacles to implementing alternative payment models and potential ways forward. We conducted a Q-methodology study to explore perspectives of stakeholders (postpartum care managers, midwives, gynecologists, managers, health insurers) in maternity care in the Netherlands on payment reform. Participants were asked to rank a set of statements relevant to payment reform in maternity care and explain their ranking during an interview. Factor analysis was used to identify patterns in the rankings of statements. We identified three distinct perspectives on payment reform in maternity care. One general perspective, broadly supported within the sector, focusing mainly on outcomes, and two complementary perspectives, one focusing more on equality and one focusing more on collaboration. This study shows there is consensus among stakeholders in maternity care in the Netherlands that payment reform is required. However, stakeholders have different views on the purpose and desired design of the payment reform and set different conditions. Working towards payment reform in co-creation with all involved parties may improve the general attitude towards payment reform, may enhance the level of trust among stakeholders, and may contribute to a higher uptake in practice.

Payer and Developer perspectives on alternative payment models.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the use of alternative payment models to address the reimbursement challenges of cell and gene therapies (CGT) in the U.S.A.. METHODS: A literature search focused on CGT reimbursement in the U.S. market was conducted to identify information gaps and inform survey development. U.S. developers (n = 100) and payers (n = 195) were invited to complete an online survey between June and August 2022. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 16%; payer respondents represented 98 plans covering 338 million lives. Most developers (81%) and payers (84%) had implemented or were planning to implement at least one alternative payment model. Payers pursued these models to 'reduce product performance uncertainties' (81%), 'align therapy costs with benefits' (58%), and 'manage actuarial uncertainty' (54%). Developers aimed to 'streamline patient access' (92%) and 'mitigate budget impact' (77%). Common perceived barriers included increased administrative burden (developers 79% and payers 67%), defining performance measures (developers 71%, payers 83%) and addressing patient mobility (developers 71% and payers 63%). Both parties expressed a willingness to use real-world evidence for contract adjudication. CONCLUSION: Although limited by the number of participants, this survey indicates early discussions coupled with understanding motivations are essential for developing contracts that appeal to both parties and ensure patient access.

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Clinical quality measures in obstetrics.

This article provides an updated overview and critique of clinical quality measures relevant to obstetrical care. The history of the quality movement in the United States and the proliferation of quality metrics over the past quarter-century are reviewed. Common uses of quality measures are summarized: payment programs, accreditation, public reporting, and quality improvement projects. We present listings of metrics that are reported by physicians or hospitals, either voluntarily or by mandate, to government agencies, payers, "watchdog" ratings organizations, and other entities. The costs and other burdens of extracting data and reporting metrics are summarized. The potential for unintended adverse consequences of the use of quality metrics is discussed along with approaches to mitigating adverse consequences. Finally, some recent attempts to develop simplified core measure sets are presented, with the promise that the complex and burdensome quality-metric enterprise may improve in the near future.

People get ready! A new generation of Alzheimer's therapies may require new ways to deliver and pay for healthcare.

The development of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) has progressed over the last decade, and the first-ever therapies with potential to slow the progression of disease are approved in the United States. AD DMTs could provide life-changing opportunities for people living with this disease, as well as for their caregivers. They could also ease some of the immense societal and economic burden of dementia. However, AD DMTs also come with major challenges due to the large unmet medical need, high prevalence of AD, new costs related to diagnosis, treatment and monitoring, and uncertainty in the therapies' actual clinical value. This perspective article discusses, from the broad perspective of various health systems and stakeholders, how we can overcome these challenges and improve society's readiness for AD DMTs. We propose that innovative payment models such as performance-based payments, in combination with learning healthcare systems, could be the way forward to enable timely patient access to treatments, improve accuracy of cost-effectiveness evaluations and overcome budgetary barriers. Other important considerations include the need for identification of key drivers of patient value, the relevance of different economic perspectives (i.e. healthcare vs. societal) and ethical questions in terms of treatment eligibility criteria.

How to facilitate the introduction of value-based payment models?

Value-based payment (VBP) models are designed and implemented to improve outcomes at the same or lower costs. Their adoption requires significant changes in the way healthcare organisations and insurance companies operate. Usually, before VBP models are widely implemented, pilot projects are conducted. Payers need to have a comprehensive set of requirements to enter into agreements with healthcare organisations on these pilots. In this short communication, we outline key elements reported in the literature, inside and outside healthcare organisations, as well as within the contract, that need to be considered in a pilot VBP model. Discussions regarding the introduction of VBP models may be strongly affected by external contextual factors, including regulations, which are outside the control of healthcare organisations. It requires collaboration between organisations, including primary care organisations and hospitals, while within organisations, it frequently requires creating multidisciplinary teams. The focus is on ensuring transparency, collaboration, and shared decision-making, realised by standardising communication processes and regular meetings. Additionally, effective leadership is needed, in which leaders set goals and priorities, as well as manage change. In the contractual agreements between payers and healthcare organisations, outcome measures need to be adequately defined and measured, including individual patient outcomes and composite scores, as well as absolute and relative performance measures. These measures should be tested periodically and catered to the organisations adopting the model. Also, incentives should have adequate size and frequency and be intrinsic and extrinsic. The consideration of these sets of key elements by the payers is essential when implementing VBP model pilot projects.