Value-Based Health Care in Hand Surgery: Where Are We & Where Do We Go From Here?

Health care delivery is broken. The cost of care continues to skyrocket and the outcomes most important to patients are often a mystery. Further, care is often delivered via a fee-for-service model where surgeons are rewarded for the quantity, not the quality, of services provided. Such a health care delivery system is not sustainable and does not incentivize stakeholders to focus on the most important element of the health care delivery "puzzle": the patient. Fortunately, we are in the midst of transforming our health care delivery system, with a focus on optimizing the value of care delivery (ie, health outcomes achieved per dollar spent across a full care cycle). In hand surgery, progress has been made as part of this health system evolution. However, there remains much to accomplish. In this article, the authors review the 6 components of a strategic agenda for moving to a high-value health care delivery system for hand surgery, focusing on where we are today and where we need to go from here.

Value-Based Healthcare in Urology: A Collaborative Review.

CONTEXT: In response to growing concerns over rising costs and major variation in quality, improving value for patients has been proposed as a fundamentally new strategy for how healthcare should be delivered, measured, and remunerated. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature regarding the implementation and impact of value-based healthcare in urology. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review was performed to identify studies that described the implementation of one or more elements of value-based healthcare in urologic settings and in which the associated change in healthcare value had been measured. Twenty-two publications were selected for inclusion. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Reorganization of urologic care around medical conditions was associated with increased use of guidelines-compliant care for men with prostate cancer, and improved outcomes for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. Measuring outcomes for every patient was associated with improved prostate cancer outcomes, while the measurement of costs using time-driven activity-based costing was associated with reduced resource utilization in a pediatric multidisciplinary clinic. Centralization of urologic cancer care in the UK, Denmark, and Canada was associated with overall improved outcomes, although systems integration in the USA yielded mixed results among urologic cancer patients. No studies have yet examined bundled payments for episodes of care, expanding the geographic reach for centers of excellence, or building enabling information technology platforms. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have critically assessed the actual or simulated implementation of value-based healthcare in urology, but the available literature suggests promising early results. In order to effectively redesign care, there is a need for further research to both evaluate the potential results of proposed value-based healthcare interventions and measure their effects where already implemented. PATIENT SUMMARY: While few studies have evaluated the implementation of value-based healthcare in urology, the available literature suggests promising early results.

Navy Medicine Introduces Value-Based Health Care.

In 2016 the newly appointed surgeon general of the Navy launched a value-based health care pilot project at Naval Hospital Jacksonville to explore whether multidisciplinary care teams (known as integrated practice units, or IPUs) and measurement of outcomes could improve the readiness of active duty personnel and lower the cost of delivering care to them, their dependents, and local retirees. This article describes the formation of the project's leadership structure, the selection of four conditions to be treated (low back pain, osteoarthritis, diabetes, and high-risk pregnancy), the creation of the care team for each condition, outcomes and costs measured, and the near-term changes in outcomes during the twelve-month pilot period. Patient outcomes improved for three of the four conditions. We describe factors that contributed to the project's success. After the pilot concluded, the Navy combined the back pain and osteoarthritis IPUs into a single musculoskeletal clinical unit and established a similar IPU at another naval hospital and its clinics. The diabetes IPU was continued, but the high-risk pregnancy IPU was not. We offer several observations on the elements that were key to the success of the project, explore challenges and opportunities, and suggest that the pilot described here could be taken to greater scale in the Military Health System and elsewhere.

Communicating Value in Health Care Using Radar Charts: A Case Study of Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The transformation from volume to value will require communication of outcomes and costs of therapies; however, outcomes are usually nonstandardized, and cost of therapy differs among stakeholders. We developed a standardized value framework by using radar charts to visualize and communicate a wide range of patient outcomes and cost for three forms of prostate cancer treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from men with low-risk prostate cancer who were treated with low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT), proton beam therapy, or robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Patient-reported outcomes comprised the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-50 domains for sexual function, urinary incontinence and/or bother, bowel bother, and vitality 12 months after treatment. Costs were measured by time-driven activity-based costing for the first 12 months of the care cycle. Outcome and cost data were plotted on a single radar chart for each treatment modality. RESULTS: Outcome and cost data from patients who were treated with robotic-assisted prostatectomy (n = 381), proton beam therapy (n = 165), and LDR-BT (n = 238) were incorporated into the radar chart. LDR-BT seemed to deliver the highest overall value of the three treatment modalities; however, incorporation of patient preferences regarding outcomes may allow other modalities to be considered high-value treatment options. CONCLUSION: Standardization and visualization of outcome and cost metrics may allow more comprehensive and collaborative discussions about the value of health care services. Communicating the value framework by using radar charts may be an effective method to present total value and the value of all outcomes and costs in a manner that is accessible to all stakeholders. Variations in plotting of costs and outcomes will require future focus group initiatives.

How to Pay for Health Care.

The United States stands at a crossroads in how to pay for health care. Fee for service, the dominant payment model in the U.S. and many other countries, is now widely recognized as perhaps the single biggest obstacle to improving health care delivery. A battle is currently raging, outside of the public eye, between the advocates of two radically different payment approaches: capitation and bundled payments. The stakes are high, and the outcome will define the shape of the health care system for many years to come, for better or for worse. In this article, the authors argue that although capitation may deliver modest savings in the short run, it brings significant risks and will fail to fundamentally change the trajectory of a broken system. The bundled payment model, in contrast, triggers competition between providers to create value where it matters--at the individual patient level--and puts health care on the right path. The authors provide robust proof-of-concept examples of bundled payment initiatives in the U.S. and abroad, address the challenges of transitioning to bundled payments, and respond to critics' concerns about obstacles to implementation.

Redefining global health-care delivery.

Initiatives to address the unmet needs of those facing both poverty and serious illness have expanded significantly over the past decade. But many of them are designed in an ad-hoc manner to address one health problem among many; they are too rarely assessed; best practices spread slowly. When assessments of delivery do occur, they are often narrow studies of the cost-effectiveness of a single intervention rather than the complex set of them required to deliver value to patients and their families. We propose a framework for global health-care delivery and evaluation by considering efforts to introduce HIV/AIDS care to resource-poor settings. The framework introduces the notion of care delivery value chains that apply a systems-level analysis to the complex processes and interventions that must occur, across a health-care system and over time, to deliver high-value care for patients with HIV/AIDS and cooccurring conditions, from tuberculosis to malnutrition. To deliver value, vertical or stand-alone projects must be integrated into shared delivery infrastructure so that personnel and facilities are used wisely and economies of scale reaped. Two other integrative processes are necessary for delivering and assessing value in global health: one is the alignment of delivery with local context by incorporating knowledge of both barriers to good outcomes (from poor nutrition to a lack of water and sanitation) and broader social and economic determinants of health and wellbeing (jobs, housing, physical infrastructure). The second is the use of effective investments in care delivery to promote equitable economic development, especially for those struggling against poverty and high burdens of disease. We close by reporting our own shared experience of seeking to move towards a science of delivery by harnessing research and training to understand and improve care delivery.

Redesigning primary care: a strategic vision to improve value by organizing around patients' needs.

Primary care in the United States currently struggles to attract new physicians and to garner investments in infrastructure required to meet patients' needs. We believe that the absence of a robust overall strategy for the entire spectrum of primary care is a fundamental cause of these struggles. To address the absence of an overall strategy and vision for primary care, we offer a framework based on value for patients to sustain and improve primary care practice. First, primary care should be organized around subgroups of patients with similar needs. Second, team-based services should be provided to each patient subgroup over its full care cycle. Third, each patient's outcomes and true costs should be measured by subgroup as a routine part of care. Fourth, payment should be modified to bundle reimbursement for each subgroup and reward value improvement. Finally, primary care patient subgroup teams should be integrated with relevant specialty providers. We believe that redesigning primary care using this framework can improve the ability of primary care to play its essential role in the health care system.

How to solve the cost crisis in health care.

U.S. health care costs currently exceed 17% of GDP and continue to rise. One fundamental reason that providers are unable to reverse the trend is that they don't understand what it costs to deliver patient care or how those costs compare with outcomes. To put it bluntly, few health care providers measure the actual costs for treating a given patient with a given medical condition over a full cycle of care, or compare the costs they incur with the outcomes they achieve. What isn't measured cannot be managed or improved, and this is all too true in health care, where poor costing systems mean that effective and efficient providers go unrewarded, and inefficient ones have little incentive to improve. But all this can be remedied by exploring the concept of value in health care and carefully measuring costs. This article describes a new way to analyze costs that uses patients and their conditions--not organizational units or narrow diagnostic treatment groups--as the fundamental unit of analysis for measuring costs and outcomes. The new approach, called time-driven activity-cased costing, is currently being implemented in pilots at the Head and Neck Center at MD Anderson, the Cleft Lip and Palate Program at Children's Hospital in Boston, and units performing knee replacements at Schön Klinik in Germany and Brigham & Women's Hospital in Boston. As providers and payors better understand costs, they will be positioned to achieve a true "bending of the cost curve" from within the system, not in response to top-down mandates. Accurate costing also unlocks a whole cascade of opportunities, such as process improvement, better organization of care, and new reimbursement approaches that will accelerate the pace of innovation and value creation.

A blueprint for pharmacy benefit managers to increase value.

Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) have a unique opportunity to promote health and generate value in the healthcare system. Today, PBMs are largely evaluated on their ability to control costs rather than improve health. Pharmacy benefit managers should be evaluated along 3 dimensions in which they can increase value: (1) use of cost-effective medications, (2) timely initiation of appropriate medication therapy, and (3) adherence to that therapy. Value creation requires the development of integrated data systems, stronger partnerships with patients and physicians, and improved measurement and reporting of results. Incentives for PBMs to promote value should drive innovation and improve health outcomes.

The five competitive forces that shape strategy.

In 1979, a young associate professor at Harvard Business School published his first article for HBR, "How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy." In the years that followed, Michael Porter's explication of the five forces that determine the long-run profitability of any industry has shaped a generation of academic research and business practice. In this article, Porter undertakes a thorough reaffirmation and extension of his classic work of strategy formulation, which includes substantial new sections showing how to put the five forces analysis into practice. The five forces govern the profit structure of an industry by determining how the economic value it creates is apportioned. That value may be drained away through the rivalry among existing competitors, of course, but it can also be bargained away through the power of suppliers or the power of customers or be constrained by the threat of new entrants or the threat of substitutes. Strategy can be viewed as building defenses against the competitive forces or as finding a position in an industry where the forces are weaker. Changes in the strength of the forces signal changes in the competitive landscape critical to ongoing strategy formulation. In exploring the implications of the five forces framework, Porter explains why a fast-growing industry is not always a profitable one, how eliminating today's competitors through mergers and acquisitions can reduce an industry's profit potential, how government policies play a role by changing the relative strength of the forces, and how to use the forces to understand complements. He then shows how a company can influence the key forces in its industry to create a more favorable structure for itself or to expand the pie altogether. The five forces reveal why industry profitability is what it is. Only by understanding them can a company incorporate industry conditions into strategy.

How physicians can change the future of health care.

Today's preoccupation with cost shifting and cost reduction undermines physicians and patients. Instead, health care reform must focus on improving health and health care value for patients. We propose a strategy for reform that is market based but physician led. Physician leadership is essential. Improving the value of health care is something only medical teams can do. The right kind of competition--competition to improve results--will drive dramatic improvement. With such positive-sum competition, patients will receive better care, physicians will be rewarded for excellence, and costs will be contained. Physicians can lead this change and return the practice of medicine to its appropriate focus: enabling health and effective care. Three principles should guide this change: (1) the goal is value for patients, (2) medical practice should be organized around medical conditions and care cycles, and (3) results--risk-adjusted outcomes and costs--must be measured. Following these principles, professional satisfaction will increase and current pressures on physicians will decrease. If physicians fail to lead these changes, they will inevitably face ever-increasing administrative control of medicine. Improving health and health care value for patients is the only real solution. Value-based competition on results provides a path for reform that recognizes the role of health professionals at the heart of the system.