Alternative Payment Models in Pregnancy to Improve Outcomes and Advance Equity.

This Viewpoint reviews the state of alternative payment models (APMs) applied to pregnancy and proposes clinical and policy objectives that could guide model design going forward.

Medicare Physician Payment in Need of Major Repair.

This Viewpoint examines Medicare physician payment flaws and needed reforms, including changes implemented by Congress, CMS, commercial payers, and physician employers.

"Falling between the cracks": Experiences of Black dementia caregivers navigating U.S. health systems.

In addition to numerous care responsibilities, family caregivers are expected to navigate health systems and engage in healthcare management tasks on behalf of their persons living with dementia (PLWD). These challenging tasks pose additional difficulties for Black dementia caregivers. Due to the centuries-old, disadvantaged social history of Black Americans, several unique stressors, vulnerabilities, and resources have emerged which inform and affect Black dementia caregivers' experiences and well-being. Focus groups were held with Black caregivers (N = 19) from the United States to explore the unique experiences and perspectives of this population navigating the U.S. health system on behalf of their PLWD. Five overarching themes were constructed during thematic analysis: Forced Advocacy, Poor Provider Interaction, Payor Source Dictates Care, Discrimination, and Broken Health System. Black dementia caregivers unanimously concurred that the health system that they experience in America is "broken." Gaps in the health system can lead to people [as one caregiver passionately expressed] "falling between the cracks," in terms of care, services, and resources needed. Caregivers agreed that class, sex, utilizing public health insurance, and being a "person of color" contribute to their difficulties navigating the health system. Caregivers perceived being dismissed by providers, forcing them to advocate for both themselves and their PLWD. Healthcare providers and researchers can utilize these findings to improve the experiences and healthcare outcomes of Black persons living with dementia and their caregivers. Additionally, these findings can lead to the development of culturally tailored caregiver education programs.

Alternative Payment Models and Associations With Stroke Outcomes, Spending, and Service Utilization: A Systematic Review.

Stroke contributes an estimated $28 billion to US health care costs annually, and alternative payment models aim to improve outcomes and lower spending over fee-for-service by aligning economic incentives with high value care. This systematic review evaluates historical and current evidence regarding the impacts of alternative payment models on stroke outcomes, spending, and utilization. Included studies evaluated alternative payment models in 4 categories: pay-for-performance (n=3), prospective payments (n=14), shared savings (n=5), and capitated payments (n=14). Pay-for-performance models were not consistently associated with improvements in clinical quality indicators of stroke prevention. Studies of prospective payments suggested that poststroke spending was shifted between care settings without consistent reductions in total spending. Shared savings programs, such as US Medicare accountable care organizations and bundled payments, were generally associated with null or decreased spending and service utilization and with no differences in clinical outcomes following stroke hospitalizations. Capitated payment models were associated with inconsistent effects on poststroke spending and utilization and some worsened clinical outcomes. Shared savings models that incentivize coordination of care across care settings show potential for lowering spending with no evidence for worsened clinical outcomes; however, few studies evaluated clinical or patient-reported outcomes, and the evidence, largely US-based, may not generalize to other settings.

[Episode-based bundled payment model: evaluation of medical costs for early operable breast cancer]. / Financement à l'épisode de soins : évaluation du coût d'une chirurgie première pour cancer du sein précoce.

INTRODUCTION: Episode-based bundled payment model is actually opposing to fee-for-service model, intending to incentivize coordinated care. The aims of these study were to determine episode-based costs for surgery in early breast cancer patients and to propose a payment model. METHODS: OPTISOINS01 was a multicenter prospective study including early breast cancer patients from diagnosis to one-year follow up. Direct medical costs, quality and patient reported outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Data from 604 patients were analyzed. Episode-based costs for surgery were higher in case of: planned radical surgery (OR=9,47 ; IC95 % [3,49-28,01]; P<0,001), hospitalization during more than one night (OR=6,73; IC95% [2,59-17,46]; P<0,001), home hospitalization (OR=11,07 ; IC95 % [3,01-173][3,01-54][3,01-543][3,01-54,33]; P<0,001) and re-hospitalization (OR=25,71 ; IC95 % [9,24-89,17; P<0,001). The average cost was 5 268 € [2 947-18 461] when a lumpectomy was planned and 7408 € [4 222-22 565] in case of radical mastectomy. Bootstrap method was applied for internal validation of the cost model showing the reliability of the model with an area under the curve of 0,83 (95 % CI [0,80-0,86]). Care quality and patient reported outcomes were not related to the costs. DISCUSSION: This is the first report of episode-based costs for breast cancer surgery. An external validation will be necessary to validate our payment model.

Disparity in Medicare payments by gender and training track in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery.

BACKGROUND: Gender disparities in medicine have been demonstrated in the past, including differences in the attainment of roles in administration and in physician income. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the differences in Medicare payments based on the provider gender and training track among female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeons. STUDY DESIGN: Medicare payments from the Provider Utilization Aggregate Files were used to determine the payments made by Medicare to urogynecologists. This database was merged with the National Provider Identifier registry with information on subspecialty training, years since graduation, and the geographic pricing cost index used for Medicare payment adjustments. Physicians with <90% female patients and those who graduated medical school <7 years ago in obstetrics and gynecology or <8 years ago in urology were excluded. The effects of gender, specialty of training, number of services provided, years of practice, and geographic pricing cost index on physician reimbursement were evaluated using linear mixed modeling. RESULTS: A total of 578 surgeons with female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery subspecialty training met the inclusion criteria. Of those, 517 (89%) were trained as gynecologists, whereas 61 (11%) were trained as urologists. Furthermore, 265 (51%) of the gynecology-trained surgeons and 39 (80%) of the urology-trained surgeons were women. Among the urology-trained surgeons, the median female surgeon was paid $85,962 and their male counterparts were paid $121,531 (41% payment difference). In addition, urology-trained female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery surgeons performed a median of 1135 services and their male counterparts performed a median of 1793 services (57% volume difference). Similarly, among gynecology-trained surgeons, the median female payment was $59,277 with 880 services performed, whereas male gynecology-trained surgeons received a median of $66,880 with 791 services performed, representing a difference of 12% in payments and 11% in services. With linear mixed modeling, male physicians were paid more than female physicians while controlling for specialty training, number of services performed, years of practice, and geographic pricing cost index (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Although Medicare payments are based on an equation, differences in reimbursement by physician gender exist in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery with female surgeons receiving lower payments from Medicare. The differences in reimbursement could not be solely explained by differences in patient volume, area of practice, or years of experience alone, suggesting that, similar to other fields in medicine, female surgeons in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery are not paid as much as their male counterparts.

Gender Differences in Medicare Payments Among Cardiologists.

Importance: Women cardiologists receive lower salaries than men; however, it is unknown whether US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement also differs by gender and contributes to the lower salaries. Objective: To determine whether gender differences exist in the reimbursements, charges, and reimbursement per charge from CMS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis used the CMS database to obtain 2016 reimbursement data for US cardiologists. These included reimbursements to cardiologists, charges submitted, and unique billing codes. Gender differences in reimbursement for evaluation and management and procedural charges from both inpatient and outpatient settings were also assessed. Analysis took place between April 2019 and December 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included median CMS payments received and median charges submitted in the inpatient and outpatient settings in 2016. Results: In 2016, 17 524 cardiologists (2312 women [13%] and 15 212 men [87%]) received CMS payments in the inpatient setting, and 16 929 cardiologists (2151 women [13%] and 14 778 men [87%]) received CMS payments in the outpatient setting. Men received higher median payments in the inpatient (median [interquartile range], $62 897 [$30 904-$104 267] vs $45 288 [$21 371-$73 191]; P < .001) and outpatient (median [interquartile range], $91 053 [$34 820-$196 165] vs $51 975 [$15 622-$120 175]; P < .001) practice settings. Men submitted more median charges in the inpatient (median [interquartile range], 1190 [569-2093] charges vs 959 [569-2093] charges; P < .001) and outpatient settings (median [interquartile range], 1685 [644-3328] charges vs 870 [273-1988] charges; P < .001). In a multivariable-adjusted linear regression analysis, women received less CMS payments compared with men (log-scale ß = -0.06; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.02) after adjustment for number of charges, number of unique billing codes, complexity of patient panel, years since graduation of physicians, and physician subspecialty. Payment by billing codes, both inpatient and outpatient, did not differ by gender. Conclusions and Relevance: There may be potential differences in CMS payments between men and women cardiologists, which appear to stem from gender differences in the number and types of charges submitted. The mechanisms behind these differences merit further research, both to understand why such gender differences exist and also to facilitate reductions in pay disparities.

Addition of Financial Incentives to Mailed Outreach for Promoting Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Although screening decreases incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC), screening rates are low. Health-promoting financial incentives may increase uptake of cancer screening. Objective: To evaluate the relative and absolute benefit associated with adding financial incentives to the uptake of CRC screening. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 31, 2020. Keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms were used to identify published studies on the topic. The search strategy identified 835 studies. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were selected that involved adults older than 50 years who were eligible for CRC screening, who received either various forms of financial incentives along with mailed outreach or no financial incentives but mailed outreach and reminders alone, and who reported screening completion by using recommended tests at different time points. Observational or nonrandomized studies and a few RCTs were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). Data were abstracted and risk of bias was assessed by 2 independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted, heterogeneity was examined through subgroup analysis and metaregression, and quality of evidence was appraised. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 12 months of receiving the intervention. Results: A total of 8 RCTs that were conducted in the United States and reported between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2020, were included. The trials involved 110 644 participants, of whom 53 444 (48.3%) were randomized to the intervention group (received financial incentives) and 57 200 (51.7%) were randomized to the control group (received no financial incentives). Participants were predominantly male, with 59 113 men (53.4%). Low-quality evidence (rated down for risk of bias and heterogeneity) suggested that adding financial incentives may be associated with a small benefit of increasing CRC screening vs no financial incentives (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.49). With mailed outreach having a 30% estimated CRC screening completion rate, adding financial incentives may increase the rate to 33.5% (95% CI, 30.8%-36.2%). On metaregression, the magnitude of benefit decreased as the proportion of participants with low income and/or from racial/ethnic minority groups increased. No significant differences were observed by type of behavioral economic intervention (fixed amount: OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.05-1.52] vs lottery: OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.80-1.40]; P = .32), amount of incentive (≤$5: OR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.01-1.18] vs >$5: OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.02-1.54]; P = .22), or screening modality (stool-based test: OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.92-1.41] vs colonoscopy: OR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.01-2.64]; P = .18). Conclusions and Relevance: Adding financial incentives appeared to be associated with a small benefit of increasing CRC screening uptake, with marginal benefits in underserved populations with adverse social determinants of health. Alternative approaches to enhancing CRC screening uptake are warranted.

Federal Out-of-Network Balance Billing Legislation: Context and Implications for Radiology Practices.

Out-of-network (OON) balance billing, commonly known as surprise billing but better described as a surprise gap in health insurance coverage, occurs when an individual with private health insurance (vs a public insurer such as Medicare) is administered unanticipated care from a physician who is not in their health plan's network. Such unexpected OON care may result in substantial out-of-pocket costs for patients. Although ending surprise billing is patient centric, patient protective, and noncontroversial, passing federal legislation was challenging given its ability to disrupt insurer-physician good-faith negotiations and thus impact in-network rates. Like past proposals, the recently passed No Surprises Act takes patients out of the middle of insurer-physician OON reimbursement disputes, limiting patients' expense to standard in-network cost-sharing amounts. The new law, based on arbitration, attempts to protect good-faith negotiations between physicians and insurance companies and encourages network contracting. Radiology practices, even those that are fully in network or that never practiced surprise billing, could nonetheless be affected. Ongoing rulemaking processes will have meaningful roles in determining how the law is made operational. Physician and stakeholder advocacy has been and will continue to be crucial to the ongoing evolution of this process. © RSNA, 2021.