Inciting maintenance: Tiered institutional work during value-based payment reform in oncology.

Value-based payment aims to shift the focus from traditional volume-driven arrangements to a system that rewards providers for the quality and value of care delivered. Previous research has shown that it is difficult for providers to change their medical and organizational practices to adopt value-based payment, but the role of actors in these reforms has remained underexposed. This paper unravels the motives of non-clinical and clinical professionals to maintain institutionalized payment practices when faced with value-based payment. To illuminate these motives, a case study was conducted in a Dutch hospital alliance that aimed to implement value-based payment to incentivize the transition to novel interventions in a prostate cancer care pathway. Data collection consisted of observations and interviews with actors on multiple levels in the hospital (sales departments, medical specialist enterprises (MSEs) and physicians). On each actor level, motives for maintaining currently prevailing institutional practices were present. Regulative maintenance motives were more common for sales managers whereas cultural-cognitive and normative motives seemed to play an important role for physicians. An overarching motive was that desired transitions to novel interventions proved possible under the currently prevailing institutional logic, dismissing an urgent need for payment reform. Our analysis further revealed that actors engage in diverse institutional maintenance work, and that some actor groups' institutional work carries more weight than others because of the dependency relationships that exist between hospitals, MSEs and physicians. Physicians depend on MSEs and sales departments, who act as gatekeepers and buffers, to decide whether the value-based payment reform is either adopted or abandoned.

Building alternative payment models in health care.

Introduction: Global interest is growing in new value-based models of financing, delivering, and paying for health care services that could produce higher-quality and lower cost outcomes for patients and for society. However, research indicates evidence gaps in knowledge related to alternative payment models (APMs) in early experimentation phases or those contracted between private insurers and their health care provider-partners. The aim of this research was to understand and update the literature related to learning how industry experts design and implement APMs, including specific elements of their models and their choice of stakeholders to be involved in the design and contractual details. Methods: A literature review was conducted to guide the research focus and to select themes. The sample was selected using snowball sampling to identify subject matter experts (SMEs). Researchers conducted 16 semi-structured interviews with SMEs in the US, the Netherlands, and Germany in September and October 2021. Interviews were transcribed and using Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach to thematic analysis, researchers independently read, reviewed, and coded participants' responses related to APM design and implementation and subsequently reviewed each other's codes and themes for consistency. Results: Participants represented diverse perspectives of the payer, provider, consulting, and government areas of the health care sector. We found design considerations had five overarching themes: (1) population and scope of care and services, (2) benchmarking, metrics, data, and technology; (3) finance, APM type, risk adjustment, incentives, and influencing provider behavior, (4) provider partnerships and the role of physicians, and (5) leadership and regulatory issues. Discussion: This study confirmed several of the core components of APM model designs and implementations found in the literature and brought insights on additional aspects not previously emphasized, particularly the role of physicians (especially in leadership) and practice transformation/care processes necessary for providers to thrive under APM models. Importantly, researchers found significant concerns relevant for policymakers about regulations relating to health data sharing, rigid price-setting, and inter-organizational data communication that greatly inhibit the ability to experiment with APMs and those models' abilities to succeed long-term.

Integrated Payment, Fragmented Realities? A Discourse Analysis of Integrated Payment in the Netherlands.

The current models used for paying for health and social care are considered a major barrier to integrated care. Despite the implementation of integrated payment schemes proving difficult, such initiatives are still widely pursued. In the Netherlands, this development has led to a payment architecture combining traditional and integrated payment models. To gain insight into the justification for and future viability of integrated payment, this paper's purpose is to explain the current duality by identifying discourses on integrated payment models, determining which discourses predominate, and how they have changed over time and differ among key stakeholders in healthcare. The discourse analysis revealed four discourses, each with its own underlying assumptions and values regarding integrated payment. First, the Quality-of-Care discourse sees integrated payment as instrumental in improving care. Second, the Affordability discourse emphasizes how integrated payment can contribute to the financial sustainability of the healthcare system. Third, the Bureaucratization discourse highlights the administrative burden associated with integrated payment models. Fourth, the Strategic discourse stresses micropolitical and professional issues that come into play when implementing such models. The future viability of integrated payment depends on how issues reflected in the Bureaucratization and Strategic discourses are addressed without losing sight of quality-of-care and affordability, two aspects attracting significant public interest in The Netherlands.

The Effect of Network-Level Payment Models on Care Network Performance: A Scoping Review of the Empirical Literature.

Introduction: Traditional payment models reward volume rather than value. Moving away from reimbursing separate providers to network-level reimbursement is assumed to support structural changes in health care organizations that are necessary to improve patient care. This scoping review evaluates the performance of care networks that have adopted network-level payment models. Methods: A scoping review of the empirical literature was conducted according to the five-step York framework. We identified indicators of performance, categorized them in four categories (quality, utilization, spending and other consequences) and scored whether performance increased, decreased, or remained stable due to the payment model. Results: The 76 included studies investigated network-level capitation, disease-based bundled payments, pay-for-performance and blended global payments. The majority of studies stem from the USA. Studies generally concluded that performance in terms of quality and utilization increased or remained stable. Most payment models were associated with improved spending performance. Overall, our review shows that network-level payment models are moderately successful in improving network performance. Discussion/conclusion: As health care networks are increasingly common, it seems fruitful to continue experimenting with reimbursement models for health care networks. It is also important to broaden the scope to not only scrutinize outcomes, but also the contexts and mechanisms that lead to certain outcomes.