Lena M Chen1, Ellen Meara, John D Birkmeyer. 1. University of Michigan Division of General Medicine, North Campus Research Complex, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Bldg 16, Rm 407E, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2800. E-mail: lenac@umich.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Aiming to encourage care coordination and cost efficiency, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) launched the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative in 2013. To help gauge the program's potential impact and generalizability, we describe early and current participants. STUDY DESIGN: We examined the cross-sectional association between BPCI participation and providers' structural and cost characteristics. METHODS: Using data from October 2013 and June 2014, we quantified changes in BPCI participation. We described structural differences between participating and nonparticipating hospitals using t tests and χ2 tests, and we used the Cochrane-Armitage test to assess whether participants were more likely be in higher 90-day episode cost quintiles than their peers at baseline (2009-2010). RESULTS: Overall (risk-bearing and non-risk-bearing) participation in BPCI increased from about 400 in October 2013 to more than 2000 in June 2014-attributable, in part, to Model 2, the most comprehensive of the 4 models offered by CMMI for provider participation. Model 2 hospitals increasingly resemble eligible but nonparticipating hospitals. For the most commonly chosen condition of hip replacement, Model 2 hospitals were not costlier than their peers. Hospitals used to make up 97% of Model 2 participants, but physician practices now comprise a substantial number of Model 2 participants. However, most BPCI participants have not yet begun to bear financial risk. Risk-bearing Model 2 hospitals are a smaller and less representative group, with higher baseline costs for hip replacement than their peers. CONCLUSIONS: Growing participation in BPCI suggests strong interest in bundled payments. The long-term impact of BPCI will depend on CMMI's ability to persuade interested but non-risk-bearing participants to bear risk.
OBJECTIVES: Aiming to encourage care coordination and cost efficiency, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) launched the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative in 2013. To help gauge the program's potential impact and generalizability, we describe early and current participants. STUDY DESIGN: We examined the cross-sectional association between BPCI participation and providers' structural and cost characteristics. METHODS: Using data from October 2013 and June 2014, we quantified changes in BPCI participation. We described structural differences between participating and nonparticipating hospitals using t tests and χ2 tests, and we used the Cochrane-Armitage test to assess whether participants were more likely be in higher 90-day episode cost quintiles than their peers at baseline (2009-2010). RESULTS: Overall (risk-bearing and non-risk-bearing) participation in BPCI increased from about 400 in October 2013 to more than 2000 in June 2014-attributable, in part, to Model 2, the most comprehensive of the 4 models offered by CMMI for provider participation. Model 2 hospitals increasingly resemble eligible but nonparticipating hospitals. For the most commonly chosen condition of hip replacement, Model 2 hospitals were not costlier than their peers. Hospitals used to make up 97% of Model 2 participants, but physician practices now comprise a substantial number of Model 2 participants. However, most BPCIparticipants have not yet begun to bear financial risk. Risk-bearing Model 2 hospitals are a smaller and less representative group, with higher baseline costs for hip replacement than their peers. CONCLUSIONS: Growing participation in BPCI suggests strong interest in bundled payments. The long-term impact of BPCI will depend on CMMI's ability to persuade interested but non-risk-bearing participants to bear risk.
Authors: Daniel J Gottlieb; Weiping Zhou; Yunjie Song; Kathryn Gilman Andrews; Jonathan S Skinner; Jason M Sutherland Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Cathryn Gust; Onur Baser; Justin B Dimick; Jason M Sutherland; Jonathan S Skinner Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Alfred S Casale; Ronald A Paulus; Mark J Selna; Michael C Doll; Albert E Bothe; Karen E McKinley; Scott A Berry; Duane E Davis; Richard J Gilfillan; Bruce H Hamory; Glenn D Steele Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Peter S Hussey; Melony E Sorbero; Ateev Mehrotra; Hangsheng Liu; Cheryl L Damberg Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2009 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Muhammad Ali Chaudhary; Jeffrey K Lange; Linda M Pak; Justin A Blucher; Lauren B Barton; Daniel J Sturgeon; Tracey Koehlmoos; Adil H Haider; Andrew J Schoenfeld Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Christopher R Pretz; James E Graham; Addie Middleton; Amol M Karmarkar; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: William S Murphy; Ahmed Siddiqi; Tony Cheng; Ben Lin; David Terry; Carl T Talmo; Stephen B Murphy Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Sung-Bou Kim; David S Zingmond; Emmett B Keeler; Lee A Jennings; Neil S Wenger; David B Reuben; David A Ganz Journal: Inj Epidemiol Date: 2016-01-05
Authors: W Wynn-Jones; T P Koehlmoos; C Tompkins; A Navathe; S Lipsitz; N K Kwon; P A Learn; C Madsen; A Schoenfeld; J S Weissman Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 2.655