Literature DB >> 27878711

A framework for guiding efforts to reward value instead of volume.

Taylor J Christensen1.   

Abstract

The U.S. healthcare system is in the midst of a major shift from fee-for-service to value-based reimbursement models. To date, these new reimbursement models have been focused on quality-contingent bonuses and cost-of-care risk sharing for providers, both of which have yielded only modest success.An analysis of health policy and business strategy literature was performed to identify the mechanisms of how value is rewarded in other industries and to understand the barriers to those mechanisms operating in the healthcare industry. A framework was developed to organize these findings. Rewarding healthcare providers for delivering value can only be achieved by enabling profitability to increase as value increases relative to competitors. Four variables determine a provider's profitability, each of which is considered as a potential lever to reward value with profit. The lever that offers the greatest potential is quantity (i.e., market share). Ironically, this means rewarding value with volume. The major barriers to value improvements being rewarded with market share are identified, and the profound impact of minimizing or removing those barriers is illustrated using a variety of examples from our healthcare system. Trending reforms that rely on quality-contingent bonuses and cost-of-care risk sharing are limited in the degree of value improvement they will stimulate because they rely on ineffective levers to reward value; instead, reform efforts must focus on removing barriers to rewarding value with market share. The framework presented can be used to predict the impact of any proposed reform.

Keywords:  Health care costs; Health care reform; Incentive; Reimbursement; Value-based purchasing

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 27878711     DOI: 10.1007/s10754-015-9178-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Health Econ Manag        ISSN: 2199-9031


  33 in total

1.  Thirty-day readmissions--truth and consequences.

Authors:  Karen E Joynt; Ashish K Jha
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Hospital performance reports: impact on quality, market share, and reputation.

Authors:  Judith H Hibbard; Jean Stockard; Martin Tusler
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  Association of Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations vs traditional Medicare fee for service with spending, utilization, and patient experience.

Authors:  David J Nyweide; Woolton Lee; Timothy T Cuerdon; Hoangmai H Pham; Megan Cox; Rahul Rajkumar; Patrick H Conway
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Choosing wisely--the politics and economics of labeling low-value services.

Authors:  Nancy E Morden; Carrie H Colla; Thomas D Sequist; Meredith B Rosenthal
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Hospitals' race to employ physicians--the logic behind a money-losing proposition.

Authors:  Robert Kocher; Nikhil R Sahni
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-03-30       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 6.  The association between health care quality and cost: a systematic review.

Authors:  Peter S Hussey; Samuel Wertheimer; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-01-01       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Do bad report cards have consequences? Impacts of publicly reported provider quality information on the CABG market in Pennsylvania.

Authors:  Justin Wang; Jason Hockenberry; Shin-Yi Chou; Muzhe Yang
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2010-12-10       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Publicly reported quality-of-care measures influenced Wisconsin physician groups to improve performance.

Authors:  Geoffrey C Lamb; Maureen A Smith; William B Weeks; Christopher Queram
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 6.301

9.  Do markets respond to quality information? The case of fertility clinics.

Authors:  M Kate Bundorf; Natalie Chun; Gopi Shah Goda; Daniel P Kessler
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2009-01-29       Impact factor: 3.883

10.  Reacting to rankings: evidence from "America's Best Hospitals".

Authors:  Devin G Pope
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2009-09-02       Impact factor: 3.883

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.