Andrew M Ryan1,2, Phillip E Rodgers2,3. 1. 1 Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health , Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. 2 Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. 3 Department of Family Medicine, and Division of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School , Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthcare payment is rapidly evolving to reward value by measuring and paying for quality and spending performance. Rewarding value for the care of seriously ill patients presents unique challenges. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the state of current efforts to measure and reward value for the care of seriously ill patients. DESIGN: We performed a PubMed search of articles related to (1) measures of spending for people with serious illness and (2) linking spending and quality measures and rewarding performance for the care of people with serious illness. We limited our search to U.S.-based studies published in English between January 1, 1960, and March 31, 2017. We supplemented this search by identifying public programs and other known initiatives that linked quality and spending for the seriously ill and extracted key program elements. RESULTS: Our search related to linking spending and quality measures and rewarding performance for the care of people with serious illness yielded 277 articles. We identified three current public programs that currently link measures of quality and spending-or are likely to within the next few years-the Oncology Care Model; the Comprehensive End-Stage Renal Disease Model; and Home Health Value-Based Purchasing. Models that link quality and spending consist of four core components: (1) measuring quality, (2) measuring spending, (3) the payment adjustment model, and (4) the linking/incentive model. We found that current efforts to reward value for seriously ill patients are targeted for specific patient populations, do not broadly encourage the use of palliative care, and have not closely aligned quality and spending measures related to palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: We develop recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders about how measures of spending and quality can be balanced in value-based payment programs.
BACKGROUND: Healthcare payment is rapidly evolving to reward value by measuring and paying for quality and spending performance. Rewarding value for the care of seriously ill patients presents unique challenges. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the state of current efforts to measure and reward value for the care of seriously ill patients. DESIGN: We performed a PubMed search of articles related to (1) measures of spending for people with serious illness and (2) linking spending and quality measures and rewarding performance for the care of people with serious illness. We limited our search to U.S.-based studies published in English between January 1, 1960, and March 31, 2017. We supplemented this search by identifying public programs and other known initiatives that linked quality and spending for the seriously ill and extracted key program elements. RESULTS: Our search related to linking spending and quality measures and rewarding performance for the care of people with serious illness yielded 277 articles. We identified three current public programs that currently link measures of quality and spending-or are likely to within the next few years-the Oncology Care Model; the Comprehensive End-Stage Renal Disease Model; and Home Health Value-Based Purchasing. Models that link quality and spending consist of four core components: (1) measuring quality, (2) measuring spending, (3) the payment adjustment model, and (4) the linking/incentive model. We found that current efforts to reward value for seriously ill patients are targeted for specific patient populations, do not broadly encourage the use of palliative care, and have not closely aligned quality and spending measures related to palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: We develop recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders about how measures of spending and quality can be balanced in value-based payment programs.
Entities:
Keywords:
healthcare payment for serious illness; measuring value of care; rewarding performance; serious illness; spending performance
Authors: Justin E Bekelman; Scott D Halpern; Carl Rudolf Blankart; Julie P Bynum; Joachim Cohen; Robert Fowler; Stein Kaasa; Lukas Kwietniewski; Hans Olav Melberg; Bregje Onwuteaka-Philipsen; Mariska Oosterveld-Vlug; Andrew Pring; Jonas Schreyögg; Connie M Ulrich; Julia Verne; Hannah Wunsch; Ezekiel J Emanuel Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Amber E Barnato; Max H Farrell; Chung-Chou H Chang; Judith R Lave; Mark S Roberts; Derek C Angus Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Gabriel A Brooks; Ling Li; Hajime Uno; Michael J Hassett; Bruce E Landon; Deborah Schrag Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Sarina R Isenberg; Chunhua Lu; John McQuade; Kelvin K W Chan; Natasha Gill; Michael Cardamone; Deirdre Torto; Terry Langbaum; Rab Razzak; Thomas J Smith Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 3.714
Authors: Devraj Sukul; Andrew M Ryan; Phyllis Yan; Adam Markovitz; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Valerie A Lewis; John M Hollingsworth Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2019-09-16