Tag Archives: pay-for-performance

Those Damn Models Again – Health Care As An Experiment in Bait & Switch

Another shout out to Dr. McCanne, who posted today about a study sponsored by the AMA and conducted by RAND that basically said that alternative payment models (APM) are affecting physicians, their practices and hospitals.

Here is the RAND Summary with key findings:

RAND
October 24, 2018
Effects of Health Care Payment Models on Physician Practice in the United States
By Mark W. Friedberg, et al
This report, sponsored by the American Medical Association (AMA), describes how alternative payment models (APMs) affect physicians, physicians’ practices, and hospital systems in the United States and also provides updated data to the original 2014 study. Payment models discussed are core payment (fee for service, capitation, episode-based and bundled), supplementary payment (shared savings, pay for performance, retainer-based), and combined payment (medical homes and accountable care organizations). The effects of changes since 2014 in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and of new alternative payment models (APMs), such as the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) Quality Payment Program (QPP), are also examined.
Key Findings
Payment models are changing at an accelerating pace
Physician practices, health systems, and consultants find it difficult to keep up with the proliferation of new models, with some calling for a “time out” to allow them to better adapt to current APMs.
Payment models are increasing in complexity
Alternative payment models have become increasingly complex since 2014. Practices that have invested in understanding complex APMs have found opportunities to earn financial awards for their preexisting quality — without materially changing patient care.
Risk aversion is more prominent among physician practices
Risk aversion among physician practices was more prominent. Risk-averse practices sought to avoid downside risk or to off-load downside risk to partners (e.g., hospitals and device manufacturers) when possible.
RAND press release

https://www.rand.org/news/press/2018/10/24.html

Here is the comment by Don McCanne:

There is much more here than a casual glance might imply. The search for value-based payment in health care, as opposed to paying for volume, has led to various payment models such as shared savings, accountable care organizations, bundled payments, pay for performance (P4P), medical homes, and other alternative payment models. How well is that working?
To date, most studies have been quite disappointing. Claims of cost savings are belied when considering the additional provider costs of information technology and human manpower devoted to these models, not to mention the high emotional cost of burnout. This RAND study shows that these models are increasing in complexity, making it difficult for the health delivery system to keep up. Even worse, they are inducing risk aversion. The health care providers are trying to avoid those who most need health care – the opposite of what our health care system should be delivering.
Much of the experimentation in delivery models has been centered around reward or punishment. But, as Alfie Kohn writes, “intrinsic motivation (wanting to do something for its own sake)… is the best predictor of high-quality achievement,” whereas “extrinsic motivation (for example, doing something in order to snag a goody)” can actually undermine intrinsic motivation. It has been observed by others that the personal satisfaction of achievement of patient health care goals is tremendously rewarding, whereas the token rewards based on meager quality measurements are often insulting because of the implication that somehow token payments are a greater motivator than fulfilling Hippocratic traditions. Even more insulting are the token penalties for falling on the wrong side of the bell curve simply as a result of making efforts to care for patients with greater medical or sociological difficulties.
Quoting Alfie Kohn again, “carrots or sticks… can never create a lasting commitment to an action or a value, and often they have exactly the opposite effect … contrary to hypothesis.” The RAND report suggests slowing down and working with these models some more while increasing investment in data management and analysis with the goal of increasing success with alternative payment models. No. These models are making things worse. It’s time to abandon them and get back with taking care of our patients. The payment model we need is an improved version of Medicare that takes care of everyone. Throw out the sticks and carrots.

 

But however we see it, from the point of view of carrots and sticks as not able to change behavior, or by introducing ever newer models of alternative payments, the end result is the same.

Health care suffers because of the wasteful, bureaucratic, and arbitrary imposition of models that only serve to make life for physicians and hospitals harder, and makes health care more expensive and complex.

As Dr. McCanne says above, throw out the carrots and the sticks. Get rid of the models that don’t work and go to a single payer system that is streamlined and less bureaucratic and arbitrary.

Challenges Remain in Physician Payment Reform

Following up on my post yesterday about shared savings, John O’Shea writes today in the Health Affairs blog, that challenges remain with regard to physician payment reform, now that President Obama has signed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) in April.

MACRA repeals the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) mechanism of updating fees to the Physician Fee Schedule (PFS).

The SGR has been blamed for causing instability and uncertainty among physicians for over a decade, and that led to 17 overrides of scheduled fee cuts, at a cost of over $ 150 billion.

The passage of MACRA, O’Shea wrote, raises new questions about where the US health care system is headed in the post-SGR world of payment and delivery reform.

Yet, before MACRA was signed into law, HHS Secretary Burwell announced a major initiative calling for 30 % of Medicare payments to be value-based through the use of alternative payment models (APMs) by 2016, and 50% by 2018.

HHS also set a goal of tying 85% of all traditional Medicare payments to quality or value by 2016, and 90% by 2018.

O’Shea reported there are reasons for caution. These policy changes, following calls to move from the current volume-based, fee-for-service (FFS) system to a value-based system that pays for patient outcomes, rather than for individual services, present major challenges to achieving the goal of value-based health care, the goal of any real health reform initiative.

One of the APMs O’Shea discussed is Value-based purchasing (VBP), which is the concept behind APMs, includes a broad set of performance-based payment strategies that attempt to use financial incentives to influence provider performance, such as the Shared Savings Program mentioned yesterday.

Another APMs is the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) [don’t you just love how the government comes up with these abbreviations?], a modified FFS system, which is basically a Pay-for-Performance (P4P) program.

The overall early results of these initiatives, as well as possible flaws, make the long term viability of these models uncertain.

With regard to P4P programs, a 2014 RAND report looked at 49 studies examining the effect of P4P on process and intermediate outcome measures, and found that the overall results were mixed, and that any identified effects were relatively small.

According to the lead author of the study, Cheryl Damberg, “The evidence from the past decade is that pay for performance had modest effects on closing the quality gap.” A basic flaw in the model is the reality that meaningful patient-centered outcome measures remain elusive.

ACOs, as I wrote about yesterday, are another APM; and O’Shea reported that their ability to generate savings to share with participants is so far not encouraging. He points to early results from the Pioneer ACO program that determined that of the 23 ACOs that participated in 2013, only 11 earned any shared savings, which totaled about $41 million. Six ACOs lost a total of $25 million. The results from a similar study in 2014 showed improvement, but the long-term outlook is still unclear.

What is the impact on the practice of medicine?

What O’Shea found was that physicians currently labor under an increasingly burdensome and often meaningless number of reporting requirements that take time away from patients, and fail to help them improve quality of care.

Accordingly, a commentary O’Shea cited from the New England Journal of Medicine said that, “the quality-measurement enterprise in US health care is troubled.”

A recent CMS report, O’Shea mentioned, said that 40% of Medicare providers will face 1.5% cuts for failing to submit data to the Physician Quality Reporting System.

Because of this, many public and private payers are tying larger amounts of provider payments to a growing number of largely meaningless measures.

O’Shea said that there are two areas of concern, given the plethora of payment and delivery reform initiatives: the administrative burden on physicians, and the push towards greater consolidation.

Nearly half, or 46% of doctors who reported said that they felt burned out in 2014. A main reason cited by the physicians was the increasing administrative burden.

What does the mean?

Well, having slogged through an online Health Care Quality course as part of my MHA degree program, the myriad abbreviations mentioned in Mr. O’Shea’s article does not surprise me. CMS and HHS has for years developed all kinds of initiatives and programs to influence and alter behavior of all stakeholders in our health care system.

As “Uncle” Walter Cronkite once said, “America’s health care system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system.” And that was before the passage of the ACA.

But for the purposes of this blog, and in keeping with the point of the last article where it was said that what happens in health care affects workers’ comp. then I think you can agree that these initiatives and programs, while well-meaning, may make things worse in the future, but not because the idea behind the ACA or the law itself is bad, but because we Americans cannot do anything right until we try everything else, a la Winston Churchill.

If that is the case, then believing that by doing the same things over and over again, that by following everyone else off the cliff of unregulated, employer-based, multi-payer health care, and by not opening the workers’ comp system to real alternatives, especially for surgery, then nothing will ever change.

We will continue to see more new initiatives and programs from CMS, and the results will be dismal, and the impact on workers’ comp will be felt eventually. That is, unless you open up your minds to new ways of thinking.

———————————————————————————————————————————-

I am willing to work with any broker, carrier, or employer interested in saving money on expensive surgeries, and to provide the best care for their injured workers or their client’s employees.

Call me for more information, next steps, or connection strategies at (561) 738-0458 or (561) 603-1685, cell. Email me at: richard_krasner@hotmail.com.

Ask me any questions you may have on how to save money on expensive surgeries under workers’ comp.

Connect with me on LinkedIn, check out my website, FutureComp Consulting, and follow my blog at: richardkrasner.wordpress.com. Share this article, or leave a comment below.