Neurologic Alternative Payment Models—Bridging the Gap

Joseph T. Kannarkat,George T. Kannarkat,Lyell K. Jones

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.5053

IF: 29.907

2024-01-08

JAMA Neurology

Abstract:This Viewpoint discusses alternative payments models and the responsibilities of health care professionals.

clinical neurology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A Survey of Innovative Reimbursement Models in Spine Care

Alex Kazberouk,Kevin McGuire,Bruce E Landon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001212

Abstract:Study design: Structured key informant interviews with follow-up. Objective: The aim of the study was to describe innovative reimbursement models in spine care and gather perspectives on the future of spine care reimbursement. Summary of background data: The United States spends $90 billion annually on medical expenses for low back pain. One approach to promoting high-quality, cost-effective care is through bundled payments and other reimbursement models wherein physicians are held accountable for costs and utilization. Little data exist on innovative payment models in spine care. Methods: Through literature review and discussions with leaders in the field, we identified organizations that were engaged in bundled payment initiatives for spine care and surgery. These included healthcare systems, physician groups, organizations helping to set up bundles, and a large employer. We conducted interviews to understand the background and specific features of each initiative, generalizable success factors and challenges, and perspectives on the future of spine reimbursement. Results: We interviewed 24 stakeholders across 18 organizations that collectively perform approximately 12,000 inpatient spine surgeries annually. Fee-for-service reimbursement accounts for a majority of revenue, but several organizations expect 30% to 45% of their spine volume to be covered under bundled payments within 3 years and cite new patient volume, increased surgical yield, and financial benefits from efficiency improvements as reasons for adopting bundled payments. Current initiatives are heterogeneous, but share similar success factors and challenges. Institutions are more hesitant to adopt risk-based payment models for chronic back care, citing difficulty modeling risk, patient heterogeneity, and difficulty aligning incentives. Conclusion: Payment models outside of the traditional fee-for-service paradigm are emerging in spine care. Providers that preemptively adopt bundled payments can increase patient volumes from payers seeking cost-effective care. Going forward, organizations should begin considering reimbursement models that focus on noninterventional spine care. Finally, developments in spine reimbursement may apply to other procedure-based specialties, including orthopedics and cardiology. Level of evidence: 5.
Scoping Review: Anesthesiologist Involvement in Alternative Payment Models, Value Measurement, and Nonclinical Capabilities for Success in the United States of America

Jay Sanghvi,Daniel Qian,Ezekiel Olumuyide,Deborah C Mokuolu,Aakash Keswani,Gordon H Morewood,Garrett Burnett,Chang H Park,Jonathan S Gal,Deborah C. Mokuolu,Gordon H. Morewood,Chang H. Park,Jonathan S. Gal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000006763

IF: 6.627

2024-02-07

Anesthesia & Analgesia

Abstract:The US healthcare sector is undergoing significant payment reforms, leading to the emergence of Alternative Payment Models (APMs) aimed at improving clinical outcomes and patient experiences while reducing costs. This scoping review provides an overview of the involvement of anesthesiologists in APMs as found in published literature. It specifically aims to categorize and understand the breadth and depth of their participation, revolving around 3 main axes or “Aims”: (1) shaping APMs through design and implementation, (2) gauging the value and quality of care provided by anesthesiologists within these models, and (3) enhancing nonclinical abilities of anesthesiologists for promoting more value in care. To map out the existing literature, a comprehensive search of relevant electronic databases was conducted, yielding a total of 2173 articles, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 21 prospective or retrospective cohort studies, 2 surveys, and 1 case–control cohort study. Eleven publications (45%) discussed value-based, bundled, or episode-based payments, whereas the rest discussed non–payment-based models, such as Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (7 articles, 29%), Perioperative Surgical Home (4 articles, 17%), or other models (3 articles, 13%).The review identified key themes related to each aim. The most prominent themes for aim 1 included protocol standardization (16 articles, 67%), design and implementation leadership (8 articles, 33%), multidisciplinary collaboration (7 articles, 29%), and role expansion (5 articles, 21%). For aim 2, the common themes were Process-Based & Patient-Centric Metrics (1 article, 4%), Shared Accountability (3 articles, 13%), and Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) (3 articles, 13%). Furthermore, we identified a wide range of quality metrics, spanning 8 domains that were used in these studies to evaluate anesthesiologists’ performance. For aim 3, the main extracted themes included Education on Healthcare Transformation and Policies (3 articles, 13%), Exploring Collaborative Leadership Skills (5 articles, 21%), and Embracing Advanced Analytics and Data Transparency (4 articles, 17%).Findings revealed the pivotal role of anesthesiologists in the design, implementation, and refinement of these emerging delivery and payment models. Our results highlight that while payment models are shifting toward value, patient-centered metrics have yet to be widely accepted for use in measuring quality and affecting payment for anesthesiologists. Gaps remain in understanding how anesthesiologists assess their direct impact and strategies for enhancing the sustainability of anesthesia practices. This review underscores the need for future research contributing to the successful adaptation of clinical practices in this new era of healthcare delivery.

anesthesiology
Building alternative payment models in health care

Steven W Howard,Natalie Bradford,Rhonda Belue,Margaret Henning,Zhengmin Qian,Kees Ahaus,Thomas Reindersma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2024.1235913

2024-06-14

Abstract: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.
Value-based healthcare payment models: a wolf in sheep's clothing for patients and clinicians

Forrest Bohler,Allison Garden,Callaham Brock,Lily Bohler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2024.2382948

IF: 5.348

2024-07-25

Annals of Medicine

Abstract:Value-based healthcare payment models are an alternative insurance payment system that compensates healthcare providers based on their patients' outcomes rather than the individual services healthcare workers provide. This shift from the current fee-for-service model that predominates our medical system has received renewed popularity and attention within organized medicine such as the American Medical Association. Advocates believe that this new payment model will address many of the unsolved issues in healthcare such as medical waste and unsustainable healthcare costs. In practice, however, this model is plagued with a myriad of unresolved issues of its own. In this commentary, we outline these issues and suggest that the intentions of those advocating for value-based payment models are either misguided or disingenuous. We then offer solutions that preserve our current fee-for-service model while making necessary changes that will benefit both physicians and patients nationwide.

medicine, general & internal
The Case for Alternative Payment Models for Nursing Care

Robert Longyear,Melissa Mills

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.naj.0001027632.21498.c5

2024-07-25

Abstract:A policy solution to improve staffing and patient care

nursing
A Cautionary Tale: Malaligned Incentives in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Payment Model Reforms Threaten Promising Innovation and Access to Care

David E DeMik,Peter A Gold,Nicholas B Frisch,Joshua M Kerr,P Maxwell Courtney,Adam J Rana,David E. DeMik,Peter A. Gold,Nicholas B. Frisch,Joshua M. Kerr,P. Maxwell Courtney,Adam J. Rana

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2024.01.064

IF: 4.435

2024-02-01

The Journal of Arthroplasty

Abstract:Over the past several years, there have been notable changes and controversies involving Medicare reimbursement for total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We have seen the development and implementation of experimental bundled payment model pilot programs goals of improving quality and decreasing overall costs of care during the last decade. Many orthopaedic surgeons have embraced these programs and have demonstrated the ability to succeed in these new models by implementing strategies, such as preservice optimization, to shift care away from inpatient or postdischarge settings and reduce postoperative complications. However, these achievements have been met with continual reductions in surgeon reimbursement rates, lower bundle payment target pricings, modest increases in hospital reimbursement rates, and inappropriate valuations of THA and TKA Common Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. These challenges have led to an organized advocacy movement and spurred research involving the methods by which improvements have been made throughout the entire episode of arthroplasty care. Collectively, these efforts have recently led to a novel application of CPT codes recognized by payers to potentially capture presurgical optimization work. In this paper, we present an overview of contemporary payment models, summarize notable events involved in the review of THA and TKA CPT codes, review recent changes to THA and TKA reimbursement, and discuss future challenges faced by arthroplasty surgeons that threaten access to high-quality THA and TKA care.

orthopedics
Transforming Health Care Delivery: Innovations in Payment Models for Interprofessional Team-Based Care

Hossein Khalili

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18043/001c.117089

Abstract:By examining the strengths, limitations, and implications of different payment models we seek to inform policymakers, practitioners, and educators on the path toward patient-cen-tered, efficient, and sustainable primary health care deliv-ery. Health care payment model reform should be viewed as an investment in future health asset capacity and equity production rather than an immediate return on investment for short-term health care cost reduction.
Beyond demonstrations: implementing a primary care hybrid payment model in Medicare

Robert A Berenson,Adele Shartzer,Hoangmai H Pham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxad024

2023-07-03

Abstract:The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's (NASEM's) 2021 report on primary care called for a hybrid payment approach-a mix of fee-for-service and population-based payment-with performance accountability to strike the proper balance for desired practice transformation and to support primary care's important and expanding role. The NASEM report also proposed substantial increases to primary care payment and reforms to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. This paper addresses pragmatic ways to implement these recommendations, describing and proposing solutions to the main implementation challenges. The urgent need for primary care payment reform calls for adopting a hybrid model within the Medicare fee schedule rather than engaging in another round of demonstrations, despite legal and practical obstacles to adoption. The paper explores reasons for adopting a roughly 50:50 blend of fee-for-service and population-based payment and addresses other design features, presenting reasons why spending accountability should rely on utilization measures under primary care control rather than performance on total cost of care, and proposes a fresh approach to quality, emphasizing that quality measures should be parsimonious, focused on important outcomes with demonstrated quality improvement.
The Academic Payvider Model: Care and Coverage

Erika D Harness,Zachary N Goldberg,Yash B Shah,Akshay S Krishnan,Varun Jayanti,David B Nash,Erika D. Harness,Zachary N. Goldberg,Yash B. Shah,Akshay S. Krishnan,David B. Nash

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2023.0300

2024-03-06

Population Health Management

Abstract:The US health care system has significant room for growth to achieve the Quintuple Aim. Reforming the relationship between payers and providers is pivotal to enhancing value-based care (VBC). The Payvider model, a joint approach to care and coverage rooted in vertical integration, is a potential solution. The authors aimed to investigate academic medical institutions adopting this model, termed Academic Payviders . All Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)-member allopathic medical schools were evaluated to identify programs meeting the inclusion criteria of offering both medical care and insurance coverage to patients via partnership with a payer or ownership of, or by, a payer. Twenty-five Academic Payvider systems were identified from 171 total AAMC-member programs. Most programs were founded after 2009 ( n = 20), utilized a provider-dominant structural model ( n = 17), and offered health plans to patients via Medicare Advantage ( n = 23). Passage of the Affordable Care Act, recent trends in health care consolidation, and increased political and financial prioritization of social determinants of health (SDOH) may help to explain the rise of this care and coverage model. The Academic Payvider movement could advance academic medicine toward greater acceptance of VBC via innovations in medical education, resource stewardship in residency, and the establishment of innovative leadership positions at the administrative level.

health care sciences & services
It's a Jungle Out There: Understanding physician payment and its role in group dynamics

Rachel Gifford,Eric Molleman,Taco van der Vaart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116945

IF: 5.379

2024-05-11

Social Science & Medicine

Abstract:Although collaboration between healthcare professionals is essential for the delivery of effective, efficient, and high-quality care, it remains an ongoing and critical challenge across health systems. As a result, many countries are experimenting with innovative payment and employment models. The literature tends to focus on improving collaboration across organizational and sectoral boundaries, and largely ignores potential barriers to collaborative work between members of the same profession within a single organization. Despite intergroup dynamics and professional boundaries having been shown to restrict patient flow and collaboration between specialties, studies have so far tended to overlook the potential effects of differentiated organizational and payment models on physicians' behaviors and intergroup dynamics. In the present study, we seek to unpack the influence of physicians' payment and employment models on their collaborative behaviors and on intergroup dynamics between specialties, adding to the current scholarship on physician payment and employment by considering how physicians' view and act in response to different structural arrangements. The findings suggest that adopting hybrid models, in which physicians are employed or paid differently within the same organization or practice, creates a bifurcation of the profession whereby physicians across different models are perceived to behave differently and have conflicting professional values. These models are perceived to inhibit collaboration between physicians and complicate hospital governance, restricting the ability to move towards new models of care delivery. These findings can be used as a basis for future work that aims to unpack the reality of physician payment and offer important insights for policies surrounding physician employment.

public, environmental & occupational health,social sciences, biomedical
Joes Story: How a Capitated Payment Model Lets Me Be the Physician I Want to Be

Denham,A. C.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.3070

2024-03-26

The Annals of Family Medicine

Abstract:For many years I cared for Joe, following him through diagnoses of strokes, end-stage renal disease, and metastatic prostate cancer. Gaining his trust, coordinating his care across specialist visits and hospitalizations, and helping him and his family clarify goals of care took an investment of time and relationship-building. I was able to spend this time with Joe, and all of my medically complex patients, because I had taken a job in a Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), a fully capitated model of care. With care organized around the patient instead of the visit, this payment model transformed my work life. As I reflect on the care that I provided for Joe over the years, I consider how health care organization and finance can either help or hinder our ability to provide patient-centered, coordinated, continuous care for our patients. Evolving payment models can help make space for family physicians to provide the robust primary care we are trained to deliver.

medicine, general & internal,primary health care
Nonemergency Medical Transportation Benefit in Medicare Plans

Yunrong Shen,Xin Hu,Ryan D. Nipp,K. Robin Yabroff,Arthur S. Hong,Joshua M. Liao,Changchuan Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.49038

2024-12-06

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This cross-sectional study examines differences in the provision of nonemergency medical transportation benefits between traditional and value-based Medicare plans.

medicine, general & internal
Implementing the Patient Driven Payment Model—Perspectives from Skilled Nursing Facility Administrators

Zhanqin Liu,Amy Meehan,Joan F. Brazier,Renee Shield,Emily A. Gadbois

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/07334648231223296

2024-01-04

Journal of Applied Gerontology

Abstract:Journal of Applied Gerontology, Ahead of Print. Objective: To explore skilled nursing facility (SNF) administrator retrospective perspectives on their preparation for and initial implementation of the Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM), the new Medicare payment system for SNFs enacted on October 1, 2019. Methods: 156 interviews at 40 SNFs in eight U.S. markets were conducted and qualitatively analyzed. Results: Administrators retrospectively expressed feeling well-prepared for the PDPM implementation. Advance preparation focused on training staff regarding patient assessment and documentation. Administrators also recognized increased incentives for admitting patients with more complex needs and prepared accordingly. Therapy staffing reductions were concentrated in contract employees, while SNF-employed therapists were less affected. Conclusion: Policy makers and industry experts should consider the long-term impact of changing financial incentives through payment reform, and ensure that reimbursement best reflects the cost of providing services while prioritizing high-quality care. PDPM's effect on care quality and access to care should continue to be monitored.

geriatrics & gerontology,gerontology
Medicare Chronic Care Management Payments and Financial Returns to Primary Care Practices: A Modeling Study

Sanjay Basu,Russell S Phillips,Asaf Bitton,Zirui Song,Bruce E Landon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2677

2015-10-20

Abstract:Background: Physicians have traditionally been reimbursed for face-to-face visits. A new non-visit-based payment for chronic care management (CCM) of Medicare patients took effect in January 2015. Objective: To estimate financial implications of CCM payment for primary care practices. Design: Microsimulation model incorporating national data on primary care use, staffing, expenditures, and reimbursements. Data sources: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and other published sources. Target population: Medicare patients. Time horizon: 10 years. Perspective: Practice-level. Intervention: Comparison of CCM delivery approaches by staff and physicians. Outcome measures: Net revenue per full-time equivalent (FTE) physician; time spent delivering CCM services. Results of base-case analysis: If nonphysician staff were to deliver CCM services, net revenue to practices would increase despite opportunity and staffing costs. Practices could expect approximately $332 per enrolled patient per year (95% CI, $234 to $429) if CCM services were delivered by registered nurses (RNs), approximately $372 (CI, $276 to $468) if services were delivered by licensed practical nurses, and approximately $385 (CI, $286 to $485) if services were delivered by medical assistants. For a typical practice, this equates to more than $75 ,00 of net annual revenue per FTE physician and 12 hours of nursing service time per week if 50% of eligible patients enroll. At a minimum, 131 Medicare patients (CI, 115 to 140 patients) must enroll for practices to recoup the salary and overhead costs of hiring a full-time RN to provide CCM services. Results of sensitivity analysis: If physicians were to deliver all CCM services, approximately 25% of practices nationwide could expect net revenue losses due to opportunity costs of face-to-face visit time. Limitation: The CCM program may alter long-term primary care use, which is difficult to predict. Conclusion: Practices that rely on nonphysician team members to deliver CCM services will probably experience substantial net revenue gains but must enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to recoup costs. Primary funding source: None.
State-to-State Variation in Medicaid Reimbursement for Neurosurgical Procedures: Implications for Healthcare Access in Vulnerable Populations

Michael S. Rallo,Chandler N. Berke,Thomas C. Shaw,Jaclyn A. Bunch,Richard P. Menger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000002823

IF: 5.315

2024-01-19

Neurosurgery

Abstract:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Medicaid payment for healthcare services traditionally reimburses less than Medicare and commercial insurance. This disparity in reimbursement seems to be an important driver of limited access to care among Medicaid beneficiaries. This study seeks to examine the degree of variation in Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement for the most common neurosurgical current procedural terminology codes and determine its potential impact on provider accessibility. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, maximum allowed physician reimbursement fees for 20 common neurosurgical codes reported in the literature were obtained from the 2022 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and individual state Medicaid Fee-for-Service Schedules. The Medicaid-Medicare Index (MMI), which measures Medicaid reimbursement as a fraction of Medicare allowed amounts, was calculated for each procedure across 49 states and the District of Columbia. Lower MMI indicates a greater disparity, or “discount,” between Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement. The proportion of providers accepting new Medicaid patients and total Medicaid enrollment were compared across states as a function of MMI. RESULTS: The average national MMI was 0.79, with a range of 0.37 in NY/NJ to 1.43 in NE. Maximum allowed amounts for Medicare reimbursement (coefficient of variation = 0.09) were less variable than those for Medicaid (coefficient of variation = 0.26, P < .01). The largest absolute disparity was observed for intracranial aneurysm clipping in NY, where the maximum Medicaid reimbursement is $3496.52 less than that of Medicare. Higher MMI was associated with a significantly larger proportion of providers accepting new Medicaid patients (R 2 = 0.43, P < .01). Moreover, MMI varied inversely with the number of Medicaid beneficiaries (R 2 = 0.12, P = .01). CONCLUSION: Medicaid reimbursement varies between states reflecting the disparate methods of fee schedule calculation. Lower reimbursement is associated with more limited provider enrollment, especially in states with a greater number of beneficiaries.

surgery,clinical neurology
Emerging lessons from regional and state innovation in value-based payment reform: balancing collaboration and disruptive innovation

Douglas A Conrad,David Grembowski,Susan E Hernandez,Bernard Lau,Miriam Marcus-Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12078

Abstract:Context: In recent decades, practitioners and policymakers have turned to value-based payment initiatives to help contain spending on health care and to improve the quality of care. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded 7 grantees across the country to design and implement value-based, multistakeholder payment reform projects in 6 states and 3 regions of the United States. Methods: As the external evaluator of these projects, we reviewed documents, conducted Internet searches, interviewed key stakeholders, cross-validated factual and narrative interpretation, and performed qualitative analyses to derive cross-site themes and implications for policy and practice. Findings: The nature of payment reform and its momentum closely reflects the environmental context of each project. Federal legislation such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and federal and state support for the development of the patient-centered medical home and accountable care organizations encourage value-based payment innovation, as do local market conditions for payers and providers that combine a history of collaboration with independent innovation and experimentation by individual organizations. Multistakeholder coalitions offer a useful facilitating structure for galvanizing payment reform. But to achieve the objectives of reduced cost and improved quality, multistakeholder payment innovation must overcome such barriers as incompatible information systems, the technical difficulties and transaction costs of altering existing billing and payment systems, competing stakeholder priorities, insufficient scale to bear population health risk, providers' limited experience with risk-bearing payment models, and the failure to align care delivery models with the form of payment. Conclusions: From the evidence adduced in this article, multistakeholder, value-based payment reform requires a trusted, widely respected "honest broker" that can convene and maintain the ongoing commitment of health plans, providers, and purchasers. Change management is complex and challenging, and coalition governance requires flexibility and stable leadership, as market conditions and stakeholder engagement and priorities shift over time. Another significant facilitator of value-based payment reform is outside investment that enables increased investment in human resources, information infrastructure, and care management by provider organizations and their collaborators. Supportive community and social service networks that enhance population health management also are important enablers of value-based payment reform. External pressure from public and private payers is fueling a "burning bridge" between the past of fee-for-service payment models and the future of payments based on value. Robust competition in local health plan and provider markets, coupled with an appropriate mix of multistakeholder governance, pressure from organized purchasers, and regulatory oversight, has the potential to spur value-based payment innovation that combines elements of "reformed" fee-for-service with bundled payments and global payments.
Orthopaedic Nurse Navigators and Total Joint Arthroplasty Preoperative Optimization: Payer Status and Medication Management-Part Six of the Movement Is Life Special ONJ Series

Martha Kebeh,Chloe C Dlott,Donna Kurek,Wei Shao Tung,Jensa C Morris,Daniel H Wiznia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/NOR.0000000000001039

Abstract:This article is the sixth in the Movement is Life series and focuses on insurance coverage and medication management in the perioperative period, 2 tangentially related variables that affect patient outcomes. Our aim is to use current practices and literature to develop recommendations for nurse navigators' execution of preoperative optimization protocols related to payer status and medication management. Discussions with nurse navigators and a literature search were used to gather information and develop recommendations specific to optimizing payer status and medication management. Nurse navigators connected patients to resources and provided education regarding financial concerns and medications, and findings from the literature discussed insurance status among TJA patients. Nurse navigators can contribute to payer status and medication management optimization by providing patient education and resource referrals. In addition, we recommend conducting repeated medication reconciliation and developing awareness of financial resources and perioperative medication management guidelines.
Preferred Post‐Acute Care Providers in Bundled Payment: Implications for Patient Choice

Lianna Weissblum,Peter J. Huckfeldt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15806

2019-02-23

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract:This editorial comments on the Clinical Investigation by Joynt Maddox et al. in this issue.

geriatrics & gerontology,gerontology
Federal and Statewide Coverage for Opioid-Sparing Chronic Pain Treatments

Monroe McKay,Margaret M Gorvine,Nickolas Zaller,Vinita Singh,Johnathan Goree

IF: 4.396

Pain Physician

Abstract:Background: With increased hospitalizations and deaths related to opioid use disorder, there is an impetus for federal and private insurance companies to provide coverage for integrative treatments that address pain. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the current literature recommend that nonpharmacological and nonopioid treatments must be considered for chronic pain management. The continued examination of potential coverage and cost-effectiveness for opioid-sparing alternatives with proven efficacy is critical for physicians who treat chronic pain. Study design: Qualitative analysis of coverage policies for 10 alternative chronic back pain therapies was completed using the most up-to-date publicly available information from federal and state databases until September 2021. Objectives: To determine coverage for opioid-sparing treatments for chronic back pain across federal and state healthcare systems. Methods: We selected the alternative therapies from the National Institute of Health's National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) (www.nccih.nih.gov). We then collected and analyzed coverage policies for federal and state healthcare plans, including Medicare, Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Indian Health Services (IHS), and Medicaid, by accessing federal databases and state policy databases via the department of health and human services (HHS). Results: The 2 most commonly covered nonpharmacologic therapies for chronic back pain are physical therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy. Other more novel therapies have a heterogenous distribution among federal and state healthcare coverage. Assessment of regional differences determined that the median number of treatments in the Northeast and Midwest was 3, while in the South and West, it was 2. Limitations: Several provider manuals included varying degrees of information regarding their services. Some states included all pertinent information, such as the definition of treatment, the exact number of service visits allowed annually, and whether prior authorization was necessary. Many manuals provided less information than this. Each state's Medicaid document contained inherent variability, especially with respect to when they were updated or published. Some states had updated information available for 2021, while the most updated policies for other states included documents that were last updated in 2008. Conclusions: Integrative treatments for chronic back pain are currently available, yet coverage varies widely depending on the patient's Medicare or Medicaid status. Different states cover different therapies, which may lead to unequal healthcare outcomes for patients with chronic pain.
Alternative approaches to measuring value: an update on innovative methods in the context of the United States Medicare drug price negotiation program

Michael J. DiStefano,Antal Zemplenyi,Kelly E. Anderson,Nicholas D. Mendola,Kavita V. Nair,Robert Brett McQueen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2023.2283584

2023-11-14

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: The United States has begun assessing the value of pharmaceuticals to inform negotiated prices in the Medicare program. Given strong political objections in the United States to the use of QALYs, Medicare will need to adopt an alternative approach to measuring value.AREAS COVERED: In this narrative review, we identified six alternative approaches to measuring value (equal value life-years, health years in total, generalized risk-adjusted cost-effectiveness, severity weighting based on absolute or proportional shortfall, comparative effectiveness based on conventional clinical endpoints, and comparative effectiveness based on both conventional endpoints and patient-centric value elements) and five criteria for assessing these approaches (responsiveness to concerns about discrimination, feasibility, transparency, flexibility, and the ability to incorporate factors beyond traditional value elements).EXPERT OPINION: Four of the alternatives are broadly aligned with the cost-effectiveness framework, but none fully addresses all aspects of the stated concerns that QALYs may be used to unintentionally implement discrimination. We note, however, that the extent to which these concerns lead to discrimination in practice is unknown. Finally, we recommend an approach for measuring value in terms of comparative effectiveness that combines quantitative ranking and weighting of distinct criteria (including patient-centric value elements) with deliberation.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services

Neurologic Alternative Payment Models—Bridging the Gap

A Survey of Innovative Reimbursement Models in Spine Care

Scoping Review: Anesthesiologist Involvement in Alternative Payment Models, Value Measurement, and Nonclinical Capabilities for Success in the United States of America

Building alternative payment models in health care

Value-based healthcare payment models: a wolf in sheep's clothing for patients and clinicians

The Case for Alternative Payment Models for Nursing Care

A Cautionary Tale: Malaligned Incentives in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Payment Model Reforms Threaten Promising Innovation and Access to Care

Transforming Health Care Delivery: Innovations in Payment Models for Interprofessional Team-Based Care

Beyond demonstrations: implementing a primary care hybrid payment model in Medicare

The Academic Payvider Model: Care and Coverage

It's a Jungle Out There: Understanding physician payment and its role in group dynamics

Joes Story: How a Capitated Payment Model Lets Me Be the Physician I Want to Be

Nonemergency Medical Transportation Benefit in Medicare Plans

Implementing the Patient Driven Payment Model—Perspectives from Skilled Nursing Facility Administrators

Medicare Chronic Care Management Payments and Financial Returns to Primary Care Practices: A Modeling Study

State-to-State Variation in Medicaid Reimbursement for Neurosurgical Procedures: Implications for Healthcare Access in Vulnerable Populations

Emerging lessons from regional and state innovation in value-based payment reform: balancing collaboration and disruptive innovation

Orthopaedic Nurse Navigators and Total Joint Arthroplasty Preoperative Optimization: Payer Status and Medication Management-Part Six of the Movement Is Life Special ONJ Series

Preferred Post‐Acute Care Providers in Bundled Payment: Implications for Patient Choice

Federal and Statewide Coverage for Opioid-Sparing Chronic Pain Treatments

Alternative approaches to measuring value: an update on innovative methods in the context of the United States Medicare drug price negotiation program