Emerging Lessons From Regional and State Innovation in Value‐Based Payment Reform: Balancing Collaboration and Disruptive Innovation

Abstract

Policy Points:r Public and private purchasers must create a "burning bridge" of countervailing pressure that signals "no turning back" to fee-for-service in order to sustain the momentum for value-based payment.r Multi-stakeholder coalitions must establish a defined set of quality, outcomes, and cost performance measures and the interoperable information systems to support data collection and reporting of value-based payment schemes.r Anti-trust vigilance is necessary to find the "sweet spot" of competition and cooperation among health plans and health care providers.r Provider and health plan transparency of price and quality, supported by all-payer claims data, are critical in driving value-based payment innovation and cost constraint. 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 The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 92, No. 3, 2014 (pp. 568-623) Emerging Lessons From Innovation in Value-Based Payment Reform 569factual 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 enga...

Using Digital Technology to Engage and Communicate with Patients: A Survey of Patient Attitudes

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] A critical component of population management requires proactive, regular interaction between patients and the clinician or clinical team-engagement and communication that will take place outside the traditional face-to-face encounter. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Outreach outside of physician visits, for example, has been shown to improve colorectal cancer screening, 19 increase influenza vaccination, 20,21 reduce medical costs and hospitalizations, 22 and improve care and health outcomes for patients with chronic care conditions.…”

Unraveling the Complexity in the Design and Implementation of Bundled Payments: A Scoping Review of Key Elements From a Payer's Perspective

“…A frequently cited element in this phase is the impact of bundled payment contracts on “changes in market shares and conditions” (elements 42 and 32). The bundling of care services by provider organizations can shift market and negotiating power, which can result in higher prices and barriers to new providers entering the market . On the payer‐patient level, several studies reported on using “patient incentives in value‐based insurance design” (element 35) (eg, deductibles and copayments) to encourage patients to use high‐value care (ie, care services in the bundle) and/or to discourage them from using low‐value care (ie, care services not in the bundle).…”

Advancing Payment Reform at the Community Level

“…Alliances face the same barriers that have been well documented by other studies of payment reform implementation, for example, lack of engagement, contentious relationships among key players, and poorly aligned measures and incentives across projects and payers. [24][25][26] Furthermore, there was little mention among our respondents about alliances' role in fostering transparency in local payment reform or encouraging consumers' perspectives.…”