Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A framework for guiding efforts to reward value instead of volume

  • Short Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Health Economics and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, G. F., Reinhardt, U. E., Hussey, P. S., & Petrosyan, V. (2003). It’s the prices, stupid: Why the United States is so different from other countries. Health Affairs, 22(3), 89–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1963). Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. The American Economic Review, 53, 941–973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berwick, D. M., & Hackbarth, A. D. (2012). Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association, 307(14), 1513–1516.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. R., & Goolsbee, A. (2002). Does the internet make markets more competitive? Evidence from the Life Insurance Industry. Journal of Political Economy, 110(3), 481–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundorf, M. K., Chun, N., Goda, G. S., & Kessler, D. P. (2009). Do markets respond to quality information? The case of fertility clinics. Journal of Health Economics, 28(3), 718–727.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Casalino, L. P., Nicholson, S., Gans, D. N., Hammons, T., Morra, D., Karrison, T., et al. (2009). What does it cost physician practices to interact with health insurance plans? Health Affairs, 28(4), w533–w543.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cebul, R. D., Rebitzer, J. B., Taylor, L. J., & Votruba, M. E. (2011). Unhealthy insurance markets: Search frictions and the cost and quality of health insurance. American Economic Review, 101(5), 1842–1871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., Grossman, J. H., & Hwang, J. (2008). The innovator’s prescription: A disruptive solution to the healthcare crisis. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosson, F. J. (2011). The accountable care organization: Whatever its growing pains, the concept is too vitally important to fail. Health Affairs, 30(7), 1250–1255.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, D. M., Huckman, R. S., & Landrum, M. B. (2004). The role of information in medical markets: An analysis of publicly reported outcomes in cardiac surgery. American Economic Review, 94(2), 342–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dafny, L., & Dranove, D. (2008). Do report cards tell consumers anything they don’t know already? The case of medicare HMOs. The RAND Journal of Economics, 39(3), 790–821.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dranove, D., Kessler, D., McClellan, M., & Satterthwaite, M. (2003). Is more information better? The effects of ‘report cards’ on health care providers. Journal of Political Economy, 111(3), 555–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faber, M., Bosch, M., Wollersheim, H., Leatherman, S., & Grol, R. (2009). Public reporting in health care: How do consumers use quality-of-care information? A systematic review. Medical Care, 47(1), 1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E. S., & Shortell, S. M. (2010). Accountable care organizations: Accountable for what, to whom, and how. JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association, 304(15), 1715–1716.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friesner, D. L., & Rosenman, R. (2009). Do hospitals practice cream skimming? Health Services Management Research: An Official Journal of the Association of University Programs in Health Administration, 22(1), 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, D. P., Vaiana, M., & Romley, J. A. (2010). The emerging importance of patient amenities in hospital care. The New England Journal of Medicine, 363(23), 2185–2187.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbard, J. H., Greene, J., Sofaer, S., Firminger, K., & Hirsh, J. (2012). An experiment shows that a well-designed report on costs and quality can help consumers choose high-value health care. Health Affairs, 31(3), 560–568.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbard, J. H., & Peters, E. (2003). Supporting informed consumer health care decisions: Data presentation approaches that facilitate the use of information in choice. Annual Review of Public Health, 24, 413–433.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbard, J. H., Stockard, J., & Tusler, M. (2005). Hospital performance reports: Impact on quality, market share, and reputation. Health Affairs, 24(4), 1150–1160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingsworth, J. M., Ye, Z., Strope, S. A., Krein, S. L., Hollenbeck, A. T., & Hollenbeck, B. K. (2010). Physician-ownership of ambulatory surgery centers linked to higher volume of surgeries. Health Affairs, 29(4), 683–689.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, J. R. (2005). Making profits and providing care: Comparing nonprofit, for-profit, and government hospitals. Health Affairs, 24(3), 790–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hussey, P. S., Wertheimer, S., & Mehrotra, A. (2013). The association between health care quality and cost: A systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(1), 27–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, G. Z., & Sorensen, A. T. (2006). Information and consumer choice: The value of publicized health plan ratings. Journal of Health Economics, 25(2), 248–275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Joynt, K. E., & Jha, A. K. (2012). Thirty-day readmissions-truth and consequences. The New England Journal of Medicine, 366(15), 1366–1369.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kenney, C. (2010). Transforming health care: Virginia mason medical center’s pursuit of the perfect patient experience. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kocher, R., & Sahni, N. R. (2011). Hospitals’ race to employ physicians-the logic behind a money-losing proposition. The New England Journal of Medicine, 364(19), 1790–1793.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstad, J. T. (2013). Information and quality when motivation is intrinsic: Evidence from surgeon report cards. American Economic Review, 103(7), 2875–2910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, G. C., Smith, M., Weeks, W. B., & Queram, C. (2013). Publicly reported quality-of-care measures influenced Wisconsin physician groups to improve performance. Health Affairs, 32(3), 536–543.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Morden, N. E., Colla, C. H., Sequist, T. D., & Rosenthal, M. B. (2014). Choosing Wisely-the politics and economics of labeling low-value services. The New England Journal of Medicine, 370(7), 589–592.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, K. J., Frank, R. G., & Rosenthal, M. B. (2009). Can you get what you pay for? Pay-for-performance and the quality of healthcare providers. NBER Working Paper Series. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Nelson, L. (2012). Lessons from Medicare’s Demonstration Projects on Value-Based Payment. Congressional Budget Office Working Paper Series. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.

  • Nyweide, D. J., Lee, W., Cuerdon, T. T., Pham, H. H., Cox, M., Rajkumar, R., et al. (2015). Association of pioneer accountable care organizations vs. traditional medicare fee for service with spending, utilization, and patient experience. JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association, 313(21), 2152–2161.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pope, D. G. (2009). Reacting to rankings: Evidence from ‘America’s best hospitals. Journal of Health Economics, 28(6), 1154–1165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt, U. E. (2011). The many different prices paid to providers and the flawed theory of cost shifting: Is it time for a more rational all-payer system? Health Affairs, 30(11), 2125–2133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rothberg, M. B., Morsi, E., Benjamin, E. M., Pekow, P. S., & Lindenauer, P. K. (2008). Choosing the best hospital: The limitations of public quality reporting. Health Affairs, 27(6), 1680–1687.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Santerre, R. E., & Vernon, J. A. (2007). Ownership form and consumer welfare: Evidence from the nursing home industry. Inquiry, 44(4), 381–399.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Song, Z., Safran, D. G., Landon, B. E., Landrum, M. B., He, Y., Mechanic, R. E., et al. (2012). The ‘alternative quality contract’, based on a global budget, lowered medical spending and improved quality. Health Affairs, 31(8), 1885–1894.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tay, A. (2003). Assessing competition in hospital care markets: The importance of accounting for quality differentiation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 34(4), 786–814.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tu, H. T., & Lauer, J. R. (2008). Word of Mouth and Physician Referrals Still Drive Health Care Provider Choice. Research Brief. Washington, DC: Center for Studying Health System Change.

  • Tu, H. T., & May, J. H. (2007). Self-pay markets in health care: Consumer nirvana or caveat emptor? Health Affairs, 26(2), 217–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., Hockenberry, J., Chou, S.-Y., & Yang, M. (2011). Do bad report cards have consequences? Impacts of publicly reported provider quality information on the CABG market in Pennsylvania. Journal of Health Economics, 30(2), 392–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • White, C., Reschovsky, J. D., & Bond, A. M. (2014). Understanding differences between high- and low-price hospitals: Implications for efforts to rein in costs. Health Affairs, 33(2), 324–331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yong, P. L., Saunders, R. S., & Olsen, L. A. (Eds.). (2010). The Healthcare Imperative: Lowering Costs and Improving Outcomes. Workshop Series Summary. The National Academies Collection: Reports Funded by National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Jared Conley and Mark Sawyer for their insightful discussions on this work and Sean Latimer, Donald Mann, Duncan Neuhauser, JB Silvers, Kathleen Smyth, and Mark Votruba for their helpful reviews of earlier manuscripts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Taylor J. Christensen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Christensen, T.J. A framework for guiding efforts to reward value instead of volume. Int J Health Econ Manag. 16, 175–187 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-015-9178-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-015-9178-9

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation