A framework for guiding efforts to reward value instead of volume
- 259 Downloads
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.
KeywordsHealth care reform Reimbursement Incentive Value-based purchasing Health care costs
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.
- Arrow, K. J. (1963). Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. The American Economic Review, 53, 941–973.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
- Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.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.Google Scholar
- Nelson, L. (2012). Lessons from Medicare’s Demonstration Projects on Value-Based Payment. Congressional Budget Office Working Paper Series. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.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.Google Scholar