Advertisement

Value-Based Healthcare Purchasing

  • James S. Powers
Chapter

Abstract

The US healthcare system is undergoing a value-based transformation. Value-based purchasing is a demand-side strategy to reward quality in healthcare delivery. The opportunities and challenges involved in value-based transformation are real and substantial. The scope of transformation of the US healthcare system includes all healthcare providers, healthcare systems, consumers, and healthcare educational institutions.

Keywords

Value-based purchasing Quality in healthcare delivery 

References

  1. 1.
    Institute of Medicine. Vital signs: core metrics for health and health care progress. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2015.  https://doi.org/10.17226/19402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jha AK. Value-based purchasing: time for rebound or time to move on? JAMA. 2017;317:1107–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Doukky R, Diemer G, Medina A, et al. Promoting appropriate use of cardiac imaging: no longer an academic exercise. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:438–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McWilliams JM, Gilstrap LG, Stevenson DG, et al. Changes in post-acute care and the Medicare shared savings program. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:518–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trish E, Ginsburg P, Gascue L, Geoffrey J. Physician reimbursement in Medicare advantage compared with traditional Medicare and commercial health insurance. JAMA Int Med. 2017;177:1287–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Robinson JC. Medicare advantage reimbursement to physicians. JAMA Int Med. 2017;177:1295–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st Century. http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/reports/2001/crossing-the-quality-chasm-a-new-health-system-for-the-21st-century.aspx. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.
  8. 8.
    ABIM Foundation. ACP, European Federation of Internal Medicine. Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physician charter. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:243–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Institute of Medicine. Interim report of the committee on geographic variation in health care spending and promotion of high value care: preliminary committee observations. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18308. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.
  10. 10.
    Johnson PT, Pahwa AK, Feldman LS, Ziegelstein RC, Hellmann DB. Advancing high-value healthcare: a new AJM column dedicated to cost-conscious care quality improvement. Am J Med. 2017;130:619–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation. Choosing Wisely Campaign. www.choosingwisely.org. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.
  12. 12.
    Barnett ML, Linder JA, Ckark CR, Sommers BD. Low value medical services in the safety net population. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:829–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    American College of Physicians medical knowledge self-assessment program, 17, American College of Physicians, c 2015, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    American Geriatrics Society. Choosing wisely campaign. 2015. http://www.choosingwisely.org/societies/american-geriatrics-society/. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.
  15. 15.
    Kautter J, Pope CG, Ingber M, et al. The HHS-HCC risk adjustment model for individual and small group markets under the affordable care act. Medicare Medicaid Res Rev. 2014;4:E1–E11.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Centers for Disease Control. Social determinants of health. https://www.cdc.gov/socialdeterminants/. Accessed 7 Oct 2017.
  17. 17.
    Ash A, Mick EO, Ellis RP, Kiefe C, Allison JJ, Clark M. Social determinants of health and managed care payment formulas. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:1424–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joynt Maddox K. Social and behavioral determinants of spending. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177:1431–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dalton JE, Perzynski AT, Zidar DA, Rothberg MB, Coulton CJ, Milnovich AT, Einstadter D, Karichu JK, Dawson NV. Accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction varies by neighborhood socioeconomic position: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Int Med. 2017;167:456–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Academy of Medicine. Effective care for high need patients: opportunities for improving outcomes, value, and health. https://nam.edu/initiatives/clinician-resilience-and-well-being/effective-care-for-high-need-patients/. Accessed 17 Nov 2017.
  21. 21.
    Bates DW, Saria S, Ohno-Machado L, Shah A, Escobar G. Big data in health care: using analytics to identify and manage high-risk and high-cost patients. Health Aff. 2014;33(7):11231131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bradley EH, Canavan M, Rogan E, Talbert-Slagle K, Ndumele C, Taylor L, Curry LA. Variation in health outcomes: the role of spending on social services, public health, and health care, 2000-09. Health Aff. 2016;35(5):760–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dale SB, Ghosh A, Peikes DN, Day TJ, Yoon FB, Taylor EF, Swankoski K, O'Malley AS, Conway PH, Rajkumar R, Press MJ, Sessums L, Brown R. Two-year costs and quality in the comprehensive primary care initiative. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(24):2345–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rajkumar R, Press MJ, Conway PH. The CMS innovation center--a five-year self-assessment. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(21):1981–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Hughes JS, Averill RF, Eisenhandler J, Goldfield NI, Muldoon J, Neff JM, Gay JC. Clinical risk groups (CRGs): a classification system for risk-adjusted capitation-based payment and health care management. Med Care. 2004;42:81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • James S. Powers
    • 1
  1. 1.Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Geriatric Research Education and Clinical CenterNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations