Effects of payment reform in more versus less competitive markets.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sood N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5551673 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIn 2004, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services changed reimbursement for physicians and advanced practitioners caring for patients receiving hemodialysis from a capitated to a tiered fee-for-service system, encouraging increased face-to-face visits. This early version of a pay-for-performance initiative targeted a care process: more frequent provider visits in hemodialysis. Although more frequent provider visits in hemodialysis are associated with fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations, it is unknown whether encouraging more frequent visits through reimbursement policy also yielded these benefits.Study designWe used a retrospective cohort interrupted time-series study design to examine whether the 2004 nephrologist reimbursement reform led to reduced hospitalizations and rehospitalizations. We also used published data to estimate a range of annual economic costs associated with more frequent visits.Setting & participantsMedicare beneficiaries in the United States receiving hemodialysis in the 2 years prior to and following reimbursement reform.PredictorThe 2 years following nephrologist reimbursement reform.OutcomesOdds of hospitalization and 30-day hospital readmission for all causes and fluid overload; US dollars.ResultsWe found no significant change in all-cause hospitalization or rehospitalization and slight reductions in fluid overload hospitalization and rehospitalization following reimbursement reform; the estimated economic cost associated with additional visits ranged from $13 to $87 million per year, depending on who (physicians or advanced practitioners) spent additional time visiting patients and how much additional effort was involved.LimitationsDue to limited information about how much additional time providers spent seeing patients after reimbursement reform, we could only examine a range of potential economic costs associated with the reform.ConclusionsA Medicare reimbursement policy designed to encourage more frequent visits during outpatient hemodialysis may have been costly. The policy was associated with fewer hospitalizations and rehospitalizations for fluid overload, but had no effect on all-cause hospitalizations or rehospitalizations.
| S-EPMC5263112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Patients with end-stage renal disease can receive dialysis at home or in-center. In 2004, CMS reformed physician payment for in-center hemodialysis care from a capitated to a tiered fee-for-service model, augmenting physician payment for frequent in-center visits. We evaluated whether payment reform influenced dialysis modality assignment. STUDY DESIGN:Cohort study of patients starting dialysis in the United States in the 3 years before and the 3 years after payment reform. METHODS:We conducted difference-in-difference analyses comparing patients with traditional Medicare coverage (who were affected by the policy) to others with Medicare Advantage (who were unaffected by the policy). We also examined whether the policy had a more pronounced influence on dialysis modality assignment in areas with lower costs of traveling to dialysis facilities. RESULTS:Patients with traditional Medicare coverage experienced a 0.7% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.1%; P = .003) reduction in the absolute probability of home dialysis use following payment reform compared with patients with Medicare Advantage. Patients living in areas with larger dialysis facilities (where payment reform made in-center hemodialysis comparatively more lucrative for physicians) experienced a 0.9% (95% CI, 0.5%-1.4%; P < .001) reduction in home dialysis use following payment reform compared with patients living in areas with smaller facilities (where payment reform made in-center hemodialysis comparatively less lucrative for physicians). CONCLUSIONS:The transition from a capitated to a tiered fee-for-service payment model for in-center hemodialysis care resulted in fewer patients receiving home dialysis. This area of policy failure highlights the importance of considering unintended consequences of future physician payment reform efforts.
| S-EPMC5055389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Changes in the way health insurers pay healthcare providers may not only directly affect the insurer's patients but may also affect patients covered by other insurers. We provide evidence of such spillovers in the context of a nationwide Medicare bundled payment reform that was implemented in some areas of the country but not in others, via random assignment. We estimate that the payment reform-which targeted traditional Medicare patients-had effects of similar magnitude on the healthcare experience of nontargeted, privately insured Medicare Advantage patients. We discuss the implications of these findings for estimates of the impact of healthcare payment reforms and more generally for the design of healthcare policy.
| S-EPMC7431052 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Global budget (GB) arrangements have become a popular method worldwide to control the rise in healthcare expenditures. By guaranteeing hospital funding, payers hope to eliminate the drive for increased production, and incentivize providers to deliver more efficient care and lower utilization. We evaluated the introduction of GB contracts by certain large insurers in Dutch hospital care in 2012 and compared health care utilization to those insurers who continued with more traditional production-based contracts, i.e., cost ceiling (CC) contracts. We used the share of GB hospital funding per postal code region to study the effect of contract types. Our findings show that having higher share of GB financing was associated with lower growth in treatment intensity, but it was also associated with higher growth in the probability of having at least one hospital visit. While the former finding is in line with our expectation, the latter is not and suggests that hospital visits may take longer to respond to contract incentives. Our study covers the years of 2010-2013 (2 years before and 2 years following the introduction of the new contracts). Therefore, our results capture only short-term effects.
| S-EPMC7058687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Racism reduces eligibility for health insurance and access to high-quality care for people of color in the United States, and current payment structures exacerbate the resultant de facto racial segregation. Payers and health plans do not adequately support and incentivize clinicians and health care delivery organizations to meet the health needs of minoritized communities. This article describes foundational work needed to create an antiracist culture of equity; the Roadmap to Advance Health Equity; and specific, actionable antiracist payment reform strategies, including increasing access to and the scope of health insurance coverage, antiracism accountability in managed-care contracts, support for the safety-net system, strengthened nonprofit hospital tax status requirements, and payment incentives to advance health equity. Antiracist payment reforms have great potential to desegregate health care systems and to ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity to receive good health services and optimize their health.
| S-EPMC10323860 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:In the move toward value-based payment, new payment models have largely been designed by payers and focused on the role of primary care providers. We examine a new phase of payment reform wherein providers, mostly specialists, are designing alternative payment models (APMs) for their own practices through a task force, called the Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee, created by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015. Although it is a potentially notable shift in payment reform, little is known about the content of these proposals to date. STUDY DESIGN:Qualitative systematic review of physician-focused payment model proposals submitted to CMS. METHODS:We analyzed the first wave of new payment models proposed. For each of the 24 proposals submitted by physicians and physician groups, we assessed the models on their 10 key dimensions and evaluated underlying themes across all or many of the models to gain insights into what providers are looking for in APMs within the constraints of the rules established by the HHS secretary. RESULTS:Key features of the models and our analysis include bearing financial risk, a reliance on case management, embrace of new technologies, and consideration of legal barriers. CONCLUSIONS:We discuss how specialists may help lead in the evolving payment landscape and recommend how these models might be improved. Payers and policy makers could benefit from our findings, which reflect how providers view financial risk in APMs and provide guidance on the types of payment reforms that they may embrace in the journey toward value.
| S-EPMC7372738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 2011, inclusion of injectable medications into an expanded ESKD payment bundle prompted concerns that dialysis facilities facing higher costs might close, disrupting care delivery and access to care. Whether this policy change influenced dialysis facility closures is unknown.MethodsTo examine whether facility closures increased after 2011 and whether factors influencing closures changed, we analyzed US Renal Data System registry data to identify all patients receiving in-center hemodialysis from 2006 through 2015 and to track dialysis facility closures. We used interrupted time series logistic regression models and estimated marginal effects to examine immediate and longer-term changes in the likelihood of being affected by facility closures following payment reform. We also examined whether associations between selected predictors of closures indicating populations at "high risk" of closure (patient characteristics, facility characteristics, and geography-related characteristics) and closures changed after payment reform.ResultsDialysis facility closures were uncommon over the study period. In adjusted models, the relative odds of experiencing a closure declined by 37% (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.59 to 0.67) immediately after payment reform and declined by an additional 6% (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97) annually thereafter, corresponding to a 0.3% lower absolute probability of closure in 2015 in association with payment reform. Patients who were black and who dialyzed at small, hospital-based facilities experienced slight increases in closures following payment reform, whereas Hispanic and Medicare/Medicaid dual-eligible patients experienced slight decreases in closures.ConclusionsExpansion of the ESKD payment bundle was not associated with increased closure of dialysis facilities, although the likelihood of closures changed slightly for some higher-risk populations.
| S-EPMC7062226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of the Medicare dialysis payment reform on potential disparities in the selection of peritoneal dialysis (PD) for the treatment of end-stage renal disease (ESRD).Data sourcesCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ESRD Medical Evidence Form, Medicare claims, and other CMS data for 2008-2013.Study designWe examined the association of patient age, race/ethnicity, urban/rural location, pre-ESRD care, comorbidities, insurance, and other factors with the selection of PD as initial dialysis modality across prereform (2008-2009), interim (2010), and postreform (2011-2013) time periods.Principal findingsSelection of PD increased among diverse patient subgroups following the payment reform. However, the lower PD selection observed with older age, black race, Hispanic ethnicity, less pre-ESRD care, and Medicaid insurance before the reform largely remained in the initial postreform years.ConclusionsDespite recent growth in PD, there may be ongoing disparities in access to PD that have largely not been mitigated by the payment reform. There is potential for modifying provider financial incentives to achieve policy goals related to cost and quality of care. However, even with a substantial shift in financial incentives, separate initiatives to reduce existing disparities in care may be needed.
| S-EPMC5980208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the 2019 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, which modifies reimbursement for office evaluation and management (E&M) visits. This policy moves payment to a single rate for levels 2 through 4 office E&M visits, regardless of complexity. METHODS:Using a 20% sample of 2015 National Medicare claims, we identified urologic practices and their practice organization, academic affiliation, and degree of office focus (ie, proportion of revenues from office visits). Using billing data for each practice, we calculated the revenues expected under the current system and the new policy (both E&M payments and a new add-on code). For each practice, we determined the impact of new payment rates on total Medicare payments. RESULTS:We identified 2822 practices: 1372 (48.6%) solo practices, 1033 (36.6%) multispecialty groups, 322 (11.4%) small urology groups, and 95 (3.4%) large urology groups. Under the new reimbursement rates, the median practice would have a 0.9% increase in Medicare Part B payments (range -20.4% to +50.3%) and, with the add-on code, an increase of 6.8% (range -7.5% to +74.9%). Solo practices had the most heterogeneity, with a quarter losing at least 2.3%. The median multispecialty group would increase payments by 0.4% (range -13.7% to 50.3%). However, the 107 (10.4%) academic multispecialty groups had a median gain of only 0.1% (range -2.8% to +8.1%). CONCLUSION:Urology groups would, on average, benefit from the anticipated change in Medicare office E&M visit payments. However, solo practices with a high office focus and academic multispecialty practices may see reduced Medicare payments.
| S-EPMC6443448 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are commonly used to treat anemia in patients with CKD, including those receiving dialysis, although clinical trials have identified risks associated with ESA use. We evaluated the effects of changes in dialysis payment policies and product labeling instituted in 2011 on mortality and major cardiovascular events across the United States dialysis population in an open cohort study of patients on dialysis from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2012, with Medicare as primary payer. We compared observed rates of death and major cardiovascular events in 2011 and 2012 with expected rates calculated on the basis of rates in 2005-2010, accounting for differences in patient characteristics and influenza virulence. An abrupt decline in erythropoietin dosing and hemoglobin concentration began in late 2010. Observed rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction in 2011 and 2012 were consistent with expected rates. During 2012, observed rates of stroke, venous thromboembolic disease (VTE), and heart failure were lower than expected (absolute deviation from trend per 100 patient-years [95% confidence interval]: -0.24 [-0.08 to -0.37] for stroke, -2.43 [-1.35 to -3.70] for VTE, and -0.77 [-0.28 to -1.27] for heart failure), although non-ESA-related changes in practice and Medicare payment penalties for rehospitalization may have confounded the results. This initial evidence suggests that action taken to mitigate risks associated with ESA use and changes in payment policy did not result in a relative increase in death or major cardiovascular events and may reflect improvements in stroke, VTE, and heart failure.
| S-EPMC5042674 | biostudies-literature