Dataset Information

Adapting Evaluations of Alternative Payment Models to a Changing Environment.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To identify the most robust methods for evaluating alternative payment models (APMs) in the emerging health care delivery system environment. STUDY DESIGN (APPROACH):We assess the impact of widespread testing of alternative payment models on the ability to find credible comparison groups. We consider the applicability of factorial research designs for assessing the effects of these models. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:The widespread adoption of alternative payment models could effectively eliminate the possibility of comparing APM results with a "pure" control or comparison group unaffected by other interventions. In this new environment, factorial experiments have distinct advantages over the single-model experimental or quasi-experimental designs that have been the mainstay of recent tests of Medicare payment and delivery models. CONCLUSIONS:The best prospects for producing definitive evidence of the effects of payment incentives for APMs include fractional factorial experiments that systematically vary requirements and payment provisions within a payment model.

SUBMITTER: Grannemann TW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5867185 | biostudies-other | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adapting Evaluations of Alternative Payment Models to a Changing Environment.

Grannemann Thomas W TW Brown Randall S RS

Health services research 20170327 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To identify the most robust methods for evaluating alternative payment models (APMs) in the emerging health care delivery system environment.<h4>Study design (approach)</h4>We assess the impact of widespread testing of alternative payment models on the ability to find credible comparison groups. We consider the applicability of factorial research designs for assessing the effects of these models.<h4>Principal findings</h4>The widespread adoption of alternative payment models co ...[more]

PMID: 28345144

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceConsolidation among physician practices and between hospitals and physician practices has accelerated in the past decade, resulting in higher prices in commercial markets. The resulting integration of health care across clinicians and participation in alternative payment models (APMs), which aim to improve quality while constraining spending, are cited as reasons for consolidation, but little is known about the association between integration and APM participation.ObjectiveTo examine the association of organizational characteristics, ownership, and integration with intensity of participation in APMs among physician practices.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional descriptive study, adjusted for sampling and nonresponse weights, was conducted in US physician practice respondents to the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems conducted between June 16, 2017, and August 17, 2018; of 2333 responses received (response rate, 46.9%) and after exclusion of ineligible and incomplete responses, the number of practices included in the analysis was 2061. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019.ExposuresSelf-reported physician practice characteristics, including ownership, integration (clinical, cultural, financial, and functional), care delivery capabilities, activities, and environmental factors.Main outcomes and measuresParticipation in APMs: (1) bundled payments, (2) comprehensive primary care and medical home programs, (3) pay-for-performance programs, (4) capitated contracts with commercial health plans, and (5) accountable care organization contracts.ResultsA total of 49.2% of the 2061 practices included reported participating in 3 or more APMs; most participated in pay-for-performance and accountable care organization models. Covariate-adjusted analyses suggested that operating within a health care system (odds ratio [OR] for medical group: 2.35; 95% CI, 1.70-3.25; P < .001; simple health system: 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.97; P = .02; and complex health system: 1.76; 95% CI, 1.25-2.47; P = .001 relative to independent practices), greater clinical (OR, 4.68; 95% CI, 2.28-9.59; P < .001) and functional (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 2.00-8.97; P < .001) integration, and being located in the Northeast (OR for Midwest: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.65; P < .001; South: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.66; P < .001; and West: 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.91; P = .01) were associated with greater APM participation.Conclusions and relevanceGreater APM participation appears to be supported by integration and system ownership.

Project description:BackgroundAlternative payment models (APMs) in healthcare are emerging that reward quality of care over quantity of services. Most bundled payment programs that are described in published studies are related to episodes for a surgical inpatient hospital stay. With outpatient services, monthly capitated payments are an alternative to bundled payments for specialty services.ObjectiveTo assess the association of a capitated contractual arrangement between a primary care physician group and an oncology clinic group with the quality of care received.MethodsWe evaluated the effect of an oncology group's transition from a fee-for-service (FFS) arrangement to a partial-capitated-payment model with a primary care group. We compared outcomes for patients who received treatment after implementation of the new arrangement (ie, postcontract capitated group) with outcomes of patients receiving treatment before the change (ie, precontract capitated group). In addition, we conducted a parallel analysis of patients from a population that was not affected by the contract to assess temporal effects (ie, postcontract FFS group vs precontract FFS group). All patients were enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans of a single health plan (ie, Humana), and outcomes were measured using claims data provided by that company. Patients in the 2 precontract groups received treatment between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011; patients in the 2 postcontract groups received treatment between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2013. Age- and sex-adjusted all-cause hospitalization, complications from cancer treatment, and ambulance transfers during 6 months of follow-up were evaluated.ResultsIn the population subject to the partial-capitated-payment model, the postcontract group (N = 305) was younger than the precontract group (N = 165). In a subset of patients in the 2 capitated groups who had Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) RxRisk scores, the postcontract capitated group had significantly higher CCI scores. Adjusted odds ratios for the postcontract capitated group versus the precontract capitated group showed no difference in the likelihood that any of the outcomes would occur. However, the mean number of chemotherapy-related complications and ambulance transports were greater postcontract. In the parallel analysis of the population not affected by the new payment arrangement, no differences were found between the pre- and postcontract groups. This suggests that temporal changes potentially affecting patients in the capitated and FFS populations would not have influenced postcontract outcomes.ConclusionsAfter the implementation of partial-capitated payments for medical oncology services in the oncology practice, the likelihood of a patient experiencing at least 1 event of a specific adverse outcome did not change; however, the average number of some adverse events did increase, which may in part be explained by a higher level of underlying morbidity in the postcontract group. The overall findings of this study suggest that quality of care was not compromised in this APM.

Project description:BackgroundTo calculate hospital surge capacity, achieved via hospital provision interventions implemented for the emergency treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other patients through March to May 2020; to evaluate the conditions for admitting patients for elective surgery under varying admission levels of COVID-19 patients.MethodsWe analysed National Health Service (NHS) datasets and literature reviews to estimate hospital care capacity before the pandemic (pre-pandemic baseline) and to quantify the impact of interventions (cancellation of elective surgery, field hospitals, use of private hospitals, deployment of former medical staff and deployment of newly qualified medical staff) for treatment of adult COVID-19 patients, focusing on general and acute (G&A) and critical care (CC) beds, staff and ventilators.ResultsNHS England would not have had sufficient capacity to treat all COVID-19 and other patients in March and April 2020 without the hospital provision interventions, which alleviated significant shortfalls in CC nurses, CC and G&A beds and CC junior doctors. All elective surgery can be conducted at normal pre-pandemic levels provided the other interventions are sustained, but only if the daily number of COVID-19 patients occupying CC beds is not greater than 1550 in the whole of England. If the other interventions are not maintained, then elective surgery can only be conducted if the number of COVID-19 patients occupying CC beds is not greater than 320. However, there is greater national capacity to treat G&A patients: without interventions, it takes almost 10,000 G&A COVID-19 patients before any G&A elective patients would be unable to be accommodated.ConclusionsUnless COVID-19 hospitalisations drop to low levels, there is a continued need to enhance critical care capacity in England with field hospitals, use of private hospitals or deployment of former and newly qualified medical staff to allow some or all elective surgery to take place.

Dataset Information

Adapting Evaluations of Alternative Payment Models to a Changing Environment.

Publications

Adapting Evaluations of Alternative Payment Models to a Changing Environment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets