Search

Hospitals have demonstrated the benefits of both voluntary and mandatory bundled payments for joint replacement surgery. However, given generalizability and disparities concerns, it is critical to understand the availability of care through bundled payments to historically marginalized groups, such as racial and ethnic minorities and individuals with lower socioeconomic status (SES). This cross-sectional analysis of 3880 US communities evaluated the relationship between the proportion of Black and Hispanic individuals (minority share) or Medicare/Medicaid dual-eligible individuals (low SES share) and community-level participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative (BPCI) (being a BPCI community) and Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model (being a CJR community). An increase from the lowest to highest quartile of minority share was not associated with differences in the probability of being a BPCI community (3.5 percentage point [pp] difference, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.2% to 8.3%

Policy Points Hospital-at-Home (HaH) is a home-based alternative for acute care that has expanded significantly under COVID-19 regulatory flexibilities. The post-pandemic policy agenda for HaH will require consideration of multistakeholder perspectives, including patient, caregiver, provider, clinical operations, technology, equity, legal, quality, and payer. Key policy challenges include reaching a consensus on program standards, clarifying caregivers' issues, creating sustainable reimbursement mechanisms, and mitigating potential equity concerns. Key policy prescriptions include creating a national surveillance system for quality and safety, clarifying legal standards for care in the home, and deploying payment reforms through value-based models.

To determine whether the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, a mandatory episode-based payment program for knee and hip replacement surgery, affected patient-reported measures of quality.Surveys of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who had hip or knee replacement surgery, collected between July 2018 and March 2019, secondary Medicare administrative data, the Provider of Services file, CJR and Bundled Payments for Care Improvement participant lists from the Centers for MedicareMedicaid Services, and the Area Health Resource Files.In 2018, participation in the CJR model was mandatory for nearly all hospitals in 34 randomly selected, metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) that had high historical Medicare payments for lower-extremity joint replacements surgery. The control group included 47 high-payment MSAs randomly assigned as controls. We estimated risk-adjusted differences in self-reported measures of functional status and pain, satisfaction with care, and caregiver help between respondents in CJR hospitals and respondents in hospitals located in the control group.We selected a census of CJR patients and an equal number of control patients to survey. We fielded two waves of surveys using a mail and phone protocol, yielding 8433 CJR and 9014 control respondents.CJR respondents were slightly more likely to depend on caregivers for certain activities of daily living when they got home (either directly from the hospital or after an institutional post-acute care stay). On a 100-point scale, differences ranged from -2.6 points (p 0.01) for help needed bathing to -1.7 points (p 0.05) for help needed using the toilet. However, differences in eight measures of self-reported functional status approximately 90-120 days after hospital discharge were not statistically significant, ranging from -1.1% (p = 0.087) to 0.7% (p = 0.437).CJR did not harm patient health or affect patient satisfaction on average but did increase reliance on caregivers during recovery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented bundling of all services for patients receiving dialysis, including erythropoietin-stimulating agents use, and the Food and Drug Administration recommended conservative erythropoietin-stimulating agent dosing. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This retrospective cohort study investigated anemia care and clinical outcomes before and after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services bundled payment and the revised Food and Drug Administration–recommended erythropoietin-stimulating agent labeling for Medicare-insured adults receiving hemodialysis using data from the United States Renal Data System from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2016. Clinical outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular event (stroke, acute myocardial infarction, and all-cause mortality), cardiovascular mortality, and heart failure. Measurements were compared between prepolicy (2006–2010) and postpolicy (2012–2016) implementation using interrupted time series and Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: Of 481,564 patients, erythropoietin-stimulating agent use immediately decreased by 84.8 per 1000 persons (P11 g/dl decreased from 68% in January 2006 to 28% in December 2016, whereas those with hemoglobin

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is recommended for the prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF). However, only 50%-60% of AF patients in the United States are treated with OAC, and 60% of them adhere to OAC therapy over time. OBJECTIVES: To (1) compare adherent use of OAC between AF patients who received primary care from practices involved in shared-savings models and patients who received care from practices not involved in shared savings and (2) examine the trend of adherence to OAC over time. Because OAC can save downstream medical costs associated with averted stroke events, we hypothesized that OAC adherence would be higher among patients receiving care from practices involved in shared savings. METHODS: Using 2014-2019 claims data from a health insurer in western Pennsylvania, we identified 20,637 AF patients from 2015-2018. Patients were followed from the first AF diagnosis (index date) for 12 months or until disenrollment. We categorized patients according to the payment model of the practice from which they received primary care: shared savings (n = 8,844) and no shared savings (n = 11,793). The primary outcome was adherent use of OAC therapy, which was defined as having at least 80% of the followup period covered with OAC. Secondary outcomes included adherent use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and adherent use of warfarin. We constructed logistic regression models to assess the association between involvement in shared savings and adherent use of OAC, while controlling for demographics, clinical characteristics, and index year. RESULTS: 34% of patients in the shared-savings group adhered to OAC, compared with 32.7% in the no shared-savings group (P = 0.04). After adjustment, adherence was higher for the shared-savings group for OAC (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.01-1.14) and warfarin (aOR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.02-1.20) compared with the no shared-savings group. However, the odds of adherent use of DOACs did not statistically differ between shared savings and no shared savings (aOR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.91-1.08). The odds of adherent OAC use increased over time: the aOR of adherent use of OAC was 1.21 (95% CI = 1.09-1.34) for index year 2016; 1.50 (95% CI = 1.36-1.67) for 2017; and 1.78 (95% CI 1.60-1.98) for 2018, all compared with 2015. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of primary care from a practice involved in shared savings was associated with a higher adherent use of OAC and warfarin for patients with atrial fibrillation. Furthermore, adherent use of OAC improved over time for both treatment groups. Our research demonstrates that the alignment of financial incentives between providers and insurers may improve the use of therapies with downstream cost-saving potential. DISCLOSURES: This project was funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (grant number K01HL142847). Hernandez has received consulting fees from Pfizer and BMS, outside of the submitted work. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced cystic fibrosis (CF) care programs to rapidly shift from in-person care delivery to telehealth. Our objective was to provide a qualitative exploration of facilitators and barriers to: 1) implementing high-quality telehealth and 2) navigating reimbursement for telehealth services.We used data from the 2020 State of Care CF Program Survey (n=286 U.S. care programs) administered in August-September to identify two cohorts of programs, with variation in telehealth quality (n=12 programs) and reimbursement (n=8 programs). We conducted focus groups and semi-structured interviews with CF program directors and coordinators in December 2020, approximately 9 months from onset of the pandemic. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify facilitators and barriers of implementation, and inductive thematic analysis to identify facilitators and barriers of reimbursement.Factors differentiating programs with greater and lower perceived telehealth quality included telehealth characteristics (perceived advantage over in-person care, cost, platform quality); external influences (needs and resources of those served by the CF program), characteristics of the CF program (compatibility with workflows, relative priority, available resources); characteristics of team members (individual stage of change), and processes for implementation (engaging patients and teams). Reimbursement barriers included documentation to optimize billing; reimbursement of multi-disciplinary team members, remote monitoring, and telephone-only telehealth; and lower volume of patients.A number of factors are associated with successful implementation and reimbursement of telehealth. Future efforts should provide guidance and incentives that support telehealth delivery and infrastructure, share best practices across CF programs, and remove barriers.

BACKGROUND: Under Medicare’s Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program, hospitals have maintained quality and achieved savings for medical conditions. However, safety net hospitals may perform differently owing to financial constraints and organizational challenges. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether hospital safety net status affected the association between bundled payment participation and medical episode outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This observational difference-in-differences analysis was conducted in safety net and non–safety net hospitals participating in BPCI for medical episodes (BPCI hospitals) using data from 2011-2016 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. EXPOSURE(S): Hospital BPCI participation and safety net status. MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURE(S): The primary outcome was postdischarge spending. Secondary outcomes included quality and post–acute care utilization measures. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 803 safety net and 2263 non–safety net hospitals. Safety net hospitals were larger and located in areas with more low-income individuals than non–safety net hospitals. Among BPCI hospitals, safety net status was not associated with differential postdischarge spending (adjusted difference-in-differences [aDID], $40; 95% CI, –$254 to $335; P = .79) or quality (mortality, readmissions). However, BPCI safety net hospitals had differentially greater discharge to institutional post–acute care (aDID, 1.06 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.37-1.76; P = .003) and lower discharge home with home health (aDID, –1.15 percentage points; 95% CI, –1.73 to –0.58; P < .001) than BPCI non–safety net hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Under medical condition bundles, safety net hospitals perform differently from other hospitals in terms of post–acute care utilization, but not spending. Policymakers could support safety net hospitals and consider safety net status when evaluating bundled payment programs.

Value-based health care has gained increasing prominence among funders and providers in efforts to improve the outcomes important to patients relative to the resources used to deliver care. In Australia, the value-based healthcare agenda has focused on reducing the use of ‘low-value’ interventions, redesigning models of care to improve integration between providers and increasing the use of patient-reported measures to drive improvement; all have occurred within existing payment structures. In this paper we describe options for value-based payment reform and highlight two challenges critical for success: attributing financial risk fairly and organisational structures. What is known about the topic? ‘Fee for service’ is the dominant payment method in Australia and creates incentives to increase service volume, rewarding inputs rather than improvements in longer-term health outcomes. There is increasing recognition that payment reform is needed to support the shift to value-based health care in Australia. What does this paper add? This paper describes the three main options for value-based payment reform: episode-based bundled payments chronic condition bundled payments and comprehensive capitation payments. Each involves some degree of funds pooling, and the shifting of risk from the funder to provider to stimulate the more efficient use of resources. What are the implications for practitioners? We conclude that local hospital authorities in the states, private health insurers and primary health networks could implement reform as payment holders, but that capacity development in coordination and risk adjustment will be required. Successful implementation of payment reform will also require investment in data collection and information technology to track patients’ care and measure outcomes and costs.

ImportanceThe Medicare alternative payment models are designed to incentivize cost reduction and quality improvement, but there are no requirements established for evaluating the outcomes of the Medicare populations.ObjectiveTo examine whether participation in the Medicare Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-A) program was associated with narrowing or widening of Black and White racial inequities in outcomes and access.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsRetrospective cohort alternative payment models on equity and quality for disadvantaged populations were studied between April 6, 2021, and August 28, 2022, in US hospitals. Black and White Medicare beneficiaries admitted for any of the 29 inpatient conditions in the BPCI-A program between January 1, 2017, and September 31, 2019, were included.ExposuresBPCI-A participation implemented in 2018.Main Outcomes and MeasuresNinety-day readmission and mortality, healthy days at home, and proportion of Black patients hospitalized. Segmented regression models were used to examine quarterly changes in slopes for each outcome.ResultsThe sample included 6 690 336 episodes (6 019 359 White patients, 670 977 Black patients). The population comprised approximately 43% men, 57% women, 17% individuals younger than 65 years, 47% between ages 65 and 80 years, and 36% older than 80 years. Prior to implementation of the BPCI-A program, compared with episodes for White patients, Black patients had higher 90-day readmissions (36.3% vs 29.6%), similar 90-day mortality (12.3% vs 13.3%), and fewer healthy days at home (mean, 68.5 vs 69.5 days). BPCI-A participation was not associated with significant changes in the racial gap in readmissions but was associated with a greater gain in heathy days at home (differences by race, −0.07 days per quarter; 95% CI, −0.12 to −0.01 days per quarter). Among Black patients admitted to BPCI-A hospitals vs controls, healthy days at home increased by 0.09 more days/episode per quarter (95% CI, 0.02-0.17 days/episode per quarter). The proportion of Black patients decreased similarly at BPCI-A and control hospitals.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, BPCI-A participation was not associated with improvements in racial inequities in clinical outcomes. Black patients in BPCI-A had a slight gain in healthy days at home; there were no changes in access. The findings of this study suggest that more needs to be done if payment policy reform is going to be part of the efforts to address glaring racial inequities in health care quality and outcomes. These findings support a need for payment policy reform specifically targeting equity-enhancing programs.

Medicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced Model (BPCI-A) is a voluntary Alternative Payment Model in which participating hospitals are held accountable for ninety-day episodes of care. To meet spending targets, hospitals must either decrease utilization or attract a less sick patient population; this could lead to the elimination of necessary care or avoidance of patients with medical or social vulnerability. We used publicly available data on BPCI-A participation, along with Medicare claims from the period 2017-19, to examine patient selection, changes in Medicare payment, and key clinical outcomes among three groups: patients with frailty, patients with multimorbidity, and patients with dual enrollment (both Medicare and Medicaid). We found no consistent change in patient selection associated with BPCI-A participation. Patients with frailty, multimorbidity, or dual enrollment were more expensive at baseline, but Medicare payments decreased similarly in these groups compared with lower-risk patients. There were no differential negative changes in clinical outcomes between BPCI-A participants and nonparticipants among patients with medical or social vulnerability.

Out-of-network (OON) balance billing, commonly known as surprise billing but better described as a surprise gap in health insurance coverage, occurs when an individual with private health insurance (vs a public insurer such as Medicare) is administered unanticipated care from a physician who is not in their health plan's network. Such unexpected OON care may result in substantial out-of-pocket costs for patients. Although ending surprise billing is patient centric, patient protective, and noncontroversial, passing federal legislation was challenging given its ability to disrupt insurer-physician good-faith negotiations and thus impact in-network rates. Like past proposals, the recently passed No Surprises Act takes patients out of the middle of insurer-physician OON reimbursement disputes, limiting patients' expense to standard in-network cost-sharing amounts. The new law, based on arbitration, attempts to protect good-faith negotiations between physicians and insurance companies and encourages network contracting. Radiology practices, even those that are fully in network or that never practiced surprise billing, could nonetheless be affected. Ongoing rulemaking processes will have meaningful roles in determining how the law is made operational. Physician and stakeholder advocacy has been and will continue to be crucial to the ongoing evolution of this process. © RSNA, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Before 2007, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) were the highest-expenditure drug in the Medicare system. In 2007, CMS issued a reimbursement policy change for ESAs used by cancer...

BACKGROUND: The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative incentivizes participating providers to reduce total Medicare payments for an episode of care. However, there are concerns that reducing payments could reduce quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of BPCI with patient-reported functional status and care experiences. DESIGN: We surveyed a stratified random sample of Medicare beneficiaries with BPCI episodes attributed to participating physician group practices, and matched comparison beneficiaries, after hospitalization for one of the 18 highest volume clinical episodes. The sample included beneficiaries discharged from the hospital from February 2017 through September 2017. Beneficiaries were surveyed approximately 90 days after their hospital discharge. We estimated risk-adjusted differences between the BPCI and comparison groups, pooled across all 18 clinical episodes and separately for the five largest clinical episodes. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries with BPCI episodes (n=16,898, response rate=44.5%) and comparison beneficiaries hospitalized for similar conditions selected using coarsened exact matching (n=14,652, response rate=46.2%). MAIN MEASURES: Patient-reported functional status, care experiences, and overall satisfaction with recovery. KEY RESULTS: Overall, we did not find differences between the BPCI and comparison respondents across seven measures of change in functional status or overall satisfaction with recovery. Both BPCI and comparison respondents reported generally positive care experiences, but BPCI respondents were less likely to report positive care experience for 3 of 8 measures (discharged at the right time, −1.2 percentage points (pp); appropriate level of care, −1.8 pp; preferences for post-discharge care taken into account, −0.9 pp; p

Background: Despite well-documented challenges in recruiting physicians to rural practice, few Canadian studies have described the role physician payment models may play in attracting and retaining physicians to rural practice. This study examined the perspectives of rural primary care physicians on the factors that attract and retain physicians in rural locations, including the role that alternative payment models (APMs) might play. Methods: This was a qualitative study involving in-depth, open-ended interviews with rural primary care physicians practising under fee-for-service (FFS) models and APMs in Alberta, Canada. Participants were recruited from the Rural Health Professions Action Plan member list (consisting of physicians practising in rural or remote locations in Alberta) and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta online database. Interviews were conducted April to June 2020, and data were analyzed using a thematic framework approach. Results: Fourteen physicians were interviewed. There were 5 themes identified: factors that attract physicians to rural practice, barriers and challenges associated with rural practice, the potential role of APMs in recruitment and retention, factors that physicians consider in deciding to change payment models, and physician perceptions of APMs compared with FFS models. Participants expressed that APMs may have some role to play in retaining rural physicians but identified professional challenges, and family-related and personal factors as key determinants. Most FFS physicians indicated that they were interested in exploring APMs provided specific concerns were addressed (e.g., clear and adequately compensated APM contracts, and physician involvement in the development of APMs). Interpretation: Primary care physicians practising in rural regions in Alberta view payment models as one consideration among many in their decision to pursue rural practice. Alternative payment model contracts designed with the input of physicians may have a role to play in attracting and retaining physicians to rural practice.

Medicaid is the largest publicly funded health insurance program in the United States, covering 76 million individuals as of August 2020. Research shows that Medicaid improves health and healthcare access on a variety of indicators. Abortion is a common reproductive health service in the United States. However, Medicaid coverage of abortion varies by state; with 34 states and the District of Columbia limiting themselves to a federal policy that only permits coverage under cases of incest, rape, or life endangerment. With 75% of abortion patients earning low incomes, Medicaid coverage of this service is particularly salient to abortion access. In this commentary, we describe the complexities of Medicaid coverage and reimbursement of abortion in the United States and the implications of this complexity. Further, we consider the potential impact of changes in abortion provision, including increasing provision of medication abortion and the use of healthcare delivery models such as telemedicine for medication abortion, on Medicaid coverage and reimbursement. Finally, we provide a few policy and practice recommendations for abortion coverage now and in the future.

Practicing neurosurgery in 2021 requires a detailed knowledge of the vocabulary and mechanisms for coding and reimbursement, which should include general knowledge at the global level and fluency at the provider level. It is specifically of interest for the neurosurgeon to understand conceptually the nuances of hospital reimbursement. That knowledge is especially germane as more neurosurgeons become hospital employees. Here we provide an overview of the mechanics of coding. We illustrate the formula to generate physician reimbursement through the current relative value unit structure. We also seek to explain hospital-level reimbursement through the diagnosis-related group structure. Finally, we expand about different and ancillary income streams available to neurosurgeons and provide a realistic assessment including the opportunities and challenges of those entities.

Nurse practitioners (NPs) possess expert clinical knowledge that can be optimized to ensure delivery of high-quality care. In the United States, NP scope of practice is generally expanding. With expanding scope of practice comes increased revenue potential, and in some cases, entrepreneurial opportunities for NPs. Therefore, NPs must be familiar with current procedural terminology codes to ensure appropriate billing and maximize reimbursement from payers. [ Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 60 (2), 11–13.]

Policy Points We compared the structure of health care systems and the financial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care providers in the United States, England, Germany, and Israel: systems incorporating both public and private insurers and providers. The negative financial effects on health care providers have been more severe in the United States than elsewhere, owing to the prevalence of activity-based payment systems, limited direct governmental control over available provider capacity, and the structure of governmental financial relief. In a pandemic, activity-based payment reverses the conventional financial positions of payers and providers and may prevent providers from prioritizing public health because of the desire to avoid revenue loss caused by declines in patient visits.

A Hidden Opportunity Coverage of the “routine costs” associated with clinical trial participation will soon be guaranteed for Medicaid beneficiaries for the first time, which could help reduce ineq...

Introduction: Oncology expenditure is outperforming all other health care sectors. In particular, the cost of oncology pharmaceuticals is soaring as it is fueled both by incremental costs and the i...

Under current reimbursement (CR) practice even though an add-on drug in a combination therapy may produce marginal value in terms of health gain, the original therapy may also share in the reward for this additional value. We examine an alternative 'marginal value-based reimbursement' (MVBR) model in which an original therapy would not share in the marginal value.In a case study for treatment of HER2+ metastatic breast cancer, we computed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of adding pertuzumab to trastuzumab and docetaxel (PHT) vs. trastuzumab and docetaxel (HT) under the CR and the MVBR models, respectively. We further estimated the revised cost of pertuzumab under three alternative willingness-to-pay thresholds based on (a) using the current ICER of PHT vs. HT, (b) the historical ICER of HT vs. docetaxel, and (c) applying the oft-used $150,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.If reimbursement were changed from CR to MVBR, at the current price of pertuzumab, the ICER would decline from $409,213 to $323,236/QALY gained. If the price were adjusted under the three thresholds, the payment for pertuzumab would be increased by between 32% and 93%.The proposed MVBR model would provide a stronger economic incentive to develop add-on drugs.

Health-care expenses have been projected to increase from 17.7% of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014 to 19.6% in 2024. The unsustainable increase in health-care costs has contributed toward support for value-based health care (VBHC) reform. Contemporary VBHC reform programs relevant to orthopaedic surgery include the voluntary Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiatives (BPCI and BPCI-Advanced) and the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program, a mandatory bundled payment program.The purported benefits of transitioning from volume-based reimbursement to value-based reimbursement include moving from a fragmented provider-centered care model to a patient-centered model, with greater care coordination and alignment among providers focused on improving value. VBHC models allow innovative strategies to proactively invest resources to promote value (e.g., the use of nurse navigators) while eliminating unnecessary resources that do not promote value. However, major concerns regarding VBHC include the absence of medical and socioeconomic risk stratification as well as decreased access for higher-risk patients.This article identifies the benefits and potential unintended consequences of VBHC reform, with a focus on joint arthroplasty. We also discuss some potential strategies to promote innovation and improve value without compromising access for vulnerable patients.

Reaching the goals set by the Health Care Payment and Learning Action Network requires an unyielding and unrelenting focus on encouraging providers to adopt advanced alternative payment models (APMs). Many of these models will continue to be voluntary because they either are in early stages or have not yet proven their effectiveness. The models that have proven their effectiveness should become permanent, comprising the new way that providers are paid in the Medicare program. Either way, getting today's high performers into those programs and keeping them engaged to continue to innovate and set new benchmarks is as important as attracting and improving the performance of poorer performers. That will require a shift in Medicare's policy on pricing and evaluating APMs.

Unstructured Abstract Thirteen of the fifteen most commonly reported procedures in ophthalmology were subject to a statistically significant reduction in inflation-adjusted reimbursement from 2011 to 2020. A sustainable alternative to budget neutrality is critical.

Background There has been 25-year trend of decreasing value for orthopedic surgical work based on the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale (RBRVS) for Medicare reimbursement. This study was undertaken to estimate the time that Medicare payment rates for time spent in the office doing cognitive work will equal time dedicated in the operating room to performing procedural work based on long-term negative payment trends. Methods The RBRVS Update Committee database was accessed to extract the time elements for 2 procedures, total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty (27447 and 27130), on the day of surgery. The evaluation and management code mix for 2 mid-sized orthopedic practice was averaged to create an amalgamated rate for the reimbursement of office work on an hourly rate. A graph of the 25-year trend line in Medicare reimbursement for arthroplasty procedures was used to create a trend line. The trend line was then extrapolated to estimate the time in the future that the hourly rate for office work would equal the hourly rate for surgery. Results Time inputs and the Medicare conversion factor for 2021 were used in this analysis. Total procedural time for both 27447 and 27130 was 204 minutes (3.4 hours) on the day of surgery. An amalgamated hourly office rate of 7.9 relative value unit was calculated from the average of the 2 mid-sized private practices for an overall in office Medicare reimbursement of $318.89/h, with $1083.04 for the 3.4 hours allowed in the RBRVS Update Committee database for a joint replacement. When the trend line for reimbursement was extrapolated to the $1083.04 price point, the year corresponding to the point where hourly office reimbursement would equal hourly surgical work was 2024. Conclusion Policymakers in Washington and practicing orthopedic surgeons need to consider the looming economic parity of surgical and cognitive work for Medicare. Continued negative reimbursement rates are likely to decrease patient access to necessary surgical care and result in de facto rationing of arthroplasty services for Medicare patients. The deployment of the orthopedic workforce is likely to change to accommodate the decreases in the value of surgical work. This trend will have significant impact on the practice of musculoskeletal medicine and patient access to orthopedic services.

Purpose A common denial trend that occurs with “outpatient medical benefit drugs” (ie, medications covered by a medical benefit plan and administered in an outpatient visit) is payers not requiring or permitting prior authorization (PA) proactively, yet denying the drug after administration for medical necessity. In this situation, a preemptive strategy of complying with payer-mandated requirements is critical for revenue protection. To address this need, our institution incorporated a medical necessity review into its existing closed-loop, pharmacy-managed precertification and denials management program. Summary Referrals for targeted payers and high-cost medical benefit drugs not eligible for PA and deemed high risk for denial were incorporated into the review. Payer medical policies were evaluated and clinical documentation assessed to confirm alignment. This descriptive report outlines the medical necessity workflow as a component of the larger precertification process, details the decision-making process when performing the review, and delineates the roles and responsibilities for involved team members. A total of 526 drug orders were evaluated from September 2018 to August 2019, with 146 interventions completed. Of the 761 individual claims affected by proactive medical necessity review, 99.2% resulted in payment and less than 1% resulted in revenue loss, safeguarding more than $5.3 million in annual institutional drug reimbursement. At the time of analysis, there were only 3 cases of revenue loss. Conclusion Our institution’s pharmacy-managed medical necessity review program for high-cost outpatient drugs safeguards reimbursement for therapies not eligible for payer PA. It is a revenue cycle best practice that can be replicated at other institutions.

Approximately 1 in 2 Japanese people are estimated to be diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime. Cancer still remains the leading cause of death in Japan, therefore the government of Japan has decided to develop a better cancer control policy and launched the Cancer Genomic Medicine (CGM) program. The Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (MHLW) held a consortium at their headquarters with leading academic authorities and the representatives of related organizations to discuss ways to advance CGM in Japan. Based on the report of the consortium, the CGM system under the national health insurance system has gradually been realized. Eleven hospitals were designated in February 2018 as core hospitals for CGM; subsequently, the MHLW built the Center for Cancer Genomics and Advanced Therapeutics (C‐CAT) as an institution to aggregate and manage genomic and clinical information on cancer patients, and support appropriate secondary use of the aggregated information to develop research aimed at medical innovation. As the first step in Japan's CGM in routine practice, in June 2019 the MHLW started reimbursement of 2 types of tumor profiling tests for advanced solid cancer patients using the national insurance system. Japan's CGM has swiftly been spreading nationwide with the collaboration of 167 hospitals and patients. The health and research authorities are expected to embody personalized cancer medicine and promote CGM utilizing state‐of‐the‐art technologies., As the first step in Cancer Genomic Medicine (CGM) in routine practice in Japan, since June 2019 the Ministry has started reimbursement of 2 gene panel tumor profiling tests for advanced solid cancer patients using the national insurance system. CGM has swiftly been spreading nationwide in Japan with the collaboration of 167 hospitals and patients. The Ministry are expected to realize further personalized cancer medicine and promote CGM utilizing state‐of‐the‐art technologies.

Background Under the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program, bundled paymtents for lower-extremity joint replacement (LEJR) are associated with 2% to 4% cost savings with stable quality among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. However, BPCI may prompt practice changes that benefit all patients, not just fee-for-service beneficiaries. Objective To examine the association between hospital participation in BPCI and LEJR outcomes for patients with commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage (MA). Design Quasi-experimental study using Health Care Cost Institute claims from 2011 to 2016. Setting LEJR at 281 BPCI hospitals and 562 non-BPCI hospitals. Patients 184 922 patients with MA or commercial insurance. Measurements Differential changes in LEJR outcomes at BPCI hospitals versus at non-BPCI hospitals matched on propensity score were evaluated using a difference-in-differences (DID) method. Secondary analyses evaluated associations by patient MA status and hospital characteristics. Primary outcomes were changes in 90-day total spending on LEJR episodes and 90-day readmissions; secondary outcomes were postacute spending and discharge to postacute care providers. Results Average episode spending decreased more at BPCI versus non-BPCI hospitals (change, -2.2% [95% CI, -3.6% to -0.71%]; P = 0.004), but differences in changes in 90-day readmissions were not significant (adjusted DID, -0.47 percentage point [CI, -1.0 to 0.06 percentage point]; P = 0.084). Participation in BPCI was also associated with differences in decreases in postacute spending and discharge to institutional postacute care providers. Decreases in episode spending were larger for hospitals with high baseline spending but did not vary by MA status. Limitation Nonrandomized studies are subject to residual confounding and selection. Conclusion Participation in BPCI was associated with modest spillovers in episode savings. Bundled payments may prompt hospitals to implement broad care redesign that produces benefits regardless of insurance coverage. Primary funding source Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania.

Introduction Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) is a myeloproliferative disease that affects mainly adults between 50 and 55 years. In Brazil, information from the Sistema Unico de Saude (SUS) Outpatient Information System indicates that 12,531 patients had the Autorizacao de Procedimento Ambulatorial (APAC) approved for the CML treatment in 2017. Disease monitoring through molecular response evaluation is critical to the care of CML patients. The quantitative PCR test (real-time polymerase chain reaction) provides adequate evaluation parameters that allow the health professional to intervene at the right moments in order to reduce the chance of progression of the disease, providing the best outcome to the patient, including the possibility of treatment discontinuation for eligible patients. Although the test is included in the Clinical Protocol and Therapeutic Guidelines (PCDT) of CML, it is not possible to monitor the molecular response within SUS since there is no reimbursement for this test. Objective Obtain expert recommendations on the importance, financing, and reimbursement of molecular monitoring in SUS. Methods Six CML experts with different perspectives participated in the panel. The discussion was based in the main publications about the quantitative PCR test in CML monitoring. Results Experts’ recommendations: 1) Molecular monitoring should be part of the integral treatment of patients with CML to reduce the chances of disease progression and costs to the health system; 2) The government should put into practice what is provided in the PCDT of Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Brazil: performing the monitoring of the molecular response via quantitative PCR; 3) The government should create a code with adequate nomenclature and reimbursement value in SIGTAP, so that the test is carried out and covered by the public health network, as it is contained in the PCDT of the disease and the existing APAC does not cover the operational costs for its performance; 4) Patients with chronic phase CML should perform a quantitative PCR every 3 months and, after reaching the MMR, should perform the examination every 6 months, as recommended by international guidelines; 5) Patients should be monitored in reference laboratories that are standardized according to the international scale; 6) The laboratories that are within the reference public centers could absorb all the test demand in Brazil, and other centers could be qualified through an ABHH accreditation; 7) Adequate molecular monitoring may allow some patients to stop taking drugs and selffinancing the molecular test for all SUS patients Conclusion A solution for the molecular test (BCR-ABL1) funding is urgent to ensure the monitoring of CML patients in SUS. The savings that might be generated with patients that stop taking the medication when adequately monitored may finance the test.

The Bayesian decision-analytic approach to trial design uses prior distributions for treatment effects, updated with likelihoods for proposed trial data. Prior distributions for treatment effects based on previous trial results risks sample selection bias and difficulties when a proposed trial differs in terms of patient characteristics, medication adherence, or treatment doses and regimens. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the utility of using pharmacometric-based clinical trial simulation (CTS) to generate prior distributions for use in Bayesian decision-theoretic trial design. The methods consisted of four principal stages: a CTS to predict the distribution of treatment response for a range of trial designs; Bayesian updating for a proposed sample size; a pharmacoeconomic model to represent the perspective of a reimbursement authority in which price is contingent on trial outcome; and a model of the pharmaceutical company return on investment linking drug prices to sales revenue. We used a case study of febuxostat versus allopurinol for the treatment of hyperuricemia in patients with gout. Trial design scenarios studied included alternative treatment doses, inclusion criteria, input uncertainty, and sample size. Optimal trial sample sizes varied depending on the uncertainty of model inputs, trial inclusion criteria, and treatment doses. This interdisciplinary framework for trial design and sample size calculation may have value in supporting decisions during later phases of drug development and in identifying costly sources of uncertainty, and thus inform future research and development strategies.

IMPORTANCE: The Medicare Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, a mandatory bundled-payment program started in April 2016 for hospitals in randomly selected Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), may help reduce post-acute care (PAC) use and episode costs, but its impact on disparities between Medicaid and non-Medicaid beneficiaries is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine effects of the CJR program on differences (or disparities) in PAC use and outcomes by Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study of 2013–17, based on difference-in-differences (DID) analyses on Medicare data for 1,239,452 Medicare-only patients, 57,452 dual eligibles with full Medicaid benefits, and 50,189 dual eligibles with partial Medicaid benefits who underwent hip or knee surgery in hospitals of 75 CJR MSAs and 121 control MSAs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk-adjusted differences in rates of institutional PAC (skilled nursing facility [SNF], inpatient rehabilitation, or long-term hospital care) use and readmissions; and for the subgroup of patients discharged to SNF, risk-adjusted differences in SNF length of stay, payments, and quality measured by star ratings, rate of successful discharge to community, and rate of transition to long-stay nursing home resident. RESULTS: The CJR program was associated with reduced institutional PAC use and readmissions for patients in all 3 groups. For example, it was associated with reductions in 90-day readmission rate by 1.8 percentage-point (DID-estimate=−1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] −2.6 to −0.9, p

Objective In this brief review, we intend to evaluate the regulatory changes that have taken place, the impact of these changes, and the additional opportunities for outpatient pharmacists to receive compensation while providing distant health care. Summary The 2020 coronavirus disease pandemic in the United States has created a dramatic need for the rapid implementation of telehealth services in areas of the country where telehealth is limited in scope. This implementation would not be possible without changes in how the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provide reimbursement for these services. Reimbursement options remain open to pharmacists, but depend on local regulation or the ability to alter practice at the site. Conclusion Though pharmacists provide high-quality direct patient care, they are excluded from seeking compensation for providing this care, even as the nation expands the telehealth model. This overview shows that despite changes in telehealth service compensation for health care providers, pharmacists remain unable to seek appropriate compensation for their direct patient care services.

Member states have consistently limited the European Union's competences in the area of health care reimbursement. Despite these efforts, there has been a slow but steady tendency toward harmonization of a key tool in reimbursement decision-making: health technology assessment (HTA), a multidisciplinary evaluation of “value for money” of medicines, devices, diagnostics, and interventions, which provides expert advice for reimbursement decisions. This article examines the origins of this paradoxical appetite for harmonization as well as of the dissensus that has, at the moment, somewhat stalled further integration in HTA. It finds that the prointegration neofunctionalist “permissive dissensus” is still present in decision making on HTA but potentially offset by dissensus or outright opposition from key actors, including member states and the medical device industry. These actors are able to decipher the potential consequences of highly technical issues, such as HTA, for national systems of social protection. Despite that, they have little interest in politicizing the issue, potentially opening the door to integrative policy solutions in the future.

This article traces the organizational origins of measurement-based care and value-based care, identifying initiatives by policy makers, payors, and psychiatric organizations. The article argues that it is imperative for child psychiatry to take an active role in shaping implementation of these initiatives and identifying opportunities and issues unique to child mental health. Child psychiatry should actively support the development of well-validated measurement tools that have a value impact on quality and efficiency of care; realistically assess implementation processes and administrative burden; and be cautious to not have a negative impact on the vital processes of engagement of the practitioner, child, and family.