Search

Background: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) price transparency rule tries to facilitate cost-conscious decision-making. For surgical services, such as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), factors mediating transparency and real-world reimbursement are not well described., Methods: The Leapfrog Survey was used to identify United States hospitals performing PD. Financial and operational data were obtained from Turquoise Health and CMS Cost Reports. Chi-square tests and modified Poisson regression evaluated associations with reimbursement disclosure. Two-part logistic and gamma regression models estimated effects of hospital factors on commercial, Medicare, and self-pay reimbursements for PD., Results: Of 452 Leapfrog hospitals, 295 (65%) disclosed PD hospital or procedure reimbursements. Disclosing hospitals were larger (beds > 200: 81.0% vs. 71.3%, p = 0.04), reported higher net margins (0.7% vs. - 2.1%, p = 0.04), more likely for-profit (26.1% vs. 6.4%, p < 0.001), and teaching-affiliated (82.0% vs. 65.6%, p < 0.001). Nonprofit status conferred hospitalization reimbursement increases of $8683-$12,329, while moderate market concentration predicted savings up to $5066. Teaching affiliation conferred reimbursement increases of $4589-$16,393 for hospitalizations and $644 for procedures. Top Leapfrog volume ratings predicted an increase of up to $7795 for only Medicare hospitalization reimbursement., Conclusions: Nondisclosure of hospital and procedural reimbursements for PD remains a major issue. Transparency was noted in hospitals with higher margins, size, and academic affiliation. Factors associated with higher reimbursement were non-profit status, academic affiliation, and more equitable market share. Reimbursement inconsistently tracked with PD quality or volume measures. Policy changes may be required to incentivize reimbursement disclosure and translate transparency into increased value for patients., (© 2024. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Importance: Altruism-putting the patient first-is a fundamental component of physician professionalism. Evidence is lacking about the relationship between physician altruism, care quality, and spending., Objective: To determine whether there is a relationship between physician altruism, measures of quality, and spending, hypothesizing that altruistic physicians have better results., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study that used a validated economic experiment to measure altruism was carried out between October 2018 and November 2019 using a nationwide sample of US primary care physicians and cardiologists. Altruism data were linked to 2019 Medicare claims and multivariable regressions were used to examine the relationship between altruism and quality and spending measures. Overall, 250 physicians in 43 medical practices that varied in size, location, and ownership, and 7626 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to the physicians were included. The analysis was conducted from April 2022 to August 2024., Exposure: Physicians completed a widely used modified dictator-game style web-based experiment; based on their responses, they were categorized as more or less altruistic., Main Measures: Potentially preventable hospital admissions, potentially preventable emergency department visits, and Medicare spending., Results: In all, 1599 beneficiaries (21%) were attributed to the 45 physicians (18%) categorized as altruistic and 6027 patients were attributed to the 205 physicians not categorized as altruistic. Adjusting for patient, physician, and practice characteristics, patients of altruistic physicians had a lower likelihood of any potentially preventable admission (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.97; P = .03) and any potentially preventable emergency department visit (OR, 0.64; CI, 0.43-0.94; P = .02). Adjusted spending was 9.26% lower (95% CI, -16.24% to -2.27%; P = .01)., Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that Medicare patients treated by altruistic physicians had fewer potentially preventable hospitalizations and emergency department visits and lower spending. Policymakers and leaders of hospitals, medical practices, and medical schools may want to consider creating incentives, organizational structures, and cultures that may increase, or at least do not decrease, physician altruism. Further research should seek to identify these and other modifiable factors, such as physician selection and training, that may shape physician altruism. Research could also analyze the relationship between altruism and quality and spending in additional medical practices, specialties, and countries, and use additional measures of quality and of patient experience.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of diagnosis-related group (DRG) payment method systematically before and after implementation in terms of average hospitalization day, cost and care quality., Method: Restricted the period from 2019 to May 31, 2023, we use 6 databases from CNKI, Wipu, Wanfang, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and web of science. With the related study, we extract the data about DRG, then we conducted meta-analysis of the data about length of stay (LOS) and cost by RevMan 5.4 and Stata 12.0 software. Care quality is in conjunction with literature reports., Result: About 24 articles were included, covering 2 indicators: average hospitalization expenses and days. Meta-analysis shows that implementing DRG payment method has an advantage in terms of average hospital stay (pooled effect: -1.13%, 95% CI: -1.42 to -0.84, P = .00), and the difference is statistically significant. There is also an advantage in average hospitalization expenses (pooled effect: -2.58, 95% CI: -3.38 to -1.79, P = .00), and the difference is statistically significant., Conclusion: The use of DRG payment method can effectively reduce LOS and average hospitalization expenses. However, quality of care may decline with DRG adoption., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objective: to identify correlations between quality and quantity of health care resources, national economic indicators, and postoperative in-hospital mortality as reported in the EUSOS study., Methods: Different variables were identified from a series of publicly available database. Postoperative in-hospital mortality was identified as reported by EUSOS study. Spearman non-parametric and Coefficients of non-linear regression were calculated., Results: Quality of health care resources was strongly and negatively correlated to postoperative in-hospital mortality. Quantity of health care resources were negatively and moderately correlated to postoperative in-hospital mortality. National economic indicators were moderately and negatively correlated to postoperative in-hospital mortality. General mortality, as reported by WHO, was positively but very moderately correlated with postoperative in-hospital mortality., Conclusions: Postoperative in-hospital mortality is strongly determined by quality of health care instead of quantity of health resources and health expenditures. We suggest that improving the quality of health care system might reduce postoperative in-hospital mortality., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: The telehealth service increased attention both during and after the Covid-19 outbreak. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of research in developing countries, including Pakistan. Hence, the objective of this study was to examine telehealth service quality dimensions to promote the telehealth behavior intention and sustainable growth of telehealth in Pakistan., Methods: This study employed a cross-sectional descriptive design. Data were collected from doctors who were delivering telehealth services through a well-designed questionnaire. To examine the hypothesis of the study, we employed the Smart PLS structural equation modeling program, namely version 0.4., Results: The study findings indicate that medical service quality, affordability, information quality, waiting time, and safety have a positive impact on the intention to engage in telehealth behavior. Furthermore, the adoption of telehealth behavior has a significant favorable effect on the actual utilization of telehealth services, which in turn has a highly good impact on sustainable development., Conclusion: The study determined that telehealth services effectively decrease the amount of time and money spent on travel, while still offering convenient access to healthcare. Furthermore, telehealth has the potential to revolutionize payment methods, infrastructure, and staffing in the healthcare industry. Implementing a well-structured telehealth service model can yield beneficial results for a nation and its regulatory efforts in the modern age of technology., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Saifullah, Ma, Li, Maqbool and Chen.)

Importance: Most dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries are enrolled in bifurcated insurance programs that pay for different components of care. Therefore, policymakers are prioritizing expansion of integrated care plans (ICPs) that manage both Medicare and Medicaid benefits and spending., Objective: To review evidence of the association between ICPs and health care spending, quality, utilization, and patient outcomes among dual-eligible beneficiaries., Evidence Review: A search was conducted of PubMed/MEDLINE (January 1, 2010, through November 1, 2023) and Google Scholar (January 1, 2010, through October 1, 2023) and augmented with reports from US federal and state government websites. Three categories of ICPs were evaluated: Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), Medicare-Medicaid Plans (MMPs), and Fully Integrated Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (FIDE-SNPs) and related models aligning Medicare and Medicaid coverage. The review included studies that evaluated beneficiaries dually eligible for and enrolled in full Medicaid; compared an ICP to a nonintegrated arrangement; and evaluated utilization, spending, care coordination, patient experience, or health for 100 or more beneficiaries., Findings: In all, 26 ICP evaluations met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis: 5 of PACE, 13 of MMPs, and 8 of FIDE-SNPs and other aligned models. Evidence generally showed associated reductions in long-term nursing home stays in PACE (3 of 4 studies) and FIDE-SNPs and related aligned models (3 of 5 studies) but was mixed in evaluations of MMPs. Four of 9 studies of MMPs and 2 of 3 studies of FIDE-SNPs found higher outpatient use, although other studies showed no difference. Evidence on Medicaid spending was limited, whereas 8 of 10 studies of MMPs showed an association between these plans and higher Medicare spending. Evidence was mixed or inconclusive regarding care coordination and hospitalizations, and it was insufficient to evaluate patient satisfaction, health, and outcomes in beneficiary subgroups (eg, those with serious mental illness). Furthermore, studies had limited ability to control for bias from unmeasured differences between enrollees of ICPs compared with nonintegrated models., Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review found variability and gaps in evidence regarding ICPs and spending, quality, utilization, and outcomes. Studies found some ICPs were associated with reductions in long-term nursing home admissions, and several identified increases in outpatient care. However, MMPs were primarily associated with higher Medicare spending. Evidence for other outcomes was limited or inconclusive. Research addressing these evidence gaps is needed to guide ongoing efforts to integrate coverage and care for dual-eligible beneficiaries.

Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Background: The economic cost of perinatal mood and anxiety disorders (PMADs) is high and includes the cost of reduced maternal economic productivity, more preterm births, and increases in other maternal mental health expenditures. PMADs also substantially contribute the cost of maternal morbidity. This paper offers a discussion of the quality-of-care cascade model of PMADs, which outlines care pathways that people typically face as well as gaps and unmet needs that frequently happen along the way. The model uses the US health system as an example. A discussion of international implications follows., Discussion: The quality-of-care cascade model outlines downward dips in quality of care along the perinatal mental health treatment continuum, including access (many Americans do not have access to affordable health insurance), enrollment (even when individuals are offered health insurance, some do not enroll), coverage (even if individuals have health insurance, some needed services or providers may not be covered), choice (even if services and providers are covered, patients may not be able to choose among plans, institutions, or clinicians), consistency (even if patients have a choice of plan or provider, a consistent source of care may not be accessible), referral (even if care is available and accessible, referral services may not be), quality (even if patients have access to both care and referral services, there may be gaps in the quality of care provided), adherence (even if patients receive high-quality care, they may not be adherent to treatment), barriers (societal forces that may influence people's choices and behaviors), and shocks (unanticipated events that could disrupt care pathways). In describing the quality-of-care cascade model, this paper uses the US healthcare system as the primary example. However, the model can extend to examine quality-of-care dips along the perinatal mental health treatment continuum within the international context. Although the US healthcare system may differ from other healthcare systems in many respects, shared commonalities lead to quality-of-care dips in countries with healthcare systems structured differently than in the US., Implications for Health Policies: The global cost of PMADs remains substantial, and addressing the costs of these conditions could have a significant impact on overall cost and quality of care internationally. The quality-of-care cascade model presented in this paper could help identify, understand, and address the complex contributing factors that lead to dips in quality-of-care for perinatal mental health conditions across the world.

Importance: Medicare's Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program will provide a health equity adjustment (HEA) to hospitals that have greater proportions of patients dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid and that offer high-quality care beginning in fiscal year 2026. However, which hospitals will benefit most from this policy change and to what extent are unknown., Objective: To estimate potential changes in hospital performance after HEA and examine hospital patient mix, structural, and geographic characteristics associated with receipt of increased payments., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed all 2676 hospitals participating in the HVBP program in fiscal year 2021. Publicly available data on program performance and hospital characteristics were linked to Medicare claims data on all inpatient stays for dual-eligible beneficiaries at each hospital to calculate HEA points and HVBP payment adjustments., Exposures: Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program HEA., Main Outcomes and Measures: Reclassification of HVBP bonus or penalty status and changes in payment adjustments across hospital characteristics., Results: Of 2676 hospitals participating in the HVBP program in fiscal year 2021, 1470 (54.9%) received bonuses and 1206 (45.1%) received penalties. After HEA, 102 hospitals (6.9%) were reclassified from bonus to penalty status, whereas 119 (9.9%) were reclassified from penalty to bonus status. At the hospital level, mean (SD) HVBP payment adjustments decreased by $4534 ($90 033) after HEA, ranging from a maximum reduction of $1 014 276 to a maximum increase of $1 523 765. At the aggregate level, net-positive changes in payment adjustments were largest among safety net hospitals ($28 971 708) and those caring for a higher proportion of Black patients ($15 468 445). The likelihood of experiencing increases in payment adjustments was significantly higher among safety net compared with non-safety net hospitals (574 of 683 [84.0%] vs 709 of 1993 [35.6%]; adjusted rate ratio [ARR], 2.04 [95% CI, 1.89-2.20]) and high-proportion Black hospitals compared with non-high-proportion Black hospitals (396 of 523 [75.7%] vs 887 of 2153 [41.2%]; ARR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.29-1.51]). Rural hospitals (374 of 612 [61.1%] vs 909 of 2064 [44.0%]; ARR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.30-1.58]), as well as those located in the South (598 of 1040 [57.5%] vs 192 of 439 [43.7%]; ARR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.10-1.42]) and in Medicaid expansion states (801 of 1651 [48.5%] vs 482 of 1025 [47.0%]; ARR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.06-1.28]), were also more likely to experience increased payment adjustments after HEA compared with their urban, Northeastern, and Medicaid nonexpansion state counterparts, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: Medicare's implementation of HEA in the HVBP program will significantly reclassify hospital performance and redistribute program payments, with safety net and high-proportion Black hospitals benefiting most from this policy change. These findings suggest that HEA is an important strategy to ensure that value-based payment programs are more equitable.

Importance: Equity is an essential domain of health care quality. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed 2 Disparity Methods that together assess equity in clinical outcomes., Objectives: To define a measure of equitable readmissions; identify hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance (dual eligible vs non-dual eligible) or patient race (Black vs White); and compare hospitals with and without equitable readmissions by hospital characteristics and performance on accountability measures (quality, cost, and value)., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of US hospitals eligible for the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission measure using Medicare data from July 2018 through June 2019., Main Outcomes and Measures: We created a definition of equitable readmissions using CMS Disparity Methods, which evaluate hospitals on 2 methods: outcomes for populations at risk for disparities (across-hospital method); and disparities in care within hospitals' patient populations (within-a-single-hospital method)., Exposures: Hospital patient demographics; hospital characteristics; and 3 measures of hospital performance-quality, cost, and value (quality relative to cost)., Results: Of 4638 hospitals, 74% served a sufficient number of dual-eligible patients, and 42% served a sufficient number of Black patients to apply CMS Disparity Methods by insurance and race. Of eligible hospitals, 17% had equitable readmission rates by insurance and 30% by race. Hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance or race cared for a lower percentage of Black patients (insurance, 1.9% [IQR, 0.2%-8.8%] vs 3.3% [IQR, 0.7%-10.8%], P < .01; race, 7.6% [IQR, 3.2%-16.6%] vs 9.3% [IQR, 4.0%-19.0%], P = .01), and differed from nonequitable hospitals in multiple domains (teaching status, geography, size; P < .01). In examining equity by insurance, hospitals with low costs were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.38-1.77), and there was no relationship between quality and value, and equity. In examining equity by race, hospitals with high overall quality were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.26]), and there was no relationship between cost and value, and equity., Conclusion and Relevance: A minority of hospitals achieved equitable readmissions. Notably, hospitals with equitable readmissions were characteristically different from those without. For example, hospitals with equitable readmissions served fewer Black patients, reinforcing the role of structural racism in hospital-level inequities. Implementation of an equitable readmission measure must consider unequal distribution of at-risk patients among hospitals.

Importance: US hospitals report data on many health care quality metrics to government and independent health care rating organizations, but the annual cost to acute care hospitals of measuring and reporting quality metric data, independent of resources spent on quality interventions, is not well known., Objective: To evaluate externally reported inpatient quality metrics for adult patients and estimate the cost of data collection and reporting, independent of quality-improvement efforts., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective time-driven activity-based costing study at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, Maryland) with hospital personnel involved in quality metric reporting processes interviewed between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019, about quality reporting activities in the 2018 calendar year., Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included the number of metrics, annual person-hours per metric type, and annual personnel cost per metric type., Results: A total of 162 unique metrics were identified, of which 96 (59.3%) were claims-based, 107 (66.0%) were outcome metrics, and 101 (62.3%) were related to patient safety. Preparing and reporting data for these metrics required an estimated 108 478 person-hours, with an estimated personnel cost of $5 038 218.28 (2022 USD) plus an additional $602 730.66 in vendor fees. Claims-based (96 metrics; $37 553.58 per metric per year) and chart-abstracted (26 metrics; $33 871.30 per metric per year) metrics used the most resources per metric, while electronic metrics consumed far less (4 metrics; $1901.58 per metric per year)., Conclusions and Relevance: Significant resources are expended exclusively for quality reporting, and some methods of quality assessment are far more expensive than others. Claims-based metrics were unexpectedly found to be the most resource intensive of all metric types. Policy makers should consider reducing the number of metrics and shifting to electronic metrics, when possible, to optimize resources spent in the overall pursuit of higher quality.

Importance: Health systems play a central role in the delivery of health care, but relatively little is known about these organizations and their performance., Objective: To (1) identify and describe health systems in the United States; (2) assess differences between physicians and hospitals in and outside of health systems; and (3) compare quality and cost of care delivered by physicians and hospitals in and outside of health systems., Evidence Review: Health systems were defined as groups of commonly owned or managed entities that included at least 1 general acute care hospital, 10 primary care physicians, and 50 total physicians located within a single hospital referral region. They were identified using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrative data, Internal Revenue Service filings, Medicare and commercial claims, and other data. Health systems were categorized as academic, public, large for-profit, large nonprofit, or other private systems. Quality of preventive care, chronic disease management, patient experience, low-value care, mortality, hospital readmissions, and spending were assessed for Medicare beneficiaries attributed to system and nonsystem physicians. Prices for physician and hospital services and total spending were assessed in 2018 commercial claims data. Outcomes were adjusted for patient characteristics and geographic area., Findings: A total of 580 health systems were identified and varied greatly in size. Systems accounted for 40% of physicians and 84% of general acute care hospital beds and delivered primary care to 41% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Academic and large nonprofit systems accounted for a majority of system physicians (80%) and system hospital beds (64%). System hospitals were larger than nonsystem hospitals (67% vs 23% with >100 beds), as were system physician practices (74% vs 12% with >100 physicians). Performance on measures of preventive care, clinical quality, and patient experience was modestly higher for health system physicians and hospitals than for nonsystem physicians and hospitals. Prices paid to health system physicians and hospitals were significantly higher than prices paid to nonsystem physicians and hospitals (12%-26% higher for physician services, 31% for hospital services). Adjusting for practice size attenuated health systems differences on quality measures, but price differences for small and medium practices remained large., Conclusions and Relevance: In 2018, health system physicians and hospitals delivered a large portion of medical services. Performance on clinical quality and patient experience measures was marginally better in systems but spending and prices were substantially higher. This was especially true for small practices. Small quality differentials combined with large price differentials suggests that health systems have not, on average, realized their potential for better care at equal or lower cost.

Importance: The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) influences reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of US physicians, but little is known about whether program performance accurately captures the quality of care they provide., Objective: To examine whether primary care physicians' MIPS scores are associated with performance on process and outcome measures., Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of 80 246 US primary care physicians participating in the MIPS program in 2019., Exposures: MIPS score., Main Outcomes and Measures: The association between physician MIPS scores and performance on 5 unadjusted process measures, 6 adjusted outcome measures, and a composite outcome measure., Results: The study population included 3.4 million patients attributed to 80 246 primary care physicians, including 4773 physicians with low MIPS scores (≤30), 6151 physicians with medium MIPS scores (>30-75), and 69 322 physicians with high MIPS scores (>75). Compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly worse mean performance on 3 of 5 process measures: diabetic eye examinations (56.1% vs 63.2%; difference, -7.1 percentage points [95% CI, -8.0 to -6.2]; P < .001), diabetic HbA1c screening (84.6% vs 89.4%; difference, -4.8 percentage points [95% CI, -5.4 to -4.2]; P < .001), and mammography screening (58.2% vs 70.4%; difference, -12.2 percentage points [95% CI, -13.1 to -11.4]; P < .001) but significantly better mean performance on rates of influenza vaccination (78.0% vs 76.8%; difference, 1.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.0 to 2.5]; P = .045] and tobacco screening (95.0% vs 94.1%; difference, 0.9 percentage points [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]; P = .001). MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with risk-adjusted patient outcomes: compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly better mean performance on 1 outcome (307.6 vs 316.4 emergency department visits per 1000 patients; difference, -8.9 [95% CI, -13.7 to -4.1]; P < .001), worse performance on 1 outcome (255.4 vs 225.2 all-cause hospitalizations per 1000 patients; difference, 30.2 [95% CI, 24.8 to 35.7]; P < .001), and did not have significantly different performance on 4 ambulatory care-sensitive admission outcomes. Nineteen percent of physicians with low MIPS scores had composite outcomes performance in the top quintile, while 21% of physicians with high MIPS scores had outcomes in the bottom quintile. Physicians with low MIPS scores but superior outcomes cared for more medically complex and socially vulnerable patients, compared with physicians with low MIPS scores and poor outcomes., Conclusions and Relevance: Among US primary care physicians in 2019, MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with performance on process and outcome measures. These findings suggest that the MIPS program may be ineffective at measuring and incentivizing quality improvement among US physicians.

Introduction: Every year 2.4 million deaths occur worldwide in babies younger than 28 days. Approximately 70% of these deaths occur in low-resource settings because of failure to implement evidence-based interventions. Digital health technologies may offer an implementation solution. Since 2014, we have worked in Bangladesh, Malawi, Zimbabwe and the UK to develop and pilot Neotree: an android app with accompanying data visualisation, linkage and export. Its low-cost hardware and state-of-the-art software are used to improve bedside postnatal care and to provide insights into population health trends, to impact wider policy and practice., Methods and Analysis: This is a mixed methods (1) intervention codevelopment and optimisation and (2) pilot implementation evaluation (including economic evaluation) study. Neotree will be implemented in two hospitals in Zimbabwe, and one in Malawi. Over the 2-year study period clinical and demographic newborn data will be collected via Neotree, in addition to behavioural science informed qualitative and quantitative implementation evaluation and measures of cost, newborn care quality and usability. Neotree clinical decision support algorithms will be optimised according to best available evidence and clinical validation studies., Ethics and Dissemination: This is a Wellcome Trust funded project (215742&#95;Z&#95;19&#95;Z). Research ethics approvals have been obtained: Malawi College of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee (P.01/20/2909; P.02/19/2613); UCL (17123/001, 6681/001, 5019/004); Medical Research Council Zimbabwe (MRCZ/A/2570), BRTI and JREC institutional review boards (AP155/2020; JREC/327/19), Sally Mugabe Hospital Ethics Committee (071119/64; 250418/48). Results will be disseminated via academic publications and public and policy engagement activities. In this study, the care for an estimated 15 000 babies across three sites will be impacted., Trial Registration Number: NCT0512707; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MH, YS, EK and FF are trustees of the Neotree charity (www.neotree.org) but receive no financial payment from this role. CC was a trustee of the Neotree charity until 2018 and received no financial payment for this role., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the latest value-based payment program implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. As performance-based bonuses and penalties continue to rise in magnitude, it is essential to evaluate this program's ability to achieve its core objectives of quality improvement, cost reduction, and competition around clinically meaningful outcomes., Questions/purposes: We asked the following: (1) How do orthopaedic surgeons differ on the MIPS compared with surgeons in other specialties, both in terms of the MIPS scores and bonuses that derive from them? (2) What features of surgeons and practices are associated with receiving penalties based on the MIPS? (3) What features of surgeons and practices are associated with receiving a perfect score of 100 based on the MIPS?, Methods: Scores from the 2018 MIPS reporting period were linked to physician demographic and practice-based information using the Medicare Part B Provider Utilization and Payment File, the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System Data (NPPES), and National Physician Compare Database. For all orthopaedic surgeons identified within the Physician Compare Database, there were 15,210 MIPS scores identified, representing a 72% (15,210 of 21,124) participation rate in the 2018 MIPS. Those participating in the MIPS receive a final score (0 to 100, with 100 being a perfect score) based on a weighted calculation of performance metrics across four domains: quality, promoting interoperability, improvement activities, and costs. In 2018, orthopaedic surgeons had an overall mean ± SD score of 87 ± 21. From these scores, payment adjustments are determined in the following manner: scores less than 15 received a maximum penalty adjustment of -5% ("penalty"), scores equal to 15 did not receive an adjustment ("neutral"), scores between 15 and 70 received a positive adjustment ("positive"), and scores above 70 (maximum 100) received both a positive adjustment and an additional exceptional performance adjustment with a maximum adjustment of +5% ("bonus"). Adjustments among orthopaedic surgeons were compared across various demographic and practice characteristics. Both the mean MIPS score and the resulting payment adjustments were compared with a group of surgeons in other subspecialties. Finally, multivariable logistic regression models were generated to identify which variables were associated with increased odds of receiving a penalty as well as a perfect score of 100., Results: Compared with surgeons in other specialties, orthopaedic surgeons' mean MIPS score was 4.8 (95% CI 4.3 to 5.2; p < 0.001) points lower. From this difference, a lower proportion of orthopaedic surgeons received bonuses (-5.0% [95% CI -5.6 to -4.3]; p < 0.001), and a greater proportion received penalties (+0.5% [95% CI 0.2 to 0.8]; p < 0.001) and positive adjustments (+4.6% [95% CI 6.1 to 10.7]; p < 0.001) compared with surgeons in other specialties. After controlling for potentially confounding variables such as gender, years in practice, and practice setting, small (1 to 49 members) group size (adjusted odds ratio 22.2 [95% CI 8.17 to 60.3]; p < 0.001) and higher Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) scores (aOR 2.32 [95% CI 1.35 to 4.01]; p = 0.002) were associated with increased odds of a penalty. Also, after controlling for potential confounding, we found that reporting through an alternative payment model (aOR 28.7 [95% CI 24.0 to 34.3]; p < 0.001) was associated with increased odds of a perfect score, whereas small practice size (1 to 49 members) (aOR 0.35 [95% CI 0.31 to 0.39]; p < 0.001), a high patient volume (greater than 500 Medicare patients) (aOR 0.82 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.95]; p = 0.01), and higher HCC score (aOR 0.79 [95% Cl 0.66 to 0.93]; p = 0.006) were associated with decreased odds of a perfect MIPS score., Conclusion: Collectively, orthopaedic surgeons performed well in the second year of the MIPS, with 87% earning bonus payments. Among participating orthopaedic surgeons, individual reporting affiliation, small practice size, and more medically complex patient populations were associated with higher odds of receiving penalties and lower odds of earning a perfect score. Based on these findings, we recommend that individuals and orthopaedic surgeons in small group practices strive to forge partnerships with larger hospital practices with adequate ancillary staff to support quality reporting initiatives. Such partnerships may help relieve surgeons of growing administrative obligations and allow for maintained focus on direct patient care activities. Policymakers should aim to produce a shortened panel of performance measures to ensure more standardized comparison and less time and energy diverted from established clinical workflows. The current MIPS scoring methodology should also be amended with a complexity modifier to ensure fair evaluation of surgeons practicing in the safety net setting, or those treating patients with a high comorbidity burden., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study., Competing Interests: All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2021 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Hospitals are facing big challenges: decreasing reimbursements are going alongside increasing costs and the necessity of investments. At the same time occurring, excellent quality of care, and high-patient satisfaction have to be assured. The dilemma of providing both with decreasing rather than increasing resources cannot be solved only by striving for economies of scale, but by optimizing supply chain management, or reduction of overhead. Possible effects of these measures most often are already exhausted and seldom have a positive impact on the quality of care or patient satisfaction. Management is tempted to use its best-known instruments to reduce costs, while medical staff's focus is on quality of care and often battle against management as a perceived enemy. The solution to this dilemma lies in focusing on medical core processes that are directly linked to patients' treatments and, thereby improving all the parameters of Michael Porter's value equation: costs, outcome, and patient satisfaction. This approach of performance enhancement presumes understanding, acceptance, and constructive collaboration of two usually separated worlds: The medical-scientific world involved in patient care and the financial world of management. In this article, the authors explain performance enhancement for optimized delivery of care and how the dilemma mentioned above can be solved. The authors explain how performance enhancement can be achieved in daily clinical practice, which kind of obstacles have to be overcome, which changes are necessary within a hospital, how medical staff can be motivated, and how the value of care equation can be influenced., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Bertke and Nufer.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: Emma Doble is a patient editor at The BMJ and is a member of the BMJ Health & Care Informatics patient and public involvement sub-committee. Dana Lewis is a volunteer member of the BMJ Health & Care Informatics patient and public involvement sub-committee. Nothing further declared.

Background: Ambulatory surgery growth has increased in the last few decades as ambulatory surgery centers have been shown to succeed in cost efficiencies through their smaller size and breadth, specialization of care, and ability to quickly participate in perioperative process improvement and education., Methods: A 5-year retrospective fiscal review was performed for all Northwell Health-physician ambulatory surgery center joint ventures. The outcome measures studied included model of ownership, specialty types, and gross revenue. Additional facility characteristics were studied, including growth trajectory, facility size, and cost to build a de novo facility., Results: Eleven free-standing ambulatory surgery centers were identified at Northwell Health during the 5-year study period. The total gross revenue for all Northwell clinical joint ventures for 2019 alone was $102,854,000. Northwell Health is a majority stakeholder in eight of their joint venture ambulatory surgery centers, with an average Northwell ownership of 53 percent and an average number of physician owners per facility of 11. The number of hospital-physician joint-venture ambulatory surgery centers grew from two to 11 facilities during the study period (450 percent). Surgical volume followed a similar trajectory, increasing 295 percent over the same time period., Conclusions: The ambulatory surgery center setting provides a vast number of possibilities for key stakeholders, including patients themselves, to benefit from financial and clinical efficiencies. Ambulatory surgery centers have been popular, as they meet patient expectations for convenience of elective surgery, reduce payer and clinical pressures to minimize length of stay in hospitals, and achieve similar or higher quality care with less intense resources., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

The steady growth of corporate interest and influence in the health care sector over the past few decades has created a more business-oriented health care system in the United States, helping to spur for-profit and private equity investment. Proponents say that this trend makes the health care system more efficient, encourages innovation, and provides financial stability to ensure access and improve care. Critics counter that such moves favor profit over care and erode the patient-physician relationship. American College of Physicians (ACP) underscores that physicians are permitted to earn a reasonable income as long as they are fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to provide high-quality, appropriate care within the guardrails of medical professionalism and ethics. In this position paper, ACP considers the effect of mergers, integration, private equity investment, nonprofit hospital requirements, and conversions from nonprofit to for-profit status on patients, physicians, and the health care system.

Background: The dominant view in the literature is that informal payments in healthcare universally are a negative phenomenon. By contrast, we theorize that the motivation healthcare users for making informal payments (IP) can be classified into three categories: (1) a cultural norm, (2) "grease the wheels" payments if users offered to pay to get better services, and (3) "sand the wheels" payments if users were asked to pay by healthcare personnel or felt that payments were expected. We further hypothesize that these three categories of payments are differently associated with a user's outcomes, namely, satisfaction with healthcare, local and national government, satisfaction with life, and satisfaction with life of children in the future., Methods: We used microdata from the 2016 Life-in-Transition survey. Multivariate regression analysis is used to quantify relationships between these categories of payments and users' outcomes., Results: Payments that are the result of cultural norms are associated with better outcomes. On the contrary, "sand the wheel" payments are associated with worse outcomes. We find no association between making "grease the wheels" payments and outcomes., Conclusions: This is the first paper which evaluates association between three different categories of informal payments with a wide range of users' outcomes on a diverse sample of countries. Focusing on informal payments in general, rather than explicitly examining specific motivations, obscures the true outcomes of making IP. It is important to distinguish between three different motivations for informal payment, namely, cultural norms, "grease the wheels," and "sand the wheels" since they have varying associations with user outcomes. From a policy making standpoint, variation in the links between different motivations for making IP and measures of satisfaction suggest that decision-makers should put their primary focus on situations where IP are explicitly asked for or are implied by the situation and that they should differentiate this from cases of gratitude payments. If such measures are not implemented, then policy makers may unintentionally ban the behaviour that is linked with increased satisfaction with healthcare, government, and life (i.e., paying gratitude)., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2021 Nazim Habibov et al.)

Bundled payments are a promising alternative payment model for reducing costs and improving the coordination of postacute stroke care, yet there is limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of bundled payments for stroke. This may be due to the lack of effective strategies to address the complex needs of stroke survivors. In this article, we describe COMprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services (COMPASS), a comprehensive transitional care intervention focused on discharge from the acute care setting to home. COMPASS may serve as a potential care redesign strategy under bundled payments for stroke, such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Initiative. The COMPASS care model is aligned with the incentive structures and essential components of bundled payments in terms of care coordination, patient assessment, patient and family involvement, and continuity of care. Ongoing evaluation will inform the design of incorporating COMPASS-like transitional care interventions into a stroke bundle., (Copyright © 2021 The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We sought to assess the rate of unplanned hospital visits among patients undergoing ambulatory surgery., Summary Background Data: The majority of surgeries performed in the United States now take place in outpatient settings. Post-discharge hospital visit rates have been shown to vary widely, suggesting variation in surgical or discharge care quality. Complicating efforts to address quality, most facilities and surgeons are unaware of their patients' hospital visits after surgery since patients may present to a different hospital., Methods: We used state-level, administrative data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project from California to assess unplanned hospital visits after ambulatory surgery. To compare rates across centers, we determined the age, sex, and procedure-adjusted rates of hospital visits for each facility using 2-level, hierarchical, generalized linear models using methods similar to existing Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services measures., Results: Among a total of 1,260,619 ambulatory same-day surgeries from 440 surgical facilities, the risk adjusted 30-day rate of unplanned hospital visits was 4.8%, with emergency department visits of 3.1% and hospital admissions of 1.7%. Several patient characteristics were associated with increased risk of unplanned hospitals visits, including increased age, increased number of comorbidities (using the Elixhauser score), and type of procedure (p<0.001)., Conclusions: The overall rate unplanned hospital visits within 30 days after same-day surgery is low but variable, suggesting a difference in the quality of care provided. Further, these rates are higher among specific patient populations and procedure types, suggesting areas for targeted improvement., Competing Interests: JSR has received research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson for other work not related to this study. The other authors have no competing interests to declare.

Executive Summary: Home hospital care (HHC) is a new and exciting concept that holds the promise of achieving all three components of the Triple Aim and reducing health disparities. As an innovative care delivery model, HHC substitutes traditional inpatient hospital care with hospital care at home for older patients with certain conditions. Studies have shown evidence of reduced cost of care, improved patient satisfaction, and enhanced quality and safety of care for patients treated through this model. The steady growth in Medicare Advantage enrollment and the expansion in 2020 of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospitals Without Walls program to include acute hospital care at home creates an opportunity for hospitals to implement such programs and be financially rewarded for reducing costs. Capacity constraints exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that now is the ideal time for healthcare leaders to test and advance the concept of HHC in their communities., Competing Interests: The author declares no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Foundation of the American College of Healthcare Executives.)

Objective: Pathways are succinct, operational versions of evidence-based guidelines. Studies have demonstrated pathways improve quality of care for children hospitalized with asthma, but we have limited information on other key factors to guide hospital leaders and clinicians in pathway implementation efforts. Our objective was to evaluate the adoption, implementation, and reach of inpatient pediatric asthma pathways., Methods: This was a mixed-methods study of hospitals participating in a national collaborative to implement pathways. Data sources included electronic surveys of implementation leaders and staff, field observations, and chart review of children ages 2-17 years admitted with a primary diagnosis of asthma. Outcomes included adoption by hospitals, pathway implementation factors, and reach of pathways to children hospitalized with asthma. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariable regression. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic content analysis., Results: Eighty-five hospitals enrolled; 68 (80%) adopted/completed the collaborative. These 68 hospitals implemented pathways with overall high fidelity, implementing a median of 5 of 5 core pathway components (Interquartile Range [IQR] 4-5) in a median of 5 months (IQR 3-9). Implementation teams reported a median time cost of 78 h (IQR: 40-120) for implementation. Implementation leaders reported the values of pathway implementation included improvements in care, enhanced interdisciplinary collaboration, and access to educational resources. Leaders reported barriers in modifying electronic health records (EHRs), and only 63% of children had electronic pathway orders placed., Conclusions: Hospitals implemented pathways with high fidelity. Barriers in modifying EHRs may have limited the reach of pathways to children hospitalized with asthma.

Objective: To assess the relationship between out-of-pocket (OOP) payments and primary health care quality in six low-income countries: Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Haiti, Nepal, Senegal and Tanzania., Methods: We examined the association between OOP payments and quality of care during antenatal care and sick child care visits using Service Provision Assessments data. We defined four process quality outcomes from observations of clinical care: visit duration, history-taking items asked, exam items performed, and counselling items delivered. The outcome is the total amount paid for services. We used multilevel models to test the relationship between OOP payments and each quality measure in public, private non-profit and private for-profit facilities controlling for patient, provider, and facility characteristics., Results: Across the six countries, an average of 42% of the 29 677 observed clients paid for their visit. In the adjusted models, OOP payments were positively associated with the visit duration during sick child visits, with history-taking and exam items during antenatal care visits, and with counselling in private for-profit facilities for both visit types. These associations were strong particularly in Afghanistan, the DRC and Haiti; for example, a high-quality antenatal care visit in the DRC would cost approximately USD 1.12 more than a visit with median quality., Conclusion: Provider effort was associated with higher OOP payments for sick child and antenatal care services in the six countries studied. While many families are already spending high amounts on care, they must often spend even more to receive higher quality care., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: There is growing interest in paying for performance (P4P) as a means to align the incentives of healthcare providers with public health goals. Rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of these strategies in improving health care and health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is lacking; this is an update of the 2012 review on this topic., Objectives: To assess the effects of paying for performance on the provision of health care and health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 10 other databases between April and June 2018. We also searched two trial registries, websites, online resources of international agencies, organizations and universities, and contacted experts in the field. Studies identified from rerunning searches in 2020 are under 'Studies awaiting classification.', Selection Criteria: We included randomized or non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies, or interrupted time series studies conducted in LMICs (as defined by the World Bank in 2018). P4P refers to the transfer of money or material goods conditional on taking a measurable action or achieving a predetermined performance target. To be included, a study had to report at least one of the following outcomes: patient health outcomes, changes in targeted measures of provider performance (such as the delivery of healthcare services), unintended effects, or changes in resource use., Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted data as per original review protocol and narratively synthesised findings. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Given diversity and variability in intervention types, patient populations, analyses and outcome reporting, we deemed meta-analysis inappropriate. We noted the range of effects associated with P4P against each outcome of interest. Based on intervention descriptions provided in documents, we classified design schemes and explored variation in effect by scheme design., Main Results: We included 59 studies: controlled before-after studies (19), non-randomized (16) or cluster randomized trials (14);  and interrupted time-series studies (9). One study included both an interrupted time series and a controlled before-after study. Studies focused on a wide range of P4P interventions, including target payments and payment for outputs as modified by quality (or quality and equity assessments). Only one study assessed results-based aid. Many schemes were funded by national governments (23 studies) with the World Bank funding most externally funded schemes (11 studies). Targeted services varied; however, most interventions focused on reproductive, maternal and child health indicators. Participants were predominantly located in public or in a mix of public, non-governmental and faith-based facilities (54 studies). P4P was assessed predominantly at health facility level, though districts and other levels were also involved. Most studies assessed the effects of P4P against a status quo control (49 studies); however, some studies assessed effects against comparator interventions (predominantly enhanced financing intended to match P4P funds (17 studies)). Four studies reported intervention effects against both comparator and status quo. Controlled before-after studies were at higher risk of bias than other study designs. However, some randomised trials were also downgraded due to risk of bias. The interrupted time-series studies provided insufficient information on other concurrent changes in the study context. P4P compared to a status quo control For health services that are specifically targeted, P4P may slightly improve health outcomes (low certainty evidence), but few studies assessed this. P4P may also improve service quality overall (low certainty evidence); and probably increases the availability of health workers, medicines and well-functioning infrastructure and equipment (moderate certainty evidence). P4P may have mixed effects on the delivery and use of services (low certainty evidence) and may have few or no distorting unintended effects on outcomes that were not targeted (low-certainty evidence), but few studies assessed these. For secondary outcomes, P4P may make little or no difference to provider absenteeism, motivation or satisfaction (low certainty evidence); but may improve patient satisfaction and acceptability (low certainty evidence); and may positively affect facility managerial autonomy (low certainty evidence). P4P probably makes little to no difference to management quality or facility governance (low certainty evidence). Impacts on equity were mixed (low certainty evidence). For health services that are untargeted, P4P probably improves some health outcomes (moderate certainty evidence); may improve the delivery, use and quality of some health services but may make little or no difference to others (low certainty evidence); and may have few or no distorting unintended effects (low certainty evidence). The effects of P4P on the availability of medicines and other resources are uncertain (very low certainty evidence). P4P compared to other strategies For health outcomes and services that are specifically targeted, P4P may make little or no difference to health outcomes (low certainty evidence), but few studies assessed this. P4P may improve service quality (low certainty evidence); and may have mixed effects on the delivery and use of health services and on the availability of equipment and medicines (low certainty evidence). For health outcomes and services that are untargeted, P4P may make little or no difference to health outcomes and to the delivery and use of health services (low certainty evidence). The effects of P4P on service quality, resource availability and unintended effects are uncertain (very low certainty evidence). Findings of subgroup analyses Results-based aid, and schemes using payment per output adjusted for service quality, appeared to yield the greatest positive effects on outcomes. However, only one study evaluated results-based aid, so the effects may be spurious. Overall, schemes adjusting both for quality of service and rewarding equitable delivery of services appeared to perform best in relation to service utilization outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: The evidence base on the impacts of P4P schemes has grown considerably, with study quality gradually increasing. P4P schemes may have mixed effects on outcomes of interest, and there is high heterogeneity in the types of schemes implemented and evaluations conducted. P4P is not a uniform intervention, but rather a range of approaches. Its effects depend on the interaction of several variables, including the design of the intervention (e.g., who receives payments ), the amount of additional funding,  ancillary components (such as technical support) and contextual factors (including organizational context)., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Low-value services are a major problem in the US health care system. We believe that the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic's unprecedented impact on the health system, and society writ large, offers an opportunity to reshape the conversation and incentives around low-value services. This article explores current barriers to and opportunities for accelerating progress toward high-value care delivery. We examine how financial and nonfinancial incentives, uncertainty in clinical decision-making, and insufficient partnering with patients and families contribute to the delivery of low-value care. We then explore potential solutions, including making it easier for clinicians to forgo low-value services and providing them with actionable information to make those decisions, expanding payer efforts to develop "value report cards," developing measures that map the adverse health and economic effects of low-value services, and training clinicians and health care leaders to engage in conversations with patients about the personal medical, financial, and psychological harms of low-value services.

Objectives: In the middle to late 2000s, many family physicians switched from a Family Health Group (FHG; a blended fee-for-service model) to a Family Health Organization (FHO; a blended capitation model) in Ontario, Canada. The evidence on the link between physician remuneration schemes and quality of diabetes care is mixed in the literature. We examined whether physicians who switched from the FHG to FHO model provided better care for individuals living with diabetes relative to those who remained in the FHG model., Methods: Using longitudinal health administrative data from 2006 to 2016, we investigated the impact of physicians switching from FHG to FHO on 8 quality indicators related to diabetes care. Because FHO physicians are likely to be systematically different from FHGs, we employed propensity-score-based inverse probability-weighted fixed-effects regression models. All analyses were conducted at the physician level., Results: We found that FHO physicians were more likely to provide glycated hemoglobin testing by 2.75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.89% to 3.60%), lipid assessment by 2.76% (CI, 1.95% to 3.57%), nephropathy screening by 1.08% (95% CI, 0.51% to 1.66%) and statin prescription by 1.08% (95% CI, 0.51% to 1.66%). Patients under FHOs had a lower estimated risk of mortality by 0.0124% (95% CI, 0.0123% to 0.0126%) per physician per year. However, FHG and FHO physicians were similar for annual eye examination, prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (or angiotensin II receptor blockers) and patients' risk of avoidable diabetes-related hospitalizations., Conclusions: Compared with blended fee-for-service, blended capitation payment is associated with a small, but statistically significant, improvement in some aspects of diabetes care., (Copyright © 2020 Canadian Diabetes Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests. SB has no interests to declare. DK reports that her spouse serves on the scientific advisory board and has equity interest in Vedanta Biosciences and serves on the scientific advisory board of Opentrons.

Background: Many governments have introduced pay-for-performance programmes to incentivise health providers to improve quality of care. Evidence on whether these programmes reduce or exacerbate disparities in health care is scarce. In this study, we aimed to assess socioeconomic inequalities in the performance of family health teams under Brazil's National Programme for Improving Primary Care Access and Quality (PMAQ)., Methods: For this longitudinal study, we analysed data on the quality of care delivered by family health teams participating in PMAQ over three rounds of implementation: round 1 (November, 2011, to March, 2013), round 2 (April, 2013, to September, 2015), and round 3 (October, 2015, to December, 2019). The primary outcome was the percentage of the maximum performance score obtainable by family health teams (the PMAQ score), based on several hundred (ranging from 598 to 914) indicators of health-care delivery. Using census data on household income of local areas, we examined the PMAQ score by income ventile. We used ordinary least squares regressions to examine the association between PMAQ scores and the income of each local area across implementation rounds, and we did an analysis of variance to assess geographical variation in PMAQ score., Findings: Of the 40 361 family health teams that were registered as ever participating in PMAQ, we included 13 934 teams that participated in the three rounds of PMAQ in our analysis. These teams were located in 11 472 census areas and served approximately 48 million people. The mean PMAQ score was 61·0% (median 61·8, IQR 55·3-67·9) in round 1, 55·3% (median 56·0, IQR 47·6-63·4) in round 2, and 61·6% (median 62·7, IQR 54·4-69·9) in round 3. In round 1, we observed a positive socioeconomic gradient, with the mean PMAQ score ranging from 56·6% in the poorest group to 64·1% in the richest group. Between rounds 1 and 3, mean PMAQ performance increased by 7·1 percentage points for the poorest group and decreased by 0·8 percentage points for the richest group (p<0·0001), with the gap between richest and poorest narrowing from 7·5 percentage points (95% CI 6·5 to 8·5) to -0·4 percentage points over the same period (-1·6 to 0·8)., Interpretation: Existing income inequalities in the delivery of primary health care were eliminated during the three rounds of PMAQ, plausibly due to a design feature of PMAQ that adjusted financial payments for socioeconomic inequalities. However, there remains an important policy agenda in Brazil to address the large inequities in health., Funding: UK Medical Research Council, Newton Fund, and CONFAP (Conselho Nacional das Fundações Estaduais de Amparo à Pesquisa)., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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 postacute 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 2013-2017, 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<0.001] for Medicare-only patients, by 1.6 percentage points (DID estimate=-1.6; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.1; P=0.04) for full-benefit dual eligibles, and by 2.0 percentage points (DID estimate=-2.0; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.4; P=0.01) for partial-benefit dual eligibles. These CJR-associated effects did not differ between dual eligibles (differences in above DID estimates=0.2; 95% CI, -1.4 to 1.7; P=0.81 for full-benefit patients; and -0.3; 95% CI, -1.9 to 1.3; P=0.74 for partial-benefit patients) and Medicare-only patients. Among patients discharged to SNF, the CJR program showed no effect on successful community discharge, transition to long-term care, or their persistent disparities., Conclusions: The CJR program did not help reduce persistent disparities in readmissions or SNF-specific outcomes related to Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility, likely due to its lack of financial incentives for reduced disparities and improved SNF outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Changes to the method of payment for healthcare providers, including pay-for-performance schemes, are increasingly being used by governments, health insurers, and employers to help align financial incentives with health system goals. In this review we focused on changes to the method and level of payment for all types of healthcare providers in outpatient healthcare settings. Outpatient healthcare settings, broadly defined as 'out of hospital' care including primary care, are important for health systems in reducing the use of more expensive hospital services., Objectives: To assess the impact of different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings on the quantity and quality of health service provision, patient outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes, cost of service provision, and adverse effects., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase (searched 5 March 2019), and several other databases. In addition, we searched clinical trials platforms, grey literature, screened reference lists of included studies, did a cited reference search for included studies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We screened records from an updated search in August 2020, with any potentially relevant studies categorised as awaiting classification., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies that compared different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient care settings., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We conducted a structured synthesis. We first categorised the payment methods comparisons and outcomes, and then described the effects of different types of payment methods on different outcome categories. Where feasible, we used meta-analysis to synthesise the effects of payment interventions under the same category. Where it was not possible to perform meta-analysis, we have reported means/medians and full ranges of the available point estimates. We have reported the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the relative difference (as per cent change or mean difference (MD)) for continuous outcomes., Main Results: We included 27 studies in the review: 12 randomised trials, 13 controlled before-and-after studies, one interrupted time series, and one repeated measure study. Most healthcare providers were primary care physicians. Most of the payment methods were implemented by health insurance schemes in high-income countries, with only one study from a low- or middle-income country. The included studies were categorised into four groups based on comparisons of different payment methods. (1) Pay for performance (P4P) plus existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings P4P incentives probably improve child immunisation status (RR 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.36; 3760 patients; moderate-certainty evidence) and may slightly increase the number of patients who are asked more detailed questions on their disease by their pharmacist (MD 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.54; 454 patients; low-certainty evidence). P4P may slightly improve primary care physicians' prescribing of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medicines compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.12; 362 patients; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effects of extra P4P incentives on mean blood pressure reduction for patients and costs for providing services compared with an existing payment method (very low-certainty evidence). Outcomes related to workload or other health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial found that compared to the control group, the performance of incentivised professionals was not sustained after the P4P intervention had ended. (2) Fee for service (FFS) compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings We are uncertain about the effect of FFS on the quantity of health services delivered (outpatient visits and hospitalisations), patient health outcomes, and total drugs cost compared to an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. The quality of service provision and health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial reported that physicians paid via FFS may see more well patients than salaried physicians (low-certainty evidence), possibly implying that more unnecessary services were delivered through FFS. (3) FFS mixed with existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings FFS mixed payment method may increase the quantity of health services provided compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of FFS mixed payment on quality of services provided, patient health outcomes, and health professional outcomes compared with an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. Cost outcomes and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies. (4) Enhanced FFS compared with FFS for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings Enhanced FFS (higher FFS payment) probably increases child immunisation rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether higher FFS payment results in more primary care visits and about the effect of enhanced FFS on the net expenditure per year on covered children with regular FFS (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of service provision, patient outcomes, health professional outcomes, and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies., Authors' Conclusions: For healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings, P4P or an increase in FFS payment level probably increases the quantity of health service provision (moderate-certainty evidence), and P4P may slightly improve the quality of service provision for targeted conditions (low-certainty evidence). The effects of changes in payment methods on health outcomes is uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. Information to explore the influence of specific payment method design features, such as the size of incentives and type of performance measures, was insufficient. Furthermore, due to limited and very low-certainty evidence, it is uncertain if changing payment models without including additional funding for professionals would have similar effects. There is a need for further well-conducted research on payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings in low- and middle-income countries; more studies comparing the impacts of different designs of the same payment method; and studies that consider the unintended consequences of payment interventions., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Laparoscopy in colorectal surgery reduces the rate of postoperative complications, shortens the length of stay in hospital, and improves the quality of patient care. Despite these established benefits, the technical challenges of rectal resection for cancer have resulted in most operations being performed through open surgery in the USA. Moreover, controversy in the current literature questions the oncologic safety of a laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer. How then can surgeons innovate to overcome the technical challenges while preserving the critical oncological outcomes of high-quality rectal cancer surgery? Robotics may be a platform that allows us to overcome the technical challenges in the pelvis while maintaining both oncological outcomes and the benefits of a minimally invasive technique. Current evidence suggests that the quality of total mesorectal excision, the rates of circumferential margin involvement, and postoperative outcomes are comparable between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. While a robotic approach demonstrates lower conversion rates and reduced surgeon workload, the operative time is longer and initial costs are higher; however, time and future science will determine its true benefits. We review the current state of robotic surgery and its impact on rectal cancer surgery.

Background: High value care (HVC), maximizing quality while minimizing cost, has become a major focus of surgical practice. Effective education in healthcare value concepts is critical during residency to ensure graduates are able to deliver high value surgical care and participate in interprofessional teams to improve the system., Study Design: An HVC curriculum was implemented at a single academic medical center. Sixty-six residents from general surgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and urology completed the curriculum over 3 academic years (2016 to 2019). The 1-year curriculum taught residents the concepts of HVC before participating in a value improvement project the following year. Residents' knowledge of value was assessed pre- and post-participation using a validated assessment tool, the Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool Revised (QIKAT-R), and a curriculum-specific assessment tool. The overall success of the program was evaluated by assessing residents' skills in completing value improvement projects using a novel scoring rubric., Results: After completing the program, residents expressed improved confidence in their ability to complete a value improvement project. Residents also demonstrated improved knowledge on the curriculum-specific assessment (4.7/13 to 10.9/13) and the scenario assessment using the QIKAT-R tool (8.5/27 to 16.4/27). As the program underwent iterative improvements each year, the quality of the residents' projects also improved, as assessed by the novel scoring rubric., Conclusions: Multimodal assessment demonstrated improvement in residents' objective knowledge of HVC principles, residents' ability to design and lead clinical value improvement projects, and residents' confidence they could use HVC principles in their current and future practice., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)