Search

Background: Value-based healthcare (VBHC) aims to increase patient outcomes in relation to the costs incurred, with a focus on measuring these outcomes using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The German healthcare system faces the challenge of quality disparities in care amidst rising costs, making VBHC of interest., Objectives: This paper aims to illustrate how VBHC principles are currently being implemented in the field of internal medicine in Germany and to identify the potential that can be derived from VBHC pioneering examples from the Netherlands., Materials and Methods: Selected case studies are presented to illustrate how VBHC principles are already being applied in internal medicine, focusing on where PROMs are utilized and how value-based reimbursement supports VBHC implementation-both in Germany and the Netherlands., Results: In Germany, various cross-provider initiatives and individual providers implement the VBHC element of PROMs measurement. In addition, the Baden-Württemberg selective contract in cardiology demonstrates how financing VBHC elements in regular care was already made possible in Germany. Pioneers such as the Dutch center of excellence Diabeter and the multidisciplinary care network Netherlands Heart Network provide further inspiration for the implementation of VBHC in internal medicine., Conclusion: While various initiatives support the measurement of PROMs in the German context, the use of these results in care practice is not apparent. The utilization of PROMs and strategies identified in Dutch examples could be initial steps toward fostering VBHC in Germany., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Value-based healthcare payment models are an alternative insurance payment system that compensates healthcare providers based on their patients' outcomes rather than the individual services healthcare workers provide. This shift from the current fee-for-service model that predominates our medical system has received renewed popularity and attention within organized medicine such as the American Medical Association. Advocates believe that this new payment model will address many of the unsolved issues in healthcare such as medical waste and unsustainable healthcare costs. In practice, however, this model is plagued with a myriad of unresolved issues of its own. In this commentary, we outline these issues and suggest that the intentions of those advocating for value-based payment models are either misguided or disingenuous. We then offer solutions that preserve our current fee-for-service model while making necessary changes that will benefit both physicians and patients nationwide.

Objectives: To quantify the magnitude of an ISPOR novel value element, insurance value, as applied to new treatments for a rare, severe disease with pediatric onset: Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD)., Study Design: Prospective survey of individuals planning to have children in the future., Methods: A survey was administered to US adults (aged ≥ 21 years) planning to have a child in the future to elicit willingness to pay (WTP) for insurance coverage for a new hypothetical DMD treatment that improved mortality and morbidity relative to the current standard of care. To identify an indifference point between status quo insurance and insurance with additional cost that would cover the treatment if respondents had a child with DMD, a multiple random staircase design was used. Insurance value-the value individuals receive from a reduction in future health risks-was calculated as the difference between respondent's WTP and what a risk-neutral individual would pay. The risk-neutral value was the product of the (1) probability of having a child with DMD (decision weighted), (2) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from the new treatment, and (3) WTP per QALY., Results: Among 207 respondents, 80.2% (n = 166) were aged 25 to 44 years, and 59.9% (n = 124) were women. WTP for insurance coverage of the hypothetical treatment was $973 annually, whereas the decision-weighted risk-neutral value was $452 per year. Thus, insurance value constituted 53.5% ($520) of value for new DMD treatments., Conclusions: Individuals planning to have children in the future are willing to pay more for insurance coverage of novel DMD treatments than is assumed under risk-neutral, QALY-based frameworks.

Background: Initiatives to reduce healthcare expenditures often focus on imaging, suggesting that imaging is a major driver of cost., Objective: To evaluate medical expenditures and determine if imaging was a major driver in pediatric as compared to adult populations., Methods: We reviewed all claims data for members in a value-based contract between a commercial insurer and a healthcare system for calendar years 2021 and 2022. For both pediatric (<18 years of age) and adult populations, we analyzed average per member per year (PMPY) medical expenditures related to imaging as well as other categories of large medical expenses. Average PMPY expenditures were compared between adult and pediatric patients., Results: Children made up approximately 20% of members and 21% of member months but only 8-9% of expenditures. Imaging expenditures in pediatric members were 0.2% of the total healthcare spend and 2.9% of total pediatric expenditures. Imaging expenditures per member were seven times greater in adults than children. The rank order of imaging expenditures and imaging modalities was also different in pediatric as compared to adult members., Conclusion: Evaluation of claims data from a commercial value-based insurance product shows that pediatric imaging is not a major driver of overall, nor pediatric only, healthcare expenditures., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: We aim to assess the healthcare value achieved from a shared savings program for pediatric appendectomy., Methods: All appendectomy patients covered by our health plan were included. Quality targets were 15% reduction in time to surgery, length of stay, readmission rate, and patient satisfaction. Quality targets and costs for an appendectomy episode in two 6-month performance periods (PP1, PP2) were compared to baseline., Results: 640 patients were included (baseline:317, PP1:167, PP2:156). No quality targets were met in PP1. Two quality targets were met during PP2: readmission rate (-57%) and patient satisfaction. No savings were realized because the cost reduction threshold (-9%) was not met during PP1 (+1.7%) or PP2 (-0.4%)., Conclusions: Payer-provider partnerships can be a platform for testing value-based reimbursement models. Setting achievable targets, identifying affectable quality metrics, considering case mix index, and allowing sufficient time for interventions to generate cost savings should be considered in future programs., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model (APM) Taskforce document explores the drivers and implications for developing objective value-based reimbursement plans for the care of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The APM is a payment approach that highlights high-quality and cost-efficient care and is a financially incentivized pathway for participation in the Quality Payment Program, which aims to replace the traditional fee-for-service payment method. At present, the participation of vascular specialists in APMs is hampered owing to the absence of dedicated models. The increasing prevalence of PAD diagnosis, technological advances in therapeutic devices, and the increasing cost of care of the affected patients have financial consequences on care delivery models and population health. The document summarizes the existing measurement methods of cost, care processes, and outcomes using payor data, patient-reported outcomes, and registry participation. The document also evaluates the existing challenges in the evaluation of PAD care, including intervention overuse, treatment disparities, varied clinical presentations, and the effects of multiple comorbid conditions on the cost potentially attributable to the vascular interventionalist. Medicare reimbursement data analysis also confirmed the prolonged need for additional healthcare services after vascular interventions. The Society for Vascular Surgery proposes that a PAD APM should provide patients with comprehensive care using a longitudinal approach with integration of multiple key medical and surgical services. It should maintain appropriate access to diagnostic and therapeutic advancements and eliminate unnecessary interventions. It should also decrease the variability in care but must also consider the varying complexity of the presenting PAD conditions. Enhanced quality of care and physician innovation should be rewarded. In addition, provisions should be present within an APM for high-risk patients who carry the risk of exclusion from care because of the naturally associated high costs. Although the document demonstrates clear opportunities for quality improvement and cost savings in PAD care, continued PAD APM development requires the assessment of more granular data for accurate risk adjustment, in addition to largescale testing before public release. Collaboration between payors and physician specialty societies remains key., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background: The U.S. healthcare system is undergoing a broad transformation from the traditional fee-for-service model to value-based payments. The changes introduced by the Medicare Quality Payment Program, including the establishment of Alternative Payment Models, ensure that the practice of vascular surgery is likely to face significant reimbursement changes as payments transition to favor these models. The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model taskforce was formed to explore the opportunities to develop a physician-focused payment model that will allow vascular surgeons to continue to deliver the complex care required for peripheral arterial disease (PAD)., Methods: A financial analysis was performed based on Medicare beneficiaries who had undergone qualifying index procedures during fiscal year 2016 through the third quarter of 2017. Index procedures were defined using a list of Healthcare Common Procedural Coding (HCPC) procedure codes that represent open and endovascular PAD interventions. Inpatient procedures were mapped to three diagnosis-related group (DRG) families consistent with PAD conditions: other vascular procedures (codes, 252-254), aortic and heart assist procedures (codes, 268, 269), and other major vascular procedures (codes, 270-272). Patients undergoing outpatient or office-based procedures were included if the claims data were inclusive of the HCPC procedure codes. Emergent procedures, patients with end-stage renal disease, and patients undergoing interventions within the 30 days preceding the index procedure were excluded. The analysis included usage of postacute care services (PACS) and 90-day postdischarge events (PDEs). PACS are defined as rehabilitation, skilled nursing facility, and home health services. PDEs included emergency department visits, observation stays, inpatient readmissions, and reinterventions., Results: A total of 123,180 cases were included. Of these 123,180 cases, 82% had been performed in the outpatient setting. The Medicare expenditures for all periprocedural services provided at the index procedure (ie, professional, technical, and facility fees) were higher in the inpatient setting, with an average reimbursement per index case of $18,755, $34,600, and $25,245 for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility interventions had an average reimbursement of $11,458, and office-based index procedures had costs of $11,533. PACS were more commonly used after inpatient index procedures. In the inpatient setting, PACS usage and reimbursement were 58.6% ($5338), 57.2% ($4192), and 55.9% ($5275) for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility cases required PACS for 13.7% of cases (average cost, $1352), and office-based procedures required PACS in 15% of cases (average cost, $1467). The 90-day PDEs were frequent across all sites of service (range, 38.9%-50.2%) and carried significant costs. Readmission was associated with the highest average PDE expenditure (range, $13,950-$18.934). The average readmission Medicare reimbursement exceeded that of the index procedures performed in the outpatient setting., Conclusions: The cost of PAD interventions extends beyond the index procedure and includes relevant spending during the long postoperative period. Despite the analysis challenges related to the breadth of vascular procedures and the site of service variability, the data identified potential cost-saving opportunities in the management of costly PDEs. Because of the vulnerability of the PAD patient population, alternative payment modeling using a bundled value-based approach will require reallocation of resources to provide longitudinal patient care extending beyond the initial intervention., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Summary: The Affordable Care Act's provisions have affected and will continue to affect plastic surgeons and their patients, and an understanding of its influence on the current American health care system is essential. The law's impact on pediatric plastic surgery, craniofacial surgery, and breast reconstruction is well documented. In addition, gender-affirmation surgery has seen exponential growth, largely because of expanded insurance coverage through the protections afforded to transgender individuals by the Affordable Care Act. As gender-affirming surgery continues to grow, plastic surgeons have the opportunity to adapt and diversify their practices., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Purpose: With an aging population, cost containment and improved outcomes will be crucial for a sustainable healthcare ecosystem. Current data demonstrate great variation in payments for procedures and diagnostic workup of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). To help determine the best financial value in BPH care, we sought to analyze the major drivers of total payments in BPH., Materials and Methods: Commercial and Medicare claims from the Truven Health Analytics Markestscan ® database for the Austin, Texas Metropolitan Service Area from 2012 to 2014 were queried for encounters with diagnosis and procedural codes related to BPH. Linear regression was utilized to assess factors related to BPH-related payments. Payments were then compared between surgical patients and patients managed with medication alone., Results: Major drivers of total payments in BPH care were operative, namely transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) [$2778, 95% CI ($2385-$3171), p < 0.001) and photoselective vaporization (PVP) ($3315, 95% CI ($2781-$3849) p < 0.001). Most office procedures were also associated with significantly higher payments, including cystoscopy [$708, 95% CI ($417-$999), p < 0.001], uroflometry [$446, 95% CI ($225-668), p < 0.001], urinalysis [$167, 95% CI ($32-$302), p = 0.02], postvoid residual (PVR) [$245, 95% CI ($83-$407), p < 0.001], and urodynamics [$1251, 95% CI ($405-2097), p < 0.001]. Patients who had surgery had lower payments for their medications compared to patients who had no surgery [$120 (IQR: $0, $550) vs. $532 (IQR: $231, $1852), respectively, p < 0.001]., Conclusion: Surgery and office-based procedures are associated with increased payments for BPH treatment. Although payments for surgery were more in total, surgical patients paid significantly less for BPH medications.

In an effort to demonstrate measurable value of pharmaceuticals in the United States, many payers and drug manufacturers have entered into value-based purchasing contracts that link payment for prescription medications to patient outcomes, creating shared risk between the 2 entities. These agreements have emerged as part of a larger movement within the health care landscape to transition away from volume-based payment models and towards value-based designs that promote high-quality and affordable care. Key to the success of pharmaceutical value-based contracting is agreement on meaningful and measurable outcomes that reflect drug performance. Traditional value-based contracts are developed by pharmaceutical companies and payers and may not reflect values of other important stakeholders, such as patients, providers, and employers (when applicable). One approach to more effectively align the interests of all key stakeholders and to maximize the effect and transparency of value-based pharmaceutical contracts is to use the validated Delphi surveying technique, which can gather information and build stakeholder consensus on key elements before contract development. In this Viewpoints article, we describe our experience conducting Delphi studies in 5 disease contexts to inform pharmaceutical value-based contract development, including insights learned and practical considerations for real-world application. In addition, we outline advantages to using this validated consensus-building tool to solicit vital and underrepresented stakeholder input, foster transparency in the contract development process, and promote shared learning for future value-based initiatives. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this project. All authors are or were employed by UPMC Health Plan at the time of this study and have no other disclosures to declare.

Cancer care's sustainability is challenged by drug expenditures. In the absence of systemic change, innovation is needed to curtail drug costs. Interventional pharmacoeconomics (IVPE) utilizes clinical research to identify safe, efficacious, cost-conscious dosing regimens to extract maximum value from expensive therapies. Strategies include de-escalation of dosage, treatment duration and administration frequency, and substitution with therapeutic alternatives. In this review, we discuss how IVPE strategies have been successfully used and could be implemented going forward., (© 2020 The Authors Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2020 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Importance: There are marked racial/ethnic differences in hip and knee joint replacement care as well as concerns that value-based payments may exacerbate existing racial/ethnic disparities in care., Objective: To examine changes in joint replacement care associated with Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model among White, Black, and Hispanic patients., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare claims from 2013 through 2017 among White, Black, and Hispanic patients undergoing joint replacement in 67 treatment (selected for CJR participation) and 103 control metropolitan statistical areas., Exposures: The CJR model holds hospitals accountable for spending and quality of joint replacement care during care episodes (index hospitalization through 90 days after discharge)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were spending, discharge to institutional postacute care, and readmission during care episodes., Results: Among 688 346 patients, 442 163 (64.2%) were women, and 87 286 (12.7%) were 85 years or older. Under CJR, spending decreased by $439 for White patients (95% CI, -$718 to -$161; from pre-CJR spending in treatment metropolitan statistical areas of $25 264) but did not change for Black patients and Hispanic patients. Discharges to institutional postacute care decreased for all groups (-2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to -0.4, from pre-CJR risk of 46.2% for White patients; -6.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -2.2, from pre-CJR risk of 59.5% for Black patients; and -4.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.6 to -1.0, from pre-CJR risk of 54.3% for Hispanic patients). Readmission risk decreased for Black patients by 3.1 percentage points (95% CI, -5.9 to -0.4, from pre-CJR risk of 21.8%) and did not change for White patients and Hispanic patients. Under CJR, Black-White differences in discharges to institutional postacute care decreased by 3.4 percentage points (95% CI, -6.4 to -0.5, from the pre-CJR Black-White difference of 13.3 percentage points). No evidence was found demonstrating that Black-White differences changed for other outcomes or that Hispanic-White differences changed for any outcomes under CJR., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients receiving joint replacements, CJR was associated with decreased readmissions for Black patients. Furthermore, Black patients experienced a greater decrease in discharges to institutional postacute care relative to White patients, representing relative improvements despite concerns that value-based payment models may exacerbate existing disparities. Nonetheless, differences between White and Black patients in joint replacement care still persisted even after these changes.

In an effort to curb excessive health care spending and incentivize high-quality care, many payers have implemented value-based payment reforms designed to pay for the quality rather than the quantity of health care services. Medicare, the largest payer in the United States, has implemented numerous value-based payment policies over the past decade, many of which affect cardiovascular care. In this review, we discuss some of these major nationwide value-based payment reforms as they relate to cardiovascular care and what we may expect in the future from cardiovascular value-based policies., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosure: The authors have completed and submitted the Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal Conflict of Interest Statement and none were reported., (© 2020 Houston Methodist Hospital Houston, Texas.)

Over the past two decades, Medicare and other payers have been looking at ways to base payment for cardiovascular care on the quality and outcomes of care delivered. Public reporting of hospital performance on a series of quality measures began in 2004 with basic processes of care such as aspirin use and influenza vaccination, and it expanded in later years to include outcomes such as mortality and readmission rates. Following the passage of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010, Medicare and other payers moved forward with pay-for-performance programs, more commonly referred to as value-based purchasing (VBP) programs. These programs are largely based on an underlying fee-for-service payment infrastructure and give hospitals and clinicians bonuses or penalties based on their performance. Another new payment mechanism, called alternative payment models (APMs), aims to move towards episode-based or global payments to improve quality and efficiency. The two most relevant APMs for cardiovascular care include Accountable Care Organizations and bundled payments. Both VBP programs and APMs have challenges related to program efficacy, accuracy, and equity. In fact, despite over a decade of progress in measuring and incentivizing high-quality care delivery within cardiology, major limitations remain. Many of the programs have had little benefit in terms of clinical outcomes yet have led to marked administrative burden for participants. However, there are several encouraging prospects to aid the successful implementation of value-based high-quality cardiovascular care, such as more sophisticated data science to improve risk adjustment and flexible electronic health records to decrease administrative burden. Furthermore, payment models designed specifically for cardiovascular care could incentivize innovative care delivery models that could improve quality and outcomes for patients. This review provides an overview of current efforts, largely at the federal level, to pay for high-quality cardiovascular care and discusses the challenges and prospects related to doing so., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Dr. Joynt Maddox does contract work for the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. There are no other financial conflicts of interest to report., (© 2020 Houston Methodist Hospital Houston, Texas.)

Utilization management strategies, including prior authorization, are commonly used to facilitate safe and guideline-adherent provision of new, individualized, and potentially costly cardiovascular therapies. However, as currently deployed, these approaches encumber multiple stakeholders. Patients are discouraged by barriers to appropriate access; clinicians are frustrated by the time, money, and resources required for prior authorizations, the frequent rejections, and the perception of being excluded from the decision-making process; and payers are weary of the intensive effort to design and administer increasingly complex prior authorization systems to balance value and appropriate use of these treatments. These issues highlight an opportunity to collectively reimagine utilization management as a transparent and collaborative system. This would benefit the entire healthcare ecosystem, especially in light of the shift to value-based payment. This article describes the efforts and vision of the multistakeholder Prior Authorization Learning Collaborative of the Value in Healthcare Initiative, a partnership between the American Heart Association and the Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University. We outline how healthcare organizations can take greater utilization management responsibility under value-based contracting, especially under different state policies and local contexts. Even with reduced payer-mandated prior authorization in these arrangements, payers and healthcare organizations will have a continued shared need for utilization management. We present options for streamlining these programs, such as gold carding and electronic and automated prior authorization processes. Throughout the article, we weave in examples from cardiovascular care when possible. Although reimagining prior authorization requires collective action by all stakeholders, it may significantly reduce administrative burden for clinicians and payers while improving outcomes for patients.

Disclosures: No funding was received for the writing of this commentary. Stull is employed by Employers Health, which is an employer-founded and employer-led group-purchasing organization with a focus on managing contracts for self-funded plan sponsors with PBMs. It also hosts educational conferences and events for which it receives sponsorships from a variety of health benefit suppliers, including pharmaceutical manufacturers, insurance carriers, PBMs and others. Gupton has nothing to disclose.

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of hospitalizations and readmissions in the United States. Particularly among the elderly, its prevalence and costs continue to rise, making it a significant population health issue. Despite tremendous progress in improving HF care and examples of innovation in care redesign, the quality of HF care varies greatly across the country. One major challenge underpinning these issues is the current payment system, which is largely based on fee-for-service reimbursement, leads to uncoordinated, fragmented, and low-quality HF care. While the payment landscape is changing, with an increasing proportion of all healthcare dollars flowing through value-based payment models, no longitudinal models currently focus on chronic HF care. Episode-based payment models for HF hospitalization have yielded limited success and have little ability to prevent early chronic disease from progressing to later stages. The available literature suggests that primary care-based longitudinal payment models have indirectly improved HF care quality and cardiovascular care costs, but these models are not focused on addressing patients' longitudinal chronic disease needs. This article describes the efforts and vision of the multi-stakeholder Value-Based Models Learning Collaborative of The Value in Healthcare Initiative, a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University. The Learning Collaborative developed a framework for a HF value-based payment model with a longitudinal focus on disease management (to reduce adverse clinical outcomes and disease progression among patients with stage C HF) and prevention (an optional track to prevent high-risk stage B pre-HF from progressing to stage C). The model is designed to be compatible with prevalent payment models and reforms being implemented today. Barriers to success and strategies for implementation to aid payers, regulators, clinicians, and others in developing a pilot are discussed.

Over the past decade, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have led the nationwide shift toward value-based payment. A major strategy for achieving this goal has been to implement alternative payment models (APMs) that encourage high-value care by holding providers financially accountable for both the quality and the costs of care. In particular, the CMS has implemented and scaled up two types of APMs: population-based models that emphasize accountability for overall quality and costs for defined patient populations, and episode-based payment models that emphasize accountability for quality and costs for discrete care. Both APM types have been associated with modest reductions in Medicare spending without apparent compromises in quality. However, concerns about the unintended consequences of these APMs remain, and more work is needed in several important areas. Nonetheless, both APM types represent steps to build on along the path toward a higher-value national health care system.

Disclosures: This study received unrestricted funding from the Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America. The authors also do consulting, personally or through their employment, with numerous pharmaceutical manufacturers, payers, and other stakeholders with a general interest in this subject matter.

Background: Medicare patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) have been a significant focus of value-based payment programs for outpatient practices. Physicians and policymakers, however, have voiced concern that value-based payment programs may penalize practices that serve vulnerable populations. This study evaluated whether outpatient practices that serve socioeconomically disadvantaged populations have worse CAD outcomes, and if this reflects the delivery of lower-quality care or rather, patient and community factors beyond the care provided by physician practices., Methods and Results: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service patients ≥65 years with CAD at outpatient practices participating in the the Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence registry from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2015. Outpatient practices were stratified into quintiles by the proportion of most disadvantaged patients-defined by an area deprivation score in the highest 20% nationally-served at each practice site. Prescription of guideline recommended therapies for CAD as well as clinical outcomes (emergency department presentation for chest pain, hospital admission for unstable angina or acute myocardial infarction [AMI], 30-day readmission after AMI, and 30-day mortality after AMI) were evaluated by practice-level socioeconomic disadvantage with hierarchical logistic regression models, using practices serving the fewest socioeconomically disadvantaged patients as a reference. The study included 453 783 Medicare fee-for-service patients ≥65 years of age with CAD (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [7.7] years; 39.7% female) cared for at 271 outpatient practices. At practices serving the highest proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients (group 5), compared with practices serving the lowest proportion (group 1), there was no significant difference in the likelihood of prescription of antiplatelet therapy (odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.69-1.27]), β-blocker therapy if prior myocardial infarction or left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.69-1.35]), ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker if left ventricular ejection fraction <40% and/or diabetes mellitus (OR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.74-1.19]), statin therapy (OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.68-1.14]), or cardiac rehabilitation (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.20-1.00]). Patients cared for at the most disadvantaged-serving practices (group 5) were more likely to be admitted for unstable angina (adjusted OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.04-2.05]). There was no significant difference in the likelihood of emergency department presentation for chest pain or hospital admission for AMI between practices. Thirty day mortality rates after AMI were higher among patients at the most disadvantaged-serving practices (aOR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.02-1.68]), but 30-day readmission rates did not differ. All associations were attenuated after additional adjustment for patient-level area deprivation index., Conclusions: Physician outpatient practices that serve the most socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with CAD perform worse on some clinical outcomes, despite providing similar guideline-recommended care as other practices, and consequently could fare poorly under value-based payment programs. Social factors beyond care provided by outpatient practices may partly explain worse outcomes. Policymakers should consider accounting for socioeconomic disadvantage in value-based payment programs initiatives that target outpatient practices.

At this month's staff meeting of your integrated primary care practice, the medical director makes an announcement: Your health system just signed a contract that includes a value-based payment (VBP) arrangement with a local managed care organization (MCO). The medical director suggests that this will lead to big changes in your practice because you will now focus on producing patient outcomes rather than on volume of care delivered. You wonder: What is a VBP arrangement? What kinds of patient outcomes? What does this mean for integrated care? and How do I help our organization succeed? Value-based care is the future, and it will impact the way that all of us practice. In value-based arrangements, the delivery of care fundamentally changes because payment for care shifts from our current fee-for-service model, in which provider productivity is key to financial survival, to payment for positive clinical outcomes where quality of care rules. And this change is happening now. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced aggressive national VBP targets, with a goal of tying 50% of all Medicare payments to alternative payment models by the end of 2018 (New York State Department of Health, 2015). Since then, many states have adopted similar targets for their Medicaid programs in light of ongoing state budget challenges and unsustainable cost growth trends. As these changes take hold, health care providers are increasingly expected to make fundamental changes to service delivery, financial, and organizational operations. As health care providers, VBP will require us and our health centers to develop new skills, capacities, and systems for managing clinical, financial, and operational performance and risk. We must all make sure we understand and are ready to play our part in the transition to VBP. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Healthcare resource allocation decisions made under conditions of uncertainty may turn out to be suboptimal. In a resource constrained system in which there is a fixed budget, these suboptimal decisions will result in health loss. Consequently, there may be value in reducing uncertainty, through the collection of new evidence, to make better resource allocation decisions. This value can be quantified using a value of information (VOI) analysis. This report, from the ISPOR VOI Task Force, introduces VOI analysis, defines key concepts and terminology, and outlines the role of VOI for supporting decision making, including the steps involved in undertaking and interpreting VOI analyses. The report is specifically aimed at those tasked with making decisions about the adoption of healthcare or the funding of healthcare research. The report provides a number of recommendations for good practice when planning, undertaking, or reviewing the results of VOI analyses., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Medicare value-based payment programs evaluate physicians' performance on their patients' annual Medicare costs and clinical outcomes. However, little is known about how geriatricians, who disproportionately provide care for medically complex older adults, perform on these measures., Design: A retrospective study using multivariable regression methods to estimate the association of geriatric risk factors with annualized Medicare costs and preventable hospitalization rates and to compare geriatricians' performance on these outcomes to other primary care physicians (PCPs) under standard Medicare risk adjustment and after adding additional adjustment for geriatric risk factors., Setting: Eight years (2006-2013) of cohort data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey., Participants: Medicare beneficiaries, aged 65 years and older, with primary care services contributing 27 027 person-years of data., Measurements: Outcomes were costs and preventable hospitalization rates; geriatric risk factors were patient frailty, long-term institutionalization, dementia, and depression., Results: Geriatricians were more likely to care for patients with frailty (22.8% vs 14.1%), long-term institutionalization (12.0% vs 4.7%), dementia (21.6% vs 10.2%), and depression (23.6% vs 17.4%) than other PCPs (P < .001 for each). Under standard Medicare risk adjustment, geriatricians performed more poorly on costs compared to other PCPs (observed-expected [O-E] ratio = 1.24 vs 0.99) and preventable hospitalizations (O-E ratio = 1.16 vs 0.98). Adding frailty, institutionalization, dementia, and depression to risk adjustment improved geriatricians' performance on costs by 25% and on preventable hospitalization rates by 35%, relative to other PCPs. Concurrent-year risk prediction that removed the influence of unpredictable acute events further improved geriatricians' performance vs other PCPs (O-E ratio = 0.99 vs 1.00)., Conclusion: Medicare should consider risk adjusting for frailty, long-term institutionalization, dementia, and depression to avoid inappropriately penalizing geriatricians who care for vulnerable older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:297-304, 2020., (© 2019 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Introduction: The growing emphasis on value-based health care has created a need for innovative population health management strategies. Pharmacists are underused resources for implementation of meaningful population health models that ensure appropriate medication use through optimization of electronic medical record (EMR) technology and pharmacist knowledge. The objective of our program was to improve the health outcomes of a patient population with diabetes while also reducing costs., Program Description: A virtual pharmacy review (ViPRx) program was used to remotely provide previsit comprehensive medication reviews for patients in the defined population. The pharmacist used the EMR to review medications and relevant histories and to intervene when needed to ensure appropriate medication use. Pharmacist recommendations and supporting statements were delivered to the provider's EMR in-box 1-2 days before a scheduled visit. The information technology resources and virtual model allow the pharmacist to manage patient care and collaborate with providers electronically across multiple clinic locations., Observations: The pharmacist managed a panel of over 700 patients in this virtual model. The program has yielded improvements in key diabetes metrics. Most notable is a 6% increase in the percentage of patients with a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) value of 9% or less and a 7% improvement in the controlled low-density lipoprotein (LDL) measure. Monitoring parameters (nephropathy screening, HbA1c, and LDL) increased by 8%-12% from baseline. Additional positive outcomes include improved medication adherence in the defined population as seen by a 1.5% improvement in medication possession ratio for diabetes medications. Reductions in per member per month (PMPM) prescription costs are estimated at $11 per month through discontinuation of unnecessary and duplicate medications., Implications: The results of this case study on the effect of a virtual pharmacy review program demonstrate an opportunity for pharmacists to engage in a population health management model that improves patient outcomes and may reduce the rate at which PMPM prescription drug costs increase., Disclosures: No outside funding supported this work. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This work was presented at the 2017 Vizient Connections Summit; April 6, 2017; Las Vegas, NV, and the 2018 Cerner Health Conference; October 10, 2018; Kansas City, MO.

Value-based pharmaceutical contracts (VBPCs) are performance-based reimbursement agreements between health care payers and pharmaceutical manufacturers in which the price, quantity, or nature of reimbursement is tied to value-based outcomes. As value-based payment models have permeated through much of the health care payment landscape via reimbursement to payers and providers, VBPCs offer opportunities for manufacturers to similarly engage in performance-based models. This article compares 2 VBPC schemes: "pay-for-failure" schemes, in which manufacturers offer rebates or discounts to payers for treatment failure, and "pay-for-success" schemes, in which manufacturers offer rebates or discounts to payers for treatment success. Each method has its own short-term and long-term trade-offs, and both lead to some degree of misaligned incentives between payers and manufacturers. These incentive differences have important downstream effects, influencing patient selection, provision of wraparound services, and nature of reimbursements. This analysis contrasts potential benefits and disadvantages for each of these approaches and offers potential solutions to address misalignment. For example, although pay-for-success models may be more aligned between payers and manufacturers, pay-for-failure contracts can be innovative and effective in controlling costs and/or improving outcomes. To illustrate, VBPCs aimed to reduce costs could incorporate total cost of care reduction as a value-based outcome. The authors encourage payers and manufacturers to consider a blended alternative where pay-for-failure and pay-for-success outcomes could be incorporated as VBPC outcomes. Since little is known about the effect of each scheme on outcomes, further research on VBPCs is necessary to fully understand how differing incentives ultimately affect clinical outcomes and costs. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported the writing of this article. Good and Kelly are employed by the UPMC Centers for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives and High-Value Health Care, and Parekh was employed by the UPMC Centers for Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives and High-Value Health Care at the time of this study. The authors have no other disclosures to report.

Background: Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease in the United States. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being adopted as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). In an era of value-based payment reform, our objective was to better understand the economic impact of the use of TAVR and SAVR in the United States., Methods and Results: We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR or SAVR between 2012 and 2015. Using claims from a 20% sample of national fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, we calculated episode payments for patients who underwent aortic valve replacement from 90 days before aortic valve replacement through 90 days after hospital discharge. Among 18 804 eligible patients, 6455 underwent TAVR (34.3%), and 12 349 underwent SAVR (65.7%). After adjustment for patient characteristics, episode payments for TAVR were ≈7% lower than for SAVR (TAVR, $55 545 [95% CI, $54 643-56 446] versus $59 467 [95% CI, $58 723-60 211]; P <0.001). Patients with TAVR had higher preprocedural payments, but lower payments during and after the index hospitalization for the procedure. Episode payments increased with increasing comorbidity score for patients undergoing TAVR or SAVR (rate ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.15-1.17]; P <0.001); however, this association was stronger for SAVR (rate ratio, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.17-1.19]) than for TAVR (rate ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.11-1.12]; P <0.001 for interaction). Thus, differences in episode payments between TAVR and SAVR were greatest for the sickest patients but much less in healthier patients., Conclusions: TAVR is associated with lower episode payments than SAVR. However, episode payments for TAVR are less influenced by patient comorbidity. Therefore, as TAVR is increasingly used in patients with better baseline health status, the economic advantages of TAVR relative to SAVR may diminish.

In 2016, The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) formed a special task force (STF) to review approaches and methods to support the definition and use of high-quality U.S. value frameworks. As the leadership group of that initiative, we present our perspective, focusing on implications for the managed care pharmacy community. Our reflections are organized by 9 key observations and conclude with a summary recommendation. We begin by emphasizing the importance of distinguishing among "perspectives" and "decision contexts." Possible perspectives include patient, payer, provider, health care sector, and societal. Decision contexts range from formulary inclusion to guideline development to clinical shared decision making, and multiple perspectives can be taken on each of these decisions. The STF focused on value in the context of including a new medicine in a formulary and, thus, health plan, using a health economics approach that compares marginal benefit (gross value) and marginal (opportunity) cost, yielding the net value. Health care is unique compared with other markets. While economists often use market purchases as indicators of value, they also recognize that this does not work well in health care, since most patent-protected drugs are covered by insurance. To assess the likely health and economic impact, health economists often employ cost-effectiveness analysis, using the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), a metric that combines mortality and morbidity into a single preference-based index. We strongly endorse the STF's recommendation that payers should use the cost-per-QALY metric as a starting point. However, like the STF, and many of those stakeholders who provided input, we recognize that this metric has some limitations in theory and in practice. Nonetheless, the cost-per-QALY metric is a pragmatic tool that can be augmented to address some of its limitations by integrating other elements of value, particularly those related to uncertainty, such as financial risk protection, health risk protection, the value of hope, real option value, and the value of knowing. The resulting adjusted ratio can be compared with a willingness-to-pay threshold or combined in a measure of net monetary benefit. Alternatively, the array of elements can be valued using multi-criteria decision analysis. We end with the key recommendation that further development and testing of these promising approaches is needed to improve the deliberative process of health technology assessment. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported the writing of this article. The authors are leaders of the ISPOR Special Task Force on U.S. Value Frameworks. Willke is employed by ISPOR. Garrison and Neumann have nothing to disclose. The opinions expressed in this article should be considered as belonging only to the authors.

Purpose: Primary care physicians are increasingly participating in accountable care organizations (ACOs). While prior studies have identified ACO and patient characteristics associated with savings, none have examined characteristics of the communities served by ACOs. Our objective was to assess the relationship between an ACO's service area characteristics and its savings rate., Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we used the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2014 Medicare Shared Savings Program ACO Provider and Beneficiary, and Public Use Files to identify ACO and beneficiary characteristics. We used the American Community Survey to measure community deprivation at the ACO service area-level by using the social deprivation index. The outcome of interest was the ACO savings rate. We conducted bivariate analyses and regressions, adjusting for ACO organization and beneficiary characteristics., Results: Our sample consisted of 320 ACOs participating in the Shared Savings Plan. The savings rate for ACOs serving the most deprived communities was 1.19% compared with 1.14% for those serving the least deprived. Adjusting for ACO and beneficiary characteristics, however, ACOs serving the most deprived had a savings rate that was 2.3 percentage points lower than those serving the least deprived., Conclusions: ACOs serving deprived communities generate less savings. These findings are important to primary care practices, payers, and policy makers anticipating continued ACO expansion, if population health is to be achieved equitably., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2019 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: Although interest in outcomes-based risk-sharing agreements (OBRSAs) and other value-based contracts (VBCs) continues to grow, the number of VBCs in the United States is still limited. A better understanding of the evolving and fluid context of policies, regulations, and operational factors affecting their uptake in the United States is needed in order to lower or obviate barriers and advance OBRSAs., Objectives: To (a) identify and recognize priorities among policies, regulations, and other factors that are most likely to influence the feasibility, design, and execution of OBRSAs and (b) suggest opportunities for reform and other modifications that may advance OBRSAs in the United States., Methods: Across 18 months during 2017-2018, we reviewed health policy literature, examined stakeholder group communications, and conducted semistructured interviews with representatives of 12 diverse stakeholder organizations. Across these, and incorporating real-time contextual changes, we identified priorities for enabling and improving OBRSAs., Results: Regulatory and policy priorities most often cited by manufacturers were Medicaid best price rule, Medicare Part B average sales pricing, FDA restrictions on communications, and the Anti-Kickback Statute. While recognizing these, health plans were more concerned about operational barriers, particularly associated with data collection and analysis, selection of outcomes that are feasible to assess, bandwidth for managing OBRSAs, and implementation costs relative to return on investment. Most recognized limitations on access to personal health information, target population turnover, and insufficient information sharing of OBRSA experiences. Noteworthy were asymmetries of administrative burden and cost management: individual manufacturers may pursue OBRSAs for 1 or a few products per year, while health plans are approached by multiple manufacturers about OBRSAs for their respective products; manufacturers focus on drugs, while health plans must manage broader costs of care., Conclusions: While all stakeholders express interest in OBRSAs, health plans tend to consider them as a narrower priority than manufacturers. Solving operational barriers, in addition to addressing policy and regulatory barriers, is essential for aligning efforts to advance OBRSAs. Doing so depends on collaboration to improve decisions about when and how to pursue OBRSAs, with attention to data management, modeling and piloting OBRSAs, and information sharing. These findings pertain to companies operating in the United States and some likely extend to certain value-based arrangements in other countries., Disclosures: This analysis was funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), a subsidiary of Merck, as a component of the Learning Laboratory for Advancing Value-Based Healthcare, which is a multiyear collaboration of MSD and Optum, a health services, technology, and data company. The manuscript underwent an internal review by the sponsor. The Lewin Group (Lewin) is a subsidiary of OptumServe. OptumServe is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group (UHG). Neither OptumServe nor UHG or its subsidiaries review the work products of Lewin. Lewin operates with editorial independence and provides its clients with health care and human services policy research and consulting services. Goodman and Villarivera are employees of Lewin; Gregor is an employee of Optum; and van Bavel is an employee of MSD. Goodman and Villarivera report fees from UHG, unrelated to this study. A poster presentation based on this manuscript was accepted and presented at the ISPOR Europe 2018 Conference in Barcelona, Spain, on November 13, 2018.

Genetic testing technology is rapidly evolving with the growth of personalized medicine. While test evaluation typically relies on laboratory measures of performance, tests can be costly and analytically and ethically complex. A more fulsome consideration of value is warranted to inform adoption and appropriate use. Herein we describe a methodology for developing novel clinician- and patient-reported measures of clinical and personal utility, aiming to capture the informational value of genome diagnostic tests. Adhering to core measurement science principles and standards, our 4-step process includes (1) tool development through scoping reviews and stakeholder interviews and surveys; (2) tool validation through prospective cohort studies to establish construct validity, inter- and intra-rater reliability; (3) tool application using comparative effectiveness assessment to gauge the comparative value of different types of genetic tests; and (4) tool dissemination, leveraging existing partnerships with international stakeholders to spur additional validation studies, comparative effectiveness research, cost-effectiveness analysis, and evidence-informed policy. A scoping review of the clinical utility literature informed the development of a preliminary 25-item index. Qualitative interviews with 35 clinicians further informed the definition of our utility construct, item content, and item importance. Stakeholder surveys with 113 clinicians enabled further feedback on item content, importance, sensibility, response, and scoring options. An 18-item tool, the "Clinician-reported Genetic testing Utility InDEx" (C-GUIDE), is now undergoing validation, while development work on the patient-reported measure of utility is underway. A methodologically innovative approach to the development of stakeholder-informed and clinimetrically sound measures of value for personalized medicine tests will assist technology users and decision makers globally. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Operating Grant (#PJT-152880) and the PhRMA Foundation Challenge Award. Publication of the study methodology or findings generated therein was not contingent on the sponsor's approval or censorship of the manuscript. The authors have nothing to disclose. Results from this study were presented as a poster at the 40th Annual North American Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making; October 14, 2018; Montreal, QC; the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics; October 18, 2018; San Diego, CA; and as an oral presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association for Health Services and Policy Research; May 31, 2018; Montreal, QC.

Objective: Although widely advocated, applying Value Based Health Care (VBHC) in clinical practice is challenging. This study describes VBHC-based perioperative outcomes for patients with pituitary tumors up to 6 months postoperatively., Methods: A total of 103 adult patients undergoing surgery were prospectively followed. Outcomes categorized according to the framework of VHBC included survival, degree of resection, endocrine remission, visual outcome (including self-perceived functioning), recovery of pituitary function, disease burden and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 6 months (Tier 1); time to recovery of disease burden, HRQoL, visual function (Tier 2); permanent hypopituitarism and accompanying hormone replacement (Tier 3). Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) analysis was performed to describe outcomes over time., Results: Regarding Tier 1, there was no mortality, 72 patients (70%) had a complete resection, 31 of 45 patients (69%) with functioning tumors were in remission, 7 (12%, with preoperative deficits) had recovery of pituitary function and 45 of 47 (96%) had visual improvement. Disease burden and HRQoL improved in 36-45% at 6 months; however, there were significant differences between tumor types. Regarding Tier 2: disease burden, HRQoL and visual functioning improved within 6 weeks after surgery; however, recovery varied widely among tumor types (fastest in prolactinoma and non-functioning adenoma patients). Regarding Tier 3, 52 patients (50%) had persisting (tumor and treatment-induced) hypopituitarism., Conclusions: Though challenging, outcomes of a surgical intervention for patients with pituitary tumors can be reflected through a VBHC-based comprehensive outcome set that can distinguish outcomes among different patient groups with respect to tumor type.