Health Care Incentive Model Offers Collaborative Approach
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 02:24:25 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Health Care Incentive Model Offers Collaborative Approach
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Health Care Incentive Model Offers Collaborative Approach  (Read 558 times)
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 29, 2007, 09:19:45 AM »

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070817104503.htm

Health Care Incentive Model Offers Collaborative Approach

Science Daily — A major focus in the search for accountability in the U.S. health care system is new reimbursement and benefit models that provide incentives better linked to positive health outcomes. A recent study found some valuable lessons from a model in Maine that tied some degree of risk and reward for both health care providers and employer/purchasers.

"The call of accountability in the U.S. health care system has spun off hospital report cards, reimbursement reforms and heightened expectations about the roles of patients and health care providers, in an attempt to address problems of healthcare access, quality and costs," said co-author Dennis Scanlon, associate professor of health policy and administration at Penn State.

"While financial incentives seem obvious and techniques such as commissions and bonuses are used in other industries, the health care arena is really in the infancy of testing models of more rational payment," Scanlon adds.

Several high-profile programs include the CMS Premier Hospital pay-for-performance (P4P) demonstration, the IHA P4P initiative in California, the Bridges to Excellence program and the New York State Medicaid Health Plan incentive program. But like all efforts, each has advantages and disadvantages that are worth considering, says the Penn State researcher.

"Many efforts have been developed by large insurance companies and have focused on performance measures based on various factors ranging from clinical and financial statistics to patient input," notes Scanlon.

Typical pay-for-performance (P4P) programs pay health care providers for meeting certain performance standards as an incentive reward. But a key question is the source of the reward dollars. Some analysts believe that health care providers also should put some of their compensation dollars at risk if they achieve low levels of performance on quality and efficiency measures.

The Maine Health Management Coalition comprises public and private employers who purchase health care from insurance companies that ultimately pay doctors, hospitals and physicians, and other health care providers. It established the Pathways to Excellence program, which developed an initiative for measuring, identifying and rewarding high-value hospitals in the state.

The goal was to develop and test a shared incentive model where both healthcare providers and payers would each face risk and reward.

The six-month, pilot program involved several hospitals and employers in the Coalition. They identified and adopted 22 measures in four categories: patient satisfaction, patient safety, clinical effectiveness, and efficiency.

The participating hospitals and employers set aside a small percentage of the money paid in routine health care payments and reimbursements for employee care, in a special fund, Each employer paid half of one percent what it paid to the hospital in employee health care last year, into a Bonus fund. Each hospital set aside half of one percent of the health care payments from participating employers into a Guarantee fund.

Two performance criteria were set up: Guarantee and Bonus Levels assigned to certain activities.

A hospital would earn points if meeting or exceeding Guarantee and Bonus levels for each activity in the four categories. It would earn no points for failing to meet those same levels. The final scores for Guarantee and Bonus levels would determine how much a hospital would receive or refund money to the special fund.

In the study, six of the 10 participating hospitals received additional payments exceeding their Guarantee funds, averaging $14,941 per hospital. The additional money came from a portion of the Bonus funds and a refund from those hospitals whose combined scores failed to return all their Guarantee funds.

The remaining four hospitals received an average payment of $3,629 in Guarantee funds and no Bonus funds, according to the study.

Employers as a group paid a total Bonus amount of $75,129 to the six qualifying hospitals. The average was $8,348 per employer.

"While the dollar amount is modest, the redistribution of payments engaged both groups in a key collaboration," Scanlon says. "This initiative was an attempt to bring together hospitals and employers and see if they can come to an agreement on a program that benefits both parties by creating an incentive for improvement.

"Hospitals were seeking recognition for their current investments in quality improvement and believed that additional resources would be needed to achieve superior improvement," he added. "Employers felt that higher quality care should reduce health care costs, and additional payments should go only to superior performance." In post-study interviews, both groups felt the main benefit was sending a signal to large health plans about their desire for standardized and understandable performance factors and uniform rewards based on those factors, according to the Penn State researcher.

While the pilot study involved a small amount of money in reality, the program if applied to the billions of dollars spent in Medicare and Medicaid services could impact millions of dollars in hospital funding and employere reimbursements.

"One goal of the study was to see if a different approach to health care funding was even possible," Scanlon says. "Such a collaboration could pave the way for changes in how employers pay for health care and how hospitals are reimbursed, with stronger incentives and risk for both sides."

He and his colleagues, Gino Nalli, assistant professor, University of Southern Maine, and Douglas Libby, executive director, Maine Health Management Coalition, published their findings in "The Development of a Performance Incentive Program for Hospitals: A Case Study of a Statewide Pay-for-Performance Program in Maine" recently in the journal Health Affairs.

The research received support from The Leapfrog Group, U.S Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Penn State.
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2007, 10:42:20 AM »

Seems rather complicated. A competitive free market is the best system for providing quality goods and services at the lowest prices. Our curent system is  far removed from that. It will take substantial change to get the system back to a free market. Some of the specific things that must happen are:

Medical insurance should be for catastrophic costs only. Minor or routine things should be paid out of pocket. Having insurance companies  pay for those things only adds administrative costs and insurance company profits to the medical costs. Only the big ticket items should be covered by insurance. All medical costs should be tax deductable.

Medical care providers should be encouraged to provide a menu of their costs for various services so that customers can make informed cost decisions. I hesitate to use legislation for that purpose but it might be necessary to make that happen since the system is currently so far removed from a competitive free market.

Nurses should be allowed to set up shop and offer treatment for minor conditions without a doctor. They should be able to write prescriptions. That is less expensive than a trip to the doctor's office.

People who are planning to have surgery should be given an estimate of the cost which includes all costs. And no cost can be billed without the patients prior written consent. Unexpected contingencies can be allowed for.

Under FDA rules it can cost $1 billion  to get a drug approved. Drug companies won't even work on drugs for relatively rare illnesses because there are not enough patients to recover the development cost. We all want safe drugs but if you make them so safe that no one can afford them then maybe you made them too safe. Despite the strict rules drugs still make it to market which are later shown to be harmful. We have to accept the fact that there is risk with any new drug and develop safety rules that provide a cost effective means of approving new drugs. And keep the FDA out of herbal drugs.

There are probably others but that's all that comes to mind right now.




Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2007, 12:51:32 PM »

Ron Paul's approach to health care. (Bono I appologize for hickjacking your thread. Sorry about that. Smiley   )

Before the U.S. House of Representatives on August 2, 2007
Madame Speaker, America faces a crisis in health care. Health care costs continue to rise, leaving many Americans unable to afford health insurance, while those with health care coverage, and their physicians, struggle under the control of managed-care "gatekeepers." Obviously, fundamental health care reform should be one of Congress' top priorities.
Unfortunately, most health care "reform" proposals either make marginal changes or exacerbate the problem. This is because they fail to address the root of the problem with health care, which is that government polices encourage excessive reliance on third-party payers. The excessive reliance on third-party payers removes all incentive from individual patients to concern themselves with health care costs. Laws and policies promoting Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) resulted from a desperate attempt to control spiraling costs. However, instead of promoting an efficient health care system, HMOs further took control over health care away from the individual patient and physician.
Furthermore, the predominance of third-party payers means there is effectively no market for individual health insurance polices, thus those whose employers cannot offer them health benefits must either pay exorbitant fees for health insurance or do without health insurance. Since most health care providers cater to those with health insurance, it is very difficult for the uninsured to find health care that meets their needs at an affordable price. The result is many of the uninsured turn to government-funded health care systems, or use their local emergency room as their primary care physician. The result of this is declining health for the uninsured and increased burden on taxpayer-financed health care system.
Returning control over health care to the individual is the key to true health care reform.
The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act puts control of health care back into the hands of the individual through tax credits, tax deductions, Health Care Savings Accounts (HSA), and Flexible Savings Accounts. By giving individuals tax incentives to purchase their own health care, the Comprehensive Health Care Act will help more Americans obtain quality health insurance and health care. Specifically, the Comprehensive Health Care Act:
Provides all Americans with a tax credit for 100% of health care expenses. The tax credit is fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes.
Allows individuals to roll over unused amounts in cafeteria plans and Flexible Savings Accounts (FSA).
Makes every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), removes the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy to open an HSA; allows individuals to use their HSA to make premiums payments for high-deductible policy; and allows senior citizens to use their HSA to purchase Medigap policies.
Repeals the 7.5% threshold for the deduction of medical expenses, thus making all medical expenses tax deductible.
By providing a wide range of options, this bill allows individual Americans to choose the method of financing health care that best suits their individual needs. Increasing frustration with the current health care system is leading more and more Americans to embrace this approach to health care reform. For example, a poll by the respected Zogby firm showed that over 80% of Americans support providing all Americans with access to a Health Savings Account. I hope all my colleagues will join this effort to put individuals back in control of health care by cosponsoring the Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act


Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.225 seconds with 12 queries.