In 2016, Medicare will begin shifting from pay-for-service to pay-for-performance

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
This sounds pretty good in theory, but will it really lead to overall better outcomes in practice? And I wonder how the changed system will deal with doctors facing unusual challenges; for example, a cardiologist who specializes in the most extreme cases and who therefore experiences a much higher patient death rate than typical cardiologists, or a physician who works in an impoverished area where patients often present with long-term-untreated medical conditions.

Coming Medicare changes

The Obama administration has announced a major change to the way the federal government pays doctors and hospitals under Medicare. It’s an historic attempt to shift away from the traditional, costly fee-for-service model and quell the ballooning costs of health care.

Here’s the plan: Starting next year, the federal government will begin paying Medicare providers based on their performance, rather than on the number of surgeries, check-ups or CT-scans they perform. Under the proposal, 30 percent of Medicare’s $362 billion in annual payments will be tied to performance. Health officials expect that will increase to 50 percent by 2018.

Sylvia Mathews Burwell, secretary of Health and Human Services, said the goals are meant to drive transformative change.

Proponents of the pay-for-performance initiative say it is an effective way to slow health spending while improving the quality of care. It has the support of major industry trade groups and leaders, including the American Medical Association (AMA) and America’s Health Insurance Plans.

"Today's announcement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services aligns with the American Medical Association's commitment to work toward innovative care delivery reform that will promote high-quality and efficient care for our nation's seniors who count on Medicare, while reducing the administrative and regulatory burdens physicians face today.” Robert M. Wah, M.D., president of the AMA, said in a statement.

Patient advocate groups also threw their support behind the announcement.

“The transition away from fee-for-service is an important next step towards better care and lower costs in the Medicare program,” Joe Ditré, Families USA’s director of enterprise and innovation, said in a statement. “Since private insurers often follow Medicare’s lead, the announcement is likely to have a profound and positive impact.”

The plan focuses on patient outcomes. If patients fare well, their doctors are paid more; if the results are poor, doctors are paid less. The administration says about 20 percent of traditional Medicare payments are already going through similar programs that emphasize care, such as accountable care organizations and bundled payments. They hope to expand that reach significantly.

WHY THIS MATTERS

One unanswered question is tort reform. Is this plan placing doctors in a catch 22 if they don’t protect themselves by prescribing the scan, the medication or the surgery to protect themselves against lawsuits?

“Advancing a patient-centered health system requires a fundamental transformation in how we pay for and deliver care. Today’s announcement is a major step forward in achieving that goal,” America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) CEO Karen Ignagni said in a statement.

Even so, questions remain on whether pay-for-performance programs actually achieve worthwhile results in quality as well as cost savings. In September, CMS released a report evaluating the ACA’s pilot programs and found mixed results. While the agency said patient results improved, cost savings were questionable.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
I'm in favor of reducing the cost of care, but there are significant problems with this approach. You're punishing care providers if patients don't do the things they need to do for the treatments to be most effective, and you're punishing care providers for taking on more difficult cases. Further, I've yet to see any study that shows this approach to actually lead to lower costs.

Some private insurers might go along with this approach as well, but until they do so, it's just another reason for providers to avoid midicare patients, especially ones that have significant issues or are less likely to be active / good participants in the treatment process.

I'm generally a proponent of pay for performance, but there are potential problems with that approach when the "performer" isn't in full control of their performance. It's actually very similar as with teachers, pay for performance is a good idea, but a good way to measure performance (without penalizing those with lower performance scores due to factors outside their control) is not easy to build.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
I'm in favor of reducing the cost of care, but there are significant problems with this approach. You're punishing care providers if patients don't do the things they need to do for the treatments to be most effective

Look at it this way. Under the current system the provider has no incentive to give a damn whether the patient does what they need to do. If the patient fails to follow through on something and has complications, the provider gets to bill even more charges to Medicare to fix it. Moving to performance based pay will provide an incentive for providers to look into WHY a patient might not be following through. Perhaps the provider is failing to educate the patient enough. Medical care is one of the only areas in this country where you can get paid to do a shitty job, and then get paid again to go back and fix your shitty job. It's time for that to change.
 

Matthiasa

Diamond Member
May 4, 2009
5,755
23
81
This sounds pretty good in theory, but will it really lead to overall better outcomes in practice? And I wonder how the changed system will deal with doctors facing unusual challenges; for example, a cardiologist who specializes in the most extreme cases and who therefore experiences a much higher patient death rate than typical cardiologists, or a physician who works in an impoverished area where patients often present with long-term-untreated medical conditions.

Coming Medicare changes


That is why things get risk adjusted for outcomes.
 

Zstream

Diamond Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,395
277
136
Look at it this way. Under the current system the provider has no incentive to give a damn whether the patient does what they need to do. If the patient fails to follow through on something and has complications, the provider gets to bill even more charges to Medicare to fix it. Moving to performance based pay will provide an incentive for providers to look into WHY a patient might not be following through. Perhaps the provider is failing to educate the patient enough. Medical care is one of the only areas in this country where you can get paid to do a shitty job, and then get paid again to go back and fix your shitty job. It's time for that to change.

Dude, this isn't IT where you send in a chance request and it's planned and implemented. These are people who have no desire to change. If you want to grade hospitals on items that are outside of their responsibility, I'm and everyone else would be for it.

As soon as you state a patient needs to lose "200 pounds" and the patient refuses, what are you going to do? If you're really wanting to improve patient care, you would not allow patients to receive continuous care until certain objectives are met. If they can't meet the basics, they should be exempt from care and forced to pay for the care.
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
Dude, this isn't IT where you send in a chance request and it's planned and implemented. These are people who have no desire to change. If you want to grade hospitals on items that are outside of their responsibility, I'm and everyone else would be for it.

As soon as you state a patient needs to lose "200 pounds" and the patient refuses, what are you going to do? If you're really wanting to improve patient care, you would not allow patients to receive continuous care until certain objectives are met. If they can't meet the basics, they should be exempt from care and forced to pay for the care.

Can we at least keep a little sanity in the discussion before we go full retard? I'm pretty sure they aren't suggesting that doctors will be held accountable for patient failures.

On another note, when can the same system be applied to teachers?
 

Zstream

Diamond Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,395
277
136
Can we at least keep a little sanity in the discussion before we go full retard? I'm pretty sure they aren't suggesting that doctors will be held accountable for patient failures.

On another note, when can the same system be applied to teachers?

Find your closest relative or friend that is a nurse/hospital doctor and ask them if I'm going full retard.
 

Slew Foot

Lifer
Sep 22, 2005
12,379
96
86
If youre a big fat diabetic, be prepared to be kicked out of any clinic unless youre paying cash.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Dude, this isn't IT where you send in a chance request and it's planned and implemented. These are people who have no desire to change. If you want to grade hospitals on items that are outside of their responsibility, I'm and everyone else would be for it.

As soon as you state a patient needs to lose "200 pounds" and the patient refuses, what are you going to do? If you're really wanting to improve patient care, you would not allow patients to receive continuous care until certain objectives are met. If they can't meet the basics, they should be exempt from care and forced to pay for the care.

We shouldn't design our entire healthcare industry around the extremes. There will be certain individuals who are edge cases, and that is something that just has to be managed. However, a vast majority of health cases and procedures are routine, and these cases are what presents the greatest opportunities to reduce waste and increase efficiency. I'm fairly certain that doctors wont be frequenting the soup kitchen after these policies are enacted.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
However, a vast majority of health cases and procedures are routine, and these cases are what presents the greatest opportunities to reduce waste and increase efficiency.

According to the article linked in the OP, the studies done so far don't show reduced waste and increased efficiency -- at least not as measured by total expenses -- resulting from this approach.

I'm fairly certain that doctors wont be frequenting the soup kitchen after these policies are enacted.

Has anyone argued that they would?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Medical care is one of the only areas in this country where you can get paid to do a sh*tty job, and then get paid again to go back and fix your sh*tty job.

Apparently you're not familiar with our public education system, or most of our government departments / services.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
We shouldn't design our entire healthcare industry around the extremes. There will be certain individuals who are edge cases, and that is something that just has to be managed. However, a vast majority of health cases and procedures are routine, and these cases are what presents the greatest opportunities to reduce waste and increase efficiency. I'm fairly certain that doctors wont be frequenting the soup kitchen after these policies are enacted.

People ignoring doctor's orders is not an edge case. I would guess it's the norm.

"Diet? Exercise? Pffft, screw that. I'm gonna hit McDonald's and settle in for a Netflix marathon."

Unless doctors are instructing people that they in fact SHOULD be getting obese, I'm going to assume that the rapidly increasing number of fat Americans are not following doctor's orders.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
As long as they do proper analysis of the statistics so they compare like situations it can work.

But if you do shit comparisons you won't get a good outcome.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,699
54,683
136
I'm in favor of reducing the cost of care, but there are significant problems with this approach. You're punishing care providers if patients don't do the things they need to do for the treatments to be most effective, and you're punishing care providers for taking on more difficult cases. Further, I've yet to see any study that shows this approach to actually lead to lower costs.

Some private insurers might go along with this approach as well, but until they do so, it's just another reason for providers to avoid midicare patients, especially ones that have significant issues or are less likely to be active / good participants in the treatment process.

I'm generally a proponent of pay for performance, but there are potential problems with that approach when the "performer" isn't in full control of their performance. It's actually very similar as with teachers, pay for performance is a good idea, but a good way to measure performance (without penalizing those with lower performance scores due to factors outside their control) is not easy to build.

I generally agree with you. I very much like the direction Medicare is going with this, but it will be very difficult to do well.

Moving away from fee for service is really important due to the perverse incentives it creates for wasteful spending but you want to make sure you don't screw people over while transitioning.

I'll be very interested to see how this is implemented.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Can we at least keep a little sanity in the discussion before we go full retard? I'm pretty sure they aren't suggesting that doctors will be held accountable for patient failures.

On another note, when can the same system be applied to teachers?

They won't be accountable, just punished for treating people who aren't very compliant or have high risk factors. This is going to be interesting. People are going to be getting what they asked for and that's medicine by bureaucracy. Hope that works out.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,699
54,683
136
They won't be accountable, just punished for treating people who aren't very compliant or have high risk factors. This is going to be interesting. People are going to be getting what they asked for and that's medicine by bureaucracy. Hope that works out.

Can we agree that the current fee for service model is not only wasteful but is based on a really perverse incentive for providers?

I share your concern that an outcomes based fee model will be hard to implement, but the current model is fundamentally, irreparably broken.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,699
54,683
136
I personally have no idea how this will exactly be implemented, but just so everyone knows there are a number of fairly easy statistical controls to help compensate for particularly non-compliant populations, etc.

That in no way means that making this work will be easy, but it doesn't mean that people working in poor areas will all be screwed or something.
 

Zstream

Diamond Member
Oct 24, 2005
3,395
277
136
We shouldn't design our entire healthcare industry around the extremes. There will be certain individuals who are edge cases, and that is something that just has to be managed. However, a vast majority of health cases and procedures are routine, and these cases are what presents the greatest opportunities to reduce waste and increase efficiency. I'm fairly certain that doctors wont be frequenting the soup kitchen after these policies are enacted.

http://www.bestmedicaldegrees.com/salary-of-doctors/

I think everyone agrees that you can't formulate a plan of action based on extremes but the situation is not an extreme by any means. It's unfortunately becoming a norm.

http://stateofobesity.org/facts-economic-costs-of-obesity/

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/apr13/cover3.asp
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
They won't be accountable, just punished for treating people who aren't very compliant or have high risk factors. This is going to be interesting. People are going to be getting what they asked for and that's medicine by bureaucracy. Hope that works out.

Yep.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
I don't think I agree with this approach. I'm having difficulty imagining how this can be fairly and efficiently implemented.

I prefer the approach suggested by the AMA and NE Journal of Medicine: Adoption of professional standards to minimize unnecessary and redundant procedures.

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,699
54,683
136
I don't think I agree with this approach. I'm having difficulty imagining how this can be fairly and efficiently implemented.

I prefer the approach suggested by the AMA and NE Journal of Medicine: Adoption of professional standards to minimize unnecessary and redundant procedures.

Fern

Yeah because self regulation by parties with a conflict of interest works so well?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Yeah because self regulation by parties with a conflict of interest works so well?

Other professions, whether it be accounting or engineering, have established standards of practice that work well. E.g., in accounting auditors are forbidden from 'over auditing' a client's financial information. It needlessly drives up the cost and the CPA firm etc will be punished for it. I think this translate quite well to the medical field and would help prevent needless or redundant tests and procedures.

I don't see how anybody other than physicians can establish such standards.

I also think the development of professional standards is much less a case of "conflict of interest" than the current situation where each individual physician deciding upon his/her own standards of care.

Professional standards would actually decrease the current "conflict of interest".

Fern
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Can we agree that the current fee for service model is not only wasteful but is based on a really perverse incentive for providers?

I share your concern that an outcomes based fee model will be hard to implement, but the current model is fundamentally, irreparably broken.

I've suggested some solutions in the past, such as duplicate services. This has been coming for some time and the incentive the government is offering is to see healthy people with few complications. If the current system is in need of reformation (and it is) this is not going to make things better, but worse. Not only that outcomes are being applied broadly and the paperwork needed to prove that outcomes are favorable (and it is the practitioner who must show this) is fantastically onerous. I have no idea how the system isn't going to collapse upon itself. You will see a mass exodus from health care if it's as bad as people fear. Well, attrition at least. There had better be a silver lining in this or else this could be a whole lot worse.