Scroll down for text

It's widely believed that primary care physicians who work in practices owned by large hospital or other health care systems are paid more and produce less than their peers at large physician-owned group practices. But a Towers Perrin study of physician compensation and productivity turns that theory on its ear. The consulting firm drew a sample of 229 family physicians, each of whom had worked at least two years in a practice operated by a primary care network that was under the ownership of a multihospital system. Average 1997 cash compensation and productivity, measured as relative value units, were compared against the Medical Group Management Association's same findings for 311 family physicians employed in doctor-owned-and-operated multispecialty practices with at least 70 physicians. There was no statistical difference in salary, while physicians employed by hospital systems were, on average, 10 percent more productive.

Though physicians in practices owned by hospital systems were paid 8.5 percent less per unit of production, Towers Perrin acknowledged that hospital-owned primary care networks are assembled for different reasons than large multispecialty practices — namely, to provide a patient stream. That hospital-owned practices built solely for their strategic value often lose money can be attributed in part, according to the authors, to hospitals' cash-compensation plans, which generally fail to align physician incentives with those of the larger health care system.


Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.