Although existing quality incentive programs related to physician services are limited to primary care physicians, a new survey describes non-primary care physicians’ views. Karen Murphy, PhD, president of Health Care Future Consulting, and David B. Nash, MD, chairman of the department of health policy at Jefferson Medical College, surveyed cardiologists, hematologists, oncologists, obstetricians, gynecologists, and orthopedic surgeons.

Sixty-eight percent favored programs that pay physicians for such improvements as electronic medical records and other infrastructure upgrades. More than 40 percent supported a P4P program that paid according to clinical performance measures and patient satisfaction.

“The physicians believed that pay for performance did encourage the practice of evidence-based medicine,” says Murphy. “They indicated they were in favor of infrastructure grants that could be used for electronic medical records, for example.”

Specialty societies were the biggest influence on non-primary care physicians. “From the survey, it appears that specialty societies are going to play a huge role in engaging non-primary care physicians in the P4P arena,” says Murphy.

An easier way of engaging non-primary care physicians would be for managed care organizations to work with specialty societies, as their influence with this audience is significant, Murphy says.

The article is published in the November/December issue of the American Journal of Medical Quality.

Source: Murphy KM, Nash DB. Nonprimary care physicians’ views on office-based quality incentive and improvement programs. Am J Med Qual. 2008;23(6):427–39

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.