Poor people and ethnic minorities may not benefit as much from pay for performance (P4P) as originally thought, according to a study issued by the Rand Corp.

In fact, rewarding primary care physicians through P4P for providing better care may widen medical disparities that this population experiences.

Using a model that simulated a typical P4P program, primary care physicians in Massachusetts whose practices served the highest proportion of vulnerable populations would receive about $7,100 less annually than other practices, a result of existing gaps in the quality of health care received by patients in these groups.

That difference could be even larger if greater amounts of money are put at stake in future P4P programs.

Typically, there are relatively fewer physicians and other medical providers in communities with large medically vulnerable populations.

If these providers receive lower payments than other providers, new resources may be diverted elsewhere, making it difficult to reverse existing disparities.

“Paying for performance may have the unintended effect of diverting medical resources away from the communities that need these resources the most,” says Mark Friedberg, MD, the study’s lead author and an associate natural scientist at Rand.

Researchers say that P4P programs need to be structured to account for the payment shortfalls that could worsen medical disparities.

One approach could be to provide targeted grants to physicians who provide care to vulnerable populations, which could offset lower payments while preserving the incentive to improve care for these populations.

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.