Zachary Hafner
Advisory Board

Even with the future of health policy and the ACA in question, one thing seems pretty clear: Customer demand for value is here to stay. If you’re still bickering over rate hikes and contract minutiae, then you’re out of step with the new health care economy. In progressive markets, savvy payers and providers that work together rather than constantly bumping heads are pulling ahead at the expense of slow movers and status quo players.

Payers and providers have historically approached the economics of health care as a zero-sum game, where one can only win at the other’s expense. Over time, this has translated to an unproductive focus on building scale for the sake of negotiating power rather than winning in the marketplace by increasing value for customers. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Creating real, differentiated value can be a shared objective of payers and providers when their fates are tied to the combined product they are delivering. Nearly every health care organization says it is busy these days forging partnerships. In reality, most of these arrangements are partnerships in name only. Everyone may start out with the best of intentions but aligning goals and economic incentives, sharing data and collaborating on analytics, coordinating investments in infrastructure—that’s a lot of hard work.

True partnership between payers and providers involves rethinking the traditional relationship on many levels, for example:

  • Customer relationships must be treated holistically and integrated across the partnership to drive enrollment and build loyalty—not competed for just to demonstrate “ownership.”
  • Data and analytics must be shared, bringing together clinical, financial, consumer, and claims information to improve the quality, timeliness, and cost of care—not withheld for leverage in rate negotiations.
  • Capabilities and assets must be optimized, with each partner contributing meaningfully and investing thoughtfully to best cover the waterfront—not duplicated in bids for incremental slices of the premium dollar.

Here’s a care management example to illustrate how partnership may look different from what you may be doing today:

Typical payer thinking: We invest heavily in utilization and disease management programs that are data-driven and proven to work. They are every bit as good as our competitors’, and our customers do not push back on us about them. The costs are real, distributed over our full membership base, and baked into our administrative structure.

Typical provider thinking: Care management is clinical in nature and belongs with us. We have invested heavily in recent years building capabilities that will improve quality and reduce the total cost of care. The payers will reap those benefits—at the very least, they need to transfer that portion of the premium dollar to us to cover our costs.

Partnership approach: Together, we’ve got all the data, analytics, and influence we need along key points of the patient journey and value chain to make transformative improvements to care management and coordination. Working as a team, we can design and roll out better programs than we could alone—programs that will improve outcomes and optimize value-based revenue for both of us.

Similar thinking can be applied to a broad range of payer–provider linkage points: network management, technology investments, and sales and marketing.

Partnerships like these will require bold thinking and significant investment, but the result can be a big win for both payers and providers. And when payers and providers are working together for high-quality, low-cost care, that’s a win for patients and all of American health care.

Zachary Hafner leads the Advisory Board’s strategy consulting practice.

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.