Peter Wehrwein

Editor

CMS is rolling out bundles of bundled payment programs—for oncology, cardiac conditions, for knee and hip surgeries.


It will take more real-world experience before we know whether bundled payment can help deliver American health care to the promised land of value-based care.


Early results from CMS’s largest bundled payment program reported in JAMA this week offer something for both proponents to celebrate and skeptics to say, “We told you so.”


The program, called the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative, started in 2013 under the auspices of CMS’s Innovation Center. BPCI is a complicated beast that includes 48 different clinical episodes and has four different payment models. Hospitals, physician groups, postacute care providers, and home health agencies were invited to join in the $10 billion-a-year program.


A report on the early days of the BPCI that the Lewin Group prepared for CMS ran 248 pages. There are a lot of numbers to crunch.


The results reported in JAMA home in on just one sliver of BPCI: lower extremity joint replacement episodes (mainly hip and knee replacements) at the participating hospitals.


In this sample, an episode was defined as including all the services patients received during their hospitalization and in the 90 days after they were discharged.


The researchers—which included four Lewin Group researchers—compared about 30,000 joint replacement episodes at 176 BPCI-participating hospitals with a similar number of episodes at 841 hospitals not participating in BPCI.


Their main result puts a tick in the win column for bundled payments. Medicare spending per episode decreased more at the hospitals who signed up for the bundled payment program than at the comparison hospitals. And there is no indication that the greater savings was achieved by cutting corners and delivering poorer care.


The math is straightforward but takes some explaining.


Before the program started (aka the baseline period), the average Medicare payment for joint replacement episodes at the participating hospitals was $30,551 (“at the participating hospitals” may be a little misleading because, remember, the episodes also include 90 days of postacute care). During the first seven quarters of the program, the payment for joint replacement episodes dropped to $27,265, a difference of $3,286.


Now let’s take a look at the comparison hospitals. During the same period, the per episode costs dropped from $30,057 to $27,938, a difference of $2,119, also a nice decrease, but $1,167 less than the $3,286 decrease in spending at the BPCI-participating hospitals.


Translation (if you’re favorably disposed to bundled payments): Adoption of bundled payments reduced spending on knee and hip replacements by about $1,000.


Where did the savings come from? Almost all ($991) of it from reduced spending in the 90-day postacute period either on services provided by skilled nursing facilities ($546) or inpatient rehabilitation facilities ($445). Those decreases were only slightly offset by an increase in spending on home health agencies ($18).


You might be disappointed if you’re looking for evidence that bundled payments are going to bring all kinds of ingenious efficiency and cost savings to in-patient hospital care.


Still, over all, these results look pretty rosy for bundled payments.


But in an editorial accompanying these results, Elliott Fisher (yes, that Elliott Fisher, the originator of the ACO) pours some cold water on them.


As Fisher points out, an increase in volume is one of the unintended consequences of bundled payments that people have talked about. Cranking up volume is a common response to slimmer margins in any sector of the economy.


And in this particular slice of the BPCI, volume does seem to have increased in the BPCI-participating hospitals, from 61.5 replacements per quarter per hospital in the baseline period to 64.6 after the bundled program started, according to Fisher. In the comparison hospitals, the volume needle went the other way and decreased slightly, from 59.6 replacements per quarter per hospital to 59.2.


By Fisher’s reckoning, once you factor in volume—not just the per-episode spending—total spending in the BPCI-participating hospitals actually declined less (that’s his emphasis) than total spending at the comparison hospitals.


This is a long, long way from the last word on bundled payments. But it seeds doubt. Bundled payments may not be the bundles of joy that value-based care believers are hoping for.

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.