Medical laboratories and anatomic pathologists may need to squeeze into narrow networks to be paid under value-based schemes, especially where Medicare Advantage is concerned
Pathologists have likely heard the arguments in favor of value-based payment versus fee-for-service (FFS) reimbursement models: FFS encourages providers to order medically unnecessary procedures and lab tests. FFS removes incentives for providers to order patient services more carefully. Fraudsters can generate huge volumes of FFS claims that take payers months/years to recognize and stop.
Studies that favor value-based payment schemes support these claims. But do hospitals and other healthcare providers also accept them? And how is value-based reimbursement really doing?
To find out, Chicago-based thought leadership and advisory company 4Sight Health culled data from various organizations’ reports that suggest value-based reimbursement shows signs of growth as well as signs of stagnation.
Value-Based Payment Has Its Ups and Downs
Healthcare journalist David Burda is News Editor and Columnist at 4Sight Health. In his article, “Is Value-Based Reimbursement Mostly Dead or Slightly Alive?” Burda commented on data from various industry reports that indicated value-based reimbursement shows “signs of life.” For example:
More doctors are accepting pay-for-performance payments: 44.5% in 2020, up from 42.3% in 2018, according to an American Medical Association (AMA) biennial report on physician participation in value-based reimbursement, titled, “Policy Research Perspectives: Payment and Delivery in 2020.”
On the other hand, Burda reported that value-based reimbursement also has these declining indicators:
39.3% of provider payments “flowed” through FFS plans in 2020 with no link to cost or quality. This was unchanged since 2019. (HCPLAN report)
19.8% of FFS payments to providers in 2020 were linked to cost or quality, down from 22.5% in 2019. (HCPLAN report)
88% of doctors reported accepting FFS payments in 2019, an increase from 87% in 2018. (AMA report)
Does Today’s Healthcare Industry Support Value-based Care?
A survey of 680 physicians conducted by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions suggests the answer could be “not yet.” In “Equipping Physicians for Value-Based Care,” Deloitte reported:
“Physician compensation continues to emphasize volume more than value.
“Availability and use of data-driven tools to support physicians in practicing value-based care continue to lag.
“Existing care models do not support value-based care.”
Deloitte analysts wrote, “Physicians increasingly recognize their role in improving the affordability of care. We repeated a question we asked six years ago and saw a large increase in the proportion of physicians who say they have a prominent role in limiting the use of unnecessary treatments and tests: 76% in 2020 vs. 57% in 2014.
“Physicians also recognize that today’s care models are not geared toward value,” Deloitte continued. “They see many untapped opportunities for improving quality and efficiency. They estimate that even today, sizable portions of their work can be performed by nonphysicians (30%) in nontraditional settings (30%) and/or can be automated (18%), creating opportunities for multidisciplinary care teams and clinicians to work at the top of their license.”
Hospital CFOs Also See Opportunities for Value-based Care
This could be problematic for clinical laboratories, according to Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and our sister publication The Dark Report. According to Guidehouse, “Nearly 60% of health systems plan to advance into risk-based Medicare Advantage models in 2022.”
Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollments have escalated over 10 years: 26.4 million people of the 62.7 million eligible for Medicare chose MA in 2021, noted a Kaiser Family Foundation brief that also noted MA enrollment in 2021 was up by 2.4 million beneficiaries or 10% over 2020.
The graph above is taken from the Kaiser Family Foundation report, “Medicare Advantage in 2021: Enrollment Update and Key Trends.” According to the KFF, “In 2021, more than four in 10 (42%) Medicare beneficiaries—26.4 million people out of 62.7 million Medicare beneficiaries overall—are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans; this share has steadily increased over time since the early 2000s.” Since MA employs narrow networks for its healthcare providers, it’s likely this trend will continue to affect clinical laboratories that may find it difficult to access these providers. (Graphic copyright: Kaiser Family Foundation.)
“The shift from Medicare Part B—where any lab can bill Medicare on behalf of patients for doctor visits and outpatient care, including lab tests—to Medicare Advantage is a serious financial threat for smaller and regional labs that do a lot of Medicare Part B testing. The Medicare Advantage plans often have networks that exclude all but a handful of clinical laboratories as contracted providers,” Michel cautioned. “Moving into the future, it’s incumbent on regional and smaller clinical laboratories to develop value-added services that solve health plans’ pain points and encourage insurers to include local labs in their networks.”
Medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups need to be aware of this trend. Michel says value-based care programs call on clinical laboratories to collaborate with healthcare partners toward goals of closing care gaps.
“Physicians and hospitals in a value-based environment need a different level of service and professional consultation from the lab and pathology group because they are being incented to detect disease earlier and be active in managing patients with chronic conditions to keep them healthy and out of the hospital,” he added.
Value-based reimbursement may eventually replace fee-for-service contracts. The change, however, is slow and clinical laboratories should monitor for opportunities and potential pitfalls the new payment arrangements might bring.
Also called a ‘bundled payment’ model, under this plan, hospitals and clinical laboratories will receive ‘lump sums’ for certain healthcare procedures
Employers and insurers continue to move healthcare providers away from fee-for-service (FFS) payment models and toward value-based reimbursement arrangements, also called Pay for Performance or bundled-payment models. While intended to save money, such payment models can have adverse financial consequences for clinical laboratories that are dependent on billing for each individual procedure.
Medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should closely monitor these moves. Labs are increasingly being asked to participate in contracts where they are not paid for specific services, but instead required to participate in per-member-per-month-fee arrangements with the lab assuming at least some utilization risk. This is coming.
The latest example involves Connecticut and Maine. Both states recently announced plans to use bundled payments for certain health services as part of their state employee health plans.
Incentivizing Quality in Connecticut
With an FFS model, healthcare providers bill insurance companies, government agencies, and consumers for all individual healthcare services rendered. Under the fee-for-service payment model, every visit to a medical provider, every procedure, every test and every drug administered for a particular health issue are itemized and billed separately.
However, in an interview with Connecticut Public Radio (WNPR), Josh Wojcik, Policy Director, Connecticut Office of the State Comptroller, said, “The incentives in that [FFS] model are problematic. It incentivizes volume. It does not incentivize quality.”
By contrast, with a bundled or episode-of-care payment model, providers and healthcare facilities are paid a lump sum for all services performed to treat a patient for a particular health issue or episode within a certain time frame. Some believe this type of payment model could help curtail skyrocketing medical costs, while delivering a high level of care for patients. But it is not an easy change.
“It’s heavy lifting, and it’s important because we are talking about realigning the incentives in the healthcare system,” Kevin Lembo, Connecticut State Comptroller, told WNPR.
Connecticut Centers of Excellence for Healthcare Services
Connecticut also introduced a plan to identify certain hospitals and medical facilities as “Centers of Excellence” and encourage their state employees to utilize those facilities for medical procedures. In addition, the state has negotiated a 5% to 10% discount on procedures performed at these facilities.
“We’re not just telling them what we are going to pay them. We’re negotiating. We expect savings,” Wojcik told WNPR.
The state of Connecticut has approximately 250,000 employees and retirees who are currently covered under the state’s health insurance plan. The Comptroller’s office estimates that these changes will result in a savings of about $95 million annually.
“What makes me even more excited is, if we can get this right with a quarter million people, pretty soon quality of care increases and cost increases slow not just for our folks, but for everyone,” Lembo said.
Maine Implements Bundled-Payment Model for Surgical Care
The state of Maine also introduced a healthcare plan where state employees, their dependents, and early retirees are encouraged to use designated facilities for some surgical procedures under the state’s Center-of-Excellence (COE) program.
Through a partnership with the Healthcare Purchaser Alliance of Maine, a non-profit collaborative of private employers and public trusts, Carrum Health, a cloud-based platform that connects employers and employees with COEs for surgical procedures, pairs the state’s patients with selected providers and bundled-payment options for more than 100 musculoskeletal, bariatric, and cardiovascular procedures.
In a news release, Sachin Jain (above), Founder and CEO of Carrum Health, said, “Carrum Health is excited to partner with the state of Maine to improve employee benefits while reducing the cost of care. This partnership further demonstrates our continuing ability to meet the needs of large public sector employers.” While Maine’s bundled-payment model for surgical care may indeed save the state money, might clinical laboratories soon be required to give up billing for all individual services? (Photo copyright: Carrum Health.)
Patients who utilize the health plan in Maine will not have to pay a deductible or any cost sharing and may receive medical services at any healthcare facility in the Carrum network nationwide. Self-insured employers who use the Carrum network typically pay up to 35% less for services, Modern Healthcare reported.
Under Carrum’s bundled-payment plan, the company pays a fixed price for medical procedures and clinical care associated with each episode of care. This fee covers consultation, the cost of any procedures, facility costs, and all professional expenses. Any readmissions or complications related to the treatment will also be covered for a period of 30 days after the initial date of the procedure.
Jain hopes the new agreements—such as the one with the state of Maine—will serve as a catalyst for more companies and organizations to change to bundled-payment methods for episodes of care.
“Before, hardly any providers in Maine were interested in bundles,” Jain told Modern Healthcare. “But now that a large, sophisticated employer like the state of Maine is seeing the potential, providers there are very interested in working with us. It greases the wheels for more providers to adopt bundled payments.”
Bundled-payment plans continue to gain in popularity as employers, health insurers, and Medicare officials seek ways to lower costs while simultaneously providing high-quality care and improving patient outcomes. However, clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups have long depended on fee-for-service billing and may find it difficult to receive payments as part of an episode-of-care or bundled-payment arrangement.
In an informal Request for Information (RFI), the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) sought feedback on a “new direction to promote patient-centered care and test market-driven reforms that empower beneficiaries as consumers, provide price transparency, increase choices and competition to drive quality, reduce costs, and improve outcomes.”
CMS to ‘Move Away’ from Engineering Healthcare ‘From Afar’
Comments from healthcare providers, clinicians, states, payers, and stakeholders were accepted through November 20, 2017.
In a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) op-ed, CMS Administrator Seema Verma explained the agency’s process moving forward. “We will move away from the assumption that Washington can engineer a more efficient healthcare system from afar—that we should specify the processes healthcare providers are required to follow,” she wrote.
CMS Administrator Seema Verma (above) plans to lead the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation “in a new direction” and may be signaling a willingness to give providers more flexibility with value-based care payment models for Medicare services. (Photo copyright: Healthcare Dive.)
The RFI states the new model design will follow six guiding principles:
1. Choice and competition in the market;
2. Provider choice and incentives;
3. Patient-centered care;
4. Benefit design and price transparency;
5. Transparent model design and evaluation; and,
6. Small scale testing.
Providers Need Freedom to Design New Approaches to Healthcare
Verma said CMS plans to review all Innovation Center models to determine “what is working and should continue, and what isn’t and shouldn’t.” She voiced concern that the complexity of some of the current models may have encouraged consolidation in the healthcare system, resulting in fewer choices for patients.
“We must shift away from a fee-for-service system that reimburses only on volume and move toward a system that holds providers accountable for outcomes and allows them to innovate,” Verma wrote in the WSJ op-ed. “Providers need the freedom to design and offer new approaches to delivering care. Our goal is to increase flexibility by providing more waivers from current requirements.”
Actual Progress of Value-based Healthcare ‘Herky-Jerky’
However, Neil Smiley, CEO of Loopback Analytics, which assists healthcare organizations with managing outcome-based care, believes the transition to value-based care may face stiffer headwinds under the new administration. He points to an August CMS proposal that canceled some mandatory bundled payment programs and scaled back others as an indication that healthcare transformation could be slowing.
“The pace at which CMS committed to rolling out value-based care is fundamentally different from the pace we’re currently seeing,” he told Health IT. “The progress toward value-based care, instead of this steady momentum they expected, is more of a herky-jerky fashion.”
The Health Care Transformation Task Force (HCTTF), a 42-member industry consortium, was among the stakeholders who responded to CMS’ RFI. In a 22-page letter, the task force reiterated its support for the healthcare system’s transformation to value-based payment and care delivery, while outlining areas for improvements. The group urged CMS to continue to develop new models while modifying, rather than abandoning, existing models that show promise and need time to achieve a lasting return.
“We would like CMS to continue support for promising models while balancing the current portfolio with new, innovative payment models,” Clare Wrobel, Director of Payment Reform Models at HCTTF, told Home Health Care News. “[But] it would be a mistake to discard current models that providers have already invested in and are showing real promise.”
Smiley, meanwhile, suggests clinical laboratory managers, pathologists, and other healthcare providers keep watch as healthcare transformation continues to evolve.
“The fee-for-service model, love it or hate it, is not dying. The organism has adapted,” he told Health IT. “For those that were aggressive early adopters of value-based care and really believed what they were hearing, and have gone fully after value-based care, some of them may feel a little exposed. If they go too hard too fast, they may suffer economically if they misjudge the pace at which this moves.”
Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief of The Dark Report, was recognized with the W.A.D. Anderson award for his contributions to the profession of pathology and laboratory medicine
DATELINE—Miami Beach, Florida: What better time to be here on Florida’s trendy South Beach than February, when winter’s chilly winds blow across much of the United States. That’s one reason why a record crowd of pathologists assembled at the Fountainebleau Hotel to attend the 40th annual “Review and Recent Practical Advances in Pathology” that took place here on February 15-19.
Innovative medical laboratories shared their successes in improving lab test utilization that included physician engagement and close monitoring of key metrics
DATELINE: ORLANDO, FLORIDA—One big challenge facing medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups in the United States today is the need to transition from a transaction-based business model (increasing specimen volume leads to increasing revenue) to a value-based business model (helping providers improve their use of clinical laboratory tests in ways that measurably improve patient outcomes while controlling or reducing the cost of care.)
Two trends reinforce the need for clinical laboratories to craft strategies to develop new ways to add value to lab testing services.
One trend is the move by Medicare and private health insurers to shift reimbursement for providers away from fee-for-service and toward bundled reimbursement and budgeted reimbursement.
The second trend is the emergence of integrated clinical care organizations. The most visible of these are accountable care organizations (ACO) and patient-centered medical homes (PCMH). What these care delivery organizations have in common is that they require hospitals, physicians, clinical laboratories, imaging centers, nursing homes and other types of providers to work together more effectively so that patients receive healthcare in a seamless fashion because there is a continuum: primary care to specialty care to acute care and back again. (more…)
