Currently Viewing:
In Focus Blog
Currently Reading
In Wake of RAND Study, What's the Future of Bundled Payments in Managed Care?
September 24, 2014 – Mary K. Caffrey
Quality Care Measurement, Other Managed Care Notes from Psych Congress
September 22, 2014 – Mary K. Caffrey
Calls for Transparency in Healthcare Pricing Gain Steam
September 19, 2014 – Mary K. Caffrey
Report Finds "Perverse Incentives" Add Costs to Dying When Patients and Families Want Less
September 18, 2014 – Mary K. Caffrey
Study Finds Companies' Pledge Led to Drop in Calories Sold
September 17, 2014 – Mary K. Caffrey
Prescription Painkiller Deaths Slowing Down, CDC Finds
September 16, 2014 – Mary K. Caffrey
HealthCare.gov Schedules Maintenance, Gears Up for 2015 Open Enrollment
September 15, 2014 – Mary K. Caffrey
NJ Sober Living Homes Bill Points Up Challenges of Addiction Care
September 12, 2014 – Mary K. Caffrey
Call for Genetic Testing for All Women Over 30 Raises Ethical, Practical Concerns. Then, There's the Cost. An AJMC Exclusive
September 11, 2014 – Mary K. Caffrey

In Wake of RAND Study, What's the Future of Bundled Payments in Managed Care?

Mary K. Caffrey
So far, the recent failure of a high-profile bundled payment pilot in California has not slowed enthusiasm for the concept from CMS.
In August, the RAND Corporation reported that a second major pilot study of bundled payments had failed. The news sent healthcare reform advocates looking for answers and brought out the critics.

A recent critique, appearing online in Forbes, called bundled payments “price controls by another name” and pointed out potential problems with the concept: incentives to skimp on care, or, conversely, “upcoding” to get more from Medicare if a patient’s condition is marginal or uncertain.

However, as The American Journal of Managed Care reported in July, CMS wants to expand its bundled payment program and anticipated an uptick in the number of healthcare organizations taking part. So far, there appears to be no backtracking from CMS on bundled payments, which are seen as a way to bring savings to government-funded healthcare.

What accounts for the disconnect? Some labeled the particular features of the failed pilot in California, administered by Integrated Healthcare Associates, as “no risk, no reward,” and others pointed to the uniquely difficult features of the state’s regulatory environment. Uncertainty clearly seemed to be a factor in provider dropouts, with hospitals saying they were unwilling to make the administrative or technical investment needed if there was no guarantee of a return.

Both the RAND authors and some of their critics observed that success can come from failure. For example, one commentator observed that payments should start in a retrospective model, then move to a prospective model.

As Jan E. Berger, MD, MJ, wrote in The American Journal of Pharmacy Benefits in June, “We are in a sort of ‘experimental phase’ with many of these new models, and we will not have all the answers from the start.

“What we do need to have is inquisitiveness, transparency, and the willingness to work together to address these issues openly in a way that leads us over time to the best method of meeting the goals of a bundled-payment model.”

Around the Web

Bundled Payment Fails to Gain a Foothold in California: The Experience of the IHA Bundled Payment Demonstration

Bundled Payment: Learning From Our Failures

The Bungling of Bundled Payments

AJMC: More Providers Opt for Bundled Payments

A Bundle of Joy: How Does the Trend of Bundled Payment Affect the Pharmacy Benefit?

 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2020 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up