34 min
EP359: Value-Based Payments—You Get What You Pay For, With Dan O’Neill Relentless Health Value™
-
- Medicine
Last week’s show was with Wayne Jenkins, MD, from Centivo; and we talked about how insurance design, when not done well, can lead, in a nutshell, to mental and physical health problems for employees. This is a great lead-in to the conversation in this healthcare podcast with Dan O’Neill. And before I get into why it’s a great lead-in, let me just start here—and don’t roll your eyes.
What is value-based care? Consider this delineation: There’s value-based payments, and then there’s the type of care that these payments incentivize. You would hope that a value-based payment would result in care that was of value (ie, great patient outcomes and patient satisfaction at a fair total cost of care). But those are two distinct things—the payment and the care.
If we change the payment model but the provider behavior doesn’t change in a way that actually improves patient outcomes and care, then what are we doing here?
Or the converse: If we do not change the payment model, then how does anyone expect the care paid for is going to change? Employers or carriers who just meander along with the broad PPO network happily paying as much for low-value care as for high-value care and happily paying centers of excellence as much as non–centers of excellence … how is a provider who wants to spend time and money building out a practice to deliver better patient outcomes, how can they do that without overcoming some pretty fundamental business model challenges?
This whole concept is one that my guest today, Dan O’Neill, has talked about and will talk about in this episode. Dan says the first step is for insurers, IPAs, managed care organizations to take an absolute chainsaw to their network management bureaucracy. There must be a clear door to a value-based payment model. It must be that if you’re a provider or you’re a physician practice (primary care practice, in particular), and you want to go down a value-based care path, there has to be a clear door and a pathway for you.
I think I have a non-perfect litmus test for anybody with a value-based payment program who wants a heuristic to check if their value-based payment program is actually meaningfully impacting models of care in the marketplace: If most of the provider organizations who are part of that value-based program still incentivize and pay their doctors using FFS incentives like RVUs (relative value units), I’d step back and think about that for a piece. Contemplate that doctors, who are responsible for care decisions, still have every incentive to do everything that they would have done had the provider organization just been paid FFS. What’s the point of value-based payments that extract exactly zero behavior change? And that is not a rhetorical question.
So, back to the conversation from last week with Dr. Wayne Jenkins citing all of the things that can go horribly wrong when an employer’s benefit designs are misaligned with the financial realities of their workforce. You get what you pay for, and I don’t just mean that in terms of the dollars outlaid, since we all know in healthcare prices and quality have nothing to do with each other—I mean, in terms of what you choose to pay for and how you choose to pay for it.
That’s the macro of this whole thing, but indulge me as I get into the micro for just one sec. Let me just remind everybody about Goodhart’s Law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” More on the why of this in the interview with Rishi Wadhera, MD, MPP, on the hospital readmission reduction program (EP326) and also what happens when we don’t adhere to Goodhart’s Law as we evaluate PCPs, which Rebecca Etz, PhD, talks about in EP295.
In this episode with Dan O’Neill, we go through where we’re at on the continuum of value-based payments and how those payments are impacting the care, value-based or otherwise, that is incentivized by those payments. We tick through four gradations o
Last week’s show was with Wayne Jenkins, MD, from Centivo; and we talked about how insurance design, when not done well, can lead, in a nutshell, to mental and physical health problems for employees. This is a great lead-in to the conversation in this healthcare podcast with Dan O’Neill. And before I get into why it’s a great lead-in, let me just start here—and don’t roll your eyes.
What is value-based care? Consider this delineation: There’s value-based payments, and then there’s the type of care that these payments incentivize. You would hope that a value-based payment would result in care that was of value (ie, great patient outcomes and patient satisfaction at a fair total cost of care). But those are two distinct things—the payment and the care.
If we change the payment model but the provider behavior doesn’t change in a way that actually improves patient outcomes and care, then what are we doing here?
Or the converse: If we do not change the payment model, then how does anyone expect the care paid for is going to change? Employers or carriers who just meander along with the broad PPO network happily paying as much for low-value care as for high-value care and happily paying centers of excellence as much as non–centers of excellence … how is a provider who wants to spend time and money building out a practice to deliver better patient outcomes, how can they do that without overcoming some pretty fundamental business model challenges?
This whole concept is one that my guest today, Dan O’Neill, has talked about and will talk about in this episode. Dan says the first step is for insurers, IPAs, managed care organizations to take an absolute chainsaw to their network management bureaucracy. There must be a clear door to a value-based payment model. It must be that if you’re a provider or you’re a physician practice (primary care practice, in particular), and you want to go down a value-based care path, there has to be a clear door and a pathway for you.
I think I have a non-perfect litmus test for anybody with a value-based payment program who wants a heuristic to check if their value-based payment program is actually meaningfully impacting models of care in the marketplace: If most of the provider organizations who are part of that value-based program still incentivize and pay their doctors using FFS incentives like RVUs (relative value units), I’d step back and think about that for a piece. Contemplate that doctors, who are responsible for care decisions, still have every incentive to do everything that they would have done had the provider organization just been paid FFS. What’s the point of value-based payments that extract exactly zero behavior change? And that is not a rhetorical question.
So, back to the conversation from last week with Dr. Wayne Jenkins citing all of the things that can go horribly wrong when an employer’s benefit designs are misaligned with the financial realities of their workforce. You get what you pay for, and I don’t just mean that in terms of the dollars outlaid, since we all know in healthcare prices and quality have nothing to do with each other—I mean, in terms of what you choose to pay for and how you choose to pay for it.
That’s the macro of this whole thing, but indulge me as I get into the micro for just one sec. Let me just remind everybody about Goodhart’s Law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” More on the why of this in the interview with Rishi Wadhera, MD, MPP, on the hospital readmission reduction program (EP326) and also what happens when we don’t adhere to Goodhart’s Law as we evaluate PCPs, which Rebecca Etz, PhD, talks about in EP295.
In this episode with Dan O’Neill, we go through where we’re at on the continuum of value-based payments and how those payments are impacting the care, value-based or otherwise, that is incentivized by those payments. We tick through four gradations o
34 min