EP343: What Provider Leadership Teams Need to Know to Operationalize Value-Based Care, With David Carmouche, MD Relentless Health Value™

Most people who have been in the healthcare industry for a while have heard by now the metaphor about the two canoes. Provider organizations or health systems with some of their payments coming from a fee-for-service (FFS) payment model and some of them coming from value-based arrangements have the challenge of one foot in the FFS canoe and one foot in the value-based canoe. They’re probably going through a lot of metaphorical pants is the main takeaway that often comes to mind for me. But wardrobe malfunctions aside, this is a really difficult organizational challenge. That’s what I’m talking about in this healthcare podcast with Dr. David Carmouche: how to deal with the operational challenges, the cultural challenges, maybe even (very arguably) the generational challenges here.
Top line (very top line), to succeed in value-based care, you gotta have three things aligned:
The payment model, the construct of the contract. No kidding, you have to have value-based contracts to succeed in value-based care. The big problem here—which is not to be underestimated—is that there are some areas of the country where it’s really tough to find somebody, or enough somebodies, willing to offer a capitated, prospective value-based contract. That would be really frustrating to want to go forward (if you’re a provider) in a value-based way but to not have a willing payer partner and/or employer partner to do so. So please step up, payers, policy makers, and employers in those areas of the country. But the construct of the value-based contracts can also not be overlooked. Toward the end of this interview, Dr. Carmouche gets into the different results that were achieved between two patient populations: one served by a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan and one in an MSSP (Medicare Shared Savings Program) model. So, the same provider network, the same environment, same geography, same number of lives, different payment model. Stick around for that part of the conversation. It’s pretty eye-opening.
The second of the three things to be aligned to be successful in value-based care are physician/administrative incentives and the employment models. Seriously, who is thinking that anyone’s gonna succeed managing downstream risk when the physicians making the decisions about downstream services used are bonused by how much downstream costs they can drive and everyone is eating what they kill? If culture eats strategy for breakfast, incentives eat culture for lunch, as they say. Leadership skills. Leaders who are going to succeed in a world moving from FFS to VBC have to be mission driven toward that cause. They have to be strategic enough in their approach to take potential short-term revenue hits in pursuit of the longer-term goal—even the medium-term goal, honestly, if you think about the whole context of what’s going on here. Leaders also need the skill and aptitude to pull off the change management and adjustments to the organizational culture that are needed. Staffs and teams really need systematic support. Value-based care is a team sport, and teams require leadership.
Here’s one example of where not having great leadership trickles down to bad results: If nurses or social workers or, in general, people of color or women in an organization feel demeaned or not valued by a critical mass of those in power—and maybe here I mean physicians or other physicians that they work with—then patient safety scores diminish and quality goes down. There’s enough studies on the impact of having and not having psychological safety that it’s getting harder to dispute what I just said. And if this environment becomes as toxic as the stories that you read about often enough, that’s on the C-suite to fix. If the C-suite has value-based aspirations, that C-suite really might want to reprioritize their to-do lists. So, think about stuff like this because toxic environments make consistently delivering high-value care and satisfied