• Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM)
  • Vaccines: 2023 Year in Review
  • Eyecare
  • Urothelial Carcinoma
  • Women's Health
  • Hemophilia
  • Heart Failure
  • Vaccines
  • Neonatal Care
  • Type II Inflammation
  • Substance Use Disorder
  • Gene Therapy
  • Lung Cancer
  • Spinal Muscular Atrophy
  • HIV
  • Post-Acute Care
  • Liver Disease
  • Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
  • Biologics
  • Asthma
  • Atrial Fibrillation
  • Type I Diabetes
  • RSV
  • COVID-19
  • Cardiovascular Diseases
  • Breast Cancer
  • Prescription Digital Therapeutics
  • Reproductive Health
  • The Improving Patient Access Podcast
  • Blood Cancer
  • Ulcerative Colitis
  • Respiratory Conditions
  • Multiple Sclerosis
  • Digital Health
  • Population Health
  • Sleep Disorders
  • Biosimilars
  • Plaque Psoriasis
  • Leukemia and Lymphoma
  • Oncology
  • Pediatrics
  • Urology
  • Obstetrics-Gynecology & Women's Health
  • Opioids
  • Solid Tumors
  • Autoimmune Diseases
  • Dermatology
  • Diabetes
  • Mental Health

From Fee for Service to Value-Based Care. Well, There’s a Ways to a Go Yet | Managed Healthcare Executive® State of the Industry Survey

MHE PublicationMHE January 2023
Volume 33
Issue 1

The survey also showed that many believe value-based care is being gamed and that chances that it will be successful are small.

Weaning U.S. healthcare off fee-for-service payment to value-based care arrangements that reward cost-effective care has been talked about for years. But walking that talk has been a halting, sort of effort for a tangled set of reasons, not the least of which is the ingrained, staying power of fee for service

The Managed Healthcare Executive® State of the Industry confirmed that the move toward valued-based has been modest and revealed some jaded views.

Asked to rate their own organization’s shift away from fee for service to value-based care, 12% of the 450 respondents indicated they hadn’t started, 27% indicated beginning and 27% indicated midway. Only 17% rated their organization as being mainly in value-based arrangements.

About one-third (34%) of the respondents indicated agreement with the statement that value-based care arrangements and payment models are “admirable but the chances of success are small.” A large proportion (41%) agree with the statement that they have been “gamed by some organizations to increase profits and revenues.”

There is some optimism, albeit tethered. A large if minority group of the respondents (37%) said the value-based arrangements were on the right track but needed adjustment. Abou the same proportion (39%) said the arrangements don’t provide enough of an incentive to lower healthcare spending.

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) and bundled or episodic payment arrangements have gotten a great deal of attention. But 39% of the respondents to the survey said pay-for-performance incentives were most likely to be successful in improving outcomes and reducing costs this year. Only 20% thought ACOs would and only 18% thought bundled payments would.

Related Videos
Video 4 - "Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Prescription Digital Therapeutics "
Video 3 - "Harnessing Prescription Drug Therapeutics as Monotherapy and Adjunct Therapy"
Video 8 - "Demographic Differences That Impact Care"
Video 7 - "Gaps in Diabetes Education and Self Efficacy"
Video 6 - "Developing Reimbursement Models for Digital Therapeutics"
Video 5 - "Cost-Effectiveness Metrics Payers Seek for Digital Therapeutics"
Video 2 - "Bridging Care Gaps with Prescription Digital Therapeutics"
Video 1 - "Overview of Prescription Digital Therapeutics and Impact on Clinical Practice"
Video 4 - "Payer Challenges in Evaluating Digital Therapeutics"
Related Content
© 2024 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.