• 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

Study Finds No Spending Difference Between Voluntary, Mandated Bundled Payment Programs


Results run counter to common beliefs about the effects of self-selection into voluntary value-based payment programs.

One critique of many of the value-based program launched by CMS is that they have been voluntary. That self-selection clouds results, goes the critique, because hospitals (and physician practices) that elect to participate in a program likely have attributes going into the program that will make them successful. As a result, favorable outcomes or spending reductions may be misleading as a result.

But results reported in JAMA last week bya team of researchers led by Joshua M. Liao, M.D., M.Sc., of the University of Washington poked a hole in that critique and may color the debate about value-based programs. When Liao and his fellow researchers compared voluntary and mandatory bundled payment programs for hip and knee replacements, they found no difference in the spending reduction between the voluntary and the mandatory programs.

Their results do, though, argue for bundled payments because the difference in hip and knee replacement spending reductions between hospitals in bundled payment programs and those that not in them was large.

To conduct their study, the researchers compared hospitals in the voluntary Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) program, which included hip and knee replacements, to hospitals in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program, which had a\ mandatory component. The crux of the study was a comparison before and after bundled payment among 92 hospitals who voluntary participated in bundled payments, 744 hospitals who were mandated to participated and 879 nonparticipating hosptials.

The before and after bundled payment spending difference was $2,730 ($21,182 – 18,452) among the voluntary hospitals. Among the mandatory hospitals, the before and after was $2,738, ($18,390 – 15,652), so only $8 separated the voluntary and mandatory hospitals.

Among the nonparticipating hospitals, hip and knee replacement costs fell by $2,261 (17,132 – 14,871) during the same interval. That works ous to be a spending reduction that was $469 smaller than voluntary hospitals before- and after bundled payments and $477 less per episode than the mandatory hospitals.

Related Videos
Video 8 - "Gaps in Evidence Generation for Digital Therapeutics"
Video 7 - "Adoption Lessons For Payers"
Video 10 - "Managing Self Care"
Video 3 - "Embracing and Improving Access to Technology Tools"
Video 4 - "Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Prescription Digital Therapeutics "
Video 3 - "Harnessing Prescription Drug Therapeutics as Monotherapy and Adjunct Therapy"
Related Content
© 2024 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.