The Effect of Network-Level Payment Models on Care Network Performance: A Scoping Review of the Empirical Literature

Alternative payment models in Dutch hospital care: what works, how, why and under what circumstances? Protocol for a realist evaluation study

INTRODUCTION

The predominant provider payment models in healthcare, particularly fee-for-service, hinder the delivery of high-value care and can encourage healthcare providers to prioritise the volume of care over the value of care. To address these issues, healthcare providers, payers and policymakers are increasingly experimenting with alternative payment models (APMs), such as shared savings (SS) and bundled payment (BP). Despite a growing body of literature on APMs, there is still limited insight into what works in developing and implementing successful APMs, as well as how, why and under what circumstances. This paper presents the protocol for a study that aims to (1) identify these circumstances and reveal the underlying mechanisms through which outcomes are achieved and (2) identify transferrable lessons for successful APMs in practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Drawing on realist evaluation principles, this study will employ an iterative three-step approach to elicit a programme theory that describes the relationship between context, mechanisms and outcomes of APMs. The first step involves a literature review to identify the initial programme theory. The second step entails empirical testing of this theory via a multiple case study design including seven SS and BP initiatives in Dutch hospital care. We will use various qualitative and quantitative methods, including interviews with involved stakeholders, document analysis and difference-in-differences analyses. In the final step, these data and the applicable formal theories will be combined to test and refine the (I)PT and address the research objectives.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by the Research Ethics Review Committee of Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management (Project ID ETH2122-0170). Where necessary, informed consent will be obtained from study participants. Among other means, study results will be disseminated through a publicly available manual for stakeholders (eg, healthcare providers and payers), publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals and (inter)national conference presentations.

The effect of an innovative payment method on inpatient volume and bed resources and their regional distribution: the case of a central province in China

BACKGROUND

Since 2020, China has piloted an innovative payment method known as the Diagnosis-Intervention Packet (DIP). This study aimed to assess the impact of the DIP on inpatient volume and bed allocation and their regional distribution. This study investigated whether the DIP affects the efficiency of regional health resource utilization and contributes to disparities in health equity among regions.

METHODS

We collected data from a central province in China from 2019 to 2022. The treatment group included 508 hospitals in the pilot area (Region A, where the DIP was implemented in 2021), whereas the control group consisted of 3,728 hospitals from non-pilot areas within the same province. We employed the difference-in-differences method to analyze inpatient volume and bed resources. Additionally, we conducted a stratified analysis to examine whether the effects of DIP implementation varied across urban and rural areas or hospitals of different levels.

RESULTS

Compared with the non-pilot regions, Region A experienced a statistically significant reduction in inpatient volume of 14.3% (95% CI 0.061-0.224) and a notable decrease of 9.1% in actual available bed days (95% CI 0.041-0.141) after DIP implementation. The study revealed no evidence of patient consultations shifting from inpatient to outpatient services due to the reduction in hospital admissions in Region A after DIP implementation. Stratified analysis revealed that inpatient volume decreased by 12.4% (95% CI 0.006-0.243) in the urban areas and 14.7% in the rural areas of Region A (95% CI 0.051-0.243). At the hospital level, primary hospitals experienced the greatest impact, with a 19.0% (95% CI 0.093-0.287) decline in inpatient volume. Furthermore, primary and tertiary hospitals experienced significant reductions of 11.0% (95% CI 0.052-0.169) and 8.2% (95% CI 0.002-0.161), respectively, in actual available bed days.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite efforts to curb excessive medical service expansion in the region following DIP implementation, large hospitals continue to attract a large number of patients from primary hospitals. This weakening of primary hospitals and the subsequent influx of patients to urban areas may further limit rural patients' access to medical services. The implementation of the DIP may raise concerns about its impact on health care equality and accessibility, particularly for underserved rural populations.

Building alternative payment models in health care

Introduction

Global interest is growing in new value-based models of financing, delivering, and paying for health care services that could produce higher-quality and lower cost outcomes for patients and for society. However, research indicates evidence gaps in knowledge related to alternative payment models (APMs) in early experimentation phases or those contracted between private insurers and their health care provider-partners. The aim of this research was to understand and update the literature related to learning how industry experts design and implement APMs, including specific elements of their models and their choice of stakeholders to be involved in the design and contractual details.

Methods

A literature review was conducted to guide the research focus and to select themes. The sample was selected using snowball sampling to identify subject matter experts (SMEs). Researchers conducted 16 semi-structured interviews with SMEs in the US, the Netherlands, and Germany in September and October 2021. Interviews were transcribed and using Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach to thematic analysis, researchers independently read, reviewed, and coded participants' responses related to APM design and implementation and subsequently reviewed each other's codes and themes for consistency.

Results

Participants represented diverse perspectives of the payer, provider, consulting, and government areas of the health care sector. We found design considerations had five overarching themes: (1) population and scope of care and services, (2) benchmarking, metrics, data, and technology; (3) finance, APM type, risk adjustment, incentives, and influencing provider behavior, (4) provider partnerships and the role of physicians, and (5) leadership and regulatory issues.

Discussion

This study confirmed several of the core components of APM model designs and implementations found in the literature and brought insights on additional aspects not previously emphasized, particularly the role of physicians (especially in leadership) and practice transformation/care processes necessary for providers to thrive under APM models. Importantly, researchers found significant concerns relevant for policymakers about regulations relating to health data sharing, rigid price-setting, and inter-organizational data communication that greatly inhibit the ability to experiment with APMs and those models' abilities to succeed long-term.

Financial incentives for integrated care: A scoping review and lessons for evidence-based design

BACKGROUND

In response to the increasing prevalence of people with chronic conditions, healthcare systems restructure to integrate care across providers. However, many systems fail to achieve the desired outcomes. One likely explanation is lack of financial incentives for integrating care.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to identify financial incentives used to promote integrated care across different types of providers for patients with common chronic conditions and assess the evidence on (cost-)effectiveness and the facilitators/barriers to their implementation.

METHODS

This scoping review identifies studies published before December 2021, and includes 33 studies from the United States and the Netherlands.

RESULTS

We identify four types of financial incentives: shared savings, bundled payments, pay for performance, and pay for coordination. Substantial heterogeneity in the (cost-)effectiveness of these incentives exists. Key implementation barriers are a lack of infrastructure (e.g., electronic medical records, communication channels, and clinical guidelines). To facilitate integration, financial incentives should be easy to communicate and implement, and require additional financial support, IT support, training, and guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

All four types of financial incentives may promote integrated care but not in all contexts. Shared savings appears to be the most promising incentive type for promoting (cost-)effective care integration with the largest number of favourable studies allowing causal interpretations. The limited evidence pool makes it hard to draw firm conclusions that are transferable across contexts.

Integrated Payment, Fragmented Realities? A Discourse Analysis of Integrated Payment in the Netherlands

The current models used for paying for health and social care are considered a major barrier to integrated care. Despite the implementation of integrated payment schemes proving difficult, such initiatives are still widely pursued. In the Netherlands, this development has led to a payment architecture combining traditional and integrated payment models. To gain insight into the justification for and future viability of integrated payment, this paper's purpose is to explain the current duality by identifying discourses on integrated payment models, determining which discourses predominate, and how they have changed over time and differ among key stakeholders in healthcare. The discourse analysis revealed four discourses, each with its own underlying assumptions and values regarding integrated payment. First, the Quality-of-Care discourse sees integrated payment as instrumental in improving care. Second, the Affordability discourse emphasizes how integrated payment can contribute to the financial sustainability of the healthcare system. Third, the Bureaucratization discourse highlights the administrative burden associated with integrated payment models. Fourth, the Strategic discourse stresses micropolitical and professional issues that come into play when implementing such models. The future viability of integrated payment depends on how issues reflected in the Bureaucratization and Strategic discourses are addressed without losing sight of quality-of-care and affordability, two aspects attracting significant public interest in The Netherlands.