Alternative Payments and Physician Organizations

There are longstanding concerns about the sustainability of the US health care system. Payment reform has been seen over the last decade as a key strategy to reorienting the US health care system around value. Alternative payment models (APMs) that seek to accomplish this goal have become increasingly prevalent in the US, yet there is a perception that physicians are resistant to their use and that organizations have been slow to adopt such models. The reasons for the limited effectiveness of APM programs are multifactorial and include aspects related to the design and implementation of these programs and lack of alignment and coordination across different payers and health care sectors. Most importantly, however, is that the current organizational structures in US health care serve to dampen the direct impact of these incentives, often because health care delivery organizations face conflicting incentives themselves. Organizations filter and refine the incentives from multiple external payment contracts and develop internal incentive systems that best reflect the amalgamation of the incentives embedded across their contracts, and thus the fragmented nature of the US health care system serves to undermine efforts to transform care under value-based contracts. In addition to organizations having conflicting incentives, there also are fundamental problems with the design and implementation of APMs that hinder their acceptance among physicians and the organizations in which they work. Moreover, much remains to be learned about how organizations can best adapt to succeed under these models, and how organizational culture can be leveraged to transform care.

The Implementation of Performance Management Systems in U.S. Physician Organizations

Performance management systems (PMSYS) aid in improving the quality and efficiency of care, but little is known about factors that influence more robust PMSYS among physician organizations. Using a nationally representative survey of U.S. medical practices, we examined the extent to which organizational capabilities and external factors were associated with more developed PMSYS. Linear regression estimated the relative impact of these factors on PMSYS. On average, practices implemented a minority (32 points out of 100) of the PMSYS processes assessed. Practices evaluated ( p < .01) or financially incentivized by external entities ( p < .01), receiving data from health plans ( p < .01), participating in an accountable care organization ( p < .01), affiliating with an independent practice association and/or physician-hospital organization ( p < .01), and using health information technology ( p < .01) and chronic disease registries ( p < .01) to greater degrees had more robust PMSYS. PMSYS of medical practices are underdeveloped, although both external incentives and organizational capabilities may support PMSYS development.

Do physician organizations located in lower socioeconomic status areas score lower on pay-for-performance measures?

BACKGROUND

Physician organizations (POs)--independent practice associations and medical groups--located in lower socioeconomic status (SES) areas may score poorly in pay-for-performance (P4P) programs.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between PO location and P4P performance.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study; Integrated Healthcare Association's (IHA's) P4P Program, the largest non-governmental, multi-payer program for POs in the U.S.

PARTICIPANTS

160 POs participating in 2009.

MAIN MEASURES

We measured PO SES using established methods that involved geo-coding 11,718 practice sites within 160 POs to their respective census tracts and weighting tract-specific SES according to the number of primary care physicians at each site. P4P performance was defined by IHA's program and was a composite mainly representing clinical quality, but also including measures of patient experience, information technology and registry use.

KEY RESULTS

The area-based PO SES measure ranged from -11 to +11 (mean 0, SD 5), and the IHA P4P performance score ranged from 23 to 86 (mean 69, SD 15). In bivariate analysis, there was a significant positive relationship between PO SES and P4P performance (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, a one standard deviation increase in PO SES was associated with a 44% increase (relative risk 1.44, 95%CI, 1.22-1.71) in the likelihood of a PO being ranked in the top two quintiles of performance (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Physician organizations' performance scores in a major P4P program vary by the SES of the areas in which their practice sites are located. P4P programs that do not account for this are likely to pay higher bonuses to POs in higher SES areas, thus increasing the resource gap between these POs and POs in lower SES areas, which may increase disparities in the care they provide.

Brief report: The prevalence and use of chronic disease registries in physician organizations. A national survey

OBJECTIVE

Disease registries are lists of patients with a particular chronic illness, including clinical information, to improve the care of individuals and populations. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of disease registries in physician organizations and the extent to which they are used to improve care.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional national telephone survey with a response rate of 70%.

SETTING

All physician organizations in the United States with 20 physicians or more.

PARTICIPANTS

Chief executive officers, presidents, or medical directors of 1040 physician organizations.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Forty-seven percent of organizations reported having a registry for at least 1 chronic illness, with diabetes registries being the most common. Half (51%) of the registries were not linked to clinical data. Organizations with at least 1 registry were more likely to have implemented other chronic care improvements (P < .0001). Factors associated with the presence of registries in physician organizations include external incentives for quality and extent of information technology capabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease registries are not utilized by half of physician organizations. This finding is disturbing because registries have the potential to catalyze needed improvement in chronic care management.