Association of the New Peer Group-Stratified Method With the Reclassification of Penalty Status in the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program.

Importance: Since the introduction of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), readmission penalties have been applied disproportionately to institutions that serve low-income populations. To address this concern, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid introduced a new, stratified payment adjustment method in fiscal year (FY; October 1 to September 30) 2019. Objective: To determine whether the introduction of a new, stratified payment adjustment method was associated with an alteration in the distribution of penalties among hospitals included in the HRRP. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, US hospitals included in the HRRP for FY 2018 and FY 2019 were identified. Penalty status of participating hospitals for FY 2019 was determined based on nonstratified HRRP methods and the new, stratified payment adjustment method. Hospitals caring for the highest proportion of patients enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid based on quintile were assigned to the low-socioeconomic status (SES) group. Exposures: Nonstratified and stratified Centers for Medicare & Medicaid payment adjustment methods. Main Outcomes and Measures: Net reclassification of penalties among all hospitals and hospitals in the low-SES group, in states participating in Medicaid expansion, and for 4 targeted medical conditions (acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pneumonia). Results: Penalty status by both payment adjustment methods (nonstratified and stratified) was available for 3173 hospitals. For FY 2019, the new, stratified payment method was associated with penalties for 75.04% of hospitals (2381 of 3173), while the old, nonstratified method was associated with penalties for 79.07% (2509 hospitals), resulting in a net down-classification in penalty status for all hospitals by 4.03 percentage points (95% CI, 2.95-5.11; P < .001). For the 634 low-SES hospitals in the sample, the new method was associated with penalties for 77.60% of hospitals (492 of 634), while the old method was associated with penalties for 91.64% (581 hospitals), resulting in a net down-classification in penalty status of 14.04 percentage points (95% CI, 11.18-16.90; P < .001). Among hospitals that were not low SES (quintiles 1-4), the new payment method was associated with a small decrease in penalty status (1928 vs 1889; net down-classification, 1.54 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.38-2.69; P = .01). Among target medical conditions, the greatest reduction in penalties was observed among cardiovascular conditions (net down-classification, 6.18 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.96-7.39; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The new, stratified payment adjustment method for the HRRP was associated with a reduction in penalties across hospitals included in the program; the greatest reductions were observed among hospitals in the low-SES group, lessening but not eliminating the previously unbalanced penalty burden carried by these hospitals. Additional public policy research efforts are needed to achieve equitable payment adjustment models for all hospitals.

A reporting framework for describing and a typology for categorizing and analyzing the designs of health care pay for performance schemes.

BACKGROUND: Pay for Performance (P4P) has increasingly being adopted in different countries as a provider payment mechanism to improve health system performance. Evaluations of pay for performance (P4P) schemes across several countries show significant variation in effectiveness, which may be explained by differences in design. There is however no reliable framework to structure the reporting of the design or a typology to help analyse and interpret results of P4P schemes. This paper reports the development of a reporting framework and a typology of P4P schemes. METHODS: P4P design features were identified from literature and then explored using relevant theories from behavioural and economic science. These design features were then combined with the help of multidimensional tables to produce a reporting framework and a typology which was tested using 74 P4P studies. The inter-rater reliability of the typology was assessed using Fleiss' Kappa. RESULTS: A Healthcare Incentive Scheme Reporting Framework (HISReF) was developed consisting of nine design features. This was collapsed into a typology consisting of 4 items/design features. There was good inter-rater reliability on all the four items on the typology (kappa > 0.7). CONCLUSION: The HISReF provides an important first step towards establishing a common language in which intervention designers can clearly specify the content of P4P designs. Our typology may be used to aid evidence synthesis and interpretation of results of P4P schemes.

Towards incentivising integration: A typology of payments for integrated care.

Traditional provider payment mechanisms may not create appropriate incentives for integrating care. Alternative payment mechanisms, such as bundled payments, have been introduced without uniform definitions, and existing payment typologies are not suitable for describing them. We use a systematic review combined with example integrated care programmes identified from practice in the Horizon2020 SELFIE project to inform a new typology of payment mechanisms for integrated care. The typology describes payments in terms of the scope of payment (Target population, Time, Sectors), the participation of providers (Provider coverage, Financial pooling/sharing), and the single provider/patient involvement (Income, Multiple disease/needs focus, and Quality measurement). There is a gap between rhetoric on the need for new payment mechanisms and those implemented in practice. Current payments for integrated care are mostly sector- and disease-specific, with questionable impact on those with the most need for integrated care. The typology provides a basis to improve financial incentives supporting more effective and efficient integrated care systems.

Do physician remuneration schemes matter? The case of Canadian family physicians.

Although it is well known theoretically that physicians respond to financial incentives, the empirical evidence is quite mixed. Using the 2004 Canadian National Physician Survey, we analyze the number of patient visits per week provided by family physicians in alternative forms of remuneration schemes. Overwhelmingly, fee-for-service (FFS) physicians conduct more patient visits relative to four other types of remuneration schemes examined in this paper. We find that family physicians self-select into different remuneration regimes based on their personal preferences and unobserved characteristics; OLS estimates plus the estimates from an IV GMM procedure are used to tease out the magnitude of the selection and incentive effects. We find a positive selection effect and a large negative incentive effect; the magnitude of the incentive effect increases with the degree of deviation from a FFS scheme. Knowledge of the extent to which remuneration schemes affect physician output is an important consideration for health policy.

A typology for provider payment systems in health care.

A typology to classify provider payment systems from an incentive point of view is developed. We analyse the way, how these systems can influence provider behaviour and, a fortiori, contribute to attain the general objectives of health care, i.e. quality of care, efficiency and accessibility. The first dimension of the typology indicates whether there is a link between the provider's income and his activity. In variable systems, the provider has an ability to influence his earnings, contrary to fixed systems. The second dimension indicates whether the provider's payments are related to his actual costs or not. In retrospective systems, the provider's own costs are the basis for reimbursement ex post whereas in prospective systems payments are determined ex ante without any link to the real costs of the individual provider. These different characteristics are likely to influence provider behaviour in different ways. Furthermore the most frequently used criteria to determine the provider's income are discussed: per service, per diem, per case, per patient and per period. Also a distinction is made between incentives at the level of the individual provider (micro-level) and the sponsor (macro-level). Finally, the potential interactions when several payment systems are used simultaneously are discussed. This typology is useful to classify and compare different types of payment systems as prevailing in different countries, and provides a useful framework for future research of health care payment systems.