5. Toward More Transparency

MODULE 3 | Section 5 of 8

Toward More Transparency

VALUE-BASED HEALTH CARE VS. VOLUME-BASED HEALTH CARE

To combat the harmful effects of opaque pricing and payment mechanisms, health care providers are increasingly looking for more accurate ways of accounting costs and refocusing payment models around value over volume. These efforts are related, as more transparent costs allow for a clearer alignment of costs to outcomes that matter to patients, and a better picture of “value” in the context of providing care.

 

Recall key aspects of volume versus value-based health care as discussed in Module 1:

The Current System:
Volume-Based Health Care

The Goal:
Value-Based Health Care

Individual care interactions organized around the clinician’s medical expertise (e.g. an orthopedic surgeon)

Team-based care interactions organized around patient medical needs and conditions (e.g. “musculoskeletal pain”)

Fragmented care that is organized at the level of individual units or facilities

Integrated care across units and facilities, such as in an integrated practice unit (IPU)

Measurement largely based on process measures and “billable activities”

Measurement focused on patient health outcomes
Costs are poorly captured and often are estimated by using poor proxies such as charges and reimbursements
The actual costs of providing patient care are measured and captured
Providers – physicians and health systems – are reimbursed based on individual services provided
Providers are reimbursed based on value of care provided across a full care cycle for medical conditions
Health information technology maximized for capturing billing processes and reporting necessary metrics
Health information technology is leveraged to help restructure care delivery and accurately measure results

This section will detail two new methods that are gaining ground in the movement toward value-based health care: one for better aligning payment mechanisms to value, and another for more accurately calculating costs.

TIME-DRIVEN ACTIVITY-BASED COSTING (TDABC)

New methods for determining more accurate measurements of actual costs are increasingly being applied in health care. For example, Michael Porter and Robert Kaplan from Harvard Business School have advocated for the use of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC).1

With TDABC, the costs of space, non-consumable equipment, and administrative overhead are all assigned minute-to-minute cost rates that are relevant to specific processes of care. The care that is delivered over an entire episode is broken down into discrete activities or process steps, such as check-in, vitals and intake, physician evaluation, nursing care, and so on. A cost is assigned to each step by tracking who is doing the activity, what resources they use, which space they are in, and how long it takes them. Each item (personnel, resources, and space) is assigned a per-minute cost rate by bundling together all costs (fixed and variable) and then dividing by the total amount available for patient care.

 

TDABC requires providers to estimate only two parameters at each process step: the cost of each resource used in the process and the quantity of time the patient spends with each resource.

VALUE-BASED BUNDLED PAYMENTS

One proposed alternative payment mechanism is value-based bundled payments,2 which cover all required care for a medical condition and are not based on singular procedures or visits. These bundled payments reimburse providers for all that may be required to treat a medical condition, including procedures, medications, tests, supplies, facility costs, and services for a specified period of time.

Payment is provided for care of a medical condition like prostate cancer, childbirth, or diabetes for a specified period of time, known as the cycle of care. This includes the initial visit for the condition, followed by treatment, recovery, and rehabilitation. For chronic conditions, this cycle may continue throughout the course of a patient’s life. For a condition like childbirth, a typical time span can be specified.

 

Implementing value-based bundled payments requires providers to achieve a set of outcome measures that matter to patients to ensure optimal quality of care. Charges for care are based on more accurate and detailed costs of delivering care, and not based on FFS charges. Emergency episodes or care unrelated to the original medical condition that occurs during the cycle of care would be excluded and paid for separately using different bundled payments.

 

These alternative payment models focus on more accurate costs assignment and paying for care in a way that awards true recovery and improved health. We will discuss a model implementation of this payment model, via Integrated Practice Units (IPUs), in a future module.

REFERENCES

  1. 1- Kaplan RS, Anderson SR. Time-driven activity-based costing. Harvard Business Review. November, 2004.
    https://hbr.org/2004/11/time-driven-activity-based-costing Accessed March 27, 2017.
  2.  
  3. 2- Kaplan RS, Porter M. How to pay for health care. Harvard Business Review. July-August, 2016.
    https://hbr.org/2016/07/how-to-pay-for-health-care Accessed March 27, 2017.

Leave a Comment