When Should Medicare Mandate Participation In Alternative Payment Models?
Alternative payment models
Bundled Payments for Care Improvement
Bundled charges
Care Coordination
Cost savings
Costs and spending
Fee-for-service
Health care providers
Health policy
Markets
Medicaid services
Medicare
Patient engagement
Payment
Payment models
Quality of care
Value
Journal
Health affairs (Project Hope)
ISSN: 1544-5208
Titre abrégé: Health Aff (Millwood)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8303128
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
entrez:
4
2
2020
pubmed:
6
2
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services continues to propose and implement alternative payment models (APMs) to shift Medicare payment away from fee-for-service and toward approaches that emphasize health care value. As APMs expand in scope, one critical question is whether they should engage providers on a voluntary or a mandatory basis. Clinicians and policy makers may view the benefits and drawbacks of these two modes of participation differently. In this Analysis we compare the benefits and drawbacks of mandatory and voluntary participation, based on clinical versus policy perspectives, and we argue that both modes are necessary for APMs to achieve the goal of improving value. Policy makers should match the mode of participation and related financial incentives to each clinical scenario in which an APM is implemented. We propose ways to coordinate mandatory and voluntary APMs based on clinical scenarios.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32011936
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00570
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM