CMS has engaged in several bundled payment initiatives over the last few years. As is usually the case, these new reimbursement methods are required to have periodic outside evaluations. The final, five-year, evaluation of the bundled payment program has been released by the Lewin Group. (Lewin Report) The initiative had four models covering 48 clinical episodes that providers could choose to participate in. This report covered the last three models; of those 2 and 3 had retrospective true-ups against a target, with the conveners of the episode sharing in some upside and downside performance and 4 was a true prospective payment. The average episode participant selected 8 clinical episodes and 90% of the episodes were in model 2, although there were more participants in model 3. Joint replacement was by far the most common episode. A number of providers who began participating in the bundled payments eventually withdrew. Very few people participated in model 4. Medicare spending declined for most of the clinical episodes and that decline was statistically significant for about half of the episodes, but Medicare did not save money after considering the reconciliation payments to providers; in fact, Medicare had a net increase in spending of about $300 million. Less use of post-acute care was the primary reason for the reduction in spending. Quality of care as measured by mortality, readmissions and ER use was roughly equivalent between patients treated under bundled payments and those treated outside the bundles. There were not significant health status differences between beneficiaries in and out of the bundled payments, suggesting that there was not much, if any, steering of patients to a bundled reimbursement, or to traditional Medicare payments. Providers with more resources and higher baseline spending tended to be more likely to participate in a bundled payment. There was slightly less satisfaction with care reported by patients cared for under the bundled payment. Overall, bundled payments don’t look like a bad idea but at least as structured for the initiative, didn’t save money. If quality isn’t better and they don’t save money, you have to ask why you would use bundled payments. But the design might be changed and bundles might be made mandatory, as they have for some joint replacements, and there could be significant savings.
Final Evaluation of CMS Bundled Payment Program
No Comments
✅ Subscribe via Email
About this Blog
The Healthy Skeptic is a website about the health care system, and is written by Kevin Roche, who has many years of experience working in the health industry. Mr. Roche is available to assist health care companies through consulting arrangements through Roche Consulting, LLC and may be reached at khroche@healthy-skeptic.com.
Healthy Skeptic Podcast
Research
MedPAC 2019 Report to Congress
June 18, 2019
Headlines
Tags
Access
ACO
Care Management
Chronic Disease
Comparative Effectiveness
Consumer Directed Health
Consumers
Devices
Disease Management
Drugs
EHRs
Elder Care
End-of-Life Care
FDA
Financings
Genomics
Government
Health Care Costs
Health Care Quality
Health Care Reform
Health Insurance
Health Insurance Exchange
HIT
HomeCare
Hospital
Hospital Readmissions
Legislation
M&A
Malpractice
Meaningful Use
Medicaid
Medical Care
Medicare
Medicare Advantage
Mobile
Pay For Performance
Pharmaceutical
Physicians
Providers
Regulation
Repealing Reform
Telehealth
Telemedicine
Wellness and Prevention
Workplace
Related Posts
Commentary
Mental Health by Political Preference
September 13, 2024
Mental Health by Political Preference
Especially for young women, buying into whacko leftist ideologies is a recipe for having mental…
Commentary
Interest on the US Debt
September 13, 2024
Interest on the US Debt
The federal debt interest payments are taking over the federal budget and will cause immense…
Commentary
Deaths in the United Kingdom
September 12, 2024
Deaths in the United Kingdom
Identifying what happened with mortality and death rates before and after the epidemic is complex,…