Fee-for-service payment models have not been successful in the field of palliative care, where small practices seem to work better under flexible programs like per member per month, said Allison Silvers, vice president of payment and policy at the Center to Advance Palliative Care.
Fee-for-service payment models have not been successful in the field of palliative care, where small practices seem to work better under flexible programs like per member per month, said Allison Silvers, vice president of payment and policy at the Center to Advance Palliative Care.
Transcript (slightly modified)
What are some payment models that have successfully increased access to palliative care?
What we’ve found is that the fee-for-service model clearly does not work for palliative care. Too much time is needed by the professionals, and there’s all the “unbillable” professionals. The payment model that seems to give the most flexibility is per member per month, especially for home-based palliative care where the program is taking care of a specific population. The problem with other models such as fee-for-service with shared savings is the shared savings are too remote and a number of programs are small and unwilling to take risk. So just having enough of a flexible pot of money seems to work best.
Impact of Amivantamab-Lazertinib on EGFR, MET Resistance Alterations in NSCLC: Danny Nguyen, MD
September 15th 2025The combination of amivantamab and lazertinib in first-line non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) significantly reduces resistance mechanisms with implications for second-line treatment, said Danny Nguyen, MD, of City of Hope.
Read More
Disparities in Biomarker Testing Impact Nonsquamous NSCLC Outcomes: Surbhi Singhal, MD
September 6th 2025Surbhi Singhal, MD, of the University of California Davis, discussed disparities in biomarker testing among patients diagnosed with stage IV nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Read More