The idea of risk sharing within value-based care is a wonderful concept, but it has not yet changed behavior and outcomes to the extent one would hope, according to Heather Zacker, MS, senior director of Care Alliances of Joslin Innovation at Joslin Diabetes Center. A potential reason is the variation in metrics and incentives used within different systems.
The idea of risk sharing within value-based care is a wonderful concept, but it has not yet changed behavior and outcomes to the extent one would hope, according to Heather Zacker, MS, senior director of Care Alliances of Joslin Innovation at Joslin Diabetes Center. A potential reason is the variation in metrics and incentives used within different systems.
Transcript (slightly modified)
How have increased risk arrangements changed the way healthcare providers work together?
The concept of value-based care and of sharing risk is a wonderful, beautiful concept, right. So in theory, everyone understands what his or her role is, and has the incentives to provide just the right amount of care and education. In actuality, again, the systems and infrastructure are really not set up in so many health systems, and certainly globally or in the US, to facilitate that and to be conducive to that.
So when you look at the data, CMS reported on the 2014 results of the ACOs [accountable care organizations] and the shared savings plans, and there were improvements in quality measures. Great. I think it was something like 27 or 28 of 32 or 33 quality measures improved over the course of the year. That’s a good thing. But the costs were really not lowered in the way that one might have anticipated. And the quality improvement scores, I think they averaged like 3 or 4% improvement. So something’s not quite right yet.
When I think about it, logically, if you’re treating a number of patients and you’re a health system or a clinic, and you don’t know which patient walks into your office from Blue Cross and which one’s from Medicare and which one’s from Aetna and which one’s from a different commercial insurer. So there’s so many different metrics that are perhaps slightly different, and different incentives, and so without a closed system, it gets very, very hard.
In answer to your question, how do increased risk arrangements change behavior, how have they sort of played out, I would say we have not seen them play out optimally yet.
Bridging Education Gaps in Treatment for Scarring Alopecia With Innovative Approaches
March 28th 2025Crystal Aguh, MD, FAAD, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine faculty, highlights the critical need for comprehensive education on hair loss across diverse hair types, stressing the importance of understanding inflammatory pathways for developing targeted therapies.
Read More
Navigating Sport-Related Neurospine Injuries, Surgery, and Managed Care
February 25th 2025On this episode of Managed Care Cast, we speak with Arthur L. Jenkins III, MD, FACS, CEO of Jenkins NeuroSpine, to explore the intersection of advanced surgical care for sport-related neurospine injuries and managed care systems.
Listen
Strategies for Improving Patient Access to Dermatology Care
March 22nd 2025Elizabeth Jones, MD, FAAD, highlights the persistent issue of insurance companies favoring expensive, newer medications over equally effective generics in dermatology, emphasizing the time-consuming prior authorization process and advocating for patient partnerships and systemic improvements.
Read More
Redefining Long COVID Care With Personalized Treatment
March 20th 2025To mark the 5-year anniversary of the COVID pandemic, The American Journal of Managed Care® spoke with Noah Greenspan, DPT, PT, CCS, EMT-B, cardiopulmonary physical therapist and director of the Pulmonary Wellness and Rehabilitation Center in New York City.
Read More