The organizations that can take on 2-sided risk are usually bigger and that’s not always better for health care, said Jayson Slotnik, partner, Health Policy Strategies, Inc.
The organizations that can take on 2-sided risk are usually bigger and that’s not always better for health care, said Jayson Slotnik, partner, Health Policy Strategies, Inc.
Transcript
Do we need more organizations willing to take on downside risk in order to make real progress in transforming care delivery and realize substantial savings with value-based contracts?
So, value-based cancer care works in 1 of 2 ways. Either you've got 1-sided risk or you have 2-sided risk, right? That could be, either one could fit into a value-based contract. One-sided risk is just that, where one side is taking the risk, and usually there's not a lot of skin in the game on either side. CMS did this with something called the Oncology Care Model [OCM]. And it [produced] some savings, but after a while, quickly flattened out. However, on the other side is the 2-sided risk of value-based cancer care, which CMS tried to do through the OCM. It works somewhat, but again, didn't have a huge success.
At the end of the day, though, right, to take risk, you need to be big, you need to be large, you need to have sophisticated infrastructure to ascertain the risk, measure the risk, and understand where it's coming from and correct quickly. On one hand, that sounds great. On the other hand, my personal opinion: that that's actually bad for health care. Because what has occurred over the last, let's say, 10 years, ever since policies were put in place to incentivize double-sided, 2-sided risk vis-à-vis accountable care organizations, is that these organizations have gotten much bigger.
Hospitals have purchased lots of physicians’ offices in the community, the health payer has gone vertical, and you have 2 very large entities sitting down for a contract. And because they are each large, one can't live without the other. And so, there is actually an escalation in prices, certainly on the large provider side who says to the payer, “You can't have a health plan without me being in network. So here are my rates.” And that's where they start. And they don’t go right to a value-based contract. It takes a real stiffed back payer to push back and try to push it. We have not seen that yet. Because they haven't gotten that far. They have the flexibility of increasing premiums. And that's what's been done so far.
So, at the end of the day, do we need 2-sided [risk] in more organizations? Yes. Do they have to be bigger? I don't know that that's a success. Maybe what we need are more affordable tools for a smaller entity to be able to use, to equitize leverage with the health plan, in order to have a value-based contract without increasing premiums.
No Major Shifts in OBGYN Practice Locations Found Post Dobbs Decision
April 21st 2025Despite widespread concern following the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, researchers found no significant changes nationwide in obstetrician and gynecologist (OBGYN) practice locations.
Read More
Personalized Care Key as Tirzepatide Use Expands Rapidly
April 15th 2025Using commercial insurance claims data and the US launch of tirzepatide as their dividing point, John Ostrominski, MD, Harvard Medical School, and his team studied trends in the use of both glucose-lowering and weight-lowering medications, comparing outcomes between adults with and without type 2 diabetes.
Listen
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
Key Indicators of Myasthenia Gravis Disease Progression Reduced With Efgartigimod
April 18th 2025Research presented at the recent annual meeting of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy highlights outcomes among patients who have anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive myasthenia gravis that include reduced exacerbations and need for immunoglobulin.
Read More