TO THE EDITORS:
It's the reimbursement,
stupid.
We were excited by the article by Dorr et al1 and its bottom line: In our ongoing work with Sheila Leatherman and colleagues atthe University of North Carolina to assess whether there is a business case forquality in Medicaid managed care, we are finding, as have Dorr et al, thatenhanced care management for high-risk chronically ill beneficiaries pays off—forthe healthcare payers investing in stratifying risk and designing and implementingthe interventions.
Yet even though we are pleased that health plans, state Medicaid agencies,and other payers now have more reason to invest in quality, we should worryabout the hospitals and physician groups that may incur losses from theseimprovements. Can we find ways to realign healthcare financing so that "win-win-win-win" or "gainsharing" scenarios (for purchasers-plans-providerspatients)can occur?
Because Medicaid has so many high-risk patients with serious chronic illnessesand because many of them are in managed care or disease management programswith the infrastructure and incentives to support targeted interventions,we intend to design a "business case for quality" evaluation project involving allof these stakeholders. We hope to learn how financing can be realigned, so thatwinning and losing can be more evenly shared for the betterment of the entirehealthcare system.
Stephen A. Somers, PhD
Melanie Bella, MBA
Author Affiliation:
From the Center for Health Care Strategies, IncCorrespondence Author: Stephen A. Somers, PhD, Center for Health Care Strategies,Inc, 200 American Metro Blvd, Ste 119, Hamilton, NJ 08619. E-mail:sasomers@chcs.org.
Reference
Am J Manag Care.
1. Dorr DA, Wilcox A, McConnell KJ, Burns L, Brunker CP. Productivity enhancement for primary care providers using multicondition care management. 2007;13:22-28.
IN REPLY:
We agree with the major points made by Bella and Somers (ie, that misalignedreimbursement stymies innovation in care management due to the lackof reward for high quality, patient-centered care); however, we believe thattheir summary mischaracterizes one of the novel findings of our article: that atleast 1 type of care management can overcome reimbursement hurdles throughefficiency gains in clinical practice. In fact, the bottom line might be bettersummarized to say that all parties have potential incentives (as well as disincentives)to change. It may be the reimbursement (per providers) or the prices (perpurchasers and insurers) or the technology, or it may be (and likely is) all of theabove, and more.
Our study did not look in depth at benefits to health plans; in fact, the higherproductivity of the providers translated into revenue enhancement for them andpotentially a net loss for insurers. However, the broader implications made by Bellaand Somers do make sense. Other analyses we have completed do indicate thatpurchasers and insurers have $2 to $3 benefit from every dollar charged fromprimary care clinics (mainly through reductions in hospitalizations). In addition,the ability of primary care practices to bear the burden of the larger redesignefforts—electronic health records, changing payment methodologies, and thelike—is extremely limited. Our more recent work has shown that vertical collaboratives—patients, purchasers, insurers, and providers—can work together to createsuccess and minimize risk in the way that Bella and Somers describe.
The primary point of our article is to consider, from the perspective of the primarycare clinics involved, what makes sense to do now while reimbursement ischanging. The article concludes that reorganizing primary care practices withinformatics-intensive programs like Care Management Plus can improve qualityand efficiency within the current multipayer reimbursement system. The time toact is now.
David A. Dorr, MD
Author Affiliation:
From Oregon Health & Science University.Correspondence Author: David A. Dorr, MD, Department of Medical Informatics,Oregon Health & Science University, Mailcode BICC, Portland, OR 97239. E-mail:dorrd@ohsu.edu.
High-Risk Care Management Impact on Medicaid ACO Utilization and Spending
July 10th 2025In Massachusetts’ largest Medicaid accountable care organization (ACO), high-risk care management significantly reduced spending, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations, demonstrating that targeted strategies can manage health care costs amid budget constraints.
Read More
Corticosteroid Premedication for Infliximab Remains Unnecessarily Common
July 8th 2025Although use of corticosteroid premedication prior to infliximab infusions is declining, it remains unnecessarily high despite limited benefit and the risk of serious adverse events from corticosteroids.
Read More
Managed Care Reflections: A Q&A With David J. Shulkin, MD
July 7th 2025To mark the 30th anniversary of The American Journal of Managed Care (AJMC), each issue in 2025 includes a special feature: reflections from a thought leader on what has changed—and what has not—over the past 3 decades and what’s next for managed care. The July issue features a conversation with David J. Shulkin, MD, a physician and former secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs.
Read More
Moving Evidence From Research to Practice: Q&A With Ken Cohen, MD
June 23rd 2025In 2025, each issue of Population Health, Equity & Outcomes will feature a profile of a health system leader transforming care in their area of expertise. This issue spotlights a conversation with Ken Cohen, MD, executive director of translational research at Optum Health.
Read More