Writing in JAMA "online first," CMS Administrator Tavenner and colleagues offer a payment reform "framework" that includes "multipayer collaboration." The article is wonky, so the Population Health Blog dons its universal adminispeak translator so us normal humans can better understand what CMS is up to.
According to the writers, CMS has a history of innovatively implementing reforms that were later adapted by other insurers. The most famous example is the hospital "DRG" system that, starting in 1983, paid for a diagnosis in lieu of a daily room rate. Suddenly, hospitals had an incentive to shorten hospital stays, which is precisely what happened in the years that followed.
Buoyed by this success, the authors describe the merits of championing Medicare's transition from "category 1" fee-for-service without any link to quality to "category 4" population-based payments that are linked to quality. And, as CMS embarks on this excellent payment journey toward accountable care, they'll get other commercial insurers to mirror their efforts by:
"Being conveners" as in "working with" other insurers in a region or a state to implement large payment reforms. Working with may include grants;
"Incentivizing," as in requiring the participation of other payers prior to funding any large pilot programs.
"Working with states" to implement additional reforms, when the state has sufficient influence over the health insurance or delivery system.
The Population Health Blog's take:
"Category 4 population-based payments" are a form of capitation that are ultimately designed to transfer insurance risk from CMS to providers. The PHB hopes the bureaucrats at CMS are aware of the risk re-introducing some 1990s-style managed care abuses.
What also goes unmentioned by the JAMA article are examples of CMS payment reform unintentionally gone awry, including RVUs, regional payment variation and the SGR with lingering fraud. While CMS has had its successes, it's also had more than its share of problems. Time will tell which track record will apply to population-based payments.
Convening was an art developed by Medicaid programs.
Ms. Tavenner implies that population-based payments (a form of capitation) are intrinsically linked to quality. Nothing could be further from the truth, since it's possible to reward quality while also relying on a FFS methodology.
Accountable population-based care remains a large experiment. Ms. Tavenner implies that there is an aura of inevitability. The PHB learned long ago that the sign of a good plan is an exit strategy in case things go south. The PHB didn't read that here.