Does value-based healthcare support patient-centred care? A scoping review of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Standardisation of outcome measures is integral to value-based healthcare (VBHC), which may conflict with patient-centred care, focusing on personalisation.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to provide an overview of measures used to assess the effect of VBHC implementation and to examine to what extent the evidence indicates that VBHC supports patient-centred care.

DESIGN

A scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

We searched the following databases on 18 February 2021: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included empirical papers assessing the effect of the implementation of VBHC, published after introduction of VBHC in 2006.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers double-screened papers and data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by the other. We classified the study measures used in included papers into six categories: process indicator, cost measure, clinical outcome, patient-reported outcome, patient-reported experience or clinician-reported experience. We then assessed the patient-centredness of the study measures used.

RESULTS

We included 39 studies using 94 unique study measures. The most frequently used study measures (n=72) were process indicators, cost measures and clinical outcomes, which rarely were patient-centred. The less frequently used (n=20) patient-reported outcome and experience measures often measured a dimension of patient-centred care.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that the evidence on VBHC supporting patient-centred care is limited, exposing a knowledge gap in VBHC research. The most frequently used study measures in VBHC research are not patient-centred. The major focus seems to be on measures of quality of care defined from a provider, institution or payer perspective.

Primary care physicians' participation in the Medicare shared savings program and preventive services delivery: Evidence from the first 7 years

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether primary care physicians' participation in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) is associated with changes in their preventive services delivery.

DATA SOURCES

Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File and MSSP Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) Provider-Level Research Identifiable File from 2012 to 2018.

STUDY DESIGN

The design was a two-way fixed effects model estimating within-provider changes in preventive services delivery over time controlling for provider time-invariant characteristics, national time trends, and characteristics of served patients. The following preventive services were evaluated: influenza vaccination, pneumococcal vaccination, clinical depression screening, colorectal cancer screening, breast cancer screening, Body Mass Index (BMI) screening and follow-up, tobacco use assessment, and annual wellness visits. Both the likelihood of providing services and the volume of services delivered were evaluated.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Secondary data linked at the provider level.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

MSSP participation was associated with an increase in the likelihood of providing influenza vaccination (0.7 percentage-points), pneumococcal vaccination (2.0 percentage-points), clinical depression screening (2.1 percentage-points), tobacco use assessment (0.3 percentage-points), and annual wellness visits (4.1 percentage-points). A similar increase was found for the volume of services delivered per 100 patients for several preventive services: influenza vaccination (0.18), pneumococcal vaccination (0.56), clinical depression screening (0.46), and annual wellness visits (1.52). MSSP participation was associated with a decrease in the likelihood (-0.4 percentage-points) and the volume of colorectal cancer screening (-0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care physicians' participation in MSSP was associated with an increase in the likelihood and the volume of several preventive services.

Medicare accountable care organizations: post-acute care use and post-surgical outcomes in urologic cancer surgery

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate association between Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) participation of hospitals on post-acute care (PAC) use and spending, and post-surgical outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries undergoing urologic cancer surgeries. Despite increasing prevalence of urologic cancer and surgical care contributing to a large proportion of total health care costs, and recent Medicare payment reforms such as accountable care organizations, the role of ACOs in urologic cancer care has been unexplored.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal analysis of 2011-2017 Medicare claims data to compare post-surgical outcomes between Medicare ACO and non-ACO patients before and after implementation of Medicare shared savings program (MSSP). Our outcomes of interest were Post-acute care (PAC) use (overall, institutional, and home health), Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) length of stay and Medicare spending for SNF patients, 30-day and 90-day unplanned readmissions and complications after index procedure.

RESULTS

Study sample included a total of 334,514 Medicare patients undergoing bladder, prostate, kidney cancer surgeries at 524 Medicare ACO and 2066 non-ACO hospitals. For bladder cancer surgery, Medicare ACO participation was associated with significantly reduced overall post-acute care use, but not with changes in readmission or complication rate. For prostate cancer and kidney cancer surgery, we found no significant association between hospital participation in Medicare ACOs and PAC use or post-surgical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital participation in MSSP ACOs leads to lower post-acute care use without compromising patient outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries undergoing bladder cancer surgery. Future research is needed to understand longer-term impact of ACO participation on urologic cancer surgery outcomes.

[10 Years Accountable Care Organizations in the USA: Impulses for Health Care Reform in Germany?]

GOAL OF THE STUDY

An intent of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Acts (ACA), also know as Obama Care, was to slow the expenditure growth in the public Medicare-System by shifting the accountability for health care outcomes and costs to the provider. For this purpose, provider were allowed to form networks, which would then take accountability for a defined population - Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). Ten years after the introduction of ACOs, this paper looks at the impact of ACOs both on quality of care and costs of care to assess if ACOs can be a model of care delivery for Germany.

METHODS

In a mixed-method approach, a rapid review was conducted in Health System Evidence and PubMed. This was supported with further papers identified using the snowballing-technique. After screening the abstracts, we included articles containing information on cost- and/or quality impact of US-Medicare-ACOs. The findings of the rapid review were challenged with 16 ACO-experts and stakeholder in the USA.

RESULTS

In total, we included 60 publications which incorporated 6 reports that were either conducted directly by governmental institutions or ordered by them, along with 3 previous reviews. Among these, 31 contained information on costs of care, 18 contained information on quality of care and 11 had information on both aspects. The publications show that ACOs reduced costs of of care. Cost reductions were achieved compared to historic costs, to populations not cared for in ACOs, and counterfactuals. Quality of care stayed the same or improved.

CONCLUSION

ACOs contributed to slowing the cost growth in US Medicare without compromising quality of care. Thus, a transferal of this model of care to Germany should be considered. However, various policies have led to ACOs failing to unleash their full potential. Against this background, and against the background of stark differences between US Medicare and the German health care system, a critical reflection of the necessary policies underlying ACOs-like structures in Germany, needs to be undertaken.

The Impact of Health Delivery Integration on Cancer Outcomes

Although integrated health care has largely been associated with increases in prices and static or decreased quality across many disease states, it has shown some successes in improving cancer care. However, its impact is largely equivocal, making consensus statements difficult. Critically, integration does not necessarily translate to clinical coordination, which might be the true driver behind the success of integrated health care delivery. Moving forward, it is important to establish payment models that support clinical care coordination. Shifting from a fragmented health system to a coordinated one may improve evidence-based cancer care, outcomes, and value for patients.

The Affordable Care Act and access to care across the cancer control continuum: A review at 10 years

Lack of health insurance coverage is strongly associated with poor cancer outcomes in the United States. The uninsured are less likely to have access to timely and effective cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life care than their counterparts with health insurance coverage. On March 23, 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law, representing the largest change to health care delivery in the United States since the introduction of the Medicare and Medicaid programs in 1965. The primary goals of the ACA are to improve health insurance coverage, the quality of care, and patient outcomes, and to maintain or lower costs by catalyzing changes in the health care delivery system. In this review, we describe the main components of the ACA, including health insurance expansions, coverage reforms, and delivery system reforms, provisions within these components, and their relevance to cancer screening and early detection, care, and outcomes. We then highlight selected, well-designed studies examining the effects of the ACA provisions on coverage, access to cancer care, and disparities throughout the cancer control continuum. Finally, we identify research gaps to inform evaluation of current and emerging health policies related to cancer outcomes.