Capitation for cardiologists: accepting risk for coronary artery disease under managed care

Cardiovascular and economic outcomes after initiation of atorvastatin versus simvastatin in an employed population stratified by cardiovascular risk

The relative effects of atorvastatin and simvastatin among higher- and lower-risk patients are not well characterized. This study compared cardiovascular (CV) risk and direct and indirect costs among higher- and lower-risk employees initiating atorvastatin vs. simvastatin. Using a large employer claims database (1999-2006), employees were stratified as 1) high-risk employees with prior CV events, diabetes, or renal disorders; and 2) low- to intermediate-risk employees without these conditions. Propensity score matching was used, and 2-year outcomes were compared between matched cohorts. Indirect costs included disability payments and medically related absenteeism. Drug costs were imputed with recent prices to account for availability of generic simvastatin. Among 4167 matched pairs of high-risk employees, atorvastatin use was associated with a numerically lower risk of CV events (17.6 versus 18.4%, P = 0.37), higher direct medical costs ($17,590 versus $17,377, P = 0.002), numerically lower indirect costs ($4830 versus $4989, P = 0.29), and higher total costs by $54 ($22,420 versus $22,366, P = 0.034). The majority of high-risk employees (62%) received low initial statin doses (atorvastatin = 10 mg or simvastatin = 20 mg). Among 9326 matched pairs of low- to intermediate-risk employees, atorvastatin use was associated with a lower risk of CV events (3.1% versus 3.7%, P = 0.030), lower direct medical costs ($8400 versus $8436, P < 0.001), numerically lower indirect costs ($2781 versus $2807; P = 0.12), and lower total costs by $61 ($11,181 versus $11,243, P < 0.001). These results suggest that formulary policies reserving atorvastatin for higher-risk patients may not be cost-saving from the employer perspective.

The future of capitation: the physician role in managing change in practice

Capitation-based reimbursement significantly influences the practice of medicine. As physicians, we need to assure that payment models do not jeopardize the care we provide when we accept higher levels of personal financial risk. In this paper, we review the literature relevant to capitation, consider the interaction of financial incentives with physician and medical risk, and conclude that primary care physicians need to work to assure that capitated systems incorporate checks and balances which protect both patients and providers. We offer the following proposals for individuals and groups considering capitated contracts: (1) reimbursement for primary care physicians should recognize both individual patient encounters and the administrative work of patient care management; (2) reimbursement for subspecialists should recognize both access to subspecialty knowledge and expertise as well as patient care encounters, but in some situations, subspecialists may provide the majority of care to individual patients and will be reimbursed as primary care providers; (3) groups of physicians should accept financial risk for patient care only if they have the tools and resources to manage the care; (4) physicians sharing risk for patient care should meet regularly to discuss care and resource management; and (5) physicians must disclose the financial relationships they have with health plans and medical care organizations, and engage patients and communities in discussions about resource allocation. As a payment model, capitation offers opportunities for primary care physicians to influence the future of health care by improving the management of resources at a local level.