Examine Design: We created a monetary simulation from empirical information to exhibit the feasibility and potential use instances inside the context of a hypothetical episode-based fee mannequin for prostate most cancers surgical procedure (prostatectomy).
Strategies: We used Monte Carlo simulation strategies to foretell monetary outcomes below varied scientific and fee mannequin eventualities for our pilot prostatectomy episode use case. We enter patient-level empirical price, reimbursement, and scientific information for a cohort of 157 sufferers at our establishment into our mannequin to quantify anticipated monetary outcomes (funds, monetary margins) and monetary danger for stakeholders (payer, hospital, suppliers) below an episode-based fee mannequin.
Outcomes: In contrast with the established order, there’s a vary of anticipated monetary outcomes for varied stakeholders relying on the monetary parameters (episode value, shared financial savings, draw back danger, stop-loss) in an episode-based fee mannequin. Modifying scientific price drivers has a profound influence on these outcomes. Uncertainty is excessive as a result of small variety of episodes.
Conclusions: The simulation demonstrates that each monetary parameters and scientific price drivers considerably have an effect on the anticipated monetary outcomes for stakeholders in value-based fee fashions.
Am J Manag Care. 2021;27(8):In Press
_____
Takeaway Factors
Worth-based fee mannequin adoption is hampered by unknown monetary influence, notably concerning draw back danger, and poor supplier engagement. We describe our technique for prospectively quantifying the anticipated monetary influence and danger (upside and draw back) of transitioning from a fee-for-service to an episode-based fee mannequin utilizing empirical monetary and scientific information. We offer use instances for the simulation’s output that:
- quantify how the value-based fee association parameters have an effect on every stakeholder’s monetary consequence, together with danger publicity; and
- determine the highest-impact modifiable targets of value-based care redesign for participating clinicians within the transition to worth.
_____
Price-for-service (FFS) reimbursement incentivizes maximal use of providers with out accountability for high quality, outcomes, or appropriateness, and it contributes to low-value care in the US.1 Ever-growing considerations about affordability and high quality have led to widespread efforts to deploy different fee fashions (APMs), together with episode-based funds (EBPs), that reward high-quality, low-cost care.2,Three In an EBP, also known as a “bundled” fee, an accountable care entity receives a lump sum for related medical providers inside an outlined time interval or scientific care cycle. In distinction to different population-based APMs, like accountable care organizations or capitation, EBP fashions are notably related for specialty care suppliers and surgeons.4-6
Nevertheless, there’s trepidation round this transition to value-based reimbursement. Well being methods and supplier teams lack structured, systematic mechanisms to evaluate the potential influence on institutional and supplier funds.7,Eight Present methods estimate well being system reimbursement below an alternate mannequin relative to FFS. This technique conceptualizes “price” as payer reimbursement to the well being system, relatively than true service-delivery prices. As a result of inside manufacturing prices are neither effectively understood nor systematically tied to reimbursement, such analyses present an incomplete image of the true monetary implications of transitioning to value-based funds.9 Well being care organizations should perceive the influence of adopting different funds within the context of true prices to ship care.10 To date, unsure monetary implications have stymied stakeholder enthusiasm round EBP fashions.11
We suggest a well being system–pushed framework to systematically consider the influence of adopting EBPs for discrete episodes of care. We illustrate the method by means of a case examine of a prostate most cancers surgical procedure episode at a tertiary establishment. The aims are to develop a mechanism to (1) quantify the influence on stakeholder funds of adopting an EBP and (2) inform value-based care redesign efforts by quantifying the influence of scientific price drivers. Herein, we focus on our course of for accumulating and analyzing episode-specific scientific and monetary information, describe our simulation mannequin for predicting monetary outcomes, and illustrate makes use of of the methodology to achieve potential insights on the monetary implications of a hypothetical EBP for prostate most cancers surgical procedure.
METHODS
Episode Design and Cohort Identification
Choose the episode. An episode of care might span an inpatient hospitalization, surgical process, or medical situation. Broader episode definitions current larger alternative to deal with variation and low-value care, however they introduce complexity in payer reimbursement.12
Radical prostatectomy is the surgical normal of look after localized prostate most cancers. This episode satisfies the Well being Care Fee Studying & Motion Community’s standards for prioritization for value-based APMs and is a probable focus for future EBPs (eAppendix A [eAppendices accessible at ajmc.com]).13,14
Outline episode interval. The closest urology go to previous to surgical procedure initiates the episode, which continues 90 days postoperatively (eAppendix B). Though many medical and surgical EBP fashions start on the index hospitalization,12 we seize variation in preoperative care to determine alternatives for worth enchancment throughout this part. Within the preoperative interval, we embrace solely providers rendered for prostate most cancers or preoperative care (Worldwide Classification of Ailments, Ninth Revision [ICD-9] code 185.zero and Worldwide Classification of Ailments, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] code C61, and ICD-9 codes V72.81-V72.84 and ICD-10 codes Z01.810-Z01.818, respectively). We embrace all medical providers through the index admission and 90-day postoperative interval (eAppendix C).15
Determine affected person cohort. After acquiring institutional evaluate board approval, we recognized sufferers present process robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in 2016 at our main educating facility. We utilized the hospital’s hybrid analytics and data expertise group to extract instances utilizing ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes for prostate most cancers (185.zero or C61, respectively) and Widespread Procedural Terminology (CPT) code for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (55866). This group supplies reporting, evaluation, monitoring, and actionable enterprise intelligence by combining information throughout completely different hospital methods. We cross-referenced the cohort with operative schedules to guarantee the veracity of our search. We recognized 157 instances carried out by 5 urologic oncology school members.
Receive Mannequin Enter Information
Demographic and scientific. Our bioinformatics group extracted demographic and scientific information, together with affected person age, physique mass index, comorbidities, schooling, revenue, tobacco use, tumor grade, and most cancers stage. We abstracted scientific information from the inpatient admission, together with size of keep, working room time, escalation of care, and postdischarge occasions, together with discharge disposition, readmissions, and emergency division visits (Desk 1).
Monetary. We then obtained granular price and reimbursement information for every affected person. Desk 216 experiences mixture monetary enter information and element on cost-accounting strategies and reimbursement information sources. Regardless of a mixture of payers, we calculated reimbursement in accordance with Medicare payment schedules to simulate a Medicare-specific EBP mannequin. The confidential nature of business contracts preclude inclusion on this report, however we beforehand verified the belief that inside prices are unbiased of payer.17
Prices. We separated prices by part (preoperative, inpatient, postoperative). We additional divided inpatient prices into 2 phases: surgical procedure/perioperative and inpatient ward (personnel and hospital). We make the most of beforehand reported institution-specific time-driven activity-based costing estimates for outpatient (all prices) and inpatient (personnel prices solely) for robotic radical prostatectomy.18 For all different working room/perioperative and inpatient ward prices, we used our hospital’s activity-based costing information.
Reimbursement. We additionally separated reimbursement by part (preoperative, inpatient, postoperative) and sort (skilled, nonprofessional). Nonprofessional reimbursement included the Inpatient Potential Fee System’s reimbursement for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (CPT 55866), with or with out pelvic lymph node dissection (CPT 38571), and technical part reimbursement for outpatient providers resembling radiology and laboratory testing. We searched the Medicare Doctor Price Schedule for patient-level skilled reimbursement for all doctor providers, excluding anesthesia, which we estimated utilizing information from the division of anesthesiology’s finance workplace.16
Episode Fee Mannequin Design
The 5 urologic oncologists collaborated to outline a consensus high-value scientific care pathway to tell the inclusion of scientific providers within the fee mannequin (eAppendix D). We developed an EBP mannequin by defining modifiable monetary and scientific parameters in accordance with the specifics of the scientific episode and mannequin contributors.7,12,19-22 Desk 3 experiences the important thing mannequin parts.
Monetary Simulation Mannequin
We constructed a simulation to achieve confidence within the computation of stakeholders’ funds below the EBP. This entails sampling affected person cohorts in line with particular person patient-level empirical price and scientific information from our cohort to compute fee distributions below an EBP and the extant FFS association. We constructed the simulation mannequin utilizing the next steps:
- Step 1: Acquire empirical patient-level scientific and granular monetary information inputs (Desk 2 [A]) for the unique affected person cohort.
- Step 2: Generate simulated affected person information by independently becoming distributions for every empirical enter, contemplating correlations amongst enter variables. We assume sufferers are unbiased of one another and use the Cholesky matrix decomposition approach so as to add desired correlation to independently drawn information. For simplicity, we account for main correlations and ignore cascading results (eAppendix E).
- Step 3: Validate simulated information by graphically evaluating empirical and simulated distributions for unbiased enter variables (eAppendix F).
- Step 4: Calculate related monetary consequence for every stakeholder utilizing the simulated affected person cohort information in accordance with the outlined EBP mannequin. Though the two required stakeholders are the payer and the accountable entity (often a well being system or supplier group), we moreover break up the accountable entity into the hospital and taking part physicians for this train. The related monetary consequence differs by stakeholder (payer and doctor: per-episode fee; accountable entity [hospital plus physician] and hospital: per-episode monetary margin [payment minus internal costs]). We additionally compute corresponding hypothetical outcomes below FFS utilizing the sampled reimbursement information for every affected person. By simulating many affected person cohorts (200), we generate the distribution of outcomes for every stakeholder below each fee fashions. Based mostly on these distributions, we report greenback change and danger metrics within the EBP with respect to the present state of FFS.
Danger Analysis
We moreover think about monetary outcomes when it comes to the extent of danger assumed by every stakeholder. Normal deviation is an mixture volatility measure and is insufficient to quantify danger in digestible phrases for clinicians. Subsequently, we think about 2 further monetary danger metrics, impressed by worth in danger and conditional worth in danger, to speak pertinent monetary danger of the EBP when it comes to best- and worst-case eventualities in contrast with the established order. We compute the chance {that a} stakeholder is best off below an EBP (worth in danger) and the imply good points (or losses) on condition that the stakeholder performs higher (or worse) within the EBP (conditional worth in danger). The latter primarily illustrates the episode’s “danger hall” (eAppendix G).
RESULTS
We created an interactive, web-based interface that permits stakeholders to dynamically consider monetary outcomes below a variety of fee mannequin parameters and scientific eventualities. The next case research illustrate 2 potential functions.
Case Examine 1: Monetary Implications of Transitioning From FFS to EBP (Determine 1)
For this software, we preserve scientific parameters at their baseline ranges (Desk 216). We report the monetary outcomes below EBP for a simulated cohort because the median per-episode change in greenback quantity with respect to the FFS fee or monetary margin for every stakeholder. Constructive (or unfavorable) change in contrast with FFS displays a extra (or much less) favorable consequence for that stakeholder.
For our baseline EBP situation (Desk 3), we set the episode value on the historic imply fee. Federal bundled fee applications ceaselessly mandate a downward adjustment (usually round 3%) to make sure payer financial savings, however we omitted this low cost.12 We set a symmetrical, 50/50 shared financial savings (losses) fee between the payer and the accountable entity with the higher restrict of mixture shared financial savings (losses) for the accountable entity at 20% (8%) of imply episode price. The per-episode stop-loss threshold was set to three SDs above the imply.21 The episode doctor fee displays publicly accessible Medicare reimbursement charges and contains the 5% Medicare bonus for qualifying as a sophisticated APM. We assumed that inside the accountable entity, the physicians obtain the bottom reimbursement after which evenly break up any remaining financial savings or losses with the hospital. We set the probability that the accountable entity meets a minimal high quality threshold to develop into eligible for shared financial savings at 100%. We simulated 200 cohorts of 160 simulated sufferers (estimated annual case quantity). Determine 1 exhibits the greenback change in per-patient monetary consequence (fee or margin) below the baseline EBP mannequin relative to establishment FFS. The corresponding desk moreover experiences the chance that the stakeholder fares higher within the EBP (row 2) and the imply greenback change in monetary consequence in contrast with FFS on condition that the stakeholder fares higher (row 3) or worse (row 4) within the EBP. The ultimate 2 rows estimate the seemingly best- and worst-case danger hall.
Below these baseline EBP parameters, the payer and physicians are seemingly (99% and 58%, respectively) to fare higher in contrast with FFS (payer pays $286.13 much less per episode and physicians obtain $44.24 increased fee, respectively). Conversely, the mannequin predicts an unfavorable consequence for the accountable entity, pushed by a lower within the hospital’s margin. The hospital has solely a 3% likelihood of faring higher within the EBP, with an anticipated lower in per-episode monetary margin of $341.15 in contrast with establishment FFS.
Acknowledging there isn’t any prescriptive “appropriate” stage for any of the monetary fee mannequin parameters chosen right here, our mannequin permits stakeholders to discover a spectrum of choices, probably within the context of EBP contract negotiations. As an instance this, we alter the EBP parameters to shift extra draw back danger onto the payer by decreasing the accountable entity’s most mixture loss from 8% to five% and decreasing particular person affected person outlier threshold from Three to 2 SDs above the imply. The monetary outcomes develop into considerably much less unfavorable for the accountable entity as in contrast with the baseline EBP situation (Determine 1: third field plot vs second field plot; second stakeholder column within the corresponding desk).
Case Examine 2: Impression of Modifying Particular person Medical Price Drivers on Monetary Outcomes (Determine 2)
Right here we assume the baseline EBP monetary parameters are locked in. We are able to now discover how modifications in scientific price drivers have an effect on monetary outcomes for every stakeholder. This software helps inform value-based care redesign efforts by prospectively evaluating the monetary influence of modifications in useful resource utilization, effectivity, and outcomes that drive EBP efficiency. This course of additionally illustrates the enterprise case for aligning stakeholders round worth.
Determine 2 quantifies the monetary outcomes of reaching value-based care redesign objectives and the chance for all events to profit inside a value-based APM. For this case examine, we evaluated the influence of decreasing preoperative MRI utilization from 35.7% (present state) to 20%, decreasing working room time by 5%, decreasing preoperative price variation by 50%, and decreasing high-cost outliers from 3.2% (present state) to 1% inside the EBP. For the accountable entity, reaching these scientific care supply objectives modifications the monetary consequence of shifting from FFS to this EBP from an unfavorable state of affairs ($294.73 discount) to a positive ($624.06 improve) in per-episode margin in contrast with FFS. In the meantime, doctor funds rise drastically, from $44.24 increased than FFS within the present scientific state to $503.64 increased. Demonstrating the monetary alignment among the many stakeholders in one of these association, the payer’s consequence concurrently turns into extra favorable with these care supply modifications: Median per-episode fee goes from $286.13 decrease to $369.40 decrease than what the payer would count on to pay in FFS. Full outcomes for all stakeholders below all scientific eventualities are proven in eAppendix H.
DISCUSSION
We describe our technique for systematically analyzing monetary outcomes of a discrete episode of care below completely different fee preparations. Our monetary simulation is predicated on patient-level empirical price, reimbursement, and scientific information that seize real-world variability in affected person care. By way of our prostatectomy case examine, we reveal insights into (1) the monetary influence of transitioning from FFS to EBP fashions and (2) the monetary influence of value-based care redesign targets. Well being methods presently lack such systematic, potential modeling to anticipate the monetary implications of value-based fee reform, make choices on adopting different funds, and maximize the worth of care supply.
Our framework affords an answer to a number of information gaps and will handle strategic hurdles which can be impeding adoption of EBP fashions. First, we current a novel mechanism to quantify and supply transparency across the monetary danger of transitioning from FFS to EBP, the uncertainty round which hinders adoption of value-based fee fashions.11 Our mannequin supplies the pliability to judge an array of scientific circumstances and fee mannequin constructions. The output is each a technique of study and a device for speaking uncertainty and alternative.
Second, our granular, inside price accounting strategies disentangle the arbitrary relationship between reimbursement and precise prices of delivering a service.10 Resulting from inherent price accounting challenges, episode “prices” are historically seen from the payer perspective within the type of price-standardized Medicare reimbursement. By evaluating historic Medicare spending towards potential monetary targets, well being methods estimate short-term reimbursement in an APM relative to the established order. Nevertheless, this technique lacks the specificity to tell care redesign that maximizes worth. We exhibit how analyzing inside service-line prices relative to reimbursement supplies a extra nuanced understanding of the monetary implications of transitioning away from FFS. This mannequin may additionally assist well being methods reach EBP fashions by figuring out essentially the most environment friendly targets for value-based care redesign.10
Lastly, our person interface facilitates stakeholder engagement. Medical stakeholders can tailor related scientific price drivers for particular episodes. Stakeholders might extra successfully take part in fee mannequin design and contract negotiation by higher understanding the significance of particular monetary mannequin parameters. Extrapolated over a time for an anticipated case quantity, payers can venture the worldwide change in service-line spending, risk-bearing entities can venture the worldwide change in monetary margin, and suppliers can prospectively estimate reimbursement. Supply methods may use this mannequin to calculate anticipated return on funding of worth enchancment initiatives.
Limitations
We observe a number of limitations. First, though high quality measures are an integral part of worth, this mannequin focuses totally on monetary outcomes. It stays difficult to outline possible, particular high quality metrics that happen inside the episode time-frame, are adequately risk-adjusted, and are below the management of these in danger.23,24 Nevertheless, to acknowledge the significance of high quality, we created a modifiable parameter representing the probability that the accountable entity meets a generic minimal high quality normal, making them eligible for gain-sharing.19 Particular high quality metrics, strategies of information assortment, and minimal high quality thresholds might range throughout service traces and establishments, and so they have to be clearly delineated for every episode.
Second, the insights generated by our prototype are legitimate solely internally, as a result of institution-specific nature of the inner manufacturing prices and reimbursement construction.25 Replication of those strategies for unbiased supplier teams, through which the accountable entity isn’t break up between a facility and suppliers, might yield variable outcomes however could be less complicated to mannequin. This represents a studying use case by means of which we developed a replicable, scalable framework to assist facilitate the transformation from quantity to worth.
Third, we modified solely a restricted variety of monetary mannequin parameters (most mixture loss and stop-loss threshold) for example a possible use of the mannequin. Nevertheless, we might have explored numerous modifications to the monetary parameters to judge their influence on general monetary outcomes.
Fourth, this monetary mannequin addresses solely variable or marginal prices. Many specialists view price financial savings attributed to decreased utilization on the margin as a “financial savings phantasm” because of large mounted prices.26 Nevertheless, others argue that inside the acceptable time-frame and with ample managerial consideration, as much as 95% of well being care prices develop into variable.10 This emphasizes the necessity for systemwide scaling of this system at the side of an energetic, institutional dedication to systematically redesign care supply.
Lastly, this device isn’t a stand-alone answer to worth transformation. Slightly, it supplies insights and actionable info to help value-based care initiatives, clinician engagement, and EBP design that align payers, hospitals, and physicians round high-value care.27
CONCLUSIONS
The transformation to value-based care in the US faces profound challenges. Though societal, political, financial, and psychological limitations proceed to impede the transition, well being methods and payers are forging forward with APM design and implementation. We current a scientific framework for prospectively producing institution-specific monetary insights into the worth of care supply for outlined episodes. Importantly, this mannequin permits stakeholders to higher perceive the monetary danger of adopting APMs. Well being methods should replicate, validate, operationalize, and scale this course of to successfully drive systematic supply system redesign.
Writer Affiliations: Veterans Affairs/College of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Nationwide Clinician Students Program (DCJ), Los Angeles, CA; Division of Urology, UCLA David Geffen Faculty of Medication (DCJ, AP, MSL, CSS), Los Angeles, CA; Division of Choices, Operations and Expertise Administration, UCLA Anderson Faculty of Administration (FB), Los Angeles, CA; ValU Care Redesign, UCLA Well being System (EK, CA), Los Angeles, CA.
Supply of Funding: Funded partially by the Veterans Affairs Nationwide Clinician Students Program and the American Urological Affiliation Urology Care Basis Analysis Students Grant.
Writer Disclosures: The authors report no relationship or monetary curiosity with any entity that will pose a battle of curiosity with the subject material of this text.
Authorship Info: Idea and design (DCJ, FB, EK, CA, MSL, CSS); acquisition of information (DCJ, EK, CA, MSL, CSS); evaluation and interpretation of information (DCJ, FB, EK, AP, MSL, CSS); drafting of the manuscript (DCJ, FB, EK, CA, CSS); vital revision of the manuscript for vital mental content material (DCJ, FB, EK, MSL, CSS); statistical evaluation (DCJ, FB, AP); provision of sufferers or examine supplies (DCJ); acquiring funding (DCJ, MSL, CSS); administrative, technical, or logistic help (DCJ, AP, MSL); and supervision (DCJ, MSL).
Tackle Correspondence to: David C. Johnson, MD, MPH, Division of Urology, College of North Carolina, 2105 Doctor’s Workplace Constructing, 170 Manning Dr, CB 7235, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7235. E-mail: David.c.johnson1@gmail.com.
REFERENCES
1. Porter ME, Kaplan RS. The right way to pay for well being care. Harv Bus Rev. 2016;94(7-8):88-98,100,134.
2. Burwell SM. Setting value-based fee objectives—HHS efforts to enhance U.S. well being care. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(10):897-899. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1500445
3. Murray A, Jha AK, Lee TH. Surgical care worth—past bundled funds. NEJM Catalyst. October 30, 2018. Accessed November 12, 2020. https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.18.0062
4. Tsai TC, Miller DC. Bundling funds for episodes of surgical care. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(9):905-906. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.1236
5. Alphs Jackson H, Walsh B, Abecassis M. A surgeon’s information to bundled fee fashions for episodes of care. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(1):3-4. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.2779
6. Nathan H, Dimick JB. Medicare’s shift to obligatory different fee fashions: why surgeons ought to care. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(2):125-126. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4005
7. Delbanco SF, Anderson KM, Main CE, Kiser MB, Toner BW. Promising fee reform: risk-sharing with accountable care organizations. The Commonwealth Fund.July 25, 2011. Accessed November 18, 2020. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2011/jul/promising-payment-reform-risk-sharing-accountable-care
8. Feeley TW, Mohta NS. Transitioning fee fashions: fee-for-service to value-based care. Optum. November 2018. Accessed December 1, 2020. https://www.optum.com/content material/dam/optum3/optum/en/sources/publications/NEJM_Optum_Transitioning_Payment_Models_2018.pdf
9. Reinhardt UE. The pricing of U.S. hospital providers: chaos behind a veil of secrecy. Well being Aff (Millwood). 2006;25(1):57-69. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.25.1.57
10. Kaplan R, Porter M. The massive concept: find out how to remedy the fee disaster in well being care. Harvard Enterprise Evaluation. September2011. Accessed November 28, 2020. https://hbr.org/2011/09/how-to-solve-the-cost-crisis-in-health-care
11. Ridgely MS, de Vries D, Bozic KJ, Hussey PH. Bundled fee fails to achieve a foothold in California: the expertise of the IHA bundled fee demonstration. Well being Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(8):1345-1352. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0114
12. Bundled Funds for Care Enchancment Superior: goal value specs – mannequin years 1 and a pair of.CMSCenter for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation. February 2018. Accessed October 19, 2020. https://innovation.cms.gov/information/x/bpciadvanced-targetprice-my1-2.pdf
13. Accelerating and aligning scientific episode fee fashions. Well being Care Fee Studying & Motion Community. August 1, 2016. Accessed August 4, 2020. https://hcp-lan.org/clinical-episode-payment/
14. Kaye DR, Miller DC, Ellimoottil C. Different fee fashions and urology. Curr Opin Urol. 2017;27(4):360-365. doi:10.1097/MOU.0000000000000403
15. Ellimoottil C, Ryan AM, Hou H, Dupree JM, Hallstrom B, Miller DC. Implications of the definition of an episode of care used within the Complete Look after Joint Alternative Mannequin. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(1):49-54. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.3098
16. Search the Doctor Price Schedule. CMS. Accessed January 15, 2018. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/physician-fee-schedule/search
17. Johnson DC, Kwok E, Ahn C, et al. Monetary margins for prostate most cancers surgical procedure: quantifying the influence of modifiable price inputs in an episode primarily based reimbursement mannequin. J Urol. 2019;202(3):539-545. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000283
18. Laviana AA, Ilg AM, Veruttipong D, et al. Using time-driven activity-based costing to know the short- and long-term prices of treating localized, low-risk prostate most cancers. Most cancers. 2016;122(3):447-455. doi:10.1002/cncr.29743
19. Witkowski M, Higgins L, Warner J, Sherman M, Kaplan RS. The right way to design a bundled fee round worth. Harvard Enterprise Evaluation. October 3, 2013. Accessed December 5, 2017. https://hbr.org/2013/10/how-to-design-a-bundled-payment-around-value
20. Contracting for bundled fee. MITRE Company. December 16, 2011. Accessed August 11, 2018. https://www.mitre.org/websites/default/information/pdf/Contracting_Bundled_Payment.pdf
21. American School of Surgeons.Proposal for a physician-focused fee mannequin: ACS-Brandeis Superior Different Fee Mannequin. Workplace of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Analysis. December 13, 2016. Accessed October 8, 2017. https://aspe.hhs.gov/websites/default/information/personal/pdf/253406/TheACSBrandeisAdvancedAPM-ACS.pdf
22. OCM performance-based fee methodology. CMS. December 17, 2018. Accessed January 24, 2019. https://innovation.cms.gov/information/x/ocm-cancercodelists.pdf
23. Hussey PS, Friedberg MW, Anhang Worth R, Lovejoy SL, Damberg CL. Episode-based approaches to measuring well being care high quality. Med Care Res Rev. 2017;74(2):127-147. doi:10.1177/1077558716630173
24. Pronovost PJ, Miller J, Newman-Toker DE, Ishii L, Wu AW. We should always measure what issues in bundled fee applications. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(10):735-736. doi:10.7326/M17-2815
25. Lee VS, Kawamoto Ok, Hess R, et al. Implementation of a value-driven outcomes program to determine excessive variability in scientific prices and outcomes and affiliation with decreased price and improved high quality. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1061-1072. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.12226
26. Rauh SS, Wadsworth EB, Weeks WB, Weinstein JN. The financial savings phantasm—why scientific high quality enchancment fails to ship bottom-line outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(26):e48. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1111662
27. Sandy LG, Pham HH, Levine S. Constructing belief between physicians, hospitals, and payers: a renewed alternative for remodeling US well being care. JAMA. 2019;321(10):933-934. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.19357