Financial Incentives And Physician's Behavior: Case Study

Pay-for-performance payment model – healthcare payment systems that offer financial rewards to providers who achieve, improve or excel their performance on specified quality of care and cost measures (HealthCare Incentives Improvement Institute, N.D.)

Financial incentives play a significant role in how care is provided. The North Ohio Heart Center was found to perform more angioplasties compared to the Cleveland Clinic performing bypass surgeries resulting in different incentive rates (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2015). These non-invasive procedures (angioplasties) generated highly profitable incomes for the physicians involved at the North Ohio Heart Center. The physicians perceived these procedures to be a safer option of treatment as opposed to drug treatment or bypass surgery. These decisions impacted patient care by causing more patient visits and more tests being performed generating a cumulative higher reimbursement. These incentives are moving us away from what is best for the patient. Robert Doherty, ACP senior vice president, stated, “we need to move away from the piecemeal approach: how many visits you can generate, how many tests

It is commonly believed that the method of physician remunerations affects their professional behavior. As a result, payment systems are therefore manipulated in attempts to achieve policy objectives with the primary aim to improve quality of care, contain cost and maintain recruitment of human resources in underserved areas. (2,1)

There is a growing trend in the United States called pay-for-performance. Pay-for-performance is a system that is used where providers are compensated by payers for meeting certain pre-established measures for quality and efficiency (What is Pay-for-Performance, n.a.). We are going to be discussing what pay-for-performance is. There are different aspects of pay-for-performance which include; the effects of reimbursement by this approach, the impact cost reductions has on quality and efficiency of health care, the affects to the providers and patients, and the effects on the future of health care.

The service-based pay structure provides significant motivation for healthcare providers to deliver as many services as possible, with little to no consideration of patient outcomes. Furthermore, this structure provides no incentive for certain key elements of healthcare such as patient education and care coordination, both of which have led to diminished costs and better outcomes for patients. I am of the opinion that very little quality improvement will take place if this pay-for-service model persists. The current transition from service-based pay to quality-based pay is definitely a move in the right

These mandates also require that some establishments provide customers with a good outcome and experience while at their facilities. There are also incentives provided to doctors who correctly diagnose their patients for the very first time reducing the rates of readmission this also applied to those that provided outstanding follow up care for patients “The new law provides incentives for physicians to join together to form “Accountable Care Organizations.” These groups allow doctors to better coordinate patient care and improve the quality, help prevent disease and illness and reduce unnecessary hospital admissions. If Accountable Care Organizations provide high quality care and reduce costs to the health care system, they can keep some of the money that they have helped save. Effective January 1, 2012” ( HHS>GOV).

For anyone who has kept up with the news, the US healthcare system has undergone major changes in recent years. Insurance providers are no longer able to deny someone coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The advent of healthcare marketplaces has changed the way people purchase health insurance. Children can stay on their parents' health insurance plans until 26. Leading the healthcare revolution is InnovaCare Health. This organization is a leading provider of Medicaid and Medicare Advantage plans. InnovaCare Health recently announced it would partner with the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network. This is a significant private-public partnership that seeks to change compensation models to reflect the quality of care instead of quantity. This new partnership reflects InnovaCare Health's to affect change in compensation sooner rather than later. The current healthcare model focuses on reimbursing physicians based on the number of patients seen or procedures performed. This encourages "treadmill medicine," or a model that focuses on rapid turnover. This can often lead to detrimental effects on patient health. The new quality model would reward physicians based on practice targets. Potential goals include HbA1c goals for patients with diabetes, the percentage of patients who smoke, and hospital stay after surgical procedures.

Besides, the financial incentives for hospitals and physicians that belong to ACOs, Jaffery & Golden 2013, asked and then answered the question “why would providers join this program? One reason is to prepare for the future”. Fee-for-service reimbursement, which has been how hospitals get paid for their services rely solely on the volume of patient seen without taking into consideration the quality of care provided. Payers today, such as government, commercial insurers, employers, and individual consumers are now requesting on value -based-payment, which consist of delivering the highest level of care at a lower cost. The volume based system even though the traditional way of how payments are made is not a viable long-term option (Jaffery and Golden, 2013, p.98).

In recent years, emphasis has been placed on improving the quality of health care services and the overall patient experience. Innovative measures are needed to meet these expectations, while also containing the rising costs of health care. The government has enacted new laws in attempts to provide incentives that base Medicare payments in part on quality. In fact, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, requires the implementation of value-based purchasing (VBP), which bases Medicare reimbursement rates on the quality of care (Kennedy, Wetzel & Wright, 2013). Hospitals may experience a decrease in revenue initially, however, it is theorized that the increase of transparency and accountability will serve as an incentive for improvements in the overall quality of care provided in the United States.

Physicians are used to operating under a fee for service payment method, which means they are paid separately for each service they perform. ACOs do not necessarily go away with this mentality. Instead, they do follow this method but offer incentive such as bonuses when fees are kept down. The focus is on prevention of disease. Each physician and healthcare system has benchmarks they must meet for bonus eligibility. In short, physicians are paid more to keep their patients out of the hospital. ACOs are also watched to be sure they are saving money. If an ACO does not meet performance benchmarks, they may be penalized with a fee (Gold, 2015).

They are more likely to be compensated in part on the basis of quality than physicians in small or medium-sized group practices. Financial incentives that are facing with doctors and hospitals push up cost. But not all doctors have a financial incentive to over treat patients. In particular, some hospitals are owned and operated by health maintenance organization insurance companies. At these hospitals doctors are salaried employees who receive no financial rewards for their performance. Physicians are paid before services with set amount of money for each patient. The amount that is rewarded determines by the service that is giving for each patient. These charges are developed by using general expenses and normal operation of services. This proportion is a capitation security pool. This funding cannot be compensated to doctors until the end of the economic year. The only method doctors will get compensated or uncompensated is for their medical services; only if the procedure does monetarily adequately or inadequately expenses will

The predominant system of payment to healthcare service providers had been the fee-for-service system for years. This system rewarded the providers for the intensity of their work. However, greater volume of services was not necessarily associated with better service quality. This incentive structure had policy makers concerned and thus, came the pay-for-performance into being established to improve service quality. The use of this system has been expanded by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Many studies were performed to identify ways to make the system more effective. However, the studies had somewhat mixed results.

The impact that the incentives in health care, readmission in care delivery, and the role of Electronic Health Records are still being investigated. While some Americans feel that the ACA has not helped them, it has in fact, has an increase in savings by offering incentive programs.

This article gives background information on MACRA, which was one of the first steps in overhauling the physician payment system. It focused mainly on several payment models that were voluntary for physicians, a pay for performance model and advanced alternative payment. Through CMS this law attempted to achieve better quality care and to not incur unnecessary costs and was aimed to provide a greater alternative to the Sustainable Growth Rate System. Focuses on how physician groups large and small are strategically planning on how to access each of the models and whether or not physicians will participate in them.

Under capitation, physicians are given incentive to consider the cost of treatment. Pure capitation pays a set fee per patient, regardless of their degree of infirmity, and gives physicians an incentive to avoid the most costly patients (Miller, 2009). Providers who work under such plans focus on preventive health care, as there is greater financial reward in prevention of illness than in treatment of the ill. Such plans avert providers from the use of expensive treatment options. The proponents of this method of payment especially insurance companies argue that when health care providers are not paid extra for additional office visits any associated medical expenses, they are likely to be more conservative with their treatment assessments