Reimbursement Reduction And Cost Shifting: A Case Study

Over the years there has been a pervasive issue in health care because of the Pay-for-Performance (P4P) Programs. Pay-for-performance is defined as a plan of reimbursement that connects compensation to quality and effectiveness as a motivation to develop the health care quality as well as making a decrease in costs. Hospitals and providers are being encouraged by government agencies and individual health plans to encourage excellence standards. Pay-for-performance methods could cause consequences such as reduction admission to care, add differences care, and weaknesses to improve. There could be an impact of the health care quality and efficiency by providers getting financial rewards if they show better care for patients as well as

This model reimburses hospitals based on quality of care instead of the volume of patients. The quality of care is assessed by patient questionnaires and if hospitals are unsatisfactory penalties may be imposed (Edwoldt, 2012). The value-based system also affects Medicare and Medicaid. It was reported that Medicare readmissions within 30 days of discharge cost 17 billion dollars annually (Edwoldt, 2012). Due to the high costs of readmissions Medicare and Medicaid have implemented a Hospital Readmission Reduction program. A formula is utilized to evaluate readmission rates within 30 days of discharge for any medical reason related to their original admission such as heart failure and pneumonia. Upon review the hospital is potentially penalized. It is important that nurses strive to provide excellence in care despite their beliefs on the ACA. Nurses have the ability to provide a safe patient environment and reduce the risk of hospital associated infections by following hospital protocols such as hand washing.

Hospitals should be encouraged to participate because improving hospital care is likely to be essential to success (McClellan et al, 2010). Accountable care organizations can be implemented through different payment models. These could include opportunities to share in demonstrated savings within a fee-for-service environment, in which providers took on no new financial risk. They could also include limited or substantial capitation arrangements, in which payments were unrelated to the volume of services provided, to the intensity of service use, or to the frequency of face-to-face meetings, and in which providers took on some financial risk for poor-quality results or failure to control costs (McClellan et al,

In the past several years, there have been several changes in economic policy at federal and state levels. The two economic policies that present to be the most precedent for healthcare leaders with concern to facility reimbursement are the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the switch from volume to value reimbursement. First, there is the ACA policy, which have affected healthcare facilities and their reimbursement methods. In fact, ever since this policy was implemented, provider reimbursement has started to decrease in terms of fee-for-service payments (The Common-Wealth Fund, 2015). In other words, the intention of this policy was to provide budget relief to the government payers as well as giving providers an incentive to provider patients with great quality of care.

The Affordable Care Act was enacted to improve health care and to lower health care cost in America. The ACA developed different strategies to meet these goals called the “pay for performance” programs. These strategies are aimed at the different providers to improve quality care. The strategy that I selected is the “Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program” this program/strategy is also known as the HRRP and was begun in October of 2012. HRRP is aimed at hospitals and penalizes hospitals that have a high 30 day readmission rate. The penalties are assessed and based on a number of comparisons, those such as, performance, patient demographics, comorbidities and frailty.

Under the ACA there is a new method of payment called value-based purchasing (Yuh et al., 2015). Value-based purchasing focuses on aspects of quality care such as: patient safety, efficient care, and customer satisfaction. By providing quality care, physicians and hospitals are offered incentives that deter them from providing avoidable and pricey care (Yuh et al., 2015). Another way that the ACA is enhancing quality care is through the Readmissions Reduction Program. This program will decrease the reimbursements that the hospital will receive if there are a surplus of readmissions within a 30 day period. Overall, this will also improve quality of care by making sure that the patient is really ready for discharge when leaving the hospital and also strengthen efforts to reduce nosocomial infections (Aoughsten et al.,

When Medicare was first established, Medicare adopted the payment methods of Blue Cross Blue Shield which meant that the program was paid hospitals on the basis of their own costs and physicians were being reimbursed by the fees that they charged which caused hospitals and physicians to provide care without boundaries (Anderson et al., 2015). This method caused Medicare to dissipate the budget that was established for beneficiaries to utilize. Now, with the ACA being implemented, Medicare had done an overhaul of payment reimbursement. Medicare is now moving toward a volume to value payment initiative that links payment to patient outcomes, experience of care, while giving providers an incentive to limit spending

One policy that has changed the health care delivery to shift cost responsibility toward the hospital was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. This policy has changed hospital reimbursement under Medicare with the introduction of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) (Sultz & Young, 2009). The DRG prospective payment system rewarded hospitals financially for efficient care (specifically shorter hospital stays) and reduced the incentive to consume (Sultz & Young, 2009). Another policy that placed the burden of responsibility on the hospital was the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 which required hospitals to provide care to everyone who presented in the emergency department regardless of ability to pay (Sultz & Young, 2009). This law was designed with good intent to reduce the “patient dumping” that had arisen from the DRG system, but it nevertheless

Cost shifting is a challenging trend that the United States healthcare system is currently facing. The

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.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) had adopted the “no-pay” rule in the year 2008 with the objective to encourage hospitals to terminate medical complications (American Medical News, 2012; Stone, et.al., 2010). Under this rule, CMS denies the payment to the healthcare facilities for any extra cost which is involved in treating Medicare patient. This policy has the significant impact on the health care system as the hospital executives need to redefine their priorities and enhance their efforts towards improving patient care.

Clearly, specialty hospitals have very limited incentives and interest in treating these patients who cannot afford their services. Moreover, as specialty hospitals selectively serve patients with low risk profiles and leave complicated risky cases for community hospitals, community hospitals’ revenues from these specialties and general profitability dramatically decreased. Evidently, this unfair competition left community hospitals unable to provide free services for the uninsured or underinsured patients (Spatz et al., 2012).

Apart from the Affordable Care Act, there has been increased government and court involvement in the determination of how healthcare issues are run, like the recent denial of the nonprofit tax exemption status to some hospitals in Chicago (Bergen 2). These hospitals, which include the Northwestern Memorial Hospital and the Prentice Women’s Hospital, are known to provide important healthcare services to patients who cannot afford to pay the expensive costs in private hospitals (Bergen 2). These unfavorable healthcare policies among others are bound to be more frequent and the resultant problems may promote the emergence of other bigger ones unless immediate action is taken.

Thanks for your informative post, I agree, pay for performance is a reimbursement method aimed at improving the experiences of patients at various health institutions. This method as you mentioned is becoming popular among health care policymakers and health care insurers. it is a method based on incentive paid by health care insurers to providers to encourage the overall improvement of providers’ healthcare services to their patients . The pay for performance is considering a method of reimbursement that has shifted much of the financial risks to the providers of health care. The shift in risks to providers could be a double-edged sword. For one, the method can be credited for allowing physicians accountability for costs containment and wellbeing of their patients to be emphasized within the health arena. On the other hand, P4P could result in physicians enrolling patients with less complicated health problems in the practices, or it could lead to physicians avoiding healthcare facilities in poorer neighborhoods with many chronic ill patients. That said, researchers do not concur that the pay for

Hospitals and health systems in the U.S. are experiencing a remarkable transformation in their business models directed from numerous influences that are projected to ultimately turn the industry around. Pressures include providers troubled with the quantity of services they are responsible for, to providers who concentrate on presenting high-cost services that give emphasis to sustaining healthy populations (Dunn & Becker, 2013).