Skip to main content

Three Tips for Providers Following the Bundled Payment Delay

What can you do while CMS decides how to handle the mandatory program?

As the healthcare community continues its march away from fee-for-service models, bundled payment initiatives have risen in popularity—thanks in no small part to their ability to fuel cost savings and significantly improve care outcomes.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued an interim final rule in March that delays implementation of the new bundled payment model for heart attack and cardiac bypass surgery services; expansion of the existing Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement bundling model; and implementation of a new cardiac rehabilitation incentive payment model, from July 1 to October 1, 2017.

Prior to the interim rule, CMS’ push forward on bundled payments focused the industry on episodic efficiency. The delay has pushed these initiatives back three months and, as DataGen’s Vice President, Kelly Price recently explained, is causing confusion and worry among participants.

Benefits of the delay

Despite Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price’s negative statements about mandatory bundling initiatives, the delay has some benefits. Stakeholders across the industry will have more time to assess the efficacy of the program and provide comments to CMS. In addition, Secretary Price and others hope to align the payment periods with the calendar year. Providers can use this opportunity to better prepare for the program’s official start.

Will value-based care survive this overhaul?

Patrick Conway, Chief Medical Officer at CMS, has indicated that early findings around bundles are “encouraging,” but more data are needed to fully assess their impact on costs and quality. This validates CMS’ plans to test pilot bundles.

Industry experts think there is little reason to worry that bundled payment programs and other quality payment programs, such as those under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA), are in danger of being decimated. The fact that MACRA was passed through a bipartisan vote indicates that Republicans and Democrats understand that there is a need to lower spending and shift away from fee-for-service toward value-based care. However, experts believe there might be a shift from mandatory bundles to voluntary bundles as it facilitates increased provider participation.

What should participants do now?

  1. Provider organizations that had previously expressed concern about the accelerated pace of the program can leverage this extra time to strengthen engagement with their patient populations. 
  2. Hospitals that will be participating in these programs can begin implementing test strategies to understand what would drive bundled payment profitability. Some factors to consider: 
    1. Program costs: These would include staff, marketing outreach to physicians, and information technology improvements. 
    2. Price discount: Providers may have a false sense of confidence if their historic spend is commensurate with the region rather than above that region. However, with a discount factor of 3% taken to calculate targets, those providers are already behind. 
    3. Gainsharing: While gainsharing is not allowed outside of the waivers in CMS’ bundling programs, providers can begin defining and discussing the parameters of a successful arrangement. Savings can be split by creating gainsharing incentives among the different stakeholders across the continuum. This will allow physicians to collaborate on the modalities they use to treat their patients. 
  3. Though it may be a long process, providers should begin educating senior leadership and setting appropriate expectations. While the concepts sound simple, in-depth exposure and discussion is needed to truly understand the implications of these new rules. 
At the same time, the CMS Innovation Center can use this extra time to test and evaluate these innovations in care delivery and payment and determine whether modifications are needed. CMS can also continue to examine the effectiveness of both mandatory and voluntary bundles to observe which route promotes increased participation and better incentives.

The delay raises several questions about what value-based care will look like under the Trump Administration. Even though it gives more time to stakeholders to review and test these programs comprehensively (and hopefully increase the chances of success under this model), it also could impede innovation, which would further drive up healthcare costs. We hope the latter is not the case.

Contact DataGen to learn more about bundled payment programs. Also, visit our Resources page and follow us on LinkedIn for more learning on healthcare payment reform.

Popular posts from this blog

The Future of Healthcare: Top Trends Providers Need to Address Now

As we emerge from a global pandemic, accountable care organizations must address key new trends now to maintain progress toward value-based care and mitigate financial risk.  Analytics are key to helping ACOs gain a better understanding of trends so they can identify opportunities to drive quality improvement. These trends include: gaps in access to clinical care;  shifts in patient volume; increased demand for virtual care; and  social determinants of health challenges.  To better understand rising trends and actions providers should take, we will reach out to hospital and health system leaders to discuss how recent trends influenced their decision to adopt value-based contracts. Then, during our July 28 webinar, we will release a comprehensive market report on these trends and implications for the future. Preventing gaps in access to clinical care Advanced payment models incentivize ACOs to deliver high-quality care and close gaps in care for patients, thereby earning shared savings

ACOs must act now to get ahead of MSSP changes

Redesigned MSSP program The Medicare Shared Savings Program, one of Medicare’s largest alternative payment models, allows providers and suppliers the opportunity to form an Accountable Care Organization. It was redesigned in 2018, establishing “Pathways to Success” as a way to restructure participation and encourage ACOs to transition to two-sided risk models.  As part of this rule, a BASIC track was established for ACOs to begin participation under an upside-only risk model and to incrementally phase into a two-sided risk model through a glide path. The glide path is composed of Levels A through E, in which there is progressively greater financial risk and potential opportunity for savings.  It is critically important for ACOs to understand how their level of participation in MSSP will change in the coming years. COVID-19 impact on MSSP advancement The COVID-19 public health emergency has disrupted efforts to improve population health and care coordination, and has resulted in a lack

Three more years of CJR: What participating hospitals need to know

On April 29, CMS issued a final rule to extend the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model by an additional three performance years. A number of modifications effective in the extension period aim to improve the model and reflect Medicare policy changes over the last several years. CMS anticipates that CJR will save the Medicare program an additional $217 million over the extension period. The following summarizes the most notable model changes: Three new performance years have been added: PY 6 will include episodes that end between Oct. 1, 2021 and Dec. 31, 2022; PY 7 will include episodes that end between Jan. 1, 2023 and Dec. 31, 2023; and PY 8 will include episodes that end between Jan. 1, 2024 and Dec. 31, 2024. Episode definitions under the model have been expanded to include total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty procedures performed in the hospital outpatient setting. The episode categories under the extension are site-neutral and are defined as: MS-DRG 470: