Healthcare industry watchdog Group Leapfrog says that if CMS suppresses the data “all of us will be in the dark on which hospitals put us most at risk”
For some time, hospitals and clinical laboratories have struggled with transparency regulation when it comes to patient outcomes, test prices, and costs. So, it is perplexing that while that Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) pushes for more transparency in the cost of hospital care and quality, the federal agency also sought to limit public knowledge of 10 types of medical and surgical harm that occurred in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
And even though the CMS announced in its August 1 final rule (CMS-1771-F) that it was “pausing” its plans to suppress data relating to 10 measures that make up the Patient Safety and Adverse Events Composite (PSI 90), a part of the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program, it is valuable for hospital and medical laboratory leaders to understand what the federal agency was seeking to accomplish.
According to USA Today, medical complications at hospitals such as pressure ulcers and falls leading to fractures would be suppressed in reports starting next year. Additionally, CMS “also would halt a program to dock the pay of the worst performers on a list of safety measures, pausing a years-long effort that links hospitals’ skill in preventing such complications to reimbursement,” Kaiser Health News reported.
The proposed rule’s executive summary reads in part, “Due to the impact of the COVID-19 PHE on measure data used in our value-based purchasing (VBP) programs, we are proposing to suppress several measures in the Hospital VBP Program and HAC Reduction Program … If finalized as proposed, for the FY 2023 program year, hospitals participating in the HAC Reduction Program will not be given a measure score, a Total HAC score, nor will hospitals receive a payment penalty.”
In a fact sheet, CMS noted that its intent in proposing the rule was neither to reward nor penalize providers at a time when they were dealing with the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, new safety protocols for staff and patients, and an unprecedented rise in inpatient cases.
“We want the public to have complete trust in the data and will only be providing data we have determined has a high confidence of credibility and accuracy,” said CMS Chief Medical Officer Lee Fleisher, MD (above), Director of the CMS Center for Clinical Standards and Quality in a statement, Axios reported. Clinical laboratory leaders would find it more difficult to compare the performance of their hospitals against peer hospitals, should this proposed rule take effect as written. (Photo copyright: Lee Fleisher.)
Groups Opposed to the CMS Proposal
Like healthcare costs, quality data need to be accessible to the public, according to a health insurance industry representative. “Cost data, in the absence of quality data, are at best meaningless, and at worst, harmful. We see this limitation on collection and publication of data about these very serious safety issues as a step backward,” Robert Andrews, JD, CEO, Health Transformation Alliance, told Fortune.
The Leapfrog Group, a Washington, DC-based non-profit watchdog organization focused on healthcare quality and safety, urged CMS to reverse the proposal. The organization said on its website that it had collected 270 signatures on letters to CMS.
“Dangerous complications, such as sepsis, kidney harm, deep bedsores, and lung collapse, are largely preventable yet kill 25,000 people a year and harm 94,000,” wrote the Leapfrog Group in a statement. “Data on these complications is not available to the public from any other source. If CMS suppresses this data, all of us will be in the dark on which hospitals put us most at risk.”
Leah Binder, Leapfrog President/CEO, told MedPage Today she is concerned the suppression of public reporting of safety data may continue “indefinitely” because CMS does not want “to make hospitals unhappy with them.”
AHA Voices Support
Meanwhile, the American Hospital Association noted that the CMS “has made this proposal to forgo calculating certain hospital bonuses and penalties due to the impact of the pandemic,” Healthcare Dive reported.
“We agree with CMS that it would be unfair to base hospital incentives and penalties on data that have been skewed by the unprecedented impacts of the pandemic,” said Akin Demehin, AHA Senior Director, Quality and Safety Policy, in a statement to Healthcare Dive.
Though CMS’ plans to limit public knowledge of medical and surgical complications have been put on hold, medical laboratory leaders will want to stay abreast of CMS’ next steps with this final rule. Suppression of hospital harm during a period of increased demand for hospital transparency could trigger a backlash with healthcare consumers.
Nearly two years after passage of price transparency law, only a small number of the nation’s hospitals are fully compliant, according to two separate reports
Price transparency is a major trend in the US healthcare system. Yet, hospitals, physicians, clinical laboratories, and other providers have been reticent to design their websites so it is easy for patients to find prices in advance of clinical care. Now comes news that federal officials are ready to issue fines to hospitals that fail to comply with regulations mandating price transparency for patients.
Many of the largest healthcare networks claim that complying with federal hospital price transparency regulation is costly, time consuming, and provides no return on investment. Nevertheless, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is quite serious about enforcing price transparency laws, and to that end the agency has, for the first time, levied fines against two hospitals in Georgia that have not complied with the regulations.
As many pathologists and medical laboratory managers know, on January 1, 2021, a federal rule on price transparency for medical facilities went into effect. The rule requires hospitals—as well as clinical laboratories and other healthcare providers—to post a comprehensive list of their services and the pricing for those services on their websites, and to provide access to a patient-friendly tool to help consumers shop for 300 common services.
The CMS recently issued its first penalties to two hospitals located in Georgia for violating the law by not updating their websites or replying to the agency’s warning letters. The letters CMS sent to the two hospitals alleged there were several violations of the transparency rules, including the failure to post a listing of their charges on their websites and requested corrective action plans by the hospitals.
In November 2021, Northside Hospital Atlanta informed regulators that consumers should call or email the facility to obtain price estimates for services. Later in January 2022, during a “technical assistance call,” a hospital representative told CMS “the previous violations had not been corrected and, in fact, the hospital system had intentionally removed all previously posted pricing files,” according to a Notice of Imposition of a Civil Monetary Penalty letter CMS sent to Robert Quattrocchi, President and Chief Executive Officer, Northside Hospital Atlanta.
Under the rules of the Hospital Price Transparency law, each hospital operating in the US is required to provide clear, accessible pricing information online about the items and services they provide in two ways:
As a comprehensive machine-readable file listing all items and services.
In a display of shoppable services in a consumer-friendly format.
CMS fined Northside Hospital Atlanta $883,180 and Northside Cherokee Hospital $214,320 for noncompliance with the law. The penalties are calculated based on the size of the hospital and the length of time of the noncompliance—up to $300 per day. In addition, the facilities could endure further monetary penalties if they continue to fail to comply. The organizations will have 30 days to appeal the charges or have 60 days to remit payment for the fines.
Both hospitals are owned by Northside, a Georgia health system with five acute care hospitals, more than 250 outpatient facilities, over 4,100 providers, and 25,500 employees, according to the provider’s website.
“CMS expects hospitals to comply with the Hospital Price Transparency regulations that require providing clear, accessible pricing information online about the items and services they provide,” said Meena Seshamani, MD, PhD, Director of CMS, in a statement provided to Fierce Healthcare. “This enforcement action affirms the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to making healthcare pricing information accessible to people across the country and we are committed to ensuring that consumers have the information they need to make fully informed decisions regarding their healthcare.” Clinical laboratories also are required to comply with federal price transparency regulations. (Photo copyright: Modern Healthcare.)
Compliance with Price Transparency Laws Low
Analysis of the healthcare industry shows that many facilities are not in compliance with the transparency rules. In April, a report released by health IT firm KLAS Research, found that hospitals believe the transparency rule is too costly to implement and confusing to consumers, which helps explain the low compliance issues. KLAS surveyed 66 hospital revenue cycle leaders for their report.
“There are concerns about cost, data accuracy, and patient options of pricing tools; some respondents worry about patients’ ability to understand the displayed pricing data, and today, most patients are unaware online pricing information exists,” the report states. In addition, the report notes that “many organizations are not investing beyond the bare minimum requirements, and they don’t plan to do more until there is further clarity around the regulations and the expectations going forward.”
The KLAS report also noted that organizations are struggling to find the resources to comply with the price transparency rule and consider it a financial burden to continually add new employees and technology to become and remain in compliance. Many organizations see no merit in investing in a regulation that provides no return on that investment.
Another compliance report released in February by Patient Rights Advocate maintained that only 14.3% of the 1,000 hospitals they reviewed were in full compliance with the Hospital Price Transparency regulation. About 37.9% of the hospitals posted a sufficient detailing of service rates, but over half of those hospitals were noncompliant in other criteria of the rule, such as rates by insurer and insurance plans.
“We are now entering the second year since the Hospital Price Transparency rule became law, and compliance remains at very low levels,” according to the report. “The largest hospital systems are effectively ignoring the law, with no consequences.”
The Patient Rights Advocate analysis also found that a mere 0.5% of hospitals owned by the three largest hospital systems in the country—HCA Healthcare, CommonSpirit Health, and Ascension—were in full compliance of the law.
Notably, only two of the 361 hospitals owned by these three hospital systems were fully compliant. In addition, none of the 188 hospitals owned by HCA Healthcare, the largest for-profit hospital system in the country, were in compliance.
Hospitals Fail to Provide Consumers with Critical Information
The Patient Rights Advocate report found that the most significant reason for noncompliance was failure to post all payer-specific and plan-specific negotiated rates on their websites. They estimated that 85.7% of the 1,000 hospitals reviewed did not post a complete machine-readable file of standard charges, as required by the law.
“The lack of compliance by hospitals is about more than simply the failure to follow the legal requirements,” the report states. “It is also about the failure of hospitals to provide critically needed information to consumers so they can make better health decisions. Empowered with comparative price and quality information in advance of care, consumers, including employers and unions, can improve health outcomes while lowering costs by taking advantage of the benefits of competitive market efficiencies.”
With the CMS starting to issue fines for noncompliance, it is probable that more healthcare organizations will focus on adhering to the Hospital Price Transparency law. Since the transparency rules also apply to clinical laboratories, lab managers should be aware of the regulations and any further enforcement actions taken by the CMS.
Either way, if Medicare is allowed to run dry, millions of patients (most among the elderly) may be unable to receive critical care, including clinical laboratory testing and pathology.
“The Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund, or Medicare Part A, which helps pay for services such as inpatient hospital care, will be able to pay scheduled benefits until 2028, two years later than reported last year. At that time, the fund’s reserves will become depleted,” the 2022 Medicare Trustees Report states, which draws its data from a US Treasury Department fact sheet.
“The progressively worse imbalance of expenditures versus revenues will exhaust the trust funds in 2028,” Weems wrote, adding that one of two payment scenarios will likely happen:
Medicare may pay bills on a “discounted basis,” which means if expected revenues are 85% of expenditures, then Medicare would pay bills at 85% of the amount, or
Medicare may put bills aside until it has the money from tax dollars.
“And then (Medicare would) pay them on a first-in-first-out basis,” Weems wrote, adding, “At the time of insolvency, that current Administration would have to pick its poison.”
For hospital clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists who provide care to Medicare beneficiaries, neither approach would be satisfactory. And a solution for funding Medicare Part A beyond 2028 needs to be crafted to ensure hospitals are paid on a timely basis.
But what should it be?
“Medicare’s two-part insurance and trust fund design may have made sense in the mid-1960s, but it no longer does. Modern coverage is not bifurcated in this way and imposing stricter financial control over facility spending than clinician and outpatient services can distort the policy-making process, and thus also patient care,” wrote James Capretta (above), Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, in his analysis of the 2022 Medicare trustees report, published in Health Affairs. If Medicare truly does run out of money, millions of elderly people may lose access to critical healthcare services, including clinical laboratory testing. (Photo copyright: American Enterprise Institute.)
Medicare Funding Scheme is ‘Flawed’
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), the amount of money Medicare needs to cover the deficit between 2028 through 2031 (the period studied in the trustees’ projections), is estimated at $247.4 billion.
Medicare is supported by employers and employees, who each pay a 1.45% tax on earnings, KFF explained. Balancing the fund supporting Medicare Part A requires either an increase of .70% of taxable payroll or a 15% reduction in benefits, KFF estimated.
“Medicare will not cease to operate if assets are fully depleted, because revenue will continue flowing into the fund from payroll taxes and other sources,” KFF noted.
However, the current set-up of Medicare trust funds (one for Part A and another funded differently for Medicare Part B, which includes outpatient coverage such as medical laboratory tests), is “flawed” and needs updating to enable reform.
Furthermore, Medicare faces challenges brought on by an aging population and increasing enrollees.
Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) will qualify for Medicare by 2030 and potentially leave the workforce, depleting their payroll tax contributions to the program, KFF pointed out.
Also, Medicare reform needs to reflect the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. An analysis of 114,000 COVID-19-associated deaths from May to August 2020 showed 78% of the people were age 65 and older, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
“Medicare beneficiaries whose deaths were identified as related to COVID-19 had costs that were much higher than the average Medicare beneficiary prior to the onset of the pandemic,” the 2022 Medicare Trustees report noted.
“The surviving Medicare population had lower morbidity, on average, reducing costs by an estimated 1.5% in 2020 and 2.9% in 2021. This morbidity effect is expected to continue over the next few years but is assumed to decrease over time before ending in 2028.”
In his 4Sight Health article, Weems suggested that the Medicare reform deadline was bumped to 2028 from 2026 due to fewer people living and able to access Medicare in coming years.
“Let’s honor those seniors by using the time for real Medicare reform,” Weems wrote.
Hospital laboratory managers and pathologists will want to keep a watchful eye on Congress’ handling of the 2022 Medicare Trustees Report. Though it is unlikely the nation’s decision-makers will act on the report during an election year, pressure to develop a solution to meet the funding needs of Medicare Part A hospital care beyond 2028 will start to build in 2023.
By shifting away from fee-for-service, the state encouraged collaboration between hospitals and physicians to improve care and lower costs
Maryland “leads the way” in value-based payment reform, according to a series of articles published in Health Affairs. “The evidence is clear,” the article declares, “Maryland’s application of uniform prices within global budgets lowers total care costs, reduces unnecessary utilization, and incentivizes proactive preventive and chronic disease management care. Can other states implement Maryland-like payment models and achieve similar financial success?” It’s a fair question.
It is widely-known that clinical laboratory testing is integral to early and accurate diagnosis, and, under Maryland’s current reimbursement model, hospital/health system C-suite administrators have recognized that a robust clinical laboratory service is invaluable to showing progress toward cost containment and patient outcomes goals. But how did that come about? And what can other states learn from Maryland’s success?
Focusing on Better Patient Outcomes at Reduced Costs
Maryland’s current value-based payment arrangement set its first roots back in 2014. That is the year when the state of Maryland and the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a “new initiative to modernize Maryland’s unique all-payer rate-setting system for hospital services aimed at improving patient health and reducing costs,” declared a press release at that time.
Dubbed Maryland’s “All-Payer Model,” the press release went on to say, “This initiative will replace Maryland’s 36-year-old Medicare waiver to allow the state to adopt new policies that reduce per capita hospital expenditures and improve health outcomes as encouraged by the Affordable Care Act. Under this model, Medicare is estimated to save at least $330 million over the next five years.” Did that happen? Apparently so.
The state designed its “All-Payer Model” hospital payment system to render reimbursements based on populations served and the quality of care provided. The program focused on better patient outcomes and higher quality care at a reduced cost, instead of concentrating on the volume of care. The system incentivized hospitals to prevent readmissions, infections, and other potentially avoidable events.
“By shifting away from traditional fee-for-service payment, Maryland’s new model encourages collaboration between hospitals and physicians to improve patient care, promotes innovative approaches to prevention, and accelerates efforts to avoid unnecessary admissions and readmissions,” said pediatrician Joshua Sharfstein, MD, Vice Dean for Public Health Practice and Community Engagement at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in a 2014 CMS press release.
Sharfstein was the Secretary of Maryland’s Department of Health from 2011 to 2014.
Then, in 2019, Maryland implemented the successor to the state’s “All-Payer Model” dubbed the “Total-Cost-of-Care (TCOC) Model.”
According to the CMS, whereas the All-Payer Model “established global budgets for certain Maryland hospitals to reduce Medicare hospital expenditures and improve quality of care for beneficiaries,” the TCOC “builds on the success of the Maryland All-Payer Model by creating greater incentives for healthcare providers to coordinate with each other and provide patient-centered care, and by committing the State to a sustainable growth rate in per capita total cost of care spending for Medicare beneficiaries.”
The TCOC began on January 1, 2019, and runs through December 31, 2026.
“Our focus is really on the health of our communities,” Nicole Stallings of the Maryland Hospital Association told State of Reform. “We don’t have a public hospital system, we don’t have tiered hospitals, we don’t have hospitals that are having to close because we are able to spread cost really equitably across our system. Equity being a core pillar is something that we know is critically important to maintain. We want to see more alignment there as we now try to tackle these population health goals. But we believe there’s more collaboration happening here than anywhere else,” she added. Clinical laboratories have an important role to play in population health. (Photo copyright: Center Maryland/Vimeo.)
Results of Maryland’s All-Payer-Model Program
In general, an all-payer system allows a state to manage healthcare prices via rate setting where all healthcare payers, including the government, private insurers, and employer healthcare plans, pay similar prices for services provided at individual hospitals.
When it announced the results of the five-year All-Payer-Model program, Maryland’s Health Services Cost Review Commission—the state agency responsible for regulating cost and quality of hospital care in Maryland—declared the program’s targets had been achieved. They included:
1.92% average annual growth per capita in hospital revenue (goal was to be less than or equal to 3.58%).
$1.4 billion cumulative Medicare savings in hospital expenditures.
Below national average for hospital readmissions of Medicare patients within five years.
All of Maryland’s 47 acute-care hospitals paid based on health populations served—not number of services rendered—with 98% of total hospital revenue under Global Budget Revenue (GBR) payment method.
In addition, the Maryland HSCRC report indicated that innovative care was a key tenet of the model and that hospitals benefitted from being given the ability to:
Invest in new healthcare programs that improve collaboration with other providers in the community.
Implement new clinical protocols, patient safety techniques, and follow-up procedures for high-risk patients at hospital discharge.
Create hubs of care to triage needs, coordinate important services, and ensure patients in need are connected to services outside the hospital.
After the success of the Maryland All-Payer Model, the state’s Total-Cost-of-Care Model program continued to focus on healthcare cost savings to Medicare. But it introduced population health improvement activities across the entire healthcare delivery system.
Future of Maryland’s Total-Cost-of-Care Model Program
Maryland’s TCOC Model program seeks more than $1 billion in Medicare savings by the end of 2023, or the fifth performance year of the program. According to the CMS Innovation Models webpage, Maryland’s TCOC Model includes the following three programs:
The Hospital Payment Program, where each hospital receives a population-based payment amount which covers all hospital services provided during a year.
The Care Redesign Program, which allows hospitals to make incentive payments to nonhospital healthcare providers who partner with hospitals to provide care.
The Maryland Primary Care Program, which incentivizes primary care providers to offer advanced care services to their patients.
An analysis of the first two years of the TCOC program found some significant improvements particularly in the areas of care management, access, and continuity.
In the first performance year of Maryland’s TCOC model, the state reduced spending by $365 million, relative to national trends, according to a Mathematica implementation report.
Part of the success of the model is due to its use of global, fixed budgets that are set for every hospital. Rates are established by an independent commission which prevents cost shifting and provides a more equitable system for patients where they pay the same price for the same service at all hospitals throughout the state, Mathematica noted.
“We believe [global budgets are] a real distinguishing factor, because unlike the rest of the country, our hospitals aren’t paid more to do more,” said Nicole Stallings, told State of Reform. Stallings is Chief External Affairs Officer and Senior Vice President, Government Affairs and Policy at the Maryland Hospital Association (MHA).
Expanding Maryland’s All-Payer-Model Program to Other States
In 2016, CMS established the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to identify ways to improve healthcare quality and reduce overall costs in the Medicare, Medicaid, and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) programs. Maryland’s All-Payer model has produced the most savings out of any of the projects and experimental payment programs researched by CMMI. The success of Maryland’s programs prompted CMMI to look at expanding similar programs in other states.
Reductions in hospital costs combined with improved outcomes can only benefit patients and the healthcare industry in the long run. Since clinical laboratory testing is integral to early diagnoses and treatment of diseases, under Maryland’s current reimbursement model a robust clinical laboratory service is invaluable for succeeding at cost containment and patient outcome goals.
Medical laboratories and anatomic pathologists may need to squeeze into narrow networks to be paid under value-based schemes, especially where Medicare Advantage is concerned
Pathologists have likely heard the arguments in favor of value-based payment versus fee-for-service (FFS) reimbursement models: FFS encourages providers to order medically unnecessary procedures and lab tests. FFS removes incentives for providers to order patient services more carefully. Fraudsters can generate huge volumes of FFS claims that take payers months/years to recognize and stop.
Studies that favor value-based payment schemes support these claims. But do hospitals and other healthcare providers also accept them? And how is value-based reimbursement really doing?
To find out, Chicago-based thought leadership and advisory company 4Sight Health culled data from various organizations’ reports that suggest value-based reimbursement shows signs of growth as well as signs of stagnation.
Value-Based Payment Has Its Ups and Downs
Healthcare journalist David Burda is News Editor and Columnist at 4Sight Health. In his article, “Is Value-Based Reimbursement Mostly Dead or Slightly Alive?” Burda commented on data from various industry reports that indicated value-based reimbursement shows “signs of life.” For example:
More doctors are accepting pay-for-performance payments: 44.5% in 2020, up from 42.3% in 2018, according to an American Medical Association (AMA) biennial report on physician participation in value-based reimbursement, titled, “Policy Research Perspectives: Payment and Delivery in 2020.”
On the other hand, Burda reported that value-based reimbursement also has these declining indicators:
39.3% of provider payments “flowed” through FFS plans in 2020 with no link to cost or quality. This was unchanged since 2019. (HCPLAN report)
19.8% of FFS payments to providers in 2020 were linked to cost or quality, down from 22.5% in 2019. (HCPLAN report)
88% of doctors reported accepting FFS payments in 2019, an increase from 87% in 2018. (AMA report)
Does Today’s Healthcare Industry Support Value-based Care?
A survey of 680 physicians conducted by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions suggests the answer could be “not yet.” In “Equipping Physicians for Value-Based Care,” Deloitte reported:
“Physician compensation continues to emphasize volume more than value.
“Availability and use of data-driven tools to support physicians in practicing value-based care continue to lag.
“Existing care models do not support value-based care.”
Deloitte analysts wrote, “Physicians increasingly recognize their role in improving the affordability of care. We repeated a question we asked six years ago and saw a large increase in the proportion of physicians who say they have a prominent role in limiting the use of unnecessary treatments and tests: 76% in 2020 vs. 57% in 2014.
“Physicians also recognize that today’s care models are not geared toward value,” Deloitte continued. “They see many untapped opportunities for improving quality and efficiency. They estimate that even today, sizable portions of their work can be performed by nonphysicians (30%) in nontraditional settings (30%) and/or can be automated (18%), creating opportunities for multidisciplinary care teams and clinicians to work at the top of their license.”
Hospital CFOs Also See Opportunities for Value-based Care
This could be problematic for clinical laboratories, according to Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and our sister publication The Dark Report. According to Guidehouse, “Nearly 60% of health systems plan to advance into risk-based Medicare Advantage models in 2022.”
Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollments have escalated over 10 years: 26.4 million people of the 62.7 million eligible for Medicare chose MA in 2021, noted a Kaiser Family Foundation brief that also noted MA enrollment in 2021 was up by 2.4 million beneficiaries or 10% over 2020.
The graph above is taken from the Kaiser Family Foundation report, “Medicare Advantage in 2021: Enrollment Update and Key Trends.” According to the KFF, “In 2021, more than four in 10 (42%) Medicare beneficiaries—26.4 million people out of 62.7 million Medicare beneficiaries overall—are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans; this share has steadily increased over time since the early 2000s.” Since MA employs narrow networks for its healthcare providers, it’s likely this trend will continue to affect clinical laboratories that may find it difficult to access these providers. (Graphic copyright: Kaiser Family Foundation.)
“The shift from Medicare Part B—where any lab can bill Medicare on behalf of patients for doctor visits and outpatient care, including lab tests—to Medicare Advantage is a serious financial threat for smaller and regional labs that do a lot of Medicare Part B testing. The Medicare Advantage plans often have networks that exclude all but a handful of clinical laboratories as contracted providers,” Michel cautioned. “Moving into the future, it’s incumbent on regional and smaller clinical laboratories to develop value-added services that solve health plans’ pain points and encourage insurers to include local labs in their networks.”
Medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups need to be aware of this trend. Michel says value-based care programs call on clinical laboratories to collaborate with healthcare partners toward goals of closing care gaps.
“Physicians and hospitals in a value-based environment need a different level of service and professional consultation from the lab and pathology group because they are being incented to detect disease earlier and be active in managing patients with chronic conditions to keep them healthy and out of the hospital,” he added.
Value-based reimbursement may eventually replace fee-for-service contracts. The change, however, is slow and clinical laboratories should monitor for opportunities and potential pitfalls the new payment arrangements might bring.
