Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 2/2020

01-02-2020 | Tonsillectomy | Health Policy

Impact of an Episode-Based Payment Initiative by Commercial Payers in Arkansas on Procedure Volume: an Observational Study

Authors: Julius L. Chen, PhD, Michael E. Chernew, PhD, A. Mark Fendrick, MD, Joseph W. Thompson, MD, Sherri Rose, PhD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 2/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Episode-based payment (EBP) is gaining traction among payers as an alternative to fee-for-service reimbursement. However, there is concern that EBP could influence the number of episodes.

Objective

To examine how procedure volume changed after the introduction of EBP in 2013 and 2014 under the Arkansas Health Care Payment Improvement Initiative.

Design

Using 2011–2016 commercial claims data, we estimate a difference-in-differences model to assess the impact of EBP on the probability of a beneficiary having an episode for four procedures that were reimbursed under EBP in Arkansas: total joint replacement, cholecystectomy, colonoscopy, and tonsillectomy.

Participants

Commercially insured beneficiaries in Arkansas serve as our treatment group, while commercially insured beneficiaries in neighboring states serve as our comparison group.

Interventions

Statewide implementation of EBP for various clinical conditions by two of Arkansas’ largest commercial insurers.

Main Measures

For a given procedure type, the primary outcomes are the annual rate of procedures (number of procedures per 1000 beneficiaries) and the probability of a beneficiary undergoing that procedure in a given quarter.

Key Results

The relationship between EBP and procedure volume varies across procedures. After EBP was implemented, the probability of undergoing colonoscopy increased by 17.2% (point estimate, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.18 to 4.08; p < 0.001; Arkansas pre-period mean, 15.29). The probability of undergoing total joint replacement increased by 9.9% (point estimate, 0.091; 95% CI, − 0.011 to 0.19; p = 0.08; Arkansas pre-period mean, 0.91), though this effect is not significant. There is no discernable impact on cholecystectomy or tonsillectomy volume.

Conclusions

We do not find clear evidence of deleterious volume expansion. However, because the impact of EBP on procedure volume may vary by procedure, payers planning to implement EBP models should be aware of this possibility.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Dummit LA, Kahvecioglu D, Marrufo G, et al. Association Between Hospital Participation in a Medicare Bundled Payment Initiative and Payments and Quality Outcomes for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Episodes. JAMA. 2016;316(12):1267–1278.CrossRef Dummit LA, Kahvecioglu D, Marrufo G, et al. Association Between Hospital Participation in a Medicare Bundled Payment Initiative and Payments and Quality Outcomes for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Episodes. JAMA. 2016;316(12):1267–1278.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Navathe AS, Troxel AB, Liao JM, et al. Cost of Joint Replacement Using Bundled Payment Models. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(2):214–222.CrossRef Navathe AS, Troxel AB, Liao JM, et al. Cost of Joint Replacement Using Bundled Payment Models. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(2):214–222.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Joynt Maddox KE, Orav EJ, Zheng J, Epstein AM. Evaluation of Medicare’s Bundled Payments Initiative for Medical Conditions. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(3):260–269.CrossRef Joynt Maddox KE, Orav EJ, Zheng J, Epstein AM. Evaluation of Medicare’s Bundled Payments Initiative for Medical Conditions. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(3):260–269.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Finkelstein A, Ji Y, Mahoney N, Skinner J. Mandatory Medicare Bundled Payment Program for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement and Discharge to Institutional Postacute Care: Interim Analysis of the First Year of a 5-Year Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2018;320(9):892–900.CrossRef Finkelstein A, Ji Y, Mahoney N, Skinner J. Mandatory Medicare Bundled Payment Program for Lower Extremity Joint Replacement and Discharge to Institutional Postacute Care: Interim Analysis of the First Year of a 5-Year Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2018;320(9):892–900.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Barnett ML, Wilcock A, McWilliams JM, et al. Two-Year Evaluation of Mandatory Bundled Payments for Joint Replacement. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(3):252–262.CrossRef Barnett ML, Wilcock A, McWilliams JM, et al. Two-Year Evaluation of Mandatory Bundled Payments for Joint Replacement. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(3):252–262.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Carroll C, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM, Thompson J, Rose S. Effects of Episode-Based Payment on Health Care Spending and Utilization: Evidence from Perinatal Care in Arkansas. J Health Econ. 2018;61(2018):47–62. Carroll C, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM, Thompson J, Rose S. Effects of Episode-Based Payment on Health Care Spending and Utilization: Evidence from Perinatal Care in Arkansas. J Health Econ. 2018;61(2018):47–62.
8.
go back to reference Fisher ES. Medicare’s Bundled Payment Program for Joint Replacement: Promise and Peril? JAMA. 2016;316(12):1262–1264.CrossRef Fisher ES. Medicare’s Bundled Payment Program for Joint Replacement: Promise and Peril? JAMA. 2016;316(12):1262–1264.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Weeks WB, Rauh SS, Wadsworth EB, Weinstein JN. The Unintended Consequences of Bundled Payments. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(1):62–64.CrossRef Weeks WB, Rauh SS, Wadsworth EB, Weinstein JN. The Unintended Consequences of Bundled Payments. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(1):62–64.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Cutler DM, Ghosh K. The Potential for Cost Savings through Bundled Episode Payments. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(12):1075–1077.CrossRef Cutler DM, Ghosh K. The Potential for Cost Savings through Bundled Episode Payments. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(12):1075–1077.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Mechanic RE. Opportunities and Challenges for Episode-Based Payment. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(9):777–779.CrossRef Mechanic RE. Opportunities and Challenges for Episode-Based Payment. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(9):777–779.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Baicker K, Chernew ME. Alternative Alternative Payment Models. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(2):222–223.CrossRef Baicker K, Chernew ME. Alternative Alternative Payment Models. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(2):222–223.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Navathe AS, Liao JM, Dykstra SE, et al. Association of Hospital Participation in a Medicare Bundled Payment Program with Volume and Case Mix of Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Episodes. JAMA. 2018;320(9):901–910.CrossRef Navathe AS, Liao JM, Dykstra SE, et al. Association of Hospital Participation in a Medicare Bundled Payment Program with Volume and Case Mix of Lower Extremity Joint Replacement Episodes. JAMA. 2018;320(9):901–910.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Currently, the Arkansas EBP initiative features 20 clinical episodes, which have either been implemented, will be implemented, or are under development. Compared to the Medicare BPCI and BPCI Advanced models, the Arkansas model features a smaller number of episodes. However, the Arkansas initiative is novel in that it covers a broad scope of conditions and tests bundled payment for several conditions that are not included in the Medicare models. For example, the Arkansas model features various outpatient episodes, and it uniquely includes episodes for women’s health (e.g., perinatal care, hysterectomy), behavioral health (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder), and children’s health (e.g., neonatal care, pediatric pneumonia). A list of episodes is provided on page 43 of the AHCPII statewide tracking report, which is available at: https://achi.net/library/ahcpii-tracking-report/. Accessed 28 June 2019. Currently, the Arkansas EBP initiative features 20 clinical episodes, which have either been implemented, will be implemented, or are under development. Compared to the Medicare BPCI and BPCI Advanced models, the Arkansas model features a smaller number of episodes. However, the Arkansas initiative is novel in that it covers a broad scope of conditions and tests bundled payment for several conditions that are not included in the Medicare models. For example, the Arkansas model features various outpatient episodes, and it uniquely includes episodes for women’s health (e.g., perinatal care, hysterectomy), behavioral health (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder), and children’s health (e.g., neonatal care, pediatric pneumonia). A list of episodes is provided on page 43 of the AHCPII statewide tracking report, which is available at: https://​achi.​net/​library/​ahcpii-tracking-report/​. Accessed 28 June 2019.
16.
go back to reference The use of risk adjustment is common to all episode types, but the actual algorithm and which specific risk factors are included may vary slightly across payers and across episode types. In general, the risk adjustment algorithm considers diagnoses, comorbidities, procedures, and demographic characteristics drawn from a patient’s historical claims data. The use of risk adjustment is common to all episode types, but the actual algorithm and which specific risk factors are included may vary slightly across payers and across episode types. In general, the risk adjustment algorithm considers diagnoses, comorbidities, procedures, and demographic characteristics drawn from a patient’s historical claims data.
17.
go back to reference To the extent that the analyzed episodes are sometimes performed on an emergent basis, it could dampen the impact of EBP on provider behavior. Nonetheless, we believe that emergent cases constitute a small minority of the procedures analyzed. To the extent that the analyzed episodes are sometimes performed on an emergent basis, it could dampen the impact of EBP on provider behavior. Nonetheless, we believe that emergent cases constitute a small minority of the procedures analyzed.
18.
go back to reference The perinatal and asthma episodes were also implemented by commercial payers and have adequate sample size. However, we chose not to study the perinatal episode because we do not expect to find a volume expansion effect, as providers cannot plausibly induce additional births. We chose not to study the asthma episode due to two reasons. First, the asthma episode is not procedure-based, and our focus is on how procedure volume responds to EBP. Second, identifying asthma episode triggers in the claims data requires accurate and detailed coding of diagnoses; however, diagnoses are not coded consistently in the MarketScan data. The perinatal and asthma episodes were also implemented by commercial payers and have adequate sample size. However, we chose not to study the perinatal episode because we do not expect to find a volume expansion effect, as providers cannot plausibly induce additional births. We chose not to study the asthma episode due to two reasons. First, the asthma episode is not procedure-based, and our focus is on how procedure volume responds to EBP. Second, identifying asthma episode triggers in the claims data requires accurate and detailed coding of diagnoses; however, diagnoses are not coded consistently in the MarketScan data.
20.
go back to reference To construct our analytical dataset, we take repeated cross sections of continuously enrolled beneficiaries (one cross section for each year of 2011–2016). It is possible for a given beneficiary to appear in multiple cross sections over time, though this is not necessarily the case. Certain procedures that we analyze, like cholecystectomy and tonsillectomy, can only be performed on a patient once over time. Due to concern over serial correlation in the outcomes after a beneficiary undergoes these procedures, we drop that beneficiary from all cross sections following the date of the procedure. To construct our analytical dataset, we take repeated cross sections of continuously enrolled beneficiaries (one cross section for each year of 2011–2016). It is possible for a given beneficiary to appear in multiple cross sections over time, though this is not necessarily the case. Certain procedures that we analyze, like cholecystectomy and tonsillectomy, can only be performed on a patient once over time. Due to concern over serial correlation in the outcomes after a beneficiary undergoes these procedures, we drop that beneficiary from all cross sections following the date of the procedure.
21.
go back to reference We exclude the following plan types due to inadequate sample size: basic/major medical, comprehensive, exclusive provider organization, and point-of-service with capitation. We exclude the following plan types due to inadequate sample size: basic/major medical, comprehensive, exclusive provider organization, and point-of-service with capitation.
22.
go back to reference States that geographically border Arkansas are Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma. The West South Central Census Division consists of Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The East South Central Census Division consists of Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama. States that geographically border Arkansas are Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma. The West South Central Census Division consists of Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana. The East South Central Census Division consists of Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama.
23.
go back to reference Our baseline control group differs slightly from that used in Carroll et al. (2018). We additionally include Missouri because it geographically borders Arkansas. We also include Texas. Carroll et al. include Kentucky and Oklahoma in their control group, whereas we exclude both states in our baseline specification. In a sensitivity analysis, we include Kentucky and Oklahoma in the control group, and we obtain similar results. Our baseline control group differs slightly from that used in Carroll et al. (2018). We additionally include Missouri because it geographically borders Arkansas. We also include Texas. Carroll et al. include Kentucky and Oklahoma in their control group, whereas we exclude both states in our baseline specification. In a sensitivity analysis, we include Kentucky and Oklahoma in the control group, and we obtain similar results.
24.
go back to reference Westfall PH, Young SS. Resampling-Based Multiple Testing: Examples and Methods for p-Value Adjustment. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1993. Westfall PH, Young SS. Resampling-Based Multiple Testing: Examples and Methods for p-Value Adjustment. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1993.
25.
go back to reference Jones D, Molitor D, Reif J. What Do Workplace Wellness Programs Do? Evidence from the Illinois Workplace Wellness Study. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper 24229. Published January 2018. Revised June 2018. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24229. Accessed 28 June 2019. Jones D, Molitor D, Reif J. What Do Workplace Wellness Programs Do? Evidence from the Illinois Workplace Wellness Study. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper 24229. Published January 2018. Revised June 2018. Available at: http://​www.​nber.​org/​papers/​w24229. Accessed 28 June 2019.
26.
go back to reference We consider diagnostic and screening colonoscopies together. We include ages 40 to 49 in case EBP induces volume expansion among patients under age 50, which is the US Preventive Services Task Force’s recommended threshold for colorectal cancer screening. We consider diagnostic and screening colonoscopies together. We include ages 40 to 49 in case EBP induces volume expansion among patients under age 50, which is the US Preventive Services Task Force’s recommended threshold for colorectal cancer screening.
27.
go back to reference Maratt JK, Saini SD. Colorectal Cancer Screening in the 21st Century: Where Do We Go From Here? Am J Manag Care. 2015;21(7):e447-e449.PubMed Maratt JK, Saini SD. Colorectal Cancer Screening in the 21st Century: Where Do We Go From Here? Am J Manag Care. 2015;21(7):e447-e449.PubMed
28.
go back to reference To increase colonoscopy volume, physicians may be modifying their labor supply, readjusting effort, or changing the mix of services that they provide (e.g., displacing certain procedures with colonoscopies). While these behavioral responses are important to understand, studying them is beyond the scope of our work. To increase colonoscopy volume, physicians may be modifying their labor supply, readjusting effort, or changing the mix of services that they provide (e.g., displacing certain procedures with colonoscopies). While these behavioral responses are important to understand, studying them is beyond the scope of our work.
29.
go back to reference Arkansas Medicaid implemented EBP for total joint replacement in October 2012 and for cholecystectomy, colonoscopy, and tonsillectomy in July 2013. Arkansas Medicaid implemented EBP for total joint replacement in October 2012 and for cholecystectomy, colonoscopy, and tonsillectomy in July 2013.
Metadata
Title
Impact of an Episode-Based Payment Initiative by Commercial Payers in Arkansas on Procedure Volume: an Observational Study
Authors
Julius L. Chen, PhD
Michael E. Chernew, PhD
A. Mark Fendrick, MD
Joseph W. Thompson, MD
Sherri Rose, PhD
Publication date
01-02-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05318-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2020

Journal of General Internal Medicine 2/2020 Go to the issue