• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

一个指导奖励价值而非数量的努力的框架。

A framework for guiding efforts to reward value instead of volume.

作者信息

Christensen Taylor J

机构信息

Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA.

出版信息

Int J Health Econ Manag. 2016 Jun;16(2):175-187. doi: 10.1007/s10754-015-9178-9. Epub 2015 Nov 7.

DOI:10.1007/s10754-015-9178-9
PMID:27878711
Abstract

The U.S. healthcare system is in the midst of a major shift from fee-for-service to value-based reimbursement models. To date, these new reimbursement models have been focused on quality-contingent bonuses and cost-of-care risk sharing for providers, both of which have yielded only modest success.An analysis of health policy and business strategy literature was performed to identify the mechanisms of how value is rewarded in other industries and to understand the barriers to those mechanisms operating in the healthcare industry. A framework was developed to organize these findings. Rewarding healthcare providers for delivering value can only be achieved by enabling profitability to increase as value increases relative to competitors. Four variables determine a provider's profitability, each of which is considered as a potential lever to reward value with profit. The lever that offers the greatest potential is quantity (i.e., market share). Ironically, this means rewarding value with volume. The major barriers to value improvements being rewarded with market share are identified, and the profound impact of minimizing or removing those barriers is illustrated using a variety of examples from our healthcare system. Trending reforms that rely on quality-contingent bonuses and cost-of-care risk sharing are limited in the degree of value improvement they will stimulate because they rely on ineffective levers to reward value; instead, reform efforts must focus on removing barriers to rewarding value with market share. The framework presented can be used to predict the impact of any proposed reform.

摘要

美国医疗保健系统正处于从按服务收费向基于价值的报销模式的重大转变之中。迄今为止,这些新的报销模式主要集中在针对医疗服务提供者的质量相关奖金和医疗成本风险分担上,而这两者都只取得了有限的成功。对卫生政策和商业战略文献进行了分析,以确定其他行业中价值回报的机制,并了解这些机制在医疗保健行业运行的障碍。开发了一个框架来组织这些研究结果。只有通过使盈利能力随着相对于竞争对手的价值增加而提高,才能实现对提供价值的医疗服务提供者进行奖励。有四个变量决定了医疗服务提供者的盈利能力,每个变量都被视为用利润奖励价值的潜在杠杆。最具潜力的杠杆是数量(即市场份额)。具有讽刺意味的是,这意味着用数量来奖励价值。确定了用市场份额奖励价值提升的主要障碍,并通过我们医疗保健系统的各种例子说明了最小化或消除这些障碍的深远影响。依赖质量相关奖金和医疗成本风险分担的趋势性改革在刺激价值提升的程度上是有限的,因为它们依赖无效的杠杆来奖励价值;相反,改革努力必须集中在消除用市场份额奖励价值的障碍上。所提出的框架可用于预测任何拟议改革的影响。

相似文献

1
A framework for guiding efforts to reward value instead of volume.一个指导奖励价值而非数量的努力的框架。
Int J Health Econ Manag. 2016 Jun;16(2):175-187. doi: 10.1007/s10754-015-9178-9. Epub 2015 Nov 7.
2
The Role of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Value-Based Payment Reform.患者报告结局指标在基于价值的支付改革中的作用
Value Health. 2017 Jun;20(6):834-836. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.02.003. Epub 2017 Mar 22.
3
The evolution of financial incentives in the U.S. health care system.美国医疗保健系统中经济激励措施的演变。
Urol Oncol. 2017 Jan;35(1):1-4. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.09.011. Epub 2016 Nov 7.
4
Paying for value: options for value-based payment reform in Australia.支付价值:澳大利亚基于价值的支付改革选择。
Aust Health Rev. 2022 Apr;46(2):129-133. doi: 10.1071/AH21115.
5
Reforming payments to healthcare providers: the key to slowing healthcare cost growth while improving quality?改革医疗服务提供者的支付方式:在提高质量的同时控制医疗成本增长的关键?
J Econ Perspect. 2011 Spring;25(2):69-92. doi: 10.1257/jep.25.2.69.
6
The 8 basic payment methods in health care.医疗保健的 8 种基本支付方式。
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Aug 18;163(4):300-6. doi: 10.7326/M14-2784.
7
Realignment of incentives for health-care providers in China.中国医疗服务提供者激励机制的调整。
Lancet. 2010 Mar 27;375(9720):1120-30. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60063-3.
8
Healthcare payment incentives: a comparative analysis of reforms in Taiwan, South Korea and China.医疗保健支付激励措施:对中国台湾、韩国和中国改革的比较分析。
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2004;3(1):47-56. doi: 10.2165/00148365-200403010-00009.
9
Solving Disparities Through Payment And Delivery System Reform: A Program To Achieve Health Equity.通过支付和交付系统改革解决差异:实现健康公平的计划。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Jun 1;36(6):1133-1139. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0979.
10
Making payment reform in the US healthcare system possible.使美国医疗保健系统的支付改革成为可能。
MedGenMed. 2007 Dec 21;9(4):63.

引用本文的文献

1
Complication Is Inevitable, but Suffering is Optional-Psychological Aspects of Dealing with Complications in Surgery.并发症不可避免,但痛苦是可以选择的——应对手术并发症的心理方面。
Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2023 Jun;33(3):181-190. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1767830. Epub 2023 Mar 22.

本文引用的文献

1
Association of Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations vs traditional Medicare fee for service with spending, utilization, and patient experience.先驱责任医疗组织与传统 Medicare 按服务收费制在支出、利用和患者体验方面的关联。
JAMA. 2015 Jun 2;313(21):2152-61. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.4930.
2
Understanding differences between high- and low-price hospitals: implications for efforts to rein in costs.理解高低价医院之间的差异:对控制成本努力的启示。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Feb;33(2):324-31. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0747. Epub 2014 Jan 29.
3
Choosing wisely--the politics and economics of labeling low-value services.
明智选择——低价值服务的标签化的政治和经济。
N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 13;370(7):589-92. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1314965. Epub 2014 Jan 22.
4
Publicly reported quality-of-care measures influenced Wisconsin physician groups to improve performance.公开报告的医疗质量措施促使威斯康星州的医生团体改善了绩效。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Mar;32(3):536-43. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1275.
5
The association between health care quality and cost: a systematic review.医疗保健质量与成本的关联:系统评价。
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Jan 1;158(1):27-34. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-1-201301010-00006.
6
The 'Alternative Quality Contract,' based on a global budget, lowered medical spending and improved quality.基于总额预算的“可选择的质量合同”降低了医疗支出并提高了质量。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Aug;31(8):1885-94. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0327. Epub 2012 Jul 11.
7
Thirty-day readmissions--truth and consequences.30天再入院——真相与后果。
N Engl J Med. 2012 Apr 12;366(15):1366-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1201598. Epub 2012 Mar 28.
8
Eliminating waste in US health care.消除美国医疗保健中的浪费。
JAMA. 2012 Apr 11;307(14):1513-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.362. Epub 2012 Mar 14.
9
An experiment shows that a well-designed report on costs and quality can help consumers choose high-value health care.一项实验表明,精心设计的成本与质量报告可以帮助消费者选择高价值的医疗保健服务。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Mar;31(3):560-8. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1168.
10
The many different prices paid to providers and the flawed theory of cost shifting: is it time for a more rational all-payer system?支付给提供者的众多不同价格和有缺陷的成本转移理论:是否是时候建立一个更合理的全民支付者系统了?
Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Nov;30(11):2125-33. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0813.