Navathe AS, Volpp KG, Caldarella KL, Bond A, Troxel AB, Zhu J, Matloubieh S, Lyon Z, Mishra A, Sacks L, Nelson C, Patel P, Shea J, Calcagno D, Vittore S, Sokol K, Weng K, McDowald N, Crawford P, Small D, Emanuel EJ.
JAMA Network, February 2019.
Liao JM, Emanuel EJ, Polsky DE, Huang Q, Shah Y, Zhu J, Lyon ZM, Dykstra SE, Dinh CT, Counsins DS, Navathe AS.
Health Affairs, January 2019.
Reese PP, Allen MB, Carney C, Leidy D, Levsky S, Pendse R, Mussell AS, Bermudez F, Keddem S, Thiessen C, Rodrigue JR, Emanuel EJ.
Clinical Transplantation, December 2018.
Navathe AS, Liao JM, Dykstra SE, Wang E, Lyon ZM, Shah Y, Martinez J, Small DS, Werner RM, Dinh C, Ma X, Emanuel EJ.
JAMA, September 2018.
JAMA, July 2018.
Volpp KG, Navathe AS, Lee EO, Mugishii M, Troxel AB, Caldarella K, Hodlofski A, Bernheim S, Drye E, Yoshimoto J, Takata K, Stollar MB, Emanuel EJ.
Healthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands), September 2018.
To describe the process of developing a new physician payment system based on value and transitioning away from a fee-for-service payment system
Descriptive. This paper describes a recent initiative involving redesign of primary care provider payment in the State of Hawaii. While there has been extensive discussion about switching payment from volume to value in recent years, much of this change has happened at the organizational level and this initiative focused on changing the incentives for individual providers.
Descriptive paper. In this paper we discuss the approach taken to shift incentives from fee-for-service towards value using behavioral economics as a conceptual framework for program design. We summarize the new payment system, challenges in its design, and our approach to piloting of different behavioral economic strategies to improve performance.
None.
This paper will provide useful guidance to health plans or health delivery systems considering shifting primary care payment away from fee-for-service towards value highlighting some of the design challenges and necessary compromises in implementing such a system at scale.
Navathe AS, Liao JM, Polsky D, Shah Y, Huang Q, Zhu J, Lyon ZM, Wang R, Rolnick J, Martinez JR, Emanuel EJ.
Health Affairs June 2018.
We analyzed data from Medicare and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey to compare characteristics and baseline performance among hospitals in Medicare’s voluntary (Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative, or BPCI) and mandatory (Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model, or CJR) joint replacement bundled payment programs. BPCI hospitals had higher mean patient volume and were larger and more teaching intensive than were CJR hospitals, but the two groups had similar risk exposure and baseline episode quality and cost. BPCI hospitals also had higher cost attributable to institutional postacute care, largely driven by inpatient rehabilitation facility cost. These findings suggest that while both voluntary and mandatory approaches can play a role in engaging hospitals in bundled payment, mandatory programs can produce more robust, generalizable evidence. Either mandatory or additional targeted voluntary programs may be required to engage more hospitals in bundled payment programs.
Song Z, Navathe AS, Emanuel EJ, Volpp KG.
American Journal of Managed Care, March 2018.
ABSTRACT:
The United States is simultaneously moving toward value-based payments for populations and precision medicine for individuals. During this evolution, innovations in payment and delivery that enhance tailoring of treatments to individuals while improving the value of care are needed. We propose one such innovation that would allow physician payment and patient cost sharing to better reflect the value of care by allowing the appropriateness of a service for a given patient in a given clinical situation to play a more meaningful role in the design of such incentives. We introduce the idea of a payment modifier, based on indication and appropriateness, and discuss its advantages and challenges to implementation.
Navathe AS, Liao JM, Shah Y, Lyon Z, Chatterjee P, Polsky D, Emanuel EJ.
JAMA, March 2018.
Emanuel EJ, Glickman A, Johnson D.
JAMA, November 2017
This Viewpoint proposes a new Affordability Index measure, the ratio of the mean cost of an employer-sponsored family health insurance policy divided by median household income, to describe US families’ ability to pay for health care.
Chen SC, Sinaii N, Bedarida G, Gregorio MA, Emanuel E, Grady C.
Clinical Trial, October 2017
Healthy volunteers in phase 1 clinical trials contribute to the development of safe drugs and other biologics and accept risks and burdens without anticipated health benefits from participation. Although emerging data have shown that healthy volunteers are influenced by risk, some still worry that financial incentives lead them to take on unreasonable risk. Yet little is known about healthy volunteers' preferences and how they make choices about enrolling in research studies.
We surveyed 654 healthy volunteers at the end of their participation in a phase 1 Pfizer trial in the United States, Belgium, and Singapore to examine their reported willingness to enroll in studies of different types, with various procedures, and with possible side-effects.
The majority of respondents were willing to join many kinds of studies, but fewer were willing to participate in first-in-human vaccine studies or studies of psychiatric drugs than in other study types. With regard to procedures, a substantial proportion were unwilling to participate in studies that involved invasive procedures, such as a lumbar puncture (45.4%) and bone marrow biopsy (42.3%), but willing to participate in studies with less invasive procedures such as a computed tomography scan of the heart (86.8%), magnetic resonance imaging (87.4%), and skin allergy testing (86.8%). Although there was some variation by gender and region, the majority were willing to participate in studies with side-effects like pain (80%) or nausea and vomiting (64%), but only a minority were willing to join if the research drug would result in their having a one in a million chance of death (34.4%), a small chance of kidney damage (16.7%), or influence how their mind works (23.2%; Figure 4).
Our results suggest that healthy volunteers are willing to participate in a wide range of types of phase 1 clinical trials, and express preferences for low risk and familiar studies and study procedures, preferences which are partially affected by offers of payment.
When Dr. Hortense screens her patients in Chicago for cervical dysplasia and cancer, she conducts a pelvic exam, takes a sample of cervical cells, and sends them for Pap cytology and human papilloma virus DNA co-testing. But when she conducts cervical cancer screening in Botswana, she employs a much simpler diagnostic strategy. She applies acetic acid to highlight precancerous lesions and visually inspects the cervix-a technique known as the VIA (visual inspection with acetic acid) method. She treats suspicious lesions with cryotherapy. There are multiple reasons that Dr. Hortense uses VIA in developing countries. It requires no specialized laboratory facilities or highly trained personnel. With immediate results, there is no delay in diagnosis and treatment, ensuring that patients are not lost to follow-up. Most importantly, VIA is considerably cheaper than Pap and HPV co-testing. This difference in care between Chicago and Botswana presents an ethical dilemma in global health: is it ethically acceptable to provide some patients cheaper treatments that are less effective or more toxic than the treatments other patients receive? We argue that it is ethical to consider local resource constraints when deciding what interventions to provide. The provision of cheaper, less effective health care is frequently the most effective way of promoting health and realizing the ethical values of utility, equality, and priority to the worst off.