Read this article. The New York Times, August 2019.
The Atlantic, March 2019
The Washington Post, November 2018.
The Washington Post, October 2018.
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.
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.
The Wall Street Journal, September 2018
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.
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.
This Viewpoint discusses bundled payment models and suggests ways in which the next generation of episode-based payments can better align with population health.