Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36252089›Full record

ArticleThe Milbank quarterly2022

Health Centers and Value-Based Payment: A Framework for Health Center Payment Reform and Early Experiences in Medicaid Value-Based Payment in Seven States.

Rachel Tobey, James Maxwell, Eric Turer, Erin Singer, Zoe Lindenfeld, Robert S Nocon, Allison Coleman, Joshua Bolton, Hank Hoang, Alek Sripipatana and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Milbank quarterly, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Rachel TobeyJSI Research & Training Institute, Inc.
James MaxwellJSI Research & Training Institute, Inc.
Eric TurerJSI Research & Training Institute, Inc.
Erin SingerJSI Research & Training Institute, Inc.
Zoe LindenfeldJSI Research & Training Institute, Inc.
Robert S NoconKaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine.
Allison ColemanCapital Link.
Joshua BoltonUS Health Resources and Services Administration.
Hank HoangUS Health Resources and Services Administration.
Alek SripipatanaUS Health Resources and Services Administration.
Elbert S HuangUniversity of Chicago.

Funding

Research Design, Data, and Analytics CoreP30DK092949 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI Ronald T. Ackermann, MARSHALL H CHIN · 2011 to 2026
$10.0M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092949
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Policy Points As essential access points to primary care for almost 29 million US patients, of whom 47% are Medicaid enrollees, health centers are positioned to implement the population health management necessary in value-based payment (VBP) contracts. Primary care payment reform requires multiple payment methodologies used together to provide flexibility to care providers, encourage investments in infrastructure and new services, and offer incentives for achieving better health outcomes. State policy and significant financial incentives from Medicaid agencies and Medicaid managed care plans will likely be required to increase health center participation in VBP, which is consistent with broader state efforts to expand investment in primary care. CONTEXT: Efforts are ongoing to advance value-based payment (VBP), and health centers serve as essential access points to comprehensive primary care services for almost 29 million people in the United States. Therefore, it is important to assess the levels of health center participation in VBP, types of VBP contracts, characteristics of health centers participating in VBP, and variations in state policy environments that influence VBP participation.

methodsThis mixed methods study combined qualitative research on state policy environments and health center participation in VBP with quantitative analysis of Uniform Data System and health center financial data in seven vanguard states: Oregon, Washington, California, Colorado, New York, Hawaii, and Kentucky. VBP contracts were classified into three layers: base payments being transformed from visit-based to population-based (Layer 1), infrastructure and care coordination payments (Layer 2), and performance incentive payments (Layer 3).

findingsHealth centers in all seven states participated in Layer 2 and Layer 3 VBP, with VBP participation growing from 35% to 58% of all health centers in these states from 2013 to 2017. Among participating health centers, the average percentage of Medicaid revenue received as Layer 2 and Layer 3 VBP rose from 6.4% in 2013 to 9.1% in 2017. Oregon and Washington health centers participating in Layer 1 payment reforms received most of their Medicaid revenue in VBP. In 2017, VBP participation was associated with larger health center size in four states (P <.05), and higher average number of days cash on hand (P <.05) in three states.

conclusionsA multilayer payment model is useful for implementing and monitoring VBP adoption among health centers. State policy, financial incentives from Medicaid agencies and Medicaid managed plans, and health center-Medicaid collaboration under strong primary care association and health center leadership will likely be required to increase health center participation in VBP.

Indexed as

MedicaidHumansNew YorkOregonUnited StatesWashingtonalternative payment methodologyhealth centermanaged careMedicaid policypayment reformprimary caresustainabilityvalue-based payment

Identifiers

PMID36252089
PMCPMC9576231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.