Interesting article but I’ve got counterpoints ’cause I’m a student with more opinions than I have a right to and am cocksure enough to comment on statements made by the editor-in-chief of Health Affairs.
Summaries of his points are in bold. Please read his article regarding opposing payment reform in health care to get his full and well considered arguments.
The current workforce is unprepared for a model that doesn’t reward for filling beds, doing tests:
- There are tremendous rewards for innovation in the field of health care right now! These folks have seen the model they came up in become more and more of a frustration to them and their patients. Everywhere I look, from floor staff to executives, the feeling is very get on the train folks, we’re heading to the future. Alternately: retire, find a different gig, or learn to cope with the new requirements. People are learning to become successful and you better believe that new leaders are prepared for these challenges.
Any money saved will move its way to the top (health systems, hospitals) and workers on the front lines won’t see any benefit:
- Maybe. Based on the ones I’ve spoken to I don’t think dietitians, social workers, and community health workers are expecting a huge raise. But many hospitals are dramatically understaffed in these positions to the point that they are unable to perform the core competencies of their roles. As these workers bring forward evidence showing the financial benefit to hospitals of having, say, a full time dietitian to improve nutrition and reduce pressure ulcer rates, hospitals will have a financial reason to staff these professionals.
There is no current evidence to suggest that payment reform will achieve the goals we need it to achieve, and there is some evidence to the contrary.
- Okay, your evidence is good here, but early days! There is evidence showing smaller programs put into place are already saving money such as reduced re-admissions with heart failure transitional care (article unfortunately not open access, DOI: 10.1097/JCN.0b013e31827db560).
The original rationale offered for payment reform doesn’t match the current objectives.
- I think it does match that original rationale (to pay for quality rather than quantity of care). Health systems do not have an incentive to stop a practice for which they are getting reimbursed. We know patient falls are bad thing for a patient, but more days in the hospital to recover from your now necessary hip surgery is money in the hospital’s pocket. Why would you spend money reducing falls to stop yourself from making money? When hospitals are told they won’t be getting paid for the consequences of that fall innovations in care happen and adverse event rates go down. Of course we need metrics to quantify success and failure, and because these rule changes are rolled out in a way that intends to give health systems time to introduce new measures without sinking the rusty old tub. And certainly hospitals with higher acuity patients are getting the shaft, hence even more complex models to try to even the playing field.
- The value formula is simple: “Patient, are you satisfied that you have reached your stated goal of x?” If your 95 year old patient states his goal is successfully completing the Marine Corps Marathon pain-free then you’ve got to use your negotiating skills to get him back on this planet. The point is to set patient centered appropriate goals before undertaking invasive or potentially harmful interventions.