Hospitals and Physicians

Building on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, health reform legislation would develop an infrastructure for the ongoing generation and dissemination of information on the comparative effectiveness, where "comparative effectiveness" has been defined as the study of methods to prevent, diagnoses, treat, and monitor A clinical condition or improve delivery of care to assist consumers, clinicians, purchasers, and policy makers to make informed decisions to improve health care at both individual and population levels. The issue brief explores the concept and describes areas of controversy that need to be addressed to make comparative effectiveness research successful.

Faced with declining payment rates, California providers have implemented various strategies that have strengthened their leverage in negotiating prices with private health plans. When negotiating together, hospitals and physicians enhance their already significant bargaining clout. California’s experience is a cautionary tale for national health reform: It suggests that proposals to promote integrated care through models such as accountable care organizations (ACOs) could lead to higher rates for private payers. Because antitrust policy has proved ineffective in curbing most provider strategies that capitalize on providers market power to win higher payments, policy makers need to consider approaches including price caps and all-payer rate setting.

Experts agree that the way health care is currently paid for in the United States, especially in the traditional, fee-for-service Medicare program, does not support coordinated care that is high quality and cost-efficient. To address these problems, policy-makers are taking a close look at accountable care organizations (ACOs). This policy brief explores what ACO are, how they compare to previous reform concepts such as Health Maintenance Organizations and Provider Sponsored Organizations, key design and implementation issues, and opportunities and challenges. The authors conclude that ACOs are no real game changers in the short term, but are nevertheless important to try.

Experts agree that the way health care is currently paid for in the United States, especially in the traditional, fee-for-service Medicare program, does not support coordinated care that is high quality and cost-efficient. To address these problems, policy-makers are taking a close look at accountable care organizations (ACOs). This policy brief explores what ACO are, how they compare to previous reform concepts such as Health Maintenance Organizations and Provider Sponsored Organizations, key design and implementation issues, and opportunities and challenges. The authors conclude that ACOs are no real game changers in the short term, but are nevertheless important to try.

Growing evidence demonstrates that certain approaches to financing and paying for chronic care coordination for patients are effective not only for improving patient well-being but can also reduce health care spending. However, chronic care approaches should vary for different patient populations and can be carried out effectively by diverse organizations and professionals reflecting the heterogeneity of health care delivery throughout the US. The Report considers the different populations in need of care coordination, summarizes current evidence of effectiveness, describes the various entities that can serve as focal points for coordinating care, and details the possible financing and payment options that can support these approaches.