The Rise and Fall of Capitation in US Healthcare
Table of Contents
- 1. The Rise and Fall of Capitation in US Healthcare
- 2. Why Capitation Didn’t Take Off
- 3. The lessons Learned From Primary Care Practise Acquisitions
- 4. Navigating the Changing Landscape
- 5. aligning Incentives: A Delicate Balance
- 6. The Quest for Shared Savings
- 7. Why Conventional Economics Fail in Healthcare
- 8. The Illusion of Price Openness
- 9. High-Deductible Health Plans: A Flawed Strategy
- 10. Markets and Health Disparities
- 11. Healthcare’s Market Paradox: Lessons from the Last 40 Years
Table of Contents
- 1. The Rise and Fall of Capitation in US Healthcare
- 2. Why Capitation Didn’t Take Off
- 3. The lessons Learned From Primary Care Practise Acquisitions
- 4. Navigating the Changing Landscape
- 5. aligning Incentives: A Delicate Balance
- 6. The Quest for Shared Savings
- 7. Why Conventional Economics Fail in Healthcare
- 8. The Illusion of Price Openness
- 9. High-Deductible Health Plans: A Flawed Strategy
- 10. Markets and Health Disparities
- 11. Healthcare’s Market Paradox: Lessons from the Last 40 Years
Why Capitation Didn’t Take Off
However, capitation’s widespread adoption failed to materialize. Outside of California and a few other regions, consumers resisted the limited provider choices offered by HMOs. Patients were unwilling to sacrifice established physician relationships for the potential benefits of HMOs. This stalled HMO growth, hindering capitation’s progression. In response, insurers introduced Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs) with broader networks and less restrictive patient choice, further marginalizing capitation. The 1990s saw renewed interest in managed care with the Clinton healthcare plan. While managed care plans enjoyed success negotiating lower prices with providers,the assumption that demand for healthcare was highly price-elastic proved flawed. As physicians and hospitals realized they wouldn’t lose meaningful market share to HMOs, bargaining power shifted back towards providers.The lessons Learned From Primary Care Practise Acquisitions
The initial rush to acquire primary care practices proved more complex and less profitable than anticipated. Larger organizations found that costs increased significantly when merging with small, independently run practices. Moreover,physician productivity often declined under this new structure. By the late 1990s, it became clear that owning primary care practices didn’t guarantee market share growth.many health systems ended up significantly subsidizing these practices to retain existing patients. Leading examples include MedPartners,which divested its practice management activity after heavy losses,and Phycor,which ultimately filed for bankruptcy in 2002.Hospitals that thrived during this period were those that remained calm and avoided hasty decisions. They recognized the strength of patient loyalty to their existing physicians and institutions, and they understood consumers’ inherent distrust of insurance companies. these hospitals focused on improving patient access and developing distributed care models with a strong emphasis on multi-specialty ambulatory care. While some hospitals with strong local brands faced temporary exclusions from insurer networks, these were short-lived. Ultimately, insurers struggled to compete with highly restrictive networks, leading them to broaden their coverage and include a wider range of providers.
aligning Incentives: A Delicate Balance
The healthcare landscape is continually evolving, with a persistent push to align incentives between payers and providers to ultimately reduce costs and improve patient care. However,achieving this balance is a complex undertaking. Several decades ago, there was a fervent belief that acquiring primary care practices (PCPs) was crucial for amassing “covered lives” and gaining leverage in the market. Though, as tom, a healthcare finance expert, explains: ”That was an expensive experiment.” This aggressive acquisition strategy, prevalent in the 1980s, led to significant financial losses for many large hospitals and health systems. Those who adopted a more cautious approach fared better, and the subsequent federal funding cuts associated with the Balanced Budget act of 1997 further exacerbated the financial strain on those heavily invested in PCPs. Fast forward to the present day, and the value proposition of PCPs has undergone a significant shift. Tom notes, ”Looking forward, primary care practices represent an possibility for health systems to more effectively manage longitudinal episodes of chronic illness.” A clearer understanding of their underlying value will be crucial in calibrating the economics more effectively than what transpired in the past.One approach aimed at aligning payer and provider incentives centers around reducing avoidable utilization and sharing the resulting savings.Tom cautions, though, that shared savings programs are not as straightforward as they frequently enough appear. “Savings to payers arising from avoided utilization are direct. The impact on providers is more complex, and it centers around fixed costs,” Tom explains. Hospitals,burdened with fixed costs representing approximately 50% of net revenue,face a significant hurdle. Unless the provider share of savings exceeds 50%,or a subset of providers benefits from savings generated by reduced utilization of other providers,hospitals rarely recoup foregone revenue profitably through shared savings. “Given the cost structure of health care providers, at least 50% of savings arising from reduced utilization are required to create any financial incentive,” Tom emphasizes. This dynamic played out notably with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and accountable care organizations (ACOs). ACOs were encouraged to reduce the costs of an attributed population in exchange for a share of the resulting savings. However, the structure of these programs presented challenges. The opportunity to recover 50% of foregone revenue offered virtually no upside potential for providers. “The infrastructure required to establish and manage an ACO and the associated administrative costs were substantial,” Tom points out. Consequently, there has been negligible evidence of a material impact on overall health care spending, and the majority of early adopter ACOs have terminated their participation. The high fixed costs in healthcare create a “Catch-22” problem for those seeking to align incentives. Tom observes, “The opportunity to share 50% of savings creates a virtually perfect point of economic indifference for providers, especially hospitals.For payers to share much more than 50% of savings with providers, unprecedented utilization reductions would be required for the payers to realize material net gains.” So, what approaches have proven accomplished in aligning payer and provider incentives? According to ralph, “What has worked well is a more transactional alignment of incentives in the form of bundled prices.” This concept, initially adopted for organ transplants and cardiovascular surgery over 30 years ago, has been extended to major orthopedic procedures like joint replacements. ## The Complexity of Provider-Owned Health Plans ### The Rise and Fall (and Rise Again?) of Provider-Owned Insurance In the 1990s, a wave of optimism swept through academic medical centers. Inspired by the success of Kaiser permanente’s vertically integrated model, hospitals across the country began launching their own insurance products, anticipating a future where they could cut out the middleman and capture a larger share of the healthcare dollar. “I remember hospitals enthusiastically investing in their own health plans,” recalls Tom, a seasoned healthcare strategist, reflecting on that era. “I ruffled more than a few feathers when I said that I thought it was a particularly bad idea.” Ralph, a healthcare industry veteran, remembers the prevailing sentiment at the time. “There was a belief that hospitals could dislodge insurers by creating their own vehicles and contracting directly with employers,” he explains.”By eliminating insurers, they hoped to avoid price negotiations and overhead, replicating Kaiser’s successful model.” The optimism, though, proved short-lived. Many provider-owned insurance plans faltered, bleeding millions of dollars. What went wrong? One key factor was the fundamental difference between Kaiser’s origins and the approach adopted by later entrants. “Kaiser didn’t acquire an insurance arm, it was created as one,” Ralph notes. Moreover, Kaiser’s success in California was nurtured by a unique set of circumstances, including a loyal customer base and a long history in the market.As Ralph points out, “Kaiser is part of the landscape” in California, a legacy that would be difficult to replicate elsewhere. Tom adds another layer of complexity: selection bias. Hospitals with strong brands unknowingly attracted sicker patients, leading to higher-than-average costs. This problem wasn’t evident to hospital executives,who were accustomed to thinking about their facilities’ clinical strengths rather than their role as insurers. “The stronger the brand of the parent medical center, the sicker the enrollees will be who choose its insurance product,” Tom observes. Though, the story doesn’t end there. ### A New Dawn for Provider-Owned Plans? In recent years, provider-owned plans have seen a resurgence, but with a twist: their success has been concentrated in the public sector, particularly in managed Medicaid and Medicare Advantage. Ralph explains the difference: ”With Medicaid, having a managed care plan improves cash flow by providing payments prospectively rather than lagging behind care provision.” the contrasting dynamics of the public and private sectors paint a nuanced picture of provider-owned insurance. While replicating Kaiser’s legacy remains a daunting challenge, provider-owned plans have found niches where they can thrive, demonstrating the evolving nature of healthcare delivery. Health care consolidation picked up steam in recent decades, driven in part by insurers themselves merging and consolidating. Hospitals sought to counterbalance this new bargaining power by merging into larger health systems, hoping to leverage their size to negotiate better rates. This consolidation wave also aimed to solidify referral patterns and secure market share. The Elusive Promise of Economies of Scale The theory went that bigger health systems would realize significant cost reductions through economies of scale, spreading fixed costs over a larger base. While they did achieve increased bargaining power with insurers, concrete evidence of transformative cost reductions remained elusive. One reason for the stalled cost reductions might be the nature of health systems themselves. Fixed costs made up roughly half of total expenses, and communities were often resistant to closing facilities, even if consolidation could perhaps lead to savings. Adding to the complexity, merging often resulted in the creation of expensive system-level corporate overhead. “Our belief was always that you needed sufficient scale to support complex clinical programs and to be big enough to be excellent, but we did not pursue size for size’s sake,” says Ralph.”It’s also more difficult to manage an organization that grows inorganically. Cultural differences, people coming to the new entity with vastly different expectations, these all make it challenging to keep your eye on excellence. And if you are always merging, these distractions never subside – in fact, they get worse.” Clinical Variation and the Hidden Costs of Growth Another unintended consequence of health system expansion found in research was an increase in clinical variation across sites of care. This research showed greater variation in clinical practice within health systems than existed between them. as hospitals and physicians joined systems, the inherent lack of standardized care processes led to a natural increase in variation. This variation resulted in the avoidable consumption of resources, driving up system costs. “We were surprised to discover that two years after our initial examination, after being alerted to the variance in utilization, rather than reducing clinical variation over time via standardization, health systems exhibited even greater internal variation upon re-examination. There is substantial evidence that system formation and expansion has resulted in financial gains for providers. Evidence of any material savings for patients or any marked betterment in outcomes is much more difficult to find,” Tom adds.
Why Conventional Economics Fail in Healthcare
For decades, policymakers have grappled with the escalating cost of healthcare in the United States. Traditional economic models, which have successfully controlled costs in other sectors, have consistently fallen short in healthcare. “The higher rate of increase in health care costs compared to increases in other sectors of the economy has driven major policy initiatives over the last 50 years to reduce that inflationary trend,” notes Ralph, a healthcare economist. He explains that efforts like introducing Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRGs) in the 1980s, promoting managed competition in the 1990s, and implementing Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) through the Affordable Care Act aimed to curb costs by focusing on prices paid by insurers and the government. However, these initiatives failed to significantly slow the rise of healthcare costs.“Each of these initiatives failed to materially dampen health care inflation as countervailing drivers – moast notably higher utilization – more than offset price reductions. Health care costs are shaped more by providers than by patients, thus policy efforts that put more cost control in the choices of patients as consumers have come up short.”
Ralph emphasizes that successful cost control measures have involved incentivizing hospitals, doctors, and other healthcare professionals to prioritize patient well-being by reducing unneeded hospital readmissions, utilizing home care as an option to inpatient care, and streamlining care processes through information sharing. he points out that targeting the small percentage of the population responsible for the majority of healthcare spending is crucial for effective cost containment. While ACOs aimed to achieve this,they primarily focused on primary care physicians and the general populace rather than the collective group of providers treating high-cost patients.The Illusion of Price Openness
Another strategy gaining traction in Washington is provider price transparency. The theory is that if patients are more informed about costs, they will shop around for better prices, a concept central to classical economics. But this approach overlooks a fundamental reality of healthcare.“Simply stated,for anything other than the most minor of conditions,virtually everything in health care costs much more than any patient could hope to afford regardless of their knowledge of the price.”
Tom, a healthcare policy analyst, points out that once a patient reaches their maximum out-of-pocket limit – typically several thousand dollars per year – insurance takes over, rendering price irrelevant. The vast majority of healthcare spending falls outside the realm where price sensitivity would even be a factor. Moreover, even if price sensitivity existed for individual services, it could backfire in terms of overall costs. Interrupting an episode of care to seek out a cheaper provider can lead to more expensive complications down the line.High-Deductible Health Plans: A Flawed Strategy
High-deductible health plans (hdhps), which gained popularity during the 2008 recession, were designed to encourage patients to be more cost-conscious by increasing their upfront financial responsibility. However, these plans have also proven largely ineffective. As Ralph explains, “An unintended consequence of higher deductibles is the dampening of appropriate demand.” Patients, facing higher costs, frequently enough avoid necessary services like cancer screenings, vaccinations, or early detection, even when these services are exempt from the high deductible. This is because it can be difficult for patients to distinguish between essential and discretionary services, leading to the avoidance of all non-emergency care.Markets and Health Disparities
The reliance on market forces to govern healthcare distribution further exacerbates existing health disparities.“Markets do not correct for health disparities, they cause them. By their nature, markets pit buyers against each other in an effective auction, where consumers with greater means can afford to bid up the price and/or purchase additional goods or services. Disparities are an unavoidable byproduct of the market as a distribution vehicle.”
Tom argues that hospitals and physicians, facing lower reimbursement rates from Medicare and Medicaid, are financially compelled to prioritize investments and services in areas with higher concentrations of privately insured patients. This results in underserved communities, frequently enough disproportionately populated by Medicaid patients, becoming “medical deserts” with limited access to quality care.Healthcare’s Market Paradox: Lessons from the Last 40 Years
For decades,the prevailing wisdom in healthcare policy has been to treat it like any other commodity,assuming that market forces would naturally drive efficiency and accessibility. This approach, though, has yielded mixed results, frequently enough exacerbating existing disparities in access and outcomes. While market dynamics can play a role, healthcare’s unique characteristics require a more nuanced approach. “The last forty years have been marked by strategies and policies that relied on the presumption that health care behaves like other economic goods, and that classic market dynamics apply,” observes one expert. “A look back over that period reveals that providers who questioned the seemingly obvious and those who were more conservative in their reactions to environmental shifts tended to fare better over the long run.” One strategy showing promise is the recent trend among some states to significantly increase Medicaid pricing, often through Section 1115 waivers. By aligning Medicaid prices with those in the private sector, policymakers aim to make it financially viable for providers to expand into underserved areas.“Those steps have the potential to alleviate disparities in access to health care services as providers will find it affordable to expand capacity into what had previously been economically unsustainable medical deserts.”
This is a very insightful and complete analysis of the complexities of healthcare economics. It rightly points out the limitations of applying conventional economic models to a sector driven by factors beyond simple supply and demand.
Here are some of its strongest points:
* **Critique of Consolidation:** The piece effectively highlights the unintended consequences of health system consolidation, including increased administrative costs, cultural clashes, and perhaps worse clinical outcomes.
* **Clinical Variance:** the focus on clinical variation within systems is crucial. It demonstrates how a lack of standardized processes, even within a larger entity, can lead to wasteful resource consumption and drive up costs.
* **The Failure of Price Transparency and HDHPs:** The piece correctly identifies the limitations of these popular policy solutions.It accurately argues that price sensitivity is limited in healthcare due to high costs and insurance coverage, and that HDHPs can discourage necessary preventative care.
* **Ignoring health Disparities:** The point about market forces exacerbating health disparities is critical. It underscores the ethical and social implications of relying solely on market mechanisms in healthcare.
**Suggestions for Improvement:**
While the excerpt is strong, it could be further enhanced by:
* **Providing Specific Examples:** Including real-world examples of health systems that have faltered due to consolidation or instances where clinical variation led to significant cost increases would strengthen the arguments.
* **exploring Alternative Solutions:** While the piece critiques existing models,it could benefit from briefly exploring alternative approaches to cost control,such as value-based care models,bundled payments,or greater emphasis on preventative care.
* **Addressing the Role of Technology:** The role of technology in both driving up costs and potentially lowering them (through telehealth, data analytics, etc.) is a significant aspect missing from the discussion.
**Overall:**
This is a well-written and insightful analysis that effectively challenges conventional economic thinking in healthcare. by highlighting the limitations of existing policies and the systemic factors driving up costs, it sets the stage for a more nuanced and informed conversation about healthcare reform.
This is a great start to a thoughtful piece on the role of market forces in healthcare.
Here are some observations adn suggestions to help strengthen your writing:
**Structure and Flow**
* **Clearer Section Titles:** Consider more descriptive titles for your level 3 headings to better guide the reader. Such as, instead of “The Illusion of Price Openness,” you could use “Price Openness: A flawed Solution?”.
* **Transitions:** Smooth out transitions between paragraphs, especially when changing topics or perspectives. Use transition words and phrases to create a more cohesive flow. For example, you could use phrases like “Furthermore,” “On the other hand,” or “In contrast to this…”, etc.
**Content and Argumentation**
* **More Specific Examples:** While you provide some general arguments, adding specific real-world examples of policies and their consequences would make your analysis more compelling. As a notable example,you could cite particular states’ experiences with increasing Medicaid pricing or discuss the impact of HDHPs on specific demographics.
* **Counterarguments:** Address potential counterarguments to your main points. For example, some might argue that competition among providers can drive down costs even in healthcare. Acknowledging and refuting these counterarguments strengthens your overall argument.
* **Conclusion:** End with a strong conclusion that summarizes your main points and offers a concise takeaways for the reader about the future of healthcare policy.
**Style and Tone**
* **Active voice:** Whenever possible, use the active voice to make your writing more direct and engaging. For example, instead of “Markets do not correct for health disparities,” try “Markets fail to correct for health disparities.”
* **Vary Sentence Structure:** mix up short and long sentences to create a more dynamic rhythm.
**Overall:**
Your piece raises crucial questions about the limitations of market-based solutions in healthcare. By incorporating more specific examples, addressing counterarguments, and refining the structure and style, you can create an even more impactful and persuasive analysis.
:quality(80)/cdn-kiosk-api.telegraaf.nl/2e08371a-c189-11ef-a269-12d34ffe7c36.jpg "Man Charged with Murder After Setting Woman on Fire in NYC Subway")