Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 1: bundled payment: effects on health care spending and quality).

Peter S Hussey, Andrew W Mulcahy, Christopher Schnyer, Eric C Schneider
{"title":"Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 1: bundled payment: effects on health care spending and quality).","authors":"Peter S Hussey,&nbsp;Andrew W Mulcahy,&nbsp;Christopher Schnyer,&nbsp;Eric C Schneider","doi":"10.23970/ahrqepcerta208.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>\"Bundled payment\" is a method in which payments to health care providers are related to the predetermined expected costs of a grouping, or \"bundle,\" of related health care services. The intent of bundled payment systems is to decrease health care spending while improving or maintaining the quality of care.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To systematically review studies of the effects of bundled payment on health care spending and quality, and to examine key design and contextual features of bundled payment programs and their association with program effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Electronic literature search of PubMed® and the Cochrane Library for studies published between 1985 and 2011.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Title and abstract review followed by full-text review to identify studies that assessed the effect of bundled payment on health care spending and/or quality.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Two authors independently abstracted data on study design, intervention design, context, comparisons, and findings. Reviewers rated the strength of individual studies as well as the strength and applicability of the body of evidence overall. Differences between reviewers were reconciled by consensus. Studies were categorized by bundled payment program and narratively summarized.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>We reviewed 58 studies, excluding studies of the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System, for which we reviewed 4 review articles. Most studies (57 of 58) were observational or descriptive; 1 study employed randomization of providers, and none employed random assignment of patients to treatment and control groups. The included studies examined 20 different bundled payment interventions, 16 of which focused on single institutional providers. The introduction of bundled payment was associated with: (1) reductions in health care spending and utilization, and (2) inconsistent and generally small effects on quality measures. These findings were consistent across different bundled payment programs and settings, but the strength of the body of evidence was rated as low, due mainly to concerns about bias and residual confounding. Insufficient evidence was available to identify the influence of key design factors and most contextual factors on bundled payment effects.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Most of the bundled payment interventions studied in reviewed articles (16/20) were limited to payments to single institutional providers (e.g., hospitals, skilled nursing facilities) and so have limited generalizability to newer programs including multiple provider types and/or multiple providers. Exclusion criteria and the search strategy we used may have omitted some relevant studies from the results. The review is limited by the quality of the underlying studies. The interventions studied were often incompletely described in the reviewed articles.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is weak but consistent evidence that bundled payment programs have been effective in cost containment without major effects on quality. Reductions in spending and utilization relative to usual payment were less than 10 percent in many cases. Bundled payment is a promising strategy for reducing health spending. However, effects may not be the same in future programs that differ from those included in this review.</p>","PeriodicalId":72991,"journal":{"name":"Evidence report/technology assessment","volume":" 208.1","pages":"1-155"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781468/pdf/","citationCount":"70","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence report/technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23970/ahrqepcerta208.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 70

Abstract

Background: "Bundled payment" is a method in which payments to health care providers are related to the predetermined expected costs of a grouping, or "bundle," of related health care services. The intent of bundled payment systems is to decrease health care spending while improving or maintaining the quality of care.

Purpose: To systematically review studies of the effects of bundled payment on health care spending and quality, and to examine key design and contextual features of bundled payment programs and their association with program effectiveness.

Data sources: Electronic literature search of PubMed® and the Cochrane Library for studies published between 1985 and 2011.

Study selection: Title and abstract review followed by full-text review to identify studies that assessed the effect of bundled payment on health care spending and/or quality.

Data extraction: Two authors independently abstracted data on study design, intervention design, context, comparisons, and findings. Reviewers rated the strength of individual studies as well as the strength and applicability of the body of evidence overall. Differences between reviewers were reconciled by consensus. Studies were categorized by bundled payment program and narratively summarized.

Data synthesis: We reviewed 58 studies, excluding studies of the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System, for which we reviewed 4 review articles. Most studies (57 of 58) were observational or descriptive; 1 study employed randomization of providers, and none employed random assignment of patients to treatment and control groups. The included studies examined 20 different bundled payment interventions, 16 of which focused on single institutional providers. The introduction of bundled payment was associated with: (1) reductions in health care spending and utilization, and (2) inconsistent and generally small effects on quality measures. These findings were consistent across different bundled payment programs and settings, but the strength of the body of evidence was rated as low, due mainly to concerns about bias and residual confounding. Insufficient evidence was available to identify the influence of key design factors and most contextual factors on bundled payment effects.

Limitations: Most of the bundled payment interventions studied in reviewed articles (16/20) were limited to payments to single institutional providers (e.g., hospitals, skilled nursing facilities) and so have limited generalizability to newer programs including multiple provider types and/or multiple providers. Exclusion criteria and the search strategy we used may have omitted some relevant studies from the results. The review is limited by the quality of the underlying studies. The interventions studied were often incompletely described in the reviewed articles.

Conclusions: There is weak but consistent evidence that bundled payment programs have been effective in cost containment without major effects on quality. Reductions in spending and utilization relative to usual payment were less than 10 percent in many cases. Bundled payment is a promising strategy for reducing health spending. However, effects may not be the same in future programs that differ from those included in this review.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
缩小质量差距:重新审视科学现状(第1卷:捆绑付款:对医疗保健支出和质量的影响)。
背景:“捆绑支付”是一种向卫生保健提供者支付与相关卫生保健服务分组或“捆绑”的预定预期费用相关的方法。捆绑支付系统的目的是减少医疗保健支出,同时提高或保持医疗质量。目的:系统地回顾有关捆绑支付对医疗保健支出和质量影响的研究,并检查捆绑支付计划的关键设计和背景特征及其与计划有效性的关系。数据来源:PubMed®和Cochrane图书馆的电子文献检索,检索1985年至2011年间发表的研究。研究选择:标题和摘要综述,然后是全文综述,以确定评估捆绑付款对医疗保健支出和/或质量影响的研究。数据提取:两位作者独立地提取了研究设计、干预设计、背景、比较和发现的数据。审稿人对个别研究的强度以及整体证据的强度和适用性进行了评估。审稿人之间的分歧通过一致意见得到调和。研究按捆绑支付计划分类,并进行叙述总结。数据综合:我们回顾了58项研究,不包括医疗保险住院病人预期支付系统的研究,我们回顾了4篇综述文章。大多数研究(58项中的57项)是观察性或描述性的;1项研究采用了提供者随机化,没有一项研究将患者随机分配到治疗组和对照组。纳入的研究检查了20种不同的捆绑支付干预措施,其中16种侧重于单一机构提供商。采用捆绑付款与以下因素有关:(1)卫生保健支出和利用的减少,以及(2)对质量措施的影响不一致且通常很小。这些发现在不同的捆绑支付计划和设置中是一致的,但证据体的强度被评为较低,主要是由于对偏见和残留混淆的担忧。没有足够的证据来确定关键设计因素和大多数上下文因素对捆绑支付效果的影响。局限性:在审查的文章(16/20)中研究的大多数捆绑付款干预措施仅限于向单一机构提供者(例如,医院、熟练护理机构)付款,因此推广到包括多种提供者类型和/或多个提供者的新方案的能力有限。排除标准和我们使用的搜索策略可能从结果中遗漏了一些相关的研究。本综述受到基础研究质量的限制。所研究的干预措施通常在综述文章中描述不完整。结论:有微弱但一致的证据表明,捆绑支付方案在成本控制方面有效,但对质量没有重大影响。在许多情况下,与通常支付相比,支出和利用率的减少不到10%。捆绑支付是减少卫生支出的一种有希望的策略。然而,在未来的项目中,效果可能与本综述中所包括的不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Maternal and Child Health: An Updated Systematic Review. Data Linkage Strategies to Advance Youth Suicide Prevention. Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease: An Updated Systematic Review. Health Information Exchange. Diagnosis and Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1