Author:
Steenhuis Sander,Hofstra Geeske,Portrait France,Amankour Fatima,Koolman Xander,van der Hijden Eric
Abstract
Abstract
Background
One of the most significant challenges of implementing a multi-provider bundled payment contract is to determine an appropriate, casemix-adjusted total bundle price. The most frequently used approach is to leverage historic care utilization based on claims data. However, those claims data may not accurately reflect appropriate care (e.g. due to supplier induced demand and moral hazard effects). This study aims to examine variation in claims-based costs of post-discharge primary care physical therapy (PT) utilization after total knee and hip arthroplasties (TKA/THA) for osteoarthritis patients.
Methods
This retrospective cohort study used multilevel linear regression analyses to predict the factors that explain the variation in the utilization of post-discharge PT after TKA or THA for osteoarthritis patients, based on the historic (2015–2018) claims data of a large Dutch health insurer. The factors were structured as predisposing, enabling or need factors according to the behavioral model of Andersen.
Results
The 15,309 TKA and 14,325 THA patients included in this study received an average of 20.7 (SD 11.3) and 16.7 (SD 10.1) post-discharge PT sessions, respectively. Results showed that the enabling factor ‘presence of supplementary insurance’ was the strongest predictor for post-discharge PT utilization in both groups (TKA: β = 7.46, SE = 0.498, p-value< 0.001; THA: β = 5.72, SE = 0.515, p-value< 0.001). There were also some statistically significant predisposing and need factors, but their effects were smaller.
Conclusions
This study shows that if enabling factors (such as supplementary insurance coverage or co-payments) are not taken into account in risk-adjustment of the bundle price, they may cause historic claims-based pricing methods to over- or underestimate appropriate post-discharge primary care PT use, which would result in a bundle price that is either too high or too low. Not adjusting bundle prices for all relevant casemix factors is a risk because it can hamper the successful implementation of bundled payment contracts and the desired changes in care delivery it aims to support.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference83 articles.
1. OECD. Better ways to pay for health care: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2016.
2. Nussbaum S, McClellan M, Metlay G. Principles for a framework for alternative payment models. JAMA. 2018;319(7):653–4.
3. Miller HD. From volume to value: better ways to pay for health care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(5):1418–28.
4. Struijs JN, De Vries EF, Baan CA, van Gils PF, Rosenthal MB. Bundled-payment models around the world: how they work and what their impact has been. New York: The Commonwealth Fund; 2020.
5. Agarwal R, Liao JM, Gupta A, Navathe AS. The impact of bundled payment on health care spending, utilization, and quality: a systematic review. Health Aff (Millwood). 2020;39(1):50–7.