Site-neutral payment is a policy created by federal rule making and implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that aims to reduce healthcare costs by aligning payment rates for certain services provided in multiple care settings. Site-neutral payments are intended to eliminate the incentive for providers to acquire facilities, such as physician offices or ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), that Medicare reimburses at the lower non-facility rate and convert those settings into hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), where Medicare reimburses at the higher facility rate. Although initiated by Congress to address payment disparities in Medicare, similar payment discrepancies can be seen in the commercial market where individual and employer-sponsored health plans often pay more for certain outpatient services depending on their location. This analysis presents a simulation of the impact of applying site-neutral payments to the commercial market with respect to overall potential savings for consumers, health plans and the federal government. To conduct the analysis, we use an all-payer claims data base generalizable to the United States. The analysis focused on a select group of outpatient services identified by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). We mapped the MedPAC identified 68 Ambulatory Payment Classifications (APCs), the codes Medicare uses to reimburse facilities for outpatient services, to the relevant CPT4/HCPCS codes, which the commercial market uses for billing. The potential cost savings of applying the site-neutral payment policy to the commercial insurance market to be $58 billion for year 2022. We estimate the 10-year total (2024-2033) employer market premium reduction ranges from 5.35% to 5.0% and found that those premium reductions would result in employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) tax subsidy savings of $140 billion to the federal government over a 10-year period (2024-2033).

BACKGROUND: High clinical value national reimbursement anticancer medications (NRAMs) are pivotal treatments for patients with cancer. However, the availability of NRAMs in medical institutions is unknown. This study aimed to assess the availability of NRAMs in national and provincial medical institutions.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilized national health insurance data to access the availability of NRAMs in national and provincial medical institutions. Further statistical analyses and visualizations were conducted in terms of medical institution level and daily cost. Using the Spearman\'s rank correlation test (α = 0.05), we calculated the correlation between the availability rates of NRAMs and their negotiation access time, daily cost, per capita disposable income, provincial gross product, and number of policy releases.
RESULTS: Overall, 81 NRAMs, with an average availability rate of approximately 1.01% nationwide, were included. There were significant differences between provinces for each drug, and the availability of NRAMs gradually decreased in tertiary (13.41%), secondary (1.58%), and primary medical institutions (< 0.05%). Differences were also observed in the availability rate of NRAMs in various daily drug cost ranges. Among the factors examined, negotiation access time (r1 = 0.425), daily cost (r2 = - 0.326), per capita disposable income (r3 = 0.645), provincial gross product (r4 = 0.433), and number of policy releases (r5 = 0.461) were all correlated with the availability of NRAMs.
CONCLUSIONS: The low availability of NRAMs in national and provincial medical institutions indicates that their willingness to equip NRAMs needs to be improved. All factors examined in this study affected the availability of NRAMs. Our findings can guide policymakers in improving relevant policies.

UNASSIGNED: Reduced institutional postacute care has been associated with savings in alternative payment models. However, organizations may avoid voluntary participation if participation could threaten their own revenues.
UNASSIGNED: To characterize the association between hospital-skilled nursing facility (SNF) integration and participation in Medicare\'s Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-A) program.
UNASSIGNED: This is a cross-sectional analysis of hospital participation in BPCI-A beginning with its launch in 2018. Each SNF-integrated hospital was matched with 2 nonintegrated hospitals for each of 4 episode-specific analyses. Fifteen hospital-level variables were used for matching: beds, case mix index, days, area SNF beds, metropolitan location, ownership, region, system membership, and teaching status. Hospitals were also matched on episode-specific volume, target price, and the interaction of target price and case mix. Episode-specific logistic models were estimated regressing hospital participation on integration and the previously listed variables. The marginal effect of integration on participation was then calculated. Analysis took place from August 2022 to May 2024.
UNASSIGNED: Hospital-SNF integration, as defined by common ownership and referral patterns and identified using cost reports, Medicare claims, and Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System records. Additional sources included records of target prices and participation, the Area Health Resources File, and the Compendium of US Health Systems.
UNASSIGNED: Participation in BPCI-A.
UNASSIGNED: In total, 1524 hospitals met criteria for inclusion in the hip and femur (HFP) analysis, 1825 were included in the major joint replacement of the lower extremity (MJRLE) analysis, 2018 were included in the sepsis analysis, and 1564, were included in the stroke-specific analysis. Across episodes, 191 HFP-eligible hospitals (12.5% of HFP-eligible hospitals), 302 MJRLE-eligible hospitals (16.5%), 327 sepsis-eligible hospitals (16.2%), and 185 sepsis-eligible hospitals (11.8%) were SNF integrated. In total, 79 hospitals (5.2%) participated in the HFP episode, 128 (7.0%) participated in the MJRLE episode, 204 (10.1%) participated in the sepsis episode, and 141 (9.0%) participated in the stroke episode. Integration was associated with a 4.7-percentage point decrease (95% CI, 2.4 to 6.9 percentage points) in participation in the MJRLE episode. There was no association between integration and participation for HFP (0.5-percentage point increase in participation moving from nonintegrated to integrated; 95% CI, -2.9 to 3.8 percentage points), sepsis (1.0-percentage point increase; 95% CI, -2.2 to 4.2 percentage points), and stroke (0.3-percentage point decrease; 95% CI, -3.1 to 3.8 percentage points).
UNASSIGNED: In this cross-sectional study, there was an uneven association between hospital-SNF integration and participation in Medicare\'s BPCI-A program. Other factors may be more consistent determinants of selection into voluntary payment reform.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the impact of reimbursement criteria change on the utilization pattern of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) among patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) and diabetic macular edema (DME) separately in Taiwan.
METHODS: An interrupted time series analysis (ITSA) was performed using Taiwan\'s National Health Insurance (NHI) database, and patients with wAMD or DME diagnosis at the first injection of anti-VEGF agents was identified from 2011 to 2019. The outcome of interest was treatment gaps between injections of anti-VEGF. This outcome was retrieved quarterly, and the study period was divided into three phases in wAMD (two criteria changed in August 2014 [intervention] and December 2016 [intervention]) and two phases in DME (three consecutive criteria changed in 2016 [intervention]). Segmented regression models adjusted for autocorrelation were used to estimate the change in level and the change in slope of the treatment gaps between each anti-VEGF injection.
RESULTS: The treatment gaps between each anti-VEGF injection decreased from 2011 to 2019. The cancellation of the annual three needles limitation was associated with significantly shortened treatment gaps between the third and fourth needles (wAMD change in level: -228 days [95% CI -282, -173], DME change in level: -110 days [95% CI -141, -79]). The treatment gap between the fifth and sixth needles revealed a similar pattern but without significant change in DME patients. Other treatment gaps revealed considerable change in slopes in accordance with criteria changes.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first nationwide study using ITSA to demonstrate the impact of reimbursement policy on treatment gaps between each anti-VEGF injection. After canceling the annual limitation, we found that the treatment gaps significantly decreased among wAMD and DME patients. The shortened treatment gaps might further link to better visual outcomes according to previous studies. The different impacts from criteria changes can assist future policy shaping. Future studies were warranted to explore whether such changes are associated with the benefits of visual effects.

BACKGROUND: The Diagnosis-Intervention Packet (DIP) payment system, initiated by China\'s National Healthcare Security Administration, is designed to enhance healthcare efficiency and manage rising healthcare costs. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the DIP payment reform on inpatient care in a specialized obstetrics and gynecology hospital, with a focus on its implications for various patient groups.
METHODS: To assess the DIP policy\'s effects, we employed the Difference-in-Differences (DID) approach. This method was used to analyze changes in total hospital costs and Length of Stay (LOS) across different patient groups, particularly within select DIP categories. The study involved a comprehensive examination of the DIP policy\'s influence pre- and post-implementation.
RESULTS: Our findings indicate that the implementation of the DIP policy led to a significant increase in both total costs and LOS for the insured group relative to the self-paying group. The study further identified variations within DIP groups both before and after the reform. In-depth analysis of specific disease groups revealed that the insured group experienced notably higher total costs and LOS compared to the self-paying group.
CONCLUSIONS: The DIP reform has led to several challenges, including upcoding and diagnostic ambiguity, because of the pursuit of higher reimbursements. These findings underscore the necessity for continuous improvement of the DIP payment system to effectively tackle these challenges and optimize healthcare delivery and cost management.

Value-based healthcare payment models are an alternative insurance payment system that compensates healthcare providers based on their patients\' outcomes rather than the individual services healthcare workers provide. This shift from the current fee-for-service model that predominates our medical system has received renewed popularity and attention within organized medicine such as the American Medical Association. Advocates believe that this new payment model will address many of the unsolved issues in healthcare such as medical waste and unsustainable healthcare costs. In practice, however, this model is plagued with a myriad of unresolved issues of its own. In this commentary, we outline these issues and suggest that the intentions of those advocating for value-based payment models are either misguided or disingenuous. We then offer solutions that preserve our current fee-for-service model while making necessary changes that will benefit both physicians and patients nationwide.

UNASSIGNED: Heart failure (HF) is among the leading causes of death in the United States. Further, patients hospitalized because of HF with comorbid diabetes mellitus (DM) are at a significantly increased risk of death and rehospitalization. Results from the SOLOIST-WHF trial show that sotagliflozin lowered rates of readmission among hospitalized patients with HF and comorbid DM. However, it is unclear what the economic impact of the use of sotagliflozin would be on hospitals and health systems, particularly in an age where provider reimbursement is increasingly tied to value.
UNASSIGNED: To quantify the 1-year financial impact on US provider health systems of adopting sotagliflozin relative to standard of care (SoC) across different alternative payment models.
UNASSIGNED: This study created a 3-part decision tree model to quantify the financial impact of using sotagliflozin to treat patients hospitalized with HF in a US hospital setting. The model first estimated the clinical and economic outcomes of health systems with current SoC (no sotagliflozin) to treat US patients hospitalized for HF with comorbid DM. Then, using the results from the SOLOIST trial, the changes in clinical and economic outcomes with sotagliflozin adoption were modeled. Finally, the differences in health care utilization between sotagliflozin and SoC arms were translated to differences in health system reimbursement in the context of 3 common alternative payment models (APMs) in addition to the baseline fee-for-service (FFS) model: FFS with the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced program, and Accountable Care Organizations.
UNASSIGNED: A typical community hospital would have 83.4 patients per year on average with an index HF hospitalization with comorbid DM. The model predicted that sotagliflozin would reduce the probability of hospitalization, emergency department visits, and deaths by 29.3%, 38.5%, and 17.8%, respectively, compared with SoC. For hospitals not participating in APM programs, sotagliflozin resulted in a net loss of $92.94 per person ($7,754 per health system). Conversely, when accounting for provider health system participation in APMs, sotagliflozin adoption increased financial returns by $4,720 per person ($305,604 per health system) under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, $1,200 per person ($100,106 per health system) for the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement-Advanced program, and $1,078 per person ($31,029 per health system) for Accountable Care Organizations. Based on the national average composition of APM reimbursement, sotagliflozin adoption resulted in a $1,576 increase in margin per patient with HF ($105,454 per health system).
UNASSIGNED: Although sotagliflozin adoption reduced health system revenue in an FFS payment model, it led to a net positive financial impact after accounting for APM bonus payments.

UNASSIGNED: Several state Medicaid agencies have transitioned from traditional fee-for-service to a value-centric alternative payment model (APM) to reimburse federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Little is known about the effects of this shift on FQHC performance.
UNASSIGNED: To assess the association between APMs and the clinical performance, payer mix, risk profile, and financial sustainability of FQHCs.
UNASSIGNED: This retrospective cohort study was performed in 684 FQHCs (representing 37 states plus the District of Columbia) that continuously operated between January 2009 and December 2021. Data on payer mix (eg, type of insurance) and risk profile (eg, proportion of patients with chronic conditions) of FQHC patients were obtained from the Uniform Data System, and clinic-level financial data (eg, revenue) were obtained from Internal Revenue Service form 990 tax documents. Data were analyzed between November 2022 and October 2023.
UNASSIGNED: Initial rollout of a value-based payment model (ie, an APM) for FQHCs, as offered by state Medicaid program, between January 2013 and December 2021.
UNASSIGNED: The main outcomes were 4 audited process measures of health care quality (cervical and colorectal cancer screening and body mass index [BMI] assessment for adults and children) and 2 intermediate health outcome measures (hypertension control and diabetes control). A difference-in-differences design was used with staggered implementation comparing FQHCs before and after the initial APM rollout vs contemporaneous changes in FQHCs in states without APMs.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 684 FQHCs (8892 FQHC-years) that served 17 823 959 patients in 2021 (57.3% female) were included in the study. Among FQHCs in states implementing APMs, significant differential increases in 3 of the 4 process quality measures were observed compared with FQHCs in states that did not implement an APM: colorectal cancer screening (3.24 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, 1.40-5.08 pp), adult BMI (3.19 pp; 95% CI, 0.70-5.68 pp), and child BMI (4.50 pp; 95% CI, 1.83-7.17 pp). There were also modest differential improvements in blood pressure control for individuals with hypertension (1.02 pp; 95% CI, 0.04-2.00 pp) and blood glucose control for individuals with type 2 diabetes (1.02 pp; 95% CI, 0.02-2.02 pp) compared with FQHCs in states without an APM. There was no evidence that the APM rollout was associated with clinics selecting healthier patients (-0.01 pp; 95% CI, -0.21 to 0.19 pp) or stinting on care (-0.02 visits; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.04 visits).
UNASSIGNED: In this cohort study, introduction of Medicaid APM options for FQHCs was associated with modest, statistically significant increases in quality concentrated among FQHCs with APM models that explicitly incentivized quality. This finding suggests that APMs can be both a financially viable and a health-promoting model for reimbursement in the health care safety net.

In this update, we discuss recent US FDA guidance offering more specific guidelines on appropriate study design and analysis to support causal inference for non-interventional studies and the launch of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA) public electronic catalogues. We also highlight an article recommending assessing data quality and suitability prior to protocol finalization and a Journal of the American Medical Association-endorsed framework for using causal language when publishing real-world evidence studies. Finally, we explore the potential of large language models to automate the development of health economic models.

Drug shortages threaten patients\' access to medications and are associated with adverse health outcomes and increased costs. Drug shortages disproportionately occur among generic drugs of limited profitability, most notably drugs administered by injection. In this perspective, we discuss how reimbursement and purchasing practices that were meant to create an efficient marketplace for generics have generated strong price pressure that threatens profitability in certain markets. We further explain how, faced with limited profitability, manufacturers lack incentives to invest in resilient supply chains, and in some cases, engage in cost-containment strategies or decide to exit the market, ultimately contributing to shortages. We propose the development and implementation of value-based reimbursement to provide needed incentives for drug purchasers and manufacturers to establish a more reliable supply chain as part of the policy solution to reduce the number and extent of drug shortages. This reimbursement model would necessitate the development of a rating system that measures supply chain resilience and maturity for each generic product. This rating would then be applied as a value-based modifier to reimbursement rates for generic products. The proposed model would result in higher reimbursement rates for generic products from more dependable supply chains, generating incentives for manufacturers to invest in supply chain resiliency. We propose the application of this reimbursement system originally in Medicare given Congressional interest on reforming Medicare payment to prevent drug shortages.