New Marketplace

Developing a Playbook for IPU-based Surgical Care and New Payment Models

Article · July 17, 2019

Conventional wisdom is that doctors — and especially surgeons — do not want to bundle health care. Under the right circumstances in support of surgical excellence, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) supports team-based care and alternative payment systems that appropriately measure quality and value and assign bundled payments.

For more than half a century, surgeons have operated by implementing the principles of team-based care in surgical disciplines such as trauma care or cancer care. Yet, payment remains in silos, purchasing clinical services using fee-for-service payment from each of the team member’s contributions along the care continuum. Fee-for-service seems rational when care models are very limited in time and scope and only a few clinical services apply to the care model. But some aspects of surgical care models have gotten far more complex. Patients have multiple comorbid conditions that require optimization prior to a surgical procedure and involve even more complexity during and after the facility-based aspects of surgical care. Skilled nursing, rehabilitation medicine, and home health care are now common elements in complex, team-based surgical care models. Combining all the elements of care into integrated practice units defines the opportunity for team-based, episode payment in bundles.

Recent efforts led by the federal government, some of the major payers, and large, self-insured employers have focused efforts on alternative means for purchasing clinical care. The American College of Surgeons feels the best approach to defining alternative payment models begins with defining the surgical care model, the elements of the care team, and the outcomes produced by the team. Fee-for-service is built on the service provided as narrowly defined by one provider in a moment in time. For this single service in a single encounter, a payment is established without regard to the outcome.

The ACS experience demonstrates that many care models involve integrated teams, working toward a common goal to optimize the patient’s results with personalized risk-adjusted outcomes. Over the last half century, ACS has implemented a series of care model verification programs in the surgical domains for disciplines such as trauma and cancer care. In the most recent decades these have expanded to include pediatric surgery, metabolic and bariatric surgery, complex GI, vascular, and frail and elderly surgical care. These are team-based standards programs that define the roadmap to the best outcomes in care. Conformance with standards is the best effort to limit avoidable harms in surgical care. In addition, achieving the patients’ goals is represented in patient reported outcomes. It is these verification efforts that ensure an evidence-based care model has the focus of the entire team on patient outcomes.

The ACS model is born out in work published by the Harvard Business School. In 2006, Michael Porter and Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg described a major approach to alternative payments when they published Redefining Health Care: Creating Value Based Competition on Results. Now, over a decade later, Porter et al. have accumulated a series of Harvard Business School (HBS) case studies to highlight the experiences in value-based care and alternative payments.

A closer look at the HBS-Porter case studies reveals several features that fit well within the American College of Surgeons’ framework for surgical care. These cases describe integrated practice units (which Porter calls IPUs) as teams treating patients by means of an array of various services within a specific time window for a discrete episode of care. Several of the episodes define the focus of the care, the need for a specific care model, the role of supporting data, dashboards for knowledge and learning, and the importance of outcomes and cost data.

In many of the IPU surgical examples used by Porter, it is noteworthy that a surgeon oftentimes noted the underperformance of their team. To improve care, that surgeon became the champion who was determined to make improvements to the care model and team performance to meet patient expectations. Combining the ACS standards, verification, and outcomes programs with the Porter IPU models would yield a playbook for implementing a highly valued surgical care model with new payment models. The basic elements of these two initiatives from ACS and Porter’s work when combined would establish clear requirements for surgical IPUs:

  1. Focus: Define a focused condition or surgical procedure, which must have a care model that spans the critical services within the care continuum by considering services from the onset to treatment and through recovery.
  2. Verification: Define and verify the key aspects of the care model through verification programs that assert a leadership commitment to a culture of safety and high reliability. The verification includes a surgical quality officer and a committee. The episode-specific care model must be expressed in the key phases of care and have a disease management system. Data are collected, surveilled, and used in data-driven quality improvement for the episode. Case review and peer review with a tie back to credentials and privileges are linked to the episode. And the institution participates in regulatory quality metrics applied to the domain.
  3. Cost: There are two major aspects of cost. The operating costs that are internal to the episode team (e.g., time-driven activity-based costing) and externally the costs to the patient and payer (e.g., EGM episode grouper logic). The external costs represent the price of goods and services to the patient and their insurer.
  4. Measurement: Outcomes and Total Cost of Care.
  5. Transparency: Certain measures of outcome and cost should be made public.
  6. Enabling IT: Registry data for conformance to standards, risk-adjusted outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. A standard total-cost-of-care measure. The health IT should present a dashboard for the entire episode team, patients, and payers.
  7. Risk-based Contracts: Bundle or episode-based, risk-bearing contracts.
  8. Compensation Principles: Clinical compensation to physicians should reflect a minimum set of principles to align with the value-based care principles.

In order to facilitate adoption of episodes as alternative payment models, the delivery systems will need consistent means, such as a set of standards and a playbook to implement and manage their episodes. Without standards, if each delivery system or each payer created their own instance of an alternative payment system, it becomes too complex for a broad-scale implementation. Health care uses standardized approaches in payment models for fee-for-service using tools such as CPT, DRG, ICD-10, and CMS-1500s. It is time to move to standards for clinical care models and business models for the care teams to implement the care models. For alternative payment models to take hold using episodes or IPUs, the delivery systems and patients need to avoid unnecessary complexity of non-standardized care. The complexity can be limited by standardizing how episodes are constructed, how quality is determined, how payment occurs, and how compensation is aligned with value.

Episodes are constructed from several approaches. An episode construct may use a medical condition such as a cancer diagnosis. The episode could also be more narrowly defined by the treatment of the condition such as a surgical resection of a cancer, a chemotherapy course, or radiation treatment. A condition episode is broader, inclusive of larger teams and multiple treatment options. The early episode approaches have been more narrowly focused in smaller, more manageable teams around treatment such as the Oncology Medical Home or a surgical resection. Treatment episodes are a step toward broader condition episodes. The more comprehensive the condition episodes are, the larger the care model options and the greater the teams. Large-scale condition episodes are more complex, require significant data infrastructure, and offer the most in risk/rewards.

To move the playbook forward for pilot testing involves collaboratives built on the ACS and the Harvard Business School’s Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness around a framework for conditions or treatment episodes. Each episode requires a well-defined care model and team members. Optimal structure and process are held together using the verification framework to ensure evidence-based care pathways and that team roles are defined around quality, improvement, and cost. Enabling health information and supporting technology provide the outcomes measures with a focus on the patient’s experience and achieving their goals of care. Purchaser or payer engagement must define the scale for determining incentive-based payments to establish value and assign a risk/reward contract.

In conclusion, ACS believes team-based episodes of care with a framework provide a test bed for alternative payment models for selective conditions or treatments. These payment models require a playbook centered on patients and their care models, with a rich data infrastructure to support the team’s quality, improvement, and cost as a learning health system. Payer engagement is essential in design, implementation, and widespread adoption.

Call for submissions:

Now inviting expert articles, longform articles, and case studies for peer review

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

More From New Marketplace
Examples of Stages of AI Technology Development and Diffusion

How Artificial Intelligence Is Changing Health Care Delivery

The development of intelligent machines holds great promise for making health care delivery more accurate, efficient, and accessible, but challenges remain for incorporating AI technology into clinical and administrative settings.

Recommendations to Resolve Information Asymmetry at the Strategic Level

Information Asymmetry: The Untapped Value of the Patient

The knowledge and preferences that patients could — and should — share with clinicians would restore balance to point-of-care interactions, leading to better outcomes and enhanced value.

Key Components for Health Care Systems to Address Patient Affordability

The Next Frontier in Reducing Costs of Care: Patient Affordability

To create meaningful point-of-care guidance so that patients can make informed medical and financial decisions, health system leaders and policymakers can develop interventions to address four major components of a proposed patient affordability scale.

Direct-to-Consumer Telemedicine Is the Biggest Coming Threat to Traditional Health Care Organizations

Survey Snapshot: Mega-Mergers and Telemedicine Accelerate Convenient Care Growth

NEJM Catalyst Insights Council members detail how providers are looking to direct-to-consumer telemedicine and partnerships to meet the differing needs of their patient populations.

Convenient Care Has Been Good Overall for the Health Care Industry

New Marketplace Survey: Convenient Care — Opportunity, Threat, or Both?

A survey of the NEJM Catalyst Insights Council shows conflicting views about both the value of convenient care and what respondents’ organizations should do.

Payer-Provider Partnerships Produce Better Quality Outcomes 3 - community health plan - physician partnership

New Research Shows How Payer-Provider Partnerships Can Accelerate Adoption of Evidence-Based Care

Five best practices that are replicable and scalable are facilitating improved clinical and financial outcomes today.

30-Day Mortality Rates at Non-Teaching and Major Teaching Hospitals 2013-2014 - value-based care at academic medical centers

What Value-Based Payment Means for Academic Medical Centers

Academic medical centers must become as dedicated to advancing operational and clinical efficiency as they have been to advancing the science of medicine.

Medicare Compared to Private Spending Cumulative Growth 2009-2019 - traditional Medicare coverage

Redesigning Medicare to Work for Everyone

A proposal to improve the Medicare benefit package.

Pronovost04_pullquote payer interoperability data exchange

Promoting Interoperability: Roles for Commercial Payers

Interoperability is a business imperative for enhancing value in health care, and providers and payers must collaboratively meet the demands for data exchange.

Health Care Snapshot - Chinese Health Care and U.S. Health Care

Perspective from the East: Health Care in China

Context is the key to understanding China’s health care system and its emphasis on population health.

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

Topics

Platforming Health Care to Transform Care…

Health care leaders need to focus less on ownership and control of the delivery process,…

From the Commonwealth to Obamacare: Reflections…

The former Executive Director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector — a model for the…

Build vs. Buy: What Should Health…

The consolidation craze continues, but vertical integration has yet to demonstrate real progress toward the…

Insights Council

Have a voice. Join other health care leaders effecting change, shaping tomorrow.

Apply Now