New Marketplace

Resolving the Clash between Consumer- and Provider-Centered Reform

Article · March 28, 2016

Over the past 20 years, two major approaches to slowing the growth of health care costs have emerged. One focuses on the delivery system, encouraging physicians, hospitals, and others to improve the way they deliver care. The other targets consumers, hoping to turn patients into more price-sensitive shoppers. Although both have had some success, it’s increasingly clear that these approaches are on a collision course: poorly structured benefit designs will sharply limit the effectiveness of efforts to promote higher-value care through payment and delivery-system reform. But a crash is not inevitable.

Interest in reforming care delivery grew out of observations regarding the relative efficiency of integrated medical group practices, growing concern about variation in quality of care, and evidence that the greater use of specialist and hospital-based care in high-cost U.S. regions and health systems did not translate into better quality or superior health outcomes.1 Reform initiatives focused on both support for practice transformation and changing payment systems to reward better care and lower costs — now widely referred to as “value-based payment.” One example of these efforts is the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model, which has been broadly adopted, with millions of patients now receiving care through practices certified by the National Committee on Quality Assurance. Another is the recent growth of accountable care organizations (ACOs), which now provide care to more than 26 million Americans. These approaches are rooted in the notion that improved delivery of effective primary care and better coordination of patient care over time are essential to improving quality and reducing costs.

The consumer-focused strand of activity largely emerged from the private sector. These efforts were spurred by the Rand Health Insurance Experiment, a randomized trial that demonstrated that cost sharing reduced utilization (and thus spending) with no apparent adverse health effects on the average participant but with potential negative effects on low-income participants with chronic illnesses.2 Because benefit design as a lever for constraining health care spending has been readily accessible to both large, self-insured employers and health plans serving small businesses, cost sharing has increased dramatically. Since 2006, the proportion of Americans with employer-sponsored coverage involving deductibles of over $1,000 has increased from 10% to 46%, and many of these enrollees must fully meet their deductible before receiving any coverage for primary care. In addition, 93% of covered workers must pay a portion of the costs for primary care visits in the form of either coinsurance or copayments, with copayments now averaging $24.3

The conflict between these two approaches is clear. The success of provider-focused reform strategies, such as ACOs and PCMHs, depends directly on having patients engaged with their care team — usually a primary care practice. Early evidence suggests that ACOs achieve their substantial successes in improving quality (including improvement on measures of patient experience, clinical outcomes, and readmission rates) by ensuring that primary care patients receive needed preventive and chronic disease care.4 Their modest successes in controlling costs appear to be generated by more effective referrals (for commercial populations) and better care coordination (for high-cost Medicare beneficiaries). Substantial or poorly targeted cost sharing could easily undermine these approaches. Numerous studies have shown that cost sharing is a blunt instrument, causing patients to cut back on both needed and wasteful care. A recent study showed that the adoption of a high-deductible health plan in a relatively high-income population led to a 10% reduction in the use of preventive services and an 18% drop in physician visits, with the greatest reductions occurring in the sickest quartile of patients.5

Although trends in benefit design are worrisome, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) set some important requirements for health plans offered in both the employer and individual markets, including mandatory coverage for medical and mental health care and provision of free preventive care services. In the employer market, however, the ACA largely leaves benefit designs unregulated, aside from imposing minimum value requirements. The individual insurance marketplaces, dominated by the state-based and federal exchanges, go a few steps further: products must fall into one of four tiers of actuarial value, ranging from “platinum” products with comprehensive benefits but high premiums, through “gold” and “silver,” down to “bronze” products with thinner benefits but low premiums. Though all products must include a defined set of essential health benefits and none may impose cost sharing exceeding a defined annual maximum for in-network care, states can determine how much flexibility to allow health plans in setting deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance.

Because most exchanges do not standardize the benefit designs health plans can offer, consumers face a confusing array of products, many of which will undermine initiatives in delivery-system reform. For example, in Colorado — whose exchange gives health plans free rein on benefit designs — Denver residents can choose from 35 different silver products offered by eight health plans. Of these products, 15 require the consumer to meet the deductible before insurance kicks in to cover outpatient care. In 2015, for example, the lowestcost silver plan had a premium for a 30-year-old of $183 per month, half as much as that of the most expensive silver product. In the lowest-cost plan, however, all outpatient services other than the required free preventive services and generic drugs are subject to a $3,900 deductible.

California has taken a different approach. As an active purchaser, Covered California, the state’s insurance exchange, opted to standardize the designs of deductibles, copayments, and other cost sharing for all its contracted health plans within each of the four tiers. The aim is to enable consumers to make apples-to-apples comparisons among plans based on cost and network composition (rather than hard-to-interpret differences in deductibles and copayments) and to ensure that consumers do not face undue financial barriers to receiving primary and other high-value care.

Costs to Covered California Enrollees for Primary Care Visits, June 2015: The blue segments represent enrollees (75% of the total) who can obtain primary care without being subject to a deductible. Numbers and percentages have been rounded.

Costs to Covered California Enrollees for Primary Care Visits, June 2015: The blue segments represent enrollees (75% of the total) who can obtain primary care without being subject to a deductible. Numbers and percentages have been rounded. Click To Enlarge.

The pie chart shows the levels of cost sharing for the exchange’s 1.3 million enrollees. Those who select a silver product face no deductible and modest copayments for physician visits and other outpatient services; subsidies further reduce copayments for lower-income enrollees. Anyone selecting a bronze plan receives one free primary care visit and three visits that are not subject to the annual deductible.

Other elements of California’s approach include encouraging plans to support PCMH and ACO models. For instance, Covered California currently requires plans to report the percentage of enrollees receiving their care from either type of organization and intends to require increasing use of such integrated delivery systems in coming years. Many of the exchange’s consumers are therefore enrolled in ACOs and PCMHs that have multiple public and private ACO contracts.

A few other states — including Connecticut, Oregon, and Massachusetts — have adopted standardized benefit designs, and the federal marketplace recently indicated that it’s starting down this path by making a standardized design voluntary for plans in 2017. The exchanges, however, cover only 10.2 million Americans, or 4% of the population under 65 years of age. If meaningful health care reform is to reach a critical mass, more employers will need to partner with health plans to engage their employees in more integrated delivery models.4

California’s example suggests that it’s possible to avoid a collision between consumer- and provider-focused efforts to improve care and reduce cost growth. Benefit designs encouraging utilization of high-quality, accessible primary care that’s supported by an effective organizational structure should help consumers better manage their health risks and chronic conditions and more effectively navigate the challenges of serious illness. At the same time, carefully designed cost sharing may help motivate patients to work in partnership with their primary care physician and others to make wise decisions about what discretionary care they truly need and want.

Whether we can slow the growth of health care spending while improving both health and health care is far from certain. This outcome is much more likely, however, if leaders in the public and private sectors strive to align benefit designs with delivery-system reforms.



From the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH (E.S.F.); and the California Health Benefits Exchange, Sacramento (P.V.L.).

1. Fisher ES, Bynum JP, Skinner JS. Slowing the growth of health care costs — lessons from regional variation. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 849-52.
2. Newhouse J. Free for all: lessons from the Rand health insurance experiment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
3. 2015 employer health benefits survey. Washington, DC: Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation, 2015 (
4. Song Z. Accountable care organizations in the U.S. health care system. J Clin Outcomes Manag 2014; 21: 364-71.
5. Brot-Goldberg ZC, Chandra A, Handel BR, Kolstad JT. What does a deductible do? The impact of cost sharing on health care prices, quantities and spending dynamics. NBER working paper 21632. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2015.

This Perspective article originally appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine as “Toward Lower Costs and Better Care — Averting a Collision between Consumer- and Provider-Focused Reforms.”

New call for submissions

Now accepting submissions for NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery, our new peer-reviewed journal


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

Learn More »

More From New Marketplace
Value-Based Pricing Would Lower Drug Costs and Boost Quality

New Marketplace Buzz Survey: Who’s to Blame for Drug Pricing, and How to Fix It

This survey of NEJM Catalyst Insights Council members shows strong opinions about the impact of high prices, who’s to blame, and how to fix the problem.

A Look at the Four Pillars of Primary Care

Pay for Relationship: A Novel Solution to the Primary Care Crisis

What society should and can pay for is care that enables relationships between patients and providers.

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.

Opelka01_pullquote - ACS IPU team-based surgical care bundles playbook

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

The complexity associated with most surgery lends itself to the integrated practice unit structure, with its focus on the care team and value-based payment.

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.


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

Learn More »


Value Based Care

222 Articles

New Marketplace Buzz Survey: Who’s to…

This survey of NEJM Catalyst Insights Council members shows strong opinions about the impact of…

From the Commonwealth to Obamacare: Reflections…

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

Medicare and Medicaid

131 Articles

From the Commonwealth to Obamacare: Reflections…

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

Insights Council

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

Apply Now