New Marketplace
Clip
Why Employers Drag Feet on Value-Based Insurance (04:04)

Lynn Garbee, Senior Director of Reimbursement and Collaborative Care at Cigna HealthCare, would like to see employers jump into the value-based insurance reimbursement world with two feet and collaborate with payers in creating a healthy workforce. So why are employers hesitating? What do employers value and want to invest in when it comes to value-based insurance and health care payment plans in general?

“We’re at a point now where there’s a give and take,” says David Lansky, President and CEO of the Pacific Business Group on Health. “I would like to think of it as a co-evolution that we have to undertake, where the constraints and the requirements of employers are shared with payers.” Employers want payers to back up their claims for which networks and services work by sharing credible, evidence-based innovation in both cost savings, quality improvement, and outcomes. In other words: transparency. Many employers are skeptical when plans say, “We’ve got this new program, this new network, this new centers of excellence program” without offering evidence to share with employees that these new arrangements are better, safer, higher-quality care.

What about limited and narrow networks? Harvard health care economist Leemore Dafny points to research on state health insurance marketplaces showing that narrow networks are associated with much lower premiums, and that consumers are electing to purchase these plans. “Yet employers are really dragging their feet,” she says.

Employers sponsored benefits before the Affordable Care Act because they wanted to get the right employees, and with the labor market tightening, they’re much less interested in creating benefit designs that cause friction, replies Bob Galvin, Equity Healthcare’s CEO. Additionally, employees don’t understand narrow networks in that they don’t understand why employers think one doctor is better than another.

“The other thing is that we’ve been a victim, in a sense, of our own success,” says Galvin, “which is that health care costs have been very flat over the past few years.” Costs have only gone up 1 or 2% for employers, which means that C-suite decision makers would rather focus their company’s money on other things. “If the labor market were wide open and health care costs were going up at 10%, you would get much more updated.”

“I’m disappointed to hear that executives are not concerned, because guess how they’re making those premiums not go up so much? They’re turfing it over to us [the employee/consumer],” says Dafny.

Galvin agrees, noting that it’s just part of the nature of where health care fits into the company. “It’s one of the flaws of employer-sponsored insurance. It is very difficult to get executives who are manufacturing airline parts or whatever to really understand this. They look at the costs. They want to make sure they can get labor. And if that’s okay, they want to run their companies.”

From the NEJM Catalyst event Navigating Payment Reform for Providers, Payers, and Pharma, held at Harvard Business School, November 2, 2017.

More From New Marketplace
Effect of Value-Based Payment Programs on Providers That Serve the Poor

Financial Incentives and Vulnerable Populations — Will Alternative Payment Models Help or Hurt?

Understanding APMs’ potential consequences for vulnerable populations is critical if we wish to maximize benefits and reduce harms.

Example 4-Quadrant Analysis and Price Setting for a Single-Procedure Bundle - Lessons Learned from DRG Implementation

Making Bundled Payments Work: Leveraging the CMS DRG Experience

Given its clout and experience, CMS is uniquely positioned to lead the U.S. health system toward high-value care. Bundled pricing based on real costs, leveraging lessons from DRG implementation, would establish the right types of provider incentives.

Kocher03_pullquote risk-based primary care provider

Opportunities for Risk-Taking Primary Care Providers

Embracing two-sided risk while adopting workflow redesign and reviewing benchmarks is leading to improved clinical and financial outcomes.

The Unrealized Potential of EMRs: Interoperability and the Opportunity for Disruption

NEJM Catalyst hosted clinical and business leaders, along with the originator of “disruptive innovation,” to consider the user frustration, high cost, and lack of interoperability of electronic medical records.

Steven Seltzer Andrew Menard Clayton Christensen Edward Prewitt Electronic Medical Records Roundtable Head Shots

The Unrealized Potential of EMRs: Why They Fall Short and the Unexpected Source of a Solution

NEJM Catalyst hosted clinical and business leaders, along with the originator of “disruptive innovation,” to consider the user frustration, high cost, and lack of interoperability of electronic medical records.

Robert Gavin head shot

Amazon and CVS: Short-Lived Unicorns in Health Care, or Healers of the “Tapeworm”?

Will Amazon–Berkshire Hathaway–JP Morgan and CVS-Aetna change the health care game? To one health care employer purchaser, these announcements feel a lot like Groundhog Day.

Fiona Scott Morton head shot

We Can’t Spend All Our Money on Health Care

We have to think about how much we want to spend on health according to how much it’s worth to us at the margin.

Simplified Chain of Production for Primary Care Services Generating Retail Prescriptions. Solid arrows indicate contractual relationships or ownership, and the dashed arrow indicates referral for prescription.

Does CVS–Aetna Spell the End of Business as Usual?

What might one of the largest mergers in history mean for the health care delivery system?

Lack of Incentive Is Top Barrier to Implementing Value-Based Payment

Survey Snapshot: Payer-Provider Alignment Is Difficult Even for Integrated Organizations

NEJM Catalyst Insights Council members say stronger incentives and better use of analytics could improve alignment.

Kaplan04_pullquote Time to Sink Two Canoe Payment Models Argument

Time to Sink the Two-Canoe Argument

Although the transition from fee-for-service to quality-based payment can leave physicians feeling trapped “with a foot in two canoes” while straddling the two payment methods, there are compelling ethical, professional, and business reasons against rationalizing continued support of fee-for-service medicine.

Connect

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

Learn More »

Topics

The Adverse Impact of the Physician-Hero

In a value-based world, the sickest patients need the benefit of a comprehensive team to…

Financial Incentives and Vulnerable Populations —…

Understanding APMs’ potential consequences for vulnerable populations is critical if we wish to maximize benefits…

Change the Model → Change the…

If we’re going to change the health care payment model, do we need to change…

Insights Council

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

Apply Now