New Marketplace
Clip
Reshaping Care Coverage: A Public Good Problem (05:57)

Given how great a share of companies’ spending is allocated toward health care, why aren’t employers more careful shoppers for this care? Why aren’t they demanding better service from insurers? “I don’t get it,” says Harvard health economist Leemore Dafny.

Part of the problem is that the companies most capable of having that argument are doing well, replies David Lansky, President and CEO of the Pacific Business Group on Health. These are global companies. Health care incremental spending is a small part of their total spend and is just not a priority for leadership to address. Additionally, attracting and retaining employees by offering comparable benefit designs and “choice” flexibility of where patients can go is an expectation for these companies.

“There’s a structural limitation that the companies perhaps most capable of leading this kind of transformation are the ones who least need to,” says Lansky. “The companies maybe in the middle of the economy who are most afflicted by the increases in cost and the other issues you described don’t have the bandwidth or resources. They’re very dependent on brokers and consultants — who have their own economic agenda — so that they’re not going to be leading the charge to transform the health care system and change the role of all these intermediaries for that middle part of the market.”

But there has been more progress in benefit structure and how much health care coverage an employee decides to have than one might be aware of, adds Bob Galvin, CEO for Equity Healthcare. “Employers are much more willing to work on benefit design than they are on delivery system interventions, and that’s an important distinction,” he says. “Where we all want to be is reshaping the delivery system. We’re getting there slowly, but really what’s happening is much more at the level of what kind of coverage do I want, what kind of insurance do I want.”

This is a classic public good problem, Dafny comments. The collective benefit exceeds the individual private benefit, so it doesn’t happen. The classic solution would be a collective effort on the part of the public sector to push toward particular delivery reform — which we have seen — or on the part of insurers getting together and saying, “We need it simple. We’re not going to get to value if we don’t implement reforms that employers are supportive of. Let’s do these things and collectively agree on certain kinds of standards for these collaborative arrangements.”

Cigna has employers that span both spectrums, notes Lynn Garbee, the payer’s Senior Director of Reimbursement and Collaborative Care. There are big national employers who aren’t focused on costs and who want to offer their employees choice. “A big, fat directory is what is really going to sell for their employees,” she says. But there are also cost-conscious employers who want the payer to restrict the network.

Cigna is pushing for a middle ground, however. To promote affordability for the big employers, they’re pointing out choice architecture in the big directory that would help nudge employees into the right choices. “That’s what we’re trying to promote, the idea that it doesn’t have to be one or the other,” says Garbee.

Equity Healthcare tells employers the design to adopt, that they should offer employees choice but choose as their index plan either a narrow network or more generous health care coverage with more choice — but the employee must pay the difference. “We’re hoping to get at both issues with that,” Galvin says. “If they’re cost conscious, they’re likely going to choose the index plan, which in some ways would either be a narrow network or a system that was focused on the kind of value that we’re interested in.”

Pacific is seeing many of its members do two features of this process, says Lansky. The first is a primary care emphasis that enables most employees to declare a PCP relationship as a trigger and then are favored with benefit design or other incentives. The second, particularly for large employers, is a move toward direct relationships with provider systems, called MACOs. When setting someone accountable for care coordination, total cost of care, and population outcomes, that relationship is important, and having a “narrow” network won’t work because it doesn’t satisfy the goal of primary care–led coordinated care.

“We [payers] would like to enable that,” says Garbee. “Instead of the employer having to go out and find their own ACO relationships, we want to be able to be a matchmaker between them.”

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