Serving High-Risk Patients Leads to VPB Penalties
Practices that served more socially high-risk patients had lower quality and lower costs, and practices that served more medically high-risk patients had lower quality and higher costs. These patterns were associated with fewer bonuses and more penalties for high-risk practices.
So concludes a new study that looked at the results of the first year of the Medicare Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier Program.
The study looked at 899 physician practices serving more than five million Medicare beneficiaries, and it points to the continuing challenge of how best to serve patients who pose greater socio-economic risks than the average patient.
Pennsylvania safety-net hospitals serve far more high-risk patients than the typical hospital.
Learn more these findings and how they were reached in the study “Association of Practice-Level Social and Medical Risk With Performance in the Medicare Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier Program,” which can be found here, on the web site of the Journal of the American Medical Association.



Among the possibilities state lawmakers are discussing: tighter rules for participation, greater efficiency, work and work search requirements for able-bodied Medicaid recipients, charging premiums for high-income families for which Medicaid provides coverage for their profoundly disabled children, and a pilot program to test whether a recipient care management program might eliminate medical errors, improve recipient health, and reduce health care costs.
Included in the June/July edition are articles about the status of Pennsylvania’s FY 2018 budget, including possible changes in the state human services code; a delay in awarding new HealthChoices contracts; new quality initiatives in the state’s contracts with HealthChoices managed care organizations; an update on the implementation of Community HealthChoices, the state’s new program of managed long-term services and supports; and more.
According to the PHC4 report,
Among the issues addressed in the letter are how the House-passed proposal would detract from the role of Medicaid in fighting the state’s opioid crisis; the proposed reduction in tax credits to help purchase health insurance; the challenge posed by a per capita approach to Medicaid financing; the potential loss of health care jobs; the likelihood of large numbers of Pennsylvanians losing their health insurance and state Medicaid costs rising significantly; and the erosion of consumer protections.