More from these Authors

• Article | Health Affairs

  Navy Medicine Introduces Value-Based Health Care

  Alee Hernandez, Robert S. Kaplan, Mary L. Witkowski, C. Forrest Faison III and Michael E. Porter

  In 2016 the newly appointed surgeon general of the Navy launched a value-based health care pilot project at Naval Hospital Jacksonville to explore whether multidisciplinary care teams (known as integrated practice units, or IPUs) and measurement of outcomes could improve the readiness of active duty personnel and lower the cost of delivering care to them, their dependents, and local retirees. This article describes the formation of the project’s leadership structure; the selection of four conditions to be treated (low back pain, osteoarthritis, diabetes, and high-risk pregnancy); the creation of the care team for each condition; outcomes and costs measured; and the near-term changes in outcomes during the twelve-month pilot period. Patient outcomes improved for three of the four conditions. We describe factors that contributed to the project’s success. After the pilot concluded, the Navy combined the back pain and osteoarthritis IPUs into a single musculoskeletal clinical unit and established a similar IPU at another naval hospital and its clinics. The diabetes IPU was continued, but the high-risk pregnancy IPU was not. We offer several observations on the elements that were key to the success of the project, explore challenges and opportunities, and suggest that the pilot described here could be taken to greater scale in the Military Health System and elsewhere.

  Keywords: military health system; Health Care and Treatment; Cost Management; Projects;

  Citation:

  Hernandez, Alee, Robert S. Kaplan, Mary L. Witkowski, C. Forrest Faison III, and Michael E. Porter. "Navy Medicine Introduces Value-Based Health Care." Health Affairs 38, no. 8 (August 2019): 1393–1400.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard Register to Read

  Related

• Article | JAMA Internal Medicine | July 2019

  Evaluation of Economic and Clinical Outcomes Under Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Mandatory Bundled Payments for Joint Replacements

  Derek A. Haas, Xiaoran Zhang, Robert S. Kaplan and Zirui Song

  In 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) launched its first mandatory bundled payment program, the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, by randomizing metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) into the payment model. The paper analyzed Medicare costs for beneficiaries undergoing lower extremity joint replacement between April 1, 2016, through December 31, 2017. The introduction of the CJR was associated with reduced Medicare Part A spending ($582 per episode, a 2.5% savings) largely through lower post-acute spending in skilled nursing facilities. The CJR hospitals had no significant differences in hospital length of stay, readmissions, complications, 30- or 90-day mortality, volume of episodes, or patient characteristics relative to the non-CJR hospitals. We conclude that mandatory bundled payments may help to change clinicians’ and facilities’ behavior without harming quality.

  Keywords: Medicare; Medicaid; bundled payments; Health Care and Treatment; Cost Management; Performance Evaluation; Outcome or Result;

  Citation:

  Haas, Derek A., Xiaoran Zhang, Robert S. Kaplan, and Zirui Song. "Evaluation of Economic and Clinical Outcomes Under Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Mandatory Bundled Payments for Joint Replacements." JAMA Internal Medicine 179, no. 7 (July 2019): 924–931.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard Register to Read

  Related

• Article | Accounting Horizons

  Reverse the Curse of the Top-5

  Robert S. Kaplan

  The past 40 years has seen a large increase in the number of articles submitted to journals ranked in the top-5 of their discipline. This increase is the rational response, by faculty, to the overweighting of publications in these journals by university promotions and tenure committees. The ranking factors for academic journals, however, arose for a completely different purpose, to guide the journal acquisition decisions by budget-constrained university librarians. Using journal impact factors to infer the quality of faculty members’ publications incurs a high incidence of both Type 1 errors, when we conclude incorrectly that a paper published in a top-5 journal is a high-impact paper, and Type 2 errors, when we conclude that papers (and books) not published in top-5 journals have low impact. In addition, a third type of error gets introduced as faculty pursue the research they perceive is favored by editors of top-5 journals, at the potential expense of more innovative and relevant research, perceived to be unpublishable in a top-tier journal. Accounting scholarship, in particular, has underinvested in research about innovative practices or the emerging accounting issues faced by contemporary organizations (Kaplan, 2011), likely because such research is viewed as unpublishable in top-5 journals. This gap persists despite recent scholarship that has documented how important, fundamental ideas can emerge from “use-inspired” research (see Pasteur’s Quadrant (Stokes, 1997)). The paper concludes by suggesting reforms to overcome the dysfunctional fixation on publication in top-5 journals.

  Keywords: Information Publishing; Journals and Magazines; Power and Influence; Research;

  Citation:

  Kaplan, Robert S. "Reverse the Curse of the Top-5." Accounting Horizons 33, no. 2 (June 2019): 17–24.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard

  Related