More from the Author

• Case | HBS Case Collection | March 2014 (Revised June 2019)

  Martini Klinik: Prostate Cancer Care

  Michael E. Porter, Jens Deerberg-Wittram, Thomas W. Feeley and Clifford M. Marks

  Since its establishment in 2005, Hamburg’s Martini Klinik had single-mindedly focused on prostate cancer care with a commitment to measure long term health outcomes for every patient. A wholly owned subsidiary of the University Hospital Hamburg, Martini Klinik was a “hospital in a hospital” in close proximity to other medical departments and services. By 2019, Martini Klinik had become the largest prostate cancer treatment program in the world with 8,000 outpatient cases and more than 2,500 surgical cases annually. Patients came from all over Germany and from around the world. A new and expanded facility was under construction to have the capacity to manage more patients with prostate cancer.

  Keywords: health care; Michael Porter; Jens Deerberg-Wittram; Clifford Marks; prostate cancer; health care policy; value agenda; integrated practice units; outcomes measurement; value-based healthcare; certification; International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement; ICHOM; Health Care and Treatment; Value; Health Disorders; Insurance; Medical Specialties; Outcome or Result; Measurement and Metrics; Business Processes; Insurance Industry; Health Industry; Germany;

  Citation:

  Porter, Michael E., Jens Deerberg-Wittram, Thomas W. Feeley, and Clifford M. Marks. "Martini Klinik: Prostate Cancer Care." Harvard Business School Case 714-471, March 2014. (Revised June 2019.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

  Related

• Article | International Anesthesiology Clinics | Winter 2019

  Value-based Health Care: Lessons for the Anesthesiologist

  J.A. Martin, B.L. Potter, T.F. Flanagan and T.W. Feeley

  At one point or another in our life, we all become consumers of the health care industry. Indeed, health care affects everyone and encompasses a diverse set of services from childbirth, to illness prevention, to the management of chronic disease and end-of-life care. Health care in the United States is executed through a complex set of interrelationships between three distinct parties: payers, providers, and consumers. Each group has its own perspective accompanied by a set of unique incentives, which complicate the adoption of a value-based health care system. To transform the American health care delivery system, all participants including patients, physicians, employers, insurance companies, and the government need to recognize that value is best defined as “a given health outcome per dollar of cost expended.” In this article, we examine some of the challenges to creating and implementing a value-based health care system against the backdrop of a turbulent industry and consider the implications for the anesthesiologist.

  Keywords: value-based health care; anesthesiologists; Health Care and Treatment; Value; Cost Management; Problems and Challenges; Health Industry; United States;

  Citation:

  Martin, J.A., B.L. Potter, T.F. Flanagan, and T.W. Feeley. "Value-based Health Care: Lessons for the Anesthesiologist." International Anesthesiology Clinics 57, no. 1 (Winter 2019): 63–80.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard Register to Read

  Related

• Article | NEJM Catalyst | November 8, 2018

  Transitioning Payment Models: Fee-for-Service to Value-Based Care

  Thomas W. Feeley and Namita Seth Mohta

  In a survey of the NEJM Catalyst Insights Council in July 2018, 42% of respondents say they think value-based reimbursement models will be the primary revenue model for U.S. health care. Indeed, this transition is already happening. Respondents report that a quarter of reimbursement at their organizations is based on value, on average. While three-quarters of their revenue remains fee-for-service, we see a remarkable change to a reimbursement system that was static for decades. In particular, survey respondents’ organizations are pursuing two value-based strategies: accountable care organizations, which often use capitated payments, and bundled payments. Nearly half (46%) of respondents say value-based contracts significantly improve the quality of care, and another 42% say value-based contracts significantly lower the cost of care. The survey identifies the leading barriers to implementing value-based reimbursement models. Infrastructure requirements, including information technology (indicated by 42% of respondents), and changing regulation/policy (34%) are the top two. There is strong consensus on the broad metrics that are most important for measuring value-based care. Outcome measures top the list, with 60% of respondents saying they are extremely important. This survey suggests that many in health care see value-based reimbursement as a real solution to the nation’s current health care crisis.

  Keywords: payment methods; value-based healthcare reimbursements; Health Care and Treatment; Value; Transformation;

  Citation:

  Feeley, Thomas W., and Namita Seth Mohta. "Transitioning Payment Models: Fee-for-Service to Value-Based Care." NEJM Catalyst (November 8, 2018).  View Details

  CiteView Details Read Now

  Related