With CMS’s MACRA Announcement, the High-Speed Train Has Already Left the Station for Practicing MDs | Mark Hagland | Healthcare Blogs Skip to content Skip to navigation

With CMS’s MACRA Announcement, the High-Speed Train Has Already Left the Station for Practicing MDs

September 9, 2016
| Reprints
CMS’s announcement about the Jan. 1 transition to the new MACRA payment environment has set into motion a series of important developments

As HCI Managing Editor Rajiv Leventhal reported on Thursday afternoon, Andy Slavitt, Acting Administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), announced yesterday that, on the one hand, there will be no delay in the January 1, 2017 start date for the implementation of the provisions of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA); but that, at the same time, CMS was providing physicians in practice with a range of options for complying with MACRA’s provisions.

In the announcement, in the form of a blog on the agency’s website, Slavitt wrote that, during 2017, “eligible physicians and other clinicians will have multiple options for participation. Choosing one of these options would ensure you do not receive a negative payment adjustment in 2019. These options and other supporting details will be described fully in the final rule.” Slavitt said the final rule will be published before November 1. This summer, Slavitt had himself left open the possibility that the sweeping changes set to overhaul physician payment as the healthcare industry shifts to paying doctors for value rather than volume, could be pushed back from the intended start date of Jan. 1.

But that was not to be. Now, instead, as Slavitt laid out for providers in his blogpost, Medicare-participating physicians in the U.S. will have four options:

Ø  The first option is to “test” the Quality Payment Program, which includes two paths—the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and Alternative Payment Models (APMs). Under this first option, as long as physicians “submit some data to the Quality Payment Program, including data from after Jan. 1, 2017,” they will avoid a negative payment adjustment.” The idea of this option is to ensure that systems are working and that providers are prepared for broader participation in 2018 and 2019 as knowledge is gained.


Ø  The second option is to choose to submit Quality Payment Program information for a reduced number of days. This means that the first performance period could begin later than Jan. 1, 2017 and the physician’s practice could still qualify for a small positive payment adjustment. Slavitt writes, “For example, if you submit information for part of the calendar year for quality measures, how your practice uses technology, and what improvement activities your practice is undertaking, you could qualify for a small positive payment adjustment. You could select from the list of quality measures and improvement activities available under the Quality Payment Program.”


Ø  The third option is to participate for the full calendar year in 2017. This choice is for practices that are ready to go. CMS said that it has “seen physician practices of all sizes successfully submit a full year’s quality data, and expect many will be ready to do so.”


Ø  The fourth option is to participate in an Advanced Alternative Payment Model in 2017. Examples of this include Medicare Shared Savings Track 2 or 3 in 2017. Slavitt writes, “If you receive enough of your Medicare payments or see enough of your Medicare patients through the Advanced Alternative Payment Model in 2017, then you would qualify for a 5 percent incentive payment in 2019.” It should be noted that most policy experts predict eligible physicians to initially pursue MIPS because an APM that qualifies under MACRA will bring with it a significant amount of risk.

So, what does all of this mean?

I would submit that this is a very careful “threading of the needle,” if you will, creating a workable compromise between on the one hand, maintaining rigor in the process of the shift to MACRA-driven changes in physician reimbursement, while on the other hand, giving physicians what most would considerable a reasonable amount of flexibility with which to comply. Many in the provider world will doubtless be shocked that CMS has pushed back hard in not extending the start date for all this activity into mid-2017, as many industry observers had predicted the agency would do.

But those who are most shocked should also consider how much is at stake, on a policy level, in delaying the start of all this much longer, particularly at a time of political uncertainty on Capitol Hill. With Medicare’s actuaries predicting a snowballing of U.S. healthcare spending over the next decade, it would be hard to deny on the broadest policy level the idea that MACRA needs to move forward quickly. As I noted in a blog in July, following the release that month of the Medicare actuaries’ total U.S. healthcare spending projections, the U.S. healthcare system is set to go over a truly enormous cost cliff, with total spending expected to go from $3.3013 trillion, and 17.5 percent of our country’s gross domestic product, in 2014, to $5.631 trillion, and fully 20.1 percent of our GDP, by 2025; in other words, a nearly 70-percent total increase in U.S. healthcare spending across just over a decade. And as I wrote in July, anyone who isn’t astonished by the $5.631 trillion number simply isn’t fully awake.

Keep in mind also that the Medicare actuaries’ projections were released on July 18, and this announcement has come out on September 8; in the context of the pace at which the cogs of federal government agencies’ wheels turn, yesterday’s announcement has come lightning-fast. As in, as relatively quickly as an Olympic runner moves.

As recently as this week, national physician organizations have been pleading with CMS officials to delay the implementation of the MACA requirements for physicians. Indeed, in an article written by Leigh Paige and published yesterday online in Medscape, Robert Wergin, M.D., chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), was quoted as saying, "We propose to delay the implementation at least until July, and better yet until 2018. That gives another 6 months for a practice to prepare for the final rule. Two months is not enough."

As the Medscape article noted, “The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) is a complex law that will affect physicians in a wide variety of ways for many years to come. It covers such issues as data reporting, new practice models, evolving clinical standards, and physician evaluations, and it involves hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and bonuses.” It went on to note that “The ultimate goal of MACRA is to entice clinicians to get into advanced APMs, where CMS will not need to supervise them as closely as MIPS physicians, because their organizations have assumed financial risk and will presumably manage cost like payers do.” Importantly, the article noted, any kind of participation in APMs “can be very risky if you don't have an infrastructure in place, including use of electronic medical records, generation of performance data, and staff who are coordinating care.”

At the same time, given the context of yesterday’s announcement, there was some sense of realism—perhaps inevitability, really—among national healthcare association leaders—at least among those who are leading the most progressive associations. For example, late Thursday afternoon, the Charlotte-based Premier Inc. released a statement attributed to Blair Child’s, the organization’s senior vice president of public affairs, which said, “We appreciate Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS’s) communication on their measure reporting approach for 2017 prior to an official final rule.  While we await the details of the measures and requirements,” Childs said, “this provides direction to practices that they should prepare now to report and succeed under the Quality Payment Program. We believe it is well within the abilities of most eligible clinicians to successfully submit their quality performance measures. Similar to the measures reporting, we hope that CMS will also listen to the overwhelming comments submitted from across the industry calling for them to reduce the risk levels for Advanced Alternative Payment Models and take steps to create additional ACO tracks to provide additional opportunities for eligible clinicians to obtain the 5 percent incentive payment.”

Meanwhile, CAPG, the Los Angeles-based association whose tagline is “The Voice of Accountable Physician Groups,” went further, expressing strong enthusiasm for CMS’s move. In a press release, CAPG quoted its president and CEO Donald Crane as saying that "We are pleased that the agency has taken into account the feedback of physician groups who are ready to go with MACRA implementation in January. CAPG has been calling on CMS to allow physician practices to begin MACRA performance in January 2017 as originally scheduled. This will ensure that the landmark law’s momentum, which began by passing the Congress with wide-sweeping bipartisan support, continues to carry weight in the right direction – toward implementation.”

In addition, Crane said in the CAPG statement, “We … appreciate CMS taking this step to provide additional clarity to the physician community as we await the final rule.” And he added that, “As CMS considers additional flexibility for physicians and physician groups in support of the law, CAPG urges the agency to consider a solution that would allow more physicians to qualify as advanced alternative payment models (APMs) based on all of their Medicare risk contracting, both in Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part B. Making MACRA work for physicians and patients requires equal treatment of alternative payment arrangements across the entire Medicare payment system, not just traditional Medicare.”

In any case, the key two questions now are: how ready are physicians and physician groups to take the next steps they will be required to take? And what steps—that is to say, which options—will they end up taking? Many of us have seen the rather astonishing results of surveys that even this spring found that around half of practicing physicians in the U.S. had not yet even heard of MACRA, nor did they understand what it was or what it meant. To say that, collectively speaking, U.S. physicians have been unprepared for this massive shift in federal payment, is to make a huge understatement.

But, given that this is now happening, and that the MACRA provisions—short of some kind of last-minute policy deus ex machina, will be happening—physicians will need to move quickly in the next few months. And physician group leaders will be under tremendous pressure to figure things out quite rapidly. And IT leaders in physician organizations are going to be swamped by demands and needs for technology solutions, analytics activity, and endless amounts of support, as doctors prepare to be plunged headlong into the value-based purchasing world. CMS officials anticipate that as many as four-fifths of Medicare-participating physicians will begin in the MIPS program rather than leaping directly into alternative payment models. But MIPS itself will be hugely demanding of them in terms of its reporting requirements and value-based incentives. And even deciding which of the official options to pursue, which surely prove to be a challenge for many.

So the race is now officially on for Medicare-participating physicians to prepare for the new system (or, systems, to be precisely accurate). And physicians in practice will need a tremendous amount of support from their administrative leaders and from their IT leader colleagues, in the coming months (and years, to be honest).

One thing is certain in all this: solo medical practice, and practice in so-called “onesie-twosie” practices of a couple of or a few physicians, is about to become far less sustainable for most practicing physicians. The demands of the new payment systems are simply going to be far too overwhelming, in terms of how doctors will need to collect and report clinical and financial outcomes, as well as in terms of the continuous clinical performance improvement that will now be required.

So with this announcement yesterday, we’ve officially entered a new world. And it will inevitably be one filled with both opportunities and challenges. And just wait until the majority of commercial insurers quickly develop Medicare’s payment systems. So yes—the train has indeed left the station. Time to buckle up for the ride ahead!



The Health IT Summits gather 250+ healthcare leaders in cities across the U.S. to present important new insights, collaborate on ideas, and to have a little fun - Find a Summit Near You!


CMS: 93% of Clinicians Get Positive Payment Adjustments for MIPS Year 1

November 8, 2018
by Rajiv Leventhal, Managing Editor
| Reprints

Ninety-three percent of MIPS (Merit-based Incentive Payment System)-eligible clinicians received a positive payment adjustment for their performance in 2017, and 95 percent overall avoided a negative payment adjustment, according to a CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) announcement today.

The first year of MIPS under MACRA’s Quality Payment Program (QPP) was dubbed by CMS as a “pick your pace year,” which essentially enabled clinicians to avoid payment penalties as long as they submitted at least the minimum amount of quality data. As such, in its announcement, CMS did admit that the overall performance threshold for MIPS was established at a relatively low level of three points, and the availability of “pick your pace” provided participation flexibility through three reporting options for clinicians: “test”, partial year, or full-year reporting.

CMS said that 93 percent of MIPS-eligible clinicians received a positive payment adjustment for their performance in 2017, and 95 percent overall avoided a negative payment adjustment. CMS specifically calculated that approximately 1.06 million MIPS-eligible clinicians in total will receive a MIPS payment adjustment, either positive, neutral, or negative. The payment adjustments for the 2017 program year get reflected in 2019.

Breaking down the 93 percent of participants that received a positive payment adjustment last year, 71 percent earned a positive payment adjustment and an adjustment for exceptional performance, while 22 percent earned a positive payment adjustment only. Meanwhile, just 5 percent of MIPS-eligible clinicians received a negative payment adjustment, and 2 percent received a neutral adjustment (no increase or decrease).

Of the total population, just over one million MIPS-eligible clinicians reported data as either an individual, as a part of a group, or through an Alternative Payment Model (APM), and received a neutral payment adjustment or better. Additionally, under the Advanced APM track, just more than 99,000 eligible clinicians earned Qualifying APM Participant (QP) status, according to the CMS data.

CMS Administrator Seema Verma noted on the first pick-your-pace year of the QPP, “This measured approach allowed more clinicians to successfully participate, which led to many clinicians exceeding the performance threshold and a wider distribution of positive payment adjustments. We expect that the gradual increases in the performance thresholds in future program years will create an evolving distribution of payment adjustments for high performing clinicians who continue to invest in improving quality and outcomes for beneficiaries.”

For 2018, the second year of the QPP, CMS raised the stakes for those participating clinicians. And in the third year of the program, set to start in January 2019, a final rule was just published with year three requirements. Undoubtedly, as time passes, eligible clinicians will be asked for greater participation at higher levels. At the same time, CMS continues to exempt certain clinicians who don’t meet a low-volume Medicare threshold.

Earlier this year, CMS said that 91 percent of all MIPS-eligible clinicians participated in the first year of the QPP, exceeding the agency’s internal goal.

What’s more, from a scoring perspective in 2017, the overall national mean score for MIPS-eligible clinicians was 74.01 points, and the national median was 88.97 points, on a 0 to 100 scale. Further breaking down the mean and median:

  • Clinicians participating in MIPS as individuals or groups (and not through an APM) received a mean score of 65.71 points and a median score of 83.04 points
  • Clinicians participating in MIPS through an APM received a mean score of 87.64 points and a median score of 91.67 points

Additionally, clinicians in small and rural practices who were not in APMs and who chose to participate in MIPS also performed well, CMS noted. On average, MIPS eligible clinicians in rural practices earned a mean score of 63.08 points, while clinicians in small practices received a mean score of 43.46 points.

Said Verma, “While we understand that challenges remain for clinicians in small practices, these results suggest that these clinicians and those in rural practices can successfully participate in the program. With these mean scores, clinicians in small and rural practices would still receive a neutral or positive payment adjustment for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 performance years due to the relatively modest performance thresholds that we have established. We will also continue to directly support these clinicians now and in future years of the program.”

More From Healthcare Informatics


HHS Secretary Azar: HHS Is Planning New Mandatory Bundled Payment Models

November 8, 2018
by Heather Landi, Associate Editor
| Reprints

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is revisiting mandatory bundled payment models, possibly for radiation oncology and cardiac care, according to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, which signals a strong about-face in the Trump Administration’s policy about bundled payment initiatives.

HHS is reexamining the role that mandatory bundled payment models can play in the transition to value-based care, Azar said in a keynote speech at the Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative Conference on Thursday. HHS published Azar’s comments.

In the published remarks, Azar said the Trump Administration is revisiting mandatory bundled payments and exploring new voluntary bundled payments as part of the Administration’s goal of paying for outcomes, rather than process.

“We need results, American patients need change, and when we need mandatory models to deliver it, mandatory models are going to see a comeback,” Azar said.

In his speech, Azar said, “Imagine a system where physicians and other providers only had to worry about the outcome, rather than worrying about their staffing ratios and the individual reimbursements for every procedure they do and every drug they prescribe. That kind of payment system would radically reorient power in our healthcare system—away from the federal government and back to those closest to the patient.”

He continued, “One way we can do that is through bundling payments, rather than paying for every individual service. This is an area where you have already seen testing from CMMI for several years now—and I want to let you know today that you are going to see a lot more such ideas in the future.”

Azar highlighted the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI), which, he said, has shown significant savings in several common inpatient episodes, including joint replacement and pneumonia.

During his speech on Thursday, Azar said, “I want to share with all of you for the first time today: We intend to revisit some of the episodic cardiac models that we pulled back, and are actively exploring new and improved episode-based models in other areas, including radiation oncology. We’re also actively looking at ways to build on the lessons and successes of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model.

“We’re not going to stop there: We will use all avenues available to us—including mandatory and voluntary episode-based payment models,” he said.

One industry group, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), already has voiced concerns about a mandatory payment model. In a statement issued Thursday afternoon, Laura Thevenot, CEO of ASTRO, made it clear that the organizaiton strongly supports a radiation oncology alternative payment model (RO-APM). "ASTRO has worked for many years to craft a viable payment model that would stabilize payments, drive adherence to nationally-recognized clinical guidelines and improve patient care. ASTRO believes its proposed RO-APM will allow radiation oncologists to participate fully in the transition to value-based care that both improves cancer outcomes and reduces costs."

Thevenot said ASTRO has aggressively pursued adoption of this proposed model with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). However, Thevenot said the group has concerns "about the possibility of launching a model that requires mandatory participation from all radiation oncology practices at the outset."

Further, Thevenot said any radiation oncology payment model will represent "a significant departure from the status quo." "Care must be taken to protect access to treatments for all radiation oncology patients and not disadvantage certain types of practices, particularly given the very high fixed costs of running a radiation oncology clinic," Thevenot stated.

Back in January, CMS announced the launch of the voluntary BPCI Advanced model, noting that it “builds on the earlier success of bundled payment models and is an important step in the move away from fee-for-service and towards paying for value.” The BPCI Advanced model includes more than 1,000 participants that are receiving episode-based payments for over 30 clinical areas, Azar said.

“BPCI Advanced is a voluntary model, where potential participants can select whether they want to join. But we’re not going to stick to voluntary models. Real experimentation with episodic bundles requires a willingness to try mandatory models. We know they are the most effective way to know whether these bundles can successfully save money and improve quality,” Azar said.

The Obama Administration introduced mandatory bundled payment for care for heart attacks and for cardiac bypass surgery in July 2016.

In the past, CMS Administrator Seema Verma has said that she does not support making bundled payments mandatory, and former HHS Secretary Tom Price, M.D. had strongly opposed mandatory bundles, going so far as to direct the end of two mandatory bundled payment programs—one existing and one previously announced. In November 2017, CMS finalized a rule, proposed in August 2017, that cancelled mandatory hip fracture and cardiac bundled payment models.

As per that final rule, CMS also scaled back the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR), specifically reducing the number of mandatory geographic areas participating in CJR from 67 areas to 34 areas. And, in an effort to address the unique needs of rural providers, the federal agency also made participation voluntary for all low-volume and rural hospitals participating in the model in all 67 geographic areas.

On Thursday, Azar acknowledged that his statements signaled HHS was reversing course on its previous stance, noting that last year the administration reduced the size of the CJR model and pulled back the other episode payment models, including those on cardiac care, before they could launch.

Azar, who was confirmed as HHS Secretary earlier this year, signaled early on that he diverged from Verma and Price on his views about mandatory bundled payments. During a Senate Finance Committee hearing in January on his nomination for HHS Secretary, he said, on the topic of CMMI [the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation] pilot programs, “I believe that we need to be able to test hypotheses, and if we have to test a hypothesis, I want to be a reliable partner, I want to be collaborative in doing this, I want to be transparent, and follow appropriate procedures; but if to test a hypothesis there around changing our healthcare system, it needs to be mandatory there as opposed to voluntary, then so be it.”

During his speech Thursday, Azar pointed to the Administration’s first mandatory model, which was unveiled two weeks ago, called the International Pricing Index (IPI) Model for payments for Part B drugs. Azar said the model is a “mandatory model that will help address the inequity between what the U.S. and other countries pay for many costly drugs.”

Further, Azar said CMMI also will launch new primary care payment models before the end of the year, with the aim of introducing a spectrum of risk for primary care providers, Azar said.

“Before the end of this year, you will see new payment models coming forth from CMMI that will give primary care physicians more flexibility in how they care for their patients, while offering them significant rewards for successfully keeping them healthy and out of the hospital,” he said.

“Different sizes and types of practices can take on different levels of risk. As many of you know, even smaller practices want to be, and can be, compensated based on their patients’ outcomes,” he said. “We want to incentivize that, with a spectrum of flexibility, too: The more risk you are willing to take on, the less we’re going to micromanage your work.”

Azar also noted HHS’ efforts to examine impediments to care coordination, such as examining the Stark Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, HIPAA, and 42 CFR Part 2. CMS has already launched and concluded a request for information on the Stark Law, and the Office of the Inspector General has done the same on the Anti-Kickback Statute, he noted.

Related Insights For: Payment


Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s Heartening Speech at CHIME18 Should Inspire U.S. Healthcare Leaders

| Reprints
The story of an Amazonian tribe could serve as a motivational lesson for U.S. healthcare stakeholders

It was inspiring to hear Sanjay Gupta, M.D., the well-known neurosurgeon and medical reporter, give the closing keynote at the College of Healthcare Information Management Executives (CHIME) 2018 Fall CIO Forum in San Diego last week. Dr. Gupta, who serves as associate chief of the neurosurgery service at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, while also best known as CNN's multiple Emmy Award-winning chief medical correspondent, discussed the fascinating balance that he strikes between medicine and media.

“Oftentimes, I see people at their best, and sometimes at their worst. I get to travel the world, where I learn so much, but also teach others. Sometimes the dance between medicine and media can be awkward and emotionally challenging. But almost always, the stories we do have a significant impact,” Gupta told the Fall CIO Forum attendees.

What was perhaps most captivating about Gupta’s speech was when he spoke about visiting a primitive Amazonian tribe that appears to have the best heart health in the world. The Tsimane people of Bolivia do not speak a language, live a simple existence, and are disease-free, explained Gupta. So he went to visit the tribe with the goal to understand its lifestyle and what led to its members having such healthy hearts.  

Sanjay Gupta, M.D.

“I went spearfishing with one [tribe member], who thought he was 84-years-old, but he really didn’t know for sure. His shirt was off, and he was ripped, balancing himself on the canoe, just looking at the water, spearing fish. His eyesight was perfect. The entire indigenous tribe was just like this,” Gupta recalled.

After examining the Tsimane tribe’s diet, Gupta noted it was a hunter-gatherer society, meaning there was nothing technological. “The most mechanical thing I saw was a pulley for the well,” he said. Seventy percent of what they eat is carbohydrates—unrefined and unprocessed—while 15 percent of their diet is protein, and 15 percent fat, he added. “You need farmed food because oftentimes you don’t have successful hunting days, so the farmed food was the food in the bank. And they would do intermitting fasting, too. These are the people with the healthiest hearts in the world,” Gupta exclaimed.

When it comes to activity, when hunters are hunting, they’re never outrunning their prey, but rather outlasting it, noted Gupta. “We found that they walked about 17,000 steps per day. But they didn’t run; they only walked. They are active, but not intensively active. They also hardly every sit—they are either lying or standing all the time. And they would get nine hours of sleep per night, waking up to the rooster’s crow. There are no devices. Again, these are the people who have the healthiest hearts in world. They don’t have a healthcare system and don’t spend a dollar on healthcare,” Gupta stated.

What’s even more interesting about this tribe is that each of its members lives with some degree of a parasitic infection, which they usually get it early in life, have a few days of illness, and then just live with these parasites in their bodies for their entire lives. “The belief is that so much of the disease we talk about—that leads to this $3.3 trillion price tag [the total cost of U.S. healthcare spending in 2016]—is actually ignited or worsened by our immune systems. So the parasitic infections could be part of the reason they are protected from all types of diseases,” Gupta offered.

Essentially, it’s living this basic, undeveloped life that “inadvertently provides them extraordinary protection against heart disease,” noted a report in HealthDay last year. “Thanks to their unique lifestyle, most Tsimane [members] have arteries unclogged by the cholesterol plaques that drastically increase the risk of heart attack and stroke in modern Americans,” Gregory Thomas, M.D., medical director of the Memorial Care Heart & Vascular Institute at Long Beach Memorial, in California, said in that report.

Tsimane tribe (source: University of New Mexico)

You might be asking what the story of the Tsimane tribe has to do with U.S. healthcare since its lifestyle would obviously never be replicated in a developed country. And while that is true, it’s tough to ignore the $1 billion per day that our healthcare system spends on heart disease—compared to the Tsimane tribe that doesn’t spend a single dime, yet has the healthiest hearts in the world.

In this sense, perhaps we can use the Tsimane story to push ourselves to develop a greater understanding of why we spend so much money on healthcare and don’t have the results to show for it. Gupta asked this $3.3 trillion-dollar question in his speech—why does healthcare in the U.S. cost so much and what do we get in return?

“If you look at the statistics, it’s not impressive. More people die from preventable disease in the U.S. than in 12 other nations. People live longer in 30 other countries compared to the U.S.—including places like Chile and Costa Rica. We still have tens of millions of people who don’t have access, and we still spend all this money on healthcare. Why?” he asked.

Gupta explained that the nation’s high healthcare costs come down to the following: high administrative costs, technology, new drugs and development, and the cost of chronic disease—the last which is incredibly self-inflicted. About 70 to 80 percent of chronic disease is self-preventable, he said.

Indeed, as most of us know, about 5 percent of the U.S. population accounts for 50 percent of the healthcare costs. These are folks who are defined by illness, not by health, Gupta stated. This is why the modern-day healthcare system has proactively taken to targeting that 5 percent to improve their chances of preventing disease and staying healthy. “Data shows that home visits, nutritional counseling, one-on-one coaching, and diligent follow-up care can go a long way in preventing someone from getting sick in the first place, and from turning a disease into something more chronic. Some of these interventions can actually reverse disease. The die is not cast,” Gupta said.

For me, Gupta’s keynote highlighted the need for efforts around value-based care, care management, and population health to be intensified. A big part of that, as noted in the speech, is addressing patients’ social and environmental factors. It’s not at all surprising to see studies such as this one from earlier this year, conducted by researchers at the University of South Florida (USF) College of Public Health, Tampa, and WellCare Health Plans, and published in Population Health Management, which found that healthcare spending is substantially reduced when people are successfully connected to social services that address social barriers, or social determinants of health, such as secure housing, medical transportation, healthy food programs, and utility and financial assistance.

And with that, there is also an enormous opportunity for data and IT to play a role. Information sharing, so that providers have access to the right information at the point of care—no matter where the patient is—will be critical to reducing unnecessary costs. As will the robust use of data analytics, so that patient care organizations can be proactive in predicting which patients are at highest risk, when they might need services, and how to intervene at the appropriate time.

But to this point, Gupta, who noted that our society can get too caught up in high-tech, also suggested that “medicine seems to play by slightly different rules when it comes to innovation as opposed to other sectors. Sometimes, innovation moves painstakingly slow in respect to medicine.” At the end of the day, he said, it will be “the innovations that make us, [as a society], healthier, happier, and connect us in frictionless ways, that will be the biggest winners.”

So, will the U.S. population suddenly turn off their iPhone alarms, wake up to the rooster’s crow, and become a hunter-gatherer society? No, I would say that’s quite unlikely to happen. But hearing stories such as the one of the Tsimane tribe might just serve as good enough motivation to bring down the astronomical and unsustainable costs of U.S. healthcare.

See more on Payment

betebet sohbet hattı betebet bahis siteleringsbahis