Why Medicare Advantage Plans Pay hospitals traditional Medicare prices.

The policy community generally has assumed Medicare Advantage (MA) plans negotiate hospital payment rates similar to those for commercial insurance products and well above those in traditional Medicare. After surveying senior hospital and health plan executives, we found, however, that MA plans nominally pay only 100-105 percent of traditional Medicare rates and, in real economic terms, possibly less. Respondents broadly identified three primary reasons for near-payment equivalence: statutory and regulatory provisions that limit out-of-network payments to traditional Medicare rates, de facto budget constraints that MA plans face because of the need to compete with traditional Medicare and other MA plans, and a market equilibrium that permits relatively lower MA rates as long as commercial rates remain well above the traditional Medicare rates.

Health reform requires policy capacity.

Among the many reasons that may limit the adoption of promising reform ideas, policy capacity is the least recognized. The concept itself is not widely understood. Although policy capacity is concerned with the gathering of information and the formulation of options for public action in the initial phases of policy consultation and development, it also touches on all stages of the policy process, from the strategic identification of a problem to the actual development of the policy, its formal adoption, its implementation, and even further, its evaluation and continuation or modification.

Identifying, monitoring, and assessing promising innovations: using evaluation to support rapid-cycle change.

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Innovation Center) was created by the Affordable Care Act to identify, develop, assess, support, and spread new approaches to health care financing and delivery that can help improve quality and lower costs. Although the Innovation Center has been given unprecedented authority to take action, it is being asked to produce definitive results in an extremely short time frame. One particularly difficult task is developing methodological approaches that adhere to a condensed time frame, while maintaining the rigor required to support the extensive policy changes needed.

The group employed model as a foundation for health care delivery reform.

With a focus on delivering low-cost, high-quality care, several organizations using the group employed model (GEM)-with physician groups whose primary and specialty care physicians are salaried or under contract-have been recognized for creating a culture of patient-centeredness and accountability, even in a toxic fee-for-service environment. The elements that leaders of such organizations identify as key to their success are physician leadership that promotes trust in the organization, integration that promotes teamwork and coordination, governance and strategy that drive results, transparency and health information technology that drive continual quality improvement, and a culture of accountability that focuses providers on patient needs and responsibility for effective care and efficient use of resources. These organizations provide important lessons for health care delivery system reform.

Improving the US health care system: action plan to enhance efficiency, reduce errors, and improve quality.

The decisions made by stakeholders in the nation's health care system that affect the quality of care experienced by patients are too often made without the benefit of scientific evidence. A multidisciplinary set of investigators conducting health services research have traditionally filled this gap between research findings and clinical decision making, but several barriers are hindering this work. This article offers several recommendations-restructuring organizations, ensuring funding, developing infrastructure, strengthening the community of researchers, and forging new links among stakeholders-to promote high-quality information for health decision makers.