Accountable Care Organizations and Population Health Organizations.

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) and hospitals are investing in improving "population health," by which they nearly always mean the health of the "population" of patients "attributed" by Medicare, Medicaid, or private health insurers to their organizations. But population health can and should also mean "the health of the entire population in a geographic area." We present arguments for and against ACOs and hospitals investing in affecting the socioeconomic determinants of health to improve the health of the population in their geographic area, and we provide examples of ACOs and hospitals that are doing so in a limited way.

Faster by a power of 10: a PLAN for accelerating national adoption of evidence-based practices.

Despite a decade of heightened focus on quality improvement, evidence continues to move slowly and incompletely into practice. To improve the quality of care, national improvement efforts must accelerate the spread of evidence-based practices. We propose an ambitious goal: to increase the speed of adoption of evidence-based practices by a power of 10, from 17 years to 1.

Michigan's fee-for-value physician incentive program reduces spending and improves quality in primary care.

As policy makers and others seek to reduce health care cost growth while improving health care quality, one approach gaining momentum is fee-for-value reimbursement. This payment strategy maintains the traditional fee-for-service arrangement but includes quality and spending incentives. We examined Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan's Physician Group Incentive Program, which uses a fee-for-value approach focused on primary care physicians.

Engaging primary care physicians in quality improvement: lessons from a payer-provider partnership.

A health insurer in Michigan, through its Physician Group Incentive Program, engaged providers across the state in a collection of financially incentivized initiatives to transform primary care and improve quality. We investigated physicians' and other program stakeholders' perceptions of the program through semistructured interviews with more than 80 individuals. We found that activities across five areas contributed to successful provider engagement: (1) developing a vision of improving primary care, (2) deliberately fostering practice-practice partnerships, (3) using existing infrastructure, (4) leveraging resources and market share, and (5) managing program trade-offs.

Physician practice responses to financial incentive programs: exploring the concept of implementation mechanisms.

Purpose: To develop a framework for studying financial incentive program implementation mechanisms, the means by which physician practices and physicians translate incentive program goals into their specific office setting. Understanding how new financial incentives fit with the structure of physician practices and individual providers' work may shed some insight on the variable effects of physician incentives documented in numerous reviews and meta-analyses.

Design/methodology/approach: Reviewing select articles on pay-for-performance evaluations to identify and characterize the presence of implementation mechanisms for designing, communicating, implementing, and maintaining financial incentive programs as well as recognizing participants' success and effects on patient care.