Episode Details

I wanted to remind everyone about this show from last year because it's becoming increasingly relevant. We have this weird thing going on where everybody seems to be talking about physician incentives and payments and financial implications but so often disregards patient incentives and payments and financial implications.

Consider that we're at a place in the time-space continuum where it is inarguable that financial toxicity has become clinical toxicity. Patients are increasingly in huge numbers abandoning care, splitting pills, doing all kinds of things to save money that are clinically toxic. And these are patients with "good insurance" that we are talking about here.

So, here's a role play: Provider organization is actually paying doctors for outcomes. In wanders a patient with a huge deductible. Doc says, "Wow, Patient … so important that you take your insulin or med as directed or get a follow-up on that scary colonoscopy finding." Patient says, "Sorry, Doc. Can't afford it." And the doc gets dinged because the patient outcomes are avoidably poor.

That's what this show with Dr. Mark Fendrick digs into: aligning patient incentives (aka benefit designs etc) with value-based payments on the provider side. And with that, here's your encore:

And here I thought I knew a lot about value-based care. In this healthcare podcast, I am speaking with Mark Fendrick, MD, who is the director over at the University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design. This conversation is for those of you who already know pretty much about value-based care concepts. If you do not, I'd go back and listen to, say, Encore! EP206, with Ashok Subramanian, before this one.

Dr. Fendrick talks in this healthcare podcast about what it takes for value-based care to happen in the real world. No kidding, it's about making sure that reimbursement is aligned with good things (no great surprise there).

But two light bulb moments I had in this conversation with Dr. Fendrick:

1. At the beginning of the year, how many doctors and nurses, inspired to do the right thing, have told their patients with diabetes, say, to go get an eye exam to check for diabetic retinopathy? No one would disagree that this is definitely a good idea. Diabetic retinopathy causes blindness. But here's the reality of that conversation. Doc says, "Go get an eye exam." And patient says, "I can't. My deductible is huge, and I can't afford it." So, the patient doesn't get the follow-up care and winds up in the hospital or blind. And the doctor gets dinged on his or her quality scores. Suboptimal outcomes all around, I'd say. This also happens on the pharmacy side of the equation, but I think a lot of us are a little bit more familiar with that scenario—like type 1 diabetics who can't afford to pick up their insulin because of a Medicare Part D or commercial deductible that they haven't met yet. I just never really connected the dots back to the provider getting black marks because their patient has a benefit design that's not aligned with the quality measures.
2. In a majority of benefit designs, consumer price sharing is based not on the value of the service but on how expensive the service just happens to be. Wow! So, we're trying to get our plan members to be consumers and use the power of their wallets to make good healthcare choices. And what we're really doing is driving them toward cheap things or no care and discouraging them from indulging—and I say that sarcastically—in expensive things. But the expensive things might be the high-value care, and the relatively cheap things might be crap that's fully unnecessary or harmful and, over a whole population, adds up to a lot of zeros.

Healthcare is not like a consumer market where the expensive things are usually a better version of the cheap things. For all yo