Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jun;42(6):813-821.
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2022.01455.

Value-Based Purchasing Design And Effect: A Systematic Review And Analysis

Abhinav Pandey  1 , Diana Eastman  2 , Heather Hsu  3 , Michaela J Kerrissey  4 , Meredith B Rosenthal  5 , Alyna T Chien  6
Affiliations

Value-Based Purchasing Design And Effect: A Systematic Review And Analysis

Abhinav Pandey et al. Health Aff (Millwood). 2023 Jun.

Abstract

During the past two decades in the United States, all major payer types-commercial, Medicare, Medicaid, and multipayer coalitions-have introduced value-based purchasing (VBP) contracts to reward providers for improving health care quality while reducing spending. This systematic review qualitatively characterized the financial and nonfinancial features of VBP programs and examined how such features combine to create a level of program intensity that relates to desired quality and spending outcomes. Higher-intensity VBP programs are more frequently associated with desired quality processes, utilization measures, and spending reductions than lower-intensity programs. Thus, although there may be reasons for payers and providers to opt for lower-intensity programs (for example, to increase voluntary participation), these choices apparently have consequences for spending and quality outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Exhibit 1
Exhibit 1
Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) number of unique empirical evaluations and type of outcomes studied, by higher- and lower-intensity programs Source: Authors’ summary of our systematic review inclusions used to inform this paper (methodology and citations of included programs and manuscripts available in appendix). Note: Unique empirical evaluations sum to less than the total number of evaluations for spending and quality outcomes as a given study may evaluate both spending and quality. The median number of evaluations per program was 2. The mean and standard deviation were 3±2.3. The greatest number of evaluations for a single program was 10.
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 4
Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) outcome positivity by literature rigor and program intensity Source: Authors’ summary of qualitative analyses conducted after assessing each included manuscript for outcomes, significance, and directionality Note: The categories “All,” “Higher-intensity,” and “Lower-intensity” include all studies irrespective of rigor level
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Rosenthal M, Frank R, Li Z, Epstein A. Early experience with pay-for-performance: from concept to practice. JAMA. 2005;294(14):1788–93. - PubMed
    1. Song Z, Safran DG, Landon BE, He Y, Ellis RP, Mechanic RE, et al. Health care spending and quality in year 1 of the alternative quality contract. New England Journal of Medicine. 2011;365(10):909–18. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chien AT, Rosenthal MB. A 3D model for value-based care: the next frontier in financial incentives and relationship support. [Internet]. UnitedHealth Group. 2020. [cited 2022 Nov 1]. Available from: https://newsroom.uhc.com/content/dam/newsroom/Harvard%20Report_FINAL_092...
    1. Lemak CH, Nahra T, Cohen GR, Erb ND, Paustian ML, Share D, et al. Michigan’s fee-for-value physician incentive program reduces spending and improves quality in primary care. Health Aff. 2015;34(4):645–52. - PubMed
    1. Colla CH, Wennberg DE, Meara E, Skinner JS, Gottlieb D, Lewis VA, et al. Spending differences associated with the Medicare Physician Group Practice Demonstration. JAMA. 2012;308(10):1015–23. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types