Value-based or Fee-For-Service Connected Health Reimbursement: Which Canoe Should We Put Our Feet In?

The cHealth Blog

About 10 years ago, I and many others, started talking about how care delivery enabled by connected health should be an ideal strategy in the world of value-based (VB) reimbursement. To date, there have been just a few instances where this has come to pass. Most relevant is Kaiser Permanente, where > 50% of patient interactions are virtual.  Unfortunately, there are few other examples of organizations that have invested heavily in connected health and state publicly that it represents a strategy for success in a value-based world.

Image courtesy of National Telehealth Policy Resource Center

By contrast, in the past decade, there has been significant progress in payer reimbursement for telehealth as a service (fee-for-service [FFS] payments).  For example, 48 states now have Medicaid requirements for telehealth reimbursement (10 years ago it was about 25); 21 states have requirements for remote monitoring reimbursements; and 15 for store-and-forward telemedicine reimbursement.  Currently, 33…

View original post 871 more words

One Response

  1. Federal FFS Payments Declined By 20% From 2015-2018 For AMGA Members

    AMGA recently conducted a survey to gauge member progress in the transition to value-based care. Here are some key findings from the report:

    • 56% of member revenues were risk-based in the federal setting in 2018.
    • In the commercial setting, 28% of member revenues were risk-based in 2018.
    • Federal fee-for-service (FFS) payments declined by 20% from 2015-2018.
    • Commercial FFS payments declined by 8% between 2015 and 2018.

    Source: AMGA, May 2019

    Like

Leave a comment