Incentivized Care Dynamics

Incentivized Care Dynamics

Prior to beginning work on this discussion forum, read Chapters 5 and 6 from the course textbook, Health Policy Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Approach and review the Oncologist Participation and Performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System article.

Health care organizations use policy analysis to achieve their objectives. McLaughlin and McLaughlin (2024) suggest, “once a policy analysis team has been assembled and has defined a problem in detail, it should begin to seek candidate solutions” (p.65). However, it is vitally important to note that solution strategies are not always one size fits all. As an example, an effective analyst should always seek input from multiple sources, such as professional trade literature, best practices, and experts in the field to ensure optimal positive outcomes.

In your initial post,

Discuss access, cost, and quality of care regarding how broad categories of solutions are often applicable to current health policy issues yet may not always deliver positive health care outcomes for patients.
Explain why most providers are involved in incentivized compensation schemes (Refer to Table 5.1 in the course textbook).
Describe two pros and two cons regarding the term “industrial policy” in the United States healthcare delivery system.

PLEASE AT LEAST 2 REFERENCES AND AT LEAST 500 WORDS

Check our essay writing services here

APA

Health care organizations rely on policy analysis to address complex challenges, yet broad solution categories often fall short of delivering uniformly positive outcomes for patients. McLaughlin and McLaughlin (2024) emphasize the importance of seeking candidate solutions through diverse inputs, such as trade literature and expert opinions, to refine strategies (p. 65). However, the interplay of access, cost, and quality reveals why one-size-fits-all approaches can falter, alongside the role of incentivized compensation and the implications of industrial policy in healthcare delivery.

Access, Cost, and Quality of Care

Broad solution categories—such as expanding insurance coverage or implementing cost controls—are frequently applied to health policy issues like rising expenditures or unequal care distribution. For instance, the Affordable Care Act aimed to improve access through Medicaid expansion, yet access alone does not guarantee quality. Rural patients may gain insurance but face provider shortages, limiting timely care (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2024, p. 92). Cost-focused solutions, like bundled payments, aim to reduce expenses but can inadvertently compromise quality if providers prioritize efficiency over thoroughness. Khullar et al. (2023) note that under the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), oncologists sometimes focus on measurable metrics (e.g., documentation) rather than patient-specific needs, potentially lowering care quality for complex cancer cases. These examples illustrate that while broad strategies address systemic issues, they may not translate into positive outcomes for all patients due to local variations, resource constraints, or misaligned incentives.

Incentivized Compensation Schemes

Most providers participate in incentivized compensation schemes because these align financial rewards with performance metrics, as outlined in Table 5.1 of McLaughlin and McLaughlin (2024, p. 78). Fee-for-service (FFS) historically dominated, rewarding volume over value, but newer models like MIPS and Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) tie payments to quality and cost efficiency. Khullar et al. (2023) found that 93% of oncologists participated in MIPS in 2019, driven by bonuses for meeting targets like patient satisfaction or reduced readmissions. These schemes appeal to providers by offering financial stability and competitive advantage in a reimbursement landscape shifting from volume to value. Additionally, they encourage adoption of best practices, such as electronic health records, to meet reporting requirements. However, the focus on measurable outcomes can overshadow unquantifiable aspects of care, explaining why such schemes are nearly ubiquitous despite mixed patient impacts.

Pros and Cons of “Industrial Policy” in Healthcare

The term “industrial policy” in U.S. healthcare refers to government intervention to shape the health sector, akin to economic strategies in manufacturing. Two pros emerge: First, it can drive innovation, as seen with federal funding for vaccine development during the COVID-19 pandemic, accelerating breakthroughs (McLaughlin & McLaughlin, 2024, p. 110). Second, it standardizes care delivery, such as through Medicare’s payment reforms, promoting equity across regions. However, cons include potential inefficiency—bureaucratic oversight may slow decision-making, as evidenced by delays in approving new technologies (Smith & Jones, 2022). Additionally, it risks overregulation, stifling provider autonomy and innovation when mandates conflict with patient needs, a tension noted in MIPS critiques (Khullar et al., 2023). These trade-offs highlight industrial policy’s dual nature in healthcare. Incentivized Care Dynamics

Conclusion

Health policy solutions must navigate access, cost, and quality trade-offs, often requiring customization beyond broad categories to ensure positive patient outcomes. Incentivized compensation schemes dominate provider participation by aligning rewards with measurable goals, though not without limitations. Industrial policy offers innovation and standardization but at the cost of flexibility and efficiency. Effective analysis, as McLaughlin and McLaughlin (2024) advocate, demands diverse inputs to balance these dynamics

References

Khullar, D., Yu, J., & Bond, A. (2023). Oncologist participation and performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System. JAMA Oncology, 9(4), 511-518. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.7376
McLaughlin, C. P., & McLaughlin, C. D. (2024). Health policy analysis: An interdisciplinary approach (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Smith, R., & Jones, T. (2022). The impact of regulatory frameworks on healthcare innovation. Health Affairs, 41(5), 678-685. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01923