An examination of medicaid delivery system reform incentive payment initiatives under way in six states

Health Affairs

Volumn 34, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 1162-1169

  Gusmano, Michael K ^a   Thompson, Frank J ^b,c  

^a HASTINGS CENTER   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Rutgers University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DELIVERY SYSTEM REFORM INCENTIVE PAYMENT; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; INFORMATION SYSTEM; MANAGED CARE; MEDICAID; ECONOMICS; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH INSURANCE; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; REIMBURSEMENT; UNITED STATES;

DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH CARE REFORM; HEALTH EXPENDITURES; MANAGED CARE PROGRAMS; MEDICAID; REIMBURSEMENT, INCENTIVE; STATE HEALTH PLANS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84936937270     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: 15445208     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0165     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. The second Bush administration, for example, frequently negotiated changes in waivers originally approved by the Clinton administration. Thompson FJ. Medicaid politics: federalism, policy durability, and health reform. Washington (DC): Georgetown University Press; 2012. p. 135-8.
2. Thompson FJ, Gusmano MK. The administrative presidency and fractious federalism: the case of Obamacare. Publius. 2014;44(3):426-50.
3. Coughlin TA, Zuckerman S. States' strategies for tapping federal revenues:implications and consequences of Medicaid maximization. In:Holahan J, Weil A, Weiner JM, editors. Federalism and health policy. Washington (DC): Urban Institute Press; 2003. p. 145-78.
4. Government Accountability Office. Medicaid: more transparency of and accountability for supplemental payments are needed. Washington (DC): GAO; 2012. p. 5.
5. Sparer M. Medicaid managed care:costs, access, and quality of care. Princeton (NJ): Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 2012, Sep.
6. Government Accountability Office. Medicaid demonstration waivers:approval process raises cost concerns and lacks transparency. Washington (DC): GAO; 2013. p. 7-30.
7. Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The Triple Aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(3):759-69.
8. Harbage P, Happoldt IA, Ryan J. A review of select state DSRIP programs and implications for California's Medi-Cal 1115 waiver renewal. Sacramento (CA): Harbage Consulting; 2014.
9. Seifert RW, Grenier M, Sullivan JC. The MassHealth waiver extension for state fiscal years 2015-2019:foundation for coverage, engine for innovation. Charlestown (MA):Center for Health Law and Economics, University of Massachusetts Medical School; 2015, Feb.
10. Summer L. Integration, concentration, and competition in the provider Marketplace. Washington (DC): AcademyHealth; 2010, Dec.
11. New York State Department of Health. NY DSRIP program funding and mechanics protocol [Internet]. Albany (NY): The Department; [updated 2014 Apr 14; cited 2015 May 26]. Available from: https://www.health.ny.gov/health_care/medicaid/redesign/docs/program_ funding_and_mechanics.pdf
12. Department of Human Services. Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment (DSRIP) program funding and mechanics protocol [Internet]. Trenton (NJ): The Department; 2013 [cited 2015 May 26]. Available from:http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Waivers/1115/downloads/nj/Comprehensive-Waiver/nj-1115-request-dsripfunding- mechanics-protocol-07302013.pdf
13. Brennan N, Oelschlaeger A, Cox C, Tavenner M. Leveraging the big-data revolution: CMS is expanding capabilities to spur health system transformation. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(7):1195-202.
14. Community Health Care Association of New York State. Comments on the funding mechanics protocol and the strategies menu and metrics for Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment program [Internet]. Albany (NY): CHCANYS; 2014 May 14 [cited 2015 May 26]. Available from: http://www.chcanys.org/client uploads/2014_Policy/DSRIP/CHCANYS_DSRIP_Funding_ Mechanics_Protocol_Comments_051414_FINAL.pdf
15. Smith PC. Performance measurement in health care: history, challenges, and prospects. Public Money Manage. 2005;25(4):213-20.
16. Gilman M, Adams EK, Hockenberry JM, Wilson IB, Millstein AS, Becker ER. California safety-net hospitals likely to be penalized by ACA value, readmission, and meaningful-use programs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(8):1314-22.
17. Coleman K, Reiter KL, Fulwiler D. The impact of pay-for-performance on diabetes care in a large network of community health centers. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2007;18(4):966-83.
18. Abrams M. Putting New York DSRIP in context: what we can learn from other states? New York (NY): Commonwealth Fund; 2014 Nov 20.
19. Gruber J. Massachusetts points the way to successful health care reform. J Policy Anal Manage. 2011;30(1):184-92.
20. Werner RM, Kolstad JT, Stuart EA, Polsky D. The effect of pay-forperformance in hospitals: lessons for quality improvement. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(4):690-8.