Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Systematic Review
Bruna Stella Zanotto, National Institute of Health Technology Assessment and Graduate
Program in Epidemiology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil;
Ana Paula Beck da Silva Etges, PhD, National Institute of Health Technology Assessment,
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, and Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul
Polytechnic School, Porto Alegre, Brazil; Miriam Allein Zago Marcolino, PT, National Institute
of Health Technology Assessment, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul and Graduate Program
in Epidemiology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul; and Carisi Anne Polanczyk, PhD, MD,
National Institute of Health Technology Assessment, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, and
Graduate Programs in Epidemiology and Cardiology and Cardiovascular Sciences, Federal University
of Rio Grande do Sul
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For more information regarding the concepts in this article, contact Dr. Polanczyk at
cpolanczyk@hcpa.edu.br.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed
text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s website
(www.jhmonline.com).
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the
Foundation of the American College of Healthcare Executives. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivitives
4.0 License, where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited.
The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.
DOI: 10.1097/JHM-D-20-00283
surveys to cover outcome tiers that are important to patients, and 3 reported outcomes to all
6 levels of our outcome measures hierarchy. A considerable proportion of the studies (36%)
reported results that contributed to value-based financial outcomes focused on cost savings.
However, a gap remains in measuring outcomes that matter to patients. A more complete
application of the value agenda by health organizations requires advances in technology and
culture change management.
www.ache.org/journals 341
Journal of Healthcare Management
origin of the data to evaluate these out- The second class, computational intel-
comes, and whether any outcome instru- ligence, comprises the information tech-
ment was used as a collection tool. All data nology element. It proposes a value-based
were consolidated with Microsoft Excel implementation using artificial intelligence
2010 software. to compose the numerator of the value
To classify outcomes used by the studies’ equation or a shared data platform to
authors to report a value result, we catego- optimize care and access. The third class, a
rized data into the 3-tiered hierarchy defined traditional value program, consists of stud-
earlier (Porter, 2010). Each tier of the hier- ies centered on the foundational premise of
archy contained two broad levels, illustrated value, the organization of the care pathway
in Figure S1, provided as Appendix 2 to this as a function of each patient’s clinical con-
article, published as Supplemental Digital dition, and the ability to measure outcome
Content at http://links.lww.com/JHM/A61. and cost for each patient.
Patients’ initial conditions, demographics, The country of the study, year of pub-
and disease-related factors were considered lication, healthcare field, and setting were
to evaluate patient outcomes adjusted to also assessed. The setting was defined as
their risk (Porter, 2010). Therefore, we also system when the study covered a multicen-
assessed whether baseline characteristics tric or national perspective and as hospital
were a variable considered in the studies’ when the scenario featured the provider or
methods. institution level.
For each article, outcome information
Data Analyses was retrieved and classified according to its
In accordance with the studies’ initial pur- corresponding tier level so we could map
poses and the elements of the value agenda, the most frequent outcome driver of each
value-added initiatives were distinguished tier in the studies. We also assessed the
into three classes: data source of each outcome to determine
whether any measurement instruments
1. Clinical or surgical pathway were used. The degree of tier-level outcome
redesign. reporting was determined by counting how
2. Computational intelligence platform many levels of the outcome hierarchy in
development. each study could be mapped. In addition,
3. Clinical, process, and financial we evaluated the differences in outcomes or
outcomes measurement (i.e., a tradi- costs before and after the implementation
tional VBHC program). of a value initiative in healthcare. The effect
was described and classified into the fol-
Clinical or surgical pathway redesign calls lowing categories mentioned in the litera-
for standardized care and a reorganized ture as expected results from a value-based
healthcare system structure to improve program: financial outcomes, clinical
access and efficiency, which is strongly outcome improvements, patient-reported
related to the value agenda components of outcomes (PROs) improvement, providers’
integrated practice units and bundled pay- education, and value culture and manage-
ments for care cycle (Porter & Lee, 2013). ment (Kaplan & Porter, 2011; Lee, 2010;
www.ache.org/journals 343
Journal of Healthcare Management
FIGURE 1
PRISMA Diagram
Note. PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.
www.ache.org/journals 345
Journal of Healthcare Management
Table 1
TABLE 1
(Continued)
www.ache.org/journals 347
Journal of Healthcare Management
TABLE 1
(Continued)
TABLE 1
(Continued)
www.ache.org/journals 349
Journal of Healthcare Management
TABLE 1
(Continued)
TABLE 1
(Continued)
www.ache.org/journals 351
Journal of Healthcare Management
TABLE 1
(Continued)
TABLE 1
(Continued)
www.ache.org/journals 353
Journal of Healthcare Management
TABLE 1
(Continued)
TABLE 2
Value =
Outcomes(t = 1) − Outcomes(t = 0) Financial outcome Direct cost savings ( Ackerman et al., 2019 ;
Costs(t = 1) − Costs(t = 0) Bernstein et al., 2019; Boltz et al., 2019 ;
Where: Bolz & Iorio, 2016 ; Chatfi eld et al., 2019 ;
Outcomes include measures Dundon et al., 2016 ; Ebinger et al., 2018 ;
stratifi ed in Tiers 1, 2, and 3. Featherall et al., 2019; Glotzbach et al., 2018 ;
Costs may consider costs over Goretti et al., 2020 ; Gray et al., 2019 ; Iorio et al.,
the complete pathway; 2016 ; Lee et al., 2016 ; Pelt et al., 2016 )
t = time I ndirect cost savings ( DiGioia &
Greenhouse, 2012 ; Weiss et al., 2019 )
Reduced variance in cost ( Ackerman et al., 2019 )
Sustainable ( Goretti et al., 2020 )
Clinical outcome Reduced complications ( Danilyants et al.,
improvement 2019 ; Goretti et al., 2020 ; Rosner et al., 2018 )
Reduced mortality ( Colegate-Stone et al., 2016 ;
DiGioia & Greenhouse, 2012 ; Iorio et al., 2016 )
Improved laboratories and recovered from
comorbidities ( Abdulla et al., 2012 ;
Goretti et al., 2020 ; Iorio et al., 2016 ;
D. V. Williams et al., 2019 )
erioperative outcomes ( J. B. Williams et al.,
P
2019 )
educed pharmacological treatment time
R
( Hernandez et al., 2019 ; Kirkpatrick et al.,
2015 ; Lee et al., 2016 )
www.ache.org/journals 355
Journal of Healthcare Management
TABLE 2
(Continued)
Value Eff ect Domain Reported
Patient-reported Patient satisfaction with service
outcome ( Colegate-Stone et al., 2016 ; DiGioia &
improvement Greenhouse, 2012 ; Noria et al., 2015 ;
van Egdom et al., 2019 )
Improved work and function relationships
( Hernandez et al., 2019 ; Ahn et al., 2019 ;
Goretti et al., 2020 ; Parker et al., 2017 ;
Weiss et al., 2019 )
Improved/favorable quality of life scores
( Ahn et al., 2019 ; Iorio et al., 2016 ; Parker et
al., 2017 ; J. B. Williams et al., 2019)
Improved well-being ( Hernandez et al.,
2019 ; Bateni et al., 2019 ; Goretti et al., 2020 )
Provider Support for innovative implementations
education and ( Boltz et al., 2019 )
value culture Value consciousness and engagement
( Ackerman et al., 2019 ; Chatfi eld et al., 2019 ;
Gustafsson et al., 2016 ; Navarro et al., 2018;
Noria et al., 2015 ; Ravikumar et al., 2010 )
Replicable ( Goretti et al., 2020 )
Hospital Increased hospital capacity ( Abdulla et al.,
management 2012 ; Ackerman et al., 2019 ; Bolz & Iorio,
2016 ; Chatfi eld et al., 2019 ; Dundon et al.,
2016 ; Featherall et al., 2019; Gabriel et al.,
2019 ; Gray et al., 2019 ; Johnson et al., 2019 ;
Kirkpatrick et al., 2015 ; Kulkarni et al., 2011 ;
Noria et al., 2015 ; Pelt et al., 2016 ; Weiss et al.,
2019 ; D. V. Williams et al., 2019 )
Improved discharge effi ciency ( Bolz &
Iorio, 2016 ; ( DiGioia & Greenhouse, 2012 ;
Dundon et al., 2016 ; Ebinger et al., 2018 ;
Featherall et al., 2019; Featherall et al., 2018 )
Better resource and capacity allocating
( Colegate-Stone et al., 2016 ; Gustafsson et al.,
2016 ; Van Den Berg et al., 2020 )
Value-offi ce ( Hernandez et al., 2019 ;
Makdisse et al., 2018 )
Improved quality through risk adjustment
(Bernstein et al., 2019; Golas et al., 2018 ;
Khullar et al., 2015 ; Smith et al., 2016 ;
D. V. Williams et al., 2019 )
Benchmarking ( Van Den Berg et al., 2020 ;
van Veghel et al., 2016 )
et al., 2019; van Deen et al., 2017) identi- time to recovery and Tier 3’s long-term
fied neutral effects or were not able to consequences, which are expressed less
consistently observe improved results even frequently in the literature (47% and 32%,
though they showed these effects as poten- respectively); in contrast, the same levels
tial improvements. were more commonly considered in HBS
Regarding PRO improvement, 25% of cases (75% and 92%, respectively). This
the studies reported improved PROs; how- was not surprising, as predicted by the
ever, of the studies that used PRO measure- number of studies using PRO measures
ment instruments (n = 16), 11 achieved earlier in the results. Regarding micro-
positive results. Management effects were costing or TDABC methods, the stud-
mainly related to hospital capacity (n = 15), ies showed similarly low prevalence in
improved quality through risk adjustments both the literature (27%) and HBS cases
(n = 5), and better resource allocation (28%) as revealed by the dotted lines in
(n = 3). Figure 2. Studies that used methods other
than microcosting to measure financial
On the Radar: Literature and information had a greater proportion of
HBS Cases both the literature and HBS cases (79%
Twelve HBS cases were selected for value and 92%, respectively). Tier 1’s mortal-
initiatives in the fields of prostate cancer ity survival-related metrics were also not
(Porter, Deerberg-Wittram, et al., 2014), widely computed in the selected studies
orthopedic surgeries (Kaplan et al., 2012; (40% in the literature and 60% in HBS
Porter, Marks, et al., 2014), pediatric care cases). Regarding the literature, two studies
(Porter, Bachmann et al., 2014; Porter et al., (Abdulla et al., 2012; Ahn et al., 2019) did
2016), and primary general practice not measure Tier 2’s disutility of the care
(Kaplan et al., 2018; Porter, Landman, process or treatment process level, and six
et al., 2014; Porter & Teisberg, 2009 ; did not measure baseline characteristics
Porter et al., 2017) (see Table S4, which for risk-adjustment data, making these two
summarizes the main characteristics of tiers the most prevalent in the literature
these cases, provided as Appendix 4 to this (96% and 87%, respectively), This pattern
article, published as Supplemental Digital was also verified for HBS cases, because
Content at http://links.lww.com/JHM/ those two levels were reported in all cases.
A60). In all HBS cases, the PRO measures
were used. Figure 2 presents the compari- DISCUSSION
son of the outcome tier coverage profiles of This systematic review was intended to
the included studies from the literature and map how outcomes are being measured in
the selected HBS cases. Of note, one initia- the studies of the value agenda. We identi-
tive was reported in both metrics: the HBS fied a significant imbalance of outcome
and literature search (Hernandez measurements in many aspects, such as the
et al., 2019). configuration of tier levels chosen in value
The most conflicting information initiatives, instruments applied to sup-
concerns tier levels that are more depen- port data, and the rare use of microcosting
dent on PRO measures such as Tier 2’s methods to determine financial outcomes.
www.ache.org/journals 357
Journal of Healthcare Management
FIGURE 2
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Note. Th
e black line inside the circle represents the proportion of Harvard Business School cases in each tier; the gray line
demonstrates the same profi le for the systematic review studies. Th e dotted line represents the studies within the fi nancial
result category that used microcosting methods or time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC).
looked at the applied cases of VBHC in the feasible without investment in information
HBS Case Collection (Kaplan et al., 2012, technology (Boscolo et al., 2020). Once
2018; Porter, Bachmann, et al., 2014 Porter, a functionally integrated EHR system is
Deerberg-Wittram, et al., 2014; Porter, implemented, it must be validated to ensure
Landman, et al., 2014; Porter, Marks, et al., that it provides quality measurements
2014; Porter & Teisberg, 2009; Porter et al., —an essential component of quality
2007; Porter et al., 2016). improvement (Etges et al., 2020). Address-
We found that widespread and consis- ing suboptimal outcomes and compar-
tent use of PRO measurements has proven ing cost data for treatment options will
to be ambiguous for a range of reasons, facilitate process improvement and value
including the complexity of the measures (Thaker et al., 2016).
tracked and the fluctuating reliability of Academics and consultants created the
patient assessments on many measures ICHOM in 2012 to address the shortcom-
(Schupbach et al., 2016), which may ings of outcome measurement. Today, the
explain the gap seen in the radar chart ICHOM working group stipulates that the
regarding the comprehensiveness of the intention of such parameterization is not to
value definition. devise new measures of results but rather
In agreement with the factors listed to agree on a well-assessed outcome mea-
by Martin and colleagues (2019), our sure indicator that everyone should use
results demonstrate that measuring out- to cover a much broader spectrum of the
comes in healthcare has been difficult for outcome hierarchy for a health condition
three reasons: (1) current outcome mea- (ICHOM, n.d.). The use of the ICHOM
surements consist of nonstructured and questionnaires in the literature is still
condition-related data that are difficult to restricted to a few studies concentrated in
access, (2) adherence to evidence-based the fields of orthopedic surgery (Berglund
processes rather than clinically and et al., 2019; Glotzbach et al., 2018; Pelt et al.,
patient-reported driven results is limiting, 2016), general practice (Hernandez et al.,
and (3) the healthcare provider seldom 2019; Kulkarni et al., 2011), bariatric
incorporates an integrated view of the surgery (Noria et al., 2015), obstetrics (Van
patient’s outcomes over the full cycle of care. Den Berg et al., 2020), breast cancer (van
The evolution to electronic registries Egdom et al., 2019), and prostate cancer
that provide practicable patient-centered (Thaker et al., 2016).
care could take two main routes: (1) the In addition to the ICHOM, however,
education and dissemination of a value some processual measures are still needed to
culture, which can instantly reinforce staff add all the tiers of value (Thaker et al., 2016).
to register important outcomes about the It is evident in the HBS cases that measur-
patient either through validated question- ing outcomes—clinical, processual, finan-
naires or more effective multidisciplinary cial, and PRO—is a valuable tool that helps
meetings, and (2) the creation of an EHR healthcare providers to be more intentional
system-integrated real-time outcome about quality, efficiency, and (especially)
measurement platform. This reflection patient outcomes (Porter, 2010; Schupbach
leads us to surmise that VBHC is not et al., 2016), and this model of measuring
www.ache.org/journals 359
Journal of Healthcare Management
outcomes has been demonstrated to have a could not be determined. We also did not
higher success rate and permanence (Porter, identify studies with negative results asso-
2010; Thaker et al., 2016). ciated with the outcome measurement in
Regarding financial outcomes, we the VBHC initiative; thus, there is poten-
note that cost studies were not part of our tial publication bias toward those only
main scope. Nevertheless, in the spec- reporting successful results in this field. In
trum of value initiatives, we would expect addition, the searches were conducted in
an exploration of both numerators and early March 2020, so this study does not
denominators to compose the value equa- include or reflect the possible movement in
tion. Because we could identify only 13 VBHC initiatives driven by the COVID-19
studies and 3 cases that applied advanced pandemic. Thus, we should stress that this
methods to evaluate real costs, we suggest was a prepandemic systematic review of
that scaled VBHC adoption would require VBHC initiatives.
more methodological rigor in the evalu-
ation of financial outcomes (Etges et al., CONCLUSION
2020; Tsai et al., 2018). Our systematic review suggests that, in
Developments in the EHR are mak- a real-world setting, there is still a gap
ing outcomes far less costly to measure between measuring outcomes that matter
(Porter & Teisberg, 2006). The majority to patients and measuring financial out-
of VBHC studies used medical records to comes through rigorous methodological
collect data to evaluate the value of health- methods. Advances in technology capac-
care. However, as verified from the studies ity and a culture of change in manage-
that covered the full range of the outcome ment appear to be the main barriers to
hierarchy (Noria et al., 2015), the EHR making the value agenda more easily
does not uniformly capture the three tiers reproducible.
of outcomes we described, requiring addi-
tional staff to manually maintain parallel
REFERENCES
control of the data and update the research Abdulla, A., Ituarte, P. G., Wiggins, R., Teisberg, E.,
databases (Noria et al., 2015). Harari, A., & Yeh, M. (2012). Endocrine surgery
as a model for value-based health care delivery.
Study Limitations Surgical Neurology International, 3(1), 163.
There are both weaknesses and strengths https://doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.105102
Ackerman, R. S., Hirschi, M., Alford, B., Evans, T.,
to consider in our work. To the best
Kiluk, J. V., & Patel, S. Y. (2019). Enhanced
of our knowledge, this is the first sys- REVENUE After Surgery? A cost-standardized
tematic review to perform a broad lit- enhanced recovery pathway for mastectomy
erature search of VBHC initiative studies decreases length of stay. World Journal of Sur-
with a priori–defined methods and gery, 43(3), 839–845. https://doi.org/10.1007/
well-established methodological guide- s00268-018-4850-0
Ahn, A., Ferrer, C., Park, C., Snyder, D. J., Maron, S. Z.,
lines. However, as there is not a valid
Mikhail, C., Keswani, A., Molloy, I. B.,
instrument to assess the methodological Bronson, M. J., Moschetti, W. E., Jevsevar, D. S.,
quality of VBHC initiative studies, the Poeran, J., Galatz, L. M., & Moucha, C. S.
methodological quality of these studies (2019). Defining and optimizing value in total
joint arthroplasty from the patient, payer, and centre. BMJ Quality and Safety, 28(6), 449–458.
provider perspectives. Journal of Arthroplasty, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2018-009068
34(10), 2290–2296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Colegate-Stone, T., Tavakkolizadeh, A., Moxham, J.,
arth.2019.05.024 & Sinha, J. (2016). Increasing value: The King’s
Bateni, S. B., Gingrich, A. A., Hoch, J. S., Canter, R. J., College Hospital experience. British Journal
& Bold, R. J. (2019). Defining value for pancre- of Health Care Management, 22(6), 326–334.
atic surgery in early-stage pancreatic cancer. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjhc.2016.22.6.326
JAMA Surgery, 154(10). https://doi.org/10.1001/ Danilyants, N., MacKoul, P., van der Does, L.,
jamasurg.2019.3019 Haworth, L., & Baxi, R. (2019). A value-based
Berglund, D. D., Law, T. Y., Rosas, S., Kurowicki, J., evaluation of minimally invasive hysterectomy
Giveans, M. R., Mijic, D., & Levy, J. C. (2019). approaches. Gynecological Surgery, 16(1). https://
The procedure value index: A new method for doi.org/10.1186/s10397-019-1057-9
quantifying value in shoulder arthroplasty. Jour- DiGioia, A. M., III, & Greenhouse, P. K. (2012). Care
nal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 28(2), 335– experience-based methodologies: Performance
340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.07.031 improvement roadmap to value-driven health
Bernstein, D. N., Nwachukwu, B. U., & Bozic, K. J. care. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research,
(2019). Value-based health care: Moving beyond 470(4), 1038–1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/
“minimum clinically important difference” s11999-011-2051-3
to a tiered system of evaluating successful Dundon, J. M., Bosco, J., Slover, J., Yu, S., Sayeed, Y.,
clinical Outcomes. Clinical Orthopaedics and & Iorio, R. (2016). Improvement in total joint
Related Research, 477(5), 945–947. https://doi. replacement quality metrics: Year one versus
org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000741 year three of the bundled payments for care
Boltz, M., Cuellar, N. G., Cole, C., & Pistorese, B. improvement initiative. Journal of Bone and Joint
(2019). Comparing an on-site nurse practitioner Surgery American Volume, 98(23), 1949–1953.
with telemedicine physician support hospitalist https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00523
programme with a traditional physician hospi- Ebinger, J. E., Strauss, C. E., Garberich, R. R.,
talist programme. Journal of Telemedicine and Bradley, S. M., Rush, P., Chavez, I. J., Poulose, A. K.,
Telecare, 25(4), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1177 Porten, B. R., & Henry, T. D. (2018). Value-based
/1357633X18758744 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction
Bolz, N. J., & Iorio, R. (2016). Bundled payments: care using risk-guided triage and early
Our experience at an academic medical center. discharge. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality
Journal of Arthroplasty, 31(5), 932–935. https:// and Outcomes, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1161/
doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.01.055 CIRCOUTCOMES.118.004553
Boscolo, P. R., Callea, G., Ciani, O., & Tarricone, R. Etges, A. P. B. d. S., Ruschel, K. B., Polanczyk, C. A.,
(2020). Measuring value in health care: & Urman, R. D. (2020). Advances in value-based
A comparative analysis of value-based frameworks. healthcare by the application of time-driven
Clinical Therapeutics, 42(1), 34–43. https://doi. activity-based costing for inpatient management:
org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.11.017 A systematic review. Value in Health, 23(6), 812–
Chalmers, K., Badgery-Parker, T., Pearson, S. A., 823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2020.02.004
Brett, J., Scott, I. A., & Elshaug, A. G. (2018). Featherall, J., Brigati, D. P., Faour, M., Messner, W., &
Developing indicators for measuring low-value Higuera, C. A. (2018). Implementation of a total
care: Mapping Choosing Wisely recommendations hip arthroplasty care pathway at a high-volume
to hospital data. BMC Research Notes, 11(1), 163– health system: Effect on length of stay, discharge
1163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3270-4 disposition, and 90-day complications. Journal
Chatfield, S. C., Volpicelli, F. M., Adler, N. M., of Arthroplasty, 33(6), 1675–1680. https://doi.
Kim, K. L., Jones, S. A., Francois, F., Shah, P. C., org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.038
Press, R. A., & Horwitz, L. I. (2019). Bending the Featherall, J., Brigati, D. P., Arney, A. N., Faour, M.,
cost curve: Time series analysis of a value trans- Bokar, D. V., Murray, T. G., Molloy, R. M., &
formation programme at an academic medical Higuera Rueda, C. A. (2019). Effects of a total
www.ache.org/journals 361
Journal of Healthcare Management
knee arthroplasty care pathway on cost, qual- Journal of Healthcare Management, 65(3), 217–
ity, and patient experience: Toward measur- 235. https://doi.org/10.1097/JHM-D-19-00064
ing the Triple Aim. Journal of Arthroplasty, Harvard Business School Case Collection. (2020).
34(11), 2561–2568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Harvard Business School Publishing. https://
arth.2019.06.011 store.hbr.org/case-studies/
Gabriel, L., Casey, J., Gee, M., Palmer, C., Sinha, J., Hernandez, A., Kaplan, R. S., Witkowski, M. L.,
Moxham, J., & Colegate-Stone, T. J. (2019). Forrest Faison, C., & Porter, M. E. (2019). Navy
Value-based healthcare analysis of joint Medicine introduces value-based health care.
replacement surgery for patients with pri- Health Affairs (Project Hope), 38(8), 1393–1400.
mary hip osteoarthritis. BMJ Open Quality, https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00280
8(2), e000549–e1549. https://doi.org/10.1136/ International Consortium for Health Outcomes
bmjoq-2018-000549 Measurement. (n. d.). About us. https://www.
Glotzbach, J. P., Sharma, V., Tonna, J. E., Pettit, J. C., ichom.org/mission/
McKellar, S. H., Eckhauser, A. W., Varghese, T. K., Iorio, R., Clair, A. J., Inneh, I. A., Slover, J. D.,
& Selzman, C. H. (2018). Value-driven cardiac Bosco, J. A., & Zuckerman, J. D. (2016). Early
surgery: Achieving “perfect care” after coronary results of Medicare’s bundled payment initiative
artery bypass grafting. Journal of Thoracic and for a 90-day total joint arthroplasty episode of
Cardiovascular Surgery, 156(4), 1436–1448. care. Journal of Arthroplasty, 31(2), 343–350.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.03.177 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.09.004
Golas, S. B., Shibahara, T., Agboola, S., Otaki, H., Johnson, J. K., Erickson, J. A., Miller, C. J., Fritz, J. M.,
Sato, J., Nakae, T., Hisamitsu, T., Kojima, G., Marcus, R. L., & Pelt, C. E. (2019). Short-term
Felsted, J., Kakarmath, S., Kvedar, J., & functional recovery after total joint arthroplasty
Jethwani, K. (2018). A machine learning model to is unaffected by bundled payment participation.
predict the risk of 30-day readmissions in patients Arthroplasty Today, 5(1), 119–125. https://doi.
with heart failure: A retrospective analysis of org/10.1016/j.artd.2018.12.003
electronic medical records data. BMC Medical Kaplan, R. S., & Porter, M. E. (2011). How to solve
Informatics and Decision Making, 18(1), 44–144. the cost crisis in health care. Harvard Busi-
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0620-z ness Review, 89(9). https://hbr.org/2011/09/
Goretti, G., Marinari, G. M., Vanni, E., & Ferrari, C. how-to-solve-the-cost-crisis-in-health-care
(2020). Value-based healthcare and enhanced Kaplan, R. S., Porter, M. E., Feeley, T. W., &
recovery after surgery implementation in a Hernandez, A. (2018, January). Medtronic:
high-volume bariatric center in Italy. Obesity Navigating a shifting healthcare landscape.
Surgery, 30, 2519–2527. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Harvard Business School Case 718-471.
s11695-020-04464-w https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.
Gray, C. F., Prieto, H. A., Deen, J. T., & aspx?num=53734
Parvataneni, H. K. (2019). Bundled payment Kaplan, R. S., Witkowski, M. L., & Hohman, J. A.
“creep”: Institutional redesign for primary (2012, March). Schön Klinik: Measuring
arthroplasty positively affects revision arthro- cost and value. Harvard Business School Case
plasty. Journal of Arthroplasty, 34(2), 206–210. 112-085. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.10.025 item.aspx?num=41579
Gustafsson, U. O., Oppelstrup, H., Thorell, A., Nygren, J., Khullar, O. V., Jiang, R., Force, S. D., Pickens, A.,
& Ljungqvist, O. (2016). Adherence to the ERAS Sancheti, M. S., Ward, K., Gillespie, T., &
protocol is associated with 5-year survival after Fernandez, F. G. (2015). Transthoracic versus
colorectal cancer surgery: A retrospective cohort transhiatal resection for esophageal adenocar-
study. World Journal of Surgery, 40(7), 1741–1747. cinoma of the lower esophagus: A value-based
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3460-y comparison. Journal of Surgical Oncology, 112(5),
Halpern, M. T., Gasoyan, H., & Aaronson, W. E. 517–523. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24024
(2020). Metrics to evaluate the performance of Kirkpatrick, J. R., Marks, S., Slane, M., Kim, D.,
cancer center leadership: A systematic review. Cohen, L., Cortelli, M., Plate, J., Perryman, R.,
& Zapas, J. (2015). Using value-based analysis to forecasting for a patient-specific payment model.
influence outcomes in complex surgical systems. Journal of Arthroplasty, 33(12). 3617–3623.
Journal of the American College of Surgeons, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.arth.2018.08.028
220(4), 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Noria, S., Needleman, B., Mikami, D., Layton, K.,
jamcollsurg.2014.12.034. Jalilvand, A., Hornor, M., Suzo, A.,
Kulkarni, R. P., Ituarte, P. H. G., Gunderson, D., & Abdel-Rasoul, M., & Macadam, L. (2015). The
Yeh, M. W. (2011). Clinical pathways improve impact of care coaching on hospital length of
hospital resource use in endocrine surgery. stay, readmission rates and overall patient satis-
Journal of the American College of Surgeons, faction post-bariatric surgery. Surgery for Obesity
212(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. and Related Diseases, 11(6), S8–S9. http://www.
jamcollsurg.2010.09.016 embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewreco
Lee, T. (2010, April). Turning doctors into lead- rd&from=export&id=L72280035
ers. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr. Parker, S. L., Chotai, S., Devin, C. J., Tetreault, L.,
org/2010/04/turning-doctors-into-leaders Mroz, T. E., Brodke, D. S., Fehlings, M. G., &
Lee, V. S., Kawamoto, K., Hess, R., Park, C., Young, J., McGirt, M. J. (2017). Bending the cost curve:
Hunter, C., Johnson, S., Gulbransen, S., Pelt, C. E., Establishing value in spine surgery. Clini-
Horton, D. J., Graves, K. K., Greene, T. H., cal Neurosurgery, 80(3), S61–S69. https://doi.
Anzai, Y., & Pendleton, R. C. (2016). Imple- org/10.1093/neuros/nyw081
mentation of a value-driven outcomes program Peard, L., Goodwin, J., Hensley, P., Dugan, A.,
to identify high variability in clinical costs and Bylund, J., & Harris, A. M. (2019). Examining
outcomes and association with reduced cost and and understanding value: The impact of preop-
improved quality. JAMA, 316(10), 1061–1072. erative characteristics, intraoperative variables,
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12226 and postoperative complications on cost of
Makdisse, M., Katz, M., Ramos, P., Pereira, A., robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatec-
Shiramizo, S., Neto, M. C., & Klajner, S. (2018). tomy. Journal of Endourology, 33(7), 541–548.
What is a value management office? An imple- https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0066
mentation experience in Latin America. Value Pelt, C. E., Anderson, M. B., Pendleton, R., Foulks, M.,
in Health Regional Issues, 17:71–73. https://doi. Peters, C. L., & Gililland, J. M. (2016). Improv-
org/10.1016/j.vhri.2018.02.002 ing value in primary total joint arthroplasty care
McCreary, D. L., Dugarte, A. J., Vang, S., Plowman, B., pathways: Changes in inpatient physical therapy
Williams, B. R., Parikh, H. R., & Cunningham, B. P. staffing. Arthroplasty Today, 3(1), 45–49. https://
(2019). Patient-level value analysis: An innova- doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2016.02.003
tive approach to optimize care delivery. Journal Porter, M. E. (2010). What is value in health
of Orthopaedic Trauma, 33:S49–S52. https://doi. care? New England Journal of Medicine,
org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001624 363(26), 2477–2481. https://doi.org/10.1056/
Martin, J. A., Potter, B. L., Flanagan, T. F., & NEJMp1011024
Feeley, T. W. (2019). Value-based health care: Porter, M. E., Bachmann, J. M., & Landman, C. Z.
Lessons for the anesthesiologist. International (2014, April). Texas Children’s Hospital:
Anesthesiology Clinics, 57(1), 63–80. https://doi. Congenital heart disease care. Harvard Business
org/10.1097/AIA.0000000000000209 School Case 714-507. https://www.hbs.edu/
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=47292
G., for the PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred Porter, M. E., Clemens Guth, & Dannemiller, E. M.
reporting items for systematic reviews and (2007, May). The West German Headache
meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, Center: Integrated migraine care. Harvard
339:b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535 Business School Case 707-559. https://www.hbs.
Navarro, S. M., Wang, E. Y., Haeberle, H. S., edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=34498
Mont, M. A., Krebs, V. E., Patterson, B. M., & Porter, M. E., Deerberg-Wittram, J., & Marks, C.
Ramkumar, P. N. (2018). Machine learning 2014. (2014, March). Martini Klinik: Prostate
and primary total knee arthroplasty: Patient cancer care. Harvard Business School Case
www.ache.org/journals 363
Journal of Healthcare Management
Van Den Berg, K., Dijksman, L. M., Keus, S. H. J., outcomes. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic
Scheele, F., & Van Pampus, M. G. (2020). Surgery, 49(6), 1660–1669. https://doi.
Value-based health care in obstetrics. Journal of org/10.1093/ejcts/ezw034
Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 26(1), 101–108. Weiss, M. A., Marchese, S., & Zhang, L. (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13208 Effective care management for children
Van Der Wees, P. J., Nijhuis-Van Der Sanden, M. with special health care needs in the
W. G., Ayanian, J. Z., Black, N., Westert, G. P., era of value-based payment. Clinical
& Schneider, E. C. (2014). Integrating the use Pediatrics, 58(9), 949–956. https://doi.
of patient-reported outcomes for both clinical org/10.1177/0009922819839231
practice and performance measurement: views Williams, D. V., Liu, T. C., Zywiel, M. G., Hoff, M. K.,
of experts from 3 countries: Patient-reported Ward, L., Bozic, K. J., & Koenig, K. M. (2019).
outcomes, clinical practice, performance mea- Impact of an integrated practice unit on the
surement. Milbank Quarterly, 92(4), 754–775. value of musculoskeletal care for uninsured
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12091 and underinsured patients. Healthcare (Amster-
van Egdom, L. S. E., Lagendijk, M., van der Kemp, M. H., dam, Netherlands), 7(2), 16–20. https://doi.
van Dam, J. H., Mureau, M. A.M., Hazelzet, J. A., org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2018.10.001
& Koppert, L. B. (2019). Implementation of Williams, J. B., McConnell, G., Allender, J. E.,
value based breast cancer care. European Woltz, P., Kane, K., Smith, P. K., Engelman, D. T.,
Journal of Surgical Oncology, 45(7), 1163–1170. & Bradford, W. T. (2019). One-year results
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.01.007 from the first US-based enhanced recovery
van Veghel, D., Marteijn, M., & de Mol, B. (2016). after cardiac surgery (ERAS Cardiac) program.
First results of a national initiative to enable Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery,
quality improvement of cardiovascular care 157(5), 1881–1888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
by transparently reporting on patient-relevant jtcvs.2018.10.164
Practitioner Application:
Value-Based Healthcare Initiatives in Practice:
A Systematic Review
Pradipta Komanduri, FACHE, vice president, clinical support services, Seattle Children’s, Seattle,
Washington
Z
anotto and colleagues provide a unique assessment of value-based outcome mea-
surements to-date, noting that while there have been reported benefits from such
initiatives, there are gaps in accurate measurement of costs and long-term out-
comes at the patient level. Their research aggregated improvement efforts into three main
categories: standardizing care through pathways; developing technology; and improving
traditional measures tied to clinical, process, and financial outcomes at the facility level.
The authors suggest that the true impact of value-based measures can only be under-
stood through a more consistent approach to outcome measurement at the patient level.
While value-based care models thus far have been necessary experiments to transform
www.ache.org/journals 365