Is "Value-based" Healthcare As Good As They Say?

Why are some U.S. Congressmen, like Rep. Mike Ross, excited about the American government's plans to use value-based purchasing to save on healthcare costs?

Rep. Ross' comments allude to the government's desire to move away from fee-for-service payments. Rather than a system that rewards treatment volumes and pays providers when they perform tests or procedures, Rep. Ross is saying that America will pay providers when they do things that help sick people become healthy. Providers will be paid when they provide patients with beta-blockers after a heart attack, for example.

Although value-based payments sound appealing (pay doctors to help patients get better, withhold pay when they don't), these systems are really difficult to pull off. Previous value-based plans in the U.S. were criticized for a number of shortcomings. In particular, certain treatments (usually the ones that weren't reimbursed) and certain patients (usually the sickest) were ignored.

Skeptics argue that these shortcomings should cause health decision-makers to reject value-based healthcare systems. Unfortunately, this will facilitate the next most feasible alternative - continued fee-for-service medicine. For those suffering from the high costs of medical care, this is unacceptable. Fee-for-service payment systems drive costs by encouraging providers to prescribe more tests, treatments, and procedures.

By supporting value-based healthcare Rep. Ross expresses his disdain for the status quo. He hopes to shift America from a fee-for-service system to one that rewards providers for valuable care. Rep. Ross' statements also indicate that he accepts the flaws of value-based systems. Now all Americans must decide if they feel the same.

Contact Sam: samjmhealth@gmail.com

Picture credit: Reader's Digest