MEC Practice Academy 11.19
|Articles|October 11, 2022

MGMA 2022: Study finds most respondents agree value-based care is better for patient care quality

Author(s)Todd Shryock

The MGMA-Humana study shows that despite predictions to the contrary, not much practice revenue is tied to value-based care for most physicians

A joint study between the Medical Group Management Association and Humana took a close look at value-based care and how practices approach it. The study was presented at MGMA 2022 conference in Boston.

One of the most surprising is that 63% of respondents had less than one quarter of their practice’s revenue based on performance in value-based contracts, despite expert predictions for years that value-based care would soon supplant fee-for-service. Only 15% of respondents said that more than half of their revenue was from value-based care contracts.

Despite the slow uptake, 67% agreed that value-based care was better in the level of quality care provided to patients, but 46% said fee-for-service is better for the ease of practice management. The biggest challenges identified to adding more value-based care contracts was a lack of staff resources, lack of control over patient care-seeking behavior, and lack of control over other providers.

When it comes to investing for value-based care, 74% had added staff, while 71% added technology to assist with the shift. This technology was usually (82%) data analytics/reporting or population health management (57%). Staff changes were most likely to be care coordination (72%) or care management (67%) additions.

When paid resources were added, nearly half (47%) of those surveyed indicated that staff provided the greatest positive impact on patient health outcomes based on return-on-investment. Technology was second with 21%, with patient engagement (17%) and social determinants of health considerations (3%) ranking next.


Related to this article

Sethu Reddy: ©Sethu Reddy
Prior authorization, step therapy and shifting coverage rules keep patients from obesity drugs with proven benefits, an endocrinologist argues — and the long-term savings make the case for broader access.
Is more health care access always better?: ©Yodiyim - stock.adobe.com
In 590,282 California heart attack hospitalizations, a new PCI-capable facility within a 30-minute drive lowered 30-day mortality 20% in communities without prior access but did not change survival where the procedure was already available.
Is late-night eating hurting your liver?: ©Nalidsa - stock.adobe.com
An Oregon Health & Science University-led analysis of nearly 200,000 people found a 20% to 30% higher rate of fatty liver disease and cirrhosis among those who reported eating after dinner or after bedtime.