Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-12
The Impact of Payment Reforms on the Safety Net: Examining Effects of the New Jersey Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment Program on Quality of Care Among Medicaid Beneficiaries
The Medicaid Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment (DSRIP) program has been among the most widely adopted value-based payment strategies to drive improved population health management among safety net populations. Using comprehensive claims data from New Jersey and difference-in-differences modeling, the authors examine the impact of DSRIP pay-for-performance disease management programs on outcomes related to targeted chronic conditions. The authors find DSRIP reduced asthma hospitalizations and emergency department visits, pneumonia readmissions, and improved alcohol and drug treatment. Positive program-specific findings are encouraging for future DSRIP-like initiatives and demonstrate provider ability to successfully adapt to payment reforms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LipsonDJ, AuM, StringerR, VogtR. Accelerating the adoption of value-based payment in Medicaid by linking delivery system reform to managed care payment. Medicaid 1115 Demonstration Issue Brief. Baltimore: Center for Medicaid & CHIP Services, 2019.
2.
HeiderF, KartikaT, RosenthalJ. Exploration of the evolving federal and state promise of Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment (DSRIP) and similar programs. Portland, ME: National Academy for State Health Policy, 2017.
3.
Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC). Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment Programs. Issue Brief. Washington, DC: MACPAC publication, 2020.
4.
GusmanoMK, ThompsonFJ. An examination of Medicaid Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment initiatives under way in six states. Health Affairs, 2015; 34:1162–1169.
5.
WernerRM, KolstadJT, StuartEA, PolskyD. The effect of pay-for-performance in hospitals: lessons for quality improvement. Health Affairs (Millwood), 2011; 30:690–698.
6.
Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC). Report to Congress on Medicaid and CHIP. Washington, DC: MACPAC publication, 2015.
7.
BegleyC, HallJ, ShenoyA, et al.Design and implementation of the Texas Medicaid DSRIP Program. Popul Health Manag, 2017; 20:139–145.
8.
DrakeM, GevorgyanA, HetterichC. Aligning incentive payments with outcomes: lessons from a Medicaid Section 1115 waiver program. Healthc Financ Manag, 2016; 70:86–90, 92, 94.
9.
RobyDH, LouisCJ, ColeMMJ, et al.Supporting transformation through Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment Programs: lessons from New York State. J Health Polit Policy Law, 2018; 43:185–228.
10.
ShaikhU, KizerKW. Observations from California's Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment Program. Am J Med Qual, 2018; 33:14–20.
11.
PouratN, KominskiG. An assessment of pay for performance under California's Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment Program. Pop Health Manag, 2020; 23:157–164.
12.
BreckenridgeED, KiteB, WellsR, SunburyTM. Effect of patient care coordination on hospital encounters and related costs. Pop Health Manag, 2019; 22:406–414.
13.
RevereL, KavarthapuN, HallJ, BegleyC. Achieving triple aim outcomes: an evaluation of the Texas Medicaid waiver. Inquiry, 2020; 57:46958020923547.
14.
ShenoyAG, BegleyCE, RevereL, LinderSH, DaigerSP. Innovating patient care delivery: DSRIP's interrupted time series analysis paradigm. Healthc (Amst), 2019; 7:44–50.
15.
State of New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH). Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment (DSRIP) Program planning protocol. Trenton: New Jersey Department of Health, 2013.
16.
BasuJ, FriedmanB, BurstinH. Managed care and preventable hospitalization among Medicaid adults. Health Serv Res, 2004; 39:489–510.
17.
BillingsJ, ParikhN, MijanovichT. Emergency department use: The New York story. Issue Brief. New York: Commonwealth Fund, 2000.
18.
DeLiaD, CantorJC, TiedemannA, HuangCS. Effects of regulation and competition on health care disparities: the case of cardiac angiography in New Jersey. J Health Politics Policy Law, 2009; 34:63–91.
National Committee for QualityAssurance. HEDIS 2013: technical specifications for health plans: Volume 2. WashingtonDC: Author. Additionally versions 2014, 2016, and 2018, 2013. https://www.ncqa.org/hedis/measures/ Accessed February2, 2021.
21.
State of New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH). Databook 3.1. Trenton, 2017. https://dsrip.nj.gov/resources.html Accessed September1, 2017.
22.
KonetzkaRT, YangF, WernerRM. Use of instrumental variables for endogenous treatment at the provider level. Health Econ, 2019; 28:710–716.
23.
SimonK, SoniA, CawleyJ. The impact of health insurance on preventive care and health behaviors: evidence from the first two years of the ACA Medicaid expansions. J Policy Anal Manag, 2017; 36:390–417.
24.
WettsteinG.Health insurance and opioid deaths: evidence from the Affordable Care Act young adult provision. Health Econ, 2019; 28:666–677.
25.
Kahn-LangA, LangK. The promise and pitfalls of differences-in-differences: reflections on 16 and pregnant and other applications. J Bus Econ Stat, 2020; 38:613–620.
26.
FreyaldenhovenS, HansenC, ShapiroJM. Pre-event trends in the panel event-study design. Am Econ Rev, 2019; 109:3307–3338.
27.
Goodman-BaconA. Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing. NBER Working PaperNo. 25018. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2018.
28.
WillageB.Unintended consequences of health insurance: Affordable Care Act's free contraception mandate and risky sex. Health Econ, 2020; 29:30–45.
29.
DawJR, HatfieldLA. Matching and regression to the mean in difference-in-differences analysis. Health Serv Res, 2018; 53:4138–4156.
30.
New Jersey Commission on Rationalizing Health Care Resources (NJCRHCR). Final report. Trenton, NJ: State of New Jersey Department of Health, 2008.
31.
LloydK, ChakravartyS, BrownleeS, FarnhamJ, CantorJC. Hospital responses to DSRIP program reforms in New Jersey. Am J Accountable Care, 2020; 8:4–12.
32.
ChakravartyS, LloydK, FarnhamJ, BrownleeS. Medicaid DSRIP in New Jersey: trade-offs between broad hospital participation and safety net viability. J Health Polit Policy Law, 2019; 44:789–806.
33.
RosenthalMB, FrankRG. What is the empirical basis for paying for quality in health care?. Med Care Res Rev, 2006; 63:135–157.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
