By Mary Holloway Richard
The trend toward decreasing costs in healthcare has seized upon value-based care – tying physician compensation to performance and outcome measures. These measures are also being used in contract negotiations with third party payors and healthcare plans.
Counsel for institutional and non-institutional providers are at the table providing advice about a number of important contractual terms and their ramifications including appropriate and measurable metrics for calculating bonuses and penalties and, if shared savings are at issue, how they should be split. For those who have been involved in negotiations of traditional fee-for-service contracts, this will seem like a fundamental change. It may also seem like a change that narrows the potential for disputes.
However, numerous issues will continue to be important to providers. For example:
- Are the metrics used as incentives or penalties?
- Are the selected benchmarks easily measurable and attainable?
- Do they raise regulatory issues such as potentially impacting volume in an unacceptable way or spawn any other results that could be construed to be anticompetitive?
While these questions have yet to be answered by Oklahoma courts, we can look to decisions from other states and consider ourselves forewarned as to the nuances and potential pitfalls in negotiating and drafting these terms.