Value-based care (VBC) is a phrase that is becoming increasingly popular, and it is getting a lot of attention and press as “the future of healthcare.”
Many startups, large healthcare payer organizations, provider groups, hospital systems, and technology companies want to invest in VBC.
What’s Value Based Care (VBC):
The phrase “value based care” (VBC) is used to refer specifically to a model of care delivery.
That places more emphasis on the patient’s quality and “value” of care than on its quantity.
It is described as “a healthcare delivery model in which providers. Including hospitals and physicians, they are paid based on patient health outcomes.”
In an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Value-based care contracts pay healthcare professionals for using evidence-based practices.
It helps patients live healthier lives, improve their health, and lessen the effects and incidence of chronic disease.
It causes a baseline incentive shift in the sector. Instead of compensating for the quantity of care, VBC rewards clinical success.
Fee for Service (FFS):
It contrasts with the rigid Fee-For-service (FFS) model that many organizations and healthcare systems currently use, where providers are compensated based on their procedures or services.
Naturally, both methods have their supporters and detractors. FFS detractors argue that the model encourages providers.
Even if they are not necessary to increase profits, VBC critics claim that the systemic infrastructure is inadequate to support value-based care.
Functioning of Value Based Care:
According to the VBC model, if a patient visits a doctor with wrist pain.
The doctor would also be tasked with counseling the patient on lifestyle-related issues like quitting smoking and losing weight.
However, this is unquestionably an essential aspect of care.
The doctor in question probably has 40 other patients on the waiting list for the day, which limits the amount of time available for value-driven counseling.
Value Based Care’s Benefit:
Companies, healthcare organizations, and governments are aware of the drawbacks of the various care delivery models.
Many startup businesses are aggressively attacking their market. Consider CareBridge, which received funding totaling almost $140 million this past year.
The company’s “solutions include 24/7 clinical support. Also decision support, data aggregation, and electronic visit verification.”
It “assists health plans and states in caring for individuals receiving home and community-based services.”
Other startups are trying to take on VBC initiatives in particular care domains.
Somatus collaborates with insurance companies, hospital networks, and groups of healthcare professionals.
To offer “integrated care to patients with or at risk of developing chronic kidney disease or end-stage kidney disease.”
The company wants to build a complete ecosystem for patients.
Who needs kidney-related care by utilizing significant partnerships and cutting-edge data tools.
Even some traditional payor organizations now support VBC as the upcoming healthcare revolution.
One of the biggest payers in the world, Aetna, explains that the core of VBC models is vital.
It’s a team-oriented approach that the patient’s primary care physician frequently leads. The healthcare system is not left up to the patient to figure out.
The care team assists them as they navigate the healthcare system.
Teams must concentrate on prevention, wellness, strategies, and coordination in the care continuum.
These priorities are crucial for people managing chronic conditions.
Case managers, mental health specialists, social workers, pharmacists, dieticians, educators, psychologists, health coaches, administrators, and others may be a part of the multidisciplinary care team.
Although not all team members directly provide medical care. They collaborate with patients and careers to determine and meet each person’s healthcare needs.
The goal is to involve patients, assist them in resolving issues, and help them better manage their health.
Goal to Achieve:
The purpose of pursuing VBC is to develop a proactive, holistic approach to the provision of care. In the end, to treat the person rather than just the symptoms.
There is still a sizable amount of work to be done about the supporting infrastructure for VBC.
It needs a lot of money and support from allied health professionals, administrators, specialists, and primary care experts.
Furthermore, given that FFS pundits continue to highlight its drawbacks.
It will only be successful if regulators, policymakers, and executives can persuade the general public that it is even worthwhile to pursue.
However, the changeover from one system to another will take time and effort.
To best serve patients and communities at large, hybrid models that attempt to emulate the best aspects of both systems are more likely to be developed.