Publications by Robert A. Berenson for Health Policy Center

Back to Browse by Author

More about Robert A. Berenson's areas of expertise can be found on this Urban Institute expert's page.

Experts agree that the way health care is currently paid for in the United States, especially in the traditional, fee-for-service Medicare program, does not support coordinated care that is high quality and cost-efficient. To address these problems, policy-makers are taking a close look at accountable care organizations (ACOs). This policy brief explores what ACO are, how they compare to previous reform concepts such as Health Maintenance Organizations and Provider Sponsored Organizations, key design and implementation issues, and opportunities and challenges. The authors conclude that ACOs are no real game changers in the short term, but are nevertheless important to try.

Growing evidence demonstrates that certain approaches to financing and paying for chronic care coordination for patients are effective not only for improving patient well-being but can also reduce health care spending. However, chronic care approaches should vary for different patient populations and can be carried out effectively by diverse organizations and professionals reflecting the heterogeneity of health care delivery throughout the US. The Report considers the different populations in need of care coordination, summarizes current evidence of effectiveness, describes the various entities that can serve as focal points for coordinating care, and details the possible financing and payment options that can support these approaches.

In a review of published literature, authors Elizabeth Docteur and Robert Berenson, explored the question, How Does the Quality of U.S. Health Care Compare Internationally? The findings don't provide a definitive answer but suggest no support for the oft-repeated claim that "U.S. health care is the best in the world." The U.S. does relatively well in some areas, including cancer care, and less well in others, including conditions amenable to prevention and coordinated management of chronic conditions. The authors conclude that concerns that health reform could compromise currently excellent care are unwarranted; health reform can only help.

Intensive care units are an essential and costly component in most U.S. hospitals. However, little is actually known about what staffing and work-process interventions produce the best balance of quality and costs. We explore the reasons hospitals chose to either adopt or reject an innovative telemedicine approach to supporting delivery of intensive care. Hospital clinical leaders hold strong views but have little objective information on which to judge the worthiness of this innovation. We argue that comparative effectiveness initiatives should emphasize delivery-system and work-process innovations, which are relatively understudied compared to specific drugs, devices, and services.

In this paper and brief, the authors discuss alternative ways that health reform could be financed. They analyze different options including several proposals for delivery system reforms and for reduction in Medicare and Medicaid payments. They estimate the cost savings that could occur due to the introduction of a public plan option. Finally, they explore a range of revenue options. The key message of the paper is that health reform can be paid for, but it is best to obtain funds from a large number of measures to spread the burden broadly.

In addition to policy concerns that consumer-directed health care, based on high deductibles and tax-advantaged health savings accounts will lead patients to forgo needed care and would not reduce costs for those with high annual health care costs, this health reform model poses a major threat to the role of physician-patient trust as a fundamental underpinning of the health care system. Although physicians have deviated from ideals of professionalism in various ways, patients still rely on physicians, as professionals, to serve their patients' best interests. In a commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Urban Institute Senior Fellow Bob Berenson and Christine Cassel argue that the competitive vision that is core to consumer-driven care would inevitably replace professional ethics with, at best, commercial ethics, a development that should be resisted as health care reform proceeds.

In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, Robert Berenson, M.D. explores possible reasons that integrated care organizations that include multispecialty group practices have not become a major feature of the U.S. health system despite prominent success stories. These organizations are often penalized financially for undertaking activities that reduce costs because the benefits of efficiency are not internalized to the organization. Berenson makes the case that current payment incentives embedded in Medicare and private payer approaches promote behavior that may not benefit patients, such as rewarding preventable hospitalizations and producing a mismatch between the services patients need and those that fee schedules encourage.

Data from the most recent Community Tracking Study (CTS) interviews in twelve nationally representative metropolitan areas indicate that hospitals are increasingly employing physicians, particularly specialists. Nonemployed physicians are separating from hospitals passively by refusing to serve on medical staff committees or take emergency department call, and actively by creating specialized facilities, such as ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), to compete for hospitals' most profitable services. Employment is more common and physician-owned ASCs are less common in consolidated hospital markets. The interviews also suggest other factors motivating physician employment by, or separation from, hospitals, and likely consequences of these trends.

The "patient-centered medical home" has been promoted as an enhanced model of primary care. Based on a literature review and interviews with practicing physicians, we find that medical home advocates and physicians have somewhat different, although not necessarily inconsistent, expectations of what the medical home should accomplish—from greater responsiveness to the needs of all patients to increased focus on care management for patients with chronic conditions. As the medical home concept is further developed, it will be important to not overemphasize redesign of practices at the expense of patient-centered care, which is the hallmark of excellent primary care.

Seven case studies of provider organizations implementing innovative approaches to care coordination and disease management of patients with one or more serious chronic conditions and to the homebound frail elderly demonstrate a range of issues that need to be addressed to produce rapid dissemination of these approaches throughout the health care system. Study participants all describe perverse incentives within fee-for-service environments that frustrate chronic care-oriented activities. Nevertheless, innovative programs, some providing an important role for hospitals working collaboratively with physicians and others featuring geriatric home visiting, appear to be models for expansion.

Return to list of authors.