{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022380467955239063, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01017293997965412, 'mean_word_length': 5.108695652173913, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Linking Quality and Spending to Measure Value for People with Serious Illness.

BACKGROUND
Healthcare payment is rapidly evolving to reward value by measuring and paying for quality and spending performance. Rewarding value for the care of seriously ill patients presents unique challenges.


OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the state of current efforts to measure and reward value for the care of seriously ill patients.


DESIGN
We performed a PubMed search of articles related to (1) measures of spending for people with serious illness and (2) linking spending and quality measures and rewarding performance for the care of people with serious illness. We limited our search to U.S.-based studies published in English between January 1, 1960, and March 31, 2017. We supplemented this search by identifying public programs and other known initiatives that linked quality and spending for the seriously ill and extracted key program elements.


RESULTS
Our search related to linking spending and quality measures and rewarding performance for the care of people with serious illness yielded 277 articles. We identified three current public programs that currently link measures of quality and spending-or are likely to within the next few years-the Oncology Care Model; the Comprehensive End-Stage Renal Disease Model; and Home Health Value-Based Purchasing. Models that link quality and spending consist of four core components: (1) measuring quality, (2) measuring spending, (3) the payment adjustment model, and (4) the linking/incentive model. We found that current efforts to reward value for seriously ill patients are targeted for specific patient populations, do not broadly encourage the use of palliative care, and have not closely aligned quality and spending measures related to palliative care.


CONCLUSIONS
We develop recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders about how measures of spending and quality can be balanced in value-based payment programs.