Provider Practice and Value-Based Payment Contracting for Psychotherapy Services - Requirements and Challenges

SUMMARY

The document provides a comprehensive overview of the complexities and considerations involved in provider practice and value-based payment (VBP) contracting for psychotherapy services, highlighting the shift from volume-based to value-based care models. It discusses the challenges, requirements, and strategies for successful implementation of VBP in the psychotherapy sector, including the need for provider practices to have significant experience, resources, and a strategic approach to navigate the intricacies of VBP contracts effectively.

High-Level Guidance and General Challenges

VBP contracting for psychotherapy services emphasizes quality and outcomes over the volume of services, involving high risks and complexities that demand expert knowledge, appropriate business structures, financial resources, and experience in contract administration, internal auditing, and risk management.

Provider practices face challenges in meeting health plan targets and negotiating contracts that allow for reasonable profit while managing the probable risk of financial loss.

Requirements for Successful Implementation

In order for providers to participate in value-based payment contracting, Healthplan and provider practice must have conversations to establish shared values, shared objectives, transparent controls and guardrails, test scripts, and key leading indicators.

Effective implementation of VBP in psychotherapy requires significant investment by Healthplans, technology adoption, knowledge of psychotherapy, data analytics, and ethical practices.

Provider groups need extensive experience in providing measurement-based care (MBC) and the capability to gather, aggregate, and analyze data to establish baselines and benchmarks for successful contract negotiation and management.

Opportunities and Challenges with VBP

VBP presents opportunities for improving treatment adherence, patient-centric care models, quality improvement, and incentivization of effective providers, enhancing access and outcomes, and supporting the value proposition of psychotherapy services.

Feasibility factors include the ability to measure outcomes, the necessity for data collection and reporting systems, provider competency and training, and collaboration between payers and provider practices to negotiate VBP contracts.

Challenges include the rarity of independent psychotherapists in VBC arrangements, lack of standardized outcome measures and quality standards, separation from physical health care systems, undervaluation by payers, complexity of mental health conditions, ethical considerations, risk of adverse selection, and resource limitations.

Negotiating VBP Contracts

The document outlines strategies for negotiating VBP contracts, emphasizing the importance of assessing provider practice capabilities, understanding the value proposition, identifying measurable outcomes, evaluating legal terms and financial risks, and fostering collaboration and partnership with payers.

Potential Pitfalls and Challenges

Participating in a VBP contract can lead to loss of control over patient care, fragmentation of services, challenges with performance metrics, financial risks, potential for increased disparities, data collection and reporting challenges, provider burnout, perverse incentives, complexity and lack of experience, and risk of inadequate reimbursement.

Support from Internal Auditors

Internal auditors play a crucial role in supporting joint ventures and VBP contracting by managing conflicts of interest, conducting risk assessments, providing governance and control framework reviews, evaluating financial performance, ensuring compliance monitoring, and facilitating continuous improvement initiatives.

The document underscores the critical need for preparedness, strategic negotiation, ongoing monitoring, and adaptation to the evolving landscape of value-based payment contracting for psychotherapy services, aiming to improve quality, manage costs, and enhance patient outcomes in the mental health sector.

High Level Guidance

Value-based payment (VBP) contracting for psychotherapy services involves reimbursement models that emphasize the quality and outcomes of care rather than just the volume of services provided. Value-based contracting is high risk and very complex business venture if you do not have expert knowledge, the right business structure, financial resources, and experience with contracting, administering contracts, internal auditing, navigating Federal and State Laws, and risk management.

Provider practices can expect that the costs of providing “value” and achieving Healthplan “targets” are by design more expensive than the reimbursement incentive for the additional work requirements. Healthplans will offer providers an incentive designed for a probable to almost certain risk of financial loss. “Buyer beware.” Provider practices must negotiate for a reasonable profit. Unless you have expert knowledge, and leverage to be paid more, you will find it impossible to lower the risk of failure and increase the incentive for success; unless you are prepared to say “Sorry. We will not be signing a new contract.” This is what Physician and hospital systems in Oregon have done over the in the past 5 years. This is most common with contracts for Medicare advantage.

If mental and behavioral health providers sign a contract that does not have the necessary control mechanisms to ensure success, providers will struggle financially when Healthplans change the requirements and outcome targets. Based on Federal and State guidance the cost of implementing value-based payments effectively requires investment by the Healthplan during the first 3 to 10 years. Those investment can range up to as much as 10% to 25% of gross revenue for 300 providers treating 5 to 10 patients per week. Implementation costs could be less if providers already have the necessary technology, on-line training tools, knowledge of psychotherapy data analytics, self-auditing capabilities, and ethical practices to support their practices.

Based on experience, VBP contracts are not technically or financially feasible if the group size is less than 300 providers. Before accepting a value-based contract, provider groups need at least 3 years of experience providing measurement-based care (MBC). The data must be gather, aggregated and analyzed routinely. Those results can be used to set baselines and benchmarks (i.e,, targets).

The feasibility of value-based care will depend on your organization’s ability to make gather, aggregate, analyze, performance data, and make data informed decisions that you trust and will ensure targets proposed by Healthplans targets are achievable. There must also be ongoing monitoring and continuous improvement program. The challenge facing Healthplan is group size. A provider practice group smaller than 300 cannot do all that is required and cannot negotiate effectively. To manage a VBP contract startup provider practices will need 1 to 2 full time staff including the necessary online technology for communication, training and administration. Rather that pay for that, Healthplans may offer to do all that for provider practices.

Finally, provider group practices can compel employees (i.e., who use tax form w-2) to adhere to VBP target. Their only option is quit and go into private practice. But owners cannot compel contracted providers (i.e., tax form 1099). Contracted providers may have other sources of income allowing them to quit easily. Also, you can expect that Venture capital companies will offer to buy your business if (1) you have w-2 providers, (2) you have Healthplan contracts, and (3) you survive for 3 years.

For related information see:

General Requirements and Challenges

Understanding Value-Based Payment Models: Provider practices should familiarize themselves with different value-based payment models, such as pay-for-performance (P4P), bundled payments, capitation, and shared savings/shared risk arrangements. Each model has its own implications for reimbursement and care delivery.
Outcome Measurement and Reporting: Value-based payment contracts often require providers to measure and report patient outcomes. This may involve using standardized assessment tools to evaluate the effectiveness of psychotherapy interventions and demonstrate improvements in patient well-being.
Quality Improvement Initiatives: Providers may need to implement quality improvement initiatives to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of their psychotherapy services. This could include adopting evidence-based practices, implementing care coordination strategies, and engaging in continuous performance monitoring and feedback.
Data Collection and Analysis: Provider practices should have systems in place to collect, analyze, and report data on patient outcomes, utilization patterns, and costs. This data is essential to demonstrate the value of psychotherapy services and negotiate favorable reimbursement terms with payers.
Care Coordination and Integration: Value-based payment models often incentivize care coordination and integration across different healthcare settings. Provider practices may need to collaborate with primary care providers, psychiatrists, social workers, and other professionals to ensure comprehensive and coordinated care for patients receiving psychotherapy services.
Risk Management and Contract Negotiation: Providers should carefully assess the risks and benefits associated with different value-based payment contracts and negotiate terms that align with their practice capabilities and goals. This may involve seeking legal and financial expertise to navigate complex contractual arrangements.
Patient Engagement and Education: Provider practices should involve patients in their care planning process and educate them about the benefits of value-based payment models. Engaged and informed patients are more likely to actively participate in their treatment and contribute to improved outcomes.
Continuous Learning and Adaptation: Value-based payment contracting for psychotherapy services is evolving. Provider practices should be prepared to adapt to changes in payment models, quality measures, and regulatory requirements. Continuous learning and adaptation are essential for success in this dynamic healthcare environment. Provider practices may be required to create their own training if professional association cannot find qualified trainers or cannot afford an ongoing program.
Medical Service Centric: What we know about value-based payment contracts has been extrapolated from Medical services. Most of the studies that looked at provider characteristics focused on physician or physician-group pay-for-performance (P4P) programs. VBP for psychotherapy and mental health services is experimental in nature.

Based on review of the published literature, there have been mixed findings on the effectiveness of VBP programs to meet their intended goals to improve quality and control costs. This may be because VBP programs are a work in progress and participants continue to evolve these programs in response to what implementations do and do-not work. With understanding of these key points, provider practices can navigate the transition to value-based payment contracting for psychotherapy services and position themselves for success in delivering high-quality, cost-effective care.

References

Is value-based payment contracting feasible for psychotherapy practice?

The feasibility of value-based payment (VBP) contracting for psychotherapy practice hinges on several factors, including the structure of the healthcare system, the willingness of payers to adopt such models, and the ability of psychotherapy providers to meet the requirements of those contracts. Based on the information examined, there are opportunities and challenges with implementing VBP for psychotherapy services. Implementing a value-based payment (VBP) contract for psychotherapy practice is feasible but comes with its challenges and considerations.

Opportunities for VBP in Psychotherapy

Improvement in Treatment Adherence and Support: Value-based contracts often include medication adherence requirements and patient support programs. For psychotherapy, similar models could ensure that patients are receiving consistent, quality care, potentially leading to better outcomes and reduced medical costs over time. This requires addition resources.
Patient-Centric Model: VBP contracts are designed with patients’ needs at the forefront. For psychotherapy, this means treatment plans are tailored to the individual, taking into account their specific conditions, cultural factors, problems and improvement or recovery goals. This approach can improve patients’ satisfaction and engagement with their treatment.
Accountability and Quality Improvement: VBP models require providers to demonstrate appropriate, necessary, and effective services. This includes accountable treatment processes such as screening, progress measures, and coordination of care. Such requirements push psychotherapy practices toward continuous quality improvement and accountability for patient outcomes.
Incentivization of Effective Providers: By debunking some myths of psychotherapy (e.g., all providers are equally effective, academic degrees predict outcomes), VBP contracts may incentivize providers who are truly effective. This could lead to a more competitive and quality-driven marketplace for psychotherapy services. Providers adopt practices from colleagues who are effective and efficient and held in high regard.
Enhanced Access and Outcomes: Employers and Healthplans are increasingly interested in the value proposition of psychotherapy services, focusing on access to care and patient outcomes. VBP contracts can make psychotherapy practices more attractive to these payers by demonstrating their effectiveness in improving patients’ health and functioning, reducing symptom burden, and increasing satisfaction.
Value-Based Practice: More than 40 years of research supports the effectiveness of psychotherapy, providing a strong foundation for implementation of VBP models that reward outcomes and quality of care. Provider training and education by accomplished colleagues will be necessary to enlist provider participation.
Value Propositions: Psychotherapy can address a wide range of mental health issues effectively and efficiently, potentially offering cost savings for healthcare systems and improving patient outcomes. Patient-reported outcome measures in mental health can support VBP by providing clear metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of psychotherapy. Values and targets can be set based on established by data gather or pre-existing baselines that are reliable, valid and useful.
Behavioral Health's Value-Based Care Journey: The increasing pursuit of VBP models in behavioral health, accelerated by the pandemic's impact on telemedicine, suggests growing recognition of the need for innovative payment models in this field. The effectiveness of telehealth over in-person treat is not clear. It is undoubted an improvement where patients live in remote or rural location.

Feasibility Factors:

Measurable Outcomes: VBP requires clear, measurable outcomes to determine value. In psychotherapy, outcomes might include symptom reduction, improved functioning, and/or improved quality of life. While these outcomes can be measured, they are often subjective and measures that vary from client to client.
Data Collection and Reporting: Psychotherapists would need systems in place to collect and report outcome data accurately. This could involve standardized assessment tools, progress monitoring, and regular reporting to payers or stakeholders.
Provider Competency and Training: Therapists must become competent in evidence-based practices and skilled in delivering interventions that produce measurable outcomes. Continued education and training may be necessary to enhance therapists' ability to achieve desired outcomes.
Client Engagement and Adherence: Successful outcomes in psychotherapy often depend on client engagement and adherence to treatment plans. Therapists would need strategies to encourage client participation and adherence to interventions.
Collaboration with Payers: Collaborating with payers or insurers to negotiate VBP contracts requires clear communication, transparency, and mutual agreement regarding outcome metrics and payment structures.

Challenges and Considerations:

Rare Independent Psychotherapist VBCs: Independent psychotherapy practices are less common in VBC arrangements due to the typical structure of these contracts, which often require providers to be part of large medical organizations or networks.
Lack of Outcome Measures and Quality Standards: Behavioral health, including psychotherapy, faces the challenge of not having clear, universally accepted outcome measures or quality standards, making it difficult to implement VBP models that rely on such metrics.
Separation from Physical Health: The historical separation of behavioral health from physical health care systems complicates integration of psychotherapy services into broader VBP models, which typically focus on physical health outcomes.
Undervaluation by Payers: Behavioral health services, including psychotherapy, are historically undervalued by payers, with issues such as unequal pay structures and limited in-network availability of behavioral health providers. This happens despite evidence that psychotherapy has material and financial value.
Complexity of Mental Health Conditions: Mental health conditions are complex and multifaceted, making it challenging to attribute outcomes solely to psychotherapy interventions. Factors such as comorbidity, environmental influences, and client motivation will impact treatment outcomes.
Ethical Considerations: There are ethical concerns associated with tying payment to outcomes in psychotherapy. Therapists may feel pressure to prioritize short-term symptom reduction over long-term therapeutic goals, potentially compromising the quality of care.
Risk of Adverse Selection: VBP models may attract therapists who specialize in treating less complex cases or cases with higher likelihoods of positive outcomes, potentially avoiding clients with more severe or chronic conditions.
Resource Limitations: Implementing VBP requires resources for outcome measurement, data collection, aggregation, analysis and reporting, which can pose challenges for smaller practices or those with limited administrative support.
Impact on Therapeutic Relationship: Introducing financial incentives based on outcomes could affect the therapeutic relationship and trust between therapist and client. Clients may perceive therapists as more focused on financial gain than on client well-being.

While there are significant opportunities for implementing VBP in psychotherapy, particularly given the evidence supporting the effectiveness of psychotherapy and the potential for improved patient outcomes and cost savings, there are also notable challenges. These include the rarity of VBCs for independent psychotherapy practices, lack of standardized outcome measures and quality standards in behavioral health, the historical separation of behavioral health from physical health care, and the undervaluation of behavioral health services by payers.

To move forward, stakeholders in the healthcare system, including payers, providers, and policymakers, will need to address these challenges. This could involve developing clear and measurable outcome metrics for psychotherapy, fostering greater integration of behavioral and physical health care, and ensuring that payment models adequately value and support provision of psychotherapy services.

While it's feasible to implement VBP contracts for psychotherapy practice, there are challenges and requirements to address. Success depends on clear outcome measurement, provider competence, client engagement, ethical considerations, and collaboration among payers and provider practices. Therapists must carefully weigh the benefits, risks and drawbacks before adopting VBP models in their practice.

References

What can Go Wrong when participating in a value-based payment contract for psychotherapy services?

Participating in a value-based payment contract for psychotherapy services can have various potential pitfalls and challenges. Here are some issues that may arise;

Loss of Control Over Patient Care: When patients receive services from multiple providers, a psychotherapy practice may lose control over aspects of the patient's care which have impact on quality measures, clinical outcomes, and overall costs. This may put the provider at a disadvantage in managing the risks inherent in VBP contracts.
Fragmentation of Services: Providers focusing on one or two components of the continuum of care may lack insight about and influence over services they do not provide directly. Such fragmentation can lead to difficulties in coordinating care and achieving desired outcomes.
Challenges with Performance Metrics: VBP contracts often include performance metrics providers must meet. However, lack of universally accepted outcome measures or quality standards in behavioral health, can make it difficult to implement and meet those metrics.
Financial Risks: VBP contracts typically involve financial risks for providers, since payments are tied to performance. If expected outcomes are not met, this can lead to financial losses for the practice.
Potential for Increased Disparities: There is concern that VBP programs, if not carefully designed, may exacerbate healthcare disparities. This would occur when programs do not adequately account for social determinants of health or when programs penalize providers serving disadvantaged populations.
Data Collection and Reporting Challenges: Accurate data collection and reporting are essential to demonstrate performance for VBP contracts. Psychotherapy practices may face challenges in collecting and analyzing the necessary data, particularly if they lack the technological infrastructure.
Provider Burnout and Patient Access: The pressure to meet VBP requirements can contribute to provider burnout. Further, if providers respond to VBP pressures by reducing their caseloads or avoiding complex cases, patient access to care will be negatively affected.
Perverse Incentives: There is risk of creating perverse incentives if providers prioritize financial considerations over patient care. For example, providers might limit the number of sessions or choose not to treat high-risk patients to avoid potential financial penalties.
Complexity and Lack of Experience: The complexity of VBP models and lack of experience can be significant barriers to successful implementation. Providers may struggle to navigate the intricacies of these contracts and to make the necessary changes to their practices.
Risk of Inadequate Reimbursement: Value-based payment models often tie reimbursement to outcomes or performance metrics. If the agreed-upon outcomes are not achieved, or if the metrics are not properly aligned with the nature of psychotherapy services, reimbursements may not cover the costs of providing quality care.
Quality Measurement Challenges: Assessing quality and outcomes for psychotherapy services is complex. Metrics used to measure success may not fully capture the nuances of mental health treatment, leading to inaccurate assessment of providers performance.
Provider Practices Burden: Value-based payment models may require extensive documentation and reporting to demonstrate outcomes and justify reimbursement. This administrative burden can distract from the focus providers must dedicate to patient care.
Risk of Patient Selection Bias: Providers may be incentivized to select patients who are more likely to achieve positive outcomes, excluding individuals with complex or severe mental health needs. This would exacerbate health disparities and limit access to care for vulnerable populations.
Ethical Concerns: Value-based payment models may create conflicts of interest for providers, as financial incentives may influence treatment decisions. This could compromise the integrity of the therapeutic relationship and lead to decisions that prioritize financial interests over patient well-being.
Data Privacy and Security Risks: Value-based payment models often require collection and sharing of patient data to assess outcomes. This raises concerns about privacy and security, particularly given the sensitive nature of mental health information.
Lack of Standardization: Value-based payment models in psychotherapy may lack standardization across payers, leading to inconsistencies and confusion for providers. This fragmentation can make it challenging for providers to navigate multiple payment models and requirements.
Financial Uncertainty: Value-based payment models may introduce financial uncertainty for providers, particularly where outcomes are unpredictable or when reimbursement rates vary based on performance.
Provider Autonomy Concerns: Providers may feel pressured to adhere to specific treatment protocols or interventions outlined by payers to meet performance metrics, potentially limiting their ability to tailor treatment to individual patient’s needs.
Limited Evidence Base: Some value-based payment models for psychotherapy services lack a robust evidence base, raising questions about their effectiveness and appropriateness for implementation.

Navigating these potential challenges requires careful consideration of the terms of the value-based payment contract, ongoing monitoring of outcomes and performance metrics, and a commitment to maintaining the highest standards of patient care and ethical practice. While VBP contracts have the potential to improve the quality of care and reduce costs, they also come with significant challenges that impact providers and patients. Psychotherapy practices must carefully consider these risks and develop strategies to mitigate them when entering into VBP arrangements.

References

How do providers Negotiate a value-based payment contract for psychotherapy services?

Negotiating a value-based payment (VBP) contract for psychotherapy services requires careful preparation, clear communication, and thorough understanding of your practice's capabilities and the payers needs. Here are steps you can take to negotiate a VBP contract effectively:

Assess Your Provider Practice’s Capabilities: Before entering negotiations, evaluate your practice's ability to deliver high-quality psychotherapy services that produce measurable outcomes. Consider factors such as your expertise, available resources for data collection and reporting, and the suitability of your practice for VBP arrangements.
Understand the Value Proposition: Providers should be clear about the effectiveness of psychotherapy and how it can lead to better patient outcomes and potentially lower costs for the healthcare system. You need to understand the research and evidence.
Assess Infrastructure and Workflows: Ensure that the necessary infrastructure and workflows such as care coordination, data analytics, and addressing social determinants of health are in place to support value-based care. Or that you intend to work in specific sub populations.
Identify Measurable Outcomes: Work with stakeholders, including payers and other provider groups that you will be sharing risk, to identify shared values, objectives (e.g., measurable outcomes) and controls that reflect the value of your services. Those outcomes may include symptom reduction, improved functioning, or increased quality of life. Ensure that the outcomes are meaningful, feasible to measure, and relevant to the population served.
Gather Data: Collect baseline data on your practice's performance history and outcomes. This may include patient outcomes, alliance and/or satisfaction scores, and other relevant metrics. Having data to demonstrate your practice's baseline effectiveness will strengthen your negotiating position and provide evidence of the value you can deliver. You need a data analyst to establish baselines.
Understand Payer Needs and Priorities: Research the payer's priorities, goals, and challenges. Understand their expectations for value-based arrangements and how they measure success. Tailor your negotiation strategy to align with the payer's objectives and demonstrate ways your practice can help them achieve their goals.
Evaluate Legal Terms and Financial Risks: Understand the legal terms associated with VBP arrangements, including pay-for-performance (P4P) and MBC programs, total cost of care programs, and capitation payment arrangements. Assess the financial risks involved in the contract.
Determine Performance Measures, Baselines and Benchmarks: Identify services that will be covered and which performance measures and benchmarks will be used to evaluate the quality of care. This should be clearly defined by the VBP contract.
Data and Reporting Responsibilities: Clarify data and reporting responsibilities, ensuring that your practice can meet these requirements. This includes patient attribution and provider participation requirements.
Propose a Value-Based Payment Structure: Based on your assessment of outcomes and capabilities, propose a VBP structure that aligns both with your practice's interests and the payer's objectives. This may involve negotiating payment based on alternative payment options such as predetermined outcome targets, risk-sharing arrangements, risk-adjustment or performance bonuses tied to achieving specific outcomes.
Emphasize Collaboration and Transparency: Highlight your willingness to collaborate with the payer and to transparently share information throughout the negotiation process. Demonstrate the commitment of your practice to achievement of mutually beneficial outcomes and willingness to address concerns or challenges that arise.
Foster Collaboration and Partnership: A successful VBP contract should foster collaboration, coordination, and partnership. It is important to work closely with payers to align goals and ensure that the contract benefits all parties, particularly patients.
Consider Market Position and Quality Improvement: Understand your practice's position in the market and how the VBP contract may improve its attractiveness to other payers. Quality improvement is essential for the success of VBP contracts.
Prepare for Negotiation: Gather data to support the negotiation, including historic claims and patient data that demonstrates your practice’s history of delivering high-quality, cost-effective care. Find partners or consultants with experience in VBP contracts.
Engage in the Negotiation Process: Engage in discussions with payer representatives to reach mutually beneficial terms. Emphasize the value and good outcomes your practice can demonstrate. Be prepared to provide evidence and rationale for your requests.
Negotiate Terms and Agreements: Negotiate the terms of the VBP contract, including payment rates, performance metrics, data-sharing arrangements, and any other relevant terms. Be prepared to engage in constructive dialogue and compromise to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.
Negotiate Payment Terms: Discuss and agree upon payment terms, including how payments will be made and how risks will be adjusted. This is crucial to manage financial risk and ensure sustainability
Document the Agreement: Once negotiations are complete, document the terms for the VBP contract. Ensure that the final contract clearly outlines payment structure, performance expectations, reporting requirements, controls, use of key leading indicators, and all other agreed-upon terms.
Review and Execute the Contract: Carefully review the contract terms and conditions. Seek legal assistance when necessary, to ensure compliance and alignment with your objectives. Once both parties have reviewed and accepted the contract, it is signed.
Monitor and Evaluate Performance: Continuously monitor your practice's performance against transparent controls such as agreed-upon outcomes and metrics. Track progress, identify areas for improvement. Communicate proactively with the payer to ensure continued alignment and success.
Maintain Open Communication: Foster a relationship of trust and collaboration with the payer by maintaining open communication. Address issues or concerns promptly. Regularly communicate progress, share insights, and seek feedback to optimize value of the VBP arrangement for both parties.
Monitor and Adjust: After the contract is in place, continuously collect and interpret payer reports, as contract reconciliation occurs and rates adjust over time. This will require ongoing data analysis; potentially will require renegotiation.

By following these steps and focusing on the key areas of concern, providers can negotiate a VBP contract that aligns with the goals and capabilities of their practice, while meeting the payer's requirements for quality and cost-effectiveness.

References

What is “good faith” and “fair dealing” when contracting for psychotherapy services?

"Good faith and fair dealing" is a legal principle implied in all contracts. It essentially means that parties to a contract are expected to deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in a manner consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties at the time the contract was formed. Here's what this principle entails:

Honesty: Both parties are expected to act honestly and truthfully in their dealings with each other by providing accurate information, disclosing relevant facts, and refraining from deceitful or misleading behavior.
Fairness: The principle of fair dealing requires that each party takes no advantage of their position for undue gain. This may involve considering the interests and needs of the other party while making decisions and negotiating terms.
Reasonableness: Actions taken by each party should be in line with the expectations of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. This includes exercising discretion and judgment in ways that are fair and equitable.
Protection of Expectations: Good faith and fair dealing protect the reasonable expectations of all parties at the time the contract was formed. This means that neither party should not do anything that frustrates or undermines the purpose of the contract or that prevents the other party from receiving benefits they reasonably expect.
Implicit Obligation: While not always explicitly stated in many contracts, the duty of good faith and fair dealing is implied by default in every contract. It serves as a foundation for the parties' relationship and governs their conduct for the duration of the contract.
Remedies for Breach: If one party breaches the duty of good faith and fair dealing, the other party may have legal remedies, such as seeking damages for losses suffered as a result of the breach or seeking specific performance to enforce the terms of the contract.

In contracting for psychotherapy services, the principle of good faith and fair dealing is a duty inherent in every contract; unless you willingly agree to give up you right for remedy. This duty requires that neither party does anything that will injure or destroy the right of the other party to receive the benefits of the contract . It is a legal obligation which binds contracting parties to perform their contractual duties honestly and fairly so as not to deprive the other party of the benefits of the contract.

The duty of good faith and fair dealing is particularly relevant when a contract grants one party discretionary power affecting the rights of the other party. In such cases, the party with discretion is expected refrain from acting arbitrarily or irrationally. This means that even if the contract does not explicitly define certain obligations, the parties are expected to act in a way that fulfills the spirit of the agreement and the reasonable expectations of the parties.

For psychotherapists, this duty means that they should not only adhere to the explicit terms of their contracts with patients or payers but also should ensure that their actions do not undermine the purpose/s of the contract or the interests of the other party. For example, if a psychotherapist enters into a VBP contract, they should not only provide the services agreed upon but also should strive to meet the quality and outcome metrics that are part of the value-based arrangement, even when those are not explicitly detailed in the contract.

Overall, the principle of good faith and fair dealing promotes trust, fairness, and mutual respect in contractual relationships. It helps ensure that parties uphold their obligations and act in ways that are consistent with the underlying purpose and spirit of the contract.

References

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/business-torts-unfair-competition/what-you-should-know-about-implied-duty-good-faith-fair-dealing/

What is a Contract of Adhesion?

A contract of adhesion, also known as a "standard form contract" or a "take-it-or-leave-it contract," is a legally binding agreement where one party (typically the party with more bargaining power) presents the other party (usually a consumer, an employee, or contracted employee) with a pre-drafted set of terms and conditions. The adhering party has little to no opportunity to negotiate the terms or ask questions. They must either accept or reject the contract as presented.

Key characteristics of contracts of adhesion include:

Standardized Terms: The terms and conditions of the contract are typically drafted by one party and not subject to negotiation. They are standardized and often presented in a "boilerplate" format.
Inequality of Bargaining Power: There is often significant disparity in bargaining power between the parties. One party, usually the drafter of the contract (such as a corporation or employer), has great leverage and control over the terms of the agreement.
Take-it-or-Leave-it Nature: The adhering party is presented with the contract on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis, meaning they must either accept the terms as they are or reject the contract altogether. There is typically no opportunity for negotiation or modification of the terms.
Lack of Individualized Consideration: Contracts of adhesion are often offered to a large number of individuals or consumers without consideration of their specific needs or circumstances. The terms are applied uniformly to all parties who accept the contract.

Examples of contracts of adhesion include:

Terms of service agreements for online platforms and software.
Insurance policies.
Employment contracts, particularly when the terms are dictated by the employer without negotiation.
Rental agreements and leases.
Financial agreements, such as credit card agreements and loan contracts.

While contracts of adhesion are generally enforceable under the law, courts may sometimes scrutinize these contracts more closely, particularly when there are provisions that may be deemed unfair, bad faith, or unconscionable with material consequences (i.e. financial harm, reputational harm, etc.) Additionally, consumer protection laws in many jurisdictions impose limits on the enforceability of certain terms in standard form contracts to protect consumer rights. Provider-practices that sign contract of adhesion are responsible for the harm to patients; not Healthplans.

References

In what ways can an Internal Auditor Support Joint Ventures to ensure success of all parties?

Internal auditors play a crucial role in supporting joint ventures to ensure the success of all parties involved.

Internal auditors are qualified to support alternative payment methods (APM) such as measurement-based care (MBC). Here are several ways that internal auditors contribute to successful contracts:

Conflict of Interest Management: Internal auditors can review and recommend improvements to policies and procedures for identifying, managing, and disclosing conflicts of interest within the venture, ensuring decisions are made in the best interests of all parties, not just individual parties.
Risk Assessment and Management: Internal auditors can conduct comprehensive risk assessments to identify potential risks associated with a joint venture. They assess risks related to financial reporting, compliance, operational processes, strategic objectives, and external factors. By defining and evaluating the risks, auditors help develop risk management strategies to mitigate them effectively.
Due Diligence: Before finalizing a contract, internal auditors can conduct due diligence to evaluate the prospective partner’s existing compliance programs. This helps all parties understand potential compliance risks and ensures that the agreement starts with strong compliance.
Governance and Control Framework: Internal auditors can review the governance structure and control framework of a joint venture to ensure that appropriate controls are in place to safeguard assets, ensure compliance with laws and regulations, and mitigate risks. They can assess the effectiveness of internal controls and provide recommendation for improvement as necessary.
Financial Performance Evaluation: Internal auditors can evaluate the financial performance of the joint venture by conducting financial audits, reviewing financial statements, and analyzing key financial metrics. They can assess the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of financial information, as well as compliance with accounting standards and regulatory requirements.
Operational Efficiency and Effectiveness: Internal auditors can assess the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the joint venture by reviewing operational processes, identifying inefficiencies or bottlenecks, and recommending improvements to streamline operations and enhance productivity.
Compliance Monitoring: Internal auditors can monitor compliance with contractual agreements, legal requirements, and regulatory obligations related to the joint venture. They can review contracts, agreements, and policies to ensure compliance with terms and conditions, as well as applicable laws and regulations.
Communication and Collaboration: Internal auditors can facilitate communication and collaboration among parties involved in a joint venture by serving as a neutral party. They can facilitate meetings, discussions, and negotiations to address issues, resolve conflicts, and promote alignment of interests among stakeholders.
Risk Mitigation Strategies: Internal auditors recommend risk mitigation strategies and controls to address identified risks. This can include advising on best practices for managing risks associated with psychotherapy services and Healthplans’ objectives.
Continuous Monitoring and Reporting: Internal auditors can provide ongoing monitoring and reporting regarding performances in the joint venture by conducting periodic audits, assessments, and reviews. They can report findings, recommendations, and insights to management and stakeholders that support informed decision-making and continuous improvement.
By fulfilling these roles and responsibilities, internal auditors can contribute to the success of joint ventures. They promote transparency, accountability, and effective governance, and help all parties identify and address risks and challenges in a timely manner.

References

How do internal auditors use Governance and Control Frameworks to support joint ventures for psychotherapy services?

Internal auditors utilize governance and control frameworks to support joint ventures by ensuring that appropriate governance structures and control mechanisms are in place to manage risks, achieve objectives, and enhance performance. Here are ways internal auditors can use governance and control frameworks to support joint ventures:

Assessment of Governance Structure: Internal auditors assess the governance structure of the joint venture to ensure that roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes are clearly defined and aligned with all objectives of the venture. They review governance documents, such as charters, agreements, and bylaws, to ensure compliance and effectiveness.
Audit Committee Reporting: Internal auditors report their findings and recommendations to an audit committee or equivalent governance body, ensuring that there is a clear line of sight for compliance and risk management
Evaluation of Oversight Mechanisms: Internal auditors evaluate oversight mechanisms, such as boards of directors, committees, and management structures, to ensure that they provide adequate supervision and guidance to the joint venture. They assess the composition, independence, and effectiveness of oversight bodies in fulfilling their responsibilities.
Review of Policies and Procedures: Internal auditors review policies, procedures, and internal controls to ensure that they are consistent with best practices and tailored to the specific needs of the joint venture. They assess the design and implementation of controls to mitigate risks and ensure compliance with laws, regulations, and contractual agreements.
Using Third-Party Reports: Auditors may use SAS 70 reports (or similar evaluations) to gain assurance about internal controls of the joint venture, especially when there are multiple partners involved.
Risk Management and Oversight: Internal auditors assess and monitor risks associated with the joint venture, including compliance, operational, financial, and reputational risks
Consulting and Advisory: Internal auditors may also provide consulting services to help the joint ventures improve operations and manage risks more effectively
Ensuring Ethical Conduct: Internal auditors oversee the implementation and maintenance of codes of conduct and policies to manage and mitigate conflicts of interest and promote ethical behavior within the joint venture.
Supporting Proportionality and Transparency: Internal auditors apply principles of proportionality and transparency when defining a joint venture's internal governance framework, tailoring it to the size, internal organization, and complexity of the joint venture's activities.
Due Diligence: During the formation of a joint venture, internal auditors are involved in the due diligence process, evaluating prospective partners’ existing compliance programs and identifying any gaps
Right-to-Audit Clauses: Internal auditors may include right-to-audit clauses in contracts, allowing them to exercise oversight and conduct periodic reviews on controls within the joint venture
Assessment of Risk Management Processes: Internal auditors assess risk management processes to identify, evaluate, and mitigate risks associated with the joint venture. They review risk assessments, risk registers, and mitigation plans to ensure that risks are adequately addressed and that risk management practices are integrated into decision-making processes.
Monitoring of Performance Metrics: Internal auditors monitor performance metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs) to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the joint venture. They review performance reports, dashboards, and other management information systems to track progress towards objectives and identify areas for improvement.
Compliance Assurance: Internal auditors provide assurance of compliance with laws, regulations, contractual agreements, as well as internal policies and procedures. They conduct compliance audits, reviews, and assessments to ensure that the joint venture operates in accordance with applicable requirements and standards.
Continuous Improvement Initiatives: Internal auditors facilitate continuous improvement initiatives by identifying opportunities to enhance governance structures, control mechanisms, and operational processes within the joint venture. They provide recommendations for remediation of deficiencies and implementation of best practices to optimize performance and mitigate risks.
Stakeholder Communication: Internal auditors establish communication with key stakeholders within the joint venture to facilitate the effective sharing of information and to address any significant matters that may affect the work of the auditors.

By fulfilling these roles, internal auditors can help ensure that joint ventures involving psychotherapy services operate within a framework of good governance and responsible control, which is essential for their success and sustainability. By leveraging governance and control frameworks, internal auditors can support joint ventures in achieving their objectives, managing risks, and enhancing performance through effective governance, oversight, and control.

References

What are Continuous Improvement Initiatives that can be used by internal auditors of value based payment contracting for psychotherapy services?

Continuous improvement initiatives for value-based payment contracting for psychotherapy services focus on optimizing processes, enhancing outcomes, and maximizing the value delivered to both providers and payers. Here are specific initiatives that internal auditors can implement:

Outcome Measurement Enhancement: Internal auditors can work with psychotherapy providers to enhance outcome measurement processes. This may involve refining outcome measures, implementing standardized assessment tools, and ensuring accurate, reliable data collection methods to demonstrate the effectiveness of psychotherapy services.
Performance Benchmarking: Internal auditors can facilitate performance benchmarking initiatives to compare the performance of psychotherapy providers against industry benchmarks and best practices. This can help identify areas for improvement and opportunities to enhance the value delivered to patients.
Quality Improvement Programs: Internal auditors can support the development and implementation of quality improvement programs aimed at enhancing the quality and effectiveness of psychotherapy services. This may involve conducting routine quality audits, identifying areas for improvement, and implementing corrective actions to drive continuous improvement.
Provider Training and Development: Internal auditors can facilitate training and development initiatives for psychotherapy providers to enhance their clinical skills, knowledge, and competencies. This may include training on evidence-based practices, cultural competency, and communication skills to improve patient outcomes and satisfaction.
Data Analytics and Reporting: Internal auditors can leverage data analytics tools and techniques to analyze healthcare data and identify trends, patterns, and insights related to psychotherapy services. This information can be used to inform decision-making, identify opportunities for improvement, and optimize resource allocation.
Collaborative Care Models: Internal auditors can promote adoption of collaborative care models which involve multidisciplinary teams working together to deliver integrated, coordinated care to patients. Such an approach can improve patient outcomes, enhance care coordination, and optimize resource utilization.
Patient Engagement Strategies: Internal auditors can support the development and implementation of patient engagement strategies aimed at empowering patients to participate actively in their care. This may involve providing education, resources, and support to help patients make informed decisions and actively engage in their own treatment.
Stakeholder Communication and Collaboration: Internal auditors can facilitate communication and collaboration among psychotherapy providers, payers, and other stakeholders involved in value-based payment contracting. This helps align interests, share best practices, and addresses challenges to drive positive outcomes for all parties.

By implementing continuous improvement initiatives, internal auditors can help optimize the delivery of psychotherapy services under value-based payment contracts, improve patient outcomes, and enhance the overall value proposition for providers and payers.

How would internal auditors create Performance Benchmarks for value-based payment contracts for psychotherapy?

Creating performance benchmarks for value-based payment contracts in psychotherapy services involves establishing measurable criteria which reflect the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of care delivered. Here's how internal auditors can create performance benchmarks:

Understanding the Services and Goals

Assess Service Scope: Auditors need to understand the range of psychotherapy services covered under the VBP contract, including individual therapy, group therapy, and any specialized therapeutic interventions.
Identify Contract Goals: Determine the specific goals of the VBP contract, such as improving patient outcomes, enhancing patient satisfaction, or reducing overall costs of care.

Data Collection and Analysis

Gather Historical Data: Collect and analyze historical data on psychotherapy services, including utilization rates, patient outcomes, and cost data.
Benchmark Against Industry Standards: Compare current performance with industry standards or benchmarks from similar organizations or populations.
Risk Stratification: Consider the patient population's risk profile to ensure benchmarks are adjusted for the complexity of cases being treated.

Establishing Performance Measures

Select Quality Measures: Choose relevant quality measures that align with the goals of psychotherapy, such as symptom reduction, functional improvement, or patient-reported outcomes.
Determine Cost Measures: Establish cost measures, like the total cost of care or cost per episode, to evaluate financial performance under the VBP contract.
Set Efficiency Metrics: Define efficiency metrics, such as the number of sessions required to achieve a certain outcome.
Establish Data Collection and Reporting Processes: Internal auditors develop data collection and reporting processes to systematically capture performance data on an ongoing basis. This may involve implementing standardized assessment tools, configuring EHR systems to capture relevant data elements, and establishing reporting protocols to ensure timely, accurate reporting of performance metrics.

Collaboration and Validation

Engage Stakeholders: Work with clinicians, payers, and patients to ensure the benchmarks are clinically relevant, achievable, and reflect patient care priorities.
Validate Measures: Validate the chosen performance measures to ensure they accurately reflect the quality and efficiency of psychotherapy services.

Continuous Improvement

Monitor Performance: Regularly monitor performance against established benchmarks to identify areas for improvement.
Adjust Benchmarks Over Time: Update benchmarks as needed based on new data, changes in clinical practices, or shifts in patient needs.
Report Findings: Communicate benchmarking results to relevant stakeholders, including providers and payers, to inform decision-making and contract adjustments.
Monitor Performance Against Benchmarks: Internal auditors continuously monitor performance against established benchmarks to assess progress and identify areas for improvement. They track performance data routinely, analyze trends, and compare actual performance against target performance levels to identify deviations and areas of concern.
Provide Feedback and Recommendations: Internal auditors provide feedback and recommendations to psychotherapy providers based on performance data analysis. They identify root causes of performance gaps, recommend corrective actions and performance improvement initiatives, and provide support and resources to help providers achieve target performance levels.
Adjust Benchmarks as Needed: Internal auditors periodically review and adjust performance benchmarks to ensure they remain relevant, meaningful, and achievable. They consider changes in industry standards, best practices, regulatory requirements, and the evolving needs of stakeholders when they update benchmarks to reflect current expectations and priorities.
Promote Transparency and Accountability: Internal auditors promote transparency and accountability by communicating performance results to stakeholders in a clear, concise, accessible manner. They facilitate discussions, share insights, and promote collaboration among stakeholders to drive performance improvement and achieve shared goals.

Legal and Regulatory Compliance

Ensure Compliance: Verify that benchmarks comply with all relevant legal and regulatory requirements, including those specific to mental health services.
Protect Patient Privacy: Ensure that the process of data collection and benchmarking adheres to patient privacy laws, such as HIPAA.

Internal auditors must be thorough and methodical in creating performance benchmarks for VBP contracts in psychotherapy. They must balance the need for rigorous evaluation with the recognition of the individualized nature of psychotherapy services. The benchmarks should be designed to incentivize high-quality, patient-centered care while also considering the financial sustainability of the services provided.

By creating performance benchmarks for value-based payment contracts involving psychotherapy services, internal auditors help stakeholders measure and evaluate the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of care delivered, ultimately improving patient outcomes and enhancing the value propositions for all parties involved.

References

How are measurable outcome Benchmarks for psychotherapy services calculated?

Calculating measurable outcome benchmarks for value-based payment contracts for psychotherapy services involves several processes:

Define Outcome Metrics: Identify the specific outcomes that are relevant and meaningful to assess effectiveness of psychotherapy services. These may include measures of symptom reduction, improvement in functioning, quality of life, patient satisfaction, or adherence to treatment.
Select Measurement Tools: Choose appropriate measurement tools or assessment instruments to quantify the identified outcome metrics. Such tools may include standardized questionnaires, rating scales, clinical assessments, and/or objective measures.
Establish Baseline Performance: Collect baseline data to establish current levels of performance for each outcome metric. This may involve reviewing historical data, conducting surveys, administering assessments, or analyzing existing data sources such as electronic health records (EHRs) or claims data.
Set Target Benchmarks: Work with stakeholders to set target benchmarks for each outcome metric based on industry standards, best practices, clinical guidelines, and agreed-upon performance targets. Benchmarks should be realistic, achievable, and aligned with the objectives of the value-based payment contract.
Consider Risk Adjustment: Consider factors that may influence outcomes but are beyond the control of psychotherapy providers, such as patient demographics, severity of illness, comorbidities, and social determinants of health. Use risk adjustment methodologies to account for these factors when setting benchmarks to ensure fair and accurate comparisons across providers.
Monitor Performance Over Time: Continuously monitor performance against established benchmarks to assess progress and identify areas for improvement. Track performance data regularly, analyze trends, and compare actual performance against target benchmarks to evaluate performance relative to expectations.
Adjust Benchmarks as Needed: Periodically review and adjust benchmarks as needed to ensure that they remain relevant, meaningful, and achievable. Consider changes in industry standards, best practices, clinical guidelines, patient populations, and other contextual factors when updating benchmarks to reflect current expectations and priorities.
Provide Feedback and Support: Provide feedback and support to psychotherapy providers based on performance data analysis. Identify areas of strength and areas for improvement, recommend performance improvement initiatives, and offer resources and assistance to help providers achieve target benchmarks and improve outcomes.

By following these steps, stakeholders can calculate measurable outcome benchmarks that accurately reflect the quality, effectiveness, and value of psychotherapy services delivered under value-based payment contracts. Continuous monitoring and adjustment of benchmarks supports ongoing performance improvement and optimization of patient outcomes.

References

What are Risk-Share and Risk-Adjustments in value-based payment for psychotherapy services?

In the context of value-based payment for psychotherapy services, both risk-sharing and risk-adjustment are important factors in ensuring fair and effective reimbursement mechanisms.

Risk-share and risk-adjustment mechanisms are designed to promote the delivery of high-quality, cost-effective care, which is a cornerstone of value-based payment models. Risk-share and risk-adjustment factors encourage providers’ clinical focus on patient outcomes and efficient use of healthcare resources while ensuring that financial arrangements are equitable and account for patient complexity.

Risk-share refers to the financial arrangement within a VBP model where providers share in the financial risk associated with patient care. In a risk-share arrangement, providers may benefit from shared savings if they deliver care more efficiently than the financial benchmarks set by the payer. Conversely, they may also be responsible for a portion of any losses if costs exceed the target. This model incentivizes providers to focus on both quality and cost-effectiveness of care.

Risk-adjustment is a method used to account for the health status and specific needs of patients when calculating payments in VBP models. It ensures that providers are compensated fairly for the complexity of the patients they treat. Providers receive higher payments for patients with greater health needs, which acknowledges that not all patients require the same level of resources for their care.

Here's how they apply:

Risk Sharing:
- Provider Perspective: In value-based payment models for psychotherapy services, risk sharing may involve mental health providers’ assumption of financial responsibility for the cost and quality of care delivered to patients. Providers may be incentivized to manage costs and improve outcomes by receiving bonuses or facing penalties based on their performance compared to predefined metrics.
- Payer Perspective: Payers, such as insurance companies or government programs, may also share financial risks with providers. This might involve providing financial incentives for achieving quality and cost targets, or penalizing providers for failing to meet performance standards. By sharing risks with providers, payers encourage collaboration and aligned incentives to improve patient outcomes and control healthcare costs.
Risk Adjustment:
- Patient Complexity: Risk adjustment in value-based payment for psychotherapy services accounts for differences in patient complexity and health status. Patients with more severe mental health conditions, comorbidities, or socioeconomic challenges may require more intensive or costly treatment. Risk adjustment ensures that providers are fairly reimbursed based on the level of risk they assume in treating different patient populations.
- Diagnosis-Based Adjustment: Risk adjustment models may use diagnosis-based risk scores, similar to the Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCCs) used in other healthcare payment models. These scores reflect the expected cost of care for patients with specific mental health diagnoses and help adjust payments to account for variations in patient risk profiles.
- Patient-Centered Approach: Risk adjustment supports a patient-centered approach to reimbursement by ensuring that providers are adequately compensated for delivering appropriate care to patients with diverse needs. It helps prevent providers from avoiding patients with complex conditions or high-risk factors and encourages provision of equitable, high-quality care to all patients.

In summary, risk-sharing and risk-adjustment are integral components of value-based payment models for psychotherapy services. They promote collaboration between providers and payers, encourage the delivery of high-quality, patient-centered care, and help ensure fair and effective reimbursement mechanisms in mental healthcare delivery.

References

What are the Problems Contracting parties face when creating value-based contracts for psychotherapy services?

Creating a value-based contract for psychotherapy services presents several challenges to providers and payers. These challenges stem from the unique nature of mental healthcare delivery and complexities involved in measuring and incentivizing value in the context of such work. Value-based contracts for psychotherapy services present several challenges for contracting parties, including:

Subjectivity of Outcomes: Unlike some medical treatments with quantifiable outcomes, measuring the effectiveness of psychotherapy services can be subjective and multifaceted. Outcomes such as symptom reduction, improved functioning, and quality of life are inherently difficult to measure objectively, leading to challenges in defining and quantifying value.
Variability in Patient Needs: Mental health conditions are highly individualized, and patient needs can vary widely based on factors such as history, diagnosis, severity of illness, comorbidities, and social determinants of health. Creating standardized metrics and benchmarks to accurately reflect the diverse needs of patients receiving psychotherapy services will remain a challenge.
Long-Term Impact Measurement: Psychotherapy often focuses on addressing underlying issues and promoting long-term emotional and behavioral change, which may not be apparent or measurable within a short-term contractual period. This may make it difficult or impossible to assess the long-term impact and value of psychotherapy interventions within the timeframe of a value-based contract.
Data Availability and Quality: Reliable data concerning patient outcomes, treatment adherence, and healthcare utilization in mental healthcare settings may be limited or difficult to obtain. Data collection and reporting processes may be fragmented across different providers and systems, leading to challenges in aggregating and analyzing data for performance measurement.
Incentive Misalignment: Value-based contracts for psychotherapy services may inadvertently create incentives that conflict with the best interests of patients or undermine therapeutic relationships between providers and their clients. For example, focusing solely on short-term symptom reduction may neglect the broader goals of psychotherapy, such as improving coping skills or enhancing quality of life.
Provider Workload and Burnout: Implementing value-based contracts may increase administrative burdens for mental health providers, including additional documentation requirements, performance reporting, and quality assurance activities. This may contribute to provider workload, stress, and burnout, potentially compromising the quality of care delivered.
Payment Uncertainty: Value-based payment models for psychotherapy services introduce financial uncertainty for providers, particularly when payment is tied to performance metrics or outcomes that are difficult to predict or to influence. Providers may be hesitant to adopt value-based contracts without assurance of fair and predictable reimbursement.
Long-Term Effects: The impact of psychotherapy may not be immediately evident and can evolve over time. Contracts based on short-term outcomes may not adequately capture the long-term value of therapy.
Diverse Patient Needs: Patients seeking psychotherapy have diverse needs and goals. Creating a standardized contract that accommodates these variations while still ensuring value can be complex.
Variable Treatment Duration: Psychotherapy sessions can vary widely in duration and frequency depending on individual needs. This variability makes it challenging to establish clear contract terms regarding payment and performance.
Difficulty in Outcome Measurement: Unlike medical procedures with clear metrics, measuring the effectiveness of psychotherapy is more complex. It often involves subjective assessments and may require ongoing evaluation, making it challenging to define clear performance indicators for contractual purposes
Ethical Considerations: Value-based contracts may incentivize therapists to prioritize short-term outcomes or to select patients based on perceived likelihood of success, potentially compromising ethical principles of equal access to care and patient-centered treatment.
Data Privacy Concerns: Collecting data to measure outcomes for value-based contracts raises privacy concerns, particularly in psychotherapy where confidentiality is paramount. Balancing the need for outcome measurement with patient privacy can be difficult.
Risk of Litigation: Disputes may arise if the contracted outcomes are not achieved or if there are disagreements over the interpretation of outcome data. This can lead to legal challenges and undermine the therapeutic relationship.
Provider Resistance: Some therapists may be hesitant to participate in value-based contracts due to concerns about increased administrative burden, pressure to prioritize certain outcomes, or uncertainty about reimbursement.
Market Uncertainty: The evolving nature of psychotherapy and changing healthcare policies can create uncertainty in the market, making it difficult to establish stable value-based contracts that align with long-term goals.

Addressing these challenges requires collaborative efforts among providers, payers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to develop innovative solutions and approaches that effectively measure and incentivize value in psychotherapy services while ensuring high-quality, patient-centered care. This may involve refining performance measurement methodologies, enhancing data infrastructure and interoperability, and promoting care models that prioritize holistic patient outcomes and long-term well-being.

By implementing incentives in value-based payment contracts for psychotherapy services, stakeholders can promote quality, efficiency, and value in mental and behavioral healthcare delivery while rewarding providers for delivering high-quality, patient-centered treatment. Effective incentive structures incentivize performance improvement, promote accountability, and drive positive outcomes for patients and the healthcare system as a whole.

References

How can Incentives be implemented in value-based payment contracts for psychotherapy services?

Implementing incentives in value-based payment contracts for psychotherapy services involves designing reimbursement structures that align financial incentives with desired outcomes, quality of care, and cost-effective delivery. Here are ways incentives create problems and ways incentives can be effectively implemented in such contracts:

Subjectivity of Outcomes: Unlike some medical treatments with quantifiable outcomes, measuring the effectiveness of psychotherapy services can be subjective and multifaceted. Outcomes such as symptom reduction, improved functioning, and quality of life are inherently difficult to measure objectively, leading to challenges in defining and quantifying value.
Variability in Patient Needs: Mental health conditions are highly individualized, and patient needs can vary widely based on factors such as history, diagnosis, severity of illness, comorbidities, and social determinants of health. Creating standardized metrics and benchmarks to accurately reflect the diverse needs of patients receiving psychotherapy services will remain a challenge.
Long-Term Impact Measurement: Psychotherapy often focuses on addressing underlying issues and promoting long-term emotional and behavioral change, which may not be apparent or measurable within a short-term contractual period. This may make it difficult or impossible to assess the long-term impact and value of psychotherapy interventions within the timeframe of a value-based contract.
Data Availability and Quality: Reliable data concerning patient outcomes, treatment adherence, and healthcare utilization in mental healthcare settings may be limited or difficult to obtain. Data collection and reporting processes may be fragmented across different providers and systems, leading to challenges in aggregating and analyzing data for performance measurement.
Incentive Misalignment: Value-based contracts for psychotherapy services may inadvertently create incentives that conflict with the best interests of patients or undermine therapeutic relationships between providers and their clients. For example, focusing solely on short-term symptom reduction may neglect the broader goals of psychotherapy, such as improving coping skills or enhancing quality of life.
Provider Workload and Burnout: Implementing value-based contracts may increase administrative burdens for mental health providers, including additional documentation requirements, performance reporting, and quality assurance activities. This may contribute to provider workload, stress, and burnout, potentially compromising the quality of care delivered.
Payment Uncertainty: Value-based payment models for psychotherapy services introduce financial uncertainty for providers, particularly when payment is tied to performance metrics or outcomes that are difficult to predict or to influence. Providers may be hesitant to adopt value-based contracts without assurance of fair and predictable reimbursement.
Establish Clear Quality Metrics: Identify specific, measurable outcomes that reflect the quality and effectiveness of psychotherapy, such as symptom reduction, patient satisfaction, and functional improvements. These metrics should be based on evidence-based practices and standards.
Use Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs): Incorporate PROMs to capture patients' perspectives on their mental health status and treatment progress. This ensures that incentives are aligned with improvements that are meaningful to patients.
Performance-Based Payments: Structure payments so that a portion is contingent on meeting predefined quality and outcome benchmarks. This can include bonuses for exceeding benchmarks or penalties for failing to meet them.
Shared Savings Models: Implement shared savings agreements where psychotherapy providers are rewarded for reducing overall healthcare costs for their patients while maintaining or improving quality of care.
Provide Access to Training and Resources: Offer psychotherapists access to training and resources to improve their practice and achieve the desired outcomes. This could include workshops on evidence-based treatments, tools for measuring patient progress, and support for using digital health technologies.
Invest in Infrastructure: Support the implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) and data analytics tools that enable tracking of outcomes and identification of areas for improvement.
Encourage Patient Engagement and Satisfaction: Incentivize practices that improve patient engagement and satisfaction, such as flexible scheduling, teletherapy options, and patient education. Engaged patients are more likely to adhere to treatment plans, contributing to better outcomes.
Patient-Centered Care Plans: Reward the development of individualized care plans that are tailored to the unique needs and preferences of each patient, promoting better outcomes and patient satisfaction.
Promote Transparency: Encourage transparency in reporting outcomes and practices. This can help patients make informed choices and foster a culture of continuous improvement among providers.
Collaborative Care Models: Incentivize participation in collaborative care models, where psychotherapists work closely with primary care providers and other healthcare professionals. This approach can improve outcomes for patients with comorbid conditions and reduce overall healthcare costs.
Ensure Ethical Practices: It's crucial to ensure that incentives do not lead to unintended consequences, such as reduced session times or avoidance of high-risk patients. Ethical considerations and safeguards should be integrated into the incentive structure to protect patient welfare.
Implementing these strategies requires careful planning and ongoing evaluation to ensure that incentives lead to the desired outcomes without compromising the quality of care. Collaboration among stakeholders, including psychotherapists, payers, and patients, is essential for developing and refining incentive models that work effectively in the context of psychotherapy services.

Value-Based Payment Contracting for Psychotherapy Services: What Federal and State Regulations apply to such contracting in Oregon?

Based on the provided research information, here are the key points regarding federal and state regulations pertaining to value-based payment contracting for psychotherapy services in Oregon:

Federal Regulations

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has established several value-based payment programs including the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program, Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and Value Modifier Program that link provider payments to quality measures. However, these are focused on medical services rather than mental and behavioral intervention services.
The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits remuneration to induce services paid by government programs, which creates compliance concerns for value-based contracts that involve rebates or payments tied to outcomes. There is no explicit “safe harbor” provision yet for such arrangements.
Medicaid best price rules can limit the magnitude of rebates offered in value-based contracts, since those rebates are tied to the lowest price paid. CMS has encouraged states to pursue value-based contracts while following existing best price guidance.

Oregon State Regulations

The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) has developed a Value-Based Payment (VBP) Roadmap requiring Coordinated Care Organizations (CCOs) to implement VBP models, with a target that 70% of provider payments become value-based by 2024.
The OHA VBP Roadmap outlines categories and requirements for different VBP models, using the Health Care Payment Learning & Action Network (LAN) framework. It includes VBP models for key care delivery areas like primary care and behavioral health.
Oregon has rules requiring CCOs to provide reimbursement for telemedicine and telehealth services, including psychotherapy, at the same rates as in-person services. CCOs must ensure meaningful access to these services.
Oregon law requires health insurance policies to cover services provided by psychologists.

We found no explicit state regulations that specifically address value-based contracting for independent psychotherapy practices.

While there are federal compliance considerations and there is Oregon's push for value-based payment models in its Medicaid program, but no state regulations directly address value-based contracting requirements for independent psychotherapy practices were found in the cited search results. The general framework focuses on CCOs and their provider contracts.

References

What State and Federal regulations should providers be aware of when they have independent provider practice contracts with Coordinated Care Organizations (CCOs) in Oregon and/or privately held practice organizations/business?

In Oregon, providers contracting to provide psychotherapy services must navigate a combination of Federal and State regulations pertaining to contracting. Here are some key federal and state regulations that may be relevant:

Federal Regulations:
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has established several value-based payment programs like the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program, Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and Value Modifier Program to link provider payments to quality measures. However, these are focused on medical services rather than psychotherapy specifically.
The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits remuneration to induce services paid by government programs, which creates compliance concerns for value-based contracts that involve rebates or payments tied to outcomes.
There is no explicit safe harbor provision yet for these arrangements. Medicaid best price rules can limit the magnitude of rebates offered in value-based contracts, as rebates are tied to the lowest price paid. CMS has encouraged states to pursue value-based contracts while following existing best price guidance.
HIPAA Privacy Rule: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule sets standards for the protection of individuals' protected health information (PHI). Providers in Oregon must comply with HIPAA requirements to safeguard patient privacy and security.
Medicaid Regulations: Providers participating in Medicaid in Oregon must adhere to federal regulations governing Medicaid reimbursement, managed care arrangements, and quality improvement initiatives.
Medicare Regulations: Providers offering services to Medicare beneficiaries in Oregon must comply with federal regulations established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for Medicare reimbursement, participation in Medicare Advantage plans, and reporting requirements under programs like MIPS and APMs.
Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and the Stark Law: Providers must ensure that their contracting arrangements comply with federal anti-kickback and physician self-referral laws to avoid potential liability under these statutes.
Other Federal Fraud and Abuse Laws: Providers should be aware of federal fraud and abuse laws, such as the False Claims Act and Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which impose penalties for submitting false or fraudulent claims to federal healthcare programs.
State Regulations:
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has established several value-based payment programs like the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program, Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and Value Modifier Program to link provider payments to quality measures.
However, these are focused on medical services rather than psychotherapy specifically.
The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits remuneration to induce services paid by government programs, which creates compliance concerns for value-based contracts that involve rebates or payments tied to outcomes.
There is no explicit “safe harbor” provision yet for these arrangements. Medicaid best price rules can limit the magnitude of rebates offered in value-based contracts, as rebates are tied to the lowest price paid. CMS has encouraged states to pursue value-based contracts while following existing best price guidance.
The Oregon Health Authority under the Sustainable Healthcare Program recommended an annual financial growth expenditure of 3.40%. Healthplans agreed and signed the Oregon Value-Based Payment Compact.
Oregon Health Authority (OHA): The OHA oversees Medicaid programs and regulations in Oregon. Providers should be familiar with Oregon Medicaid rules, including reimbursement rates, covered services, and quality improvement initiatives.
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR): OARs establish administrative regulations for various aspects of healthcare delivery in Oregon, including licensing requirements, scope of practice standards, and Medicaid billing guidelines.
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS): ORS contains state laws governing healthcare practices, insurance regulation, and public health in Oregon. Providers should be aware of relevant ORS provisions related to contracting, reimbursement, and patient rights.
Oregon Licensing Boards: Providers offering psychotherapy services in Oregon may need to comply with regulations established by licensing boards such as the Oregon Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists or the Oregon Board of Psychology.
Oregon Health Plan (OHP): OHP is Oregon's Medicaid program, and providers contracting with Medicaid managed care organizations or participating in Medicaid accountable care organizations must adhere to OHP regulations and requirements.

It's essential for providers offering psychotherapy services in Oregon to stay informed about federal and state regulations that govern contracting, reimbursement, and quality of care to ensure compliance and maintain the integrity of their practices. Consulting with legal counsel and relevant regulatory agencies can help providers navigate the complex regulatory landscape effectively.

References

https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality/value-based-programs

How can psychotherapists Ensure They Meet the Performance Metrics required by a value-based payment contract?

To ensure they are meeting performance metrics required by value-based payment (VBP) contracts, psychotherapists must first establish the following among Healthplans and provider groups.

Adopt a Conceptual Framework for VBP: What is the conceptual framework that includes program design features, characteristics of providers, and external factors that influence provider response to incentives? Establishment of such framework can help psychotherapists understand the elements of successful VBP programs and identify areas for improvement.
Implement Outcome Measurement: Will the Healthplan incentive provider practices to implement routine outcome measurement using standardized, validated tools such as Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). This allows for (a) tracking patient progress and adjusting treatment plans accordingly, (b) establishing population specific baselines norms that can be used benchmark
Engage in Continuous Quality Improvement: Have the Healthplan and provider practices agreed on a continuous quality improvement program, using performance data to inform practice changes. This includes analyzing patient outcomes, satisfaction, and cost metrics to identify areas where care can be improved.
Utilize Evidence-Based Practices: Provider practices and Healthplans should agree on their treatment approaches which should be evidence-based and aligned with the best available research. This increases the likelihood of achieving positive patient outcomes, which is a key component of VBP.
Collaborate with Payers and Stakeholders: Provider practices and Healthplans should agree to collaboratively with payers and other stakeholders to develop and agree upon meaningful performance metrics. This collaboration can help ensure that the metrics used are relevant and achievable.
Leverage Technology and Data Analytics: Provider practices and Healthplans should agree on their use of electronic health records (EHRs), or data file formats, and the data analytics can help provider track and report on performance metrics more effectively. Technology can facilitate the collection and analysis of data needed for VBP contracting.
Focus on Patient Engagement: Does the Healthplan truly support patient-centered engagement. Provider practices should prioritize patient-centered care, ensuring that patients are actively involved in their treatment and that their experiences are positive.
Address Barriers to Implementation: Provider practices and Healthplans should identify and address potential barriers to implementing PROMs and other VBP-related practices. This may include addressing issues related to data collection, clinician buy-in, and patient participation. Provider practices
Educate and Train Staff: Ensuring that all providers and staff are educated about VBP and trained in the use of outcome measurement tools is essential. This helps create a practice culture that supports VBP and performance improvement. This will be more difficult if providers do not have office staff.
Monitor Regulatory and Policy Changes: Provider practices must stay informed about changes in healthcare policy and regulations, including those specific to VBP. Provide practices must have support to adapt their practices to meet requirements. By implementing explicit and documented strategies, psychotherapists can are more likely to meet the performance metrics required, ultimately improving patient outcomes and the sustainability of their practice.

What is risk impacting objectives?

A “risk impacting objectives” is defined as "the effect of uncertainty on objectives."

Risks impacting objectives refers to the potential events or uncertainties that could negatively affect the achievement of an organization's goals and objectives. In the context of risk management, an objective is a desired outcome or target that an organization aims to achieve, and risks are the uncertainties that could hinder or prevent reaching these outcomes. The concept is central to the ISO 31000 standard on risk management, which defines risk as the "effect of uncertainty on objectives". This definition underscores the relationship between risk and objectives by highlighting that risks are not just potential negative events, but specifically those that can impact the achievement of an organization's goals.

The impact of risks on objectives can vary widely depending on the nature of the objectives and the specific risks involved. Risks can affect various aspects of an organization, including its financial performance, reputation, operational capabilities, safety, compliance with regulations, and environmental impact. The significance of understanding and managing risks impacting objectives lies in ensuring that an organization can effectively pursue its strategic goals, maintain its operational integrity, and fulfill its obligations to stakeholders.

Effective risk management involves identifying potential risks that could impact objectives, assessing the likelihood and potential impact of these risks, and implementing strategies to mitigate or manage the risk to an acceptable level. This process helps organizations to proactively address uncertainties, make informed decisions, and enhance their resilience against potential threats to their objectives.

Implementing Risk Impacting Objectives:

Define Objectives: Clearly define the organization's strategic, operational, and project-specific objectives.
Identify Risks: Identify risks that could impact the achievement of these objectives, using tools such as SWOT analysis, PESTLE analysis, and risk assessments.
Assess Impact and Likelihood: Assess the potential impact of each identified risk on objectives, as well as the likelihood of its occurrence.
Prioritize Risks: Prioritize risks based on their potential impact and likelihood, focusing on those that pose the greatest threat to achieving objectives.
Develop Mitigation Strategies: Develop and implement strategies to mitigate the highest priority risks, aiming to minimize their impact on objectives or prevent them altogether.
Monitor and Review: Continuously monitor risks and the effectiveness of mitigation strategies, making adjustments as needed to ensure objectives remain achievable.

References

The MODA Health Behavioral Health Incentive Program. (BHIP) What should providers be concerned about?

While incentive programs like the MODA Health Behavioral Health Incentive Program aim to improve the quality and accessibility of behavioral health services, there are concerns or challenges associated with their implementation. Some potential concerns include:

Risk of Unintended Consequences: Incentive programs will inadvertently incentivize providers to focus on meeting performance targets at the expense of other aspects of patient care. For example, providers may prioritize achieving specific metrics, such as increased patient volume or shorter appointment times, over delivering comprehensive, personalized care.
Quality Measurement Challenges: Assessing the quality and outcomes of behavioral health care will be complex. Metrics used to evaluate performance will not fully capture the effectiveness or appropriateness of treatment, leading to inaccuracies or misinterpretations of provider performance.
Provider Burden: Participating in incentive programs will impose additional administrative burdens on providers, such as data reporting requirements or documentation standards, which can detract from the time and resources available for patient care.
Patient Selection Bias: Providers may be incentivized to focus on patients who are more likely to achieve positive outcomes or meet performance targets, potentially overlooking individuals with complex or severe behavioral health needs. This will exacerbate health disparities and limit access to care for vulnerable populations.
Ethical Concerns: Incentive programs will create conflicts of interest for providers, as financial incentives may influence treatment decisions if different group or the allocation of resources. Providers will experience pressure to prioritize certain interventions or services to maximize incentives, potentially compromising the integrity of the therapeutic relationship and the autonomy of patients.
Data Privacy and Security Risks: Incentive programs often require collection and sharing of patient data to assess performance and outcomes. Concerns about data privacy and security may arise if sensitive health information is not adequately protected or if data is used for purposes beyond program evaluation.
Lack of Standardization: Incentive programs lack standardization across different payers or organizations, leading to inconsistencies in measurement methods, benchmarks, performance metrics, eligibility criteria, and incentive structures. This fragmentation can create confusion for providers and hinder efforts to coordinate care effectively.
Financial Uncertainty: Providers will face financial uncertainty if incentives are tied to performance metrics that are subject to variability or fluctuation over time. Changes in reimbursement rates or program requirements have already impacted provider revenue and sustainability.
Contract Goals: The contract goals were broadly stated but are not operationally aligned with any behaviors or outcomes that can be measured
Contract Governance and Cycle Management: All governance over provider participation is “at will.” There are no administrative policies or processes with which provider practices will be vetted or monitored. There is no schedule or process for contract adjustments or for discussion process between providers and MODA.
Incentive and Reward Structure: The Incentive and rewards are not logically associated or potentially correlated to provider behavior, efforts nor to patient outcomes.
Inherent Risk and Mitigation: The inherent risk based on an analysis of generally accepted value and objectives concludes there is a probable to almost certain severe to catastrophic impact on public health. There are no controls to detect and mitigate this risk as it emerges.
Alignment with Provider Values and Objectives: Shared values and objectives are the foundation of successful value-based payment contracts. Healthplan and provider values are not aligned. This lack of alignment operates to the benefit of MODA Health and to the detriment of public health and provider practices.
Negotiation Tactics: MODA withheld information necessary for providers to make informed discussions regarding the risks. Providers were deceived and made decisions that might have otherwise not been made had they been fully informed. MODA negotiations were not fair, they were made in bad faith. The contract and inherent policy was abrupt, deceptive, confusing, ill-defined and faulty. The contract was offered with a “false profit” leader designed to entice provider practices into “bait and switch” situation when there are changing requirements and amendments to the BHIP.
Controls and Guardrails: There are no transparent and agreed upon controls necessary to ensure providers success during the life of the contract. A MODA representative stated they are “making the contract up as we [they] go.”
Risk Share and Risk-Adjustments: The contract has no risk-share criteria. The risks of harm to MODA are insignificant. The risk of benefit to providers is low. The risk of material harm to the public and provider practices is high. There are no risk-adjustments based on mutually agreed on key leading indicators.
Risk to Public Health: Based on a risk-impacting objective (RIO) analysis there is a probably to almost certain severe to catastrophic impact on public health. MODA “controls” are focused extensively on reducing over-treatment and not focused on issues of undertreatment or lack of access.
Unscrupulous: The MODA BHIP sub-contract in its present form is not aligned with state and federal guidance, nor with industry experts and thought leaders. Working with a certified internal auditor, MRI was able to identify 43 concerns for MODA to review. Without conversation and information, the MODA contract will cause harm to employers and residents of Oregon. The are no detection controls. Furthermore, it is our understanding that some 128 organizations are potentially affected by the unscrupulous business practices utilized by MODA. The power imbalance between MODA and providers of mental health in Oregon and other states is disparate and obvious. Unfortunately, this imbalance has left the providers in Oregon with few options but to go along as MODA makes up the rules as they go.

Addressing these concerns requires careful attention to program design, ongoing monitoring and evaluation, stakeholder engagement, and a commitment to transparency, accountability, and patient-centered care. Regular communication and collaboration between payers, providers, patients, and policymakers can help mitigate risks and ensure that incentive programs support the delivery of high-quality, accessible, and equitable behavioral health services.

What are the most important Contract Negotiation Strategies?

One of the most important contract negotiation tactics is to focus on creating value for all parties involved. This tactic, often referred to as "integrative bargaining" or "principled negotiation," aims to create solutions that satisfy the interests and needs of both the provider and the payer. Here's how to apply this tactic effectively:

Identify Interests and Priorities: Begin by understanding your own interests and priorities as well as those of the payer. What are the underlying needs and objectives driving each party's position? For example, the provider may prioritize fair reimbursement rates and autonomy in treatment decisions, while the payer may prioritize cost containment and quality improvement.
Explore Shared Interests: Look for areas of common ground or shared interest that can serve as the basis for agreement. Both parties ultimately want to improve patient outcomes and control healthcare costs, so focus on how all proposals align with these shared interests.
Generate Options for Mutual Benefit: Brainstorm creative solutions that meet the needs and interests of both parties. Consider different ways to structure reimbursement, incorporate quality incentives, and share risks and rewards. By expanding the range of options available, negotiators increase their likelihood of finding mutually beneficial agreements.
Trade Concessions Wisely: Be prepared to make concessions, and do so strategically. Trade concessions that are less important to you for concessions that are more valuable. Prioritize your negotiating goals and be willing to compromise on less critical issues to achieve your top priorities.
Emphasize Long-Term Relationships: Recognize that negotiations are not just about reaching a one-time agreement but also about building a long-term relationship with the payer. Emphasize the importance of collaboration, transparency, and trust in achieving shared goals over time.
Focus on Objective Criteria: Use objective criteria, such as benchmarking data, industry standards, and evidence-based practices, to support your negotiation positions. This helps depersonalize the negotiation process and provides a basis for rational decision-making.
Maintain a Positive and Constructive Tone: Approach negotiations with a positive attitude and a willingness to listen and understand the other party's perspective. Avoid confrontational or adversarial tactics that can undermine trust and hinder progress.
Seek Win-Win Solutions: Aim for outcomes that create value for both parties rather than seeking to "win" at the expense of the other party. A win-win approach fosters goodwill and cooperation, paving the way for future collaborations and success.

By employing this contract negotiation tactic, providers can build mutually beneficial relationships with payers, achieve fair and sustainable agreements, and ultimately improve the delivery of psychotherapy services.

What are the most important Strategies to Negotiate value-based payment contracts for psychotherapy services?

Negotiating value-based payment contracts for psychotherapy services requires careful planning and strategy. Here are some important strategies to consider:

Understand Your Value Proposition: Before entering negotiations, providers must clearly understand and articulate the value they bring to patients and payers. This includes highlighting the quality of care, positive outcomes, patient satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy services compared to other treatment options.
Data Collection and Analysis: Gather data on patient outcomes, utilization patterns, and costs to support your negotiating position. Demonstrating the effectiveness of your psychotherapy services through empirical evidence can strengthen your bargaining power and justify higher reimbursement rates.
Know Your Costs: Understand the true costs associated with delivering psychotherapy services, including overhead, staff salaries, equipment, and administrative expenses. Having a clear understanding of your costs will help you negotiate reimbursement rates that cover your expenses while maintaining profitability.
Identify Performance Metrics: Work with payers to identify meaningful performance metrics that align with the goals of value-based payment models. This could include measures of treatment effectiveness, patient satisfaction, adherence to evidence-based practices, and care coordination efforts.
Risk Adjustment: Advocate for risk adjustment mechanisms that account for the complexity and severity of patients' mental health conditions. This ensures fair reimbursement for providers who treat patients with more challenging needs and reduces risk of financial penalties for factors beyond those providers’ control.
Negotiate Shared Savings and Incentives: Explore opportunities to negotiate shared savings arrangements or performance incentives tied to achieving specific quality and outcome targets. Such financial incentives can motivate providers to deliver high-quality care more efficiently and effectively.
Collaborate with Payers: Build strong relationships with payer representatives and engage in collaborative discussions to find mutually beneficial solutions. Understanding the payer's priorities and constraints can help providers tailor their negotiation strategies and develop win-win agreements.
Seek Legal and Financial Expertise: Consider involving legal and financial experts with experience in healthcare contracts negotiation to review proposed agreements, identify potential pitfalls, and provide guidance for maximizing favorable terms.
Flexibility and Adaptability: Recognize that negotiations are often iterative processes, and be prepared to compromise and adjust your position based on feedback from payers. Maintaining flexibility and adaptability can help overcome obstacles and support mutually acceptable agreements.
Monitor and Evaluate Performance: Once a contract is in place, monitor your performance closely against agreed-upon metrics and outcomes. Regularly review performance data with payers and identify areas for improvement to ensure ongoing success in value-based payment arrangements.

By employing these strategies, providers can effectively negotiate value-based payment contracts for psychotherapy services that align with their goals, enhance patient care, and support financial sustainability.

What is the importance of Leverage in contract negotiation?

Leverage plays a crucial role in contract negotiations as it influences the balance of power between parties and affects the outcome of the negotiation process. Leverage refers to the ability of one party to exert influence or pressure on the other party to achieve favorable terms or concessions. Here's how leverage impacts contract negotiation:

Bargaining Power: The party with more leverage typically has greater bargaining power. This power can be used to negotiate better prices, terms, and conditions. Leverage can stem from various sources, such as market position, unique skills, or negotiation skills.
Leverage Enhances Negotiating Power: Leverage gives a party more power to push for its desired outcomes and resist unfavorable terms proposed by the other party. For instance, a provider may leverage its strong reputation or market share to demand higher reimbursement rates from payers.
Increases Ability to Set Terms: The party with leverage has more control over setting the terms and conditions of the contract. They can dictate certain provisions, such as payment terms, performance metrics, and contract duration, based on their negotiating power.
Provides Leverage in Trade-Offs: Leverage allows parties to engage in trade-offs and concessions during negotiations. A party with strong leverage may be able to extract concessions from the other party in exchange for agreement with certain terms or conditions.
Influences Outcome of Disputes: In the event of disputes or disagreements during the contract term, the party with leverage may have more influence over the resolution process. They may be able to enforce contractual obligations or negotiate favorable settlements based on their bargaining power.
Minimizing Concessions: With sufficient leverage, a party may minimize the concessions they need to make. This means they can retain more of their initial demands, leading to a more advantageous contract.
Strategic Planning: Recognizing and developing leverage is a part of strategic planning for negotiations. Parties often spend time before negotiations assessing their own leverage and that of the other party to develop strategies that maximize their advantages
Impacts Relationship Dynamics: Leverage affects the dynamics of the relationship between parties. A party with significant leverage may exert dominance or control over the other party, leading to an unbalanced or contentious relationships.
Risk Mitigation: Leverage can also be used to mitigate risks associated with the contract. For example, a provider may negotiate favorable indemnification clauses or termination provisions to protect against potential liabilities or adverse outcomes.
Encouragement for Collaboration: While leverage can create asymmetry in negotiating power, it can also serve as an incentive for parties to collaborate and find mutually beneficial solutions. Parties may recognize the value of maintaining positive relationships and seek to reach agreements that satisfy both sides' interests.
Long-term Relationships: While leverage can be used to gain short-term advantages, it's also important in building and maintaining long-term business relationships. Effective use of leverage involves finding a balance which leaves both parties satisfied, ensuring the foundation for future cooperation.

Overall, understanding and effectively leveraging one's strengths and advantages can significantly influence the outcome of contract negotiations and contribute to the success of the agreements reached.

References

What are the potential impacts of Venture Capital Investors on psychotherapy services?

Short-term Profit Orientation: VC firms typically seek high returns on their investments within a relatively short timeframe. This focus on short-term profits might pressure healthcare startups to prioritize revenue generation over long-term research, development, and patient-centric outcomes, potentially hindering the development of sustainable healthcare solutions.
Focus on High-Valuation Startups: VC firms tend to invest in companies with the potential to become unicorns, directing funds towards technology-focused healthcare startups that promise rapid growth and high valuations. This approach may neglect essential healthcare innovations that would have more significant positive impact on patient outcomes but may not yield the same exponential growth and valuations.
High Failure Rate: The high failure rate of healthcare startups can be detrimental to the patient community, as promising projects may be abandoned due to lack of funding or support from VCs.
Misalignment with Healthcare Priorities: The profit-driven motives of VC firms may not always align with the healthcare industry's objectives, leading to potential conflicts of interest between improving patient welfare and maximizing financial returns.
Reduced Emphasis on Underserved Populations: VC funding tends to flow toward solutions catering to larger, more affluent markets, potentially exacerbating disparities and neglecting the needs of underserved populations.
Ethical Concerns: Aggressive revenue growth pushed by VC investors may risk compromising patient privacy, data security, and other ethical concerns.
Transformation of Psychotherapy Services: The control exerted by VC companies over psychotherapy services can lead to reduced fees-for-service for psychotherapists and/or an increase in the number of patients treated in brief, unsatisfactory episodes, potentially compromising both the quality of care and the willingness of people to seek effective mental and behavioral healthcare services..
Commercialization of Care: The venture capital model, when applied to psychotherapy services, risks turning therapeutic healing, which fundamentally relies on the patient-therapist relationship, into a commoditized transaction. This shift could undermine the effectiveness of therapy, which depends on the strength of the therapeutic relationship.

References

Definitions

Alternative payment method (APM) means an approach to designed to move away from traditional fee-for-service (FFS) models, where providers are paid for each service rendered, towards models that emphasize value, quality, and efficiency of care. These models aim to improve patient outcomes, reduce healthcare costs, and enhance the overall quality of care.

Alternative payment methods in healthcare are designed to move away from traditional fee-for-service (FFS) models, where providers are paid for each service rendered, towards models that emphasize value, quality, and efficiency of care. These models aim to improve patient outcomes, reduce healthcare costs, and enhance the overall quality of care.

Value-Based Payment (VBP) Models means provider payments for the quality of care provided, rewarding providers for both efficiency and effectiveness. Payments are based on meeting certain performance metrics, such as patient health outcomes, rather than the volume of services delivered.

Capitation means providers receive a set amount of payment per patient per unit of time (usually per month) regardless of the number of services provided. This payment is meant to cover all the care the patient needs for a specified period. It incentivizes providers to offer preventive care and manage patients' health efficiently.

Bundled Payments episode-based payments, this model provides a single, comprehensive payment for all services related to a specific treatment or condition over a defined period. It encourages collaboration among healthcare providers, as they must work together to manage costs and share the bundled payment.

Shared Savings Programs means shared savings models, providers are rewarded for reducing healthcare spending for a defined patient population below what would have been expected while meeting quality benchmarks. Savings are shared between the providers and the payer, incentivizing cost-effective care management.

Pay-for-Performance (P4P) means programs offer financial incentives to providers for meeting or exceeding specific quality benchmarks, including patient outcomes, adherence to best practices, and patient satisfaction scores. This model aims to improve the quality of healthcare services by directly linking payment to performance.

Global Payment means a fixed total amount to cover all healthcare services for a patient population for a specified period, often one year. This approach encourages providers to focus on preventive care and effective management of chronic conditions to keep costs within the fixed budget.

DPC means a model where patients pay their primary care providers a flat monthly fee for a range of services, bypassing traditional insurance billing. This model emphasizes patient-provider relationships and comprehensive primary care services without the constraints of insurance-driven reimbursements.

Audit scope means the amount of time, number of survey/interviews, and documents which are involved in an audit, is an important factor in all auditing. The audit scope, ultimately, establishes how deeply an audit is performed. It can range from simple to complete, including all relevant documents.

Committee means the “Mental and Behavioral Health Practices Contract Audit Committee”.

Confidential and Proprietary Information Exception means that information that the Mental Health Practice Contract Audit Committee believes is the minimum necessary to audit the contract or elements of a contract among Healthplans and providers.

Confidential or Proprietary Information means any information or data disclosed by either the Healthplan or provider (each a party) to the auditor (a Recipient), including, but not limited to, (i) technology, ideas, concepts, inventions, discoveries, improvements, patents, specifications, trade secrets, prototypes, processes, notes, documents, memoranda and reports, or (ii) visual representations concerning the Disclosing Party’s past, present or future research, technology, know-how, and concepts, or (iii) computer programs, software code, written documentation, products, information concerning providers members, patients, prospective contracts, employees and prospective employees, market research, sales and marketing plans, service agreements, financial statements, financial information, financing strategies and opportunities and business plans, all of which relate directly or indirectly to the Disclosing Party’s products, services or business. If any Confidential or Proprietary Information is disclosed orally or by observation or viewing, it shall be identified as proprietary prior to such disclosure and after disclosure it shall be reduced to writing in summary form within 30 days thereafter and delivered to the Auditor.

Contract Auditing means an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity required for both payers and providers, a process designed to add value, meet shared objectives, and improve contracted operations and effectively manage contract cycles. The purpose is to ensure transparency and data informed decisions that are evidence-based, patient-centered, and that support improvements in quality at an appropriate cost. The contract auditor will help providers and payers identify shared values and to accomplish their shared objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate, and improve the contract effectiveness of risk management, controls, and their respective governance processes. Independent contract auditing will achieve this goal by gathering, aggregating, and analyzing data providing information, insight and recommendations based on analyses and assessments of data and contracted business processes. The information gathered should be anonymous to ensure that auditors recommendations are reliable, valid, and useful.

Contracts of Adhesion means a standard-form contract in which the terms are drafted by just one party without input from the signee. Healthplans that draft the contract document has significant power and a Legal team to help it create the contract. The signee has considerably less bargaining power. A Healthplan can draft terms that protect and benefit itself and place disproportionate risk on providers. Due to this discrepancy in bargaining power, certain steps must be followed to ensure that an adhesion contract is enforceable.

Controls means tasks within a process that attempts to prevent, detect or correct an error or anomaly. A "control” is a task within a process that attempts to prevent, detect or correct an error or anomaly. For example, a control for an objective (i.e., a benchmark in terms of reducing symptom burden and improving functional behavior) could be measured using a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). The control would be identified in an “exception report.” Which would count the number of patients who are not on track (i.e., off-track.) That would be a “control”. The next step would be to why these patients are not on track. I could be because a significant number of patients belong to a subgroup that is creating an error. An Auditor would ascertain why patients are not on track and separate those patients into a different risk category. The provider would not be penalized for failing to achieve a benchmark.]

Fee-For-Service (FFS) means a traditional payment model where healthcare providers are reimbursed for each service they deliver to a patient.

Health care cost growth benchmark means the target percentage for health care cost growth.

Health care cost growth means the annual percentage change in total health expenditures in this state.

Health care covered entity means a payer or a provider.

Healthcare Service Contract Audit Committee means a total of 8 healthcare professionals; 2 independent licensed mental health professionals representing FFS; 2 independent licensed mental health professionals who are seeking or are engaged in Alternative Payment Methods or Value-based payments, 2 licensed mental health professionals representing an group practice, employer or agency the provides mental health services, 2 licensed mental health professionals representing Healthplans, and a committee appointed chair who votes only if there is tie.

Healthcare Service Contract Audit Project means a formal process of "project review", most often designed to evaluate the extent to which specific controls or contract standards are being followed. Audits will be performed by an independent auditor. Projects are approved and empowered by the Healthcare Services Steering Committee.

Heatmap means a graphical representation of data that uses a system of color coding to represent different values. A heatmap different risks, with lower risk and great value in the green zone. Greater risk and lower value are represented in the red zone.

Inherent risk means the level of risk in place in order to achieve an entity's objectives and before actions are taken to alter the risk's impact or likelihood.

Material means information that would affect a provider or Healthplan’s current or future decision to participate in a contract.

Mental health practice contract audit means a type of audit that is done for those entities participating in a contract. This type of audit provides visibility into the values, objectives, requirements, operation processes, targets, goals, incentives, reimbursements, shared costs, risks, risk-share, risk-adjustments, risks-impacting-objectives, risk management, contract management cycles, measurements, strategies.

Mental health Practice Contract Audit Program means a system of audit objectives, scope, timeline, and activities that will be carried out by the Mental and Behavioral Health Service Contract Auditor. The audit program provides guidance to conduct various types of audits.

Minimum necessary information means the HIPAA Privacy Rule which requires a covered entity to make reasonable efforts to limit use, disclosure of, and requests for protected health information to the minimum necessary to accomplish the intended purpose. To allow covered entities the flexibility to address their unique circumstances, the Rule requires covered entities to make their own assessment of what protected health information is reasonably necessary for a particular purpose, given the characteristics of their business and workforce, and to implement policies and procedures accordingly.

Payer means (a) An insurer offering a policy or certificate of health insurance or a health benefit plan as defined in ORS 743B.005; (b) A publicly funded health care program, including but not limited to Medicaid, Medicare and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program; (c) A third party administrator; and (d) Any other public or private entity, other than an individual, that pays or reimburses the cost for the provision of health care.

Provider means an individual, organization or business entity that provides health care.

Residual risk means the remaining level of risk following the development and implementation of the entity's response when a proposed “control” is implement.

Risk means “uncertainty that matters”. In contracting, true risk is that achievement of an objective is uncertain.

If an objective will be achieved because of a fact, constraint, requirement, problem or issue, then there is no risk. Uncertainties are not risks because they are irrelevant. The only reason we need to identify, understand and manage risks is if they matter.

Risks matter if those risks affect the achievement of one or more objectives. Objectives define and describe what matters. Objectives tell us about requirements for outcomes, deliverables, time, cost and/or performance. Patient-centered objectives may relate to health, career, family or fulfilment. Provider organization objectives might include growing the value of their services, enhancing patient satisfaction, protecting providers reputation and operating with an appropriate profit.

Risk-Impacting Objectives means the explicit link between risk and objectives explains why risk management is so important in all aspects of contracting. The risk process requires shared clearly defined values and objectives. It is not possible to define risks without a context. We must know what is “at risk”, what matters, what we are trying to achieve.

Risk control matrix (RCM) means a repository of risks that pose a threat to Healthplans, providers and the public, as well as the controls in place to mitigate those risks.

Risk-adjustment means a modification of payment amounts or of contractual budgets to reflect the relative health status of the sub-populations, and/or a change in population health status over time.

Risks impacting objectives (RIO) means a process examining the interaction effects whereby shared risk descriptions, determined to have specific impact severity, are mapped to joint process values and objectives, risk sources, the likelihood, and the impact statement.

Risk-share means a form of contracting in which providers’ services to a population of patients will receive financial rewards or paybacks if certain performance targets which demonstrate value are achieved. The entire group of providers are rewarded financially when agreed-upon metrics are achieved, regardless of the performance of specific individuals within the provider group. Risk-sharing should be sensitive to "bad-actors" and must not be "gameable".

Shared objectives means the mutually agreeable overarching goals of a Healthplan and Providers which they agree to discuss and advance through any arrangements or agreements reached under a framework of agreements to fulfill a contract, whether interim, incremental or final.

Shared value means values that are usually developed by the provider and Healthcare leadership that are adopted by provider practices and the healthcare organization. The values are shared and followed by leaders of each organization when acting on behalf of the organization.

Total health expenditures means all health care expenditures in Oregon by public and private sources, including: (a) All payments on providers’ claims for reimbursement of the cost of health care provided; (b) All payments to providers other than payments described in paragraph (a) of this subsection; (c) All cost-sharing paid by residents of the State of Oregon, including but not limited to copayments, deductibles and coinsurance; and (d) The net cost of private health insurance.

Value-based payments (VBP) means a newer approach fee-for-service that incentivizes providers to focus on quality outcomes and incentivizing providers to reach benchmarks, rather than (a) the quantity of services or (b) the quality of services rendered.

This paper and the larger paper linked below requires study and is not written for people seeking a quick read to gain expert awareness. There are many purposes of the paper, the most important of which is to encourage practice providers to ask questions and learn more about fee-for-services (FFS), alternative payment methods (APM), and value-based payment (VBP) contracts where pay-for-performance (P4P), measurement-based care (MBC), and outcome informed care (OIC) are the necessary foundations for mental and behavioral healthcare contract design and implementation.

The larger paper:
https://www.mentorresearch.org/healthy-toxic-contracts-conversations-and-audits

For more information from Mentor Research Institute Contact Us