Blogs

Delivery of patient-centered care is gaining momentum not only in the GCC, but across the globe. As simple as it may sound, I believe it is one of the most intricate aspects of healthcare that needs undivided attention to achieve quantifiable outcomes. Even now, few health systems aren’t aware of the importance of building one-to-one (1:1) consumer journeys by bringing in personalization, accessibility, and innovation and how it can help them “find, guide, and keep patients for life.”

In the ever-changing world of healthcare, a concept that has gained significant attention in recent decades is value-based care. This innovative approach shifts the focus from volume-based services to providing high-quality care that aligns with patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness. This blog explores the history of value-based care, when it was started, the key moments in the building of today’s of value-bsaed care landscape and its transformative impact on healthcare.

In U.S. healthcare, providers operate under two primary models to secure compensation for their services: the fee-for-service (FFS) model, and the value-based care (VBC) model. This blog provides a brief comparison - FFS Vs. VBC - delving into the major differences in the methods. Furthermore, we'll evaluate each model's pros and cons, considering their impact on patient care, health systems, as well as the overall healthcare ecosystem.

State Medicaid programs are increasingly interested in adopting various value-based payment (VBP) models with the aim of fostering efficiency and enhancing health outcomes within the system. Unlike Medicaid’s traditional fee-for-service payment model, which relies on the quantity of care delivered, value-based payment models incentivize providers to meet quality objectives and generate cost savings. Some models also incentivize improving the patient experience and addressing disparities in health equity.

In part 1 of our series on payer-provider collaboration, we talked about the challenge of data silos. In part 2, we’ll look at the challenge of provider abrasion and its cure: meaningful payer-provider collaboration based on shared and timely access to data.

Meet Chris, a 57-year-old individual battling stage 1 lung cancer in the Chicago metropolitan area. Amid his treatment, he finds himself dissatisfied with his current healthcare provider's level of attention and care. Chris is grappling with limited guidance regarding his illness, available treatment options, and the most suitable path forward. Moreover, he's often left to fend for himself when scheduling appointments, intensifying his stress and frustration.