(240)-343-2585 info@essaymerit.com

NUR 621 Value-Based Purchasing Presentation NUR 621 Value-Based Purchasing Presentation https://www.onlinenursingessays.com/nur-621-value-based-purchasing-presentation/ Value-Based Care Description ØValue-Based care substantially in the clinical setting increases performance ØValue-Based purchasing process efficiency or pay for performance in the health administration ØIntegrated Systems for delivery increases value-based care for patients Ø Aligning Value- based care with efficiency to create value for patient care The payment model that provides financial incentives to hospitals, physicians, healthcare providers, and other medical groups for gaining certain measure of performance is known as Value-Based Purchasing or Pay for Performance(P4P). Clinical results, like long survival, are hard to measure, thus making value-based purchasing process efficient and quality for evaluation process. Things like lowering blood pressure, measuring blood pressure, or even advising patients to avoid smoking. This work scheme also penalizes medical and health care workers for medical professional errors, poor results, or even increased costs. The introduction of  the integrated systems for delivery whereby, the providers and the insurers cost share to help in aligning motivation  for value-based care ( Bosko,Dubow,Koenig, 2016). NUR 621 Value-Based Purchasing Presentation Scenario: You work in the contracting department of a national payer that is converting its provider contracts to value-based arrangements. Your team is attempting to recontract with large physician groups. In NUR 621 Value-Based Purchasing Presentation, create a 12- to 15-slide presentation with speaker notes to demonstrate the benefits of converting to a value-based arrangement: ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT Describe value-based care. Describe how value-based care differs from fee-for-service or capitated care. Explain why adopting a value-based purchasing arrangement would be financially beneficial to both physician groups and the health plan. Include at least three references, one of which should be your textbook.   Prepare this assignment in accordance with the APA Style Guide, which can be found in the Student Success Center.   This assignment makes use of a rubric. Please review the rubric before beginning the assignment to become acquainted with the requirements for successful completion.   You must turn in this assignment to LopesWrite. If you require assistance, a link to the LopesWrite technical support articles can be found in Class Resources. Value-Based Purchasing Presentation – Rubric Collapse All Value-Based Purchasing Presentation – RubricCollapse All Value-Based Care 16 points Criteria Description Value-Based Care 5. Target 16 points The presentation explains value-based care in a substantial and thought-provoking manner. 4. Acceptable 14.72 points The presentation explains value-based care in a substantial manner. 3. Approaching 14.08 points The presentation clearly explains value-based care. 2. Insufficient 12.8 points The presentation vaguely explains value-based care. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points The presentation does not sufficiently explain value-based care. Differences in Value-Based Care 16 points Criteria Description Differences in Value-Based Care 5. Target 16 points The presentation explains how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a capitated approach in a substantial and thought-provoking manner. 4. Acceptable 14.72 points The presentation explains how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a capitated approach in a substantial manner. 3. Approaching 14.08 points The presentation clearly explains how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a capitated approach. 2. Insufficient 12.8 points The presentation vaguely explains how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a capitated approach. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points The presentation does not sufficiently explain how value-based care differs from a fee-for-service or a capitated approach. Financial Advantages to Value-Based Purchasing 16 points Criteria Description Financial Advantages to Value-Based Purchasing 5. Target 16 points The presentation thoroughly and substantially describes why adopting a value-based purchasing arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the health plan. 4. Acceptable 14.72 points The presentation thoroughly describes why adopting a value-based purchasing arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the health plan. 3. Approaching 14.08 points The presentation clearly describes why adopting a value-based purchasing arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the health plan. 2. Insufficient 12.8 points The presentation vaguely describes why adopting a value-based purchasing arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the health plan. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points The presentation does not sufficiently describe why adopting a value-based purchasing arrangement would be financially advantageous for the physician groups and to the health plan. Presentation of Content 8 points Criteria Description Presentation of Content 5. Target 8 points The content is written clearly and concisely. Ideas universally progress and relate to each other. The project includes motivating questions and advanced organizers. The project gives the audience a clear sense of the main idea. 4. Acceptable 7.36 points The content is written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting information exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes persuasive information from reliable sources. 3. Approaching 7.04 points The presentation slides are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization or in their relationships to each other. 2. Insufficient 6.4 points The content is vague in conveying a point of view and does not create a strong sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points The content lacks a clear point of view and logical sequence of information. Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear. Layout 8 points Criteria Description Layout 5. Target 8 points The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point. The background and colors enhance the readability of the text. 4. Acceptable 7.36 points The layout background and text complement each other and enable the content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies appropriately for headings and text. 3. Approaching 7.04 points The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold, long paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance readability. 2. Insufficient 6.4 points The layout shows some structure, but appears cluttered and busy or distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations of text. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely difficult to read with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold formatting is evident. Language Use and Audience Awareness 8 points Criteria Description Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.) 5. Target 8 points The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope. 4. Acceptable 7.36 points The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly. 3. Approaching 7.04 points Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part. 2. Insufficient 6.4 points Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer prose indicates writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately. Mechanics of Writing 4 points Criteria Description Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5. Target 4 points Writer is clearly in control of standard, written, academic English. 4. Acceptable 3.68 points Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. 3. Approaching 3.52 points Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. 2. Insufficient 3.2 points Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Documentation of Sources 4 points Criteria Description Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5. Target 4 points Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. 4. Acceptable 3.68 points Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. 3. Approaching 3.52 points Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. 2. Insufficient 3.2 points Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. 1. Unsatisfactory 0 points Sources are not documented. Total 80 points Resources Collapse All ResourcesCollapse All Economics and Financial Management for Nurses and Nurse Leaders Read the section, “ACOs Compared With MCOs,” of Chapter 3 and review the section, “ACA Timeline,” of Chapter 2 … Read More View Resource In the New Healthcare, Payers and Providers Look to Redefine Quality Read “In the New Healthcare, Payers and Providers Look to Redefine Quality,” by Leventhal, from Healthcare Informatics ( … Read More https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/docview/2077541196?accountid=7374 Improving the US Hospital Reimbursement: How Patient Satisfaction in HCAHPS Reflects Lower Readmission Read “Improving the US Hospital Reimbursement: How Patient Satisfaction in HCAHPS Reflects Lower Readmission,” by Chen et al., fr … Read More https://www-proquest-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/docview/2436878510/9A8F30B42F05490DPQ/4?accountid=7374 Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Performance: Do Organizational and Market Characteristics Matter? Read “Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Performance: Do Organizational and Market Characteristics Matter?” by Spaulding, Edwardson, … Read More https://www-proquest-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/docview/1989851748/70102CA5992D4D51PQ/11?accountid=7374 Are Value-Based Arrangements the Answer We’ve Been Waiting for? Read “Are Value-Based Arrangements the Answer We’ve Been Waiting for?” by Dubois, Westrich, and Buelt, from ᥿ … Read More https://www-sciencedirect-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S1098301520300425 Hospitals Already Thinking About Leaving New CMS Bundled-Payment Model Read “Hospitals Already Thinking About Leaving New CMS Bundled-Payment Model,” by Dickson, from Modern Healthcare ( … Read More https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/logi Topic 6 DQ 1 Jan 20–22, 2022 In an accountable care organization (ACO), insurance companies are looking at how health care organizations care for a specific population. How do you think this impacts the health of the population? The (Accountable care organization) ACO is an attempt to better align hospital, physician, and health plan incentives. In 2012, the US (United States) Department of Health and Human Services began to establish (Accountable care organizations) ACOs for Medicare beneficiaries. Private insurers, hospitals, and physicians began establishing ACOs for other patient populations. Section 3022 of the ACA (Affordable Care Act) allows ACOs to establish partnerships and networks that include payers, patients, and providers, such as hospitals, physician groups, sub-acute care facilities, and home health agencies that follow the patient across the entire continuum of an episode of care, or all services both acute and sub-acute involved in managing a specific diagnosis or disorder (Penner, 2016). ACOs share the same goals as MCOs (Managed Care Organizations) of controlling costs while ensuring access and high-quality patient care. However, reimbursement for care is on a per-episode, bundled basis including all care provided from disease onset to recovery, rather than a predetermined capitation rate. For example, patient care provided for a total hip replacement would extend from hospitalization and surgery through skilled nursing care and rehabilitation on through home health care and transition to the home setting. The reimbursement for these services over an episode of care is a flat fee shared among these providers. Another feature of ACOs is agreements between providers and payers known as shared savings, shared risk, or gain sharing (Penner, 2016). ACOs (Accountable care organizations) are an attempt to supply greater coordination of care that should provide greater quality of care at a reduced cost through a patient-centered focus that delivers the right care at the right time without duplication. However, increased competition may not produce desired outcomes in HVBP (Hospital Value-Based Purchasing) , so the desired outcomes associated with ACOs may fail to reach the desired status. Policy makers should carefully review and monitor the influence of competition on desired outcomes related to ACOs (Spaulding et al., 2018). The process of merging multiple data sets yields some organizational differences in comparison to the total population. Because the program has been in place for several years, we can expect hospitals to actively pursue strategies associated with improving scores related to HVBP (Spaulding et al., 2018). Future research should focus on the association of a hospital’s system standing and any associations with ACOs, dedicated (employed) physician providers, and medical home arrangements to determine if the diffusion of these arrangements is more likely to occur in system hospitals than in non-system hospitals (Spaulding et al., 2018).   References Penner, S. J., RN, , MN, , MPA, , DrPH, , & CNL, . (2016). Economics and financial management for nurses and nurse leaders (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing Company. Spaulding, A., PhD., Edwardson, N., PhD., & Zhao, M., PhD. (2018). Hospital value-based purchasing performance: Do organizational and market characteristics matter? Journal of Healthcare Management, 63(1), 31-48. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JHM-D-16-00015 Order Now