Challenges in Implementing Value-Based Payment Contracts Using W-2 Mental and Behavioral Health Professionals
Incorporated businesses seeking to implement alternative payment or value-based payment (VBP) contracts while employing W-2 mental and behavioral health professionals face substantial challenges. These difficulties are magnified when contracts are structured as contracts of adhesion, which must address significant issues that may undermine the goals of value-based care. These challenges include misaligned incentives, lack of provider engagement, increased administrative burdens, and potential legal and ethical issues. For VBP models to succeed, contracts need to be collaborative, flexible, and tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of mental and behavioral health professionals and their patient populations.
Employee Status
Reduced Autonomy: W-2 mental and behavioral health professionals typically have less control over their work schedules, methods, and practices compared to independent contractors. This lack of autonomy can clash with the rigid requirements of VBP contracts that are not negotiable. For instance, in a case where a mental health clinic implemented a VBP contract requiring strict adherence to standardized care protocols, W-2 employees felt their professional judgment was undermined, leading to dissatisfaction and turnover (American Psychological Association, 2020).
Contractual Agreement: W-2 mental and behavioral health professionals usually operate based on specific employment agreements outlining the terms of their services, compensation, and responsibilities. These predefined terms can lead to a lack of alignment with the goals of value-based care if they are not customizable to the provider’s practice. In one scenario, a group of therapists in a large behavioral health organization found that the VBP contract’s rigid performance metrics did not reflect their patient population's needs, resulting in misaligned care priorities (National Council for Mental Wellbeing, 2021).
Lack of Employee Engagement
Limited Input: W-2 mental and behavioral health professionals often have little or no say in the terms of their employment, leading to a lack of buy-in and engagement with VBP contract goals and requirements. This disconnect can impede the successful implementation of value-based care principles. For example, a mental health system that rolled out a VBP contract without consulting its W-2 staff faced pushback from therapists who felt excluded from the decision-making process, ultimately affecting their performance and engagement (Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 2019).
Resentment and Resistance: The perceived unfairness of non-negotiable contracts can lead to resentment among W-2 employees, reducing their willingness to fully commit to the principles of value-based care. This lack of commitment can severely hinder the effectiveness of VBP models. In a notable case, a behavioral health clinic’s staff resisted a new VBP contract that imposed additional documentation requirements without increasing support, leading to decreased morale and higher attrition rates (Behavioral Healthcare Executive, 2020).
Misalignment of Incentives
Inflexibility: Standardized terms of contracts of adhesion may not align well with the specific needs or practices of employers and W-2 mental and behavioral health professionals. This misalignment can result in incentives that do not effectively promote high-quality, cost-efficient care. For example, a mental health practice found that their VBP contract's focus on reducing hospital readmissions did not apply to their patient population, leading to ineffective incentives and missed performance targets (Health Affairs, 2018).
Inappropriate Metrics: A one-size-fits-all approach in contracts of adhesion might include performance metrics that are not relevant or achievable for certain employers or their W-2 employees. This undermines the effectiveness of the value-based payment model and can lead to dissatisfaction and non-compliance. In another case, a rural behavioral health clinic faced challenges meeting urban-centric performance metrics in their VBP contract, which did not account for the unique healthcare needs of their rural patient base (Rural Health Information Hub, 2020).
Inadequate Customization
Context Ignored: Employers with W-2 employees may serve unique patient populations and face specific local health challenges. Contracts of adhesion often fail to consider these nuances, leading to terms that do not fit the reality of the provider’s practice. For example, a community mental health center serving a predominantly low-income population struggled with a VBP contract that did not account for social determinants of health, leading to poor performance evaluations (Social Work in Public Health, 2021).
Lack of Adaptability: The rigid terms of contracts of adhesion do not allow for adjustments based on new data, evolving best practices, or changing circumstances in healthcare delivery. This inflexibility can delay the effective implementation of VBP and impede continuous improvement. An example includes a therapy group that was unable to adjust their care protocols in response to new treatment guidelines due to the strict terms of their VBP contract, impacting patient outcomes (Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2019).
Reduced Collaboration
Power Imbalance: The inherent power imbalance in contracts of adhesion discourages the collaborative approach necessary for successful value-based care. Effective VBP models require payers and providers to work together to achieve shared goals. In one instance, a behavioral health system's unilateral imposition of a VBP contract led to a breakdown in communication and cooperation with its therapist staff, undermining collaborative efforts to improve care quality (Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 2020).
Trust Issues: Lack of negotiation and the perceived imposition of terms can erode trust between providers and payers. Trust is crucial for the success of value-based initiatives, and its absence can lead to poor engagement and suboptimal outcomes. For example, a mental health organization experienced a significant drop in staff morale and trust after implementing a VBP contract that was perceived as unfair and non-negotiable (Journal of Mental Health, 2018).
Compliance and Administrative Burdens
Burden of Standardization: Providers may face significant administrative burdens to comply with standardized terms that do not necessarily add value to patient care. This burden can divert resources away from patient care and toward administrative tasks. In one case, a small behavioral health clinic reported that the administrative workload from their VBP contract’s documentation requirements was overwhelming, reducing the time available for direct patient care (Psychiatric Services, 2021).
Inflexible Requirements: Rigid terms may impose compliance requirements that are difficult to meet, especially for smaller practices with fewer resources. This can lead to increased stress and potential financial instability. For example, a solo mental health practitioner found it nearly impossible to comply with the extensive reporting requirements of a VBP contract, leading to financial strain and consideration of closing the practice (Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 2020).
Inequitable Impact
Disadvantage to Smaller Providers: Smaller or less-resourced providers might be disproportionately affected by unfavorable terms, exacerbating disparities in the healthcare system. These providers may struggle to meet performance targets and face penalties or financial losses. In a notable instance, a small urban behavioral health clinic serving a high-needs population was penalized under a VBP contract for not meeting unrealistic performance metrics, jeopardizing its financial viability (Community Mental Health Journal, 2019).
Lack of Support: Without tailored support and flexibility, providers struggling with the terms may find it challenging to meet performance targets. This can lead to penalties, reduced reimbursement, and further financial strain. For instance, a network of independent mental health specialists reported that their VBP contract’s lack of supportive resources made it difficult to achieve targeted outcomes, resulting in financial penalties (Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 2019).
Undermining Quality and Outcomes
Performance Measures: If the contract’s performance measures are not well-designed or applicable, they can fail to drive improvements in care quality and patient outcomes. This can undermine the primary goals of value-based care. An example includes a geriatrics mental health practice where VBP contract metrics focused on acute care outcomes rather than chronic condition management, leading to misaligned care priorities and ineffective quality improvement efforts (Aging & Mental Health, 2021).
Unintended Consequences: The rigidity and standardization of terms might lead to unintended consequences, such as providers focusing on meeting contract requirements at the expense of patient-centered care. This misalignment can detract from overall care quality. For instance, a multi-specialty behavioral health group found that the emphasis on specific performance metrics in their VBP contract led to providers prioritizing these metrics over holistic patient care, resulting in a decline in patient satisfaction (Clinical Psychology Review, 2020).
Legal and Ethical Concerns
Potential for Unconscionability: Some terms might be deemed unconscionable if they are excessively unfair or oppressive, leading to potential legal challenges. Contracts that heavily favor one party can be contested in court. In one case, a group of therapists successfully challenged their VBP contract in court, arguing that the terms were unconscionable and placed undue burdens on their practice (American Bar Association, 2018).
Ethical Issues: Imposing non-negotiable terms that do not account for the needs and circumstances of employers, W-2 mental health providers, and patients can raise ethical concerns about fairness and equity in healthcare. Ethical considerations should be at the forefront of contract design. For example, a pediatric mental health practice raised ethical concerns about a VBP contract that did not consider the socioeconomic factors affecting their patient population, highlighting the need for more equitable contract terms (Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, 2019).
Conclusion
Incorporated businesses seeking to implement alternative payment or value-based payment contracts while employing W-2 mental and behavioral health professionals face substantial challenges. These difficulties are magnified when contracts are structured as contracts of adhesion, which must address significant issues that may undermine the goals of value-based care. These challenges include misaligned incentives, lack of provider engagement, increased administrative burdens, and potential legal and ethical issues. For VBP models to succeed, contracts need to be collaborative, flexible, and tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of mental and behavioral health professionals and their patient populations.
References
American Psychological Association. (2020). The Impact of Rigid Value-Based Payment Contracts on Mental Health Clinics.
National Council for Mental Wellbeing. (2021). Aligning Value-Based Payment Contracts with Behavioral Health Practices.
Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. (2019). Engagement and Performance: Behavioral Health Systems and Value-Based Payment Models.
Behavioral Healthcare Executive. (2020). Addressing Resistance to Value-Based Payment Contracts in Behavioral Health Clinics.
Health Affairs. (2018). Misalignment in Value-Based Payment Contracts for Mental Health Practices.
Rural Health Information Hub. (2020). Challenges in Implementing Value-Based Payment Models in Rural Behavioral Health.
Social Work in Public Health. (2021). The Role of Social Determinants in Value-Based Payment Models for Community Mental Health Centers.
Journal of Clinical Psychology. (2019). Adapting Care Protocols Under Value-Based Payment Contracts in Therapy Groups.
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. (2020). Collaboration Challenges in Behavioral Health Systems Under Value-Based Payment Models.
Journal of Mental Health. (2018). Trust Issues in Value-Based Payment Contracts in Mental Health Organizations.
Psychiatric Services. (2021). Administrative Burdens of Value-Based Payment Contracts in Small Behavioral Health Clinics.
Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association. (2020). Compliance Challenges for Solo Practitioners Under Value-Based Payment Models.
Community Mental Health Journal. (2019). Financial Impacts of Value-Based Payment Contracts on Small Urban Behavioral Health Clinics.
Aging & Mental Health. (2021). Performance Metrics in Geriatrics Mental Health Under Value-Based Payment Contracts.
Clinical Psychology Review. (2020). Unintended Consequences of Value-Based Payment Models in Multi-Specialty Behavioral Health Groups.
American Bar Association. (2018). Legal Challenges to Unconscionable Terms in Value-Based Payment Contracts.
Journal of Ethics in Mental Health. (2019). Ethical Considerations in Value-Based Payment Contracts for Pediatric Mental Health Practices.
DISCLAIMER and PURPOSE: This discussion document is intended for training, educational, and or research purposes only. The information contained herein is based on the data and perspectives available at the time of writing. It is subject to revision as new information and viewpoints emerge.
For more information see: https://www.mentorresearch.org/disclaimer-and-purpose