Health Care Payment Reform

A collection of research and and programs that are testing and learning from new health care payment models, with the goal of increasing quality and managing costs.

View all items in this collection

About This Collection

The current method of paying for health care is broken. Historically, the health care payment system has been designed to reward the volume of services rather than the value of services that are provided to patients. Additionally, in traditional fee-for-service arrangements, doctors often lose money when they spend time doing things that might matter to a patient’s health but that they cannot bill for.

RWJF supports research and implementation of promising models, such as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), that are designed to disrupt the traditional fee-for-service system by holding providers accountable for the costs and quality of care for whole populations of people, and by providing clinicians with more financial flexibility when it comes to how they treat patients. This collection contains research and perspectives that compare how different models of payment reform are being used and how effective they are at increasing quality and managing costs.

Latest Research and Perspectives on Payment Models

Analysis of Integrated Delivery Systems and New Provider-Sponsored Health Plans

June 1, 2017 | Report

Researchers find the current health plan environment is not conducive to profitability for new provider-sponsored plans. Given proposed cuts to Medicaid and changes to plans in AHCA, the remaining plans face more uncertainty.

Journalists Reflect on Health Care in American Communities

April 17, 2017 | Story

This series includes insightful profiles written by prominent health policy journalists on how Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Aligning Forces for Quality initiative has improved health care in local communities.

Evaluation of Value-Based Payment Reform

December 1, 2016 | Brief

The value-based payment approaches were evaluated by University of Washington researchers. Executive summaries of the evaluations of each of these projects examine the experiences of eleven independent multi-stakeholder initiatives in eight states