/ en Fri, 25 Apr 2025 20:59:22 -0500 Thu, 31 Oct 24 07:44:27 -0500 <div class=""><div class="row"><div class="col-md-12 spacer"><header class="Banner_Title_Overlay_Bar"><img src="/sites/default/files/2024-11/ati-aha-team-webinar-banner-red-blk-1200x300px.jpg" alt="Banner Image" width="1200" height="300"></header></div></div><div class="row"><div class="col-md-10 center_body"><p><br>AHA and ATI Advisory offer a three-part webinar series designed to provide AHA members with a comprehensive overview of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation’s (CMMI) new mandatory bundled payment model, TEAM (Transforming Episode Accountability Model).</p> .center_body ul li { margin-bottom:10px; } <h2><span>Webinar 1: Understanding the Basics of TEAM</span></h2><p>This webinar covers CMMI’s goals for the model, key components and structure of the model (including timelines and reconciliation details), potential outcomes of the model, and what steps your hospital will need to take to ensure readiness. <span><strong>WATCH REPLAY</strong></span></p><p><span><strong>NOTE:</strong></span> The webinar begins at <strong>0:00:59</strong> of the video.</p></div></div></div> Thu, 31 Oct 2024 07:44:27 -0500 Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM) <div class="container"><div class="row"><div class="col-md-8"><p>The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) Aug. 1 <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-08-28/pdf/2024-17021.pdf" target="_blank" title="New Mandatory Payment Model">finalized</a> a new mandatory payment model that will bundle payment to acute care hospitals for five types of surgical episodes. The Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM), included as part of the fiscal year (FY) 2025 inpatient and long-term care hospital (LTCH) prospective payment system (PPS) final rule, expands upon previous episode-based payment models like the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) and the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-A) models. The <a href="/advisory/2024-08-14-inpatient-pps-final-rule-fy-2025" target="_blank">inpatient</a><a href="/advisory/2024-08-14-inpatient-pps-final-rule-fy-2025"> </a>and <a href="/advisory/2024-08-27-long-term-care-hospital-prospective-payment-system-final-rule-fy-2025" target="_blank">LTCH</a> PPS provisions in the final rule are covered in separate <a href="/advisories" target="_blank">AHA advisories.</a> </p><div class="panel module-typeC"><div class="panel-heading"><h2>Key Highlights</h2><p>CMS' Team will: </p><ul><li>Hold acute care hospitals responsible for the quality and costs of all services provided during select surgical episodes, from the date of inpatient admission or outpatient procedure through 30 days post-discharge.</li><li>Require inpatient PPS hospitals to participate in 188 core-based statistical areas (CBSAs).</li><li>Run for five years, from Jan. 1, 2026, through Dec. 31, 2030.</li><li>Include five surgical episode categories: coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR), major bowel procedure, surgical hip/femur fracture treatment (SHFFT) and spinal fusion.</li><li>Provide fee-for-service payments as usual but retrospectively reconcile payments against a target price.</li><li>Provide a one-year glide path to two-sided risk. Safety-net hospitals will have a three-year glide path to downside risk.</li><li>Include stop-loss and stop-gain policies.</li><li>Include waivers for the SNF three-day rule and telehealth originating and geographic sites.</li><li>Link reconciliation payments to quality through performance on hospital-wide all-cause readmissions, CMS patient safety and adverse events composite, and total hip/total knee arthroplasty patient-reported outcome measures.</li><li>Conduct separate rulemaking for policies like low-volume thresholds, hierarchical condition category (HCC) lookback periods, and hospital transfers, which were not finalized in this rule. </li></ul></div></div><h2>AHA TAKE </h2><p>While the AHA has long supported the adoption of value-based and alternative payment models to deliver high-quality care at lower costs, the rule’s mandatory bundled payment model for five different surgical episodes will not advance these objectives. Not only is the model extremely similar to other bundled payment approaches that have failed to meet the statutory criteria for expansion, as they have not reduced program costs or generated net savings, but it also puts at particular risk many hospitals that are not of adequate size or in a position to support the investments necessary to succeed. </p><p>We are particularly disappointed that, despite evidence to suggest that mandatory participation may increase disparities, CMS decided to move forward with its proposal to require certain hospitals to participate in the model. Requiring all hospitals in certain regions to take on large, diverse bundles may require more risk than they can manage, threatening their ability to maintain access to quality care. </p><h2>WHAT YOU CAN DO </h2><ul><li><strong>Watch </strong>for additional materials including additional TEAM proposals from CMS on issues like low-volume thresholds not finalized in this rule.</li><li><strong>Determine </strong>if your organization is included in the list of <a href="https://www.cms.gov/team-model-participant-list" target="_blank">hospitals selected for participation.</a></li><li><strong>Share </strong>this advisory with your chief financial officer, other senior management team members, key physician leaders and nurse managers to examine potential changes for your hospital.</li><li><strong>Assess </strong>the potential impact of the payment and quality changes on your Medicare revenue and operations.</li><li><strong>Register for the AHA member-only </strong><a href="https://aha-org.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_aWjexSB8SF6GqfmFFx3FPw" target="_blank"><strong>webinar</strong></a><strong> on Sept. 19 at 1 p.m. ET. </strong><em><strong> </strong></em></li></ul><h2>FURTHER QUESTIONS</h2><p>Please direct questions to Jennifer Holloman, AHA’s senior associate director of physician and alternative payment policy, at <a href="mailto:jholloman@aha.org" target="_blank" title="Holloman email"><u>jholloman@aha.org</u></a>. </p></div><div class="col-md-4"><a href="/system/files/media/file/2024/09/transforming-episode-accountability-model-final-rule-advisory-9-16-2024.pdf"><img src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/cover-transforming-episode-accountability-model-final-rule-advisory-9-16-2024.png" data-entity-uuid="d1a17d7b-d718-4eee-9d40-81da2fed8bfd" data-entity-type="file" alt="Regulatory Advisory Image" width="640" height="828"></a></div></div></div> Mon, 16 Sep 2024 10:55:58 -0500 Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM) /lettercomment/2024-06-10-aha-comments-cms-proposed-transforming-episode-accountability-model-team <p>June 10, 2024</p><p>The Honorable Chiquita Brooks-LaSure<br>Administrator<br>Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services<br>Hubert H. Humphrey Building<br>200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 445-G<br>Washington, DC 20201</p><p><em>Submitted Electronically</em></p><p><em><strong>RE: CMS-1808-P, Medicare and Medicaid Programs and the Children’s Health Insurance Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2025 Rates; Quality Programs Requirements; and Other Policy Changes, (Vol. 89, No. 86), May 2, 2024.</strong></em></p><p>Dear Administrator Brooks-LaSure,</p><p>On behalf of our nearly 5,000 member hospitals, health systems and other health care organizations, our clinician partners — including more than 270,000 affiliated physicians, 2 million nurses and other caregivers — and the 43,000 health care leaders who belong to our professional membership groups, the ���������� Association (AHA) appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM). We are submitting separate comments on the agency’s proposed changes to the inpatient and long-term care hospital prospective payment system (PPS).</p><p>We are supportive of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary’s goal of moving toward more accountable, coordinated care through new alternative payment models (APMs). However, we have deep concerns regarding TEAM. CMS is proposing to mandate a model that is has significant design flaws and, as proposed, places too much risk on providers with too little opportunity for reward in the form of shared savings, especially considering the significant upfront investments required<strong>. If CMS cannot make extensive changes to the model, it should not implement it at this time. To do so would make TEAM no more than a backdoor payment cut to hospitals, as it fails to provide hospitals a fair opportunity to achieve enough savings to garner a reconciliation payment.</strong></p><p>Additionally, the programmatic details of TEAM are almost identical to previous iterations of the CMS Innovation Center’s (CMMI) episode-based APMs, including Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-A), and Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR). However, we are concerned that the programmatic details of TEAM are almost identical to previous iterations of bundled payment models like CJR and BPCI-A, which, according to CMMI’s own report, have neither generated significant net savings nor met statutory criteria for expansion.<sup>1</sup> In particular, the relevant statute at 42 U.S.C. 1315a(b)(2)(A) directs the agency to “focus on models expected to reduce program costs under the applicable subchapter.” Yet, according to the most recent data from CMS, CJR reported cumulative losses of $142.6 million to the Medicare program in its last year and may have widened disparities in lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) rates for some populations.<sup>2</sup> BPCI-A generated a net loss of $114 million in its third year, and beneficiaries reported unfavorable results for functional status and care experience measures<strong>.</strong><sup>3</sup> <strong>Thus, because TEAM is based on the extremely similar BPCI-A and CJR models, and because those prior models failed to meet statutory criteria for expansion as they failed to reduce program costs and generate net savings, we have serious concerns that the agency is stretching its legal authority.</strong> Moreover, in not accounting for lessons learned from previous models, we feel the agency has missed a critical opportunity to move bundled payment models forward in a meaningful way.</p><p>Moreover, the tremendous scope of this rule and its aggressive 60-day comment period has made it challenging for us to fully evaluate and analyze the proposal and its tremendous impact on hospitals and health systems. The five types of surgical procedures proposed for inclusion in TEAM comprise over 11% of inpatient PPS payments in 2023 – a staggering amount that does not even include the outpatient payments that would be at risk as part of the model. While we worked closely with our hospital and health system members to assess the potential impact of TEAM on the important work they do in caring for their patients and communities, the incredibly short comment period severely hampers our ability to provide comprehensive comments. That said, it is clear a number of changes need to occur to make this model feasible.</p><h2>Make Participation Voluntary</h2><p>The proposed rule would mandate TEAM participation for all acute care inpatient PPS hospitals in select geographies. However, mandatory participation is not practicable or advisable.<strong> </strong>Many organizations are neither of an adequate size nor in a financial position to support the investments necessary to transition to mandatory bundled payment models. Requiring hospitals to take on large, diverse bundles would require more risk than many can manage, threatening their ability to maintain access to quality care in their communities. <strong>We strongly urge CMS to make model participation voluntary and allow</strong> <strong>organizations to select the episodes for which they feel they can improve quality of care and best impact cost savings.</strong></p><p><u></u></p><h2>Lower the Discount Factor</h2><p>The proposed rule includes a very aggressive 3% discount factor given the context of other TEAM design features.<strong> </strong>Indeed, based on our analysis, each of the five clinical episode categories would have most of the episode spending accounted for by the anchor hospitalization or outpatient procedure, with three of the five having at least three-quarters of spending accounted for by the anchor hospitalization or outpatient procedure. This is extremely problematic as hospitals do not have an ability to decrease the anchor hospitalization payment amount, which leaves virtually no opportunity for them to achieve efficiencies and meet, let alone exceed, the proposed 3% discount factor.<strong> Thus, we recommend that a discount factor of no more than 1% be applied.</strong></p><p><u></u></p><h2>Modify Several Design Elements</h2><p>The proposed rule has several problematic design elements delineated below and explained more thoroughly in the attached<strong>. If CMS cannot make significant changes to our concerns below, the agency should not implement TEAM.</strong> At the very minimum, CMS should:</p><ul><li><u>Revise the risk adjustment factor</u>.<strong> </strong>We recommend that the risk adjustment factor capture complication or comorbidity/major complication or comorbidity (CC/MCC) flags from the anchor hospitalization and hierarchical condition codes (HCC) flags three years prior to the hospitalization.</li><li><u>Establish Longer Glidepath to Two-sided Risk</u>. We recommend extending the upside-only glidepath to a minimum of two years.</li><li><u>Revise the Low-volume Threshold</u>. We recommend CMS increase the low-volume threshold to ensure statistical significance, establish separate thresholds within each episode category and fully exclude organizations not meeting those thresholds from participation.</li><li><u>Make Participation for Safety-net, Rural and Special Designation Hospitals Upside Only. </u>According to our analysis, these organizations are projected to have the most significant financial losses, and they already serve more complex patient populations often with lower margins.</li><li><u>Exclude Hospitals Participating in Other APMs</u>. CMS is creating “double jeopardy” for organizations participating in multiple APMs, and thus should exclude participants in accountable care organizations (ACOs), the States Advancing All-Payer Health Equity Approaches and Development (AHEAD) model, and the Increasing Organ Transplant Accountability model (IOTA). </li><li><u>Revise Quality Measure Set</u>. At the very least, we recommend excluding the three measures CMS is considering for TEAM that have not yet even been adopted for the inpatient PPS quality reporting program.</li><li><u>Lower Composite Quality Score (CQS) Threshold.</u><strong> </strong>Under the proposed approach, model participants would only receive a full reconciliation payment if their CQS is in 100th percentile nationally, essentially meaning that the CQS would serve only to decrease a participant’s reconciliation payment.</li><li><u>Waive Applicable Fraud and Abuse Laws.</u><strong> </strong>We recommend waiving physician self-referral laws and anti-kickback statutes so that organizations can form the financial arrangements necessary to implement the proposed rule.</li><li><u>Extend Certain Waivers to Support Care Delivery</u>. We urge CMS to give providers maximum flexibility to identify and place beneficiaries in the clinical setting that best serves their short- and long-term recovery goals.</li></ul><p>The changes we recommend would help facilitate hospitals’ success in providing quality care to Medicare beneficiaries, achieving savings for the Medicare program and having an opportunity for reward that is commensurate with the risk they are assuming. Our detailed comments are attached. Please contact me if you have questions or feel free to have a member of your team contact Jennifer Holloman, AHA’s senior associate director of policy, at <a href="mailto:jholloman@aha.org">jholloman@aha.org</a>.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>/s/</p><p>Ashley Thompson<br>Senior Vice President<br>Public Policy Analysis and Development</p><p>Cc:     Elizabeth Fowler, Director, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI)</p><p>_________</p><p><small class="sm"><sup>1</sup> https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/data-and-reports/2022/rtc-2022</small><br><small class="sm"><sup>2</sup> https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/data-<sup>and-reports/2023/cjr-py5-ar-findings-aag</sup></small><br><small class="sm"><sup>3 </sup>https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/data-and-reports/2023/bpci-adv-ar4-findings-aag</small></p> Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:55:23 -0500 Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM) <div class="container"><div class="row"><div class="col-md-8"><p>The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) April 10 <a href="https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-07567.pdf">proposed</a> a new mandatory payment model — Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM) — that would bundle payment to acute care hospitals for five types of surgical episodes. The proposed payment model, included as part of the fiscal year 2025 inpatient and long-term care hospital prospective payment system proposed rule, expands upon previous episode-based payment models like the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement and the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced models.</p><p><strong>The AHA has developed a model comment letter that hospitals and health systems can use to assist with submitting to CMS their own comments on the proposed rule. Click </strong><a href="/system/files/media/file/2024/06/Model-Comment-Letter-on-CMS-Transforming-Episode%20Accountability-Model-TEAM-Proposed-Rule.docx"><strong>here</strong></a><strong> to download the model letter.</strong> The letter includes language that urges CMS to not require mandatory participation in TEAM, to lower the proposed discount factor and pursue significant model design changes or not implement the model at all.</p><p>We strongly encourage members to submit their own comments and use the model letter as a guide to share your perspectives. Patient examples, data and other on-the-ground insights your organization can provide about your experience working with bundled payment models, and the impact this mandatory model would have on your patients and hospital will be important as CMS develops final regulations.</p><p>All comments must be submitted before <strong>5 p.m. ET June 10.</strong> You may submit electronic comments at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> by following the instructions under the “submit a comment” tab. Please refer to file code “CMS-1808-P” when you submit your letter.</p><p>The AHA will submit its own detailed comment letter, which will be shared with hospitals and health systems once finalized.</p><p><strong>FURTHER QUESTIONS</strong></p><p>If you have further questions, please contact Jennifer Holloman, AHA’s senior director of policy for physician and alternative payment models, at <a href="mailto:jholloman@aha.org">jholloman@aha.org</a>. </p></div><div class="col-md-4"><a href="/system/files/media/file/2024/06/use-model-letter-to-submit-comments-on-cms-team-proposed-rule-alert-6-4-24.pdf" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/default/files/2024-06/cover-use-model-letter-to-submit-comments-on-cms%E2%80%99-team-proposed-rule-alert-6-4-24.png" data-entity-uuid data-entity-type="file" alt=" Cover Action Alert: Use Model Letter to Submit Comments on CMS’ TEAM Proposed Rule" width="NaN" height="NaN"></a></div></div></div> Tue, 04 Jun 2024 14:53:57 -0500 Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM) <div class="container"><div class="row"><div class="col-md-8"><p>The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) on April 10 <a href="https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-07567.pdf">proposed</a> a new mandatory payment model that would bundle payment to acute care hospitals for five types of surgical episodes. The proposed payment model, included as part of the FY 2025 inpatient and long-term care hospital (LTCH) prospective payment system (PPS) <a href="https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-07567.pdf">proposed rule</a>, expands upon previous episode-based payment models like the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) and the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-A) models. The <a href="/advisory/2024-04-29-inpatient-pps-proposed-rule-fy-2025">inpatient</a> and <a href="/advisory/2024-04-29-long-term-care-hospital-prospective-payment-system-proposed-rule-fy-2025">LTCH</a> PPS provisions in the proposed rule are covered in separate advisories.</p><h2>KEY HIGHLIGHTS</h2><p>CMMI’s proposed TEAM would:</p><ul><li>Make acute care hospitals responsible for the quality and costs of all services provided during select surgical episodes, from the date of inpatient admission or outpatient procedure through 30-days post-discharge. This includes services covered under both Part A and Part B, including physician, inpatient hospital, inpatient psychiatric facility, LTCH, inpatient rehabilitation facility, skilled-nursing facility (SNF), home health (HH) agency, hospital outpatient, outpatient therapy, clinical laboratory, durable medical equipment, Part B drugs and biologicals (with exceptions) and hospice services.</li><li>Require participation for inpatient PPS hospitals in certain core-based statistical areas (CBSAs) that would be selected at a later date.</li><li>Oversample for participation those CBSAs with high numbers of safety-net hospitals and hospitals that have not previously participated in bundled payment models.</li><li>Run for five years, from Jan. 1, 2026, through Dec. 31, 2030.</li><li>Include five surgical episode categories: coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR), major bowel procedure, surgical hip/femur fracture treatment (SHFFT) and spinal fusion.</li><li>Provide fee-for-service payments as usual but retrospectively reconcile payments against a target price.</li><li>Provide a one-year glidepath to two-sided risk.</li><li>Include stop-loss and stop-gain policies.</li><li>Include waivers for telehealth originating and geographic sites and the SNF three-day rule. CMS intends to address anti-fraud and anti-kickback provisions separately.</li><li>Link reconciliation payments to quality through performance on hospital-wide all-cause readmissions, CMS patient safety and adverse events composite and total hip/total knee arthroplasty patient reported outcome measures.</li><li>Add a new voluntary decarbonization and resilience initiative.</li></ul><h2>AHA TAKE</h2><p>The AHA has long supported adoption of value-based and alternative payment models, especially through demonstration programs that test whether these models support high quality care at lower costs. However, we are concerned that by proposing to mandate participation in this model, the agency has failed to recognize the very real barriers some providers face in building the technical and workforce infrastructure necessary to be successful or the limits posed by an inadequate population base. We are particularly concerned that CMMI is taking a mandatory approach with a bundled payment model that is relatively similar to the current CJR and BPCI-A models since neither of those models have yielded significant net savings.</p><p>We strongly urge CMS to ensure that episode-based payment models are voluntary. Many organizations are not of an adequate size or in a financial position to support the investments necessary to transition to mandatory bundled payment models. Requiring them to take on large, diverse bundles may require more risk than they can manage, threatening their ability to maintain access to quality care.</p><h2>WHAT YOU CAN DO</h2><ul><li><strong>Determine, </strong>when available, if your organization is included in one of the CBSAs eligible for selection.</li><li><strong>Share </strong>this advisory with your chief financial officer and other members of your senior management team, as well as key physician leaders and nurse managers, to examine potential changes for your hospital.</li><li><strong>Register</strong> to participate in AHA’s member-only <a href="https://aha-org.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_COhf4mQmQpuR_GLJNxE9Zg">webinar</a> on May 7 from 12 noon-1 p.m. ET to discuss the proposed rule.</li><li><strong>Assess </strong>the potential impact of the proposed payment and quality changes on your Medicare revenue and operations.</li><li><strong>Submit comments to CMS with your specific concerns by June 10 at </strong><a href="http://www.regulations.gov"><strong>www.regulations.gov</strong></a><strong>. </strong>A final rule on the TEAM could be published as soon as Aug. 1, with a proposed implementation date of Jan. 1, 2026.</li></ul><p>View the detailed Advisory below.</p></div><div class="col-md-4"><a href="/system/files/media/file/2024/05/transforming-episode-accountability-model-proposed-rule-advisory-5-1-24.pdf" target="_blank"><img src="/sites/default/files/2024-05/cover-transforming-episode-accountability-model-proposed-rule-advisory-5-1-24.png" data-entity-uuid data-entity-type="file" alt=" Cover Regulatory Advisory: Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM) Proposed Rule" width="NaN" height="NaN"> </a></div></div></div> Wed, 01 May 2024 10:49:13 -0500 Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM) /issue-brief/2019-01-14-bundled-payments-market-trends-and-markers-success <div class="container row"><div class="row"><div class="col-md-9"><p>Bundled payments have emerged as a reimbursement method that supports health care providers’ efforts to redesign care and improve outcomes for specific patient populations and clinical episodes of care. They offer financial incentives for various providers to work with each other and patients to deliver care in a more coordinated manner.</p><p>The AHA, in collaboration with the University of Pennsylvania’s <a href="https://chibe.upenn.edu/">Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics (CHIBE)</a>, hosted introductory webinars on what bundled payment and episodic care programs are, focusing on relevant research. This summary brief, <a href="/system/files/2019-01/Bundled-Payments_January-2019_final.pdf"><strong>Bundled Payments: Market Trends and Markers of Success</strong></a><strong>,</strong> highlights key takeaways and learnings from this webinar series and discusses key questions, such as how bundled payments affect quality, cost and volume.</p></div><div class="col-md-3 rr_cta">.rr_cta{ border:Solid 1px #69b3e7; padding:1px 15px 11px 15px } .rr_cta li a{ line-height: 1em; margin-bottom: 10px; display: block } .rr_cta li.rr_locked a:after { content: ""; padding: 8px; background: url('/themes/custom/aha/images/icons/type-MembersOnlyContent.svg') white no-repeat; display: inline-block; margin-left: 3px; position: relative; top: 2px; } <div><h4><a href="/center/emerging-issues/market-insights/evolving-care-models">Market Insights: Evolving Care Models</a></h4><ul><li><a href="/center/emerging-issues/market-insights/evolving-care-models/aligning-care-delivery-emerging-payment-models"><strong>Aligning Care Delivery to Emerging Payment Models</strong></a></li><li class="rr_locked"><a href="/center/emerging-issues/market-insights/evolving-care-models/value-snapshot"><strong>Value Snapshot</strong></a></li><li class="rr_locked"><a href="/center/emerging-issues/market-insights/evolving-care-models/23-questions"><strong>23 Questions For Leadership Teams</strong></a></li><li><a href="/center/emerging-issues/market-insights/evolving-care-models/managing-risk-and-new-payment-models"><strong>Managing Risk And New Payment Models</strong></a></li><li><a href="/center/emerging-issues/market-insights/evolving-care-models/hospitals-advancing-accountable-care"><strong>Hospitals Advancing Accountable Care</strong></a></li><li><a href="/center/emerging-issues/market-insights/evolving-care-models/market-trends-bundled-payments"><strong>Market Trends In Bundled Payments</strong></a></li></ul></div></div></div></div> Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:04:32 -0600 Transforming Episode Accountability Model (TEAM)