We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Bundled Payment Models for Actinic Keratosis Management

Joslyn S. Kirby, MD, MS, MEd1; Amber Delikat, BS2; Douglas Leslie, PhD3; Jeffrey J. Miller, MD, MBA1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Dermatology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania
2medical student at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania
3Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania
JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152(7):789-797. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.0502.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance  Recent legislation encourages alternative payment models, such as bundled payments. There are no clear recommendations on bundled payment design, and research on bundled payments for dermatologic care is limited.

Objective  To investigate several methods to develop bundled payment models for actinic keratosis (AK) management and the likely effect on the cost of AK management.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Cohort cost identification study using claims from Highmark Insurance and the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters databases. Patients with claims for AK during the study period, January 2010 to December 2012, were included (N = 118 129). Utilization measures, such as visits and procedures, and direct costs were calculated and 8 bundled payment models were developed. Indirect costs were not included.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The actual health care costs and theoretical cost differences for the bundled payments. Costs are reported in 2012 US dollars and were adjusted for inflation. The proportion of patients and clinicians with annual AK claim costs less than or equal to the bundled payments were calculated.

Results  Eight bundled payment models were developed and 2, based on the 75th percentile payment, did not result in theoretical savings for any of the patient samples (increased annual spending of $1.04 million to $6.88 million). The median-based payment without adjustments resulted in the largest theoretical savings (decreased spending of $2.22 million to $6.43 million). In contrast, the mean-based payment with adjustments resulted in the smallest theoretical savings. The median-based with indirect payment (65.2% for patients and 62.0% for clinicians) and mean-based adjusted payments, with (68.9% and 66.2%) and without (68.1% and 65.6%) discount, were equal to or greater than the actual health care costs for similar proportions of patients and clinicians, respectively. In addition, both resulted in a decrease in overall health care costs for the patient cohort.

Conclusions and Relevance  It is important to consider alternative payment models, such as bundled payments, in preparation for payment reform. The dermatology profession needs to understand disease management in dollar terms to advocate on behalf of clinicians and patients for fair and reasonable reimbursement, regardless of payment type.

Figures in this Article


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?


Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Cost Differences for Bundled Payment Models vs Actual Cost

Costs are adjusted to 2012 US dollars. HM indicates Highmark (regional) sample.

aAdjusted for nonmelanoma skin cancer and sex.

bDiscount of 2%.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Proportions of Patient-years and Clinicians in National Sample With Actual Costs Less Than or Equal to the Bundled Payment for Actinic Keratosis Care

Costs are adjusted to 2012 US dollars.

aAdjusted for nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) and sex.

Graphic Jump Location




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.