Compendium Search

Please choose from the following criteria to search for matching programs within the Compendium database: 

Name of Payment Reform Program
Organization Name
Program location(s)
Not in this market (Identify market in field below) In this market and other markets (Identify markets in field below) Only in this market (Identify market in field below)
Market(s) (Ctrl-Click for multiple states)
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Lines of business
Self-insured commercial Fully-insured commercial Medicare Medicaid Other (please describe below)
Other line of business
Stage of implementation
Planning mode Pilot mode (e.g. only available for a subset of members and/or providers) Expansion mode (e.g. passed initial pilot stage and broadening reach) Full implementation (e.g. available to all intended/applicable providers and members)
Date of Implementation
-- January February March April May June July August September October November December -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 -- 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ------- More Years Other
Payment reform model alignment
Shared-risk (other than bundled payment) and/or gainsharing with quality FFS-based Shared-savings with quality Non-FFS-based Shared-savings with quality FFS plus pay for performance Full capitation with quality Partial or condition-specific capitation with quality Bundled payment with quality FFS-based non-visit functions Non-FFS-based non-visit functions Non-payment for specific services associated with HACs (healthcare acquired conditions also known as hospital-acquired conditions) that were preventable or services that were unnecessary Other (please describe below)
Other non-FSS based reform models
Base payment methodology
Capitation without quality Salary Bundled or episode-based payment without quality FFS (includes discounted fees, fixed fees, indexed fees) Per diem DRG Percent of charges Other (please describe below)
Other base payment methodology
Participating provider types
Primary care physicians Physician Specialists (e.g., Oncology, Cardiology, etc.) RNs/NP and other non-physician providers Hospital inpatient Other (please describe below)
Other types of providers
Related outcomes for policies on non-payment for specific services associated with complications that were preventable or services that were unnecessary
N/A Ambulatory care sensitive admissions Healthcare acquired conditions (HACs) also known as hospital-acquired conditions Preventable Admissions Serious Reportable Events (SREs) that are not HACs Never Events Early elective induction or cesarean Other (please describe below)
Other outcomes referenced
Performance measures used
Achievement (relative to target or peers) of Clinical process goals (e.g., prophylactic antibiotic administration, timeliness of medication administration, testing, screenings) Achievement (relative to target or peers) of Clinical outcomes goals(e.g., readmission rate, mortality rate, A1c, cholesterol values under control) Improvement over time of NQF-endorsed Outcomes and/or Process measures PATIENT SAFETY (e.g., Leapfrog, AHRQ, medication related safety issues) Appropriate maternity care Longitudinal efficiency relative to target or peers Application of specific medical home practices (e.g., intensive self management support to patients, action plan development, arrangement for social support follow-up with a social worker or other community support personnel) Patient experience Health IT adoption or use Financial results Utilization results Pharmacy management Other (please describe below)
Other performance measures
Type(s) of benefit and/or provider network design features that create member incentives or disincentives to support the payment reform program
Mandatory use of Centers of Excellence (COE) or higher performing providers Financial incentives (lower premium, waived/lower co-pays) for members to use COE/higher performance providers Financial disincentives for members to use non-COE or lower performing providers (e.g., higher co-pays, etc.) Use of tiered/high performance or narrow networks Objective information (e.g., performance measure results) provided on COEs to members, providing evidence of higher-quality care rendered by these providers No active steerage No COE or high performing providers program Other (please describe below)
Other features
Information transparency
We report to the general public We report to our network providers (e.g. hospitals and physicians) We report to patients of our network providers We do not report performance on quality measures We report to state or community data collection processes such as all-payer claims databases (APCDs), or AF4Q sites Other (please describe below)
Other information transparency
Evaluation and results for program
Program not evaluated yet Program evaluation by external third party Program evaluation by insurer Evaluation method used pre/post Evaluation method used matched control group Evaluation method used randomized control trial Other (please describe below)
Other evaluation methodology

• All Programs
• Definitions of Payment Model Terms

©2016 Catalyst for Payment Reform. All rights reserved.
This project was made possible with support from The Commonwealth Fund and the California Healthcare Foundation
This project was conducted in partnership with the National Business Coalition on Health, using their eValue8 data collection platform.