Pediatric clinicians are increasingly asked to participate in alternative payment models (APMs) that hold clinicians financially accountable for population-level spending. Drawing heavily on evidence from Medicare, policymakers promote accountable care organizations and other risk-sharing arrangements as pathways to lower costs and higher quality. Yet the pediatric context differs in fundamental ways that limit the direct applicability of adult models. Child health care has fewer short-term opportunities for cost savings, and small numbers of children with medical complexity drive much spending, with substantial year-to-year volatility in spending. Coverage churn across Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program, and commercial plans, and the relative lack of pediatric-specific data, infrastructure, and capital further complicate efforts to manage the total cost of care. In this special article, we summarize the evidence base for APMs; highlight how selection, benchmarking, and coding practices can overstate apparent savings in adult programs; and explain why these dynamics may not translate to pediatrics. We then outline key design features needed for pediatric-appropriate APMs, including multi-year pediatric baselines, exclusion of birth hospital and neonatal intensive care unit costs, robust stop-loss and reinsurance protections, pediatric-validated clinical and social risk adjustment, attribution methods that reflect medical home, and quality “gates” focused on actionable, child-relevant measures. We conclude that pediatric clinicians should approach downside risk arrangements cautiously and only under conditions that align financial accountability with clinical influence and available infrastructure. Poorly designed pediatric APMs risk destabilizing already fragile pediatric systems and access to them, whereas carefully tailored models could enable innovation in prevention-oriented, team-based child health care.
Sprecher et al. (Thu,) studied this question.