The Bundled Payment Reconciliation
A 300-bed community hospital participates in a voluntary 90-day episode-based bundled payment program for lower-joint replacement. The target price is $28,000 per episode, risk-adjusted. In the first performance year the hospital completes 210 episodes. Actual episode spending averages $30,200, driven by higher-than-expected post-acute skilled nursing facility (SNF) utilization: 38% of patients discharge to SNF versus a regional benchmark of 24%. The hospital is eligible for shared savings above a 3% discount, and bears downside risk above a 4% loss threshold. The CFO notes the hospital invested $400K in a care-navigation program mid-year that reduced SNF discharges to 26% in the final quarter, but the full-year average still exceeds benchmark. The program runs on a two-sided risk model in year two.
1. Calculate the financial position for year one and assess whether the hospital should continue into year two's two-sided risk.
Read the worked answer
Year-one math (per episode and aggregate):
- Target: $28,000; Actual: $30,200 → overage of $2,200/episode (7.9% over target).
- Aggregate actual: 210 × $30,200 = $6,342,000. Aggregate target: 210 × $28,000 = $5,880,000.
- The hospital is above target by $462,000, i.e., a loss position. Since the loss (7.9%) exceeds the 4% downside threshold, under a two-sided model this would trigger repayment - but year one is upside-only/shared-savings, so no repayment applies in year one.
Should it continue? The decision hinges on trend, not the year-one average. The navigation program cut SNF discharges from 38% to 26% in Q4 - a 12-point improvement that, if sustained, moves the average materially toward the 24% benchmark. Extrapolating Q4 performance suggests the run-rate could fall near or below target. The $400K investment is largely sunk and fixed, so marginal economics improve as SNF days fall.
Recommendation: Continue only with a credible bridge plan - e.g., extend navigation to all episodes for a full year, add SNF-network management, and model the downside exposure. Entering two-sided risk on a full-year average that still shows 7.9% overage without confidence in the Q4 trend would be imprudent.
2. How should the hospital model its downside exposure before committing to two-sided risk, and what operational lever matters most?
Read the worked answer
Downside model: Under two-sided risk, the hospital repays a share of losses above the 4% threshold. If the loss threshold is 4% of target ($1,120/episode), the hospital's exposure is the portion above that line multiplied by the risk-sharing percentage (say 50–100%). At the year-one 7.9% overage, the excess over 4% is ~3.9% × $28,000 ≈ $1,092/episode × 210 ≈ $229,000 gross exposure before applying the sharing percentage - a material sum against a thin margin.
Most important lever: post-acute utilization. SNF discharge rate is the dominant cost driver and the one the hospital most directly controls through navigation, standardized discharge criteria, and preferred SNF networks. A shift from 38% to 26% already demonstrated traction; pushing to the 24% benchmark closes most of the gap.
Secondary levers: readmission reduction (affects episode cost and quality), implant/supply standardization, and length-of-stay management. The hospital should build a stop-loss/monitoring trigger (e.g., exit or renegotiate if the rolling SNF rate exceeds 30% for two quarters) so it is not locked into open-ended downside risk.