Michael E. Chernew, PhD, is the Leonard D. Schaeffer Professor of Health Care Policy and director of the Healthcare Markets and Regulation Lab at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Chernew’s research activities focus on several areas, most notably the causes and consequences of growth in health care expenditures, geographic variation in medical spending and use and Value Based Insurance Design (VBID). Professor Chernew has served as vice chair of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), which is an independent agency established to advise the U.S. Congress on issues affecting the Medicare program. He is also a member of the Congressional Budget Office’s Panel of Health Advisors. In 2000, 2004 and 2011, he served on technical advisory panels for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that reviewed the assumptions used by the Medicare actuaries to assess the financial status of the Medicare trust funds. Dr. Chernew is a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. He co-edits the American Journal of Managed Care and is a senior associate editor of Health Services Research. In 2010, Dr. Chernew was elected to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences and served on the Committee on the Determination of Essential Health Benefits. Dr. Chernew earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania and a doctorate in economics from Stanford University.
Recent Posts by Michael Chernew
The complexity of the ACO payment structure means there are a few ways one could measure savings. The semantic questions here are challenging and variation in how terms are used can lead to confusion. We attempt to clarify the meanings of “savings” and draw out the implications for the program.
The current market status can be traced back to a series of regulatory and implementation failures that served to undermine the market. A set of regulatory and legislative changes, alongside the assurance of operational and regulatory certainty for issuers, could put it back on track.
In an era when we might have expected rapid primary care physician growth, the share of the physician workforce devoted to primary care actually decreased from 44 percent to 37 percent, and the number of primary care physicians per capita has remained roughly flat.
The bottom line is that we should not pay attention to any analysis that uses the benchmarks as the basis for assessing the effects of accountable care organizations on Medicare spending.
With so many diverse reforms taking place, how is it possible to generate the evidence needed for informed decision making about payment reforms for the future?
Public debate about more limited insurance plans has mostly focused on their impact on beneficiaries. Missing from the discussion has been an analysis of how these plans could affect providers.
Moving from a system that rewards volume over value is a complicated and messy process. No method is ever implemented in isolation---either one at a time or in a vacuum---and many payment methods do not yet have a sufficient track record to help us prioritize among them.
Since the enactment of the ACA, the expansion of Medicaid has created considerable controversy, the topic is likely to remain high on the policy agenda. The opposition to Medicaid expansion is couched in economic terms, however this analysis is incomplete.
A Symposium On Health Law. The belief that payment should be tied to value has led to a proliferation of value-based payment programs in both public and private sectors. Thus, it is useful to explore what economics may say about this change in the American health care system.
New Health Care Symposium: Building An ACO—What Services Do You Need And How Are Physicians Impacted?
The strongest case for the ACO model may be that it allows organizations to capture efficiencies if they can achieve them and thus succeed financially with lower revenue growth. It is not certain that organizations can make this transformative turnaround, but the alternative looks particularly bad.