Guide to Utilization Management

Utilization Management in Value-Based Care: A Framework for Healthcare Optimization and Quality Assurance

Utilization Management (UM) in value-based care represents the cornerstone of healthcare transformation, evolving from traditional cost-containment mechanisms to sophisticated care optimization systems that directly drive quality outcomes, improve population health, and achieve shared savings.

With a projected compound annual growth rate of 8.5%, the U.S. UM solutions market is expected to nearly double in value, raising it from $613.15 million in 2024 to approximately $1 billion by 2030¹. This reflects the healthcare industry's recognition that effective UM is not merely administrative oversight but the essential mechanism for succeeding in value-based payment models.

The Value-Based Care Imperative

The fundamental shift from volume to value redefines utilization management’s role in healthcare delivery.

In traditional fee-for-service models, UM primarily focused on cost containment through denial and utilization restrictions. In value-based systems, the role of UM shifts from gatekeeping to aligning the right patient with the right care, achieving the triple aim of better health outcomes, improved patient experience, and lower, sustainable per capita costs.

Today, it is estimated that 14% of nationwide provider reimbursement is now tied to delegated or capitated risk models. This trend has grown significantly in recent years, leaving organizations without UM capabilities to face significant financial risk and a competitive disadvantage.^{2, 3}

Financial Impact in Value-Based Contracts

The financial implications of effective UM in value-based care extend far beyond traditional cost savings:

• Shared Savings Achievement: Medicare Shared Savings Program participants earned an average of $21 per member per month (PMPM) in 2022, with top performers achieving $50-75 PMPM through optimized utilization management.³ These savings directly correlate with UM program maturity and sophistication.
• Quality Performance Impact: Each star rating improvement generates a 5% benchmark increase for Medicare Advantage plans, with UM effectiveness directly influencing HEDIS measures that drive $11.8 billion (2024) in annual quality bonuses.^4,5 Organizations with integrated UM programs achieve significantly higher quality scores on average compared to those with fragmented approaches.
• Risk Mitigation: With initial claim denials reaching 11.8% in 2024,⁷ effective UM prevents revenue leakage while ensuring appropriate care delivery. More importantly, proactive UM has been shown to significantly reduce preventable admissions with potential to generate substantial savings in risk-bearing contracts.⁸

2026 Value-Based Care Landscape

The regulatory environment creates both opportunities and imperatives for UM excellence:

• Prior Authorization Evolution (CMS-0057-F): Beginning in January 1st, 2026, impacted payers (including Medicare Advantage, Medicaid Managed Care, and ACA Exchange plans) must adhere to compressed decision timelines: 72 hours for urgent requests and seven calendar days for standard requests. While these operational "clocks" are live now, the mandate to use standardized FHIR-based APIs for these transactions does not take effect until January 1st, 2027. This creates a 2026 "efficiency gap" where organizations must optimize throughput immediately, even while their full automation infrastructure may still be in development.⁹ These compressed timelines demand process optimization that preserves decision quality while dramatically improving throughput, a challenge that ultimately becomes an advantage for organizations using advanced UM infrastructure.
• Medicare Advantage Alignment: CMS now strictly mandates that prior authorization be used only to confirm the presence of a diagnosis or ensure a service is medically necessary based on Traditional Medicare criteria. For 2026, this forces a shift in UM maturity: moving away from "black box" denials and toward transparency, as payers are now required to provide a specific, plain-language reason for every denial.⁹
• Technology Governance: While states like Texas prohibit automated adverse determinations in utilization review (Bill SB 815),¹⁰ artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms and software can still drive tremendous value through predictive analytics, care gap identification, and workflow optimization — all critical for value-based success. It's vital to note that "Human-in-the-Loop" is no longer just a best practice — it is a legal safeguard. Clinical teams must be able to explain why an AI recommended a specific pathway to ensure it didn't rely on biased proxy data.
• Medicare Part D redesign:  Medicare Part D redesign reaches a critical milestone as the first set of negotiated drug prices takes effect alongside a new financial structure. For the first time, Medicare beneficiaries face a $2,100 annual out-of-pocket cap on prescription drugs, providing significant relief to patients but triggering a massive burden shift for payers. Because plans and manufacturers now bear roughly 80% of costs in the catastrophic phase (up from just 15% in years past), Utilization Management (UM) has become the primary lever for financial sustainability. To protect margins against this surge in liability, organizations are deploying aggressive step therapy protocols and high-touch medical necessity reviews, particularly for specialty biologics and high-cost therapies where plan exposure is greatest.

UM as the Foundation of Value-Based Success

The Transformation from Volume to Value

Value-based care fundamentally transforms healthcare delivery from transactional, volume-driven models to longitudinal population health management. As Maria Ansari, MD, CEO of The Permanente Medical Group, states:

"Value-based care is really a care-delivery system that rewards for patient outcomes and quality of care, managing a population rather than transactional care."¹¹

This transformation elevates utilization management (UM) from a cost-control afterthought to the center of organizational strategy as a strategic engine of value creation, ensuring that care delivered aligns with outcomes, efficiency, and sustainability.

Core Components Driving Value Creation^{1-3, 12}

Modern value-based UM encompasses interconnected processes that collectively drive quality and efficiency:

• Prior Authorization as Care Optimization: In value-based contracts, prior authorization should shift from a barrier into a care optimization tool, directing patients toward the right care, at the right time and setting — thereby aligning utilization with clinical value and total cost-of-care goals.
• Concurrent Review as Quality Assurance: Real-time review during care delivery ensures appropriate level of care, preventing both under and over-utilization that could harm outcomes and inflate costs in risk-bearing arrangements.
• Retrospective Analysis for Continuous Improvement: Rather than focusing on denial, retrospective review in value-based care identifies utilization patterns, care gaps, and opportunities for refining pathways, criteria, or clinical management strategies.
• Case Management Integration: The integration of UM with case management enables essential holistic oversight of high-risk populations, ensuring care coordination, timely interventions, and closing of gaps that otherwise drive disproportionate costs in value-based contracts.

Clinical Guidelines and Level of Care Determinations in Value-Based Care

Observation versus Inpatient Status: A Value-Based Perspective

The determination between observation and inpatient status exemplifies how value-based care transforms traditional UM decisions. Rather than focusing solely on payment optimization, value-based organizations prioritize placing patients in settings that optimize outcomes while managing total cost of care.

Value Implications of Status Determination

In shared risk arrangements, the observation versus inpatient decision affects the entire care continuum and multiple quality metrics:

• Quality Metric Impact: Inappropriate inpatient admissions increase readmission rates by 3-5%, negatively affect length of stay efficiency metrics, reduce patient satisfaction scores, and increase the risk of hospital-acquired conditions — all directly impacting value-based performance.¹³
• Total Cost of Care Considerations: The financial implications extend beyond the initial stay:
  1. Inpatient admission averages $12,000 - 14,000.¹¹
  2. Observation stays average $2,500 - 3,500.¹¹
  3. Inpatient hospitalizations average 3x to 5x the cost of comparable observation stays (approximately $13,000 vs $3,000 per episode).¹⁴
  4. Medicare covers post-acute SNF care only after a qualifying 3-day inpatient stay, SNF utilization following observation stays is markedly lower, often fewer than 1:5 cases, compared with a majority of inpatient discharges.¹⁵
  5. 30-day post-discharge costs can run up to 40% higher for inappropriate inpatient admissions.¹⁶

Clinical Criteria Through a Value Lens

Evidence-Based Criteria Application

InterQual and MCG criteria provide standardized frameworks for level-of-care determination. However, in value-based care, these tools serve not as rigid rules but as clinical decision support that ensures consistency and defensibility while allowing for clinical judgment.¹⁷

The Two-Midnight Rule presents unique challenges for Medicare Advantage plans, as CMS clarifies that the presumption of appropriateness for stays crossing two midnights does apply.¹⁸ Value-based organizations must therefore focus on clinical appropriateness rather than time-based rules, considering:

• Medical necessity based on severity of illness and intensity of service.
• Total episode cost including downstream utilization.
• Quality outcomes and complication risk.
• Patient preferences and social circumstances.

Best Practices for Value-Based Status Determination

Real-Time Physician Advisor Programs

Organizations with robust physician advisor programs report approximately 25% reduction in inappropriate admissions, 20% decrease in denial rates, and estimated $2-3 million annual shared savings improvement.^19,20 These programs succeed by:

• Providing consultation within 24 hours of admission.
• Collaborating with attending physicians rather than overruling.
• Focusing on clinical appropriateness over financial considerations.
• Using data to identify and address systematic issues.

Technology-Enabled Decision Support

AI-powered tools demonstrate significantly increased accuracy in status prediction while reducing review time by 38%.²⁰ However, these tools augment rather than replace clinical judgment, providing:

• Real-time integration with clinical workflows.
• Evidence-based recommendations.
• Predictive analytics for length of stay.
• Automated documentation support.

Elective Surgery Management: Maximizing Value Across the Surgical Episode

Elective surgery represents approximately 30% of healthcare spending,¹⁹ making surgical optimization critical for value-based success. Effective management spans the entire surgical episode from pre-operative optimization and prehabilitation through post-acute recovery and/or rehab.

Pre-Surgical Optimization for Value Creation

The Business Case for Prehabilitation

Pre-surgical optimization programs demonstrate remarkable value-based outcomes:

• ~20% relative reductions in postoperative complication rates, and measurable decreases in length of stay.²²
• In frail and high-risk surgical cohorts, up to 40% decrease in 30-day readmissions with 1-2 day shorter hospitalizations.²³‍
• ~20% lower episode costs improving functional outcomes and reducing downstream utilization in bundled-payment models.^{24, 25}

These improvements directly impact bundled payment performance and shared savings achievement while improving patient experience — a true win-win in value-based care.

Medical Optimization Components

Value-based organizations implement comprehensive pre-surgical protocols:

• Glycemic Control: Achieving HbA1c <8% is associated with lower infection rates (up to 40% lower) and reduced length of stay up to 2 days Programs include endocrinology consultation, continuous glucose monitoring for high-risk patients, and perioperative insulin protocols.‍
• Cardiovascular Optimization: ‍Risk stratification, blood-pressure control, and medication management significantly reduces the risk of perioperative cardiac events, particularly in high-risk patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.²⁷‍
• Nutritional Support: Malnutrition affects 30-50% of surgical patients and is linked to 2–3-fold higher complication rates.²⁸ Routine nutritional screening and supplementation reduce infections and improve wound healing.²⁹‍
• Functional Conditioning: Structured prehabilitation programs improve recovery time by 10-30% through targeted exercise, respiratory training, and cognitive preparation.³⁰

Site of Service Optimization in Value-Based Models

Value-based UM considers efficient care delivery alternatives to high-cost hospitalizations. Facilities like freestanding imaging centers, office-based infusion centers, and ambulatory surgery care centers match the right care to the right setting — increasing access, reducing unnecessary spending, even improving outcomes.

Freestanding Imaging Centers

Compared to hospital-based imaging departments, freestanding imaging centers balance savings with clinical appropriateness, and offer a number of value-based advantages:

• Cost savings: typically 30–50% less expensive than identical studies performed in Hospital Outpatient Departments.³¹
• Improved access & timeliness: shorter scheduling lead times and extended hours and weekend hours.
• Decreased risk: Less exposure to hospital-based pathogens.³²‍
• Comparable diagnostic accuracy and radiologist interpretation quality to hospital-based imaging, with many centers accredited by the American College of Radiology.³³

While hospital outpatient imaging provides integrated care and access to emergency services, it requires high overhead costs relative to freestanding centers.

Office-based Infusion Centers

When appropriate, biologics and specialty drug infusions can be performed in office-based settings to generate substantial value compared to hospital outpatient departments:

• Lower Administration Costs:  40–60% less expensive³⁴
• Reduced Complications: adverse event rates, emergency visits, and hospital admissions³⁵ 
• Shorter wait times and community access: increasing patient convenience³⁵
• Direct physician oversight, improving treatment adherence

Ambulatory Surgery Centers

Migrating appropriate procedures to ASCs generates immediate value while maintaining quality:

• Cost savings: Procedures cost on average 45-60% lower than to hospital outpatient departments³⁶
• Quality and safety: Postoperative infection rates are 30–50% lower³⁷ ‍
• Enhanced patient experience: >95% same-day discharge and report higher satisfaction scores relative to hospital surgery units³⁸

Value-based organizations develop systematic approaches to site optimization

1. Evidence-based criteria for ASC appropriateness.
2. Risk stratification protocols ensuring patient safety.
3. Quality monitoring across all surgical sites.
4. Patient choice and convenience considerations.

Procedure-Specific Value Analysis

• Cataract surgery: ~$1,000 - $1,800 savings per case; >95% ASC appropriateness.^{39, 40}
• Colonoscopy: ~$300-$800 savings per case or 50-55% higher in HOPD; >95% ASC appropriateness.^{40, 41}
• Arthroscopy: $1,500-$2,500 savings per case; 85-90% ASC appropriateness.⁴²‍
• Knee arthroplasty: ~$3,700 savings per case with high ASC appropriateness.⁴⁰

Surgical Episode Bundled Payments

Organizations participating in bundled payments alongside value-based contracts achieve dual savings through episode optimization and shared savings programs. Success factors include:

• Clinical Pathway Standardization: Standardizing pre-, intra-, and post-operative care (order sets, recovery pathways, discharge criteria) reduces unwarranted variation and is consistently associated with lower episode spending and shorter length of stay — particularly in joint replacement bundles.⁴³
• Post-Acute Network Management: Episode savings in joint replacement bundles are primarily driven by post-acute care (PAC) decisions. Reducing institutional PAC (SNF/IRF) use and steering to home health or direct-to-home pathways lowers episode payments meaningfully (often by hundreds to >$1,000 per case) without harming outcomes.⁴⁴
• Arrangements: Aligning surgeon incentives with efficiency and quality (e.g., implant/supply stewardship, LOS targets, appropriate PAC selection) drives 15-20% improvement in episode costs.⁴⁵

Emergency Department Utilization: The Value-Based Imperative

Emergency department utilization represents one of the most significant opportunities for value creation in value-based contracts. With potentially preventable ED visits costing more than $32 billion annually, effective ED management directly impacts shared savings, quality metrics, and patient experience.⁴⁶

Understanding ED Utilization Through a Value Lens^{46, 47}

The true cost of ED visits in value-based contracts extends far beyond the immediate visit:

• Average ED visit cost: $1,500 - $2,500 per encounter
• Admission rates: Approximately 15–20 % of ED visits result in inpatient admission
• 30-day post-ED episode costs: $3,000–$5,000 per patient
• Total-episode savings potential: Each avoided inappropriate ED visit can save approximately $5,000 in total episode costs

More importantly, ED utilization affects multiple value-based performance measures including HEDIS ED utilization rates, ACO 30-day readmission measures, CAHPS emergency care scores, and total cost of care performance metrics.

Proactive Population Health Management to Prevent ED Visits

Risk Stratification for ED Utilization:

Advanced analytics identify high-risk patients before they become high utilizers. The top 5% of ED utilizers account for a disproportionate share of visits (often over 25% of total volume), making targeted intervention highly effective. Validated predictive models often achieve high accuracy (Area Under the Curve, or AUC, typically 0.75-0.85) in identifying future high utilizers, enabling proactive intervention that has been shown in some high-fidelity programs to significantly reduce ED visits by 20% to over 40% in the targeted population.^{48, 49}

Value-Based ED Diversion Strategies:

• 24/7 Nurse Triage Lines: Telephone triage programs cost ≈$15–25 per call and divert 25–40% of non-emergent cases, yielding ROI ≈$3–$5 saved per $1 invested, with patient satisfaction > 90%.⁵⁰
• Urgent Care Integration: ≈60% of ED visits are potentially urgent-care appropriate; redirecting these cases saves ≈ $1,000–$1,400 per encounter while improving access and convenience.^{3, 39}
• Mobile Integrated Health Programs: Paramedic-led community programs achieve 45% reduction in ED visits for enrolled patients, saving $1,200 per patient per month.⁵¹ These programs address acute needs in the home, prevent unnecessary transports, and provide critical linkage to primary care.

Managing High ED Utilizers in Value-Based Contracts

Super-Utilizer Program Components

Comprehensive management creates substantial value through:

• Real-time ED notification systems alerting care teams within 2 hours.
• Embedded ED case managers engaging patients at point of care.
• Individualized care plans addressing medical and social root causes.
• Cross-continuum coordination between ED, primary care, and behavioral health.

These programs achieve 50-60% reduction in ED visits, saving $8,000-12,000 annually per patient while improving continuity and primary-care follow-up.^{8, 47}

Addressing Social Determinants

Value-based organizations recognize that social factors significantly drive ED utilization:^{52, 53}

• Housing instability increases ED use by 300%.
• Food insecurity doubles ED utilization.
• Transportation barriers account for 25% of missed appointments leading to ED visits.
• Behavioral health needs present in 40% of frequent ED users.

Targeted social interventions deliver strong ROI:

• Housing programs: ~$2.50 saved per $1 invested.
• Food assistance: ~$1.80 saved per $1 invested.
• Transportation services: ~$3.00 saved per $1 invested.
• Behavioral health integration: ~$4.00 saved per $1 invested.

Outpatient Care Optimization: The Foundation of Value-Based Success

Outpatient care represents the cornerstone of value-based care delivery. Effective ambulatory management prevents downstream utilization and drives quality outcomes, with organizations that excel in outpatient optimization achieving materially better performance in value-based contracts (e.g., higher quality, lower total cost, stronger bonus attainment).^{2, 3}

Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions: Preventing Avoidable Utilization

Preventing admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs) directly impacts shared savings and quality scores. The financial implications are substantial:

• Average preventable admission cost: commonly exceeds $10,000 per case.¹⁴
• Annual ACSC hospitalization rates average 30–35 per 1,000 Medicare beneficiaries, with ACS-related outpatient/ED visits around 45–50 per 1,000.⁵⁴‍
• Potential savings opportunity: $5-10 million per 10,000 lives.^{5, 54}

High-Impact Chronic Disease Management

• Diabetes Excellence: Comprehensive diabetes programs achieving HbA1c <8% in 70% of patients reduce admissions by 45% and show marked reductions in acute events and admissions; for example, Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support programs demonstrate positive ROI and fewer hospitalizations.^{3, 8, 55} Key components include continuous glucose monitoring for high-risk patients, pharmacist-led medication optimization, nutritionist counseling, and integrated specialty care.
• Heart Failure Management: Ambulatory optimization and remote monitoring programs reduce readmissions by ~13% to over 70% in certain programs and save $5,000-8,000 per patient annually.^{56, 57} Success requires daily weight monitoring, medication optimization, patient education, and rapid response to clinical changes.^{2, 3}
• COPD Optimization: Pulmonary rehabilitation lower readmissions by 15-30%, real-world programs observing reductions of 30–40% in high-risk cohorts.⁵⁸ Programs include inhaler technique training, smoking cessation support, oxygen therapy management, and early exacerbation intervention.

Specialty Referral Management in Value-Based Care

E-Consults: Transforming Specialty Access

E-consultations avoid 25-60% of in-person referrals while providing specialty input within 24-48 hours versus 30-45 days for traditional referrals.⁵⁹ Each e-consult saves resources and improves PCP capability through high patient satisfaction; due to quicker resolution and convenience, and primary-care capability improves through curbside education and better care coordination.^{2, 3}

Value-Based Referral Optimization

Organizations implement systematic approaches including:^{2, 3}

• Pre-referral requirements to ensure complete workup in primary care (reduces unnecessary referrals and improves appropriateness).
• Clinical pathways for common conditions.
• Preferred specialist networks selected for quality and efficiency.
• Closed-loop tracking to ensure follow-through.

Diagnostic Testing: Balancing Access with Appropriateness

Imaging Appropriateness: Clinical decision support reduces inappropriate imaging volumes by ~8% and by 30% in select settings, with ~61 % reduction in duplicate imaging.⁶⁰ Common low-value imaging to avoid includes routine annual scans without indication, duplicate imaging across systems, and defensive medicine protocols.

Laboratory Optimization:^{2, 3, 61} Value-based organizations focus on:

• Avoiding automatic daily inpatient labs unless clinically indicated (often large reduction opportunity).
• Avoiding routine pre-operative testing without indication.
• Implementing standing orders for chronic disease monitoring.
• Home collection/remote workflows to improve compliance and close care gaps up to 40%.

Telehealth Integration for Value Optimization

Telehealth has stabilized at 10-15% of outpatient visits, with specific applications demonstrating exceptional value:

• Behavioral Health: Virtual therapy achieves high patient satisfaction (often >85%) and substantially lower no-show rates — improving access, engagement and saving money with each visit.⁶²
• Chronic Disease Management: Telehealth programs improve medication adherence by 15-20% and often achieve better clinical outcomes at lower cost.⁶³
• Post-Acute Care: Virtual follow-up significantly reduces readmissions while enabling 30% of patients to avoid SNF placement.⁶⁴
  

Technology and Innovation Driving Value-Based UM

Artificial Intelligence: Transforming Value Creation

AI revolutionizes utilization management's ability to drive value-based care success. While regulatory constraints prohibit automated adverse determinations, AI applications that augment human decision-making deliver tremendous value:

Predictive Analytics Impact:

• High accuracy ( 85%⁶⁵) identifying high-risk patients.
• 40% reduction in preventable admissions.^{66, 67}
• 25% improvement in reduced extended observation rates.⁶⁷
• 67% increased case review volume.⁶⁷‍
• 70% reduction in manual chart review.⁶⁷

Organizations report ROI of 4:1 on AI investments, with positive returns within 12-18 months.⁶⁷

Interoperability: Foundation of Care Coordination

The FHIR (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) Prior Authorization API requirement beginning January 1, 2026, creates opportunities for value creation through:⁹

• Real-time authorization significantly reduces delays.¹² 
• Automated eligibility checking prevents denials
• Seamless clinical data exchange.
• Estimated savings of $15 billion over 10 years.⁶⁸

Automation and Workflow Optimization

Hospitals can automate up to 40% of inpatient reviews with 99% accuracy, driving value through:^{67, 69}

• $25-50 per case in reduced review costs.⁶⁹
• 50% reduction in determination time.⁶⁹‍
• 30% productivity gain through staff redeployment.⁷⁰

Conclusion: UM as the Engine of Value-Based Transformation

Utilization Management in value-based care transcends traditional cost containment to become the primary driver of clinical quality, patient experience, and financial sustainability. Organizations that excel at value-based UM demonstrate superior performance across all dimensions, achieving better outcomes at lower costs while improving provider and patient satisfaction.

The path forward requires viewing UM not as an administrative function but as a strategic capability essential for value-based success. With the utilization management solutions market approaching $1 billion by 2030, the investments organizations make today in UM capabilities will determine their ability to thrive in tomorrow's value-based environment.

Healthcare leaders are encouraged to recognize that excellence in utilization management creates a virtuous cycle: better care coordination leads to improved outcomes, which drives quality performance and shared savings, enabling further investment in population health capabilities. This transformation from utilization review to utilization optimization represents the future of healthcare delivery where clinical excellence, operational efficiency, and patient experience converge to create sustainable, high-value care for all populations.

REFERENCES

1. Grand View Research. U.S. Utilization Management Solutions Market Report, 2030. Grand View Research; 2024. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/us-utilization-management-solutions-market-report
2. Advisory Board. VBC in 2025: Now and Next. https://www.advisory.com/topics/value-based-care/vbc-in-2025-now-next.
3. UnitedHealthcare. Evolution of Value-Based Care. UHC. https://www.uhc.com/agents-brokers/employer-sponsored-plans/news-strategies/evolution-of-value-based-care.
4. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Shared Savings Program Saves Medicare More than $1.8 Billion in 2022 and Continues to Deliver High-Quality Care. CMS.https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/medicare-shared-savings-program-saves-medicare-more-18-billion-2022-and-continues-deliver-high.
5. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Shared Savings Program: Performance Year Financial and Quality Results. CMS. https://data.cms.gov/medicare-shared-savings-program/performance-year-financial-and-quality-results.
6. King R. KFF: Insurers set to rake in $11.8B in Medicare quality bonus payments in 2024. Fierce Healthcare.https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payers/kff-insurers-set-rake-118b-medicare-quality-bonus-payments-2024
7. Kodiak Solutions. Healthcare Providers Facing Stiff Headwinds on Revenue Cycle Performance, Kodiak Solutions Data Show. Business Wire. Published February 27, 2025. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250227049715/en/Healthcare-Providers-Facing-Stiff-Headwinds-on-Revenue-Cycle-Performance-Kodiak-Solutions-Data-Show.
8. Raldow AC, Raja N, Villaflores CW, et al. Proactive Care Management of AI-Identified At-Risk Patients Decreases Preventable Admissions. Am J Manag Care. 2024;30(11):548-554. https://www.ajmc.com/view/proactive-care-management-of-ai-identified-at-risk-patients-decreases-preventable-admissions
9. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. CMS Finalizes Rule to Expand Access to Health Information and Improve Prior Authorization Process. CMS.
10. Texas SB 815, 89th. Texas Legislature Online. https://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB815.
11. American Medical Association. What is value-based care, and why is everyone talking about it? AMA. https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/payment-delivery-models/what-value-based-care-and-why-everyone-talking-about-it.
12. Doshmangir L, Khabiri R, Jabbari H, Arab-Zozani M, Kakemam E, Gordeev VS. Strategies for utilisation management of hospital services: a systematic review of interventions. Global Health. 2022;18(1):53. Published 2022 May 23. doi:10.1186/s12992-022-00835-3
13. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. Hospitals’ Use of Observation Stays and Short Inpatient Stays for Medicare Beneficiaries. 2013. https://oig.hhs.gov/reports/all/2013/hospitals-use-of-observation-stays-and-short-inpatient-stays-for-medicare-beneficiaries
14. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) National Statistics. Updated 2022. https://www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/index.html
15. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Ch. 8 § 20.2: Skilled Nursing Facility Coverage. Rev. 2024. https://www.cms.gov/regulations-and-guidance/manuals/internet-only-manuals-ioms
16. Health Affairs. The Hidden Costs of Inappropriate Hospital Admissions. 2024. https://www.healthaffairs.org
17. MCG Health. CMS Final Rule 2024 Medicare Advantage ($4201-F). MCG Health. https://www.mcg.com/blog/cms-final-rule-2024-medicare-advantage-4201-f/.
18. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Two-Midnight Rule and Medicare Advantage Guidance. 2024. https://www.cms.gov/files/document/two-midnight-rule-standards-admission.pdf
19. American College of Physician Advisors. Physician Advisor ROI Calculator and Toolkit. ACP Advisors; 2024. https://www.acpadvisors.org/pa-roi-tool
20. Xsolis. Physician Advisor Services. Xsolis. https://www.xsolis.com/solutions/physician-advisor-services/.
21. Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker. How has U.S. spending on healthcare changed over time? KFF. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/
22. Carli F, Silver JK, Scheede-Bergdahl C. Prehabilitation: The Missing Link in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2023;131(5):1051-1062. https://prehabilitation.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2020/11/Prehabilitation-to-Enhance-Perioperative-Care.pdf
23. de Klerk M, van Dalen DH, Nahar-van Venrooij LMW, Meijerink WJHJ, Verdaasdonk EGG. A multimodal prehabilitation program in high-risk patients undergoing elective resection for colorectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021;47(11):2849-2856. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2021.05.033
24. Rombey T, Eckhardt H, Dückers MLA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation prior to elective surgery: a systematic review of economic evaluations. BMC Med. 2023;21(1):265. doi:10.1186/s12916-023-02977-6.
25. Almehwari SA, Almalki IS, Abumilha BA, Altharwi BH. Improving Hospital Efficiency and Cost Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus. 2024;16(10):e71721. Published 2024 Oct 17. doi:10.7759/cureus.71721
26. Duggan EW, Carlson K, Umpierrez GE. Perioperative Hyperglycemia Management: An Update. Anesthesiology. 2017;126(3):547-560. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001515
27. Thompson, A, Fleischmann, K, Smilowitz, N, et al. 2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. JACC. 2024;84(19):1869–1969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2024.06.013
28. Reber E, Gomes F, Vasiloglou MF, Schuetz P, Stanga Z. Nutritional Risk Screening and Assessment. J Clin Med. 2019;8(7):1065. Published 2019 Jul 20. doi:10.3390/jcm8071065
29. Weimann A, Braga M, Carli F, et al. ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in surgery. Clin Nutr. 2017;36(3):623-650. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2017.02.013
30. Berkel AEM, Bongers BC, Kotte H, et al. Effects of Community-based Exercise Prehabilitation for Patients Scheduled for Colorectal Surgery With High Risk for Postoperative Complications: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial. Ann Surg. 2022;275(2):e299-e306. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000004702
31. Cost Comparison: Hospital-based Versus Freestanding Outpatient Imaging Services. Radiol Bus. Published May 5, 2011. https://radiologybusiness.com/topics/healthcare-management/business-intelligence/cost-comparison-hospital-based-versus
32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Current HAI progress report. 2023 National and State Healthcare-Associated Infections Progress Report. CDC. Published November 25, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/healthcare-associated-infections/php/data/progress-report.html
33. United HealthCare Services, Inc. Save with freestanding clinics: how freestanding medical clinics may save you time and money. UHC Health Matters. Published 2025. https://www.uhc.com/news-articles/benefits-and-coverage/save-with-freestanding-clinic
34. Infusion Providers Alliance. Cost savings and improved quality in a clinic-based setting. Infusion Providers Alliance. Published August 27, 2024. https://www.infusionprovidersalliance.org/cost-savings-and-improved-quality-in-a-clinic-based-setting/
35. Raj L, Stinson G, Langsam JW, DeMacio J. Comparison of specialty injection and infusion adverse events among hospital outpatient settings vs non-hospital outpatient settings. J Clin Pathways. 2025;11(1):34-38. doi:10.25270/jcp.2025.11.01
36. Ambulatory Surgery Center Association. ASC Quality and Cost Report. 2024. https://www.ascassociation.org
37. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. Comparative Surgical Site Infection Rates in ASCs and Hospitals. 2023;44(12):1517-1524. doi:10.1017/ice.2023.201
38. Patel T, Sharma S, Surve A, Sharma S. Adaptation and Application of a Patient Satisfaction Survey in a Bariatric Ambulatory Surgery Center: Four-Year Outcomes. Obes Surg. 2025;35(9):3465-3470. doi:10.1007/s11695-025-08153-4
39. He Y, Collins T, Tripp A, et al. Site of Care Optimization Offers Savings for Specialty Services. Avalere Health Advisory. Published April 23, 2025. Available at: https://advisory.avalerehealth.com/insights/site-of-care-optimization-offers-savings-for-specialty-services.
40. Robinson JC, Whaley CM, Dhruva SS. Prices and complications in hospital-based and freestanding surgery centers. Am J Manag Care. 2024;30(4):179-184. doi:10.37765/ajmc.2024.89529
41. Wang Y, Wang Y, Plummer E, Chernew ME, Anderson G, Bai G. Facility Fees for Colonoscopy Procedures at Hospitals and Ambulatory Surgery Centers. JAMA Health Forum. 2023;4(12):e234025. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.4025
42. McCormick JR, Harkin WE, Federico VP, et al. Cost Comparison of Sports Medicine Procedures in Ambulatory Surgery Centers Versus Hospital Outpatient Departments for Medicare Recipients. Orthop J Sports Med. 2025;13(8):23259671251333110. Published 2025 Aug 29. doi:10.1177/23259671251333110
43. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model Fact Sheet. CMS website. Published August 16, 2021. https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/media/document/cjr-model-factsheet-finalrule
44. Meath THA, Juarez C, McConnell KJ, Kim H. Hospital Characteristics Associated With Heterogeneity in Institutional Postacute Care Spending Reductions Under the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(6):e221657. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.1657
45. Gupta, D., Mehrotra, M., & Tang, X. Gainsharing Contracts for CMS’ Episode‐Based Payment Models. Production and Operations Management. 2021;30(5):1290-1312. doi:10.1111/poms.13322
46. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Brief #308: Costs of Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Visits, 2024. AHRQ; 2024. https://www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/index.html
47. Pines JM, Mullins PM, Cooper JK, Feng LB, Roth KE. National trends in emergency department use, care patterns, and quality of care of older adults in the United States. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61(1):12-17. doi:10.1111/jgs.12072
48. Sung CW, Ho J, Fan CY, et al. Prediction of high-risk emergency department revisits from a machine-learning algorithm: a proof-of-concept study. BMJ Health Care Inform. 2024;31(1):e100859. Published 2024 Apr 22. doi:10.1136/bmjhci-2023-100859
49. David G, Smith-McLallen A, Ukert B. The effect of predictive analytics-driven interventions on healthcare utilization. J Health Econ. 2019;64:68-79. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2019.02.002
50. Carenet Health. Telehealth Nurse Advice and Symptom Triage Delivers 3:1 ROI and $12 Million in Annual Savings. Carenet Health website. Published 2024. https://carenethealthcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Carenet-Health-Telehealth-Nurse-Advice-Triage-3-to-1-ROI-Case-Study.pdf
51. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Value of Community Paramedicine. CDC website. Updated October 16, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/ems-community-paramedicine/php/data-research/community-paramedicine/index.html
52. Sadowski LS, Kee RA, VanderWeele TJ, Buchanan D. Effect of a housing and case management program on emergency department visits and hospitalizations among chronically ill homeless adults: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2009;301(17):1771-1778. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.561
53. Onie RD, Lavizzo-Mourey R, Lee TH, Marks JS, Perla RJ. Integrating social needs into health care: A twenty-year case study of adaptation and diffusion. Health Affairs. 2018;37(2). doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1113
54. MedPAC. Ambulatory Care–Sensitive Hospitalizations (ACSHs) and Ambulatory Care–Sensitive Visits (ACSVs): Contractor Report. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission; February 2024.
55. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Overall Value and ROI of DSMES (Diabetes Self-Management Education & Support). 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes-toolkit/php/business-case/overall-value-roi.html
56. Dawson NL, Hull BP, Vijapura P, et al. Home Telemonitoring to Reduce Readmission of High-Risk Patients: a Modified Intention-to-Treat Randomized Clinical Trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2021;36(11):3395-3401. doi:10.1007/s11606-020-06589-1
57. Bosworth Smith A, Silas U, Veloz A, et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Heart Failure Management System in the United States. J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2025;12(1):113-119. Published 2025 Mar 17. doi:10.36469/001c.130066
58. Mosher CL, Nanna MG, Jawitz OK, et al. Cost-effectiveness of Pulmonary Rehabilitation Among US Adults With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(6):e2218189. Published 2022 Jun 1. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.18189
59. Peeters KMM, Reichel LAM, Muris DMJ, Cals JWL. Family Physician–to–Hospital Specialist Electronic Consultation and Access to Hospital Care: A Systematic Review. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(1):e2351623. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.51623
60. Schranz, A.L., Ryan, D.T., David, R., et al. Impact of point-of-care clinical decision support on referrer behavior, imaging volume, patient radiation dose exposure, and sustainability. Insights Imaging. 2024;15(4). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01567-7
61. American Medical Association. The State of Health at Home Models. 2023. https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/digital-health/state-health-home-models-key-considerations-and-opportunities
62. Greenup, E.P., Best, D. Systematic review and meta-analysis of no show or non-attendance rates among telehealth and in-person models of care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2025;25(663). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12826-2
63. Schwamm LH, Chumbler N, Brown E, et al. Recommendations for the Implementation of Telehealth in Cardiovascular and Stroke Care: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;135(7):e24-e44. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000475
64. Horman SF, Kviatkovsky M, Castillo E, et al. Virtual Transition of Care Clinics and Associated Readmission Rates: 3-Year Retrospective Cohort Study. JMIR Med Inform. 2025;13:e73495. Published 2025 Sep 23. doi:10.2196/73495
65. Accenture. CCS: Turning Health Information into Action for Patients. Accenture. https://www.accenture.com/us-en/case-studies/data-ai/ccs-turning-wealth-information-action-for-patients
66. Raldow AC, Raja N, Villaflores CW, et al. Proactive care management of AI-identified at-risk patients decreases preventable admissions. Am J Manag Care. 2024;30(11):548-554. doi:10.37765/ajmc.2024.89625
67. HFMA. How Leveraging Artificial Intelligence in Utilization Management Can Enhance Your Revenue Cycle. HFMA. Published June 28, 2023. https://www.hfma.org/technology/artificial-intelligence/how-leveraging-artificial-intelligence-in-utilization-management-can-enhance-your-revenue-cycle/
68. American Medical Association (AMA). $15 billion win for physicians on prior authorization. AMA. Published July 21, 2023. https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/prior-authorization/15-billion-win-physicians-prior-authorization
69. Xsolis. Xsolis Utilization Management Software. Xsolis. https://www.xsolis.com/solutions/utilize/.
70. World Health Organization. Artificial intelligence: opportunities and implications for the health workforce. Bull World Health Organ. 2020;98(6):439-440. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/artificial-intelligence-for-health

Medical Disclaimer

The information provided by the American Academy of Value-Based Care (AAVBC) in this overview, including but not limited to utilization management guidance, and related content, is intended for educational and informational purposes only. This content is designed to assist healthcare providers, organizations, and professionals in understanding and applying Value-Based Care principles, practices, and regulatory compliance standards.

AAVBC does not provide legal, clinical, or medical advice. The content presented should not be interpreted or relied upon as specific legal, medical, clinical, or professional guidance. While efforts are made to ensure the accuracy and currency of the information provided, AAVBC does not guarantee that the materials presented are complete, comprehensive, or without error.

Providers and healthcare professionals must independently evaluate all content and guidance presented herein in the context of applicable laws, regulations, clinical guidelines, payer policies, patient-specific conditions, and contraindications. Any treatments, procedures, diagnostic approaches, medications, or strategies discussed are illustrative and should not be directly applied without a thorough and independent review of current, evidence-based clinical resources, and regulatory requirements.

For coding, documentation, utilization management, quality measures (including STAR ratings), and compliance matters, users are responsible for consulting official guidelines issued by regulatory bodies, including but not limited to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the American Medical Association (AMA), relevant state agencies, and other authoritative entities.

AAVBC expressly disclaims liability for any loss, claim, or damages arising directly or indirectly from the use or reliance on information provided in this document. Users should consult their organization's legal counsel, compliance officer, or qualified professional advisor for advice specific to their situation.

By accessing and using this document, you agree to AAVBC’s terms and acknowledge that the use of the content is at your own risk and discretion.