The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Value-Based Care
summary
Value-based care (VBC) is now the centerpiece of federal reform. CMS has declared that by 2030, every Medicare beneficiary should be aligned to an accountable care arrangement.
Parts I–III of this series explained why this mandate exists and how independent practices can prepare.
Part IV is different. Here we talk about the unspoken truths—the good, the bad, and the outright ugly—that shape your day-to-day reality in value-based care.
The Good
What VBC Get Right
Despite its complexity, VBC offers real advantages when the model is done well:
The Bad: The Gaps Nobody Talks About
No National VBC Training for Clinicians
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) created the mandate but never created the playbook.There is no standardized training on:
- Benchmarks and attribution
- Actuarial risk
- Care-management operations
- Quality methodology
- VBC contract structure
Independent physicians are expected to run an actuarial-financial model with no training at all.
No minimum standards for VBC contracts
Unlike regulated financial instruments, VBC contracts have:
- No required data-transparency standards
- No mandated stop-loss protections
- No guaranteed risk corridors
- No required benchmark explanation
- No minimum quality-reporting turnaround
This is why many practitioners call VBC contracts “the wild west.” And they’re right
No registry of qualified VBC attorneys
Most lawyers know HIPAA and Stark.
Few understand:
- HCC risk adjustment
- Benchmark setting
- Shared-savings math
- Quality gate methodology
Practices are signing complex risk agreements without qualified support.
The Ugly:
Misaligned Economics and Unsustainable Burden
-
1. The economics don’t add up
Upside-only models rarely pay enough to sustain the infrastructure required. Shared savings are delayed 12–18 months, and benchmarks often shift.
The real financial benefit typically accrues to payers, not practices. -
2. Functional & Lifestyle Medicine clinicians are undervalued
The clinicians who produce the highest-value metabolic and preventive outcomes, those using whole-person and Functional Medicine models, are rarely reimbursed at a level that reflects their contribution to the total cost of care reduction.
-
3. Independent Practices Must Transform without the tools
Most physicians were never taught:
- Deming Cycle (Plan-Do-Study-Act)
- Process mapping
- Root-cause analysis
- SWOT analysis
Yet these are core competencies for VBC operations.
Clinicians are asked to transform their business without the necessary training.
What Must Change:
Policy Fixes for a Fair VBC Marketplace
To create a sustainable, clinician centered Value Based Care ecosystem, four changes are essential:
Closing Thoughts
Value-based care can deliver extraordinary results. But today, it asks independent clinicians to carry the burden of transformation while payers enjoy contractual protection, financial advantage, and delayed accountability.
Until training, contract standards, and reimbursement reform catch up with federal expectations, VBC will remain a system in which:
- The good is real,
- The bad is structural, and
- The ugly threatens practice survival.
Independent physicians are central to the success of CMS’ 2030 vision. But without structural reforms, the very clinicians needed to make VBC work are the ones most at risk as the mandate unfolds
You Might Also Enjoy....
