Blog

Value-Based Care Models Explained: Financial Implications for CFOs

Healthcare's steady shift away from fee-for-service (FFS) has made value-based care (VBC) an increasingly central part of how primary care organizations plan for the future. Instead of reimbursing providers based on the number of appointments, tests, or procedures delivered, value-based care models reward practices for improving outcomes, coordinating care proactively, and reducing avoidable costs. 

The goal of value-based care is straightforward: create a system where better care leads to stronger financial performance.

But for a healthcare organization’s financial leaders, the transition introduces a new level of complexity. Revenue becomes tied not only to the volume of services rendered, but to a practice’s ability to engage patients, manage chronic conditions, close care gaps, and meet quality goals. Payments may come in the form of shared savings, performance incentives, or bundled payments, each with its own timing, reporting requirements, and risk profile. 

The result is a financial landscape that behaves very differently from the predictable, transactional nature of FFS.

Programs like Chronic Care Management (CCM) and Advanced Primary Care Management (APCM) provide critical support for this transition. By incorporating both fee-for-service and value-based care elements, they help build the infrastructure practices need to succeed in models such as Medicare Shared Savings Program ACOs, ACO REACH, and the Value in Primary Care MVP. 

These programs strengthen care coordination, patient engagement, and data visibility, supporting both immediate revenue opportunities and long-term readiness for value-based arrangements.

The importance of value-based care models

Value-based care models are designed to move healthcare away from reactive, encounter-driven care and toward proactive, coordinated, and preventive care. Instead of rewarding volume, these models encourage providers to focus on the overall health of their patient population—closing care gaps, managing chronic conditions more effectively, and reducing avoidable utilization.

The aim is simple but transformative: create a system where quality, outcomes, and cost-efficiency reinforce one another, ultimately leading to better care and more sustainable financial performance.

Improve long-term outcomes

Value-based care models emphasize prevention, early intervention, and continuous patient support, all of which contribute to healthier outcomes over time. By encouraging practices to monitor patients between visits, manage chronic conditions proactively, and coordinate care across settings, these models help reduce complications and prevent escalation. 

The long-term result is a patient population that receives more consistent, comprehensive care, leading to better clinical stability and improved quality of life.

Reduce healthcare costs

A major objective of value-based care is to lower the total cost of care by reducing unnecessary utilization. When practices manage conditions proactively, patients are less likely to require emergency room visits, hospital readmissions, or high-cost interventions that could have been prevented. 

Value-based models also promote smarter resource use, ensuring patients receive the right care, at the right time, in the right setting. Over time, this reduces overall spending for both payers and providers participating in shared savings or cost-reduction programs.

Enhance patient engagement

Value-based care models depend on strong, ongoing relationships with patients. Practices stay connected between visits, increase preventive screenings, support medication adherence, and encourage patients to take an active role in managing their health. This creates more touchpoints and more personalized interactions, which in turn strengthens patient trust. 

Engaged patients are more likely to follow care plans and participate in regular monitoring, driving both improved outcomes and financial performance under value-based arrangements.

Align payments with quality

Instead of rewarding the quantity of services delivered, value-based care models tie reimbursement to measurable improvements in quality, coordinated care, and overall patient health. For healthcare organizations, and especially CFOs, this shift represents a meaningful opportunity to strengthen both clinical performance and financial sustainability by investing in the kinds of care that lead to the best outcomes.

Value-based care vs. fee-for-service models

The fundamental difference between fee-for-service (FFS) and value-based care (VBC) models lies in what drives payment and decision-making. In traditional FFS, providers are reimbursed for each service, test, or procedure delivered. The more patients seen and services performed, the higher the revenue. This system rewards volume, which can unintentionally encourage fragmented care, redundant services, and limited focus on preventive or long-term outcomes.

Value-based care, by contrast, shifts the focus from quantity to quality. Payment is increasingly tied to patient outcomes, quality measures, and the overall health of the population being served. Providers are reimbursed for coordinating care across settings, prioritizing chronic care management, and emphasizing preventive strategies. Rather than reacting to illness as it occurs, value-based care encourages proactive care, aligning clinical and financial objectives.

For CFOs and healthcare leaders, this represents both a challenge and an opportunity: financial performance depends on effectively managing population health, engaging patients, and tracking measurable outcomes over time.

Value-based care models	Fee-for-service models
Outcome-oriented: Payment is tied to measurable improvements in patient health, quality metrics, and long-term outcomes. Success depends on the effectiveness of care, not its volume.	Quantity-based: Payment is tied to the number of services provided rather than patient results. More visits, tests, and procedures drive revenue.
Coordinated care: Providers work together across specialties and settings, sharing information and planning interventions to ensure seamless, continuous care.	Risk of fragmented care: Providers often operate in silos, with limited communication or alignment across care teams. Patients may experience gaps or duplication in care.
Fixed payments: Models often use per-patient payments or risk-adjusted budgets, encouraging efficient care and cost management.	Cost-based reimbursement: Services are billed individually, and total revenue fluctuates with the volume of care delivered.
Strategic interventions: Ideally, providers focus on interventions that improve outcomes and prevent costly complications, allocating resources where they have the greatest impact.	Risk of overutilization: Because revenue is tied to service volume, there may be financial pressure to provide unnecessary tests or procedures. However, consistent preventive claims can lead to fewer high-cost claims in the future.
Preventive care: Providers emphasize early intervention, screenings, and chronic disease management to prevent escalation and improve long-term health.	Reactive treatment: Care is primarily delivered in response to acute events or worsening conditions, rather than in anticipation of potential problems.

4 types of value-based care models

Value-based care isn’t a single payment approach; it’s a spectrum of models that reward high-quality, cost-effective care in different ways. Each model shifts financial and operational responsibilities to providers at varying levels, giving practices flexibility in how they participate. 

For CFOs, understanding these models is essential to evaluating risk, forecasting revenue, and determining which arrangements best fit the organization’s readiness and capabilities.

The four most common value-based care models include:

1. Performance-based payments

Performance-based payment models provide financial reimbursement when providers meet defined quality or cost benchmarks. These programs typically layer on top of fee-for-service billing, offering bonuses for strong performance without requiring practices to take on major financial risk. For many organizations, this serves as an entry point into value-based care, offering upside opportunity while maintaining revenue stability.

The key to success in performance-based models is effective population management. This involves demonstrating improvement in areas such as preventive care, chronic disease management, patient satisfaction, or reduced acute care utilization. While the financial upside can be meaningful, the administrative work required to document performance and manage patient outcomes can be substantial.

Value in Primary Care MVP

The Value in Primary Care (VIP) model is a performance-based MIPS Value Pathways (MVP) reporting option designed to strengthen primary care by rewarding practices for meeting the requirements of quality, access, and patient experience measures. It emphasizes advanced care delivery capabilities–such as proactive outreach, care coordination, virtual care, and better management of chronic conditions—that help reduce avoidable utilization and improve long-term outcomes. 

VIP does not replace fee-for-service billing but adds a structured framework for rewarding the delivery of high-quality, patient-centered care.

For practices participating in VIP, Advanced Primary Care Management (APCM) becomes a critical operational foundation. The model requires consistent patient engagement, coordinated care workflows, and reliable data tracking—all areas where APCM provides structure and execution.

For practices reporting traditional MIPS, APCM can also help them transition to the Value in Primary Care MVP. APCM requires those who report standard MIPS to switch to the VIP by the end of the first year, but can also help practices succeed in the program. By supporting care coordination, preventive outreach, and performance reporting, APCM helps practices meet VIP’s requirements and fully capture the available incentives.

Learn more: How an APCM Program Can Improve Your Quality Performance

2. Capitation

Capitation shifts payment from encounter-based billing to fixed per-patient monthly payments that cover a defined scope of services. This model gives practices predictable revenue and greater flexibility in allocating resources. Providers are rewarded for keeping patients healthier while avoiding unnecessary costs.

Full capitation transfers most financial risk to the provider, while partial capitation limits responsibility to specific services or populations. Providers also have to ensure patients are correctly attributed to them. Both partial and full capitation require effective care coordination, proactive outreach, and robust data analytics. Organizations with strong clinical infrastructure often benefit the most, as they can invest in preventive care, care management, and operational efficiencies that improve outcomes while protecting margins.

ACO REACH

ACO REACH (Accountable Care Organization Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health) is a capitated model in which participating organizations receive predictable, per-member-per-month payments and take on varying levels of financial risk. 

It is designed to advance health equity while holding providers accountable for cost and quality outcomes across their patient population. To succeed, organizations must excel in population health management by managing chronic disease, preventing unnecessary hospitalizations, and closing care gaps through coordinated, proactive interventions.

Because capitation places much more operational and financial responsibility on providers, APCM supports ACO REACH participants by supplying the population health infrastructure the model demands. APCM enables ongoing patient engagement, structured outreach, care coordination, social determinants of health (SDOH) support, and quality management—core capabilities for managing risk under a capitated payment structure.

3. Shared savings and risk

Shared savings and risk models tie reimbursement to a provider’s ability to reduce the total cost of care for a defined patient population. If the organization lowers spending relative to an established benchmark while maintaining or improving quality, it receives a portion of the savings. Models with downside risk also require the provider to pay back losses if spending exceeds the benchmark.

These arrangements encourage strategic interventions, including closing care gaps, reducing unnecessary hospitalizations, and improving chronic disease management. While upside-only arrangements are a gentle on-ramp, two-sided risk models require more advanced infrastructure, financial discipline, and confidence in the organization’s ability to influence cost and quality outcomes.

General ACOs

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are provider groups that share responsibility for the cost and quality of care delivered to a defined patient population. Most operate under shared savings and risk arrangements, earning savings when they lower the total cost of care and meet quality benchmarks. 

Success generally depends on effective care coordination, strong preventive care performance, and consistent engagement of patients with chronic conditions.

For practices participating in General ACOs, Chronic Care Management (CCM) or APCM can help support performance. CCM stabilizes chronically ill patients through monthly outreach that improves care plan adherence, strengthens self-management, and reduces avoidable escalations—an important advantage in shared savings arrangements. APCM focuses on proactive outreach, coordinated care, and quality improvement, helping support the preventive care and performance measures that drive ACO success.

Medicare Shared Savings Program ACO

Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACOs hold participating provider groups accountable for the total cost and quality of care delivered to their Medicare beneficiaries. Depending on the track, organizations may share in savings, take on downside risk, or both. Performance hinges on the ability to reduce unnecessary hospitalizations, improve transitions of care, strengthen preventive care, and manage chronic diseases consistently across the patient population.

Both APCM and CCM can help meet these expectations. CCM provides structured, monthly chronic disease management that can directly reduce utilization of high-cost services like inpatient hospitalization and improve outcomes for high-risk patients, often a significant factor in ACO performance. APCM strengthens broader population health efforts, including preventive care, access, care coordination, and quality reporting.

4. Bundled payments

Bundled payments reimburse providers a set amount for an episode of care, such as a joint replacement or cardiac procedure. Instead of billing each service separately, all providers involved share a single payment and are collectively responsible for cost and quality outcomes. If the total cost comes in below the bundle price and quality benchmarks are met, the provider keeps the savings. If it exceeds the target, the organization may owe money back.

This model encourages tighter coordination across care settings—primary care, specialists, acute care, and post-acute care. Organizations that excel in care transitions, discharge planning, and patient follow-up often perform well under bundled arrangements. However, the operational complexity of managing an entire episode can be significant, especially for smaller practices or those without integrated systems.

Financial implications of transitioning to value-based care

Shifting from fee-for-service to value-based care models transforms the financial landscape for healthcare organizations. For CFOs, understanding these implications is critical to making informed decisions about which models to adopt, how to allocate resources, and how to manage risk effectively.

While VBC can provide significant opportunities for improved outcomes and revenue, it also requires strategic planning around investments, cash flow, and risk management.

Revenue and reimbursement

Value-based care models link reimbursement directly to quality, outcomes, and cost efficiency. By meeting defined care goals, organizations can earn additional revenue through performance bonuses, shared savings, or per-member-per-month payments. 

VBC also supports improved patient engagement and satisfaction, resulting in higher patient retention, which naturally contributes to revenue stability. At the same time, proactively managing chronic conditions and coordinating care can reduce reliance on high-cost interventions and hospitalizations, improving outcomes at a lower total cost of care.

Risk management and forecasting

Transitioning to value-based care introduces new financial dynamics, especially in two-sided risk models where losses are possible if performance goals aren’t met. These risks can be managed by implementing structured care management programs and adopting a patient-centered approach. 

Proactively identifying high-risk patients, closing care gaps, and managing chronic conditions effectively can help practices achieve their targets and reduce the likelihood of financial shortfalls, making forecasting more predictable and manageable.

Cost structure and investments

Transitioning to VBC often requires upfront investment in technology and infrastructure. Practices need robust electronic health record (EHR) systems that integrate across care settings, as well as data analytics tools to stratify patients by risk, track outcomes, and report on performance. 

Implementing programs like CCM or APCM and expanding telehealth capabilities can further support patient engagement and access to care. While these investments may increase short-term costs, they provide the foundation necessary to deliver high-quality, cost-efficient care that promotes sustainable success under value-based arrangements.

Cash flow and payment timing

Value-based care changes the timing and predictability of payments compared with traditional fee-for-service. While FFS typically provides more predictable retrospective payments for services delivered, VBC may involve prospective payments, such as per-member-per-month stipends, or retrospective shared savings and performance bonuses distributed after quality and cost targets are evaluated. This shift can make cash flow management more complex, requiring careful planning to ensure operational sustainability and alignment of financial planning with the timing of payments.

Challenges of implementing value-based care models

While value-based care models offer significant opportunities to improve outcomes and financial performance, transitioning from fee-for-service poses several challenges for healthcare systems and staff. Practices must carefully plan, invest in resources, and adjust workflows to succeed. Common challenges include:

• Strategic planning: Successful implementation demands a clear plan that aligns clinical goals, financial objectives, and operational capabilities. Without a thoughtful strategy, practices may struggle to meet quality and cost targets.
• Financial risk: Unlike fee-for-service, value-based models often include shared savings and downside risk. Organizations must be prepared to manage potential financial variability while investing in care improvements.
• Staff time and capacity: Coordinating care, monitoring patient populations, and documenting interventions requires additional staff effort. Practices may need to expand or train teams to handle these responsibilities effectively.
• Technology investments: Data collection, analytics, and reporting are critical to providing targeted care and measuring performance. Practices may need to invest in or update their EHR, population health tools, or other infrastructure.
• Interoperability: Effective value-based care depends on sharing patient information across providers and settings. Lack of interoperability can create gaps in care and hinder performance tracking.
• Complex performance metrics: Providers must track multiple quality measures, cost benchmarks, and patient outcomes. Understanding and reporting on these metrics can be administratively complex.
• Workflow changes for providers: Care teams must adjust how they deliver services, focusing more on prevention, coordination, and patient engagement. Workflow changes may require training and ongoing support to ensure adoption.

Programs that support value-based care models

Chronic Care Management and Advanced Primary Care Management are programs designed to help healthcare organizations meet the goals of value-based care while maintaining predictable fee-for-service revenue. These programs operate in both FFS and VBC environments, allowing practices to continue generating steady revenue while improving quality and lowering the overall cost of care. 

By providing structured support for high-risk and chronically ill patients, CCM and APCM help practices manage population health proactively and efficiently.

Both programs support a range of activities that align directly with value-based care objectives. They enable comprehensive care coordination, patient education, and outreach, while helping identify care gaps, address SDOH, and improve patient engagement. CCM and APCM also provide robust documentation and reporting capabilities, supporting quality measures such as MIPS and helping organizations demonstrate value to payers. 

By lowering avoidable utilization and improving preventive care, these programs contribute to reduced healthcare spending and better patient outcomes.

ChartSpan’s full-service CCM and APCM programs reduce the administrative burden of implementing these initiatives, giving your practice the support needed to execute them effectively. From patient outreach and engagement to care gap identification and reporting, ChartSpan handles the operational tasks, allowing your organization to focus on delivering high-quality, preventive care that strengthens patient relationships, boosts quality scores, and lowers costs.

Make your organization’s transition from fee-to-service to value-based care a financially sustainable one. Talk to an expert to learn if CCM or APCM is right for your practice and how ChartSpan can help.

You may also like:

• Care Management ROI: What Practices Can Expect
• Value-Based Care Programs – Which Ones Deliver Results?
• Staffing Shortages in Healthcare & Maintaining Quality Care