Skip to content
MarketScale
‹ Back to IndustriesHealthcare

Are Colorado’s Crafty Healthcare Incentives an Effective Strategy to Lower State Care Costs?

Colorado has some of the most expensive healthcare in the U.S., which already spends more than any other country on administering healthcare. Some studies place it in the top half of most expensive states for care in the U.S., while others place it in the top 10. In 2018, for example, Colorado’s average price per…

This story was produced through MarketScale. See how Healthcare teams put it to work with Executive Thought Leadership.

Share

Get featured

Want to get featured in MarketScale Healthcare?

Create a free MarketScale workspace and get your company's expertise featured across our Healthcare coverage. No credit card, no demo required.

Start free

Colorado has some of the most expensive healthcare in the U.S., which already spends more than any other country on administering healthcare. Some studies place it in the top half of most expensive states for care in the U.S., while others place it in the top 10. In 2018, for example, Colorado’s average price per patient was 22.8% higher than the U.S. national media. Regardless, it’s fair to say that the state is in need of creative solutions to lower cost of care without discouraging patients from seeking treatment. Could healthcare incentives do the trick?

In a recent move to negotiate lower health care prices among employers including the state of Colorado itself, the Colorado Purchasing Alliance is aiming to launch healthcare incentives to motivate patients to seek care at low-cost but high-quality care centers. Effectively, Colorado employers are paying cash to employees (who are signed up for the state’s self-funded health plan) if they choose care that contributes to lowering overall costs of care across the state.

Patients are encouraged, through reward program checks, to choose providers ranked in the top 25% of quality while also in the top 25% of cost-effectiveness through the state’s Healthcare Bluebook. These healthcare incentives could be as little as $50 or as high as thousands of dollars if patients are undergoing surgery. Pretty enticing, no? Save the state money and make money in the process by getting better-than-average care? What’s not to love?

It’s worth weighing out, though, if this strategy is sustainable and actually effective at motivating patients to seek better care, cheaper care, and effectively lower cost of care across the state. Is it reasonable to find care that is both low-cost and top notch quality? Kevin Stevenson, seasoned health system administrator and host of “I Don’t Care” gives his take on the efficacy and efficiency of this healthcare incentives strategy.

Kevin’s Thoughts

“Understand that Colorado’s encouraging giving patients cash incentives to seek care at state-approved high-quality and low-cost providers to lower overall healthcare costs. I think from my perspective, the issue is, what is state approved?

I have a little bit of an issue with that just because sometimes the lowest-cost provider does not provide the highest quality. And this also can get in the way of the patient-physician relationship where the physician may prefer one facility because they know of the quality, they have good experience there, but all the patient may see is, ‘Hey, I’m getting some money back on this.’ So I think this opens the door for an interesting conundrum. I think it’s always great whenever patients can do their own research and look up the highest-quality providers.

But when you throw in the possibility of gaining some sort of a cash incentive, I think that may damage the overall relationship and could ultimately harm the patients. Just my thoughts on that.”

Your experts belong here

Every story in MarketScale Healthcare starts with a company putting its clinicians, service-line leaders, and field engineers on the record. Buyers are already reading this topic. The only question is whose experts they find.

Service-line buyers vet vendors quietly, and your clinicians become the proof they find while doing it.

Get your team featuredSee how it works15 minutes, straight to a calendar.

Follow Healthcare Insights

Get new expert content in your inbox.

Healthcare: are you visible to AI?

Before they reach out, Healthcare buyers ask AI engines which vendors to trust. Explore how your experts, customers, and partners can become useful content for buyers and AI search.

Free plan

You just read one Healthcare expert. Your company is full of them.

This article was produced through MarketScale. The same platform turns your clinicians, service-line leaders, and field engineers into the articles, video, and social content Healthcare buyers are searching for. Create a free workspace and see it with your own people. No credit card, no demo required.

NPS +73 · 1,000+ creators · 38+ countries

What you get, free

Your own MarketScale workspace, up to 10 people
One professional video edit a month for qualifying companies
Media requests to your crowd, remote recording, AI writing tools
$0, no credit card, nothing that expires

More Healthcare Insights

Health systems are partnering up without changing who owns the hospital

Health systems are partnering up without changing who owns the hospital

Health systems are choosing alliances over mergers, per a July McDermott Will & Schulte analysis and four July deals tracked by Becker's Hospital Review. St. Christopher's, Nemours, Jefferson and Temple signed a nonbinding alliance letter; Palomar UC San Diego Health launched July 1. Ownership stays put; governance, purchasing and outpatient investment absorb the change.

  • 01In an alliance, the contract does the integrating that an org chart does in a merger: McDermott Will & Schulte says governance design, exclusivity, antitrust review, community commitments and exit rights all have to be settled before signing.
  • 02Purchasing is now explicitly on the table in at least one no-ownership deal, the St. Peter's Health and Billings Clinic-Logan Health talks in Montana, which means shared supply contracts can arrive without a change of control.

Sep 19, 2026

Telemedicine in eye care stops at the retinal scan unless imaging moves home

Telemedicine in eye care stops at the retinal scan unless imaging moves home

An Ophthalmology Times commentary by T.Y. Alvin Liu, Ferdinand Hui and Phillip Phan sorts eye patients into three telemedicine tiers by clinical need. Patients needing regular OCT scans benefit less unless a home device can send the image. Video tools already sit inside Epic and Cerner; the deciding purchase for retina clinics is the imaging device in the patient's living room.

  • 01The dividing line for eye telemedicine is imaging, not video: patients who need regular OCT scans benefit less from remote visits unless a device at home can send the scan, so a video license alone shifts few of those encounters.
  • 02The provider-side requirement, a HIPAA-compliant secured video platform, was already built into Epic and Cerner by 2020; the patient-side requirements (1.5 MB up and down bandwidth, a quiet private room, comfort with the technology) sit outside the health system's control and are the ones worth screening for at scheduling.
  • 03Self-administered home color fundus photography for tracking non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy was named as the nearer route into retina telemedicine; home OCT for wet AMD is the harder gate and the device to watch.

Sep 19, 2026

Value-based care reaches a quarter of revenue at 30% of surveyed health organizations

Value-based care reaches a quarter of revenue at 30% of surveyed health organizations

Wolters Kluwer Health argues value-based care software is judged on whether customers hit incentive thresholds and avoid penalties. A Fierce Healthcare-reported survey it cites puts value-based care at a quarter or more of revenue for 30% of organizations. The analysis is a vendor publication that ends by pitching its own UpToDate Connect API.

  • 01The sharper question for any population health or care coordination platform is whether it changes what a clinician does at the moment of decision, or only reports afterward what happened. Wolters Kluwer's reading of the evidence is that many platforms still struggle with the first.
  • 02Vendors selling into value-based contracts now face a build-or-license decision on clinical content, because Wolters Kluwer names current, trusted content, consistent clinician adoption across sites, and a traceable link from guidance to quality metrics as the three hard problems.

Sep 18, 2026

Explore More Healthcare Insights

Read more expert perspectives from across Healthcare.

Browse Healthcare Hub

For B2B teams

Your experts could be publishing here

Stories like this one run on content MarketScale captures from real practitioners. See how your team's expertise becomes coverage in Healthcare and beyond.

Book a 15-minute demo

Or call us. No forms required. We pick up. 214-945-2512