Posted in Accountable Care, ACO, Affordable Care Act, Medicaid ACO

Tufts Health Plan Forms MassHealth Accountable Care Organization Partnership with Four Provider Organizations

Press Release | Watertown, MA | August 18, 2017 

The Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) recently announced that Tufts Health Plan has signed contracts to form Medicaid (MassHealth) Accountable Care Organization (ACO) partnerships with four provider organizations:  Atrius HealthBeth Israel Deaconess Care OrganizationCambridge Health Alliance, and Boston Children’s Accountable Care Organization.

The new ACOs feature a value‐based payment structure for providers who had largely been paid fee for service for MassHealth members in the past.  For members, this means the opportunity to receive medical, behavioral, dental and long-term support services in an integrated model of care.  This will improve quality of care, the member experience, and potentially help stabilize Medicaid costs in Massachusetts.

“We support the Commonwealth’s goal of providing integrated health care to MassHealth members that is more efficient and improves their overall health,” said Tom Croswell, president and CEO of Tufts Health Plan.  “We have partnered with four highly-regarded provider groups, all of whom share our vision of what collaboration and highly coordinated care can look like.”

Continued Croswell:  “Tufts Health Plan has an excellent reputation for our collaborative approaches with providers.  We’ve been working with value-based contracts for more than 20+ years, starting in our Medicare Advantage plans.  We know first-hand that working closely with providers on coordinating care results in healthier members.  We’re excited to broaden our success and bring this approach to our Medicaid members.”

MassHealth ACO transformation is a major component in the state’s five-year innovative 1115 Medicaid waiver from the federal government, which allows Massachusetts to restructure the current health care delivery system for 1.9 million MassHealth members.

Tufts Health Plan’s ACO partners are:

  • Atrius Health, which provides high quality, patient-centered and coordinated care to more than 740,000 adult and pediatric patients in eastern and central Massachusetts.
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Care Organization, a value-based physician and hospital network that partners with providers to improve quality of care while effectively managing medical expenses.
  • Boston Children’s Accountable Care Organization is an ACO comprising Boston Children’s Hospital and its affiliated primary and specialty care physicians. Boston Children’s Hospital is the No. 1 ranked Children’s Hospital in the nationand is a 415-bed comprehensive center for pediatric and adolescent health care.
  • Cambridge Health Alliance, an academic community health system committed to providing high quality care in Cambridge, Somerville and Boston’s metro-north communities. CHA has expertise in primary care, specialty care and mental health/substance use services, as well as caring for diverse and complex populations.

 

Editor’s Note: We are in the process in scheduling a Tufts Health Plan executive on an episode of This Week in Accountable Care with Andre Berger, MD and Alex Foxman, CEO and President/CMO of National ACO. Once confirmed we’ll post the details here with a profile of Tufts Health.

==##==

Advertisements
Posted in Accountable Care, ACO, Affordable Care Act

What, What? ACOs Not ‘DOA’?

by Gregg A. Masters, MPH

When the Affordable Care Act passed in March of 2010 and the law’s many moving parts analyzed by the ecosystem stakeholders including operators, health wonks and patient advocates many weighed in that ACOs were doomed to fail. They were just too ‘tepid’ to make a material contribution to the volume to value transformational journey. Complaints included little control over patients who ‘voted with their feet’ while ACOs bore the liability of their choices whether in upside only track vs. the downside of exposure of track two, flawed retrospective attribution methodologies and data dumps and reporting lags from CMS all handicapped the proactive management of ‘risk’ assumed by participating ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP).

Noted futurist Jeff Goldsmith captured the spirit in Pioneer ACOs: Anatomy Of A ‘Victory’ post in Health Affairs:

With over 17 million Medicare beneficiaries voluntarily choosing MA thus far, and enrollment growing at more than 10 percent annually despite three years of CMS payment reductions in real dollars, it is increasingly clear the future of managed Medicare lies in the MA program, not with directly contracted shared savings models.

Co-incident with the ramp up of the Medicare ACO cohort the private sector jumped on the bandwagon, operating with higher degrees of contractual terms and conditions freedom than promulgated by CMS to participating MSSP’s. Aetna, the Blues, United et al negotiated their version of ‘accountable care’ arrangements with participation IPAs, PHOs, IDNs, health systems, medical groups or physician networks.

Five years later, we have some important data recently reported by Health Affairs that suggests ACOs are far from the neutered enterprises many suggested and while mixed in terms of results reported ACOs have found their place in the managed competition ecosystem and are not likely to disappear any time soon.

The headline at Health Affairs is as follows: Growth Of ACOs And Alternative Payment Models In 2017.

As of the end of the first quarter of 2017, our inventory included 923 active public and private ACOs across the United States, covering more than 32 million lives (Figure 1). The increase of 2.2 million covered lives in the past year means that more than 10 percent of the U.S. population is now covered by an accountable care contract (Note 1).

As the ACO model matures, there is now some turnover, with organizations joining and leaving the model. Since the first quarter of 2016, 138 new ACOs began operation, and 46 ACOs dropped their accountable care contracts, representing a net increase of 92 organizations becoming ACOs, or an 11 percent growth.

From the nominal ACO count basis to the number of lives associated with the aggregate arrangements, this is an impressive tally for such an allegedly ‘anemic‘ model!

Now enter the Next Generation ACO Model. For details, see: Next Generation ACOs: A Deep Dive Series and Meet the Next Generation ACO Cohort.

 

 

 

.

Posted in Accountable Care, ACO, Affordable Care Act

ACO Winners and Losers: A Quick Take

by Ashish K. Jha

Last week, CMS sent out press releases touting over $1 billion in savings from Accountable Care Organizations.

Here’s the tweet from Andy Slavitt, the acting Administrator of CMS:

NEW ACO RESULTS: physicians are changing care, w better results for patients & are saving money. Over $1B. https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Press-releases/2016-Press-releases-items/2016-08-25.html 

The link in the tweet is to a press release.  The link in the press release citing more details is to another press release.  There’s little in the way of analysis or data about how ACOs did in 2015.  So I decided to do a quick examination of how ACOs are doing and share the results below.

Basic Background on ACOs:

Simply put, an ACO is a group of providers that is responsible for the costs of caring for a population while hitting some basic quality metrics.  This model is meant to save money by better coordinating care. As I’ve written before, I’m a pretty big fan of the idea – I think it sets up the right incentives and if an organization does a good job, they should be able to save money for Medicare and get some of those savings back themselves.

ACOs come in two main flavors:  Pioneers and Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP).  Pioneers were a small group of relatively large organizations that embarked on the ACO pathway early (as the name implies).  The Pioneer program started with 32 organizations and only 12 remained in 2015.  It remains a relatively small part of the ACO effort and for the purposes of this discussion, I won’t focus on it further.  The other flavor is MSSP.  As of 2016, the program has more than 400 organizations participating and as opposed to Pioneers, has been growing by leaps and bounds.  It’s the dominant ACO program – and it too comes in many sub-flavors, some of which I will touch on briefly below.

A couple more quick facts:  MSSP essentially started in 2012 so for those ACOs that have been there from the beginning, we now have 4 years of results.  Each year, the program has added more organizations (while losing a small number).  In 2015, for instance, they added an additional 89 organizations.

So last week, when CMS announced having saved more than $1B from MSSPs, it appeared to be a big deal.  After struggling to find the underlying data, Aneesh Chopra (former Chief Technology Officer for the US government) tweeted the link to me:

@ashishkjha CMS always releases these results. They are on the website!

You can download the excel file and analyze the data on your own.  I did some very simple stuff.  It’s largely consistent with the CMS press release, but as you might imagine, the press release cherry picked the findings – not a big surprise given that it’s CMS’s goal to paint the best possible picture of how ACOs are doing.

While there are dozens of interesting questions about the latest ACO results, here are 5 quick questions that I thought were worth answering:

  1. How many organizations saved money and how many organizations spent more than expected?
  2. How much money did the winners (those that saved money) actually save and how much money did the losers (those that lost money) actually lose?
  3. How much of the difference between winners and losers was due to differences in actual spending versus differences in benchmarks (the targets that CMS has set for the organization)?
  4. Given that we have to give out bonus payments to those that saved money, how did CMS (and by extension, American taxpayers) do? All in, did we come out ahead by having the ACO program in 2015 – and if yes, by how much?
  5. Are ACOs that have been in the program longer doing better? This is particularly important if you believe (as Andy Slavitt has tweeted) that it takes a while to make the changes necessary to lower spending.

There are a ton of other interesting questions about ACOs that I will explore in a future blog, including looking at issues around quality of care.  Right now, as a quick look, I just focused on those 5 questions.

Data and Approach:

I downloaded the dataset from the following CMS website: https://data.cms.gov/widgets/x8va-z7cu and ran some pretty basic frequencies.

Here are data for the 392 ACOs for whom CMS reported results:

Question 1:  How many ACOs came in under (or over) target?

Question 2:  How much did the winners save – and how much did the losers lose?

Table 1.

Number (%)

Number of Beneficiaries

Total Savings (Losses)

Winners

203 (51.8%)

3,572,193

$1,568,222,249

Losers

189 (48.2%)

3,698,040

-$1,138,967,553

Total

392 (100%)

7,270,233

$429,254,696

I define winners as those organizations that spent less than their benchmark.  Losers were organizations that spent more than their benchmarks.

Take away – about half the organizations lost money and about half the organizations made money.  If you are a pessimist, you’d say, this is what we’d expect; by random chance alone, if the ACOs did nothing, you’d expect half to make money and half to lose money.  However, if you are an optimist, you might argue that 51.8% is more than 48.2% and it looks like the tilt is towards more organizations saving money and the winners saved more money than the losers lost.

Next, we go to benchmarks (or targets) versus actual performance.  Reminder that benchmarks were set based on historical spending patterns – though CMS will now include regional spending as part of their formula in the future.

Question 3:  Did the winners spend less than the losers – or did they just have higher benchmarks to compare themselves against?

Table 2.

Per Capita Benchmark

Per Capita Actual Spending

Per Capita Savings (Losses)

Winners (n=203)

$10,580

$10,140

$439

Losers (n=189)

$9,601

$9,909

-$308

Total (n=392)

$10,082

$10,023

$59

A few thoughts on table 2.  First, the winners actually spent more money, per capita, then the losers.  They also had much higher benchmarks – maybe because they had sicker patients – or maybe because they’ve historically been high spenders.  Either way, it appears that the benchmark matters a lot when it comes to saving money or losing money.

Next, we tackle the question from the perspective of the U.S. taxpayer.  Did CMS come out ahead or behind?  Well – that should be an easy question – the program seemed to net savings.  However, remember that CMS had to share some of those savings back with the provider organizations.  And because almost every organization is in a 1-sided risk sharing program (i.e. they don’t share losses, just the gains), CMS pays out when organizations save money – but doesn’t get money back when organizations lose money.  So to be fair, from the taxpayer perspective, we have to look at the cost of the program including the checks CMS wrote to ACOs to figure out what happened.  Here’s that table:

Table 3 (these numbers are rounded).

 

Total Benchmarks

Total Actual Spending

Savings to CMS

Paid out in Shared Savings to ACOs

Net impact to CMS

Total (n=392)

$73,298 m

$72,868 m

$429 m

$645 m

-$116 m

According to this calculation, CMS actually lost $116 million in 2015.  This, of course, doesn’t take into account the cost of running the program.  Because most of the MSSP participants are in a one-sided track, CMS has to pay back some of the savings – but never shares in the losses it suffers when ACOs over-spend.  This is a bad deal for CMS – and as long as programs stay 1-sided, barring dramatic improvements in how much ACOs save — CMS will continue to lose money.

Finally, we look at whether savings have varied by year of enrollment.

Question #5:  Are ACOs that have been in the program longer doing better?

Table 4.

Enrollment Year

Per Capita Benchmark

Per Capita Actual Spending

Per Capita Savings

Net Per Capita Savings (Including bonus payments)

2012

$10,394

$10,197

$197

$46

2013

$10,034

$10,009

$25

–$60

2014

$10,057

$10,086

-$29

-$83

2015

$9,772

$9,752

$19

-$33

These results are straightforward – almost all the savings are coming from the 2012 cohort.    A few things worth pointing out.  First, the actual spending of the 2012 cohort is also the highest – they just had the highest benchmarks.  The 2013-2015 cohorts look about the same.  So if you are pessimistic about ACOs – you’d say that the 2012 cohort was a self-selected group of high-spending providers who got in early and because of their high benchmarks, are enjoying the savings.  Their results are not generalizable.  However, if you are optimistic about ACOs, you’d see these results differently – you might argue that it takes about 3 to 4 years to really retool healthcare services – which is why only the 2012 ACOs have done well.  Give the later cohorts more time and we will see real gains.

Final Thoughts:

This is decidedly mixed news for the ACO program.  I’ve been hopeful that ACOs had the right set of incentives and enough flexibility to really begin to move the needle on costs.  It is now four years into the program and the results have not been a home run.  For those of us who are fans of ACOs, there are three things that should sustain our hope.  First, overall, the ACOs seem to be coming in under target, albeit just slightly (about 0.6% below target in 2015) and generating savings (as long as you don’t count what CMS pays back to ACOs).  Second, the longer standing ACOs are doing better and maybe that portends good things for the future – or maybe it’s just a self-selected group that with experience that isn’t generalizable.  And finally, and this is the most important issue of all — we have to continue to move towards getting all these organizations into a two-sided model where CMS can recoup some of the losses.  Right now, we have a classic “heads – ACO wins, tails – CMS loses” situation and it simply isn’t financially sustainable.  Senior policymakers need to continue to push ACOs into a two-sided model, where they can share in savings but also have to pay back losses.  Barring that, there is little reason to think that ACOs will bend the cost curve in a meaningful way.

==##==

Post originally appeared at An Ounce of Evidence | Health Policy: The blog of Ashish Jha — physician, health policy researcher, and advocate for the notion that an ounce of data is worth a thousand pounds of opinion.

Posted in Accountable Care, ACO, Affordable Care Act, MSSP

Final Medicare Shared Savings Program Rule (CMS-1644-F)

by Gregg A. Masters, MPH

Creating consistent high quality original content is hard. At ACO Watch, we’re not in the business of breaking news or high frequency posts to drive eyeballs and traffic to this blog so ‘the numbers’ that might attract advertising or sponsorship (there aren’t any). Instead we (mostly me) watch the developments in the sector and offer newsworthy items now and then with some commentary which usually tethers to institutional memory (often failure, some successes) of having been in this dance for a while.cms final rule MSSP

So here’s the latest from CMS on the proposed final rule for ACOs participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program, see published rule here.

I remember back in the day when CMS was known as HCFA (the Health Care Financing Administration) and inside the Baltimore HHS complex, there dwelled an office with the name ‘Alternative Delivery Systems’ (ADS). This was the locus of staff (very modest at that time) tasked to monitor and track what was then limited to HMOs and the newly minted though ‘lite version’ dubbed PPOs.

Fast forward some 45+ years and those ‘alternative entities’ have become mainstream so to speak. Literally all benefit plans written today are contractually delivered via participating providers (IPAs, PHOs, IDNs, health systems, alliances, networks, direct or more recently ACOs) are some form of ‘managed care’ unless those providers have opted out of Medicare, Medicaid and commercial insurance in favor of Direct Practice or worse ‘Concierge Medicine’.

Since the Secretary of Health and Human Services has recently set a goal to have Medicare move away from its traditional reliance of unbridled fee-for-services medicine to a range of what CMS has or will define as ‘value based care‘ arrangements – everything from bundled payments, to gain sharing, to partial or global risk assumption by providers (hospitals, health systems, IPAs or ACOs (the next generation) much attention has focused on the right combination of incentives, infrastructure and regulatory context to move this historically change resistant healthcare delivery ecosystem into the brave new world of value vs. volume.

This is the latest effort by CMS to tweak the ACOs regs in order to meet some of the persistent objections to the program while scalably incentivizing the essential journey to risk assumption by providers is noted as:

The policies adopted in this final rule are designed to strengthen incentives in order to continue broad-based program participation and improve program function and transparency.

While the broader context is summarized as:

On June 6, 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule to incorporate regional fee-for-service (FFS) expenditures into the methodology for establishing, adjusting, and updating the benchmarks of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) that continue their participation in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (Shared Savings Program) after an initial three-year agreement period. This final rule also adds a participation option to encourage ACOs to transition to performance-based risk arrangements and provides greater administrative finality around the program’s financial calculations. CMS is making these modifications to strengthen incentives under the program after considering comments received on issues specified in the 2016 notice of proposed rulemaking. 

There is more to the story, and the referenced PR is here.

 

 

Posted in Accountable Care, ACO, Affordable Care Act

The Droids You Are Looking For Are Not Here

by Gregg A. Masters, MPH

Beneath the ideological crossfire and mostly bluster of the ACA ‘repeal and replace crowd’, while the latest ‘new, new, thing‘ aka the defacto Rorschach upside of a litany of mostly vaporware or me too ‘meh‘ digital health apps, platforms or S-1 filings (see: ‘Disruptive Idiots from Silicon Valley‘) stumble into maturity amidst growing calls for validation and evidence of tangible ecosystem sustainability, a pulse of innovation can be found in some less ‘sexy’ sectors.

Some time ago physician innovation pioneer Richard Merkin, MD, the founder and principal visionary behind the Heritage Provider Network and all of its sequelae (Heritage Medical Systems, Heritage ACO, etc.), opined from the stage at the ACO Summit that perhaps the biggest contribution (gold) from the ACA was to be mined from the forward leaning work stimulated by the law’s enablement of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) aka @CMSinnovates on twitter.

Richard Gilfillan MDThe indisputable driver of what was then invested in Richard Gillfilan, MD the first CMMI Director (now stewarding the transformation at Trinity Health System, @TrinityHealthMI), was the volume to value imperative.

Into this challenge was cast considerable public capital/incentive funds to model what that meant from a delivery system and financing re-engineering perspective. Perhaps fueling the discounting of CMMI’s early efforts was the poorly constructed ‘Pioneer ACO‘ program, ostensibly designed to attract a more risk savvy pool of players who could reasonably assume greater risk and therefore earn more meaningful bonuses for doing what they already know how to do principally via Medicare Advantage participation. This early cohort of 32 ‘Pioneers’ has dwindled recently to 19 with the recent defection of the trophy Darmouth-Hitchcock ACO, see:Dartmouth-Hitchcock exits Medicare’s Pioneer ACO program‘.

With that as backdrop, consider the following timely guide from the Cooperative of American Physicians titled ‘The Physician’s Guide To Value-Based Compensation‘. Consider this an essential ‘blocking and tackling’ primer of how to incentivize the granular behavior of those who write the ‘purchase orders’ for an essentially supply driven healthcare economy. As my colleague and surfing buddy John Mattison, MD (@JohneMattison), Assistant Medical Director, and CMIO Kaiser Permanente Southern California (@KPshare) often says: ‘we get what we incent’.

CAP_guide to value based comp

[Editor’s Note: and for those of you really interested in where the AMA stands on the bridging the volume-to-value divide, listen to: Health 2.0 Fall Conference 2015: An AMA Deep Dive on ‘The App Cure’].

Whether the ACA is repealed (highly doubtful) or materially modified (also not likely) its essence will not and cannot be ‘undone’ – the horse is out of the barn. Like it or not, the controlling DNA driving the many moving parts articulated in the ACA (and its state lab version ‘RomneyCare’) builds on decades of established health policy thinking on what works in the uniquely American public/private pluralistic partnership of healthcare financing and delivery.

Watch the ‘enablers’

Whether ACOs, fully integrated delivery systems (real IDNs – NOT their IDN lite versions), PCMHs, or one of a number of strains of risk bearing organizations (RBOs) from bundled pricing to full blown per member per month (PMPM) capitation, this is where the sustainable action can and will be found. This other stuff, plays well at CES and the many wannabe healthcare industry copy cat conferences playing an up the ante ‘cool factor’ card to an often ADD crowd, yet it’s tangible contribution to the triple aim or sustainable healthcare economy remains squarely ‘on the come.

 

 

Posted in Accountable Care, population health, Triple Aim

ACOs and Population Health: The Value Narrative

by Gregg A. Masters, MPH

Before there was ‘accountable care’, the current full court press towards innovation – whether digital health app, platform or service delivery model, an emerging culture of transformation or the attendant pursuit of the triple aim, not to mention the most recent obsession with ‘retail as cure’ for that which ails healthcare, the best and the brightest minds (both clinical and administrative guided by thoughtful health policy wonks) convened in the grand theater of ‘managed care’ or managed competition.

The model and industry writ large (both public and private sectors), variably expressed as HMO, PPOs and derivative strains of contracting models stimulating the development of IPAs, PHOs, PPMC’s, MSOs and DPOs (direct purchasing organizations) had a run from the mid 70s until its abandonment as the official vehicle to restrain the rising cost and variable quality of healthcare in the late 90s. What followed was somewhat of a meandering decade of incremental tweaks here and there to an otherwise burning platform of fee-for-service healthcare delivery and financing.

In 2015 with healthcare costs now approaching 20% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product and the viability of the entire U.S. Government at risk to projected costs increases and unfunded liabilities of the Medicare and Medicaid programs (estimated at $64 trillion), business as usual fee-for-service medicine is no longer an option and the many cathedrals of medicine built by ‘do more to earn more’ largesse are clearly at risk in the shifting sands of value based care.

While the ‘value’ v. volume agenda has been around for a while via risk based contracting including case rates, bundled payment and even capitation – both global and professional only versions – their penetration of mainstream medicine was relatively modest – until now. That is if you can believe the growing prevalence and penetration of risk bearing ACOs arrangements, a tapestry of bundled payment participation via Federal programs and a less transparent portfolio of privately negotiated ‘value based arrangements’.

Into this theater steps one of the trophy consulting companies with both wide (global) and deep (extensive client penetration into the health plan, provider and IDN communities) aka Accenture Health (follow via @AccentureHealth).

value based care meklausInto this developing narrative with a ‘value tutorial’ of sorts steps Gerry Meklaus, the Managing Director of Accenture North America for Clinical & Health Management Services. We speak with Gerry Wednesday at 12 Noon Pacific/3PM Eastern at Pophealth Week where my colleague and co-founder Fred Goldstein, President of Accountable Health, LLC will engage Gerry in the value conversation and the many touch points between a value framework for ACOs and population health strategies of provider organizations.

Key terms to un-bundle and digest are the ‘BIG Three’: 1) to ‘improve outcomes’ via emerging best practices, the reduction in variation and effective engagement of the patient in shared decision making, 2) the effective lowering of costs from a ‘total cost of care’ perspective (not just niche wins – if you will), and 3) the well known challenge to de-silo the many silos in the healthcare ecosystem driving fragmentation, redundancy and a less than patient centric experience.

Join us as we gain insight into the challenges and successes in the market to date!

Posted in Accountable Care, ACO, Affordable Care Act, population health

Another Milestone Marker in Favor of the ACO Model?

by Gregg A. Masters, MPH

I awoke this morning to an email from a PR rep who supports outbound news for one of the emerging ACO management companies enabling physician led participation in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) aka Aledade (@AledadeACO).

I then copy, pasted and tweeted the headline: ‘Aledade Creating New Medicare Accountable Care Organizations in Seven States.

I usually ignore ‘PRs’, yet this announcAledade newsement is material as it lends support via a growing body of evidence on the viability of the ACO model and its enabling ‘consciousness’ if not ‘sentiment shift’ in the prevailing market narrative.

While some still slam the ACA – and by proxy it’s ACO ‘workhorse’ – via relentless yet ‘diminishing returnsimpact of the ‘government takeover‘ fear mongering fueled by strategically sourced oppositional research, there is a building steady body of evidence supporting both the model and the broader context of efficacy of the competitive dynamics the ACA has unleashed on the stewards of our at risk (some say collapsing) healthcare economy.

Ergo my tweet:

Aledade news tweet

Ever since the Senate Finance Committee took up the debate and relentless series of ‘amendments‘ proffered by the ‘Rs’ trying to ‘improve‘ the proposed legislation that eventually emerged as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (I NEVER use the pejorative term ‘Obamacare’), I’ve been a voice in the narrative of trying to get the facts of competitive market dynamics into the post political conversation around reforming our complex healthcare economy.

This is no easy task as the complexity of both the political process and objective reporting of how legislation becomes law including its contextual historical narrative is addressed in ‘A Legislative History of the Affordable Care Act: How Legislative Procedure Shapes Legislative History.

A challenge recognized upfront via admittedly ‘apolitical’ or ideologically agnostic ‘law librarians’ (yeah, you know those agenda driven bullies):

“Using the health care legislation passed in 2010 as a model to show how legislative procedure shapes legislative history, this article posits that legislative procedure has changed, making the traditional model of the legislative process used by law librarians and other researchers insufficient to capture the history of modern legislation. To prove this point, it follows the process through which the health care legislation was created and describes the information resources generated. The article concludes by listing resources that will give law librarians and other researchers a grounding in modern legislative procedure and help them navigate the difficulties presented by modern lawmaking.”

Since social media was starting to pick up in 2009 – 2010 time-frame, and given the angst associated with the public’s consumption of the ACA, I started ACO Watch and latter the hashtag #healthreform to track tweets associated with ACA consideration.

None-the-less, 5 years later the disinformation campaign persists though some of the pieces of the ACA are starting to show some promise of the law’s original intent. ACOs often referred to as a flawed model, perhaps an ACO lite if you will or too little too late to make a difference, the emerging datasets (both government and private market tea leaves) are building a case that the law is working.

Tomorrow on PopHealth Week, join my colleague, co-host and co-founder Fred Goldstein as we chat with Aledade Founder and CEO Farzard Mostashari, MD. This month we’re conducting a series on Population Health and ACOs talking to leadership from each ACO type: physician led, hospital sponsored and health plan enabled.

Listen here! We’re live 12 Noon Pacific/3 PM Eastern, and on demand thereafter.