Posted in Accountable Care, ACO, Affordable Care Act

The NextGen ACO: Another Round Opens

by Gregg A. Masters, MPH

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has announced the results of its ‘continuous learning‘ commitment model wherein ‘field reports‘ including provider comments and open door inputs are materially incorporated into tweaks of the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) as risk is progressively adopted by participating ACOs. This ‘new round’ iteration no doubt includes ‘lessons learned‘ from the Pioneer ACO Program including the many ‘exits’ and risk downgrades opted to date.

In summary, this round is:

‘..one that sets predictable financial targets, enables providers and beneficiaries greater opportunities to coordinate care, and aims to attain the highest quality standards of care.’

screen-shot-2016-12-15-at-9-48-25-am
screen-shot-2016-12-15-at-9-48-47-am

screen-shot-2016-12-15-at-9-49-21-am

For complete information, see: ‘Next Generation ACO Model | Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation‘.

 

 

Advertisements
Posted in Accountable Care, ACO, Affordable Care Act, TrumpCare

TrumpCare: As the Puzzle Emerges…

by Gregg A. Masters, MPH

As the Trump administration takes form via the nomination of Rep. Tom Price to ‘steward’ (or decimate) the massive bureaucracy of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with Seema Verma nominated as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Administration (CMS) the structural touch-points to manifest the ‘repeal and replace‘ agenda of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may be materializing before our eyes.

medscape_physician_survey2016Dr. Tom Price a Board Certified Orthopedic Surgeon (Editor’s note: the highest paid specialty per Medpage 2016 physician compensation survey and according the the Georgia Combined Board of Medical Examiners a ‘non participant’ in Georgia’s Medicaid program, with zero reported hospital appointments, publications or settled professional liability claims) and a vocal opponent of the ACA with several bills sponsored to enable ACA’s repeal and replacement is no friend of Medicare, Medicaid nor the broader ecosystem enabling the fulfillment obligations of the U.S. healthcare ‘[non]system‘.

Much of this likely health policy directional pivot can be reasonably visioned though the lens of what’s emerging as indicia of ‘TrumpCare‘ – the probable repeal and replacement option for ‘ObamaCare‘ aka the ACA.

In order to drill into what we can expect from President-elect Trump and the leadership team he’s proposed to assemble in order to drive his presumptive health reform vision we need focus on Rep. Tom Price’s historical positions and statements as potential replacement options.

The umbrella policy framework for for what may emerge as ‘Trumpcare’ begins at ‘Great Again‘ the .gov website dedicated to the President-elect’s agenda, and informed viaA Better Way (aka RyanCare) the Republican version to substitute ‘Government controlled‘ healthcare with so-called ‘free market‘ alternatives.

[Editor’s Note: At the bottom of this post we list a series of recent links associated with relevant health reform conversations].

Perhaps the most useful insights as to what is likely to survive the political consideration process is sourced from the collection of Republican authored repeal and replace proposals sourced from the historical work of Representative Tom Price.

At a June symposium organized by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Rep. Price, who serves as Chair of the House Budget Committee previewed his vision of healthcare reform with the following summary statements:

‘the ACA violates all of the principles that all of us hold dear…. accessible, affordable, a system of the highest quality and a system that provides choices for the American people – for patients.’

‘What we have put together is a patient centered plan that respects those principles. That allows everybody to have access to the coverage that they want not what the government forces them to buy.’

‘To solve the insurance challenges of portability and pre-existing and to save hundreds of billions of dollars.’

‘A few specific examples I’d like to share with you…

‘the individual and small group market – those of you who recognize or are in that area [Editor’s Note: code-speak for special interest groups including brokers, agents, MGAs and underwriters] you appreciate that its been ‘destroyed’ [Editor’s Note via essential health benefits, no preexisting conditions, mandatory MLR ceilings, removal of lifetime caps and the individual mandate] and so we want to re-constitute that market and make it responsive to patients and allow them to purchase the kind of coverage that they want [Editor’s Note: via a return to ‘junk insurance’ and ‘mini-med’ policies] not what the government forces them to buy [Editor’s Note: on the exchanges or via ACA sanctioned group health policies].’

‘Second we waste hundreds of billions of dollars [Editor’s note: estimated at a $55.6 Billion Price Tag Large, But Not a Key Driver of Total Health Care Spending] …due to lawsuit abuse in this country, the practice of defensive medicine and instead of just putting a band-aid on it, we propose a bold and robust solution that would allow physicians through practice guidelines [Editor’s note: Evidence Based Medicine, or so-called “cookbook medicine” by the AMA] to basically have a “safe harbor” [Editor’s note legal CYA] if your doctor does the right thing for a given diagnosis or given set of symptoms then they ought to be able to use that as an affirmative defense in a court of law – that’s the kind of proposal that we put forward.’

‘And third in addition the healthcare system that works for patients is one the must respect the physician patient relationship [Editor’s note: typically third party disintermediated practice, i.e. direct practice, concierge medicine, retainer or membership models] and so what we do is incentivize the highest quality of care without bureaucratic intervention. This better way, this plan right here that puts forward positive commonsense solutions for Medicare, Medicaid and for the larger healthcare arena so that we respect the principles of accessibility, of affordability of quality and of choices…’

There is so much fluff here we decided to do a deep dive on ‘PopHealth Week‘ with healthcare thought leaders and former health system and JV enterprise operators Fred Goldstein, Douglas Goldstein and Gregg Masters. We weighed in on some of the provisions of Representative Price’s tantalizing offers to the American people to deliver a viable alternative to the ACA that:

‘allows everybody to have access to the coverage that they want not what the government forces them to buy;

solves the insurance challenges of portability and pre-existing; and

saves hundreds of billions of dollars.’

You be the judge! Or as some may be recently awakening to: ‘Republicans suddenly discover that Obamacare repeal might not be so awesome, after all‘ or ‘Senate GOP Tips Its Hand: An Obamacare Replacement Could Be A Long Way Off‘.

If like me you are interested in how this unfolds I encourage you to follow the conversation on twitter via #PriceWatch and #TrumpCare hashtags.

More will no doubt be revealed! Some earlier context here and here.

Let’s drain the swamp, after all we now what works!

==##==

Trumpcare Resources c/o Fred Goldstein:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-will-trump-do-about-obamacare/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obamacare-defenders-vow-total-war-231164

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr3762/summary

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/11/09/day-one-and-beyond-what-trumps-election-means-for-the-aca/

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2016/nov/challenges-for-president-elect-trump-and-congress?omnicid=EALERT1125198&mid=fgoldstein@accountablehealthllc.com

https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/healthcare.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/23/1584745/-Paul-Ryan-has-three-great-ideas-to-improve-Obamacare

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/11/our-bodies-our-trump/507131/

https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/healthcare.html

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2016/nov/challenges-for-president-elect-trump-and-congress?omnicid=EALERT1125198&mid=fgoldstein@accountablehealthllc.com

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/23/1584745/-Paul-Ryan-has-three-great-ideas-to-improve-Obamacare

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/12/donald-trump-is-beginning-to-face-a-rude-awakening-over-obamacare/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442120/obamacare-repeal-republicans-should-ensure-health-care-reform-bipartisan

http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2016/11/10/5-questions-about-affordable-care-act-coverage-after-donald-trumps-election/

http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/News/2016/11/13/What-would-health-care-look-like-under-Trump.html?ci=stream&lp=1&p=1

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-willing-to-keep-parts-of-health-law-1478895339

http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/speculations-swirl-around-trump-hhs-leadership-pick/430301/

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/medical-science-policy-in-the-u-s-under-donald-trump/

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2016/11/13/dear-mr-president-elect-about-that-ryan-plan-thing/

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20161111/NEWS/161119989?utm_source=modernhealthcare&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20161111-NEWS-161119989&utm_campaign=mh-alert

http://www.hhnmag.com/articles/7843-health-reform-and-the-trump-white-house-implications-for-key-stakeholders?utm_campaign=111516&utm_medium=email&utm_source=hhndaily&eid=254508792&bid=1588113#.WCsKPQk6jpM.twitter

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/politico-pulse/2016/11/obama-dares-gop-on-obamacare-do-it-better-than-me-217419

http://www.vox.com/2016/11/17/13626438/obamacare-replacement-plans-comparison

http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/7-keys-to-effective-health-care-overhaul/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442529/obamacare-donald-trump-repeal-replace-tax-cuts

 

Posted in Accountable Care, Affordable Care Act, health reform

TrumpCare: What We ‘Know’?

by Gregg A. Masters, MPH

You’ve no doubt heard the expression: ‘a picture is worth a thousand words‘.

Well courtesy of Oliver Wyman Health we have an infographic that segments key provisions of ‘TrumpCare’s‘ impact on providers. For original graphic, click here, and timely commentary, see:Special Election Coverage: What Now? The Impact of a Trump Presidency‘ via Partner Sam Glick.
TrumpCare Impact on providers

Oliver Wyman breaks down the identifiable components of TrumpCare’s impact on providers as follows:

TrumpCare screen-shot-2016-11-15-at-10-06-48-am screen-shot-2016-11-15-at-10-07-00-am

 

So much ‘meat’ remains to be put on the bone. Assuming anything whether ‘substantiated’ by previous campaign rhetoric or more recent ‘indicia‘ of what will emerge post ‘repeal and replace‘ or now ‘amend’ intentions relative to the ACA (see: ‘As the TrumpCare Pivots Begins‘) is without a doubt ‘faith based‘ reliance on what remains essentially an aggregate ‘hologram‘ of President-Elect Trump’s health reform agenda.

Stay tuned!

 

Posted in Accountable Care, Affordable Care Act, health reform

As the TrumpCare Pivots Begins

by Gregg A. Masters, MPH

Just when we thought it was safe to get back in the ‘white water of health reform‘ with needed fixes to this arguably complex and ambitious Act, surprise!

Against all odds and the best and brightest minds in the polling community welcome President-Elect Donald Trump and his litany of public statements regarding the intent to ‘repeal and replace’ the Affordable Care Actday one‘.

There is so much to this story that it’s difficult to fix a single point of entry, so we’ve sourced just a few of his public statements to frame the discussion which we’ll launch here but dive further into at This Week in Health Innovation and PopHealth Week with my colleagues Fred Goldstein and Douglas Goldstein.

Last week the Wall Street Journal posted a piece which began what some now expect to be the inevitable revisionist walk-back on the range and depth of what is realistically possible for the categorical ‘repeal and replace‘ rhetoric of this ‘holographic‘ candidate, now President-Elect Trump. Trump has been rather clear that the ACA aka ‘Obamacare’ is a ‘disaster‘ and must be thrown out and replaced with some ‘beautiful‘, ‘bigly‘ or who knows what else occurs to him as a politically feasible replacement alternative?

Some of my colleagues in the health policy and health-wonk space who’ve inexplicably (in my view, though see: ‘Dear Mr. President-Elect, about that Ryan Plan Thing‘) hitched to the TrumpTrain and it’s Rorschach projection of what is to become ‘TrumpCare‘ have stunned me by proffering seemingly apologist precedent for his now revisionist tune:

Just to make sure you have the facts.. 🙂 He said in early primaries and consistently after that that preexisting and all that stays in.

This was in response to the following tweet given the WSJ piece:

screen-shot-2016-11-14-at-9-46-31-am

Yet here’s just a sampling of public statements made during his campaign:

trumpcare1

trumpcare7

trumpcare12 trumpcare10 trumpcare8 trumpcare7 trumpcare6 trumpcare5 trumpcare4 trumpcare3 trumpcare2

trumpcare8

This portion of Trump’s health reform agenda is so target rich and ‘on the come‘ while campaign rhetoric meets the real world of policy and politics, so we intend devote a fair amount of coverage and commentary to TrumpCare’s emerging policy indicia.

Meanwhile, here is the vision posited to the people and the Congress of the President Elect’s health reform (similar as ‘guidance‘ offered though materially at variance with Obama’s ‘8 Principles’) submitted to Congress as parameters for the debates and negotiations eventually leading to the passage of ACA:

TrumpCare

Some related references here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/here-s-some-advice-you-president-trump-scientists

Medical science policy in the U.S. under Donald Trump

We do in fact live in interesting times!

 

 

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

POTUS: The De Facto Health Wonk-in-Chief of the US?

by Gregg A. Masters, MPH

United States Health Care Reform

 

Love him or hate him President Barack Obama continues to demonstrate depth, insight, tenacity and a firm grip on the state of the U.S. Healthcare ecosystem dysfunction (and remedies) well beyond his formal training as a Constitutional scholar. Now as arguably one of the most legislatively accomplished President’s in U.S. history, particularly in light of the catastrophic train wreck he inherited from his predecessor and fueled by the nonstop ‘hell no‘ chorus of his disingenuous (often health policy clueless) political opposition he weighs in to set the record straight and for legacy purposes.

On July 11, 2016, JAMA released ‘United States Health Care Reform: Progress to Date and Next Steps‘ a rather scholarly construed unbundling of the state of healthcare then and now (pre and post ACA implementation). As a rather complex piece of legislation with many moving parts, and staggered implementation timelines (some as a result of political accommodation, some merely in tune with operational and prevailing healthcare delivery and financing legacy inertia) he steps up and in classic barrister narrative fashion lays out his case, and simultaneously calls out the next steps to remedy the U.S. healthcare conundrum.

POTUS aka ‘Health Wonk-in-Chief‘ Barack Obama concludes:

Policy makers should build on progress made by the Affordable Care Act by continuing to implement the Health Insurance Marketplaces and delivery system reform, increasing federal financial assistance for Marketplace enrollees, introducing a public plan option in areas lacking individual market competition, and taking actions to reduce prescription drug costs. Although partisanship and special interest opposition remain, experience with the Affordable Care Act demonstrates that positive change is achievable on some of the nation’s most complex challenges.

I strongly encourage you to click on and read the entire piece. It is well worth your time and wholly consistent with the ‘accountable care’ narrative (the subject of this blog) driving Medicare ACOs, their commercial derivatives and large portions of the moving parts of the ACA including the entire spectrum of ‘value based’ healthcare initiatives.

For this piece, I want to focus on four areas of the ‘next steps‘ called out by POTUS, namely: the ‘Health Insurance Marketplaces’, associated ‘delivery system reform’, AND the introduction of ‘a public plan option in areas lacking individual market competition, and finally ‘taking actions to reduce prescription drug costs’.

Health insurance marketplaces

So much of the ACA oppositional cheerleading liked to stress the ‘buying across state lines‘, and ‘malpractice reform‘ as ‘freedom and choice‘ enabled solutions to the health insurance quagmire. Never mind the rampant marketing, churn, double digit premium increases, retrospective rescissions or opportunistic denial rates, coverage limits and lifetime caps so endemic in the space. Not to mention ‘mini-meds‘ or ‘junk insurance’ so prevalent in the market before some baseline notions of what constitutes ‘insurance‘ in the face of typical health, illness or accident challenges one may experience in life. Here again, coverage baselines and the need for consistency to shop, compare and ultimately purchase real health insurance seemed like too much regulatory over-reach in a market where choice absent basic ground rules somehow seemed like a more attractive solution – at least to the often clueless opposition. The entire over-reach narrative was wrapped up, sold and bought as a ‘Government controlled healthcare takeover‘ per the vacuous talking points proffered by ACA oppositional research.

Google Image Result for http___1.bp.blogspot.com_-FCS-xwHjt8Q_TksRz3PW4CI_AAAAAAAAATo_aR9LEeQ57bU_s1600_medicare-keep-your-hands-off-my-medicare.jpg

 

Yet, the value proposition of an ‘insurance market place‘ whether Federally run, ‘facilitated’ or state delegated exchange option makes total sense if a transparent consumer market is to emerge from the chaos that is principally the individual market (non employer sponsored health insurance), though the group, or self funded ASO market ain’t much to cheer about either. Yet such a model was/is a proven way (witness the explosive growth of private exchanges) to introduce orderly competition in an otherwise opaque industry.

If you’ve ever run a health plan, built a managed care organization or contracted for hospital, physician, ancillary and pharmaceutical services (I presided over several employer sponsored health plan initiatives, MSOs, PHOs and IPAs tackling both capitated and discounted fee for service plan launch and operational issues in for-profit, voluntary and academic health systems) you will know that prudent (empowered, informed, etc.) purchasing of health insurance options requires clear apples-to-apples covered services comparisons, exclusions and non-covered item disclosures coupled with understandable pricing transparency and the cost sharing burden associated with your election. Absent this comprehensive clarity, listing guidance and/or requirements that an exchange imposes to ‘qualify’ eligible participants as candidates to choose from is virtually impossible. Standing up the infrastructure (people,  process, culture, etc.) to enable informed choice requires such an exchange environment whether public, private or some combination thereof to transparently market their services to the consuming public.

Delivery system reform

This is clearly the ACA’s ‘achilles heel‘ as there ain’t much there, there other than aggregate ‘on the come‘ efforts to tip toe into the waters of ‘clinical integration‘, measured risk assumption and a range of payment reforms collectively recognizing fee-for-service (i.e., do more to earn more) medicine as a burning platform. The most tangible form of this commitment is represented by Secretary Burwell’s call to migrate increasing shares of Medicare beneficiaries (including me, as I turn 65 in August and have elected Kaiser Permanente Senior Plan in San Diego) into Medicare Advantage, ACOs and a broadly cast series of ‘value based‘ healthcare arrangements by certain dates.

Standing Up the ACOFor the most part, ACA focused on insurance market place reforms. While delivery system reform was principally invested in ‘nascent’ ACOs (which are mutating as we speak amidst some 5 and 1/2 years of operating experience under the Medicare Shared Savings Program (one I like to call ‘HMO-lite’ which incidentally and inevitably is morphing into its more traditional gatekeeper HMO predecessor vs. the retrospective attribution methodology that undermines successful ACO risk assumption performance).

Additional delivery system reform was to come from pilots, demonstrations and other ‘innovations’ the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) funded via the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) – who’s budget the Republican controlled Congress is determined to cut.  Here, I might add at the ACO Summit circa 2012 one of the most seasoned and successful risk savvy players I had the opportunity to work for and with in Dallas, Texas Richard Merkin, MD, the founder and owner of Heritage Medical Systems and Heritage Provider Network described as the ‘hidden jewel’ in the ACA.

As much as we’ve progressed into ‘managed care‘ whether discounted, bundled, case rates, per diems or global or partial per member per month (PMPM) capitation or percent of premium the majority (estimated at 80-90%) of healthcare payments are still of the fee for services variety. Back in the 80s when American Medical International (AMI) retained me to develop and preside over their managed care strategy for the California Region’s 19 hospitals I elected ‘Director of Health System Development‘ vs. Regional Director of Managed Care as a title, since I saw the strategic imperative of building and operating a hospital system as a partnership with payors, health plans and employer groups, in order to create value. Since ‘payors’ (as a group) were our customers to grow market share we needed ‘dots on the map‘ to effectively service their employees, members or insureds. That vision and strategy collapsed before taking root since quarterly earnings per share incentives of the hospital CEOs precluded the longer term strategy of acquisitions and divestitures consistent with a dots on the map game-plan could take hold.

Today, many years later health systems are ‘getting [payor/provider partnership] religion’ at least rhetorically, yet the prevailing provider/payor mindset remains ‘your revenues are my expenses‘ – not much progress! So don’t hold your breath on material delivery system reform other than the equivalent of re-arranging furniture on the deck of the Titanic while the ship sinks. Mergers, acquisitions, the ‘death of independent‘ medicine and rise of mega institutionally led health systems more or less ‘clinically integrated‘ notwithstanding.

A public plan option in areas lacking individual market competition

While POTUS stresses the individual market as the target ‘book of business‘ most at risk and dysfunctional absent effective reform the need for a ‘public option‘ across the board (group, self funded/ASO, fully insured, etc) is rather compelling, in my view. The recent failures of the ACA enabled ‘CO-OPs‘ notwithstanding (i.e., startup insurance companies or health plans rarely if ever achieve profitability in such a short timeline given the threshold need for ‘the law of large numbers‘ for actuarial credibility and the inherent volatility of the underwriting profit/loss cycle) do nothing to undermine the argument and need for a public option writ large.

I’ll go one step further and say ultimately our worshipping of ‘pluralism‘ in healthcare delivery and finance will ultimately give way to a ‘Medicare E‘ version as in Medicare for everyone. If public/private partnerships and business models could successfully manage clinical risk and meet the health and healthcare needs of their constituents we would have solved the problem in the 80s and 90s. Who remembers the ‘Harry and Louise‘ narrative battles (‘if the Government choses, we lose‘) on the Clinton Health Security Act aka ‘HillaryCare‘? So perhaps we’ll get there once we exhaust every other option to avoid ‘single payor‘?

Actions to reduce prescription drug costs

This seems to me the segment the easiest to resolve. Here I’d empower Medicare to negotiate direct and on behalf of it’s entire pool of beneficiaries, rather than dilute the market power via a tapestry of variably (under) performing ‘PDPs’. The political compromise that birthed Medicare Part D (the Prescription Drug Plan) materially undermines the market power of the ‘law of large numbers’ to extract best price from vendors, suppliers or providers of services. This make NO sense, and we’re paying the price! Here, politicos assured Medicare could NOT intervene with such market clout instead they routed the business upside to a pool private participants.

Add to this macro market efficiency undermining the challenges of orphan or rare disease market segments and the egregious and unaccountable pricing practices most recently popularized by ‘bad boy’ Martin Shkreli of Turning Pharma and more recently Valeant‘s abusive pricing admissions.

Yes, specialty pharma is at risk and a major source of heartburn for AHIP and it’s employer allies, yet PHRMA has a point. The drug discovery and commercialization process/pathways to market are unpredictable and fraught will high failure rates. Coupled with the long development runways and high costs, but absent a ‘ceiling’ or ‘pricing accountability framework’ pharma’s management credo will remain ‘whatever the market can bear‘ strategy lest ProPublica‘s (et al) investigational journalism (see their guide to investigating non-profit health systems) marshals sufficient public attention and shame forces reconsideration or retraction of Pharma’s lazy over-reliance on raising ‘P’ (Price) vs. the more complex market challenge of driving ‘U’ (units via share gains) becomes their duty and ultimate measure and basis of ‘success’.

So thanks BO! Despite all odds, you (and Max Baucus et al) pulled it off. And yes, it’s only a beginning and there’s lots of work to do. In the words of then Acting CMS Administrator, Don Berwick, who was wrongly blocked (by you know who) for permanent appointment [I paraphrase below]:

This will require no less than an all hands of deck, full court press to make happen [i.e., the triple aim].

 

Posted in Accountable Care, ACO, Affordable Care Act

MACRA, MIPS and APMs: A Report from CAPG

by Gregg A. Masters, MPH

So everyone is talking about value based healthcare. No longer is ‘business as usual‘ even an option on the table as the volume driven FFS zeitgeist continues to lose supporters in health policy circles while a growing body of clinical initiatives from ACOs to a range of variably structured and differentially market positioned risk bearing organizations (RBOs) model the new paradigm.CAPG_Guide to APMs

For some this value based healthcare mantra is code-speak for the associated narrative if not mandate to reflect all payment or delivery system model entries that shift clinical risk to providers whether ‘institutional‘, i.e., hospitals and/or their parent health systems (including IDNs), or ‘professional‘, i.e., physician networks, enterprises, medical groups or their managing agents (MSOs). This pool of value based participants includes a range of ACOs whether participating in the Medicare (MSSP or other options) program or their commercial derivatives as negotiated by many of the national or regional health insurance companies; not to mention ‘OWAs’ (other weird arrangements) that arguably incorporate one or more strategies to play and thrive under a range of risk based incentives.

CAPG_Guide to APMs_matrix

Contributing clarity to an arguably non-homogeneous market including performance results to date via provider entity type use cases is CAPG (fka as the California Association of Physician Groups) who recently published ‘CAPG’s Guide to Alternative Payment Models: Case Studies of Risk-Based Coordinated Care‘. 

This is a timely and resource rich report sourced from an eclectic pool of risk savvy industry players (CAPG members) that CAPG Executives Don Crane, President and CEO, and Mara McDermott, Vice President of Federal Affairs, introduce as follows:

You’ll … learn where each model is successful and strong, and where each has room for improvement. Key areas where CAPG members are demonstrating success in APMs include:

• Improving the quality and efficiency of care for patients. These APMs align physician payment to the achievement of performance objectives.

• Encouraging team-based care and a commitment to primary care.

• Innovating to better meet the needs of patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.

In addition to the significant progress our members are making in improving patient care and innovation, several themes have emerged where there is room for improvement:

• Improving data sharing with payers to continue to drive care improvements.

• Engaging patients in new payment approaches, particularly in accountable care organizations (ACOs).

• Aligning quality measures across programs. This will play an important role in reducing the burden on physician practices and getting actionable information to consumers.
As physicians across the nation embark on this journey toward risk-bearing arrangements, we hope you find this paper a practical, helpful, and invaluable guide. 

 

Most of you will connect and more or less identify with the ‘it takes a village‘ [to raise a child] admonition popularized by the presumptive Democratic Nominee for President, Hillary Clinton. In the grand transformation of a change resistant and to a very large degree legacy inertia driven healthcare financing and delivery ecosystem, this village idea may just be a gross understatement. Rather, I think the then Acting Administrator of CMS Don Berwick got it right scaling the true nature of the challenge before healthcare leadership, which is to steward the market mandated transformation via an ‘all hands on deck, full court press‘ invitation to make this transformation even remotely possible. In other words, this will take much more than just a ‘village‘.

Major props to CAPG for an important body of work on this nascent and ‘learning as we go‘ industry.