Accountable Care, ACO, Direct Primary Care, DPC

From HMOs and PPOs to ACOs and DPCs: What’s Next?

by Gregg A. Masters, MPH

It may come to a surprise for some  that ‘healthcare innovation‘ has been in play for quite some time albeit not fueled by a culture of hacking or disrupting legacy operations principally via technology. Unfortunately a veritable acronym soup of mostly failed initiatives under varying degrees of public, private partnership (PPP) collaborations have been largely unsuccessful albeit with momentary pauses to the growth rate of healthcare or its underlying medical care cost (MCC) inflation.

When I started in the space national healthcare spend represented 6% of GDP (today, last reported at 17.9%) and many of the same stakeholders were then complaining about its unsustainable trajectory, un-affordable health insurance premiums, wide variations in quality and the uneven access created by a confusing universe of often conflicting payor class (or ‘book of business’) driven reimbursement requirements.

Back then, we witnessed the launch of professional standards review organizations (PSROs) who’s mission was to develop what many referred to as ‘cookbook’ medicine guidelines for purposes of utilization review and medical necessity determinations that health maintenance organizations (HMOs), and to a lesser degree preferred provider organizations (PPOs), deployed via a range of products introduced as ‘managed healthcare’.

HMOs were seen as ‘closed loop‘ systems principally built upon ‘staff models’ where physicians were health plan employees (think Kaiser Permanente, though technically a ‘group’ vs. staff model), Cleveland Clinic, or Geisinger Health plan and thus had not penetrated either mainstream medicine nor commercial market customers (employers, coalitions, multiple employer trusts or purchasing cooperatives, etc.) that Aetna, Cigna, United and Blue plans designed, underwrote and marketed a range of self funded and fully insured insurance products. Both Medicare and Medicaid remained untapped ‘managed markets’ as well. Thus the lion’s share of both public and private markets were in traditional domain of unbridled fee-for-services medicine based on usual and customary pricing or payment schedules tied to conversion factors associated with resource based relative value units (RBRVU).

This began to change with the introduction of independent practice associations (IPA) supported by a competent management services organization (MSO) or physician practice management company (PPMC) providing back office support needed for private physicians in independent practices to contractually engage with health plans. This pivot began an era shifting risk from the health plan to the contracted provider network via a range of reimbursement models.

From modest withholds on negotiated fee-for-services schedules, to global or service tiered per diem’s, case rates or in the most aggressive arrangements an outright delegation of global (including hospital) or partial (professional services only) risk. The latter typically involved mature multi-specialty or primary care group practices with professional management, supporting culture and the associated infrastructure to bear the risk burden.

The aggregate impact of the frenzy that followed by huge market share gains in the HMO space and a correspondingly similar growth in the PPO market was a medical trend reduction and at one point temporary negative decline in healthcare and medical cost inflation indices relative to GDP the late 80s to mid 90s.

Yet, the cultural flash point was perhaps best captured by a scene in the movie ‘As Good As It Gets’ when actress Helen Hunt weighed in on her ‘piece of sh*t HMO‘ denying her access to covered services. As I recall, the entire audience laughed identifying with her animus towards HMOs.

This moment in popular culture represented the public’s push back to ‘gatekeeper model‘ HMOs where primary care physicians ran interference between a member and his or her referral to a specialist consult or hospital admission.

To meet rising consumer frustration and the employer sponsors the plans growing concerns. right around this time (circa mid to late 90s), United Healthcare introduced PPO plans and ‘direct access’ HMO versions as well that permitted specialist referrals without the consent of the primary care gatekeeper.

What soon followed was an era of risk push-back particularly as more consumers rebelled against gatekeeper HMOs, and a lot of red ink for risk bearing IPAs, medical groups or even PHOs (physician/hospital organizations) who took on health plan risk, incurring massive operating losses. While premium increases were restrained to declining, the per member per month (PMPM) or percentage of premium contract dollars passed to participating risk bearing providers represented declining baselines for payment of covered services.

Back to the Future: ‘Deja Vu’ Again?

With the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) principally designed to increase access, reduce the rate of uninsured Americans’ and lay the seeds of cost containment innovation principally via Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) – the majority participating in upside gain share only in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) – but also encouraging pilots and demonstration efforts at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) we’ve re-entered another era of measured risk transfer 2.0 with the provider community (i.e., hospitals, physicians and allied health practitioners).

As the principal workhorse in the ‘innovation lab‘, six years in ACOs have been a net disappointment in terms of producing the expected savings – though their quality performance metrics are a different story – initially envisioned leading up to the law’s passage. Yet amidst contentious and shifting sands of both federal and state health policy guidance in the transition from the Obama to the Trump administration, one goal remains intact with seemingly solid bi-partisan support: the continued investment in and active pursuit of a value based (vs. production fueled fee-for-services) healthcare economy. Whether via top down federal policy or the granular baking of innovation from the grassroots up, we’ve returned to the drawing board of finding a delivery and financing system that can deliver on the promise of the triple aim – better care, better outcomes at lower per capita costs.

Enter Direct Primary Care aka ‘DPC’

In 1913 Dr. Charles Mayo one of the three founding brothers of the Mayo Clinic weighed in rather optimistically on the future of medicine delivered primary via seamless, team based healthcare. Yet, some 100 plus years later, are we there yet? I think the answer is a resounding no. But why the glacial pace of progress in a seemingly transformation resistant healthcare industry?

With layers of failed generational innovation and the inherent complexity grafted on each wave of the transformational impulse, we as an industry of stakeholders writ large (i.e., hospitals, physicians, regulators, payors, brokers, underwriters, investors and a litany of too numerous to mention suppliers and vendors at the trough) have co-created an incoherent, inefficient, costly and burdensome ‘provider centric’ healthcare economy with conflicted incentives, and little to no alignment with the mission towards building a quality, affordable healthcare economy that works for us al

In 2018 this de-facto ‘non-system‘ aggregate is at risk of imploding on itself. No-one is happy. From frustrated patients, to disillusioned clinicians, to disaffected employers and a somewhat drifting [see: ‘Rethinking The Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC)’ which addresses the ‘rising tensions’ between PTAC, and HHS] federal government are all scrambling to find solutions that deliver value.

A novel model launched in the late 90s by Garrison Bliss, MD introduced ‘direct primary care‘ (DPC) initially via Seattle Medical Associates which then re-tooled into the Qliance brand. Qliance created a fair amount of buzz and spawned considerable competition while advancing the standing of DPC. Yet, a ten year run promptly came to an end when Qliance ceased operations in June of 2017.

Dr Bliss’s legacy contributions live on as he cleared the path for DPC in the state of Washington via enabling statute. DPCs are required to register and report annually (2017 report, here) to the Department of Insurance (definition of DPC, here) a basic data set including: fees charged, enrollment, participating physicians and practice locations. He also presided over the inclusion of DPCs in Qualified Health Plan offerings listed on ACA exchanges. See below:

Treatment of Direct Primary Care Medical Home, 76 Fed. Reg. 41900 (July 15, 2011) (amending section 1301(a)(3) of the Affordable Care Act) 

A “Direct Primary Care Medical Home” plan is defined as “an arrangement where a fee is paid by an individual, or on behalf of an individual, directly to a medical home for primary care services, consistent with the program established in Washington.” (Federal Register Citation)

Meanwhile, the data since reporting began in 2007 is instructive on the limited appeal and slow uptake to date of the DPC model in the population at large, and in my view represents a bellwether for the rest of the nation, see HintHealth 2017 survey here, further documenting the very limited penetration of DPCs into the mainstream market.

Thus, Washington state became the first state to define and regulate direct primary care practices and to prohibit direct practice providers from billing insurance companies for services provided to patients under direct practice agreements.

  • Ten years later, DPC enrollment totaled 14,790 direct practice patients out of 6.7 million Washington state residents, a 0.22 percent share of the population
  • Overall patient participation increased 31%, from the fiscal year 2016 total of 11, 272 participants to 14,790 (an increase of 3,518 participants)

Under the Hood of a DPC: Is it ‘HMO Lite’?

First up, let’s examine one definition proffered by a visionary DPC advocate and practitioner who is also a practicing attorney, Phil Eskew, DO, JD:

For the practice to qualify as a direct primary care practice, the practice must:

  • Charge a periodic fee
  • Not bill any third parties on a fee for services basis; and
  • Any per visit charge must be less than the monthly equivalent of the periodic fee

At it’s core a DPC looks like and to some degree models a ‘lite’ version of a PCP gatekeeper HMO. This includes monthly global prepayment, a defined set of covered services, an assigned patient (member) panel (albeit considerably smaller than a participating PCP in an HMO), and since compensation is budget driven and prospectively paid – little if any of the billing and coding complexity associated with the traditional billing and collections model of FFS based PCP practices.

Unlike an HMO a DPC is not a risk bearing concern other than the sponsoring physicians who go at risk for their professional services. In fact most DPCs are strongly encouraged to operate in a safe harbor of what might otherwise be deemed to be operating in the business of insurance as unlicensed and thus illegal entity.

While not a risk bearing operation per se, DPC models operate in the wild west, where if you’ve seen one practice’s footprint, you’ve seen one DPC operation. There are no standards and there are no compare and contrast opportunities. DPCs are in no way a homogeneous group, rather they are the byproduct of a patchwork of state laws, and the goals, competencies and intentions of the owner physicians.

DPCs must refer out all hospitalizations, outpatient surgeries, costly imaging or lab testing, and specialist consults, etc. Thus DPC practices will optimally work only when layered into ‘wrap around’, catastrophic or prevailing high deductible or rebranded ‘consumer directed’ health plans – though some DPC models, i.e., My MD Connect and others, are designing products for brokers and stop loss carriers offering health plan options for self insured employers built on a network of participating DPC practices.

Some DPCs will negotiate with select preferred specialists, routine lab testing and for certain imaging services. But each practice will have a different menu of primary care services and what may be included in referred care.

Market Results

In a recently published article at the Journal fo the American Board of Family Medicine titled: Direct Primary Care: Applying Theory to Potential Changes in Delivery and Outcomes, the author concludes as follows [emphasis bolded mine]:

The need for rigorous research on the DPC model is great. The American College of Physicians has made such a call, beginning with the most basic descriptive patient and provider variables.41 Information on participating patient demographics before and after DPC adoption is required to understand the population that is served by DPC and the broader implications for excluded patients. Research on the patterns of DPC location and socioeconomic context would also provide a better understanding of DPC’s niche. Following these descriptive analyses, the focus must shift toward outcomes and the attainment of the 4 attributes of primary care, with comparisons between DPCs and other models of primary care. Although this research will encounter obstacles, such as the absence of claims data for DPC practices, it is essential to guide providers, patients, and policy makers toward high-quality primary care.

Meanwhile, theoretic application informed by years of research on primary care provides insight as to what changes to expect and to monitor as practices consider DPC adoption. By applying Starfield’s conceptual model, an understanding of the potential changes to structures, processes, and outcomes for the patient population can be achieved while policy makers and providers await rigorous research on DPC. Evidence exists to support DPC as a theoretically sound approach to attaining the attributes of first contact care and longitudinality for participating patients. DPC uses changes to financing and the population eligible to trigger these potential improvements. At the health system level, DPC has low-construct validity to support a positive impact on the potentially eligible population. By limiting access to those willing and able to pay the membership fee, a vulnerable population will almost certainly be excluded. A model that does not meet the needs of a vulnerable population is unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall costs and outcomes of the US health care system. Other policies and models to address primary care financing and accessibility that do not exclude groups of patients exist and may or may not be superior to DPC. DPC’s distinguishing characteristic from these other models is that the control rests with the PCP and is not dependent on financing from third-party payers.

Complete article: Direct Primary Care: Applying Theory to Potential Changes in Delivery and Outcomes

The Road Ahead

For DPCs to scale and make a systemic impact beyond the local community in which their owners/sponsors operate and become more than a lifestyle, ethical decision or political statement giving the finger to ‘the man’, they’ll need to somehow get their arms around ‘downstream’ network risk and define certain minimum operating requirements or standards which apply to all DPCs equally.

Though therein lies part of the problem. The safe harbor contours mentioned earlier is not iron clad and is more or less protected by variable states statutes exempting DPCs from being in the business of insurance. Any argument that can validly be made that the DPC is assuming ‘risk’ beyond the primary care services in the contract between the DPC practice and its members is one more arrow in the quiver of state department of insurance commissioners’ tasked with the protection of patients purchasing health insurance.

Two groups have organized to harmonize and advance the practice of DPC including the Direct Primary Care Coalition and DPC Alliance, the former chaired by Garrison Bliss, MD (see leadership here) and the latter Ryan Neuhofel, DO, MPH. Both proactive and visionary physician leaders committed to supporting and leveraging the business model of DPC given the heterogeneity of its member practices.

ACO and DPC Synergies?

While I do not have a business plan or model for a hybrid version or combination ACO/DPC derivative, it seems a venn diagram can identify characteristics common to both operating footprints mentioned above. Since we’re all still looking for ways to tame the rapacious appetite of a seemingly insatiable and predominantly fee-for-services fueled healthcare delivery and financing ecosystem, what do we have to lose?

Let’s think out of the box! We can do this!

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
Accountable Care, ACO, Affordable Care Act

The Evolution of ACOs

by Gregg A. Masters, MPH


Recently the accountable care industry’s leading ‘skin in the game‘ PPMC 2.0 aka ACOcor equivalent (think PhyCor, MedPartners, FPA Medical, et al) of our time – though Aledade’s model is anything like the pyramid scheme of the PPMC (physician practice management companies) of the 1990s, reviewed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recent Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM): CMS Proposes “Pathways to Success,” an Overhaul of Medicare’s ACO Program‘. 

Below are key take-aways from the presentation. The entire webinar is accessible free upon registration here

I will post the Q & A thread that Farzad Mostashari, MD, CEO and Travis Broome, VP, Health Policy, respectively Aledade shared on twitter as well.

Meanwhile, here’s the gist of their analysis and message:

Accountable Care, ACO, Triple Aim

ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP): Is There a Fix?

by Gregg A. Masters, MPH

The Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform just released ‘How to Fix the Medicare Shared Savings Program‘ with lead author and long term managed health care industry veteran Harold D. Miller, its President and CEO. 

Some six (6) years into the Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions specific to Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) the results remain mixed at best, and like the serial tweaks made to the Medicare Advantage Program, now covering some 30% of Medicare beneficiaries, the underlying ACO structural characteristics and enabling health policy regulations remain ‘on the come‘ for this still nascent and evolving delivery system model.

For the many critics of ACOs as a form of an ‘HMO lite‘ in the fee-for-services Medicare market, with none of the channeling characteristics commonly associated with HMOs, this comes as no surprise.

In this just released report, Harold Miller weighs in on the fix he sees essential for the program to achieve it’s cost containment and quality improvement objectives.  The executive summary is posted below and the full report is available here.

Executive summary:

Rather than generating savings as expected, the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) has created losses for the Medicare program for four years in a row.

Calculations by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) appear to show that ACOs with downside risk produce higher savings than the “upside-only” ACOs. However, Medicare actually spends more per beneficiary in the downside risk ACOs than in other ACOs, with no difference in quality. Moreover, ACOs that have moved to the downside risk tracks have saved less after doing so.

The risk adjustment and benchmarking formulas used by CMS can penalize ACOs that serve higher-need patients and patients living in rural areas. The greater savings attributed to downside risk ACOs may have more to do with differences in the types of patients they see than differences in the way they deliver care.

Concerns about the problems with the risk adjustment and benchmarking methodologies in the MSSP have made many ACOs unwilling to enter the downside risk tracks. Requiring all ACOs to move to downside risk could force successful ACOs to leave the program, thereby reducing Medicare savings and harming the quality of care for millions of beneficiaries.

There are other options for modifying the Medicare Shared Savings Program in order to increase Medicare savings, including dropping ACOs from the program if they fail to achieve savings after two consecutive years, reducing shared savings payments for ACOs that incur losses before achieving savings, reducing the shared savings rate below 50% for Track 1 ACOs, and/or enabling ACOs to take accountability for the specific types of services they can control rather than placing them at risk for
total Medicare spending.

Neither shared savings nor shared risk payment models solve the fundamental problems in the fee-for-service payment system. As a result, it is unlikely the MSSP will ever result in significant savings or improvements in quality, and it has the potential to harm patients by rewarding providers that withhold necessary services.

Instead of continuing to modify the Medicare Shared Savings Program, CMS should focus on implementing Patient-Centered Alternative Payment Models that provide the resources physicians, hospitals, and other providers need to successfully address their patients’ healthcare needs while holding the providers accountable for those aspects of spending and quality they can control.

Twitter Dialogue on ACO Results Reported

Today on twitter there was a representative exchange from both sides of the ACO narrative which I’m posting below for context:

MANas8U's avatar

True! Yet innovation is not cheap + anything even moderately at scale in Medicare/Medicaid is definitely not cheap. Questions while innovating: What did we learn? How can we inform our future efforts? @policywonk1

danmunro's avatar

I would argue that the evidence is already in b/c the trajectory we’re on is easy to see – and forecast. Just labeling newer efforts of ‘cost containment’ as ‘innovation’ is like rearranging (in this case expensive) deck chairs.

danmunro's avatar

But that may be the same hymnal in title only: HC Reformation I don’t think #FFS is “an addiction” that needs #ACO or #VBP rehab and the evidence that #FFS works reasonably well around the world is compelling. We don’t need single-payer, but we absolutely need single-pricing.

A Sampling of ACO Leadership on the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform Report and Associated Remedies

Our Nation’s move from volume to value based care will not occur in one day. Transformation of our complex, misaligned and disjointed healthcare system will take the hard/smart work, dedication, risk and financial support from key stakeholders, including the largest being CMS. Transition to risk based/value based care is not an option, it is a necessity not only to save but successfully advance the US Health Care system. It is easier to point out problems, than to roll up our collective sleeves and develop innovative and outside the box solutions.  – Alex Foxman, MD, FACP, CMO, President and Co-Founder National ACO, LLC

The state of Florida is a great example of ACOs having success.  I believe this is true because we already have a vibrant managed care market.  Medicare Advantage makes a lot of people money but has not proved it has saved any.  It has only served to risk adjust a population for higher revenues.  ACOs, as originally designed, may only be ‘transitional’ but they are an important step toward shifting from volume to value payment models. We should expect the models will continue to evolve.  This shift is a jog not a sprint. The goal and focus should be on the “shift” not which model and flavor is the stepping stone along the way. – Nicole Bradberry, CEO and Chair of Board, Florida Association of ACOs 

ACOs in Florida reduced expense by $365,809,069, earned shared savings payments of $178,447,886 with a net benefit to the Medicare trust fund of $187,361,183. MSSP is working in Florida! We’re concerned that the success of the MSSP is being evaluated based aggregate ACO performance which includes ACOs who are not putting forth adequate effort. I know of at least 7 ACOs that have 2 or less employees. That’s not enough effort to make ANY business model work! Unfortunately their results are tabulated with others and cause the program to be inaccurately evaluated. We look forward to the required transition to downside risk as it will require those without much commitment to drop out. If you drop the minimum effort ACOs, we expect the aggregate ACO results will look different. This is PY 2016 data… –  David Klebonis, Chief Operating Officer, Palm Beach Accountable Care Organization & Chief Operating Officer, South Florida Accountable Care Organization 

One definition of literal fantasy requires only that we accept a single non-reality, after which the rest of the story becomes quite plausible. If that be the case, Mr. Miller has written a Best Seller. His entire analysis assumes that the CMS “Shared Savings” formulas reflect reality, when those of us that have really crunched the numbers know this is far from the truth.

Intentionally or not, CMS has built significant savings for the Trust Fund into the benchmark methodologies for both MSSP and NextGen. These range from the actuarial fallacies inherent in continuous attribution, successful ACO market share effects on the “Benchmark”, National Efficiency ratios that divert Benchmark dollars from high attribution areas to low attribution areas, risk score caps, automatic “discounts” and much, much more.

Still, it seems that our Florida ACOs consistently overcome the increasing headwinds and succeed. Additionally, CMS recognizes the problems in their own Benchmarking models and has tweaked these year after year, including the latest Proposed Rule submitted by MSSP to OMB earlier this month. I fear Mr. Miller is whistling past the graveyard on this one.

For a glimpse into a few of the methodology problems, see ‘Regional Benchmarking or Regional Bonus? Sustainability in the Medicare Shared Savings Program‘. – Richard J. Lucibella, CEO, Accountable Care Options

 

A Continued Search for Answers and Business Models

Further context sourced from the Florida Association of ACOs annual conference last year was provided by Aledade co-founder and CEO and former National Coordinator for Health Information Technology at the Office of the National Coordinator Farzad Mostashari, MD here.

Weigh In

So what do you think? Please offer your thoughts in the comments section. This is a dialogue well worth a broader exchange as our industry evolves perhaps even ‘pivots’ from it’s near term PCMH or ACO roots to a the valued based healthcare model – one that many refer to as a ‘Rorschach test’ of sorts – where any projection of what constitutes a value based model will do.
Please feel free to post any resources that support your take and we’ll happily include via our social reach. If any of you are inspired to author a guest post with references of citations, we’re happy to include at ACO Watch.

 

Accountable Care

In Pursuit of the Triple Aim: Can Population Health Management Lead the Way?

By Fred Goldstein, MS and Gregg Masters, MPH

Every sector in health care is under pressure to articulate and implement a viable population health initiative that delivers on the triple aim of better health, better quality at a better cost.

Despite a significant investment of resources, we have only achieved ‘mixed results’ to date, and so the industry remains in a continuous learning mode. Although we’ve taken away some insights, we still have a long way to go.

Recently on Pophealth Week, we chatted with the ‘Dean’ of Population Health who spearheaded and continues to steward the nation’s first freestanding College of Population Health at Jefferson University in Philadelphia. David Nash, MD, MBA weighed in on the industry’s evolution — including best practices to emulate —and what near term challenges we are likely to face.

To listen to Dr. Nash’s take, click here, and for additional context checkout The Road From Volume-To-Value: The Pivotal Role of Population Health.

If you’ve worked in this space – at the strategy or operational level — you know that it can be truly daunting to implement a population health program. This can lead some organizations to shy away from attempting meaningful programs, perhaps even into a copycat ‘me too’ effort. Given the inevitable drive to value-based care, it is a strategic imperative to understand how to build and implement population health initiatives that work.

In its simplest framework, one can think of a population health program in terms of the following components as articulated by the Population Health Alliance Outcomes Guidelines Report Volume 6,  2015.

The steps of the Population Health Framework as shown in the image above include:

  • Identify the population
  • Assess the person for risk(s)
  • Stratify the person into risk levels to target for various interventions
  • Engage the person in a program
  • Intervene with specific services and resources and
  • Measure the process and outcome results

These results are then fed back into the system and the process continued all seeking to improve the overall health of the population.

In Search of Answers

One forum many look to for best practices and key insights is the Population Health Colloquium, now in its 18th year with the Jefferson College of Population Health as academic partner. Scanning this year’s Agenda, one can find presentations in each of the elements above.

Data and Analytics are the essential ingredients of any population health program with intent to identify individuals, assess them for various risks or conditions, stratify them to ensure appropriate levels of intervention and measure a program’s success.

Within the area of assessment, we are moving to an ‘N of 1’ approach given the advances in precision medicine and genomics. This exciting area will be covered at the conference in the mini summit entitled Personalized Medicine, Machine Learning and Genomics: a Clinical Approach to Employer Population Health and Wellbeing.

Payment models and the move to value-based care are among the key levers. Although there have been more than a few stops and starts along the way with the change in administration at the federal level, employers are rapidly embracing these approaches.  There are a number of presentations on this topic, including Journey to Value-Based Care — Experience and Expectations, Accountable Care Atlas: Mapping a Path to Value-Based Care and a Mini Summit ACOs at an Inflection Point: Where the Movement is Headed and Why Some Succeed While Others Don’t.

In the Intervention area, there are presentations covering ‘On the Ground: Population Health initiatives’… and we can’t forget about the patients — they, too, have a strong role to play in these efforts. The Mini Summit, Improving Patient Care and Provider Experience through Population Health Management, is timely and informative.

Community-based programs have become all the rage as we better understand the impact on your health based on where and how you live.  A breakout track entitled Population Health in the Community includes discussions on life expectancy gaps in Chicago; Rural and Urban Issues; and primary care and behavioral health that will address some of the approaches.

The program will feature a session on designing and implementing population health, and of course there will be some incredible keynotes and small panel discussions. The program includes a discussion with two former HHS Secretaries, Tommy Thompson and Michael Leavitt, and baseball great Darryl Strawberry will discuss addiction, a critical issue we are now facing with the opioid crisis.

If you are committed to learning more about Population Health, this meeting is a must. It’s an event where you can learn from experts covering the full breadth of population health services and have an opportunity to network. Whether you choose to travel to Philadelphia or attend via live webinar, please plan to join us and stop by to say hello. We’d love to hear all about what you’re doing in this exciting space.

==##==

This post is sponsored by the Jefferson College of Population Health

Accountable Care, ACO, Affordable Care Act

Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Releases Accountable Care Organization Performance Results

by Gregg A. Masters, MPH

Friday, October 27th, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released details for participating Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) for the 2016 performance year.  For reporting ACO results view the entire report here.

The National Association of ACOs (NAACOs) weighed in below:

The new results demonstrate the value of a premier Medicare alternative payment model and include a higher rate (56 percent)* of MSSP ACOs generating savings than ever before and an almost equal proportion as last year of ACOs that earned shared savings (31 percent).

This public update follows previously posted results for Pioneer ACOs, the Next Generation ACO cohort and the Comprehensive End Stage Renal Disease ACO (ESRD) care model here.

In table form, the results are summarized below:

All in, participating ACOs generated $843 million in gross program savings with a modest net savings of $78.6 million for Medicare in 2016, in addition to material gains in quality scores for aligned ACO Medicare beneficiaries.

While Clif Gaus, NAACOS CEO notes:

These results show the growing success of ACOs, which is a positive trend that should not be ignored. A lot has been accomplished in a relatively short amount of time, and ACOs are on the front line of redesigning healthcare delivery. This is a moment to celebrate them and their hard work.

The ACO ‘Jury’ Is Still Is Out

Given the range of models, risk assumed or gain sharing distributed operating results in a program that some still see as fundamentally ill equipped in a predominant fee-for-services market to materially change physician and beneficiary behavior – and thus enable the elusive ‘triple aim‘ – many in the health policy area including select ACO operators remain convinced to maximize impact the ACO model will ultimately morph into the more robust Medicare Advantage operating platform.

Perhaps the ‘stealth play’ in the mix is the potential upside of Next Generation ACOs to fully leverage their competitive advantages (3 day SNF waiver, telehealth visits, relaxed supervision requirements for post hospital discharge visits and the move to all inclusive population based payments) can up-level both their game AND improve outcomes at lower per capita costs?

On the next episode of This Week in Accountable Care, our very special guest is former Acting Administrator of CMS Andy Slavitt, now Senior Advisor to the Bipartisan Policy Center. Andy was initially part of the ‘fix it dream team‘ that righted the failed launch of Healthcare.Gov, and then presided over the administration of the Affordable Care Act.

Andy is rather familiar with the original intent of the ACA, its many ‘working parts’ and the bumps in the road to perfect the law via provider input, updated rule making and policy refinements.

We’ll get Andy’s take on a range of issues from the political environment to conflicting health policy guidance including broad brush advice to ACO operators.

Join National ACO co-founders Andre Berger, MD and Alex Foxman, MD as we engage this visionary and accomplished entrepreneur turned public service official in critical dialogue impacting the transformation of our industry from its fee-for-services roots to a new model based on a value and patient centricity.

 

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.

 

 

 

.

Accountable Care, ACO, Affordable Care Act, TrumpCare

Webinar: Next Generation ACO Model – Overview and LOI Information

By Gregg A. Masters, MPH

Webinar: Next Generation ACO Model - Overview and LOI Information Select link to open options forShare
Click to register!

Today marks the end to the eight year reign of President Barack Obama and the birth of the Trump Administration tenure.  Yet, so much in the health policy and reform domain remains unclear and on the come.

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in March of 2010 the implementation of the delivery system side of the reform to restrain if not reduce healthcare spending has been vested primarily in a range of variably sophisticated ACOs and other participants in a tapestry of value based healthcare arrangements from bundled payments to patient centered medical homes and even the more risk savvy cohort of Medicare Advantage operators.

What is clear is change is on the horizon; yet just what the nature of that change will look like will probably reveal itself over the next several months and perhaps even years. For our discussion of what appears to be the emerging indicia of a ‘TrumpCare‘ chassis, Health Innovation Media principals share insights via: ‘On @PopHealthWeek: #Trumpcare What We Know @fsgoldstein @efuturist @2healthguru‘ and ‘A #TrumpCare Roundtable with @efuturist, @fsgoldstein and @2healthguru‘.

screen-shot-2017-01-20-at-1-52-24-pmClearly the era of ‘accountable care‘ and the provider organizations designed to explore and implement their local market vision of an entity that delivers accountability is not likely to come to an end as President Trump occupies the White House. In fact, though I have been deeply skeptical of the rather hollow ‘repeal and replace‘ mantra absent a material Republican replacement option, I am somewhat encouraged by the tempered optimism proffered by Ezekiel Emanuel, M.D., Ph.D., Former Chief Health Policy Advisor to the Obama Administration, to an informed audience at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco earlier this month.

Meanwhile, I doubt the Trump Administration and his HHS and CMS appointees (Rep Tom Price and Seema Verma, respectively) once confirmed will advocate for an era of ‘unaccountable care‘ with a return to unbridled to fee-for-services medicine. Thus, I bank on the continued evolution and deployment of ACOs as progressive risk bearing entities and continuing clinical integration plays. However, we shall see!

We do indeed live in interesting times!