The Impact of Delivery Reform on Health Information Exchange with Behavioral Health Providers: Results from a National Representative Survey of Ambulatory Physicians.

Health information exchange (HIE) is an effective way to coordinate care, but HIE between health and behavioral health providers is limited. Recent delivery reform models, including the Accountable Care Organization (ACO) and Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) prioritize interprofessional collaboration, but little is known about their impact on behavioral health HIE. This study explores whether delivery reform participation affects behavioral health HIE among ambulatory health providers using pooled 2015-2019 data from the National Electronic Health Record Survey, a nationally representative survey of ambulatory physicians' technology use (n = 8,703). The independent variable in this analysis was provider participation in ACO, PCMH, Hybrid ACO-PCMH, or standard care. The dependent variable was HIE with behavioral health providers. Chi square analysis estimated unweighted rates of behavioral health HIE across reform models. Logistic regression estimated the impact of delivery reform participation on rates of behavioral health HIE. Unweighted estimates indicated that Hybrid ACO-PCMH providers had the highest rates of HIE (n = 330, 33%). In the fully adjust model, rates of HIE were higher among ACO (AOR = 2.66, p < .01), PCMH (AOR = 4.73, p < .001) and Hybrid ACO-PCMH participants (AOR = 5.55, p < .001) compared to standard care, but they did not significantly vary between delivery models. Physicians infrequently engage in HIE with behavioral health providers. Compared to standard care, higher rates of HIE were found across all models of delivery reform. More work is needed to identify common elements of delivery reform models that are most effective in supporting this behavior.

The Effects of Accountable Care Organizations Forming Preferred Skilled Nursing Facility Networks on Market Share, Patient Composition, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Through participation in payment reforms such as bundled payment and accountable care organizations (ACOs), hospitals are increasingly financially responsible for health care use and adverse health events occurring after hospital discharge. To improve management and coordination of postdischarge care, ACO hospitals are establishing a closer relationship with skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) through the formation of preferred SNF networks. RESEARCH DESIGN: We evaluated the effects of preferred SNF network formation on care patterns and outcomes. We included 10 ACOs that established preferred SNF networks between 2014 and 2015 in the sample. We first investigated whether hospitals "steer" patients to preferred SNFs by examining the percentage of patients sent to preferred SNFs within each hospital before and after network formation. We then used a difference-in-difference model with SNF fixed effects to evaluate the changes in patient composition and outcomes of preferred SNF patients from ACO hospitals after network formation relative to patients from other hospitals. RESULTS: We found that preferred network formation was not associated with higher market share or better outcomes for preferred SNF patients from ACO hospitals. However, we found a small increase in the average number of Elixhauser comorbidities for patients from ACO hospitals after network formation, relative to patients from non-ACO hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: After preferred SNF network formation, there is some evidence that ACO hospitals sent more complex patients to preferred SNFs, but there was no change in the volume of patients received by these SNFs. Furthermore, preferred network formation was not associated with improvement in patient outcomes.

Savings or Selection? Initial Spending Reductions in the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Considerations for Reform.

Policy Points Concerns have been raised about risk selection in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). Specifically, turnover in accountable care organization (ACO) physicians and patient panels has led to concerns that ACOs may be earning shared-savings bonuses by selecting lower-risk patients or providers with lower-risk panels. We find no evidence that changes in ACO patient populations explain savings estimates from previous evaluations through 2015. We also find no evidence that ACOs systematically manipulated provider composition or billing to earn bonuses. The modest savings and lack of risk selection in the original MSSP design suggest opportunities to build on early progress. Recent program changes provide ACOs with more opportunity to select providers with lower-risk patients. Understanding the effect of these changes will be important for guiding future payment policy. CONTEXT: The Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) establishes incentives for participating accountable care organizations (ACOs) to lower spending for their attributed fee-for-service Medicare patients. Turnover in ACO physicians and patient panels has raised concerns that ACOs may be earning shared-savings bonuses by selecting lower-risk patients or providers with lower-risk panels. METHODS: We conducted three sets of analyses of Medicare claims data. First, we estimated overall MSSP savings through 2015 using a difference-in-differences approach and methods that eliminated selection bias from ACO program exit or changes in the practices or physicians included in ACO contracts. We then checked for residual risk selection at the patient level. Second, we reestimated savings with methods that address undetected risk selection but could introduce bias from other sources. These included patient fixed effects, baseline or prospective assignment, and area-level MSSP exposure to hold patient populations constant. Third, we tested for changes in provider composition or provider billing that may have contributed to bonuses, even if they were eliminated as sources of bias in the evaluation analyses. FINDINGS: MSSP participation was associated with modest and increasing annual gross savings in the 2012-2013 entry cohorts of ACOs that reached $139 to $302 per patient by 2015. Savings in the 2014 entry cohort were small and not statistically significant. Robustness checks revealed no evidence of residual risk selection. Alternative methods to address risk selection produced results that were substantively consistent with our primary analysis but varied somewhat and were more sensitive to adjustment for patient characteristics, suggesting the introduction of bias from within-patient changes in time-varying characteristics. We found no evidence of ACO manipulation of provider composition or billing to inflate savings. Finally, larger savings for physician group ACOs were robust to consideration of differential changes in organizational structure among non-ACO providers (eg, from consolidation). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the original MSSP program was associated with modest savings and not with favorable risk selection. These findings suggest an opportunity to build on early progress. Understanding the effect of new opportunities and incentives for risk selection in the revamped MSSP will be important for guiding future program reforms.

Predictors of online accountability practices in US hospitals: An exploratory investigation.

The purpose of this research paper is to explore variations in online accountability practices in US hospitals and determine the factors that are associated with higher levels of online accountability practices. This project employed a quantitative content analysis of 240 US hospital websites. Additionally, secondary data were obtained from the American Hospital Association and the American Hospital Directory. The results show that the external environment somewhat impacted hospitals' online accountability practices, with hospital volume (measured through the number of annual admissions) as an unquestionable predictor. Another key finding is that some of the governance forms impacted online accountability practices. Particularly, hospitals with private ownership structures tended to disclose less accountability information in an online environment, compared with their public and nonprofit counterparts. The financial situation of hospitals did not have any significant impact on overall online accountability practices but was influencing performance disclosure practices. Online accountability studies have not been conducted in a health care setting. This research theoretically relates online accountability practices to organizational characteristics (such as size, volume, financial performance, system affiliation, ownership, and rurality). Knowledge of the online accountability landscape might benefit future policy decisions on accountability models.

ACO Affiliated Hospitals Increase Implementation of Care Coordination Strategies.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals affiliated with Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) may have a greater capacity to collaborate with providers across the care continuum to coordinate care, due to formal risk sharing and payment arrangements. However, little is known about the extent to which ACO affiliated hospitals implement care coordination strategies. OBJECTIVES: To compare the implementation of care coordination strategies between ACO affiliated hospitals (n=269) and unaffiliated hospitals (n=502) and examine whether the implementation of care coordination strategies varies by hospital payment model types. MEASURES: We constructed a care coordination index (CCI) comprised of 12 indicators that describe evidence-based care coordination strategies. Each indicator was scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 1="not used at all" to 5="used widely" by qualified representatives from each hospital. The CCI aggregates scores from each of the 12 individual indicators to a single summary score for each hospital, with a score of 12 corresponding to the lowest and 60 the highest use of care coordination strategies. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used state-fixed effects multivariable linear regression models to estimate the relationship between ACO affiliation, payment model type, and the use care coordination strategies. RESULTS: We found ACO affiliated hospitals reported greater use of care coordination strategies compared to unaffiliated hospitals. Fee-for-service shared savings and partial or global capitation payment models were associated with a greater use of care coordination strategies among ACO affiliated hospitals. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest ACO affiliation and multiple payment model types are associated with the increased use of care coordination strategies.

How Do Accountable Care Organizations Deliver Preventive Care Services? A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act and the introduction of accountable care organizations (ACOs) have increased the incentives for patients and providers to engage in preventive care, for example, through quality metrics linked to disease prevention. However, little is known about how ACOs deliver preventive care services. OBJECTIVE: To understand how Medicare ACOs provide preventive care services to their attributed patients. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study using survey data reporting Medicare ACO capabilities in patient care management and interviews with high-performing ACOs. PARTICIPANTS: ACO executives completed survey data on 283 Medicare ACOs. These data were supplemented with 39 interviews conducted across 18 Medicare ACOs with executive-level leaders and associated clinical and managerial staff. MAIN MEASURES: Survey measures included ACO performance, organizational characteristics, collaboration experience, and capabilities in care management and quality improvement. Telephone interviews followed a semi-structured interview guide and explored the mechanisms used, and motivations of, ACOs to deliver preventive care services. KEY RESULTS: Medicare ACOs that reported being comprehensively engaged in the planning and management of patient care - including conducting reminders for preventive care services - had more beneficiaries and had a history of collaboration experience, but were not more likely to receive shared savings or achieve high-quality scores compared to other surveyed ACOs. Interviews revealed that offering annual wellness visits and having a system-wide approach to closing preventive care gaps are key mechanisms used by high-performing ACOs to address patients' preventive care needs. Few programs or initiatives were identified that specifically target clinically complex patients. Aside from meeting patient needs, motivations for ACOs included increasing patient attribution and meeting performance targets. CONCLUSIONS: ACOs are increasingly motivated to deliver preventive care services. Understanding the mechanisms and motivations used by high-performing ACOs may help both providers and payers to increase the use of preventive care.

Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations in Four States: Implementation and Early Impacts.

Policy Points Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Vermont leveraged State Innovation Model awards to implement Medicaid accountable care organizations (ACOs). Flexibility in model design, ability to build on existing reforms, provision of technical assistance to providers, and access to feedback data all facilitated ACO development. Challenges included sustainability of transformation efforts and the integration of health care and social service providers. Early estimates showed promising improvements in hospital-related utilization and Vermont was able to reduce or slow the growth of Medicaid costs. These states are sustaining Medicaid ACOs owing in part to provider support and early successes in generating shared savings. The states are modifying their ACOs to include greater accountability and financial risk. CONTEXT: As state Medicaid programs consider alternative payment models (APMs), many are choosing accountable care organizations (ACOs) as a way to improve health outcomes, coordinate care, and reduce expenditures. Four states (Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Vermont) leveraged State Innovation Model awards to create or expand Medicaid ACOs. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods design to assess achievements and challenges with ACO implementation and the impact of Medicaid ACOs on health care utilization, quality, and expenditures in three states. We integrated findings from key informant interviews, focus groups, document review, and difference-in-difference analyses using data from Medicaid claims and an all-payer claims database. FINDINGS: States built their Medicaid ACOs on existing health care reforms and infrastructure. Facilitators of implementation included allowing flexibility in design and implementation, targeting technical assistance, and making clinical, cost, and use data readily available to providers. Barriers included provider concerns about their ability to influence patient behavior, sustainability of provider practice transformation efforts when shared savings are reinvested into the health system and not shared with participating clinicians, and limited integration between health care and social service providers. Medicaid ACOs were associated with some improvements in use, quality, and expenditures, including statistically significant reductions in emergency department visits. Only Vermont's ACO demonstrated slower growth in total Medicaid expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Four states demonstrated that adoption of ACOs for Medicaid beneficiaries was both possible and, for three states, associated with some improvements in care. States revised these models over time to address stakeholder concerns, increase provider participation, and enable some providers to accept financial risk for Medicaid patients. Lessons learned from these early efforts can inform the design and implementation of APMs in other Medicaid programs.

Key Collaborative Factors When Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations Work With Primary Care Clinics to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening: Relationships, Data, and Quality Improvement Infrastructure.

PURPOSE: Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are implementing interventions to achieve triple-aim objectives of improved quality and experience of care while maintaining costs. Partnering across organizational boundaries is perceived as critical to ACO success. METHODS: We conducted a comparative case study of 14 Medicaid ACOs in Oregon and their contracted primary care clinics using public performance data, key informant interviews, and consultation field notes. We focused on how ACOs work with clinics to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening - one incentivized performance metric. RESULTS: ACOs implemented a broad spectrum of multi-component interventions designed to increase CRC screening. The most common interventions focused on reducing structural barriers (n = 12 ACOs), delivering provider assessment and feedback (n = 11), and providing patient reminders (n = 7). ACOs developed their processes and infrastructure for working with clinics over time. Facilitators of successful collaboration included a history of and commitment to collaboration (partnership); the ability to provide accurate data to prioritize action and monitor improvement (performance data), and supporting clinics' reflective learning through facilitation, learning collaboratives; and support of ACO as well as clinic-based staffing (quality improvement infrastructure). Two unintended consequences of ACO-clinic partnership emerged: potential exclusion of smaller clinics and metric focus and fatigue. CONCLUSION: Our findings identified partnership, performance data, and quality improvement infrastructure as critical dimensions when Medicaid ACOs work with primary care to improve CRC screening. Findings may extend to other metric targets.

Assessing care team perspectives on integration of a community pharmacist into an ambulatory care practice.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to advance the integration of a community pharmacist within an accountable care organization (ACO) by assessing the desired roles of a pharmacist within the care team, satisfaction with the current arrangement of a pharmacist's involvement, and willingness to learn more about the roles of a community pharmacist. SETTING: A community pharmacist from Realo Discount Drugs was embedded within 3 clinics associated with Coastal Carolina Quality Care, an ACO. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: An independent community pharmacy established a partnership with an ACO that has multiple group practices and shares an electronic health record. PRACTICE INNOVATION: Care managers referred patients to the pharmacist. The goal of community pharmacist involvement within the clinic was to provide transitions-of-care services to recently hospitalized patients, reconciling medications and dosing after discharge. EVALUATION: A 12-item online survey was conducted to evaluate the partnership. Health care team members were included; staff without expected involvement with the patient or pharmacist were excluded. Questionnaire items addressed provider type, desired role of the pharmacist, satisfaction with pharmacist involvement, and willingness to learn about or desire for more pharmacist involvement. The survey was open for 30 days with a reminder sent on day 15. Responses were thematically categorized, and content analysis was used to analyze results. RESULTS: Sixteen survey responses were received. The care team most frequently requested that the community pharmacist provide medication reconciliation (50%), medication education (44%), cost-reduction strategies (44%), and drug-interaction evaluation (38%). Care team satisfaction was positive; no respondents were unsatisfied. One-third (37%) of respondents were unaware of the pharmacist's involvement, had not referred patients to the pharmacist, or desired more interaction with the pharmacist. CONCLUSION: Survey findings were used to advance community pharmacist integration within an ACO, resulting in meaningful changes to pharmacist-provided services within clinic workflow.

Factors associated with hospital participation in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Accountable Care Organization programs.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) initiated the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) and Pioneer Accountable Care Organization (ACO) programs. Organizations in the MSSP model shared cost savings they generated with CMS, and those in the Pioneer program shared both savings and losses. It is largely unknown what hospital and environmental characteristics are associated with the development of CMS ACOs with one- or two-sided risk models. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the organizational and environmental characteristics associated with hospital participation in the MSSP and Pioneer ACOs. METHODOLOGY: Hospitals participating in CMS ACO programs were identified using primary and secondary data. The ACO hospital sample was linked with the American Hospital Association, Health Information and Management System Society, and other data sets. Multinomial probit models were estimated that distinguished organizational and environmental factors associated with hospital participation in the MSSP and Pioneer ACOs. RESULTS: Hospital participation in both CMS ACO programs was associated with prior experience with risk-based payments and care management programs, advanced health information technology, and location in higher-income and more competitive areas. Whereas various health system types were associated with hospital participation in the MSSP, centralized health systems, higher numbers of physicians in tightly integrated physician-organizational arrangements, and location in areas with greater supply of primary care physicians were associated with Pioneer ACOs. Favorable hospital characteristics were, in the aggregate, more important than favorable environmental factors for MSSP participation. CONCLUSION: MSSP ACOs may look for broader organizational capabilities from participating hospitals that may be reflective of a wide range of providers participating in diverse markets. Pioneer ACOs may rely on specific hospital and environmental characteristics to achieve quality and spending targets set for two-sided contracts. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Hospital and ACO leaders can use our results to identify hospitals with certain characteristics favorable to their participation in either one- or two-sided ACOs.

Coping with interdependencies related to patient choice: Boundary-spanning at four accountable care organizations.

BACKGROUND: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are responsible for outcomes that are only partially under their control because patients may choose to self-refer outside the ACO, overuse resource-intensive services, or underuse evidence-based care. ACOs must devise boundary-spanning practices to manage these interdependencies related to patient choice. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify, conceptualize, and categorize ACO efforts to cope with interdependencies related to patient choice. APPROACH: We conducted qualitative organizational case studies of four ACOs. We interviewed 89 executives, mid-level managers, and physicians and analyzed the data through multiple rounds of inductive coding. RESULTS: We identified 15 boundary-spanning practices, in which two or more ACOs engaged in efforts to understand, cope with, or alter interdependencies related to patient choice. Analysis of these practices revealed five categories of factors that appeared to shape patient choices in ways that may impact ACO performance: the availability of services, interactions with patients, system complexities, care provided to ACO patients by non-ACO providers, and uncertainties related to the environment. Our findings provide a process theory of ACO boundary-spanning: Each individual boundary-spanning practice contributes to a broader strategic goal, through which it may impact a particular aspect of interdependence and thereby reduce underuse, overuse, or leakage (i.e., provision of services outside the ACO). PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: In identifying ACO boundary-spanning practices and proposing how they may impact interdependence, our theory highlights conceptual relationships that researchers can study and test. Similarly, in identifying key aspects of interdependencies related to patient choice and a broad assortment of ACO boundary-spanning practices, our findings provide managers with a tool for evaluating and developing their own boundary-spanning efforts.

The role of accountable care organization affiliation and ownership in promoting physician practice participation in quality improvement collaboratives.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) have emerged as an important strategy to improve processes and outcomes of clinical care through interorganizational learning. Little is known about the organizational factors that support or deter physician practice participation in QICs. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine organizational influences on physician practices' propensity to participate in QICs. We hypothesized that practice affiliation with an accountable care organization (ACO) and practice ownership by a system or community health center (CHC) would increase the propensity of physician practices to participate in a QIC. METHODOLOGY: Data from the third wave of the National Study of Physician Organizations, a nationally representative sample of medical practices (n = 1,359), were analyzed. Weighted multivariate regression analyses were estimated to examine the association of ACO affiliation, ownership, and QIC participation, controlling for practice size, health information technology capacity, public reporting participation, and practice revenue from Medicaid and uninsured patients. The Sobel-Goodman Test was used to explore the extent to which practice use of quality improvement (QI) methods such as Lean, Six Sigma, and use of plan-do-study-act cycles mediates the relationship between ACO affiliation and QIC participation. FINDINGS: Only 13.6% of practices surveyed in 2012-2013 participated in a QIC. In adjusted analyses, ACO affiliation (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, p < .01), CHC ownership (OR = 6.57, p < .001), larger practice size (OR = 14.72, p < .001), and health information technology functionality (OR = 1.15, p < .001) were positively associated with QIC participation. Practice use of QI methods partially mediated (13.1%-46.7%) the association of ACO affiliation with QIC participation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: ACO-affiliated practices are more likely than non-ACO practices to participate in QICs. Practice size rather than system ownership appears to influence QIC participation. QI methods often promoted and used by health care systems such as CHCs and ACOs may promote QIC participation.

A taxonomy of hospitals participating in Medicare accountable care organizations.

BACKGROUND: Medicare was an early innovator of accountable care organizations (ACOs), establishing the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) and Pioneer programs in 2012-2013. Existing research has documented that ACOs bring together an array of health providers with hospitals serving as important participants. PURPOSE: Hospitals vary markedly in their service structure and organizational capabilities, and thus, one would expect hospital ACO participants to vary in these regards. Our research identifies hospital subgroups that share certain capabilities and competencies. Such research, in conjunction with existing ACO research, provides deeper understanding of the structure and operation of these organizations. Given that Medicare was an initiator of the ACO concept, our findings provide a baseline to track the evolution of ACO hospitals over time. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Hierarchical clustering methods are used in separate analyses of MSSP and Pioneer ACO hospitals. Hospitals participating in ACOs with 2012-2013 start dates are identified through multiple sources. Study data come from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, and Health Information and Management Systems Society. RESULTS: Five-cluster solutions were developed separately for the MSSP and Pioneer hospital samples. Both the MSSP and Pioneer taxonomies had several clusters with high levels of health information technology capabilities. Also distinct clusters with strong physician linkages were present. We examined Pioneer ACO hospitals that subsequently left the program and found that they commonly had low levels of ambulatory care services or health information technology. CONCLUSION: Distinct subgroups of hospitals exist in both the MSSP and Pioneer programs, suggesting that individual hospitals serve different roles within an ACO. Health information technology and physician linkages appear to be particularly important features in ACO hospitals. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: ACOs need to consider not only geographic and service mix when selecting hospital participants but also their vertical integration features and management competencies.

Clinical coordination in accountable care organizations: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are becoming a common payment and delivery model. Despite widespread interest, little empirical research has examined what efforts or strategies ACOs are using to change care and reduce costs. Knowledge of ACOs' clinical efforts can provide important context for understanding ACO performance, particularly to distinguish arenas where ACOs have and have not attempted care transformation. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to understand ACOs' efforts to change clinical care during the first 18 months of ACO contracts. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews between July and December 2013. Our sample includes ACOs that began performance contracts in 2012, including Medicare Shared Savings Program and Pioneer participants, stratified across key factors. In total, we conducted interviews with executives from 30 ACOs. Iterative qualitative analysis identified common patterns and themes. RESULTS: ACOs in the first year of performance contracts are commonly focusing on four areas: first, transforming primary care through increased access and team-based care; second, reducing avoidable emergency department use; third, strengthening practice-based care management; and fourth, developing new boundary spanner roles and activities. ACOs were doing little around transforming specialty care, acute and postacute care, or standardizing care across practices during the first 18 months of ACO performance contracts. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Results suggest that cost reductions associated with ACOs in the first years of contracts may be related to primary care. Although in the long term many hope ACOs will achieve coordination across a wide array of care settings and providers, in the short term providers under ACO contracts are focused largely on primary care-related strategies. Our work provides a template of the common areas of clinical activity in the first years of ACO contracts, which may be informative to providers considering becoming an ACO. Further research will be needed to understand how these strategies are associated with performance.

Interprofessional training: Geriatrics and palliative care principles for primary care teams in an ACO.

There is a well-described need to increase the competence of the primary care workforce in the principles of geriatrics and palliative care, and as value-based payment models proliferate, there is increased incentive for the acquisition of these skills. Through a Geriatric Workforce Enhancement Program grant, we developed an adaptable curriculum around commonly encountered topics in palliative care and geriatrics that can be delivered to multidisciplinary clinicians in primary care settings. All participants in this training were part of an Accountable Care Organization (ACO) and were motivated to improve to care for complex older adults. A needs assessment was performed on each practice or group of learners and the curriculum was adapted accordingly. With the use of patient education and screening tools with strong validity evidence, the participants were trained in the principals of geriatrics and palliative care with a focus on advance care planning and assessing for frailty and functional decline. Comparison of pre- and post-test scores demonstrated increased confidence and knowledge in goals of care and basic geriatric assessment. Participants described feeling more able to address needs, have conversations around goals of care, and more able to recognize patients who would benefit from collaboration with geriatrics and palliative care.

The association between Medicare accountable care organization enrollment and breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Despite the rapid diffusion of accountable care organizations (ACOs), the effect of ACO enrollment on cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship remains unknown. The objective of this study was to determine whether Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACO enrollment was associated with changes in screening for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. METHODS: The authors built a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries from 2006 through 2014 comprising 39,218,652 person-years of observation before and 17,252,345 person-years of observation after MSSP enrollment. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services attribution methodology was recapitulated; and screening services were identified for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer, implementing both sensitive and specific definitions of cancer screening. Adjusted difference-in-differences analyses were performed using linear regression to characterize changes in annual screening rates after ACO enrollment relative to contemporaneous changes in a non-ACO control group of Medicare beneficiaries. RESULTS: Medicare beneficiaries attributed to ACO-enrolled providers had higher rates of breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening before enrollment. A 1.8% relative reduction in breast cancer screening was observed among women attributed to ACO providers (P < .0001), a 2.4% relative increase was observed in colorectal cancer screening (P = .0259), and a 3.4% relative reduction was observed in prostate cancer screening among men attributed to ACO providers (P = .0025) compared with contemporaneous changes in non-ACO controls. CONCLUSIONS: Small-magnitude reductions were observed in breast and prostate cancer screening rates, and a small increase was observed in colorectal cancer screening associated with ACO enrollment. Although ACO enrollment does not appear to drive wholesale changes in cancer screening, small differences may map to meaningful changes in the epidemiology of screen-detected cancers among Medicare beneficiaries.

Surgeon Participation in Early Accountable Care Organizations.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize the landscape of surgeon participation in early accountable care organizations (ACOs) and to identify specialty-, organization-, and market-specific factors associated with ACO participation. BACKGROUND: Despite rapid deployment of alternative payment models (APMs), little is known about the prevalence of surgeon participation, and key drivers behind surgeon participation in APMs. METHODS: Using data from SK&A, a research firm, we evaluated the near universe of US practices to characterize ACO participation among 125,425 US surgeons in 2015. We fit multivariable logistic regression models to characterize key drivers of ACO participation, and more specifically, the interaction between ACO affiliation and organizational structure. RESULTS: Of 125,425 US surgeons, 27,956 (22.3%) participated in at least 1 ACO program in 2015. We observed heterogeneity in participation by subspecialty, with trauma and transplant reporting the highest rate of ACO enrollment (36% for both) and plastic surgeons reporting the lowest (12.9%) followed by ophthalmology (16.0%) and hand (18.6%). Surgeons in group practices and integrated systems were more likely to participate relative to those practicing independently (aOR 1.57, 95% CI 1.50, 1.64; aOR 4.87, 95% CI 4.68, 5.07, respectively). We observed a statistically significant interaction (P <0.001) between surgical specialty and practice organization. Model-derived predicted probabilities revealed that, within each specialty, surgeons in integrated health systems had the highest predicted probabilities of ACO and those practicing independently generally had the lowest. CONCLUSIONS: We observed considerable variation in ACO enrollment among US surgeons, mediated at least in part by differences in practice organization. These data underscore the need for development of frameworks to characterize the strategic advantages and disadvantages associated with APM participation.

Performance in the Medicare Shared Savings Program by Accountable Care Organizations Disproportionately Serving Dual and Disabled Populations.

BACKGROUND: The growth of accountable care organizations (ACOs) and other alternative payment models has prompted concern about whether these models will disadvantage providers who serve vulnerable populations, particularly those living in poverty or with a disability. OBJECTIVE: To examine performance by ACOs in the top quintile of their proportion of beneficiaries dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid (high-dual) and the top quintile of disabled beneficiaries (high-disabled). RESEARCH DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: The 333 ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program in 2014, followed through 2016. MEASURES: Quality scores, savings per beneficiary, whether or not the ACO shared savings, and amount of shared savings. RESULTS: High-dual and high-disabled ACOs had slightly lower quality and similar or higher baseline spending than other ACOs, but achieved greater savings per beneficiary than other ACOs ($212 vs. $51 for high-dual ACOs, P=0.04; $241 vs. $44 for high-disabled ACOs, P=0.012). Further, these ACOs were equally or more likely to earn shared savings; just over 30% of high-dual ACOs earned shared savings compared with 25% of non-high-dual ACOs (P=0.35) and 38% of high-disabled ACOs earned shared savings compared with 23% of non-high-disabled ACOs (P=0.013). In longitudinal analyses, we found a decrease in the differences in quality between high-social risk and other ACOs over time. Savings remained higher for high-dual and high-disabled ACOs relative to other ACOs over 2014-2016 though the gap narrowed over time. CONCLUSIONS: High-dual and high-disabled ACOs had similar or higher spending than other ACOs at baseline, but achieved greater savings and were equally or more likely to earn shared savings, suggesting that alternative payment models can have positive financial outcomes for providers who serve vulnerable populations.

Trust, Money, and Power: Life Cycle Dynamics in Alliances Between Management Partners and Accountable Care Organizations.

Policy Points Accountable care organizations (ACOs) form alliances with management partners to access financial, technical, and managerial support. Alliances between ACOs and management partners are subject to destabilizing tension around decision-making authority, distribution of shared savings, and conflicting goals and values. Management partners may serve either as trainers, ultimately breaking off from the ACO, or as central drivers of the ACO. Management partner participation in ACOs is currently unregulated, and management partners may receive a significant portion (in some cases, majority) of shared savings. CONTEXT: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are a prominent payment and delivery model. Though ACOs are often described as groups of health care providers, nearly 4 in 10 ACOs partner with a management company for services such as financial investment, contracting, data analytics, and care management, according to recent research. However, we know little about how and why these partnerships form. This article aims to understand the reasons providers seek partners, the nature of these relationships, and factors critical to the success or failure of these alliances. METHODS: We used qualitative data collected longitudinally from 2012 to 2017 at 2 ACOs to understand relationships between management partners and ACO providers. The data include 115 semistructured interviews and observational data from 7 site visits. Two coders applied 48 codes to the data. We reviewed coded data for emergent themes in the context of alliance life cycle theory. FINDINGS: Qualitative data revealed that management partners brought specific skills and services and also gave providers confidence in pursuing an ACO. Over time, tension between providers and management partners arose around decision-making authority, distribution of shared savings, and conflicting goals and values. We observed 2 outcomes of partnerships: cemented partnerships and dissolution. Key factors distinguishing alliance outcome in these 2 cases include degree of trust between organizations in the alliance; approach to conflict resolution; distribution of power in the alliance; skills and confidence acquired by the ACO over the life of the alliance; continuity of management partner delivery on promised resources; and proportion of savings going to the management partner. CONCLUSIONS: The diverging paths for ACOs with management partners suggest 2 different roles that management partners may play in ACO development. In some cases, management partners may serve as trainers, with the partnership dissolving once the ACO gains skills and confidence to work alone. In other cases, the management partner is a central driver of the ACO and unlikely to break off.

Transformation of the Health Care Industry: Curb Your Enthusiasm?

Policy Points: Policymakers seek to transform the US health care system along two dimensions simultaneously: alternative payment models and new models of provider organization. This transformation is supposed to transfer risk to providers and make them more accountable for health care costs and quality. The transformation in payment and provider organization is neither happening quickly nor shifting risk to providers. The impact on health care cost and quality is also weak or nonexistent. In the longer run, decision makers should be prepared to accept the limits on transformation and carefully consider whether to advocate solutions not yet supported by evidence. CONTEXT: There is a widespread belief that the US health care system needs to move "from volume to value." This transformation to value (eg, quality divided by cost) is conceptualized as a two-fold movement: (1) from fee-for-service to alternative payment models; and (2) from solo practice and freestanding hospitals to medical homes, accountable care organizations, large hospital systems, and organized clinics like Kaiser Permanente. METHODS: We evaluate whether this transformation is happening quickly, shifting risk to providers, lowering costs, and improving quality. We draw on recent evidence on provider payment and organization and their effects on cost and quality. FINDINGS: Data suggest a low prevalence of provider risk payment models and slow movement toward new payment and organizational models. Evidence suggests the impact of both on cost and quality is weak. CONCLUSIONS: We need to be patient in expecting system improvements from ongoing changes in provider payment and organization. We also may need to look for improvements in other areas of the economy or to accept and accommodate prospects of modest improvements over time.