Cost, Utilization, and Patient and Family Experience With ACO-Based Pediatric Care Management.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs have high healthcare utilization, fragmented care, and unmet health needs. Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) increasingly use pediatric care management to improve quality and reduce unnecessary utilization. We evaluated effects of pediatric care management on total medical expense (TME) and utilization; perceived quality of care coordination, unmet needs, and patient and family experience; and differential impact by payor, risk score, care manager discipline, and behavioral health diagnosis. METHODS: Mixed-methods analysis including claims using quasi-stepped-wedge design pre and postenrollment to estimate difference-in-differences, participant survey, and semistructured interviews. Participants included 1321 patients with medical, behavioral, or social needs, high utilization, in Medicaid or commercial ACOs, and enrolled in multidisciplinary, primary care-embedded care management. RESULTS: TME significantly declined 1 to 6 months postenrollment and continued through 19 to 24 months (-$645.48 per member per month, P < .001). Emergency department and inpatient utilization significantly decreased 7 to 12 months post-enrollment and persisted through 19 to 24 months (-29% emergency department, P = .012; -82% inpatient, P < .001). Of respondents, 87.2% of survey respondents were somewhat or very satisfied with care coordination, 56.1% received education coordination when needed, and 81.5% had no unmet health needs. Emergency department or inpatient utilization decreases were consistent across payors and care manager disciplines, occurred sooner with behavioral health diagnoses, and were significant among children with above-median risk scores. Satisfaction and experience were equivalent across groups, with more unmet needs and frustration with above-median risk scores. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric care management in multipayor ACOs may effectively reduce TME and utilization and clinically provide high-quality care coordination, including education and family stress, with high participant satisfaction.

Optimal Care for Kidney Health: Development of a Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Value Pathway.

The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a mandatory pay-for-performance program through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that aims to incentivize high-quality care, promote continuous improvement, facilitate electronic exchange of information, and lower health care costs. Previous research has highlighted several limitations of the MIPS program in assessing nephrology care delivery, including administrative complexity, limited relevance to nephrology care, and inability to compare performance across nephrology practices, emphasizing the need for a more valid and meaningful quality assessment program. This article details the iterative consensus-building process used by the American Society of Nephrology Quality Committee from May 2020 to July 2022 to develop the Optimal Care for Kidney Health MIPS Value Pathway (MVP). Two rounds of ranked-choice voting among Quality Committee members were used to select among nine quality metrics, 43 improvement activities, and three cost measures considered for inclusion in the MVP. Measure selection was iteratively refined in collaboration with the CMS MVP Development Team, and new MIPS measures were submitted through CMS's Measures Under Consideration process. The Optimal Care for Kidney Health MVP was published in the 2023 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule and includes measures related to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker use, hypertension control, readmissions, acute kidney injury requiring dialysis, and advance care planning. The nephrology MVP aims to streamline measure selection in MIPS and serves as a case study of collaborative policymaking between a subspecialty professional organization and national regulatory agencies.

Reframing Value-Based Care Management: Beyond Cost Reduction and Toward Patient Centeredness.

Importance: Care management programs are increasingly being utilized by health systems as a new foundational strategy to advance value-based care. These programs offer the promise of improving patient outcomes while decreasing health care utilization and costs. However, as these programs proliferate in number and specialization, the field of care management is increasingly at risk of fragmentation, inefficiency, and failure to meet the core needs of the patient. Observations: This review of the current state of care management identifies several key challenges for the field, including an unclear value proposition, a focus on system- vs patient-centered outcomes, increased specialization by private and public entrants that produces care fragmentation, and lack of coordination among health and social service entities. A framework is proposed for reorienting care management to truly address the needs of patients through acknowledging the dynamic nature of patient care needs, providing a continuum of need-targeted programming, coordinating care among all involved entities and staff, and performing regular evaluations of outcomes that include patient-centered and health equity measures. Guidance on how this framework can be implemented within a health system and an outline of recommendations is provided for how policymakers may incentivize the development of high value and more equitable care management programs. Conclusions and Relevance: With increased focus on care management as a cornerstone of value-based care, value-based health leaders and policymakers can improve the effectiveness and value of care management programs, reduce patient financial burden for care management services, and promote stakeholder coordination.

Tacking upwind: reducing spending among high-risk commercially insured patients.

OBJECTIVES: The study examined a commercial accountable care organization (ACO) population and then assessed the impact of an integrated care management program on medical spending and clinical event rates. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of high-risk individuals (n = 487) in a population of 365,413 individuals aged 18 to 64 years within the Mass General Brigham health system who were part of commercial ACO contracts with 3 large insurers between 2015 and 2019. METHODS: Using medical spending claims and other enrollment data, the study assessed the demographic and clinical characteristics, medical spending, and clinical event rates of patients in the ACO and its high-risk care management program. The study then examined the impact of the program using a staggered difference-in-difference design with individual-level fixed effects and compared outcomes of those who had entered the program with those of similar patients who had not entered. RESULTS: The commercially insured ACO population was healthy on average but included several hundred high-risk patients (n = 487). After adjustment, patients within the ACO's integrated care management program for high-risk patients had lower monthly medical spending (by $1361 per person per month) as well as lower emergency department visit and hospitalization rates compared with similar patients who had yet to start the program. Accounting for early ACO departure decreased the magnitude of the program effects as expected. CONCLUSIONS: Commercial ACO populations may be healthy on average but still include some high-risk patients. Identifying which patients might benefit from more intensive care management could be critical for reaping the potential savings.

Population turnover and leakage in commercial ACOs.

OBJECTIVES: Commercial accountable care organization (ACO) contracts attempt to mitigate spending growth, but past evaluations have been limited to continuously enrolled ACO members in health maintenance organization (HMO) plans, excluding many members. The objective of this study was to examine the magnitude of turnover and leakage within a commercial ACO. STUDY DESIGN: A historical cohort study using detailed information from multiple commercial ACO contracts within a large health care system between 2015 and 2019. METHODS: Individuals insured through 1 of the 3 largest commercial ACO contracts during the study period, 2015-2019, were included. We examined patterns of entry and exit and the characteristics that predicted remaining in the ACO compared with leaving the ACO. We also examined predictors of the amount of care delivered in the ACO compared with outside the ACO. RESULTS: Among the 453,573 commercially insured individuals in the ACO, approximately half left the ACO within the initial 24 months after entry. Approximately one-third of spending was for care occurring outside the ACO. Patients who remained in the ACO differed from those who left earlier, including being older, having a non-HMO plan, having lower predicted spending at entry, and having more medical spending for care performed within the ACO during the initial quarter of membership. CONCLUSIONS: Both turnover and leakage hamper the ability of ACOs to manage spending. Modifications that address potentially intrinsic vs avoidable sources of population turnover and increase patient incentives for care within vs outside of ACOs could help address medical spending growth within commercial ACO programs.

Intensive care management of a complex Medicaid population: a randomized evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Care management programs are employed by providers and payers to support high-risk patients and affect cost and utilization, with varied implementation. This study sought to evaluate the impact of an intensive care management program on utilization and cost among those with highest cost (top 5%) and highest utilization in a Medicaid accountable care organization (ACO) population. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled quality improvement trial of intensive care management, provided by a nonprofit care management vendor, for Medicaid ACO patients at 2 academic centers. METHODS: Patients were identified using claims, chart review, and primary care validation, then randomly assigned 2:1 to intervention and control groups. Among 131 patients included in intent-to-treat analysis, 87 and 44 were randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups, respectively. Patients in the intervention group were eligible to receive intensive care management in the community/home setting and, in some cases, home-based primary care. Patients in the control group received standard of care, including practice-based care management. Prespecified primary outcome measures included total medical expense (TME), emergency department (ED) visits, and inpatient utilization. RESULTS: Relative to controls, patients randomly assigned to receive intensive care management had a $1933 smaller increase per member per month in TME (P = .04) and directionally consistent but nonsignificant reductions in ED visits (17% fewer; P = .40) and inpatient admissions (34% fewer; P = .29) in the 12 months post randomization compared with the 12 months prerandomization. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results support that targeted, intensive care management can favorably affect TME in a health system-based high-cost, high-risk Medicaid population. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact on additional clinical outcomes.

Value-Based Care and Kidney Disease: Emergence and Future Opportunities.

The United States health care system has increasingly embraced value-based programs that reward improved outcomes and lower costs. Health care value, defined as quality per unit cost, was a major goal of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act amid high and rising US health care expenditures. Many early value-based programs were specifically designed for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and targeted toward dialysis facilities, including the ESRD Prospective Payment System, ESRD Quality Incentive Program, and ESRD Seamless Care Organizations. While a great deal of attention has been paid to these ESRD-focused programs, other value-based programs targeted toward hospitals and health systems may also affect the quality and costs of care for a broader population of patients with kidney disease. Value-based care for kidney disease is increasingly relevant in light of the Advancing American Kidney Health initiative, which introduces new value-based payment models: the mandatory ESRD Treatment Choices Model in 2021 and voluntary Kidney Care Choices Model in 2022. In this review article, we summarize the emergence and impact of value-based programs on the quality and costs of kidney care, with a focus on federal programs. Key opportunities in value-based kidney care include shifting the focus toward chronic kidney disease, enhancing population health management capabilities, improving quality measurement, and leveraging programs to advance health equity.

Keys to Driving Implementation of the New Kidney Care Models.

Contemporary nephrology practice is heavily weighted toward in-center hemodialysis, reflective of decisions on infrastructure and personnel in response to decades of policy. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative seeks to transform care for patients and providers. Under the initiative's framework, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has launched two new care models that align patient choice with provider incentives. The mandatory ESRD Treatment Choices model requires participation by all nephrology practices in designated Hospital Referral Regions, randomly selecting 30% of all Hospital Referral Regions across the United States for participation, with the remaining Hospital Referral Regions serving as controls. The voluntary Kidney Care Choices model offers alternative payment programs open to nephrology practices throughout the country. To help organize implementation of the models, we developed Driver Diagrams that serve as blueprints to identify structures, processes, and norms and generate intervention concepts. We focused on two goals that are directly applicable to nephrology practices and central to the incentive structure of the ESRD Treatment Choices and Kidney Care Choices: (1) increasing utilization of home dialysis, and (2) increasing the number of kidney transplants. Several recurring themes became apparent with implementation. Multiple stakeholders from assorted backgrounds are needed. Communication with primary care providers will facilitate timely referrals, education, and comanagement. Nephrology providers (nephrologists, nursing, dialysis organizations, others) must lead implementation. Patient engagement at nearly every step will help achieve the aims of the models. Advocacy with federal and state regulatory agencies will be crucial to expanding home dialysis and transplantation access. Although the models hold promise to improve choices and outcomes for many patients, we must be vigilant that they not do reinforce existing disparities in health care or widen known racial, socioeconomic, or geographic gaps. The Advancing American Kidney Health initiative has the potential to usher in a new era of value-based care for nephrology.

Evaluating the Impact and Rationale of Race-Specific Estimations of Kidney Function: Estimations from U.S. NHANES, 2015-2018.

BACKGROUND: Standard equations for estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) employ race multipliers, systematically inflating eGFR for Black patients. Such inflation is clinically significant because eGFR thresholds of 60, 30, and 20 ml/min/1.73m2 guide kidney disease management. Racialized adjustment of eGFR in Black Americans may thereby affect their clinical care. In this study, we analyze and extrapolate national data to assess potential impacts of the eGFR race adjustment on qualification for kidney disease diagnosis, nephrologist referral, and transplantation listing. METHODS: Using population-representative cross-sectional data from the United States National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2015-2018, eGFR values for Black Americans were calculated using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation with and without the 1.21 race-specific coefficient using cohort data on age, sex, race, and serum creatinine. FINDINGS: Without the MDRD eGFR race adjustment, 3.3 million (10.4%) more Black Americans would reach a diagnostic threshold for Stage 3 Chronic Kidney Disease, 300,000 (0.7%) more would qualify for beneficial nephrologist referral, and 31,000 (0.1%) more would become eligible for transplant evaluation and waitlist inclusion. INTERPRETATION: These findings suggest eGFR race coefficients may contribute to racial differences in the management of kidney. We provide recommendations for addressing this issue at institutional and individual levels. FUNDING: No external funding was received for this study.

Funding Innovative Dialysis Technology in the United States: Home Dialysis and the ESRD Transitional Add-on Payment for New and Innovative Equipment and Supplies (TPNIES).

Innovative, patient-centered, and pragmatic dialysis technologies are urgently needed to accommodate the growing national interest in home dialysis use. To help achieve this goal, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are expanding reimbursement for eligible home dialysis machines through an existing payment mechanism, the transitional add-on payment for new and innovative equipment and supplies (TPNIES). This mechanism incentivizes the early adoption of innovative equipment into practice by reimbursing dialysis providers up to 26% of the total cost of approved home dialysis machines. Machines are evaluated for TPNIES eligibility using prespecified substantial clinical improvement (SCI) criteria that are derived from the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (for non-nephrology technologies). Although the SCI criteria may be suitable for some non-nephrology technologies, they have not been adapted to consider the unique and complex care inherent in home dialysis. Thus, many of the SCI criteria appear unsuitable for home dialysis machines. To better incentivize innovation, CMS should develop nephrology-specific transparent and pragmatic criteria for TPNIES. In this perspective, we provide an overview of the TPNIES payment mechanism, highlight areas of concern within the policy, and offer solutions for improving TPNIES that could better promote the adoption of new home dialysis machines.

Reassessing the Inclusion of Race in Diagnosing Kidney Diseases: An Interim Report from the NKF-ASN Task Force.

For almost two decades, equations that use serum creatinine, age, sex, and race to eGFR have included "race" as Black or non-Black. Given considerable evidence of disparities in health and healthcare delivery in African American communities, some regard keeping a race term in GFR equations as a practice that differentially influences access to care and kidney transplantation. Others assert that race captures important non GFR determinants of serum creatinine and its removal from the calculation may perpetuate other disparities. The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and American Society of Nephrology (ASN) established a task force in 2020 to reassess the inclusion of race in the estimation of GFR in the United States and its implications for diagnosis and subsequent management of patients with, or at risk for, kidney diseases. This interim report details the process, initial assessment of evidence, and values defined regarding the use of race to estimate GFR. We organized activities in phases: (1) clarify the problem and examine evidence, (2) evaluate different approaches to address use of race in GFR estimation, and (3) make recommendations. In phase one, we constructed statements about the evidence and defined values regarding equity and disparities; race and racism; GFR measurement, estimation, and equation performance; laboratory standardization; and patient perspectives. We also identified several approaches to estimate GFR and a set of attributes to evaluate these approaches. Building on evidence and values, the attributes of alternative approaches to estimate GFR will be evaluated in the next phases and recommendations will be made.

Reassessing the Inclusion of Race in Diagnosing Kidney Diseases: An Interim Report From the NKF-ASN Task Force.

For almost 2 decades, equations that use serum creatinine, age, sex, and race to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) have included "race" as Black or non-Black. Given considerable evidence of disparities in health and health care delivery in African American communities, some regard keeping a race term in GFR equations as a practice that differentially influences access to care and kidney transplantation. Others assert that race captures important non-GFR determinants of serum creatinine and its removal from the calculation may perpetuate other disparities. The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and American Society of Nephrology (ASN) established a task force in 2020 to reassess the inclusion of race in the estimation of GFR in the United States and its implications for diagnosis and subsequent management of patients with, or at risk for, kidney diseases. This interim report details the process, initial assessment of evidence, and values defined regarding the use of race to estimate GFR. We organized activities in phases: (1) clarify the problem and examine evidence, (2) evaluate different approaches to address use of race in GFR estimation, and (3) make recommendations. In phase 1, we constructed statements about the evidence and defined values regarding equity and disparities; race and racism; GFR measurement, estimation, and equation performance; laboratory standardization; and patient perspectives. We also identified several approaches to estimate GFR and a set of attributes to evaluate these approaches. Building on evidence and values, the attributes of alternative approaches to estimate GFR will be evaluated in the next phases and recommendations will be made.

The essential role of population health during and beyond COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has fundamentally changed how health care systems deliver services and revealed the tenuousness of care delivery based on face-to-face office visits and fee-for-service reimbursement models. Robust population health management, fostered by value-based contract participation, integrates analytics and agile clinical programs and is adaptable to optimize outcomes and reduce risk during population-level crises. In this article, we describe how mature population health programs in a learning health system have been rapidly leveraged to address the challenges of the pandemic. Population-level data and care management have facilitated identification of demographic-based disparities and community outreach. Telemedicine and integrated behavioral health have ensured critical primary care and specialty access, and mobile health and postacute interventions have shifted site of care and optimized hospital utilization. Beyond the pandemic, population health can lead as a cornerstone of a resilient health system, better prepared to improve public health and mitigate risk in a value-based paradigm.

Health Policy and Kidney Care in the United States: Core Curriculum 2020.

Kidney care in the United States is highly regulated, reflecting the dominance of Medicare as the primary payer for dialysis since inclusion of the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) benefit into payment policy in 1973. In the ensuing decades, bundled payments have been introduced for dialysis and quality programs have been adopted for both ESRD and nondialysis chronic kidney disease care. In this installment of the Core Curriculum in Nephrology, we review the key laws and regulations affecting kidney care in the United States, the Medicare ESRD program, quality assessment and pay-for-performance programs including the ESRD Quality Incentive Program, incentives and disincentives for specific kidney failure care modalities, and recent landmark initiatives to promote more coordinated kidney care across the spectrum of kidney disease. Additional discussion covers policies guiding the care of undocumented immigrants and provision of hospice and palliative care to people with kidney failure. Last, we discuss how the kidney community can activate to advocate effectively to promote better kidney care in the United States.