The Effect Of Next Generation Accountable Care Organizations On Medicare Expenditures.

The Next Generation Accountable Care Organization (NGACO) model (active during 2016-21) tested the effects of high financial risk, payment mechanisms, and flexible care delivery on health care spending and value for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. We used quasi-experimental methods to examine the model's effects on Medicare Parts A and B spending. Sixty-two ACOs with more than 4.2 million beneficiaries and more than 91,000 practitioners participated in the model. The model was associated with a $270 per beneficiary per year, or approximately $1.7 billion, decline in Medicare spending. After shared savings payments to ACOs were included, the model increased net Medicare spending by $56 per beneficiary per year, or $96.7 million. Annual declines in spending for the model grew over time, reflecting exit by poorer-performing NGACOs, improvement among the remaining NGACOs, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Larger declines in spending occurred among physician practice ACOs and ACOs that elected population-based payments and risk caps greater than 5 percent.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of patient race/ethnicity, socioeconomics, and quality for adult type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence of the association between performance in eight indicators of diabetes care and a patient's race/ethnicity and socioeconomic characteristics. DATA SOURCE: Studies of adult patients with type 2 diabetes in MEDLINE published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2018. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of regression-based studies including race/ethnicity and income or education as explanatory variables. Meta-analysis was used to quantify differences in performance associated with patient race/ethnicity or socioeconomic characteristics. The systematic review was used to identify potential mechanisms of disparities. DATA COLLECTION: Two coauthors separately conducted abstract screening, study exclusions, data extraction, and scoring of retained studies. Estimates in retained studies were extracted and, where applicable, were standardized and converted to odds ratios and standard errors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Performance in intermediate outcomes and process measures frequently exhibited differences by race/ethnicity even after adjustment for socioeconomic, lifestyle, and health factors. Meta-analyses showed black patients had lower odds of HbA1c and blood pressure (BP) control (OR range: 0.67-0.68, P < .05) but higher odds of receiving eye or foot examination (OR range: 1.22-1.47, P < .05) relative to white patients. A high school degree or more was associated with higher odds of HbA1c control and receipt of eye examinations compared to patients without a degree. Meta-analyses of income included a handful of studies and were inconsistently associated with diabetes care performance. Differences in diabetes performance appear to be related to access-related factors such as uninsurance or lacking a usual source of care; food insecurity and trade-offs at very low incomes; and lower adherence among younger and healthier diabetes patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patient race/ethnicity and education were associated with differences in diabetes quality measures. Depending on the approach used to rate providers, not adjusting for these patient characteristics may penalize or reward providers based on the populations they serve.

Accountable Care Organizations' Increase In Nonphysician Practitioners May Signal Shift For Health Care Workforce.

Both the number and the size of accountable care organizations (ACOs) in the Medicare Shared Savings Program have been increasing. The number of ACOs rose from 220 in 2013 to 548 in 2018, while the average number of participating clinicians in ACOs increased from 263 to 653. Although increases occurred for primary care physicians (from an average of 141 to 251) and medical specialists (from an average of 76 to 157), the increase for nonphysician practitioners (from an average of 47 to 245) was the largest. These differential increases changed the ACO workforce composition over time. The average proportion of nonphysician practitioners in ACOs grew from 18.1 percent to 38.7 percent, with a commensurate decline in the average share of primary care physicians from 60.0 percent to 42.2 percent. As value-based care models grow in prevalence, their evolving clinician composition may affect workforce patterns in the broader health care delivery system.

Association of Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations vs traditional Medicare fee for service with spending, utilization, and patient experience.

IMPORTANCE: The Pioneer Accountable Care Organization (ACO) Model aims to drive health care organizations to reduce expenditures while improving quality for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether FFS beneficiaries aligned with Pioneer ACOs had smaller increases in spending and utilization than other FFS beneficiaries while retaining similar levels of care satisfaction in the first 2 years of the Pioneer ACO Model. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were FFS Medicare beneficiaries aligned with 32 ACOs (n = 675,712 in 2012; n = 806,258 in 2013) and a comparison group of alignment-eligible beneficiaries in the same markets (n = 13,203,694 in 2012; n = 12,134,154 in 2013). Analyses comprised difference-in-differences multivariable regression with Oaxaca-Blinder reweighting to model expenditure and utilization outcomes over a 2-year performance period (2012-2013) and 2-year baseline period (2010-2011) as well as adjusted analyses of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers & Systems (CAHPS) survey responses among random samples of beneficiaries in Pioneer ACOs (n = 13,097), FFS (n = 116,255), or Medicare Advantage (n = 203,736) for 2012 care. EXPOSURES: Beneficiary alignment with a Pioneer ACO in 2012 or 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Medicare spending, utilization, and CAHPS domain scores. RESULTS: Total spending for beneficiaries aligned with Pioneer ACOs in 2012 or 2013 increased from baseline to a lesser degree relative to comparison populations. Differential changes in spending were approximately -$35.62 (95% CI, -$40.12 to -$31.12) per-beneficiary-per-month (PBPM) in 2012 and -$11.18 (95% CI, -$15.84 to -$6.51) PBPM in 2013, which amounted to aggregate reductions in increases of approximately -$280 (95% CI, -$315 to -$244) million in 2012 and -$105 (95% CI, -$148 to -$61) million in 2013. Inpatient spending showed the largest differential change of any spending category (-$14.40 [95% CI, -$17.31 to -$11.49] PBPM in 2012; -$6.46 [95% CI, -$9.26 to -$3.66] PBPM in 2013). Changes in utilization of physician services, emergency department, and postacute care followed a similar pattern. Compared with other Medicare beneficiaries, ACO-aligned beneficiaries reported higher mean scores for timely care (77.2 [ACO] vs 71.2 [FFS] vs 72.7 [MA]) and for clinician communication (91.9 [ACO] vs 88.3 [FFS] vs 88.7 [MA]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the first 2 years of the Pioneer ACO Model, beneficiaries aligned with Pioneer ACOs, as compared with general Medicare FFS beneficiaries, exhibited smaller increases in total Medicare expenditures and differential reductions in utilization of different health services, with little difference in patient experience.

The effects of safety net hospital closures and conversions on patient travel distance to hospital services.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of safety net hospital (SNH) closure and for-profit conversion on uninsured, Medicaid, and racial/ethnic minorities. DATA SOURCES/EXTRACTION METHODS: Hospital discharge data for selected states merged with other sources. STUDY DESIGN: We examined travel distance for patients treated in urban hospitals for five diagnosis categories: ambulatory care sensitive conditions, referral sensitive conditions, marker conditions, births, and mental health and substance abuse. We assess how travel was affected for patients after SNH events. Our multivariate models controlled for patient, hospital, health system, and neighborhood characteristics. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our results suggested that certain groups of uninsured and Medicaid patients experienced greater disruption in patterns of care, especially Hispanic uninsured and Medicaid women hospitalized for births. In addition, relative to privately insured individuals in SNH event communities, greater travel for mental health and substance abuse care was present for the uninsured. CONCLUSIONS: Closure or for-profit conversions of SNHs appear to have detrimental access effects on particular subgroups of disadvantaged populations, although our results are somewhat inconclusive due to potential power issues. Policy makers may need to pay special attention to these patient subgroups and also to easing transportation barriers when dealing with disruptions resulting from reductions in SNH resources.

Surgery wait times and specialty services for insured and uninsured breast cancer patients: does hospital safety net status matter?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether safety net and non-safety net hospitals influence inpatient breast cancer care in insured and uninsured women and in white and African American women. DATA SOURCES: Six years of Virginia Cancer Registry and Virginia Health Information discharge data were linked and supplemented with American Hospital Association data. STUDY DESIGN: Hierarchical generalized linear models and linear probability regression models were used to estimate the relationship between hospital safety net status, the explanatory variables, and the days from diagnosis to mastectomy and the likelihood of breast reconstruction. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The time between diagnosis and surgery was longer in safety net hospitals for all patients, regardless of insurance source. Medicaid insured and uninsured women were approximately 20 percent less likely to receive reconstruction than privately insured women. African American women were less likely to receive reconstruction than white women. CONCLUSIONS: Following the implementation of health reform, disparities may potentially worsen if safety net hospitals' burden of care increases without commensurate increases in reimbursement and staffing levels. This study also suggests that Medicaid expansions may not improve outcomes in inpatient breast cancer care within the safety net system.

Does competition improve health care quality?

OBJECTIVE: To identify the effect of competition on health maintenance organizations' (HMOs) quality measures. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal analysis of a 5-year panel of the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) and Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey(R) (CAHPS) data (calendar years 1998-2002). All plans submitting data to the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) were included regardless of their decision to allow NCQA to disclose their results publicly. DATA SOURCES: NCQA, Interstudy, the Area Resource File, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. METHODS: Fixed-effects models were estimated that relate HMO competition to HMO quality controlling for an unmeasured, time-invariant plan, and market traits. Results are compared with estimates from models reliant on cross-sectional variation. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Estimates suggest that plan quality does not improve with increased levels of HMO competition (as measured by either the Herfindahl index or the number of HMOs). Similarly, increased HMO penetration is generally not associated with improved quality. Cross-sectional models tend to suggest an inverse relationship between competition and quality. CONCLUSIONS: The strategies that promote competition among HMOs in the current market setting may not lead to improved HMO quality. It is possible that price competition dominates, with purchasers and consumers preferring lower premiums at the expense of improved quality, as measured by HEDIS and CAHPS. It is also possible that the fragmentation associated with competition hinders quality improvement.

Market and plan characteristics related to HMO quality and improvement.

Existing research on health plan performance examines whether variation in plans' scores is related to enrollee and health plan traits, primarily using cross-sectional research designs. This study extends that literature by incorporating data on market characteristics using a longitudinal framework. We estimate multivariate growth models that relate plan performance on standard measures to market and HMO characteristics using an unbalanced panel of data for 1998 to 2002. We find that HMO competition is not associated with better performance or greater rates of improvement in performance on the HEDIS chronic care measures. HMO penetration, on the other hand, is positively associated with HEDIS performance in several of the chronic care process-and-outcomes measures but not with a greater rate of improvement through time. Our analysis indicates that a significant percentage of the unexplained variation in quality improvement is because of permanent, unobserved plan-level characteristics that future research should strive to identify.

Competition in health insurance markets: limitations of current measures for policy analysis.

Health care reform proposals often rely on increased competition in health insurance markets to drive improved performance in health care costs, access, and quality. We examine a range of data issues related to the measures of health insurance competition used in empirical studies published from 1994-2004. The literature relies exclusively on market structure and penetration variables to measure competition. While these measures are correlated, the degree of correlation is modest, suggesting that choice of measure could influence empirical results. Moreover, certain measurement issues such as the lack of data on PPO enrollment, the treatment of small firms, and omitted market characteristics also could affect the conclusions in empirical studies. Importantly, other types of measures related to competition (e.g., the availability of information on price and outcomes, degree of entry barriers, etc.) are important from both a theoretical and policy perspective, but their impact on market outcomes has not been widely studied.

Does competition for transplantable hearts encourage 'gaming' of the waiting list?

Transplant centers may "game" the severity of listed patients to increase their patients' likelihood of receiving transplantable organs. Recent lawsuits allege gaming at some centers, and listing policies were modified in 1999 to clarify listing criteria. We tested for gaming and its relationship to heart transplant center competition. We found that increased competition resulted in more patients listed in the most severe illness category (p < .01), consistent with the gaming hypothesis. Gaming was mitigated after the 1999 policy change (p > .05), which suggests that the new rules were effective. Continued monitoring is warranted, given prior gaming and recent accusations.