Association of ACO Shared Savings Success and Serious Illness Spending.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) need confidence in their return on investment to implement changes in care delivery that prioritize seriously ill and high-cost Medicare beneficiaries. The objective of this study was to characterize spending on seriously ill beneficiaries in ACOs with Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) contracts and the association of spending with ACO shared savings. The population included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries identified with serious illness (N = 2,109,573) using the Medicare Master Beneficiary Summary File for 100% of ACO-attributed beneficiaries linked to MSSP beneficiary files (2014-2016). Lower spending for seriously ill Medicare beneficiaries and risk-bearing contracts in ACOs were associated with achieving ACO shared savings in the MSSP. For most ACOs, the seriously ill contribute approximately half of the spending and constitute 8%-13% of the attributed population. Patient and geographic (county) factors explained $2,329 of the observed difference in per beneficiary per year spending on seriously ill beneficiaries between high- and low-spending ACOs. The remaining $12,536 may indicate variation as a result of potentially modifiable factors. Consequently, if 10% of attributed beneficiaries were seriously ill, an ACO that moved from the worst to the best quartile of per capita serious illness spending could realize a reduction of $1,200 per beneficiary per year for the ACO population overall. Though the prevalence and case mix of seriously ill populations vary across ACOs, this association suggests that care provided for seriously ill patients is an important consideration for ACOs to achieve MSSP shared savings.

Prospective or retrospective ACO attribution matters for seriously ill patients.

OBJECTIVES: Since 2019, the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) has allowed accountable care organizations (ACOs) to choose either retrospectively or prospectively attributed ACO populations. To understand how ACOs' choice of attribution method affects incentives for care among seriously ill Medicare beneficiaries, this study compares beneficiary characteristics and Medicare per capita expenditures between prospective and retrospective ACO populations. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis describes survival, patient characteristics, and Medicare spending for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries identified with serious illness (n = 1,600,629) using 100% Medicare Master Beneficiary Summary and MSSP beneficiary files (2014-2016). METHODS: We used generalized linear models with ACO and year fixed effects to estimate the average within-ACO difference between potential retrospective and prospective ACO populations. RESULTS: Dying in the first 90 days of the performance year was associated with reduced odds of retrospective ACO attribution (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.24-0.25) relative to beneficiaries surviving 270 days or longer. Similarly, hospice use was associated with reduced odds of retrospective assignment (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.79-0.80). Among ACOs that did not achieve shared savings, average per capita Medicare expenditures (after truncation) were $2459 (95% CI, $2192-$2725) higher for prospective vs retrospective ACO populations. The difference was $834 (95% CI, $402-$1266) greater per capita among ACOs that achieved shared savings. CONCLUSIONS: The difference in survival and spending for ACO populations captured by prospective vs retrospective attribution methods means that ACOs may need to employ different care management strategies to improve performance depending on their attribution method.

ACO Serious Illness Care: Survey And Case Studies Depict Current Challenges And Future Opportunities.

Care for people living with serious illness is suboptimal for many reasons, including underpayment for key services (such as care coordination and social supports) in fee-for-service reimbursement. Accountable care organizations (ACOs) have potential to improve serious illness care because of their widespread dissemination, strong financial incentives for care coordination in downside-risk models, and flexibility in shared savings spending. Through a national survey we found that 94 percent of ACOs at least partially identify their seriously ill beneficiaries, yet only 8-21 percent have widely implemented serious illness initiatives such as advance care planning or home-based palliative care. We selected six diverse ACOs with successful programs for case studies and interviewed fifty-three leaders and front-line personnel. Cross-cutting themes include the need for up-front investment beyond shared savings to build serious illness infrastructure and workforce; supporting the business case for organizational buy-in; how ACO contract specifications affect savings for serious illness populations; and using data and health information technology to manage populations. We discuss the implications of the recent Medicare ACO regulatory overhaul and other policies related to serious illness quality measures, risk adjustment, attribution methods, supporting rural ACOs, and enhancing timely data access.

Why Do Accountable Care Organizations Leave The Medicare Shared Savings Program?

The ability of accountable care organizations (ACOs) to continue reducing costs and improving quality depends on understanding what affects their survival. We examined such factors for survival in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) of 624 ACOs between performance years 2013 and 2017 (1,849 ACO-years). Overall, ACO exits from the MSSP decreased after ACOs' third year. Shared-savings bonus payment achievement, more care coordination, higher financial performance benchmarks, market-level Medicare cost growth, lower-risk patients, and contracts with upside-only risk were associated with longer survival. Quality scores, postacute care spending, organizational traits, and most market-context characteristics had no significant association with survival, which indicates that diverse organizations and markets can be successful. Put in context with the recently finalized MSSP rule from December 2018, our findings suggest that while new flexibilities for low-revenue ACOs likely reduce uncertainty for some, MSSP ACOs may need more than the new period of one to three years to prepare for downside risk. Policy makers should offer more support to ACOs (especially those with higher-risk patients) for building organizational competencies and should consider how benchmarking policy can fairly assess ACOs from regions with differing levels of cost growth.

Preventable Hospital Admissions and 30-Day All-Cause Readmissions: Does Hospital Participation in Accountable Care Organizations Improve Quality of Care?

This study evaluates quality performance of hospitals participating in Medicare Shared Savings and Pioneer Accountable Care Organization (ACO) programs relative to nonparticipating hospitals. Overall, 198 ACO participating and 1210 propensity score matched, nonparticipating hospitals were examined in a difference-in-difference analysis, using data from 17 states in the years 2010-2013. The authors studied preventable hospitalizations for conditions sensitive to high-quality ambulatory care-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma, chronic heart failure (CHF), complications of diabetes-and 30-day all-cause readmissions potentially influenced by hospital care. A decrease was found in preventable hospitalizations for COPD and asthma and for diabetes complications for ACO participating hospitals, but no significant differences for preventable CHF hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions. Mixed results may be attributable to insufficient incentives for ACO participating hospitals to decrease 30-day readmissions, whereas disease-focused initiatives may have a beneficial effect on preventable hospitalizations for COPD and asthma and complications of diabetes.

Patient-centered care innovations by accountable care organizations: Lessons from leaders.

Although there is a widespread belief that ACOs must be patient-centered to be successful, evidence to guide them in achieving that goal has been lacking. This case report examines four ACO innovators in patient-centered care that together represent urban, suburban and rural populations with a broad range of economic, racial, ethnic and geographic diversity. Seven patient-centeredness strategies emerged: transform primary care practices into patient-centered medical homes; move upstream to address social and economic issues; use both high-tech and high-touch to identify and engage high-risk patients; practice a whole-person orientation; optimize patient-reported measures; treat patients like valued customers; and incorporate patient voices into governance and operations. Exemplars prioritized direct care interventions perceived as central to financial and clinical success, and organizational maturity played a role. Activities that decreased the traditional system's authority, such as incorporating patient voices, were less popular. Local practice factors were important, and a mixture of mission and margin energized front-line staff in implementing patient-centered care as "the right thing to do." Unresolved questions remain that are related to the impact of individual and multiple interventions and how successful interventions can be disseminated widely. In order for patient-centeredness innovations to enable transformation, providers, payers and policymakers alike must consciously adopt strategies that nurture it.

Patient experience and hospital profitability: Is there a link?

BACKGROUND: Patient experience has had a direct financial impact on hospitals since value-based purchasing was instituted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2013 as a method to reward or punish hospitals based on performance on various measures, including patient experience. Although other industries have shown an indirect impact of customer experience on overall profitability, that link has not been well established in the health care industry. Return-to-provider rate and perceptions of health quality have been associated with profitability in the health care industry. PURPOSE: Our aims were to assess whether, independent of a direct financial impact, a more positive patient experience is associated with increased profitability and whether a more negative patient experience is associated with decreased profitability. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We used a sample of 19,792 observations from 3767 hospitals over the 6-year period 2007-2012. The data were sourced from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems. Using generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures, we fit four separate models for three dependent variables: net patient revenue, net income, and operating margin. Each model included one of the following independent variables of interest: percentage of patients who definitely recommend the hospital, percentage of patients who definitely would not recommend the hospital, percentage of patients who rated the hospital 9 or 10, and percentage of patients who rated the hospital 6 or lower. FINDINGS: We identified that a positive patient experience is associated with increased profitability and a negative patient experience is even more strongly associated with decreased profitability. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Management should have greater justification for incurring costs associated with bolstering patient experience programs. Improvements in training, technology, and staffing can be justified as a way to improve not only quality but now profitability as well.

Physician Consolidation: Rapid Movement From Small To Large Group Practices, 2013-15.

In the past few decades there has been a trend of physicians moving from smaller to larger group practices. We found that this trend continued in the period 2013-15. Primary care physicians have made this change at a much faster pace than specialists have.

Hospitals Participating In ACOs Tend To Be Large And Urban, Allowing Access To Capital And Data.

Relationships between physicians and hospitals have changed considerably over the past decade, as hospitals and physician groups have integrated and new public and private payment policies have created financial interdependence. The extent to which accountable care organizations (ACOs) involve hospitals in their operations may prove to be vitally important, because managing hospital care is a key part of improving health care quality and lowering cost growth. Using primary data on ACO composition and capabilities paired with hospital characteristics, we found that 20 percent of US hospitals were part of an ACO in 2014. Hospitals that were in urban areas, were nonprofit, or had a smaller share of Medicare patients were more likely to participate in ACOs, compared to hospitals that were in more rural areas, were for-profit or government owned, or had a larger share of Medicare patients, respectively. Qualitative data identified the following advantages of including a hospital in an ACO: the availability of start-up capital, advanced data sharing, and engagement of providers across the care continuum. Although the 63 percent of ACOs that included hospitals offered more comprehensive services compared to ACOs without hospitals, we found no differences between the two groups in their ability to manage hospital-related aspects of patient care.

Social media: how hospitals use it, and opportunities for future use.

When used effectively, social media benefits hospitals through increased revenue, employee recruitment, and increased customer satisfaction. Although 72% of adults who use the Internet engage in social media, little is known about its prevalence among hospitals and the ways in which hospitals use it. We examined hospital characteristics associated with social media use and how U.S. hospitals use Facebook. Through analysis of websites and Facebook pages, we found that seven in 10 hospitals use social media and that 9% of hospitals with a Facebook page do not provide a link to it from their web page. The odds of social media use were greater in large, urban, nonprofit hospitals; at hospitals affiliated with universities or health systems; and at hospitals that emphasize quality metrics or educational information. Hospitals use Facebook as a dissemination strategy to educate consumers, acknowledge staff, and share news of the hospital's awards. However, the majority of hospitals do not actively engage consumers on Facebook pages. We conclude that this lack of engagement is a lost opportunity to enhance customer service, improve quality of care, and build loyalty. For hospital executives, we illustrate that Facebook is underutilized and that considerable opportunity exists for consumer engagement at a low cost. For policymakers, there is a greater use of social media by nonprofit hospitals, compared to for-profit facilities. As Facebook is most commonly used as an educational tool, it is another example of nonprofit hospitals' heightened focus on health promotion and disease prevention.

Limited use of price and quality advertising among American hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Consumer-directed policies, including health savings accounts, have been proposed and implemented to involve individuals more directly with the cost of their health care. The hope is this will ultimately encourage providers to compete for patients based on price or quality, resulting in lower health care costs and better health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate American hospital websites to learn whether hospitals advertise directly to consumers using price or quality data. METHODS: Structured review of websites of 10% of American hospitals (N=474) to evaluate whether price or quality information is available to consumers and identify what hospitals advertise about to attract consumers. RESULTS: On their websites, 1.3% (6/474) of hospitals advertised about price and 19.0% (90/474) had some price information available; 5.7% (27/474) of hospitals advertised about quality outcomes information and 40.9% (194/474) had some quality outcome data available. Price and quality information that was available was limited and of minimal use to compare hospitals. Hospitals were more likely to advertise about service lines (56.5%, 268/474), access (49.6%, 235/474), awards (34.0%, 161/474), and amenities (30.8%, 146/474). CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient information currently exists for consumers to choose hospitals on the basis of price or quality, making current consumer-directed policies unlikely to realize improved quality or lower costs. Consumers may be more interested in information not related to cost or clinical factors when choosing a hospital, so consumer-directed strategies may be better served before choosing a provider, such as when choosing a health plan.

Risk bearing and use of fee-for-service billing among accountable care organizations.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the willingness of accountable care organizations (ACOs) to bear financial risk for the healthcare they provide. DESIGN AND METHODS: Structured interviews conducted between January and June 2012 with 57 ACOs led by hospitals and physician groups located throughout the United States. Findings are based on the 38 ACOs that were actively providing care under an ACO payment arrangement at the time of the interview. RESULTS: Among these ACOs, 71% cover a portion of their ACO population with contracts that put the ACOs at some financial risk, while 45% have risk-based contracts for their entire ACO population. Payments based on fee-for-service (FFS) billing still dominate, as 92% of ACOs use FFS-based billing for at least a portion of their ACO population and 71% are fully reimbursed using FFS-based billing. CONCLUSIONS: Under the auspices of an ACO, providers are accepting some financial risk for their accountable care patient population. There is still strong reliance on FFS-based billing methods as providers experiment with different payment models.

State variability in children's Medicaid/CHIP crowd-out estimates.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance crowd-out occurs when individuals enrolled in a public health insurance plan would have enrolled in a private plan but for the public option. The crowding-out of private insurance is often used to criticize state Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) expansion, as already insured children move their coverage to the states at the public's expense. A difficulty in discussing crowd-out comes from inconsistent estimates. Previous work focusing on the expansion of public programs has led to estimates ranging from 0% to 50% of the children newly insured on public plans being crowded-out. METHODS: We apply a regression discontinuity approach to estimate how many children near the state Medicaid/CHIP threshold are crowded-out of private insurance. This approach allows estimates of crowd-out near the eligibility threshold independent of any expansion. Data from the American Community Survey's yearly survey of American households allows for state-level estimates of crowd-out. RESULTS: We find considerable heterogeneity in the crowd-out that occurs in each state, ranging from no crowd-out to over 18% in states with similar eligibility thresholds. Additionally, we found that as state eligibility thresholds increase, children are less likely to be crowded-out. DISCUSSION: This research indicates that national estimates of crowd-out are inappropriate, as state-specific Medicaid and CHIP programs have state-specific crowd-out. Additionally, it indicates that wealthier families that are eligible for public insurance are less likely to switch from private to public coverage than families earning less. Future work should identify reasons for the heterogeneity among states.