Tag: Accountable Care Organizations

(Almost) Nothing Works

Jan 21, 2012• 49

By Robert Laszweski

I will suggest that most of us believe the way to control health care costs, and at the same time maintain or improve quality, is to both use the managed care tools we have developed over the years, and perhaps more importantly, change the payment incentives so that both cost control and quality are upper most in the minds of providers and payers.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has just released an important review of Medicare’s results in testing those ideas. The news is not good.

From the CBO’s blog post:

In the past two decades, Medicare’s administrators have conducted demonstrations to test two broad approaches to enhancing the quality of health care and improving the efficiency of health care delivery in Medicare’s fee-for-service program. Disease management and care coordination demonstrations have sought to improve the quality of care of beneficiaries with chronic illnesses and those whose health care is expected to be particularly costly. Value-based payment demonstrations have given health care providers financial incentives to improve the quality and efficiency of care rather than payments based strictly on the volume and intensity of services delivered.

In an issue brief released today, CBO reviewed the outcomes of 10 major demonstrations—6 in the first category and 4 in the second—that have been evaluated by independent researchers. CBO finds that most programs tested in those demonstrations have not reduced federal spending on Medicare.

Continue reading…

Scenario Planning in a Post-ACO and Post-ACA World

Dec 20, 2011• 1

By Jaan Sidorov, MD

In a prior post, I provocatively suggested that providers, hospital boards and policymakers should hedge their bets and prepare for the possibility of a “post-ACO world.” If the Group Practice Demo’s disappointing results are any guide, the likelihood of a happy ending for accountable care organizations is on numerical par with Congress’ approval rating. While I like the mutual “win-win” theoretical construct that underlies ACO gain sharing, it also recalls a life-lesson: want you want and what you get are usually two different things.

So, if the Feds have to eventually retreat on the non-success of ACOs, what will be left in its wake? More on that in future posts.

And while the uncertainty surrounding ACOs isn’t bad enough, I have also been astonished by the battered Euro, the appearance of hospital-employed cardiologists and the absence of a Lady Gaga Christmas album. Accordingly, I have learned my lesson and assume nothing.

Can Hospitals Exist Without Doctors?

Dec 14, 2011• 1

By RICHARD REECE, MD

“One cannot run a hospital without doctors, and one cannot run one with them.” – Peter F. Drucker

Yesterday Kaiser Health News ran a piece titled “Hospitals Clash with House Republicans on Medicare Cuts.”

The article revived these questions:

·Are hospitals friends or foes of independent physicians?

·Will the future of hospital-doctor relationships be one of cooperation, collaboration, or cooptation? (On the last bullet point, “cooptation” means hospitals take over the practice of medicine).

·What is the role of hospitals in health reform – hospitals after all have already agreed to $155 billion in Medicare cuts under Obamacare?

But I digress. What is the hospitals’ problem with the Republican legislation? What is the big deal? The Senate will probably not even take up the bill up anyway.

Leavitt ACO Report: Overstating or Understating Accountable Care Activity?

Dec 7, 2011• 6

By Vince Kuraitis

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) have been likened to:

A unicorn — a fantastic creature that is vested with mythical powers. But no one has actually seen one.

A camel — a horse designed by a committee, one that already has its nose in the tent

With this background, you can begin to appreciate the difficulty of conducting an accurate census of ACO animals in the wilderness. Yet, this is exactly the task undertaken in the excellent Leavitt Partners report measuring ACO activity in the US.

As I will explain, the Leavitt report has the potential both to overestimate and underestimate ACO and accountable care-like activities. In my judgment, however, it’s far more likely to be understating just how much accountable care activity actually is going on.

Findings in the Leavitt Report

The Leavitt researchers “identified ACOs from news releases, media reports, trade groups, collaborations and interviews through the beginning of September 2011. Also included were entities that either self-identified as being an ACOs or specifically adopted the tenets of accountable care.”

The report counts 164 ACOs — 99 that are primarily sponsored by hospital systems, 38 by physician groups, and 27 by insurers.

Here’s how Leavitt summarized their results:

The British Primary Care System and Its Lessons for America

Nov 29, 2011• 8

By BOB WACHTER, MD

I’ve heard a lot of shocking things since arriving in England five months ago on my sabbatical. But nothing has had me more gobsmacked than when, earlier this month, I was chatting with James Morrow, a Cambridge-area general practitioner. We were talking about physicians’ salaries in the UK and he casually mentioned that he was the primary breadwinner in his family.

His wife, you see, is a surgeon.

This more than any other factoid captures the Alice in Wonderland world of GPs here in England. Yes—and it’s a good thing you’re sitting down—the average GP makes about 20% more than the average subspecialist (though the specialists sometimes earn more through private practice—more on this in a later blog). This is important in and of itself, but the pay is also a metaphor for a well-considered decision by the National Health Service (NHS) nearly a decade ago to nurture a contented, surprisingly independent primary care workforce with strong incentives to improve quality.

Appreciating the enormity of this decision and its relevance to the US healthcare system requires a little historical perspective.

As I mentioned in a previous blog, the British system cleaves the world of primary care and everything else much more starkly than we do in the States. All the specialists (the “ologists,” as they like to call them) are based in hospitals, where they have their outpatient practices, perform their procedures, and staff their specialty wards. Primary care in the community is delivered by GPs, who resemble our family practitioners in training and disposition, but also differ from them in many ways.

FTC Commissioner: Accountable Care Organizations Will Likely Lead to ‘Higher Costs and Lower Quality Health Care’

Nov 23, 2011• 6

By Avik Roy

In August, I wrote about how hospital monopolies are the biggest driver of health costs that nobody talks about. These powerful hospital chains know that insurers have no choice but to accept their jacked-up rates, and the cost of health insurance goes up whenever it suits their needs. Now, according to remarks by Federal Trade Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, it turns out that accountable care organizations—one of Obamacare’s most touted policy gizmos—could make this problem far worse. “The net result” of ACOs, says Rosch, “may therefore be higher costs and lower quality health care—precisely the opposite of its goal.”

Rosch spoke last Thursday before the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Fall Forum, where he lambasted the “unintended consequences” of Obamacare’s headlong rush into the buzzword-filled land of accountable care organizations. ACOs, you will recall, are meant to improve the degree to which various physicians treating the same patient cooperate with one another. In theory, this would lead to better, more integrated care and reduced waste. In reality, ACOs will also stimulate mergers between hospitals and physician groups, worsening the problem of provider consolidation.

ACO’s purported savings shift costs to private insurers

The Congressional Budget Office, much to the dismay of Obamacare’s advocates, didn’t put much stock in ACOs, projecting that the law’s new Medicare ACO initiative would save $5.3 billion over ten years: eight-hundredths of one percent of Medicare’s projected spending over that period. “In other words,” Rosch points out, “the savings to Medicare from the ACO program are no more than a rounding error. Yet even the CBO’s modest cost savings projections are likely overstated.”

CMS Wants Docs to Ante Up to ACO Poker Game

Oct 21, 2011• 59

By Michael Millenson

In a high-stakes political, clinical and economic poker game that goes by the name of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has just issued a call for doctors and hospitals to grab some chips and ante up.

The set-up goes like this: one of the biggest potential changes in how health care is actually delivered contained in the Accountable Care Act was ACOs. They’re voluntary, but they allow doctor- or hospital-led organizations that take responsibility for coordinating the care of at least 5,000 Medicare beneficiaries to get reimbursed at a higher rate for providing better-quality, lower-cost care. It’s supposed to be a win-win-win for providers, patients and taxpayers and part of a more general move towards “value-based purchasing.”

The problem is that the draft rules proposed by CMS for ACOs back in March looked like a sucker’s bet. Not only were the requirements complex and expensive, the rewards were meager and the odds of winning were unattractive, particularly considering the initial costs to set up an ACO. The big health care systems and physician organizations that had been clamoring for a seat at the table when ACOs were first proposed told CMS they didn’t like the “house rules” and weren’t going to play. Although the concept of ACOs has deep bipartisan roots, a group of Senate Republicans anxious to pounce on any administration shortcomings jumped in with “serious concerns” about one more possible ObamaCare failure.

The Emperor Remains Unclothed

Aug 23, 2011• 33

By PAUL LEVY

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when two of the architects of the health care reform act write an op-ed that continues in the deception that the law would deliver access, choice, and lower costs. But that is what Ezekiel Emanuel and Jeffrey Liebman offer in their New York Times article, “Cut Medicare, Help Patients.”

The authors start by saying some things that make a lot of sense. They point out that it would be smart to “eliminate spending on medical test, treatments and procedures that don’t work — or that cost significantly more than other treatments while delivering no better health outcomes . . . [and that} can be made without shortchanging patients.”

But they quickly give up that fight: “The sad truth is, Washington is never going to do a good job of making smart cuts to Medicare. Elected officials hate being blamed for directly restricting access to medical treatments — even when those treatments are proven to be worthless.”

So then they revert to their underlying bias, er, theology: “The responsibility for ending unnecessary medical spending needs to be placed in the hands of doctors and hospitals. This can happen only if we change our fee-for-service payment system.”

Health Policy Schizophrenia

Aug 22, 2011• 21

By JOHN GOODMAN

The Obama administration has told us how it intends to change Medicare many times and in many places.

It wants to replace fragmented decision making by independent doctors with coordinated care delivered by doctors working in teams, connected to a medical home. It wants Medicare to purchase quality, not quantity. It wants decisions to be evidence-based. It wants electronic records in order to standardize care and reduce errors.

So how does the administration plan to get all this done? It plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on pilot programs to try all these ideas out and then ……

Wait a minute. Aren’t these ideas already being tried out somewhere? Yes. In Medicare, as a matter of fact. How well are they working? As a long-time critic of managed care, I admit the results look pretty good.