Dataset Information

Early Performance in Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations: A Comparison of Oregon and Colorado.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Several state Medicaid reforms are under way, but the relative performance of different approaches is unclear. Objective:To compare the performance of Oregon's and Colorado's Medicaid Accountable Care Organization (ACO) models. Design, Setting, and Participants:Oregon initiated its Medicaid transformation in 2012, supported by a $1.9 billion investment from the federal government, moving most Medicaid enrollees into 16 Coordinated Care Organizations, which managed care within a global budget. Colorado initiated its Medicaid Accountable Care Collaborative in 2011, creating 7 Regional Care Collaborative Organizations that received funding to coordinate care with providers and connect Medicaid enrollees with community services. Data spanning July 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014 (18 months before intervention and 24 months after intervention, treating 2012 as a transition year) were analyzed for 452?371 Oregon and 330?511 Colorado Medicaid enrollees, assessing changes in outcomes using difference-in-differences analyses of regional focus, primary care homes, and care coordination. Oregon's Coordinated Care Organization model was more comprehensive in its reform goals and in the imposition of downside financial risk. Exposures:Regional focus, primary care homes, and care coordination in Medicaid ACOs. Main Outcomes and Measures:Performance on claims-based measures of standardized expenditures and utilization for selected services, access, preventable hospitalizations, and appropriateness of care. Results:In a total of 782?882 Medicaid enrollees, 45.0% were male, with mean (SD) age 16.74 (14.41) years. Standardized expenditures for selected services declined in both states during the 2010-2014 period, but these decreases were not significantly different between the 2 states. Oregon's model was associated with reductions in emergency department visits (-6.28 per 1000 beneficiary-months; 95% CI, -10.51 to -2.05) and primary care visits (-15.09 visits per 1000 beneficiary-months; 95% CI, -26.57 to -3.61), improvements in acute preventable hospital admissions (-1.01 admissions per 1000 beneficiary-months; 95% CI, -1.61 to -0.42), 3 of 4 measures of access (well-child visits, ages 3-6 years, 2.69%; 95% CI, 1.20% to 4.19%; adolescent well-care visits, 6.77%; 95% CI, 5.22% to 8.32%; and adult access to preventive ambulatory care, 1.26%; 95% CI, 0.28% to 2.25%), and 1 of 4 measures of appropriateness of care (avoidance of head imaging for uncomplicated headache, 2.59%; 95% CI, 1.35% to 3.83%). Conclusions and Relevance:Two years into implementation, Oregon's and Colorado's Medicaid ACO models exhibited similar performance on standardized expenditures for selected services. Oregon's model, marked by a large federal investment and movement to global budgets, was associated with improvements in some measures of utilization, access, and quality, but Colorado's model paralleled Oregon's on several other metrics.

SUBMITTER: McConnell KJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5440252 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Early Performance in Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations: A Comparison of Oregon and Colorado.

McConnell K John KJ Renfro Stephanie S Chan Benjamin K S BK Meath Thomas H A TH Mendelson Aaron A Cohen Deborah D Waxmonsky Jeanette J McCarty Dennis D Wallace Neal N Lindrooth Richard C RC

JAMA internal medicine 20170401 4

<h4>Importance</h4>Several state Medicaid reforms are under way, but the relative performance of different approaches is unclear.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the performance of Oregon's and Colorado's Medicaid Accountable Care Organization (ACO) models.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>Oregon initiated its Medicaid transformation in 2012, supported by a $1.9 billion investment from the federal government, moving most Medicaid enrollees into 16 Coordinated Care Organizations, which manage ...[more]

PMID: 28192568

Similar Datasets

Project description:In the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP), accountable care organizations (ACOs) have financial incentives to lower spending and improve quality. We used quasi-experimental methods to assess the early performance of MSSP ACOs.Using Medicare claims from 2009 through 2013 and a difference-in-differences design, we compared changes in spending and in performance on quality measures from before the start of ACO contracts to after the start of the contracts between beneficiaries served by the 220 ACOs entering the MSSP in mid-2012 (2012 ACO cohort) or January 2013 (2013 ACO cohort) and those served by non-ACO providers (control group), with adjustment for geographic area and beneficiary characteristics. We analyzed the 2012 and 2013 ACO cohorts separately because entry time could reflect the capacity of an ACO to achieve savings. We compared ACO savings according to organizational structure, baseline spending, and concurrent ACO contracting with commercial insurers.Adjusted Medicare spending and spending trends were similar in the ACO cohorts and the control group during the precontract period. In 2013, the differential change (i.e., the between-group difference in the change from the precontract period) in total adjusted annual spending was -$144 per beneficiary in the 2012 ACO cohort as compared with the control group (P=0.02), consistent with a 1.4% savings, but only -$3 per beneficiary in the 2013 ACO cohort as compared with the control group (P=0.96). Estimated savings were consistently greater in independent primary care groups than in hospital-integrated groups among 2012 and 2013 MSSP entrants (P=0.005 for interaction). MSSP contracts were associated with improved performance on some quality measures and unchanged performance on others.The first full year of MSSP contracts was associated with early reductions in Medicare spending among 2012 entrants but not among 2013 entrants. Savings were greater in independent primary care groups than in hospital-integrated groups.

Project description: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.ContextAs 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.MethodsWe 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.FindingsStates 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.ConclusionsFour 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.

Project description:In 2012, a total of 32 organizations entered the Pioneer accountable care organization (ACO) program, in which providers can share savings with Medicare if spending falls below a financial benchmark. Performance differences associated with characteristics of Pioneer ACOs have not been well described.In a difference-in-differences analysis of Medicare fee-for-service claims, we compared Medicare spending for beneficiaries attributed to Pioneer ACOs (ACO group) with other beneficiaries (control group) before (2009 through 2011) and after (2012) the start of Pioneer ACO contracts, with adjustment for geographic area and beneficiaries' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. We estimated differential changes in spending for several subgroups of ACOs: those with and those without clear financial integration between hospitals and physician groups, those with higher and those with lower baseline spending, and the 13 ACOs that withdrew from the Pioneer program after 2012 and the 19 that did not.Adjusted Medicare spending and spending trends were similar in the ACO group and the control group during the precontract period. In 2012, the total adjusted per-beneficiary spending differentially changed in the ACO group as compared with the control group (-$29.2 per quarter, P=0.007), consistent with a 1.2% savings. Savings were significantly greater for ACOs with baseline spending above the local average, as compared with those with baseline spending below the local average (P=0.05 for interaction), and for those serving high-spending areas, as compared with those serving low-spending areas (P=0.04). Savings were similar in ACOs with financial integration between hospitals and physician groups and those without, as well as in ACOs that withdrew from the program and those that did not.Year 1 of the Pioneer ACO program was associated with modest reductions in Medicare spending. Savings were greater for ACOs with higher baseline spending than for those with lower baseline spending and were unrelated to withdrawal from the program. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others.).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Accountable care organizations (ACOs) were established to improve care and outcomes for beneficiaries requiring highly coordinated, complex care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between hospital ACO participation and the outcomes of major surgical oncology procedures. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who were undergoing a major surgical resection for colorectal, bladder, esophageal, kidney, liver, ovarian, pancreatic, lung, or prostate cancer from 2011 through 2013. A difference-in-differences analysis was implemented to compare the postimplementation period (January 2013 through December 2013) with the baseline period (January 2011 through December 2012) to assess the impact of hospital ACO participation on 30-day mortality, complications, readmissions, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS:Among 384,519 patients undergoing major cancer surgery at 106 ACO hospitals and 2561 control hospitals, this study found a 30-day mortality rate of 3.4%, a readmission rate of 12.5%, a complication rate of 43.8%, and a prolonged LOS rate of 10.0% in control hospitals and similar rates in ACO hospitals. Secular trends were noted, with reductions in perioperative adverse events in control hospitals between the baseline and postimplementation periods: mortality (percentage-point reduction, 0.1%; P?=?.19), readmissions (percentage-point reduction, 0.4%; P?=?.001), complications (percentage-point reduction, 1.0%; P?<?.001), and prolonged LOS (percentage-point reduction, 1.1%; P?<?.001). After accounting for these secular trends, this study identified no significant effect of hospital participation in an ACO on the frequency of perioperative outcomes (difference-in-differences estimator P values, .24-.72). CONCLUSIONS:Early hospital participation in the Medicare Shared Savings Program ACO program was not associated with greater reductions in adverse perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing major cancer surgery in comparison with control hospitals. Cancer 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society. Cancer 2016;122:2739-2746. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Project description:Introduction: Massachusetts established 17 new Medicaid accountable care organizations (ACOs) and 24 affiliated Community Partners (CPs) in 2018 as part of a large-scale healthcare reform effort to improve care value. The new ACOs will receive $1.8 billion dollars in state and federal funding over 5 years through the Delivery System Reform Incentive Program (DSRIP). The multi-faceted study described in this protocol aims to address gaps in knowledge about Medicaid ACOs' impact on healthcare value by identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation and sustainment of the DSRIP-funded programs. Methods and analysis: The study's four components are: (1) Document Review to characterize the ACOs and CPs; (2) Semi-structured Key Informant Interviews (KII) with ACO and CP leadership, state-level Medicaid administrators, and patients; (3) Site visits with selected ACOs and CPs; and (4) Surveys of ACO clinical teams and CP staff. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research's (CFIR) serves as the study's conceptual framework; its versatile menu of constructs, arranged across five domains (Intervention Characteristics, Inner Setting, Outer Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Processes) guides identification of barriers and facilitators across multiple organizational contexts. For example, KII interview guides focus on understanding how Inner and Outer Setting factors may impact implementation. Document Review analysis includes extraction and synthesis of ACO-specific DSRIP-funded programs (i.e., Intervention Characteristics); KIIs and site visit data will be qualitatively analyzed using thematic analytic techniques; surveys will be analyzed using descriptive statistics (e.g., counts, frequencies, means, and standard deviations). Discussion: Understanding barriers and facilitators to implementing and sustaining Medicaid ACOs with varied organizational structures will provide critical context for understanding the overall impact of the Medicaid ACO experiment in Massachusetts. It will also provide important insights for other states considering the ACO model for their Medicaid programs. Ethics and dissemination: IRB determinations were that the overall study did not constitute human subjects research and that each phase of primary data collection should be submitted for IRB review and approval. Study results will be disseminated through traditional channels such as peer reviewed journals, through publicly available reports on the mass.gov website; and directly to key stakeholders in ACO and CP leadership.

Dataset Information

Early Performance in Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations: A Comparison of Oregon and Colorado.

Publications

Early Performance in Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations: A Comparison of Oregon and Colorado.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets