Spending Carveouts Substantially Improve the Accuracy of Performance Measurement in Shared Savings Arrangements: Findings From Simulation Analysis of Medicaid ACOs.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: DeLia D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5798754 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Spending Carveouts Substantially Improve the Accuracy of Performance Measurement in Shared Savings Arrangements: Findings From Simulation Analysis of Medicaid ACOs.
Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing 20170101
Accuracy of spending-based provider performance metrics is limited by random variation and components of spending that are uncontrollable by providers. Such components vary according to the care management focus and operational maturity of each provider group. This study uses data from New Jersey Medicaid accountable care organizations (ACOs) to examine how carving out uncontrollable components of spending affects the accuracy of performance measures in shared savings arrangements. Spending on i ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo understand the current role of urologists in Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and the organizational characteristics of ACOs with participating urologists.Materials and methodsUsing 2012-2013 Medicare data and the National Provider Identifier Database, we classified each urologist in the U.S. and Puerto Rico as either an MSSP ACO participant or nonparticipating provider. We then examined the distribution of ACO-participating urologists across the U.S. and among the first 220 MSSP ACOs. We also compared the characteristics of ACOs with and without participating urologists.ResultsAmong 11,084 identified urologists, 1118 (10%) were MSSP ACO participants. ACO-participating urologists practiced more frequently in the Northeast and Midwest (P < .001), and were more commonly female (10% vs 8%, P = .003). At an organizational level, only 110 (50%) of the initial MSSP ACOs included at least one urologist; among this group, the number of participating urologists ranged from 1 to 55. ACOs with one or more participating urologist were larger organizations, with respect to both the number of assigned beneficiaries and the number of providers per 1000 beneficiaries (P < .001 for each comparison). The patient populations served by ACOs with and without urologists were similar (P > .05 for each comparison).ConclusionA modest percentage of urologists participate in MSSP ACOs, although many of these organizations still lack any formal involvement by urological surgeons. Without such participation, improving the coordination, quality, and cost of urologic care for Medicare beneficiaries may be more challenging.
| S-EPMC4818669 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A small but growing population of children with medical complexity, many of whom are covered by Medicaid, accounts for a high proportion of pediatric health care spending. We first describe the expenditures for children with medical complexity insured by Medicaid across the care continuum. We report the increasingly large amount of spending on hospital care for these children, relative to the small amount of primary care and home care spending. We then present a business case that estimates how cost savings might be achieved for children with medical complexity from potential reductions in hospital and emergency department use and shows how the savings could underwrite investments in outpatient and community care. We conclude by discussing the importance of these findings in the context of Medicaid's quality of care and health care reform.
| S-EPMC5164920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth care providers who participate as an accountable care organization (ACO) in the voluntary Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) have incentives to lower spending for Medicare patients while achieving high performance on a set of quality measures. Little is known about the extent to which early savings achieved by ACOs in the program have grown and been replicated by ACOs that entered the program in later years. ACOs that are physician groups have stronger incentives to lower spending than hospital-integrated ACOs.MethodsUsing fee-for-service Medicare claims from 2009 through 2015, we performed difference-in-differences analyses to compare changes in Medicare spending for patients in ACOs before and after entry into the MSSP with concurrent changes in spending for local patients served by providers not participating in the MSSP (control group). We estimated differential changes (i.e., the between-group difference in the change from the pre-entry period) separately for hospital-integrated ACOs and physician-group ACOs that entered the MSSP in 2012, 2013, or 2014.ResultsMSSP participation was associated with differential spending reductions in physician-group ACOs. These reductions grew with longer participation in the program and were significantly greater than the reductions in hospital-integrated ACOs. By 2015, the mean differential change in per-patient Medicare spending was -$474 (-4.9% of the pre-entry mean, P<0.001) for physician-group ACOs that entered in 2012, -$342 (-3.5% of the pre-entry mean, P<0.001) for those that entered in 2013, and -$156 (-1.6% of the pre-entry mean, P=0.009) for those that entered in 2014. The corresponding differential changes for hospital-integrated ACOs were -$169 (P=0.005), -$18 (P=0.78), and $88 (P=0.14), which were significantly lower than for physician-group ACOs (P<0.001). Spending reductions in physician-group ACOs constituted a net savings to Medicare of $256.4 million in 2015, whereas spending reductions in hospital-integrated ACOs were offset by bonus payments.ConclusionsAfter 3 years of the MSSP, participation in shared-savings contracts by physician groups was associated with savings for Medicare that grew over the study period, whereas hospital-integrated ACOs did not produce savings (on average) during the same period. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging.).
| S-EPMC6269647 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Policy Points Concerns have been raised about risk selection in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). Specifically, turnover in accountable care organization (ACO) physicians and patient panels has led to concerns that ACOs may be earning shared-savings bonuses by selecting lower-risk patients or providers with lower-risk panels. We find no evidence that changes in ACO patient populations explain savings estimates from previous evaluations through 2015. We also find no evidence that ACOs systematically manipulated provider composition or billing to earn bonuses. The modest savings and lack of risk selection in the original MSSP design suggest opportunities to build on early progress. Recent program changes provide ACOs with more opportunity to select providers with lower-risk patients. Understanding the effect of these changes will be important for guiding future payment policy.ContextThe Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) establishes incentives for participating accountable care organizations (ACOs) to lower spending for their attributed fee-for-service Medicare patients. Turnover in ACO physicians and patient panels has raised concerns that ACOs may be earning shared-savings bonuses by selecting lower-risk patients or providers with lower-risk panels.MethodsWe conducted three sets of analyses of Medicare claims data. First, we estimated overall MSSP savings through 2015 using a difference-in-differences approach and methods that eliminated selection bias from ACO program exit or changes in the practices or physicians included in ACO contracts. We then checked for residual risk selection at the patient level. Second, we reestimated savings with methods that address undetected risk selection but could introduce bias from other sources. These included patient fixed effects, baseline or prospective assignment, and area-level MSSP exposure to hold patient populations constant. Third, we tested for changes in provider composition or provider billing that may have contributed to bonuses, even if they were eliminated as sources of bias in the evaluation analyses.FindingsMSSP participation was associated with modest and increasing annual gross savings in the 2012-2013 entry cohorts of ACOs that reached $139 to $302 per patient by 2015. Savings in the 2014 entry cohort were small and not statistically significant. Robustness checks revealed no evidence of residual risk selection. Alternative methods to address risk selection produced results that were substantively consistent with our primary analysis but varied somewhat and were more sensitive to adjustment for patient characteristics, suggesting the introduction of bias from within-patient changes in time-varying characteristics. We found no evidence of ACO manipulation of provider composition or billing to inflate savings. Finally, larger savings for physician group ACOs were robust to consideration of differential changes in organizational structure among non-ACO providers (eg, from consolidation).ConclusionsParticipation in the original MSSP program was associated with modest savings and not with favorable risk selection. These findings suggest an opportunity to build on early progress. Understanding the effect of new opportunities and incentives for risk selection in the revamped MSSP will be important for guiding future program reforms.
| S-EPMC7482384 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe 2 primary efforts of Medicare to advance value-based care are Medicare Advantage (MA) and the fee-for-service-based Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). It is unknown how spending differs between the 2 programs after accounting for differences in patient clinical risk.ObjectiveTo examine how spending and utilization differ between MA and MSSP beneficiaries after accounting for differences in clinical risk using data from administrative claims and electronic health records.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective economic evaluation used data from 15 763 propensity score-matched beneficiaries who were continuously enrolled in MA or MSSP from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, with diabetes, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or hypertension. Participants received care at a large nonprofit academic health system in the southern United States that bears risk for Medicare beneficiaries through both the MA and MSSP programs. Differences in beneficiary risk were mitigated by propensity score matching using validated clinical criteria based on data from administrative claims and electronic health records. Data were analyzed from January 2019 to May 2022.ExposuresEnrollment in MA or attribution to an accountable care organization in the MSSP program.Main outcomes and measuresPer-beneficiary annual total spending and subcomponents, including inpatient hospital, outpatient hospital, skilled nursing facility, emergency department, primary care, and specialist spending.ResultsThe sample of 15 763 participants included 12 720 (81%) MA and 3043 (19%) MSSP beneficiaries. MA beneficiaries, compared with MSSP beneficiaries, were more likely to be older (median [IQR] age, 75.0 [69.9-81.8] years vs 73.1 [68.3-79.8] years), male (5515 [43%] vs 1119 [37%]), and White (9644 [76%] vs 2046 [69%]) and less likely to live in low-income zip codes (2338 [19%] vs 750 [25%]). The mean unadjusted per-member per-year spending difference between MSSP and MA disease-specific subcohorts was $2159 in diabetes, $4074 in CHF, $2560 in CKD, and $2330 in hypertension. After matching on clinical risk and demographic factors, MSSP spending was higher for patients with diabetes (mean per-member per-year spending difference in 2015: $2454; 95% CI, $1431-$3574), CHF ($3699; 95% CI, $1235-$6523), CKD ($2478; 95% CI, $1172-$3920), and hypertension ($2258; 95% CI, $1616-2,939). Higher MSSP spending among matched beneficiaries was consistent over time. In the matched cohort in 2018, MSSP total spending ranged from 23% (CHF) to 30% (CKD) higher than MA. Adjusting for differential trends in coding intensity did not affect these results. Higher outpatient hospital spending among MSSP beneficiaries contributed most to spending differences between MSSP and MA, representing 49% to 62% of spending differences across disease cohorts.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, utilization and spending were consistently higher for MSSP than MA beneficiaries within the same health system even after adjusting for granular metrics of clinical risk. Nonclinical factors likely contribute to the large differences in MA vs MSSP spending, which may create challenges for health systems participating in MSSP relative to their participation in MA.
| S-EPMC9399862 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAccountable care organizations (ACOs) have been shown to reduce prostate cancer treatment among men unlikely to benefit because of competing risks (ie, potential overtreatment). This study assessed whether the level of engagement in ACOs by urologists affected rates of treatment, overtreatment, and spending.MethodsA 20% sample of national Medicare data was used to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2012 and 2014. The extent of urologist engagement in an ACO, as measured by the proportion of patients in an ACO managed by an ACO-participating urologist, served as the exposure. The use of treatment, potential overtreatment (ie, treatment in men with a ≥75% risk of 10-year noncancer mortality), and average payments in the year after diagnosis for each ACO were modeled.ResultsAmong 2822 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, the median rates of treatment and potential overtreatment by an ACO were 71.3% (range, 23.6%-79.5%) and 53.6% (range, 12.4%-76.9%), respectively. Average Medicare payments among ACOs in the year after diagnosis ranged from $16,523.52 to $34,766.33. Stronger urologist-ACO engagement was not associated with treatment (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.2; P = .4) or spending (9.7% decrease in spending; P = .08). However, urologist engagement was associated with a lower likelihood of potential overtreatment (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.86; P = .03).ConclusionsACOs vary widely in treatment, potential overtreatment, and spending for prostate cancer. ACOs with stronger urologist engagement are less likely to treat men with a high risk of noncancer mortality, and this suggests that organizations that better engage specialists may be able to improve the value of specialty care. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
| S-EPMC6108926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine if Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) accountable care organizations (ACOs) are meeting public reporting requirements related to shared savings plans, to quantitate the composition of shared savings distribution plans, and to investigate whether early ACO success is associated with specific plan or ACO characteristics.Cross-sectional study.ACO descriptive characteristics and distribution plan details were abstracted from official ACO websites for all 338 active MSSP ACOs launched through January 2014. Publicly available MSSP results from 2012 and 2013 start date ACOs were used to investigate associations with successful shared savings generation.Of current MSSP ACOs, 313 of 338 (93%) maintain a website, 284 of 338 (84%) provided at least a general statement about shared savings distributions, and 176 of 338 (52%) reported detailed allocation percentages to ACO participants. On average, ACOs reporting detailed allocations planned to give 63% (range = 0%-100%; SD = 26.3) to their primary care providers (PCPs), specialists, and/or hospitals, and 33% (range = 0%-100%; SD = 25.6) to infrastructure. ACOs including a hospital planned to give a larger average percentage to participating entities than those without (69% vs 58%; P = .01). ACOs planning to give > 50% to their PCPs and specialists were more likely to have generated savings (P = .001), as were ACOs composed of > 10 participating entities (P = .004).Just over one-half of MSSP ACOs report detailed shared savings distribution plans online, and these plans vary widely. There appears to be no single shared savings distribution plan determinate of ACO success. Continued investigation of predictors for generating savings is needed to inform future shared savings models.
| S-EPMC5578417 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) is the largest and most important alternative payment model that has been implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Its budgetary impact to CMS is not well understood.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between the MSSP and net savings to CMS for performance years 2013 to 2021.Design, setting, and participantsThe economic evaluation used publicly reported data on the MSSP from April 1, 2012, to December 31, 2021, and estimates extracted from 2 prior studies.Main outcomes and measuresNet savings to CMS, calculated as the difference between incentive payments to MSSP accountable care organizations and gross spending reductions. Incentive payments were calculated using the publicly reported data. The association of the MSSP with gross medical spending in traditional Medicare was extracted from 2 prior studies. Spillovers of the MSSP to Medicare Advantage (MA) were estimated by evaluating how gross spending reductions from the MSSP impacted benchmark payments to MA plans. Savings from traditional Medicare and MA were then combined.ResultsThe MSSP was associated with net losses to traditional Medicare of between $584 million and $1.423 billion over the study period. Savings from MSSP-related reductions to MA benchmarks totaled between $4.480 billion and $4.923 billion. Across traditional Medicare and MA, the MSSP was associated with savings of between $3.057 billion and $4.339 billion. This represents approximately 0.075% of combined spending for traditional Medicare and MA over the study period.Conclusions and relevanceThis economic evaluation found that the MSSP was associated with net losses to traditional Medicare, net savings to MA, and overall net savings to CMS. The total budget impact of the MSSP to CMS was small and continues to be uncertain due to challenges in estimating the effects of the MSSP on gross spending, particularly in recent years.
| S-EPMC10724775 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe impact of consumer-driven health plans (CDHPs) has primarily been studied in a small number of large, self-insured employers, but this work may not generalize to the wide array of firms that make up the overall economy. The goal of our research is to examine effects of health savings accounts (HSAs) on total, medical, and pharmacy spending for a large number of small and midsized firms.Data sourcesHealth plan administrative data from a national insurer were used to measure spending for 76,310 enrollees over 3 years in 709 employers. All employers began offering a HSA-eligible plan either on a full-replacement basis or alongside traditional plans in 2006 and 2007 after previously offering only traditional plans in 2005.Study designWe employ difference-in-differences generalized linear regression models to examine the impact of switching to HSAs. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS; Claims data were aggregated to enrollee-years.Principal findingsFor total spending, HSA enrollees spent roughly 5-7 percent less than non-HSA enrollees. For pharmacy spending, HSA enrollees spent 6-9 percent less than traditional plan enrollees. More of the spending decrease was observed in the first year of enrollment.ConclusionsOur findings are consistent with the notion that CDHP benefit designs affect decisions that are at the discretion of the consumer, such as whether to fill or refill a prescription, but have less effect on care decisions that are more at the discretion of the provider.
| S-EPMC2910568 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundForty-five percent of births in the United States are unintended, and the costs of unintended pregnancy and birth are substantial. Clinical and policy interventions that increase access to the most effective reversible contraceptive methods (intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants) have potential to generate significant cost savings. Evidence of cost savings for these interventions is needed.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-savings analysis of the Contraceptive CHOICE Project, which provided counseling and no-cost contraception, to demonstrate the value of investment in enhanced contraceptive care to the Missouri Medicaid program.Study designThe Contraceptive CHOICE Project was a prospective cohort study of 9256 reproductive-age women who were enrolled between 2007 and 2011. Study follow-up was completed October 2013. This analysis includes 5061 Contraceptive CHOICE Project participants who were current Missouri Medicaid beneficiaries or were uninsured and reported household incomes <201% of the federal poverty line. We created a simulated comparison group of women who were receiving care through the Missouri Title X program and modeled the contraception and pregnancy outcomes that would have occurred in the absence of the Contraceptive CHOICE Project. Data about contraceptive use for the comparison group (N=5061) were obtained from the Missouri Title X program and adjusted based on age, race, ethnicity, and income. To make an accurate comparison that would account for the difference in the 2 populations, we used our simulation model to estimate total Contraceptive CHOICE Project costs and total comparison group costs. We reported all costs in 2013 dollars to account for inflation.ResultsAmong the Contraceptive CHOICE Project participants who were included, the uptake of intrauterine devices and implants was 76.1% compared with 4.8% among the comparison group. The estimated contraceptive cost for the simulated Contraceptive CHOICE Project group was $4.0 million vs $2.3 million for the comparison group. The estimated numbers of unintended pregnancies and births averted among the simulated Contraceptive CHOICE Project group compared with the comparison group were 927 and 483, respectively, which represented a savings in pregnancy and maternity care of $6.7 million. We estimated that the total cost savings for the state of Missouri attributable to the Contraceptive CHOICE Project was $5.0 million (40.7%) over the project duration.ConclusionA program providing counseling and no-cost contraception yields substantial cost savings because of the increased uptake of highly effective contraception and consequent averted unintended pregnancy and birth.
| S-EPMC6741429 | biostudies-literature