Variation in prostate cancer treatment and spending among Medicare shared savings program accountable care organizations.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Modi PK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6108926 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Variation in prostate cancer treatment and spending among Medicare shared savings program accountable care organizations.
Modi Parth K PK Kaufman Samuel R SR Borza Tudor T Yan Phyllis P Miller David C DC Skolarus Ted A TA Hollingsworth John M JM Norton Edward C EC Shahinian Vahakn B VB Hollenbeck Brent K BK
Cancer 20180615 16
<h4>Background</h4>Accountable 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.<h4>Methods</h4>A 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 ...[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:ObjectiveTo identify factors that promote the effective performance of accountable care organizations (ACOs) in the Medicare Shared Savings Program.Data sources/study settingData come from a convenience sample of 16 Medicare Shared Savings ACOs that were organized around large physician groups. We use claims data from the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services and data from 60 interviews at three high-performing and three low-performing ACOs.Study designExplanatory sequential design, using qualitative data to account for patterns observed in quantitative assessment of ACO performance.Data collection methodsA total of 16 ACOs were first rank-ordered on measures of cost and quality of care; we then selected three high and three low performers for site visits; interview data were content-analyzed.Principal findingsResults identify several factors that distinguish high- from low-performing ACOs: (1) collaboration with hospitals; (2) effective physician group practice prior to ACO engagement; (3) trusted, long-standing physician leaders focused on improving performance; (4) sophisticated use of information systems; (5) effective feedback to physicians; and (6) embedded care coordinators.ConclusionsShorter interventions can improve ACO performance-use of embedded care coordinators and local, regional health information systems; timely feedback of performance data. However, longer term interventions are needed to promote physician-hospital collaboration and skills of physician leaders. CMS and other stakeholders need realistic timelines for ACO performance.
| S-EPMC8454328 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effect of Medicare Shared Savings Program accountable care organizations (ACOs) on hospital readmission after common surgical procedures. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA:Hospital readmissions following surgery lead to worse patient outcomes and wasteful spending. ACOs, and their associated hospitals, have strong incentives to reduce readmissions from 2 distinct Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services policies. METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study using a 20% national Medicare sample to identify beneficiaries undergoing 1 of 7 common surgical procedures-abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, colectomy, cystectomy, prostatectomy, lung resection, total knee arthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty-between 2010 and 2014. The primary outcome was 30-day risk-adjusted readmission rate. We performed difference-in-differences analyses using multilevel logistic regression models to quantify the effect of hospital ACO affiliation on readmissions following these procedures. RESULTS:Patients underwent a procedure at one of 2974 hospitals, of which 389 were ACO affiliated. The 30-day risk-adjusted readmission rate decreased from 8.4% (95% CI, 8.1-8.7%) to 7.0% (95% CI, 6.7-7.3%) for ACO affiliated hospitals (P < 0.001) and from 7.9% (95% CI, 7.8-8.0%) to 7.1% (95% CI, 6.9-7.2%) for non-ACO hospitals (P < 0.001). The difference-in-differences of the 2 trends demonstrated an additional 0.52% (95% CI, 0.97-0.078%) absolute reduction in readmissions at ACO hospitals (P = 0.021), which would translate to 4410 hospitalizations avoided. CONCLUSION:Readmissions following common procedures decreased significantly from 2010 to 2014. Hospital affiliation with Shared Savings ACOs was associated with significant additional reductions in readmissions. This emphasis on readmission reduction is 1 mechanism through which ACOs improve value in a surgical population.
| S-EPMC6146076 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSurgical care among older adults is costly. While Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) are designed around primary care, there are reasons to believe that participation may also affect spending on surgery. This study examines the impact that Medicare ACO alignment has on spending for inpatient and outpatient surgical care.Study designWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using national Medicare claims (2008 through 2015). Among a 20% random sample of beneficiaries, we identified adults 65 years of age and older enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare, distinguishing between those aligned and unaligned with a Medicare ACO. We then measured payments for surgical services made on their behalf. Finally, we fit multivariable regression models to evaluate the association between ACO alignment and spending for inpatient and outpatient surgical care.ResultsWe identified 37,249,845 beneficiary-year observations, of which 2,950,188 (7.9%) were aligned with a Medicare ACO. After adjustment for patient factors, ACO alignment was associated with $181 [95% confidence interval (CI), -$243 to -$118; P <0.001] lower spending per beneficiary-year. ACO alignment was associated with 2.9% fewer inpatient surgical episodes per year [incidence rate ratio (IRR), 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96 to 0.98; P <0.001] but 2.3% more outpatient episodes per year (IRR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.03; P <0.001). Among inpatient surgical episodes, average payments were $956 lower for ACO aligned beneficiaries (95%CI -$1218 to -$694, P <0.001).Conclusions and relevanceACO alignment was associated with savings on surgical care. These savings resulted from increased outpatient surgery and reduced use of inpatient surgery as well as reduced spending per inpatient surgical episode. Greater focus on surgical care may improve the ability of ACOs to control healthcare spending.
| S-EPMC7561039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThirty percent of Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) in the Shared Savings Program (SSP) have exited within five years of joining. Absent the potential for shared savings, exiting ACOs may choose to divest from costly resources needed to support population health, worsening clinical quality for beneficiaries aligned to these organizations.ObjectiveTo examine the associations of SSP exit with clinical quality.Design setting and participantsBetween 2019 and 2020 we conducted a retrospective cohort study with national Medicare claims from a 20% random sample of beneficiaries. We identified 1,713,237 beneficiaries aligned with an SSP ACO at some point between 2012 and 2016. We distinguished between those for whom the ACO to which they were aligned exited the SSP and those whose ACO stayed in the program. Comparing exiting ACOs with those who stayed in the SSP, we evaluated changes in the quality of care that a beneficiary received before and after the aligned ACO exited the SSP. We also examined whether findings associated with exit varied with respect to the number of years after exit.ExposuresSSP exit and the number of years after exit.Main outcomes and measuresAnnual preventive care services receipt and hospital utilization.ResultsThe cohort of 1,713,237 individuals (mean [standard deviation] age at enrollment: 75.20 [7.96] years) included 998,511 (58.3%) female, 126,123 (7.4%) Black, and 1,482,823 white (86.6%) beneficiaries. SSP exit was associated with significantly lower rates of annual glycated hemoglobin testing (odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.81), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol testing (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.97), and all diabetes complication screening (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.97), for beneficiaries with diabetes. The exit was not related to rates of hospital utilization, in terms of emergency department utilization and 30-day readmission after SSP exit. The associations with exit depended on the length of time since contracts end. For example, the baseline rate of annual glycated hemoglobin testing was 89.8% (95% CI, 89.5% to 90.1%) but fell to 86.9% (95% CI, 85.9% to 88.0%) and 86.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 88.5%) in years 1 and 2 after exit, respectively, but it then rose to 91.9% (95% CI, 85.3% to 98.5%) in year 3.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries, SSP exit was associated with modest declines in clinical quality. These findings were timely given recent SSP changes that could accelerate program exit.
| S-EPMC8765717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) is an alternative payment model launched in 2012, creating Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to improve quality and lower costs for Traditional Medicare patients. Most MSSP participants were expected to shift from bearing no financial risk to a 2-sided risk model (ie, bonus if spending reduced below historical benchmarks, penalty if not), yet fewer than 20% did. Therefore, in 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services launched the Pathways to Success program, which required shifting to a 2-sided model within 12 months. For the first time, more ACOs exited than entered the MSSP. To understand these participation decisions, we conducted qualitative interviews with ACO leaders. Pathways caused ACOs to reassess their potential shared savings vs losses, particularly in light of benchmarking methodology changes; reconsider perceived nonrevenue benefits; and reassess participation in the MSSP vs other programs. As ACOs, particularly those assuming downside risk, have contained costs and enhanced care quality, policymakers should strive to improve MSSP enrollment rates in downside-risk models through strategies that allow ACOs to achieve shared savings and deliver accountable care.
| S-EPMC10830425 | 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:ImportanceThe benefits of public payment policy may extend to private populations through "spillover" effects. If cost-saving efforts in Medicare also reduce costs among commercially insured patients, Medicare payment systems could be a versatile policy tool in future reform efforts.ObjectivesTo determine whether physicians who participated in a Medicare Accountable Care Organization (ACO) reduced spending among their commercial patients.DesignThis was a retrospective, longitudinal study which was conducted using Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) claims data from 2010 to 2015. We compared patients seen by physicians who participated in a Medicare ACO to patients whose physicians were not part of an ACO. We used a difference-in-differences (DIDs) design to test whether physician participation in an ACO was associated with reduced spending among their commercially insured patients. We also tested for heterogeneous effects: we assessed whether spillovers were larger among patients with clinical conditions (acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, congestive heart failure) that have previously been targeted by Medicare payment programs.SettingThis was a population-based study of commercially insured patients in Michigan.ParticipantsPatients who experienced a significant clinical episode (eg, labor and delivery, acute myocardial infarction) between 2010 and 2015.ExposureOur patient-level exposure is treatment by a Medicare ACO-affiliated physician.Main outcomes and measuresMedical spending of 0-90 days and 91-365 days after a clinical episode.ResultsPatients in the exposure group (n=54,750) and in the control group (n=137,883) were similar in demographic characteristics of age, sex, and type of clinical episodes. Adjusted mean 90-day spending in the preexposure period was $21,292 among the exposure group and $21,157 among the comparison group; these means declined to $21,250 and $20,995 in the postperiod, yielding a DIDs estimate of $119 [95% confidence interval (CI), -$170 to $408]. Adjusted means for 91-365 days spending in the preperiod were $4258 among the exposure group and $4251 among the comparison group; these means rose to $4338 and $4421 in the postperiod, yielding a DIDs estimate of -$90 (95% CI, -$312 to $132). We also separately examined patients with conditions that have been targeted by other Medicare payment programs. Among these patients, 90-day spending did not differ between exposure and comparison groups (DIDs, -$223; 95% CI, -$2037 to $1591), although 91-365 days spending decreased among the exposure group with marginal statistical significance (DIDs, -$1160; 95% CI, -$2459 to $140).Conclusions and relevancePhysicians who participated in Medicare ACOs did not reduce spending among most of their commercially insured patients. Medicare policy is unlikely to confer significant spillover benefits to the commercially insured population.
| S-EPMC6417956 | 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: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