Dataset Information

Implementation of collaborative care for depressive disorder treatment among accountable care organizations.

ABSTRACT:

Abstract

Collaborative care - primary care models combining care management, consulting behavioral health clinicians, and registries to target mental health treatment - is a cost-effective depression treatment model, but little is known about uptake of collaborative care in a national setting. Alternative payment models such as accountable care organizations (ACOs), in which ACOs are responsible for quality and cost for defined patient populations, may encourage collaborative care use.Determine prevalence of collaborative care implementation among ACOs and whether ACO structure or contract characteristics are associated with implementation.Cross-sectional analysis of 2017-2018 National Survey of ACOs (NSACO). Overall, 55% of ACOs returned a survey (69% of Medicare, 36% of non-Medicare ACOs); 48% completed at least half of core survey questions. We used logistic regression to examine the association between implementation of core collaborative care components - care management, a consulting mental health clinician, and a patient registry to track mental health symptoms - and ACO characteristics.Four hundred five National Survey of ACOs respondents answering questions on collaborative care implementation.Only 17% of ACOs reported implementing all collaborative care components. Most reported using care managers (71%) and consulting mental health clinicians (58%), =just 26% reported using patient registries. After adjusting for multiple ACO characteristics, ACOs responsible for mental health care quality measures were 15 percentage points (95% CI 5-23) more likely to implement collaborative care.Most ACOs are not utilizing behavioral health collaborative care. Including mental health care quality measures in payment contracts may facilitate implementation of this cost-effective model. Improving provider capacity to track and target depression treatment with patient registries is warranted as payment contracts focus on treatment outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Newton H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8270614 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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 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:BackgroundAccountable care organizations (ACOs) are proliferating as a solution to the cost crisis in American health care, and already involve as many as 31 million patients. ACOs hold clinicians, group practices, and in many circumstances hospitals financially accountable for reducing expenditures and improving their patients' health outcomes. The structure of health care affects the ethical issues arising in the practice of medicine; therefore, like all health care organizational structures, ACOs will experience ethical challenges. No framework exists to assist key ACO stakeholders in identifying or managing these challenges.MethodsWe conducted a structured review of the medical ACO literature using qualitative content analysis to inform identification of ethical challenges for ACOs.ResultsOur analysis found infrequent discussion of ethics as an explicit concern for ACOs. Nonetheless, we identified nine critical ethical challenges, often described in other terms, for ACO stakeholders. Leaders could face challenges regarding fair resource allocation (e.g., about fairly using ACOs' shared savings), protection of professionals' ethical obligations (especially related to the design of financial incentives), and development of fair decision processes (e.g., ensuring that beneficiary representatives on the ACO board truly represent the ACO's patients). Clinicians could perceive threats to their professional autonomy (e.g., through cost control measures), a sense of dual or conflicted responsibility to their patients and the ACO, or competition with other clinicians. For patients, critical ethical challenges will include protecting their autonomy, ensuring privacy and confidentiality, and effectively engaging them with the ACO.DiscussionACOs are not inherently more or less "ethical" than other health care payment models, such as fee-for-service or pure capitation. ACOs' nascent development and flexibility in design, however, present a time-sensitive opportunity to ensure their ethical operation, promote their success, and refine their design and implementation by identifying, managing, and conducting research into the ethical issues they might face.

Project description:BackgroundIncentives for accountable care organizations (ACOs) to limit health care use and improve quality may enhance or hurt patients' experiences with care.MethodsUsing Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey data covering 3 years before and 1 year after the start of Medicare ACO contracts in 2012 as well as linked Medicare claims, we compared patients' experiences in a group of 32,334 fee-for-service beneficiaries attributed to ACOs (ACO group) with those in a group of 251,593 beneficiaries attributed to other providers (control group), before and after the start of ACO contracts. We used linear regression and a difference-in-differences analysis to estimate changes in patients' experiences in the ACO group that differed from concurrent changes in the control group, with adjustment for the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the patients.ResultsAfter ACO contracts began, patients' reports of timely access to care and their primary physicians' being informed about specialty care differentially improved in the ACO group, as compared with the control group (P=0.01 and P=0.006, respectively), whereas patients' ratings of physicians, interactions with physicians, and overall care did not differentially change. Among patients with multiple chronic conditions and high predicted Medicare spending, overall ratings of care differentially improved in the ACO group as compared with the control group (P=0.02). Differential improvements in timely access to care and overall ratings were equivalent to moving from average performance among ACOs to the 86th to 98th percentile (timely access to care) and to the 82nd to 96th percentile (overall ratings) and were robust to adjustment for group differences in trends during the preintervention period.ConclusionsIn the first year, ACO contracts were associated with meaningful improvements in some measures of patients' experience and with unchanged performance in others. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others.).

Dataset Information

Implementation of collaborative care for depressive disorder treatment among accountable care organizations.

Abstract

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets