ACO Investment Model Produced Savings, But The Majority Of Participants Exited When Faced With Downside Risk.

Medicare's Accountable Care Organization (ACO) Investment Model (AIM) provided up-front funding to forty-one small, rurally located ACOs to encourage their participation in the Medicare Shared Savings Program. We estimate net savings to Medicare of $381.5 million over three years, driven by utilization reductions in inpatient and other institutional care and by the absence of shared risk for potential increases in Medicare spending incurred by participants. These savings suggest that population-based payment models can enable providers to better meet the needs of rural populations through greater flexibility in care delivery. However, nearly two-thirds of AIM ACOs exited the Medicare Shared Savings Program when faced with the requirement to assume downside financial risk, starting in year four of participation. As the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services builds on AIM and rural hospital global payment models, our findings suggest that new payment models can support more efficient use of resources to meet the health care needs of rural populations. However, the findings also caution against the vigorous pursuit of savings as a primary goal of payment models in traditionally underserved communities.

Comparing Traditional and Disposable Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy Use by Medicare Home Health Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Since 2017, home health agencies (HHAs) have received reimbursement for the provision of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) using disposable, portable devices to eligible Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. This study aimed to describe the use of disposable NPWT (dNPWT) versus traditional, durable medical equipment-based NPWT (tNPWT) in the home health setting over time and compare the types of beneficiaries using and associated Medicare payments for NPWT separate from the home health payment bundle. METHODS: Medicare fee-for-service claims were used to identify beneficiaries receiving NPWT from HHAs during home health stays. Assessment and Medicare administrative data were linked to compare characteristics between those receiving tNPWT or dNPWT and to calculate and contrast average Medicare payments for NPWT provided during the home health episode. RESULTS: In 2019, the vast majority of NPWT used was tNPWT (>99%). Beneficiaries using dNPWT had fewer health risk factors and used substantially less medical care than beneficiaries using tNPWT ($47,187 vs $60,440 in annual total Medicare payments per beneficiary). However, the average Medicare payments for dNPWT exceeded that of tNPWT ($1,624 vs $899) during a home health episode. CONCLUSIONS: Although dNPWT is well-suited for the home, its uptake has been slow. This may be attributable to HHAs' confusion in billing for dNPWT or differences in the wound types appropriate for dNPWT versus tNPWT. Policymakers should continue to monitor the use of dNPWT in the home health setting, especially given the greater average Medicare payment of dNPWT per episode.

An analysis of Medicare accountable care organization expense reports.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the investments that Medicare Shared Savings Program accountable care organizations (ACOs) in the ACO Investment Model (AIM) made to participate in the program and the costs that they incurred as a result of their efforts to lower spending and improve quality. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review and categorization of all available and approved quarterly expenses reported by AIM ACOs. METHODS: We reviewed final approved quarterly expense reports submitted by ACOs detailing how they spent funds in the quarter. All distinct line-item descriptions were classified into a more informative and consistent set of categories. We then applied higher conceptual dimensions (type of care input and type of ACO strategy) to these newly categorized expenses to facilitate additional analysis of spending patterns. RESULTS: AIM ACOs reported expenses of $264.8 million over the 3 performance years (2016-2018). The majority of the $264.8 million in expenditures was incurred for personnel (55.5%), followed by infrastructure (22.3%), management firm expenses (15.3%), and internal programs and systems (6.9%). The dominant identifiable ACO strategy was care coordination and management, accounting for 52.9% of related ACO expenses. CONCLUSIONS: AIM ACOs invested most heavily in personnel, information technology, and care management, with less than half of the investments explicitly tied to a strategy for improving quality or reducing spending. Efforts to change clinician practice patterns, alter the way patients access the health care system, and institute other practice redesigns were not primary targets for investment.

Early Effects of an Accountable Care Organization Model for Underserved Areas.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) developed the Accountable Care Organization (ACO) Investment Model (AIM) to encourage the growth of Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACOs in rural and underserved areas. AIM provides financial support to eligible MSSP ACOs by means of prepayment of shared savings. Estimation of the performance of AIM ACOs on measures of spending and utilization in their first performance year would be useful for understanding the viability of ACOs located in these areas. METHODS: We analyzed Medicare claims and enrollment data for a group of fee-for-service beneficiaries who had been attributed to 41 AIM ACOs and for a comparable group of beneficiaries who resided in the ACO markets but were served primarily by non-ACO providers. We used a difference-in-differences study design to compare changes in outcomes from the baseline period (2013 through 2015) to the performance period (2016) among beneficiaries attributed to AIM ACOs with concurrent changes among beneficiaries in the comparison group. The primary outcome of interest was total Medicare Part A and B spending. RESULTS: Provider participation in AIM was associated with a differential reduction in total Medicare spending of $28.21 per beneficiary per month relative to the comparison group, which amounted to an aggregate decrease of $131.0 million. Over the same period, CMS made $76.2 million in prepayments and paid an additional $6.2 million in shared savings to ACOs in which shared savings exceeded the prepayments. After we accounted for this $82.4 million in CMS spending, the aggregate net reduction was $48.6 million, which corresponded to a net reduction of $10.46 per beneficiary per month. Decreases in the number of hospitalizations and use of institutional post-acute care contributed to the observed reduction in overall spending. CONCLUSIONS: With up-front investments, participation in ACO shared savings contracts by providers serving rural and underserved areas was associated with lower Medicare spending than that among non-ACO providers. (Funded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.).

Screening for T1D risk to reduce DKA is not economically viable.

BACKGROUND: Children at high risk for developing type 1 diabetes (T1D) can be identified on the basis of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotype and the subsequent development of islet cell autoantibodies. Several studies have documented reduced incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in new-onset T1D when high-risk children are identified at an early age. Many have questioned whether general population screening for T1D risk should be standard of practice. We sought to perform a purely economic, cost-benefit analysis to determine if a screening program to reduce the incidence of DKA at diagnosis in children less than 5 yr is cost effective. METHODS: We compared the cost of population screening with the benefit of preventing DKA. The cost of screening included one-time HLA typing on the entire population followed by islet cell autoantibody testing in high-risk children every 6 months until age 5 yr. The potential benefits of screening included reductions in parental lost income, medical expenses, morbidity, and mortality. RESULTS: Screening for T1D risk for the sole purpose of reducing the cost of DKA at onset of T1D was not economically viable unless HLA testing and autoantibody testing could be performed for less than $1 and $0.03, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Current screening costs far outweigh the economic benefits of preventing new-onset DKA in children under 5 yr of age.