Category Archives: Accountable Care Organization (ACO)

Medicare Advantage Is Ripe for an Overhaul 

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Competitive Bidding, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Risk Adjustment, Standardized Benefits • Leave a comment
Medicare Advantage Is Ripe for an Overhaul 

As the Senate eyes alternative or additional cost-saving provisions to those included in the House-passed reconciliation bill, some Republicans are considering reforms to Medicare. That is a promising development because overhauling Medicare Advantage could lower federal costs in ways that even many Democrats have advocated (although it is certain the overall bill will receive no Democratic support due to myriad other provisions).

Medicare Advantage, or MA, is Medicare’s private insurance option.

Beneficiaries can get their coverage through these plans in lieu of the traditional, government-managed program. Medicare pays MA sponsors a per-person monthly fee, which they use in turn to pay providers for the services their enrollees need. Enrollment in MA surged after Congress amended the payment formula in 2003. According to the 2024 Medicare trustees report, in the last decade alone, MA enrollment increased from 16 million people in 2014, or 30 percent of total enrollment, to 34 million people in 2024, or one out of every two program beneficiaries.

MA is growing because the plans usually offer more generous coverage than the traditional program without charging substantially higher premiums. In fact, many MA enrollees get free prescription drug coverage and much lower cost-sharing for hospital and physician services. They also sometimes get limited dental and vision care protection. MA enrollees usually do not pay for Medigap insurance, which can be expensive.

Critics argue MA plans can offer added benefits only because they are overpaid – a contention credible research confirms, including as conducted by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). At the same time, other data shows MA plans are often more efficient at delivering services than the traditional program because the plans scrutinize claims more carefully. High MA enrollment is also associated with positive spillover effects in the traditional program.

MA reforms should incentivize efficiency and high-quality care without needlessly overpaying the plans. The Senate should pull together a reform plan that gradually restructures the MA market so that it operates more efficiently and with lower costs for taxpayers. The following general principles should guide what is developed.

  • Competitive Bidding.
  • MA plans submit bids under the current formula, but Medicare’s payment is a combination of those bids and benchmarks that are set administratively. The Senate should amend the formula to rely strictly on bidding, with a transition to prevent abrupt changes in what is offered to enrollees. The payment could be based on the average bid weighted by enrollment. The new system could be phased in over five years by gradually increasing its influence on the formula (20 percent in year one, going up to 100 percent in year five, for instance).
  • Standardized Benefits.
  • Competitive bidding should be combined with standardization of the coverage MA plans are offering. Without such rules, it is difficult for individual beneficiaries to compare their options on an apples-to-apples basis. The Senate should require CMS to develop a standard MA offering that is comparable in value to the traditional benefit (it may be necessary to add catastrophic protection to the traditional program to ensure the competition is fair). MA plans would then submit their bids based on this standardized offering, and all Medicare beneficiaries would have the option of opting for such coverage. Further, the Senate should direct CMS to develop a small number of standardized supplemental benefits that could be purchased by beneficiaries with additional premium payments. These offerings could focus on the most popular add-ons in the MA market.
  • Risk Adjustment.
  • There are many criticisms of the current system of providing payment adjustments to MA plans based on the varied health risks of their enrollees. The current system has several flaws that might be addressed, but the basic problem is too much reliance on the data submitted by the plans which can lead directly to higher revenue. That design of course invites abuse. The Senate should put into law a requirement that CMA is to determine a final annual risk score for the plans based on submitted information, and any needed refinements by the government to ensure the fairest possible comparisons across plans.
  • ACOs as MA Plans. 
  • The Medicare program would benefit from robust provider-driven MA plans that can effectively compete with the insurer-led MA offerings now dominating the market. CMS should work with interested Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) on building out functions they would need to become viable alternatives in the MA insurance market.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the House bill will increase deficits by $3.0 trillion over ten years when net interest is in the calculation. Medicare reforms could help the Senate produce a more fiscally responsible bill. If an MA bidding system led to a reduction in payments comparable to a 10 percent cut (which is realistic based on MedPAC’s research), the savings over a decade would be close to $500 billion.

The Value-based Care Agenda in Trump 2.0 Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in 2026 Mid Term Election Issues, 2028 Election Issues, ACA, Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Alternative Payment Model, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), Pay for Performance, Physician Compensation, Physician Employment, Physician Leadership, Physician Practice Management, Risk-Based Compensation, Risk-Based Contracting, Shared Savings Rate, Value Based Care Model, Value Creation, Value-Based Care Functions, Value-Based Contracting, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment
The Value-based Care Agenda in Trump 2.0 Healthcare

This week, the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees begins work on the reconciliation bill they hope to complete by Memorial Day. Healthcare cuts are expected to figure prominently in the committee’s work.

And in San Diego, America’s Physician Groups (APG) will host its spring meeting “Kickstarting Accountable Care: Innovations for an Urgent Future” featuring Presidential historian Dorris Kearns Goodwin and new CMS Innovation Center Director Abe Sutton. Its focus will be the immediate future of value-based programs in Trump Healthcare 2.0, especially accountable care organizations (ACOs) and alternative payment models (APMs).

Central to both efforts is the administration’s mandate to reduce federal spending which it deems achievable, in part, by replacing fee for services with value-based payments to providers from the government’s Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

The CMS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) is the government’s primary vehicle to test and implement alternative payment programs that reduce federal spending and improve the quality and effectiveness of services simultaneously.

Pledges to replace fee-for-service payments with value-based incentives are not new to Medicare.  Twenty-five years ago, they were called “pay for performance” programs and, in 2010, included in the Affordable Care as alternative payment models overseen by CMMI.

But the effectiveness of APMs has been modest at best: of 50+ models attempted, only 6 proved effective in reducing Medicare spending while spending $5.4 billion on the programs. Few were adopted in Medicaid and only a handful by commercial payers and large self-insured employers. Critics argue the APMs were poorly structured, more costly to implement than potential shared savings payments and sometimes more focused on equity and DEI aims than actual savings.

The question is how the Mehmet Oz-Abe Sutten version of CMMI will approach its version of value-based care, given modest APM results historically and the administration’s focus on cost-cutting.

Context is key:

Recent efforts by the Trump Healthcare 2.0 team and its leadership appointments in CMS and CMMI point to a value-agenda will change significantly. Alternative payment models will be fewer and participation by provider groups will be mandated for several. Measures of quality and savings will be fewer, more easily measured and and standardized across more episodes of care. Financial risks and shared savings will be higher and regulatory compliance will be simplified in tandem with restructuring in HHS, CMS and CMMI to improve responsiveness and consistency across federal agencies and programs.

Sutton’s experience as the point for CMMI is significant. Like Adam Boehler, Brad Smith and other top Trump Healthcare 2.0 leaders, he brings prior experience in federal health agencies and operating insight from private equity-backed ventures (Honest Health, Privia, Evergreen Nephrology funded through Nashville-based Rubicon Founders). Sutton’s deals have focused on physician-driven risk-bearing arrangements with Medicare with funding from private investors.

The Trump Healthcare 2.0 team share a view that the healthcare system is unnecessarily expensive and wasteful, overly-regulated and under-performing. They see big hospitals and drug companies as complicit—more concerned about self-protection than consumer engagement and affordability.

They see flawed incentives as a root cause, and believe previous efforts by CMS and CMMI veered inappropriately toward DEI and equity rather than reducing health costs.

And they think physicians organized into risk bearing structures with shared incentives, point of care technologies and dependable data will reduce unnecessary utilization (spending) and improve care for patients (including access and affordability).

There’s will be a more aggressive approach to spending reduction and value-creation with Medicare as the focus: stronger alternative payment models and expansion of Medicare Advantage will book-end their collective efforts as Trump Healthcare 2.0 seeks cost-reduction in Medicare.

What’s ahead?

Trump Healthcare 2.0 value-based care is a take-no prisoners strategy in which private insurers in Medicare Advantage have a seat at their table alongside hospitals that sponsor ACOs and distribute the majority of shared savings to the practicing physicians. But the agenda will be set, and re-set by the administration and link-minded physician organizations like America’s Physician Groups and others that welcome financial risk-sharing with Medicare and beyond.

The results of the Trump Healthcare 2.0 value agenda will be unknown to voters in the November 2026 mid-term but apparent by the Presidential campaign in 2028. In the interim, surrogate measures for performance—like physician participation and projected savings–will be used to show progress and the administration will claim success. It will also spark criticism especially from providers who believe access to needed specialty care will be restricted, public and rural health advocates whose funding is threatened, teaching and clinical research organizations who facing DOGE cuts and regulatory uncertainty, patient’s right advocacy groups fearing lack of attention and private payers lacking scalable experience in Medicare Advantage and risk-based relationships with physicians.

Last week, the American Medical Association named Dr. John Whyte its next President replacing widely-respected 12-year CEO/EVP Jim Madara. When he assumes this office in July, he’ll inherit an association that has historically steered clear of major policy issues but the administration’s value-based care agenda will quickly require his attention.

Physicians including AMA members are restless:

At last fall’s House of Delegates (HOD), members passed a resolution calling for constraints on not-for-profit hospital’ tax exemptions due to misleading community benefits reporting and more consistency in charity care reporting by all hospitals.

The majority of practicing physicians are burned-out due to loss of clinical autonomy and income pressures—especially the 75% who are employees of hospitals and private-equity backed groups. And last week, the American College of Physicians went on record favoring “collective action” to remedy physician grievances. All impact the execution of the administration’s value-based agenda.

Arguably, the most important key to success for the Trump Healthcare 2.0 is its value agenda and physician support—especially the primary care physicians on whom the consumer engagement and appropriate utilization is based. It’s a tall order.

The Trump Healthcare 2.0 value agenda is focused on near-term spending reductions in Medicare. Savings in federal spending for Medicaid will come thru reconciliation efforts in Congress that will likely include work-requirements for enrollees, elimination of subsidies for low-income adults and drug formulary restrictions among others. And, at least for the time being, attention to those with private insurance will be on the back burner, though the administration favors insurance reforms adding flexible options for individuals and small groups.

The Trump Healthcare 2.0 value-agenda is disruptive, aggressive and opportunistic for physician organizations and their partners who embrace performance risk as a permanent replacement for fee for service healthcare. It’s a threat to those that don’t.

The Value-based Care Agenda in Trump 2.0 Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in 2028 Election Issues, Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Alternative Payment Model, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), Fee for Service Reimbursement, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Pay for Performance, Physician Burnout, Physician Incentives, Physician Leadership, Physician Practice Management, Risk-Based Compensation, Risk-Based Contracting, Value Based Care Model, Value-Based Care Functions, Value-Based Contracting, Value-Based Healthcare • Leave a comment
The Value-based Care Agenda in Trump 2.0 Healthcare

This week, the House Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees begins work on the reconciliation bill they hope to complete by Memorial Day. Healthcare cuts are expected to figure prominently in the committee’s work.

And in San Diego, America’s Physician Groups (APG) will host its spring meeting “Kickstarting Accountable Care: Innovations for an Urgent Future” featuring Presidential historian Dorris Kearns Goodwin and new CMS Innovation Center Director Abe Sutton. Its focus will be the immediate future of value-based programs in Trump Healthcare 2.0, especially accountable care organizations (ACOs) and alternative payment models (APMs).

Central to both efforts is the administration’s mandate to reduce federal spending which it deems achievable, in part, by replacing fee for services with value-based payments to providers from the government’s Medicare and Medicaid programs. The CMS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) is the government’s primary vehicle to test and implement alternative payment programs that reduce federal spending and improve the quality and effectiveness of services simultaneously.

Pledges to replace fee-for-service payments with value-based incentives are not new to Medicare.  Twenty-five years ago, they were called “pay for performance” programs and, in 2010, included in the Affordable Care as alternative payment models overseen by CMMI. But the effectiveness of APMs has been modest at best: of 50+ models attempted, only 6 proved effective in reducing Medicare spending while spending $5.4 billion on the programs. Few were adopted in Medicaid and only a handful by commercial payers and large self-insured employers. Critics argue the APMs were poorly structured, more costly to implement than potential shared savings payments and sometimes more focused on equity and DEI aims than actual savings.

The question is how the Mehmet Oz-Abe Sutten version of CMMI will approach its version of value-based care, given modest APM results historically and the administration’s focus on cost-cutting.

Context is key:

Recent efforts by the Trump Healthcare 2.0 team and its leadership appointments in CMS and CMMI point to a value-agenda will change significantly. Alternative payment models will be fewer and participation by provider groups will be mandated for several. Measures of quality and savings will be fewer, more easily measured and and standardized across more episodes of care. Financial risks and shared savings will be higher and regulatory compliance will be simplified in tandem with restructuring in HHS, CMS and CMMI to improve responsiveness and consistency across federal agencies and programs.

Sutton’s experience as the point for CMMI is significant. Like Adam Boehler, Brad Smith and other top Trump Healthcare 2.0 leaders, he brings prior experience in federal health agencies and operating insight from private equity-backed ventures (Honest Health, Privia, Evergreen Nephrology funded through Nashville-based Rubicon Founders). Sutton’s deals have focused on physician-driven risk-bearing arrangements with Medicare with funding from private investors.

The Trump Healthcare 2.0 team share a view that the healthcare system is unnecessarily expensive and wasteful, overly-regulated and under-performing. They see big hospitals and drug companies as complicit—more concerned about self-protection than consumer engagement and affordability. They see flawed incentives as a root cause, and believe previous efforts by CMS and CMMI veered inappropriately toward DEI and equity rather than reducing health costs. And they think physicians organized into risk bearing structures with shared incentives, point of care technologies and dependable data will reduce unnecessary utilization (spending) and improve care for patients (including access and affordability).

There’s will be a more aggressive approach to spending reduction and value-creation with Medicare as the focus: stronger alternative payment models and expansion of Medicare Advantage will book-end their collective efforts as Trump Healthcare 2.0 seeks cost-reduction in Medicare.

What’s ahead?

Trump Healthcare 2.0 value-based care is a take-no prisoners strategy in which private insurers in Medicare Advantage have a seat at their table alongside hospitals that sponsor ACOs and distribute the majority of shared savings to the practicing physicians. But the agenda will be set, and re-set by the administration and link-minded physician organizations like America’s Physician Groups and others that welcome financial risk-sharing with Medicare and beyond.

The results of the Trump Healthcare 2.0 value agenda will be unknown to voters in the November 2026 mid-term but apparent by the Presidential campaign in 2028. In the interim, surrogate measures for performance—like physician participation and projected savings–will be used to show progress and the administration will claim success. It will also spark criticism especially from providers who believe access to needed specialty care will be restricted, public and rural health advocates whose funding is threatened, teaching and clinical research organizations who facing DOGE cuts and regulatory uncertainty, patient’s right advocacy groups fearing lack of attention and private payers lacking scalable experience in Medicare Advantage and risk-based relationships with physicians.

Last week, the American Medical Association named Dr. John Whyte its next President replacing widely-respected 12-year CEO/EVP Jim Madara. When he assumes this office in July, he’ll inherit an association that has historically steered clear of major policy issues but the administration’s value-based care agenda will quickly require his attention.

Physicians including AMA members are restless: at last fall’s House of Delegates (HOD), members passed a resolution calling for constraints on not-for-profit hospital’ tax exemptions due to misleading community benefits reporting and more consistency in charity care reporting by all hospitals. The majority of practicing physicians are burned-out due to loss of clinical autonomy and income pressures—especially the 75% who are employees of hospitals and private-equity backed groups. And last week, the American College of Physicians went on record favoring “collective action” to remedy physician grievances. All impact the execution of the administration’s value-based agenda.

Arguably, the most important key to success for the Trump Healthcare 2.0 is its value agenda and physician support—especially the primary care physicians on whom the consumer engagement and appropriate utilization is based. It’s a tall order.

The Trump Healthcare 2.0 value agenda is focused on near-term spending reductions in Medicare. Savings in federal spending for Medicaid will come thru reconciliation efforts in Congress that will likely include work-requirements for enrollees, elimination of subsidies for low-income adults and drug formulary restrictions among others. And, at least for the time being, attention to those with private insurance will be on the back burner, though the administration favors insurance reforms adding flexible options for individuals and small groups.

The Trump Healthcare 2.0 value-agenda is disruptive, aggressive and opportunistic for physician organizations and their partners who embrace performance risk as a permanent replacement for fee for service healthcare. It’s a threat to those that don’t.

An analysis of accountable care organization performance

Posted on by • Posted in Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) • Leave a comment

https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/blog/gist-weekly-may-10-2024

Published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) last month, this report reviews recent research findings about factors that have either helped or hindered Medicare accountable care organization (ACO) cost performance over the last 12 years.

ACOs led by independent physicians, those with a high share of primary care providers, and those whose initial baseline sending was higher than the regional average have been associated with greater cost savings. But a lack of resources necessary for providers to participate, weak incentives for providers to reduce spending, and a model design that allows providers to selectively enter and exit a program based on their anticipated level of financial bonus or loss have all undermined the potential savings generated.

The report recognizes that Medicare ACOs have found success capturing the low-hanging fruit of potential cost savings, but that there are plentiful opportunities to increase the impact of these programs through targeted policy changes.

  • The Gist: Medicare ACO model design attempts to strike a balance between achieving wider provider participation and generating net savings. Although ACO programs are starting to deliver some cost savings to Medicare, they have not reached their intended scale. 
  • Medicare’s largest ACO model, the Medicare Shared Savings Program, generated $1.8B in savings in 2022, which is just 0.2 percent of total Medicare spending. 
  • Many health systems have only mildly embraced Medicare ACOs as the level of potential cost-savings often fails to compensate for foregone fee-for-service revenue. 
  • CMS will need to continue to iterate on ACO model design if it hopes to achieve its goal of having every Medicare beneficiary in one by 2030, as it’s not even halfway there yet.

CMS launches new model to boost primary care ACOs

Posted on by • Posted in Accountable Care Organization (ACO), ACO Primary Care Flex Model, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/ea16393ac3c3/gist-weekly-march-22-2024?e=d1e747d2d8

On Wednesday, CMS unveiled the ACO Primary Care Flex Model, which will offer participating accountable care organizations (ACOs)—whether new or renewing—in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) a one-time, advanced payment along with monthly prospective payments, rather than shared savings at the end of a given performance year.

Set to begin in January 2025, the five-year, voluntary model is targeted at “low-revenue” ACOs (as defined by their share of Medicare Parts A and B spending for assigned beneficiaries). The National Association of ACOs (NAACOS), which supports the ACO Primary Care Flex Model, has asked that CMS reconsider its exclusion of high-revenue ACOs, saying that the exclusion prevents independent primary care practices that have already joined a health system ACO from being able to access the benefits of the new model.  

The Gist: This new model is designed to better support smaller ACOs—which tend to be physician-only—by giving them access to a more stable cash flow.

The highest-performing ACOs in the MSSP have been smaller, physician-only ACOs with relatively more primary care physicians and fewer specialists.

With less than half of traditional Medicare beneficiaries in an ACO as of January 2024, CMS must entice more providers to join or form ACOs if it is to achieve its goal of getting every Medicare beneficiary into an accountable care arrangement by 2030.

Healthcare 2024: The 10 Themes that will Dominate Discussion

Posted on by • Posted in Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Antitrust, Board, Board Effectiveness, C-Suite, Distrust, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Market Consolidation, Market Trends, Market Uncertainty, Non-Profit Healthcare Industry, Physician Independence, Public Health, Workforce Issues, Workforce Strategy • Leave a comment
Healthcare 2024: The 10 Themes that will Dominate Discussion

The U.S. health system has experienced three major shifts since the pandemic that set the stage for its future:

  • From trust to distrust: Every poll has chronicled the decline in trust and confidence in government: Congress, the Presidency, the FDA and CDC and even the Supreme Court are at all-time lows. Thus, lawmaking about healthcare is met with unusual hostility.
  • From big to bigger: The market has consistently rewarded large cap operators, giving advantage to national and global operators in health insurance, information technology and retail health. In response, horizontal consolidation via mergers and acquisitions has enabled hospitals, medical practices, law firms and consultancies to get bigger, attracting increased attention from regulators. Access to private capital and investor confidence is a major differentiator for major players in each sector.
  • From regulatory tailwinds to headwinds: in the last 3 years, regulators have forced insurers, hospitals and drug companies to disclose prices and change business practices deemed harmful to fair competition and consumer choice. Incumbent-unfriendly scrutiny has increased at both the state and federal levels including notable bipartisan support for industry-opposed legislation. It will continue as healthcare favor appears to have run its course.

Some consider these adverse; others opportunistic; all consider them profound. All concede the long-term destination of the U.S. health system is unknown. Against this backdrop, 2024 is about safe bets.

These 10 themes will be on the agenda for every organization operating in the $4.5 trillion U.S. healthcare market:

  1. Not for profit health: “Not-for-profit” designation is significant in healthcare and increasingly a magnet for unwelcome attention. Not-for-profit hospitals, especially large, diversified multi-hospital systems, will face increased requirements to justify their tax exemptions. Special attention will be directed at non-operating income activities involving partnerships with private equity and incentives used in compensating leaders. Justification for profits will take center stage in 2024 with growing antipathy toward organizations deemed to put profit above all else.
  2. Insurer coverage and business practices: State and federal regulators will impose regulatory constraints on insurer business practices that lend to consumer and small-business affordability issues.
  3. Workforce wellbeing: The pandemic hangover, sustained impact of inflation on consumer prices, increased visibility of executive compensation and heightened public support for the rank-and-file workers and means wellbeing issues must be significant in 2024.
  4. Board effectiveness: The composition, preparedness, compensation and independent judgement of Boards will attract media scrutiny; not-for-profit boards will get special attention in light of 2023 revelations in higher education.
  5. Employer-sponsored health benefits: The cost-effectiveness of employee health benefits coverage will prompt some industries and large, self-insured companies to pursue alternative strategies for attracting and maintaining a productive workforce. Direct contracting, on-site and virtual care will be key elements.
  6. Physician independence: With 20% of physicians in private equity-backed groups, and 50% in hospital employed settings, ‘corporatization’ will encounter stiff resistance from physicians increasingly motivated to activism believing their voices are unheard.
  7. Data driven healthcare: The health industry’s drive toward interoperability and transparency will will force policy changes around data (codes) and platform ownership, intellectual property boundaries, liability et al. Experience-based healthcare will be forcibly constrained by data-driven changes to processes and insights.
  8. Consolidation: The DOJ and FTC will expand their activism against vertical and horizontal consolidation that result in higher costs for consumers. Retrospective analyses of prior deals to square promises and actual results will be necessary.
  9. Public health: State and federal funding for public health programs that integrate with community-based health providers will be prioritized. The inadequacy of public health funding versus the relative adequacy of healthcare’s more lucrative services will be the centerpiece for health reforms.
  10. ACO 2.0: In Campaign 2024, abortion and the Affordable Care Act will be vote-getters for candidates favoring/opposing current policies. Calls to “Fix and Repair” the Affordable Care Act will take center stage as voters’ seek affordability and access remedies.

Every Board and C suite in U.S. healthcare will face these issues in 2024.

Taking stock of a decade of Medicare ACOs 

Posted on by • Posted in Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Medicare ACO, Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP), Risk-Based Contracting • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/169732fa4667/the-weekly-gist-november-17-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

In this week’s graphic, we showcase recent data from Health Affairs highlighting the progress made by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) flagship value-based payment initiative, the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP).

Ten years into the program, a majority of MSSP accountable care organizations (ACOs) have now adopted downside risk, after a slow start that was accelerated by CMS’s 2018 Pathways to Success program update. With more ACOs in downside risk, over 60 percent of program participants received shared savings bonuses in 2022, as MSSP ACOs with two-sided risk are twice as likely as ones with upside-only risk to receive a bonus. 

Beyond taking downside risk, the highest-performing ACOs in the program have been smaller, physician-only ACOs with relatively more primary care doctors and fewer specialists. 

While the MSSP program has seen improved growth and savings coming out of the pandemic, the $1.8B in Medicare savings that it generated in 2022 represents only 0.2 percent of total Medicare spending last year. 

Health “insurtechs” struggling to stay relevant

Posted on by • Posted in Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Disruption, Disruptive Technology, Financial Viability, Financially Distressed, Health Insurance Industry, Initial Public Offering (IPO), Innovation, Insurtechs, Medical Loss Ratio (MLR), Medicare Advantage, Operating Expenses, Operating Income, Operating Margin, Operating Performance • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/9fd97f114e7a/the-weekly-gist-october-6-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

“Insurtechs” Clover Health, Oscar Health, and Bright Health all went public in the midst of the hot equity market of 2021. Investors were excited by the fast growth of these health insurer startups, and their potential to revolutionize an industry dominated by a few large players.

However, the hype has dissipated as financial performance has deteriorated. After growing at all costs during a period of low interest rates, changing market conditions directed investors to demand a pivot to profitability, which the companies have struggled to deliver—two years later, none of the three has turned a profit. 

Oscar and Bright have cut back their market presence significantly, while Clover has mostly carried on while sustaining high losses. In the last two years, only Oscar has posted a medical loss ratio in line with other major payers, who meanwhile are reporting expectation-beating profits. While Oscar has shown signs of righting the ship since the appointment of former Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini, 

the future of these small insurers remains uncertain. As their losses mount and they exit markets, they may become less desirable as acquisition targets for large payers.

CBO Report finds CMMI hasn’t saved Medicare any money

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Health Policy, High Prices, Medicare, Utilization Trends • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/9fd97f114e7a/the-weekly-gist-october-6-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

Late last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its analysis of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI)’s spending outlays, revealing that in its first decade of operations it produced a $5.4B net increase in federal spending instead of a projected $2.8B reduction. 

Moreover, CBO revised its CMMI projection for 2021-2030 from a $77.5B net spending reduction to a $1.3B increase, predicting CMMI may only begin to generate annual savings in 2031. CBO says its updated projections largely reflect revised expectations on CMMI’s ability to identify and scale models that actually reduce Medicare spending.

CMMI was created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 to test new payment models and other initiatives for reducing the federal government’s healthcare costs, but of the nearly 50 models it has run, only four have become permanent programs.

The Gist: This critical report confirms what many in the healthcare world already believed: the ACA’s value-based care initiatives have largely struggled to reduce Medicare spending. 

There are plenty of policy factors to blame, including the lack of mandatory participation for providers and conflicting incentives across care models, but one factor left out of the CBO report is CMMI’s disproportionate emphasis on accountable care organizations (ACOs) to produce meaningful cost savings, even as years of data proved otherwise. 

ACOs are designed to reduce spending primarily through utilization management, but research has shown that prices, not utilization, are responsible for the US’s high medical spend relative to other countries.

While CMMI’s mission is still laudable and important, the center must make good on its 2021 “strategic refresh” if it hopes to continue receiving Congressional support.

UnitedHealth Group (UHG) quietly acquired Crystal Run Healthcare

Posted on by • Posted in Accountable Care Organization (ACO), Antitrust, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Market Consolidation, Market Power, Market Share, Mergers & Acquisitions, Physician Acquisition, Physician Aggregator, Physician Arms Race, UnitedHealth Group • Leave a comment

https://mailchi.mp/5e9ec8ef967c/the-weekly-gist-april-14-2023?e=d1e747d2d8

 In late February, Crystal Run Healthcare, a Middletown, NY-based physician group with nearly 400 providers, became part of UHG’s Optum division. 

A local paper broke the news after obtaining an email from Crystal Run’s CEO, as neither company issued a press release, though UHG has since confirmed the acquisition. In addition to pandemic-related financial difficulties, Crystal Run recently shuttered its health plan after large losses, and its Medicare accountable care organization failed to earn savings in 2021.

Crystal Run expands Optum’s footprint in the Hudson Valley region north of New York City, following the acquisition of Mount Kisco, NY-based Caremount Medical in 2022. The company’s broader New York metro area footprint includes Connecticut-based ProHEALTH and New Jersey-based Riverside Medical Group, the three of which Optum has since integrated into a single tri-state medical group. 

The Gist: Optum continues to secure its place as the country’s largest aggregator of physicians, now employing or aligning with over 70,000 doctors nationwide. 

Not only does every new deal by UHG bolster its vertical integration strategy, but they also shine a light on gaps in federal antitrust regulations. UHG must only disclose deals that comprise a “significant” portion of its business, a threshold that excludes physician groups as large as Crystal Run—making it difficult to fully examine transactions that are subscale according to regulations, but may be significant for healthcare delivery in a local market. 

Some state governments, including New York, are exploring ways to increase state antitrust scrutiny of provider acquisitions. But in multi-state markets where only the federal government has the authority for full oversight, UHG’s acquisition strategies are proving difficult to even monitor, much less intervene.