Sharp HealthCare ACO is evaluating its legal options after leaving Next Generation

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/sharp-healthcare-aco-evaluating-its-legal-options-after-leaving-next-generation?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTkRsaU5HTTJNVEV5WldaaSIsInQiOiJFSTVVaHdzRmdQTGVCSXZORmhReEkrbVVWNjZOdzhlOWRuRUwxeUVXNktOa2FyNVpQWkc1dXk5SGNTQjc0YndcL3BuUTkrV2xkWEVLd01qWnd2UGNrWTBFTFFzRWxWaGM3bVFOclwvYjNlbXBPSjA2d1prU0tyMmNpQ0Qwdlg4TGhUIn0%3D

Image result for sharp healthcare ACO

 

ACOs have left because of a surprise risk adjustment that pushed some from receiving bonus payments to paying penalties, expert says.

Sharp HealthCare ACO, one of the seven that has dropped out of Next Generation, is evaluating its legal options after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services introduced a risk adjustment factor midstream, a decision that will cause the ACO to lose rather than save money, according to the CEO of the accountable care organization.

“We are evaluating what our legal options are,” said Alison Fleury, CEO of Sharp HealthCare Accountable Care Organization and senior vice president of Business Development for Sharp HealthCare in San Diego, California. “The sections of the agreement that CMS adjusted unilaterally are not sections they are able to adjust unilaterally.”

Sharp HealthCare ACO is awaiting the results of a preliminary settlement report, expected in April, that will give a clearer financial picture, according to Fleury.

The ACO, which signed on to Next Generation for two years on January 1, 2017, is now on the hook for losses from 2017, but not for 2018.

Sharp’s ACO of two medical groups and the ACO parent organization made the decision to withdraw from Next Generation effective this past February 28. Its Sharp Health Plan is not part of the ACO.

Fleury did not say how much money the ACO is losing from its year spent in Next Generation, a CMS model intended to reward health systems for assuming higher levels of financial risk.

Had CMS not introduced the risk adjustment factor, the ACO would have come out on the plus side and would have achieved savings, she said.

Six other ACOs have also left Next Generation, with one of those, KentuckyOne Health Partners, also citing the risk adjustment factor as a reason.

Sharp HealthCare ACO, which had been in the previous Pioneer model from 2012 to 2014, joined Next Generation after the Pioneer program stopped at the end of 2016. In Pioneer, Sharp neither lost nor gained savings but did well from a utilization standpoint, Fleury said.

One reason the ACO was optimistic about Next Generation was that unlike Pioneer, that used national inflation factors in its benchmark,  CMS took regional factors into account.

Another was because CMS said Next Generation would be predictable, Fleury said, compared to Pioneer, in which benchmarks changed every quarter.

But on October 1, 2017, CMS introduced a risk adjustment factor into the model that reduced actual risk scores by 4.82 percent.

“It’s a material impact,” Fleury said. “One of the key things CMS said about this model, was that it’s predictable. I think it’s unfortunate that this has not become a predictable model.”

In October, CMS gave ACOs the option of signing on to the 4.82 percent risk adjustment and receiving certain benefits, or not signing.

Sharp decided not to sign as the ACO would have gone from financial gain to loss, but on December 7, 2017, CMS mandated the amendment to the original participation agreement on benchmark calculations, that forced the 4.82 percent risk adjustment, Fleury said.

CMS made the change because the agency predicted risk scores would go down as younger, healthier baby boomers went on  Medicare, according to Fleury. CMS actually saw risk scores go up, but believed this was due to health systems doing a better job of coding, rather than actually having a sicker population.

Sharp HealthCare’s Medicare beneficiaries are older, on average about 74-years-old, according to Fleury.

The senior population in San Diego has grown by 12.4 percent between 2013 and 2016, and the Medicare Advantage population has grown by more than 16 percent, she said.

Also putting the ACO at a disadvantage for CMS’s risk adjustment, Sharp is already cost effective, having been in capitation models for 30 years. Both primary care physicians and specialists are in the ACO, meaning that the traditionally sicker population that sees specialists would also be in the model.

“But the model is risk-adjusted so that’s OK,” Fleury said was the thinking.

In fact, expecting savings out of Next Gen, Sharp spent $1.9 million integrating its Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, about 9 percent of its Medicare population, to its alignment of PCPs and specialists.

Fleury said she has not coordinated Sharp’s argument with the six other ACOs that have left Next Generation. Each system would be impacted differently by the risk adjustment, but she feels that the reasons why they left would be consistent.

KentuckyOne Health Partners ACO is among those. President Don Lovasz also referred to the unpredictable nature of the model and its risk adjustment as a reason for leaving.

“Since 2013, KentuckyOne Health Partners has participated in CMS Medicare ACO programs, including the 2017 Next Generation ACO model, with excellent outcomes,” Lovasz said. “Because the Next Generation ACO Model is still maturing and is demonstrating to be unpredictable with changes to risk coding intensity adjustments and mandatory caps on risk adjustments, KentuckyOne Health Partners chose not to participate in the 2018 performance year.  Through our membership in the America’s Physician Group, and along with other accountable care organizations across the country, we are working with CMS and CMMI to improve the predictability and transparency of their programs so we may participate in future Medicare value- based programs.

David Muhlestein, chief research officer for Leavitt Partners who gave the names of the ACOs which left Next Gen through a tweet said, “In short, the ACOs I’m familiar with were concerned with changes to risk adjustment that, for some, pushed them from receiving bonus payments to paying penalties.”

CHS Records $2B Loss in 4Q

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/chs-records-2b-loss-4q?utm_source=edit&utm_medium=ENL&utm_campaign=HLM-Daily-SilverPop_02282018&spMailingID=13023891&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1360020486&spReportId=MTM2MDAyMDQ4NgS2

Related image

CEO Wayne Smith says the company’s turnaround is making progress, even as shareholders take it on the chin, losing nearly $18 per share in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Community Health Systems, Inc. lost more than $2 billion in the fourth quarter of 2017, nearly $18 per share, owing to converging challenges that include plummeting revenues and lower hospital volumes, the company reported.

Franklin, Tennessee–based CHS said net operating revenues for the three months ended December 31, 2017, totaled $3 billion, a 31.6% decrease, compared with $4.4 billion for the same period in 2016.

Net operating revenues for all of 2017 totaled $15.3 billion, a 16.7% decrease, compared with $18.4 billion for the same period in 2016.

Despite the sea of red ink, CHS CEO Wayne T. Smith was upbeat, and said the company’s turnaround effort is making headway.

“We are pleased with our progress in the fourth quarter and expect to carry that momentum through 2018, as we execute strategies that we believe will strengthen our core business and drive improved results,” Smith said in prepared remarks.

“During the fourth quarter, we completed our 2017 announced divestiture plan and we intend to continue to optimize our portfolio in 2018 to help pay down debt and refine our portfolio to stronger markets,” Smith said.

Smith said that for 2018, CHS remains “committed to growth initiatives to advance our competitive position, including expanding our transfer and access program across our networks, launching Accountable Care Organizations, and strategically expanding outpatient services.”

According to a filing from CHS:

  • Net operating revenues totaled more than $3 billion in the fourth quarter and were adversely impacted by a $591 million increase in contractual allowances and provision for bad debts.
  • Net loss attributable to CHS stockholders was $2 billion, or nearly $18 per share, compared with net loss of $220 million, or nearly $2 per share (diluted) for the same period in 2016.
  • Adjusted EBITDA was $409 million.
  • Cash flow from operations was $156 million, compared with $327 million for the same period in 2016.
  • Operating results for the fourth quarter reflect a 19.2% decrease in total admissions, compared with the fourth quarter of 2016. Same-hospital admissions fell 1.7% and adjusted admissions decreased .9% over the same period.
  • Operating results for all of 2017, reflect a 14% decrease in total admissions when compared with 2016.
  •  Hurricanes Harvey and Irma resulted in a $40 million loss of net operating revenues, owing to evacuations and population disruptions before the storms, and recovery efforts afterward.
  • As part of its efforts to pay down outstanding debts, CHS sold 30 hospitals in 2017, and continues to negotiate other divestitures in 2018.
  • CHS recorded non-cash impairment expense totaling $1.7 billion in the fourth quarter, from an impairment charge of $1.4 billion on the value of goodwill for the CHS’s hospital reporting unit and impairment charges of $341 million to reduce the value of assets at hospitals that CHS has sold, plans to sell, and at underperforming hospitals.

 

Trinity Health’s operating income climbs 76% to $266M

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/trinity-health-s-operating-income-climbs-76-to-266m.html

Image result for trinity health headquarters

Livonia, Mich.-based Trinity Health’s operating income before other items increased 76 percent year over year to $266.1 million in fiscal year 2017, as the 93-hospital health system benefited from acquisitions, according to bondholder documents.

Trinity Health said revenues increased 7.9 percent year over year to $17.6 billion in the most recent fiscal year. The revenue was largely attributable to the acquisition of health systems in Connecticut, as well as volume growth, revenue cycle initiatives and payment rate increases. The system also benefited from ACO and bundled payment improvement initiatives and premium revenue from the system’s Medicare Advantage plans.

After factoring in expenses, which increased 7.3 percent year over year, as well as restructuring and impairment charges, Trinity ended the fiscal year with net income of $1.3 billion, up from $41.3 million for the year prior. The net income growth was primarily attributable to an increase in nonoperating items.

Population Health Advisors

Click to access Translating_Data_Analytics_into_Population_Health_Insights_BSW.pdf

Related image

 

Shared Savings Program ACOs Reduced Medicare Spending by $1 Billion

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/quality/shared-savings-program-acos-reduced-medicare-spending-1-billion?spMailingID=11861186&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1240498373&spReportId=MTI0MDQ5ODM3MwS2

Image result for Medicare ACO

 

ACOs under CMS’ largest alternative payment model outperformed fee-for-service providers in quality and cost savings within the first three years of program.

According to findings reported by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG), accountable care organizations (ACOs) participating in the Shared Savings Program are learning how to achieve greater cost savings over time. The Medicare Shared Savings Program is one of the largest alternative payment models implemented by CMS to reward providers for the quality and value of their services in order to keep patients healthy and lower costs.

The OIG’s report suggests many positive outcomes of the program, including that one-third of the ACOs that reduced their spending lowered costs enough to receive a portion of the savings. CMS data on quality measures also shows that ACOs generally improved the quality of care they provided, with a rate of 82% performance improvement on the individual quality measures within the first three years of the program. ACOs also outperformed fee-for-service providers on 81% of the quality measures.

A small portion of ACOs are reported to have gone above expectations, reducing Medicare spending by an average of $673 per beneficiary, including spending reductions for high-cost services such as inpatient hospital care and skilled nursing facility care. The OIG reports that these high-performing ACOs’ frequent use of primary care services, which can lower utilization and costs for other care, and cost reductions for services such as emergency department visits, was a factor in their cost savings. These strategies are compared to other Shared Savings Program ACOs and the national average for fee‐for‐service providers, who showed an increase in per beneficiary spending for key Medicare services.

The OIG concluded that ACOs show promise in reducing Medicare spending while also improving quality. These improvements come at a critical time, as Medicare spending is predicted to grow to $1.4 trillion by 2027. A large portion of Medicare spending has been attributed to overbilling, with the Medicare program losing more money to this error than any other program government-wide.

110 ACOs to know | 2017

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/110-acos-to-know-2017.html

Image result for accountable care organization images

In its sixth edition, Becker’s Healthcare is pleased to highlight a variety of Medicare and commercial payer accountable care organizations led by hospitals, health systems, physician groups and other organizations.

Leavitt Partners, a Salt Lake City-based healthcare consulting firm, reports 934 active public and private ACOs in the United States during the first quarter of 2017 covering 2.2 million lives. Over the past year, 138 new ACOs began operation and 46 dropped their accountable care contracts, leading to an 11 percent growth year-over-year, according to Health Affairs.

Several ACOs represented on this list participate in the Medicare Shared Savings Program. Tracks 1 and 2 have limited provider risk; participants can benefit from shared savings but aren’t at risk for loss. MSSP Track 3, added in 2016, creates shared savings opportunities with greater risk. Track 3 ACO providers can share up to 25 percent of savings, but are at risk for loss. The most recently reported data for MSSP ACOs is the 2015 performance year.

CMS launched the Next Generation ACO Model in 2016, requiring providers to shoulder greater financial risk with the potential of earning more shared savings. The Next Generation ACOs qualify as advanced alternative payment models under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act’s Quality Payment Program in the 2017 reporting year. There are currently 45 participants in the Next Generation ACO Model.

These governmental contracts are in addition to commercial ACO arrangements, which at 715 in number, represent the plurality of all contracts, according to Health Affairs. Commercial ACOs tend to cover more lives than their Medicare counterparts.

Becker’s included ACOs on this list based on several factors, such as cost performance, participation in CMS ACO models and participation in innovative commercial agreements. ACOs are presented in alphabetical order. ACOs with multiple contracts are listed by the health system or provider group name.

UCSF, Dignity to expand Bay Area accountable care network

http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/UCSF-Dignity-to-expand-Bay-Area-accountable-care-11740465.php

St. Mary's Medical Center in San Francisco, Ca., on Mon. August 7, 2017. UCSF will be taking its resources and bringing it over to Dignity. Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle

Canopy Health, the Bay Area accountable care organization co-founded by UCSF in 2015, is adding three Dignity Health hospitals to its growing list of in-network providers.

With the new Dignity additions — St. Mary’s Medical Center and St. Francis Memorial Hospital in San Francisco, and Sequoia Hospital in Redwood City — the Canopy network will have 4,000 physicians, 16 hospitals and about 15,000 patients, or “members.”

This means that any Dignity patient who gets insurance through Health Net Blue & Gold HMO — the approved insurance plan for the Canopy network — will have access to UCSF doctors, and vice versa.

The Canopy network currently has health providers in six Bay Area counties and intends to be in all nine in the next two years. It plans to add a second insurance provider, Western Health Advantage, in January 2018. That is expected to expand the network to 200,000 members.

Accountable care organizations are groups of hospitals and doctors that coordinate patient care and assume shared financial responsibility for that care. They essentially join many independent doctor’s offices and hospital systems as part of one large network that can more easily share records, among other benefits. The model has been on the rise since the Affordable Care Act enacted new payment incentives, rewarding providers for improving overall quality of patient care rather than what’s known as “fee for service” — paying providers for each service they order for patients.

“We all realize the days of fee for service are over,” said Dr. Todd Strumwasser, senior vice president of operations for Dignity Health Bay Area. “We’re going to be paid for providing value, which means keeping a population healthy. To do that, you have to partner with the right groups to take care of entire populations.”

The expansion of the Canopy network is part of a broader push by providers to better compete with Kaiser Permanente and Sutter Health, the two dominant health systems in the Bay Area. Kaiser, an integrated network, has about 4 million members in Northern California. Sutter and its affiliates have about 3 million Northern California patients, and recently started introducing insurance products. Canopy is far smaller.

Nationally and in California, independent providers are moving toward the integrated Kaiser model, said Dan Mendelson of the health care consulting firm Avalere Health.

“The Bay Area market is much more evolved than most areas of the country,” Mendelson said. “The strong presence of Kaiser, where you have close integration between provider and payer, means that the physicians practicing in the Bay Area are probably more accustomed to the concept of taking accountability for quality.”

St. Mary’s Medical Center in San Francisco, Ca., on Mon. August 7, 2017. UCSF will be taking its resources and bringing it over to Dignity.

Shelby Decosta, senior vice president of UCSF Health, said Canopy’s model is distinct because, unlike Kaiser and Sutter, it is a network of independent providers.

As part of the agreement, UCSF doctors will work to bring some of the health system’s programs and practices — including robotic surgery, acute rehabilitation, vascular podiatry and cardiology — to Dignity hospitals.

Formerly called the Bay Area Accountable Care Network, Canopy Health was co-founded in 2015 by UCSF and John Muir Health, which operates hospitals in Contra Costa, Alameda and Solano counties.

The 16 hospitals that are now part of Canopy are: Alameda Hospital, Highland Hospital, John Muir Medical Centers in Concord and Walnut Creek, Marin General Hospital, San Leandro Hospital, San Ramon Regional Medical Center, Sequoia Hospital, Sonoma Valley Hospital, St. Francis Memorial Hospital, St. Mary’s Medical Center, UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospitals in San Francisco and Oakland, UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay, UCSF Medical Center at Parnassus and Washington Hospital. The network also includes three medical groups: Meritage Medical Network, Hill Physicians and Muir Medical Group IPA.

ACOs are leaving $886M in net payments on the table, analysis finds

http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/accountable-care-organizations/acos-are-leaving-886m-in-net-payments-on-the-table-analysis-finds.html

Image result for medicare ACOs

ACOs in Track 1 of the Medicare Shared Savings Program are losing out on millions of dollars in additional net payments from CMS by not taking on more risk and missing out on the Quality Payment Program’s 5 percent lump sum bonus payment for ACOs in Track 2 and 3, according to an analysis from Avalere.

The analysis simulates how much Track 1 ACOs would earn if they were enrolled in Track 2 — based on 2015 performance — and the QPP was in place. Track 1 ACOs do not bear downside financial risk, and therefore share in a smaller portion of savings than their Track 2 and 3 counterparts. However, if these ACOs had taken on more risk in 2015, they would have earned $178 million more in shared savings, according to the analysis. And if the Track 1 ACOs took on downside risk, they would qualify as an Advanced Alternative Payment Model under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act’s QPP. These models have the opportunity to earn a bonus up to 5 percent on Medicare Part B expenditures — and based on 2015 performance, those ACOs would be leaving $1.1 billion in AAPM bonus payments on the table by not bearing the downside risk necessary to qualify, according to the report.

“The CMS’ new value-based payment incentives really tip the scales for doctors to assume greater financial risk,” Josh Seidman, PhD, senior vice president at Avalere, said in a statement. “For those physicians who were dipping their toes in the water with low-risk ACO models, the incentives now make it advantageous for a majority of them to move more aggressively into greater accountability for population health.”

Of course, some of the ACOs would have also generated net losses. The analysis indicates some of the ACOs in the simulation would have had to pay back CMS for spending above the benchmark. These shared losses would have totaled $437 million. Benefits and losses taken together, if all Track 1 ACOs joined Track 2 of the MSSP and performed as well as they did in 2015, they would earn additional net payments of $886 million, according to the analysis.

However, the majority of ACOs would still benefit by joining Track 2. Avalere found 79 percent, or 307 of the Track 1 ACOs, would have financially benefitted, compared to 21 percent, or 82, that would not.

This year 486 ACOs are participating in Track 1, accounting for most of the MSSP program. Track 2 counts just six participants and Track 3 has 36 ACOs.

As Healthcare Changes, So Must its CEOs, CFOs, COOs…

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/leadership/healthcare-changes-so-must-its-ceos-cfos-coos%E2%80%A6?spMailingID=11163372&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1180078976&spReportId=MTE4MDA3ODk3NgS2

To keep up with big changes in how healthcare is administered, financed, and organized, top leaders are finding a need for new talents and organizational structures.

To keep up with big changes in how healthcare is administered, financed, and organized, top leaders are finding a need for new talents and organizational structures.

Healthcare reform as a term has become so ubiquitous that it is almost indefinable. At first, and broadly, it meant removing the waste in an excessively expensive healthcare system that too often added to the problems of the people whose health it aimed to improve. Then it became legislative and regulatory, in the form of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its incentives aimed at improving the continuum of care and expanding the pool of those covered by health insurance.

Now, for many in the industry, healthcare reform has matured into a business imperative: the process of ingraining tactics, strategies, and reimbursement changes so that health systems improve quality and efficiency with the parallel goal of weaning us all off a system in which incentives have been so misaligned that neither quality nor efficiency was rewarded.

That leaders finally are able to translate healthcare reform into action is welcome, but to many health systems trying to survive and thrive in a rapidly changing business environment, the old maxim that all healthcare is local is being proved true. Making sense of healthcare reform is up to individual organizations and their unique local circumstances. Fortunately, there are some broad themes and organizational principles that are helpful for all that are trying to make this transition. What works in one place won’t necessarily work in another, but the innovation level is off the charts as healthcare organization leaders reshape what being a leading healthcare organization means as well as what it requires.

Top 10 MACRA Considerations for Providers

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/physician-leaders/top-10-macra-considerations-providers?spMailingID=11001571&spUserID=MTY3ODg4NTg1MzQ4S0&spJobID=1160968896&spReportId=MTE2MDk2ODg5NgS2

Image result for MACRA

Most physician practices are running a race against time to implement Medicare’s value-based payment system, survey data indicates. They have a lot to think about as they go about it.

As Medicare’s reviled Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula for physician reimbursement fades to extinction, its replacement, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015, is posing a new set of challenges.

This week Black Book Research identified 10 of the top MACRA challenges that physician practices are facing. The survey is based on responses from 8,845 physician practices collected from February to April.

1. MIPS compliance technology: Physician practices are seeking technological solutions to help them achieve reporting compliance, with 77% of practices that have at least three clinicians mulling the purchase of Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Compliance Technology Solutions (MIPS) software.

2. Electronic Health Record (EHR) optimization: MACRA appears to be a golden opportunity for the largest EHR vendors. For the top eight EHR companies, 83% of their physician-practice users reported working to upgrade their system for MIPS compliance. At physician practices with smaller EHR vendor partners, however, 72% reported they were not working with their vendor partner to upgrade their system for MIPS compliance.

3. Consultant opportunity: The EHR capabilities required for participation in MIPS or Alternative Payment Models (APMs) represent a business opportunity for EHR consultants. Most (80%) of physician practices report that conducting a technology inventory is key to strategic planning for a value-based payment system.

4. Data wrangling: Taming data to conform with the reporting requirements of MIPS and APMs is daunting for many physician practices. At practices with at least four clinicians, 81% of physicians report being unable to align their data with the new reporting requirements.

5. Paying for procrastination: Physician practices that have not developed an in-house strategy for participating in MIPS or an APM are looking for outsourcing options. Of these practice procrastinators, 80% are planning to find turnkey software or a MACRA-administration partner this year.

6. MACRA-induced physician-practice consolidation: Black Book found that three-quarters of independent physician practices surveyed are considering selling their practice to a health system, hospital, or large group practice because of the regulatory and capital-cost burdens of MACRA.

In an equally dour data point, 68% of independent physicians predicted that MACRA would either burden or bankrupt their practice by 2020.

7. Economic incentives: For the first five years of the Quality Payment Program, there are powerful economic incentives to beat the MIPS performance threshold.

In 2019, MIPS is set to redistribute about $199 million from physicians who perform below the performance threshold to physicians above the threshold, and this redistribution mechanism is set to expand over time.

There also is $500 million in supplemental funding available for each of the first five years of MIPS implementation. To chase these opportunities, 64% of hospital-networked physician organizations reported including incentives in physician-compensation packages to boost MIPS performance.

8. Reputation risk: A majority (54%) of those surveyed did not know that MACRA would result in performance data being reported publicly through Medicare’s Physician Compare website and other rating systems.

9. ACO appeal: Joining an accountable care organization can increase the odds of MIPS success through penalty avoidance and resource utilization bonuses. Small physician practices have taken notice, with 67% considering joining an ACO to increase the likelihood of MIPS success.

10. Cost and quality transparency: Based on its physician-practice survey and other research, Black Book Research expects MACRA to be one of the market factors driving healthcare cost and quality transparency.

One survey noted 52% of large group practices, independent practice associations, ACOs, and integrated delivery networks reported they were preparing to release cost and quality measures for individual physicians by next year.