Of Rising Risk and ACO Success in the Medicare Shared Savings Program: Community Health Network and Pharos Innovations

To each according to their need, from each according to their ability.

While that famous (and paraphrased) adage was originally used to attack capitalism, it's also not a bad way to think about effective care management programs.  Ill persons have varying needs, and care providers have varying resources.  In a resource-constrained environment, the health system that matches the right needs with the right resources will win.

A case in point may be one of the few Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACOs that met CMS' savings threshold.

"Community Health Network" is a joint venture between HealthEast Care System and Entira Family Clinics that serves Medicare beneficiaries in Minnesota's Twin Cities.  According to this Pharos Innovations case study (which can be found here), the organization analyzed their population's past utilization and future risk and realized that a relatively small group of beneficiaries were high need.

High need was defined as those individuals with "rising risk" or what the Population Health Blog has termed the "sweet middle." These are individuals who are not only burdened by chronic medical conditions (such as heart failure), but have a constellation of issues (such as a recent discharge from a hospital) that also can be mitigated or impacted.

Once these patients were identified, Pharos Innovations provided the "transition coaches" and "engagement specialists" for the high need/rising risk/sweet middle patients who were most likely to have an admission and/or readmission.

By pinpointing state-of-the-art heart failure treatment protocols, care management, self-care coaching and discharge-care interventions, avoidable admissions and avoidable readmissions - compared to a control group of patients - dropped in significant manner. That was enough to skew the ACO's overall admission and readmission costs downward and reach CMS' savings threshold.

Population Health Blog lessons:

1) If a healthcare organization is willing to take on the financial consequences of health insurance risk, it will have to array its covered population's risks from high to low, and deploy interventions that can address the needs of patients at high - yet modifiable - risk.

In other words, within any high risk subpopulation are sub-populations with specific health care needs that can be addressed with smart population-based care management interventions. 

2) The PHB looks forward to these data appearing in the peer-reviewed literature.  In the meantime, kudos to Pharos Innovations for achieving credible outcomes based on a comparison to a valid control group.

3) Patients who don't have to go into a hospital are better off for it.  Despite Karl Marx's antipathy, aligned economic incentives can be win-win for everyone.  Community Health Network deserves to be financially rewarded by CMS.

4) There is a good reason to believe that Community Health was destined to do well versus the other MSSP participants. As pointed out here, physician leadership may be one ingredient to the MSSP ACO secret sauce. According to the case study linked above, Community Health Network expended considerable resources to convince their physicians that this approach was a good idea.  What's more, their board is majority physician controlled.  In addition, Pharos Innovations was started by a doc and they have additional physician representation on their board.

The Majority of Medicare ACO Participants Appear to Have Lost Money in 2014

There's no other way to put it.

Like many wonks, the Population Health Blog glommed onto this recent CMS report report on the 2014 performance of the Pioneer and Medicare Shared Savings Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). 

While there's some quality reporting data, the PHB decided to focus on the economics.

It ain't pretty.

Briefly, as the PHB understands it:

The 20 Pioneer and 333 Medicare Shared Savings Accountable Care Organizations generated a total of $411 million in savings.

Among the Pioneer participants:

15 out of 20 generated savings.  Only 11 of the 15 earned enough savings to trigger a payment from CMS that totaled $82 million.  The PHB calculates that's an average payment of approximately $7.5 million for each ACO. 

Three of the Pioneer ACOs had to provide clawbacks to CMS of $9 million, or an average $3 million each.

Of the 333 Medicare Shared Savings participants:

92 out of 333 saved $806 million in health care costs.  They received checks totaling $341 million.  The PHB calculates that's a payment of $3.7 million per ACO. 

Another 89 of the Medicare Shared Savings reduced costs, but not enough to trigger a payment from CMS.  That also means that the rest of these ACOs didn't even reduce costs.

The PHB's conclusions:

ACOs in the Pioneer program have about a 50% chance of getting some money back.  Assuming that there are from $2 million to $7 million per year in program support costs - in addition to the all of the foregone billable services - it's not clear to the PHB that the business model is sustainable (for example) for many of the Pioneer participants.  To add downside-risk insult to injury, there's a 15% chance a Pioneer ACO would have to pay Medicare.

ACOs in the Shared Savings program have a 75% chance that they won't be able to generate enough savings to cover the lost of income from fewer billable service or their program costs.

That's a majority of the participating ACOs.

Admittedly, there are several advantages to ACOs.  They 1) are an answer to the threat of rising health care costs, 2) are a laboratory for bundled payments, 3) promote care coordination and 4) are linked to medical homes.

But that's all for naught if the majority of the program participants are losing money in a massive exercise in risk transfer involving hundreds of millions of Medicare dollars.

This is health reform?

++++++++++++++++++++++

Coda: The PHB can't help noting that the title of the CMS report is "Medicare ACOs Provide Improved Care While Slowing Cost Growth in 2014."   That may be technically true, but that title is more about spin than about the science. The findings haven't been submitted to the scrutiny of peer-review, and until it is, the PHB won't really know what to believe.

Are Primary Care Physicians (PCPs) Important to ACO Success? Payment Arrangements Say Otherwise

Long ago, the Population Health Blog learned that when it comes to health insurance, capitation or bundled payments brakes, while fee-for service payments are gas. Too many physician office visits?  Use "capitation" brakes. Want to increase physician visits?  Apply a payment for each encounter with some FFS gas. 

Health care organizations can pass this arrangement onto their physicians. They can pay them with a salary (a form of capitation), or a variable "productivity" compensation (seeing more patients is compensated with a form of FFS) or with a combination of both.
 
Simple, right?  To figure out this ying-yang of utilization management, just follow the money.

That's why the PHB was interested in this just-published Annals of Family Medicine paper on how primary care physicians are being paid by Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). If you believe more primary care visits translate to savings in other parts of the ACO, then you'd want to apply gas. If you believe primary care visits are a cost that doesn't necessarily save money, you'd want to apply the brakes.

The authors used data from the 2012-2013 "National Survey of Physician Organizations" to compare primary care physician (PCP) compensation in ACOs with non-ACOs. 1,398 organizations were in the original database; after excluding solo practitioners and specialist physician organizations, 632 were left. 

Three groups were compared:

1) Medicare ACOs (21.1%) with exposure to some financial risk related to total health care utilization;

2) Non-ACOs (2.8%) with contracted financial risk for primary care costs (2.8%);

3) No ACO and no risk (76.1%).

Results?  PCPs in.....
Medicare ACOs got 49% of their income from a flat salary and 46% tied to productivity. 3.4% was tied to quality;
Non-ACOs at primary care risk got 66% of their compensation from salary, 32% tied to productivity and .8% from quality;

No ACO arrangements with no risk had compensation that was similar to the Medicare ACOs.

The PHB's take-aways?

Based on the non-ACOs, health care organizations are prepared to use salary to influence physician behavior.  If you believe PCP visits are a cost and you are at financial risk for utilization, apply more brakes than gas.  The model is still out there.

But......

The leaders running Medicare ACOs don't know what the right balance of FFS and capitation for PCPs, and are mirroring a status quo that is indistinguishable from business as usual.  Despite the fanfare about the critical role of primary care in health reform, the Medicare ACOs have decided otherwise. If they ultimately succeed or fail, it won't be because of any special innovation involving their PCPs' compensation.

Image from Wikipedia

Health Policy Insights from the Medical Home Summit: Wellness, ACOs

The Opening Ceremony of
The Medical Home Summit

The Population Health Blog is back home after attending the intellectually rewarding Population Health Colloquium and Medical Home Summit.  It was great to reconnect with old colleagues and make new friends.

In no particular order, here are some PHB take-aways:

One representative from household-name health insurer spoke in a lofty plenary session on the merits of keeping patients healthy. While the PHB was inspired by the videos of device-wearing joggers, it all seemed eerily reminiscent of the wacky pharmaceutical company value-propositions from years ago. That's when these companies said that they weren't selling "pills" but "cures."  It remains to be seen if Humana's transition from pooling risk to promoting fitness will lead to a similarly unprofitable ending.

More than one smart policymaker expressed skepticism on-stage about the ability of Accountable Care Organizations to reduce costs or increase quality. Wow. The PHB suspects more ACO shoes are getting ready to drop inside the beltway. If that's correct, it seems the expert-class is not only reducing their exposure to the coming stinkbombs, but is retooling to get in on The Next Big Idea gravy train.

One compelling speaker suggested that truly "patient-centric" primary care medical homes should offer timely access, the ability to talk to the doctor by phone at any time and attentiveness to the social dimensions of their patients' needs while richly rewarding docs to provide high-value care to fewer patients.  When the PHB mused out loud that may be what precisely what Concierge/Direct Primary Care practices are doing, the reaction of the audience prompted momentary concern that it might get lynched. 

The looming repeal of the SGR was mentioned only in passing, suggesting that few believe that this latest legislative fix portends a renewed commitment to health care reform.  As the PHB understands it, the current proposal commits Medicare to a .5% increase in physician fees per year over the next five years. This reminds the PHB of a compromise it made when the Spouse countered that a loaded SUV was a better option than a loaded sedan.  We got the loaded SUV.

And the EHR wasn't mentioned at all, which kept the PHB from offering its novel twist on Ms. Clinton's Emailgate tempest. It's clear that the Secretary reasonably concluded that her State Department's email system was unable to meet her personal workflow electronic communication and documentation needs. Our nation's EHR-using physicians feel her pain and salute her for her approach to finding a workable solution. After the American Medical Association gives her a suitable award, they should ask her if they can expect that same commitment to innovative health information technology solutions when she wins the White House.

Image from Wikipedia
         

The End of Power Health Care?

Corporate titans enjoying
the good old days.

While Moses Naim's The End of Power devotes only a few pages to medicine, it's still provocative and worthwhile reading for anyone involved in the delivery of health care.

As the Population Health Blog understands it, the book's central thesis is that traditional "power" is being disrupted by the three modern trends of "more," "mobility" and "mentality."

We live in an unprecedented era of more (relative) widespread wealth, have an astonishing ability to move goods, services, information and ourselves around the globe (mobility) and are far less likely to adopt the cultural and intellectual assumptions and norms of established society (mentality).

Despite the depressing narrative of the "elite 1%," the irony is that governments and corporations have far less ability to command and control the 99%. This has big implications for world affairs, democracy and U.S. power.

Wow.

Big themes like this naturally prompt the excitable Population Health Blog to speculate about the implications of Naim's more-mobility-mentality for health reform in the United States.

It should be no wonder that policymakers, politicians, academics and regulators are promoting a large and concentrated i.e. powerful version of healthcare delivery.  These cognoscenti argue that huge integrated delivery systems, accountable care organizations and regional providers can "rationalize" health care with standardized protocols, less variation, efficient service lines, alignmment of incentives, optimum capital deployment and assumption of insurance risk.

Mr. Naim cautions that the power-play may not succeed. The PHB extrapolates:

1. While pundits can argue whether the Affordable Care Act's insurance options are as good as they should be, we're devoting a lot of wealth toward health care. More individuals have higher levels of resources to put into their care than they've ever had before. And they know it.

2. While that wealth is being tempered by out-of-pocket expenses, network exclusions, service limitations and other trade-offs, consumers still have relatively abundant choices on not only when, but where to see that doctor, have that surgery or take that pill.  By the way, information is not only cheaper (thanks to the internet) but no longer monopolized by the health professions. 

3. Whether it's a one-on-one recommendation to have a procedure or a proposal to build a new hospital wing, gone are the days when a professional expert's opinion was automatically accepted. Stakeholders are demanding evidence, seeking justification, asking for alternatives and are relishing the "gotcha" moments.

Where do these healthcare versions of more-mobility-mentality take us? Greater access to resources means higher expectations. Mobility means consumers will use exercise choice to cross country, state or even national borders to access care when they choose to do so.  And mentality translates into higher levels of individual consumerism.

Instead of protocols with less variation, patients will want the care to be personalized. Service lines will be judged less on efficiency than on local notions of value. Provider incentives based on "outcomes" and "upside risk" will have zero value proposition for their wealthy, mobile and skeptical customers.  Capital won't necessarily flow toward non-performing assets and year-end savings won't materialize just because policymakers wish it so.

Accountable care organizations and integrated delivery systems will still have huge competitive advantages. That being said, their chances competing successly against smaller competitors and access to capital will be increased if

1) their protocols are flexible,

2) variation is not only welcome but warranted,

3) patients have a good reason to choose their service lines,

4) incentives are broadened, and

5) this new and different level of complicated risk is realistically priced.

And that's assuming that the health provider policymakers, politicians, academics, regulators and CEOs realize that they're not quite in charge anymore.

Doubling Down on Accountable Care Organizations and Health Information Networks

Want to achieve effective health care, reduced costs, increased quality, population health, widespread prevention and seamless health information access? 

It's easy, says  this article in Population Health Management: mix one part PHO with one part HRB to create a HAPPI.

The Population Health Blog was confused too, but that's what's proposed by three smart academics from Johns Hopkins, Arizona State University and UC Berkeley.

As the PHB understands it, Population Health Organizations (PHOs) would be responsible for all medical, public health, community and social services in a defined geographic area and coordinate them with local education, housing and labor. Much of it would be paid for by a pooled risk-adjusted global or capitated payment (budget) from all insurers.

Each organization would be paired with a Health Record Bank (HRB), which would act as a huge data warehouse that not only stores all medical information, but any other publically available information on every individual enrolled in the PHO. The HRBs would be owned and operated by "trusted custodial organizations." Data access would be ultimately controlled by each patient.

The authors believe that patient payments would be a source of additional revenue for their PHOs. Examples include buying "apps" that are tailored to their individual health needs, or selling their personal health information, especially if it means helping physicians buy an electronic health record or access cutting edge research.

Combine a PHO and HRB and you have a Health and Prevention Promotion Initiative (HAPPI). Its size and scale would warrant contributions from community and provider organizations "without the need for additional reimbursement or outside funding." It would efficiently "align incentives" for insurers, hospitals and ACOs - with money left over for prevention, care coordination, decision support and a learning health system.

Breathtaking, isn't it?  If any PHB readers thought accountable care organizations (ACOs) and health information networks (HINs) weren't big enough, along comes Tyrannosaurus rex-sized PHOs, HRBs and HAPPIs. 

The PHB worries that while we'd want to see how pint-sized ACOs (not a slam dunk) and HINs (likewise not a slam dunk) perform before we apply the massive steroid doses, the opposite could happen: their messy failure could be just the justification for doubling down and going even bigger. 

As pointed out in a recent Wall Street Journal Notable and Quotable:

Economist Michael Munger writing in the Freeman, Aug. 11:

When I am discussing the state with my [academic] colleagues, it's not long before I realize that, for them, almost without exception, the State is a unicorn. I come from the Public Choice tradition, which tends to emphasize consequentialist arguments more than natural rights, and so the distinction is particularly important for me. My friends generally dislike politicians, find democracy messy and distasteful, and object to the brutality and coercive excesses of foreign wars, the war on drugs, and the spying of the NSA.

 

But their solution is, without exception, to expand the power of "the State." That seems literally insane to me—a non sequitur of such monstrous proportions that I had trouble taking it seriously.

 

Then I realized that they want a kind of unicorn, a State that has the properties, motivations, knowledge, and abilities that they can imagine for it. When I finally realized that we were talking past each other, I felt kind of dumb. Because essentially this very realization—that people who favor expansion of government imagine a State different from the one possible in the physical world—has been a core part of the argument made by classical liberals for at least three hundred years.

Image from Wikipedia

Can Physician Loyalty to Their Profession Be Superseded by Loyalty to their Employer?

Whenever the Population Health Blog heard the "value-not-volume" health policy operatives drone on about "provider alignment of incentives," it wondered.... really wondered.... if this Kool-Aid had completely convinced the ACO Adminosphere's inhabitants that their physicians' loyalty to their profession could be superseded by loyalty to their employer.

Sure, running a private-practice sucks and Obamacare's economics favor consolidation, but that's not necessarily enough to capture hearts and minds.  The PHB recently heard a local ACO executive explain that her long-employed physicians were still (yes, still) challenged with EHR implementation, teaming, shared savings, quality metrics, practice management, joint ventures and the role of patient educators. 

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the ACO play?

And then there's a tweet from @VinceKuraitis on how a group of St. Louis cardiologists are "leaving" hospital employment and striking out on their own. Vince asks if this is a random blip or start of a trend.

Good question.

If this does turn out to be the start of a trend, don't be surprised. As someone very wise pointed out millennia ago, people do not live by bread alone.

Image from Wikipedia

Doubling Down on Accountable Care Organizations

What happens if CMS' grand experiment in ACOs fails?

There are some good reasons to believe that it could happen:

Preliminary results are spotty at best

Saving money doesn't mean making a profit

inefficiencies, technology shortfalls, culture barriers and inertia abound;

bending the curve for sick populations is hard;

physician and patient behavior change is difficult;

last but not least, it was tried before

But note that the Population Health Blog is not asking whether ACOs are going to fail.  That jury is still out.  The question is IF they fail, what happens next?

While the Population Health Blog Spouse would common-sensically expect the contracts to be cancelled while our national leaders look for the next good idea, the PHB doesn't expect that to happen.  For an example of the thinking behind a far more likely scenario, check out this article by RWJF Advisor and former Health Affairs Editor Susan Dentzer.

Despite some early bad news, Ms. Dentzer exclaims that she's not about to let any inconvenient facts get in the way of further "improvement" of the ACO model. 

Among her ideas for doubling down and expanding it:

1. Tying discounts on Part B premiums "or other financial incentives" to get Medicare beneficiaries to agree to a more narrow network.

And why, asks the PHB is this any different than managed care?  Or maybe ACOs are destined to be HMOs in "drag!"

2. Tying discounts or other financial incentives to the use, whenever possible, of the lowest level of care.

This is another long-used managed care tool that can justify keeping patients out of the hospital.  And the PHB would vote for RuPaul as the ACO National Medical Director. 

3. Expand the use of multi-disciplinary team-based care for persons with chronic illness.

A good idea, but teaming of medical home can succeed quite nicely outside of ACOs.

Hey, says the PHB, if CMS can pull the rug out from under Medicare Health Support, it should be able to do it to ACOs.  Fair is fair.

Image from Wikipedia

Warning: Health Insurance is Hard

As a former commercial medical director, the Disease Management Care Blog has wrangled with a number of physician colleagues in the population health, medical home and accountable care business on the basics of health insurance .

Many are afflicted with two "insurance-is-easy" conceits:

1. Insurers take in premium money, pay claims and keep what's left over, and

2. Quality health care means more money is left over.

Both have fueled the Accountable Care Organization (ACO) gold rush. Since insurers are supposedly fat with money, it's a no-brainer to want to get a piece of the action, especially since "stuff" like mammograms and the electronic record will save even more bucks.

Win-win, right?

Not so fast.  Insurers' ROI is not huge, quality costs and the EHR's money-saving potential is just that.

Which is why the DMCB likes the short American Journal of Managed Care manuscript on ACOs that asks "Is the Deal Any Good?"

Author François De Brantes reminds readers that 1) a lot of patients are needed to dampen the individual impact of costly outliers, and 2) certain assumptions must be made about cost trends.  Get either wrong and you could lose money.

The author also asks readers to consider the achievable savings rate. To the DMCB, this speaks to the assumption that quality and prevention automatically add to the bottom line. That's not necessarily true and could make you lose even more money.

Says the author:

Over a decade ago, the ability of providers to understand the uncertainty of the financial risks eventually led to the demise of many and a significant setback for the country in our collective ability to rein in runaway medical costs. We cannot allow the same mistakes to happen again, and both providers and payers need to understand whether or not the deal is any good.

In other word, insurance is hard.  Stay tuned on whether the ACOs have figured that out.

Five Things Docs Should Look for in an ACO, Including a Mirror

Pondering joining an ACO?

The Disease Management Care Blog was quoted in Software Advice's article on how primary care practices should join accountable care organizations. While regular readers won't be surprised by the DMCB's underlying skepticism about ACOs, this article does a nice job of introducing the topic of "risk transfer."

As the DMCB understands it, risk transfer is a contractual agreement to exchange money for risk.  In the instance of ACOs, provider organizations are agreeing to accept risk in exchange for a piece of any savings that accrue from managing that risk. If it sounds like doctors are adopting many of the features of insurance companies, you're right. Whether they also adopt many of the bad behaviors of insurance companies remains to be seen.

What the ACO wasn't aware of was data suggesting that the price of admission to the money-for-risk game can range between $11 and $26 million. In order to get a return on that kind of investment, physicians are going to have to figure out how to manage down a lot of admissions, specialty referrals and procedures.

At any rate, according to Profitable Practice, five elements that a primary care practice should look for in gauging an ACO partnership are:

1) Teaming: the presence of (nurse) care teams armed with protocols, plus strong internal quality improvement systems.

2) Physician-led: visible and smart physician leadership who understands health reform

3) EHR: A functioning and organization-wide EHR

4) Patience: Practice change will take more than a year. Learning collaboratives can help.

5) A Mirror: docs need to ask themselves if there is a willingness commit special attention and time to high cost, chronic conditions that generate hospitalizations, repeat visits and costly procedures. Non-physician providers will be able to do the routine care, while it will be the physicians who will need to spend day after day with complex patients.

Success Ingredients for Spread of Accountable Care Organizations

Mixing up some ACO

No matter what you think about the long-term sustainability of accountable care organizations (ACOs), the Health Affairs Blog argues 2014 will be a short-term watershed year.

The Disease Management Care Blog agrees. As preliminary results like these get reported in 2014, other ACO wannabes will either jump in and create a tipping point, or decide to stay on the sidelines.

According to Leavitt Partners' David Muhlestein, some of the under-recognized ingredients that could influence this include:

Judgments on Generalizability: never mind the marquee brand institutions, it will be results in smaller regional ACOs that lead other physician-hospital organizations to "go" or "no." If the ACO wannabes decide they can replicate other similar systems' success, we'll see more ACOs. If there is no success, the silence could be deafening.

DMCB says... we need more detail.

Whither the Sustainable Growth Rate: years of fee-for-service Medicare payments to physicians may end up being replaced by "value" based payments linked to bonuses. If - and that's a big if - that happens, that could further encourage physicians to join groups. which could prompt the creation of additional ACOs.

DMCB says.... and you thought the SGR was only about physician payments.

Medicaid: It turns out the states may turn to ACOs to increase quality and control costs for their indigent populations.

DMCB agrees.... Governors may see ACOs as a way of mitigating the economic and political risks of expanding Medicaid.

Employers: if ACOs' care coordination and savings are successful, large employees may seek commercial insurers that offer ACOs. Commercial insurers are unlikely to say no.

DMCB says.....never mind Washington DC, how will this play in Peoria?

Of Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACOs, Start-Up Costs, Preliminary Financials and Data Support

The Disease Management Care Blog didn't know there was a "National Association of ACOs" either, but they've just released results from a "web" survey of the organization member ACOs that are participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program.  You can read more about the Program here. 

Of the total number of 123 MSSP participants, 35 anonymously participated in the survey. Their covered beneficiary numbers ranged from 5,100 to 78,000.

Among the findings:

Start up costs in the first year of operation averaged $2 million, with a range from $300,000 to $6.7 million.  With continued operations, the average cost over two years was $3.5 million. Total capital needs averaged $4 million.

While Medicare has yet to release any formal financial results, the ACOs' estimated results showed that 13 guessed they would break even. Nine will gain an average of $1.3 million and six will lose $1.3 million.  Six had no estimates, while other gains and losses ranged from positive $9 million to negative $10 million, respectively.

The biggest problem? "CMS data and learning to access it and process it."  This required pricey information technology with an average of $413,000 internal and $443,000 external costs.

The DMCB's take:

Running an integrated delivery system or physician-hospital organization as part of an ACO is a very expensive and capital intense enterprise.  Given the additional costs of new technology, electronic records and personnel, some of the ACOs may not be able to afford the loss of millions of dollars.  It remains to be seen how Medicare will handle the downside of hospital lay offs or clinical program discontinuations among some of the MSSP participants.  Will members of Congress have to get involved on behalf of their local constituents?  Stay tuned!

As the disease management industry learned, it's one thing to "save money," it's another to save money in excess of fees plus program costs.  $3.5 million over two years is a lot of money to make up before you break even, making the DMCB wonder if cheaper programs (such as population health management) with a more modest scope (such as reducing readmissions) may have a better long term value proposition. Once again, stay tuned.

And the Disease Management Care Blog predicted there'd be problems with the data feeds here.  Recall that one of the problems with the Medicare Health Support program were "execution" problems with the timely provision of utilization data from CMS.  ACOs - and the Medicare beneficiaries they're taking care of - deserve better. 

Twelve Health Care Predictions for 2014

While the Disease Management Care Blog eschewed forecasting for 2013, it has decided to reverse course and inaugurate the 2014 blogging season with a contrarian duodecimal exercise in futurism.

Will this antidecimal augury align with the mysterious cosmic order and governing perfection?  Let the thousands of DMCB readers (more on that in a future post) be the judge in January 2015......

1. Obamacare will neither succeed nor fail.  This hugely complex law will have too many outcomes, statistics and analyses that will be subject to too much spin by both supporters and detractors. Like puppies clamoring for the mother's attention, the loudest wins, but only in 15 minute media increments.

2. Inflation returns, with a vengeance: While we won't know it until well into 2015 or 2016, 2014 will be the year that the sleeping giant of healthcare costs awakens. Millions of new insureds in an improving economy will finally get their pent-up pricey preference-sensitive health care needs fulfilled.

3. All boats benefit.....While the PHM industry will continue to extol its cost-savings value proposition, its investors will profitably ride the rising tide of overall increased health spending.

4. Duh, it's the delays stupid: While low income Americans will appreciate having access to subsidized health insurance and Medicaid, the middle class' unsubsidized sticker shock will threaten the fall 2014 elections. Caught between conflicting advice of insurance actuaries and political hacks, the White House's regulatory choices will be obvious.

5. Unfavorable prognosis for physician income means an emerging bull market for concierge medicine: Past attempts to replace the SGR never fail to disappoint and 2014 will be no exception. That, however, will only be on the icing on the bitter cake of foregone co-pays and coinsurance by patients who chose all those stinky bronze plans.  As a result, more docs will bail on their insurance contracts and open "concierge" practices.

6. Navigators Ver. 2.0: Knowing that 2014 could be a high water mark for top-line income from newly insured patients, hospitals will step up and hire their own "navigators." Unsurprisingly, they will not seek out the healthy millennials. And insurers, thanks to the "3Rs" that are largely backed by Uncle Sam, won't care about the resulting adverse selection.  

7. Snowden blow-back: as the promise of big-data grows, fearful health care consumers will be even less inclined toward allowing access to their health information.  Too bad they won't be given a say.

8. Innovator's Dilemma for health tech: solutions that are simple, transparent and modular will continue to make 'from the bottom' inroads into a tech industry that - like early data storage - is too complex, opaque and entangled.

9. Speaking of health tech, patient-monitoring solutions that offer more insight and less data will grab market share.  Instead of a series of blood glucose results dumped into an electronic inbox, think algorithms that suggest insulin dose adjustments.

10. Thanks to the battered healthcare.gov brand, conservatives will be better positioned to thwart other "big government" proposals in 2014 outside of health care (for example, education, carbon markets or immigration reform). Progressives will focus on simpler stuff, like increasing the minimum wage and keeping The New York Times afloat, but miss a decades-long setback of Obama-inspired liberalism.

11. ACOs stumble: Far more ACOs will fail than succeed in hitting their risk-share thresholds because docs can't say no, one patient at a time. As a result, we'll see these organizations begin to cut costs by parting company with some of their recently hired physicians, further fueling the concierge medicine movement.

12 Commercial scientific misconduct: Unable to resist the allure of bonus payments (like this) or the branding that is dependent on the public release of quality outcomes, at least one large health entity will be caught committing "reporting fraud."

Everything You Need to Know About Health Care Reform, Thanks to a 25 Minute Video, Courtesy of Managed Care Magazine

Thanks to Managed Care Magazine, the Disease Management Care Blog can post this interesting 25 minute interview with Princeton healthcare economist Uwe Reindardt.  Suitable for desk-bound meal-break viewing by overachieving DMCB readers, the modest and insightful Dr. Reindardt gets it mostly right:

No, the slowdown in the U.S. rate of health care costs cannot be ascribed to passage of the Affordable Care Act.  It started wayyyy before Obamacare was passed and is more likely due to the economic slowdown and increased consumer cost-sharing.

Accountable Care Organizations remain an "iffy" experimental proposition because they "don't go all the way like Kaiser."

Republican proposals to let health insurers sell their products across state lines are hardly a health reform panacea, because prices (and therefore premiums) are not a function of where the insurer is domiciled, but where the care is rendered.  Texas insurers would still have to pay New York prices.

Americans use fewer pills, occupy less bed-days and see fewer doctors, but we pay more because providers can charge more.  Despite being relatively small vs. the behemoths like Aetna and Cigna, regional hospitals have considerable market power that translates into take-it-or-leave it local single seller monopsonies.   Europeans, in contrast, have lower prices because their system is dominated by single purchaser monopolies.

We're headed toward a three-tier system comprised of 1) the indigent safety-net public programs, 2) the middle class "reference pricing" "networks" where consumers pay the difference if they want to buy up and 3) "boutique" health care for the 5%.

There's reason to be optimistic about the next five years thanks to a sluggish labor market (making it easier to impose networks and even more cost sharing) and innovation (computational capacity is putting meaningful quality measurement within reach, while techy gizmos are making self-care simultaneously cheap and fun). 

Plus, there's reason to be of good cheer.  Compared to the U.S. education and the legal systems, health care is far more efficient and consumer-friendly.  Stop beating up on yourselves.

(The DMCB didn't quite agree with Dr. Reinhardt's views on worksite wellness.  He finds the notion counterintuitive and intrusive, preferring that insurers own wellness.  He neglects to mention that the employers who invest heavily in wellness are typically self-insured and that employers have an arguable stake in improving the quality of their human capital.)

Why The Tipping Point for Health System Consolidation May Be Closer Than We Realize: Lessons from Airline Mergers

Ready for take off

From time to time, the Disease Management Care Blog and other pundits turn to the airline industry draw lessons on the evolution of health care.  Integrated human-computer systems, safety check-lists, website-based Expedia-like price transparency, teaming and other such notions have infiltrated health policy PowerPoint presentations worse than Doritos bags in Seattle Hempfest crowd.

While the DMCB was mulling another lesson about the divide between coach (what vanilla insurance could turn out to be) versus business/first class (concierge-style direct pay), along came this interesting Wall Street Journal article by airline industry bad boy Robert Crandall about the American Airlines - US Airways merger.  He argues 1) mergers that lead to bigger are better (no surprise there) and 2) if some airlines are allowed to go big, the only way for others to compete is to go bigger also.

That latter argument is important, and may also hold lessons for health care. 

Mr. Crandall argues that once the furies are released and one or two regionally dominant service providers are allowed to populate the marketplace, smaller competitors are at a disadvantage.  As a result, they have no choice but to also seek alliances and mergers.  How well government reconciles consumer interests and business profitability will remain an open question involving lawyers, bureaucrats and politicians.

Ditto regional health care systems, accountable care organizations and integrated provider organizations. 

Once one of these behemoths is unleashed in a city or corner of a state, smaller neighboring provider systems will naturally circle the wagons and seek permission to consolidate so that, just like the airlines, they can compete. They make a good argument, because without the size, they could go bankrupt. 

As health reform continues, geographically large systems that can access capital, achieve economies of scale, become accountable and take insurance risk will grow in number and complexity. That will only fuel the further consolidation of small local hospitals and smaller physician practices.

In other words, the lesson from the airlines may be that that "tipping point" for nationwide health system consolidation may be much closer than we realize.

Image from Wikipedia

Pioneer ACO Program Results: Why Saving Money for CMS Doesn't Mean The Business Model is Viable

According to South Dakota researchers, the predator status of Tyrannosaurus rex can no longer be questioned. After finding one of its teeth embedded in the healed spine of a Hadrosaurus, paleontologists now believe T rex was a fearsome hunter, not an carrion munching opportunist. 

But, asks the Disease Management Care Blog, how do we really know that that Hadrosaurus wasn't  pretending to be dead when the T rex took its bite?  Alternatively, the Hadrosaurus could have been sleeping and only looked dead to a slow-witted and lazy T rex. 

Dino doubts, says the DMCB, remain.

Such is the level of skepticism that the DMCB is bringing to its reading of the recent CMS press release describing the initial results of the Pioneer ACO program.  CMS says "positive" and "promising." The DMCB says "problematic" wonders if, like the T rex dilemma, there isn't an alternative interpretation.

The DMCB explains.

Recall that the Pioneer ACO program is designed to test whether large integrated organizations can be successfully rewarded for reducing health care costs through a program of "shared savings."  Under the program, if the savings exceed a minimum threshold, CMS will remit a portion of the upside savings back to the participating organizations.

According to the press release, the health care costs for the 669,000 Medicare beneficiaries cared for by the 32 Pioneer ACO program providers grew only .3% versus .8% for a parallel group of "similar beneficiaries." 13 organizations exceeded the savings threshold, which will lead to Uncle Sam writing checks for $76 million in shared savings.

This front page article in The Wall Street Journal has more detail. It says 18 of the 32 reduced health care costs, which leads the DMCB to conclude that five otherwise "successful" participants did not cross the required savings threshold. Two participants lost money. That, in turn, suggests the remainder, or twelve, broke even.

Details on how each individual institution fared are not readily available.  According to WSJ, Boston's Partners Healthcare reduced Medicare claims expense by $14 million.  They will be rewarded with a shared savings check of $7 million. Wisconsin's Bellin-ThedaCare will get "several million."

Good "win-win" news for the Pioneer organizations, CMS, Uncle Sam and U.S. taxpayers, right? A critical mass (40%) achieved millions in shared savings, which means proof of concept met and that a key part of Obamacare is successful, right?

"Not exactly," says the DMCB.

It figures 100% of the participating organizations had to each invest millions for personnel and other infrastructure to pursue the Medicare savings in the first place.  In other words, they were in the red before Pioneer even began.  That means that, in addition to the two participating organizations that lost money, the 12 that "broke even" as well as the 5 that did not make threshold also lost millions. 

That's 19 losers or almost 60% of the participating organizations.

In addition, it's possible that for some of the 13 "winners" that the shared savings awards won't  match their up-front multi-million dollar investment either.  Assuming that's true, it's possible that as many as two thirds of the Pioneer organizations lost money. No wonder 9 of the participants have signaled a desire to exit the program.

The DMCB's dinosaur analogy may be apt.  Given a two out of three likelihood of losing millions in the first year of operations, ACOs may just be too big and complicated to survive in the current health care environment.  Nonetheless, the Pioneer program will continue and the DMCB will stay tuned for the Year 2 results.

In the meantime, the DMCB wishes CMS good luck in using these "positive" and "promising" results to expand the program anytime in the near - or distant - future.  

Just Because You Build It They Won't Come: What ACOs, PCMHs and Population Health Advocates Need to Know About Poverty and Emergency Room Use

Thinking about an ER visit.....

As part of a research requirement that it had to fulfill prior to medical school graduation, the young Disease Management Care Blog conducted a patient satisfaction survey. To its surprise, the DMCB discovered patients cared less about high touch primary care and more about access to high tech specialists.

It naturally ignored the income implications and became a general internist.

Fast forward to its job as a Medical Director in a not-for-profit physician-led managed care insurance plan.  No matter how much we "polished" the primary care network, emergency room utilization remained persistently high.

The CEO naturally ignored the DMCB's conclusion that there was little that could be done and assigned another medical director to the task.

Fast forward to Uncle Sam's Healthcare Fantasy Land, where ACOs and medical homes caring for patients with universal insurance will, thanks to the enlightened efficiencies of primary care, save gazillions of dollars by steering patients away from emergency rooms and hospitals.

All three scenarios came together when the DMCB read some research by group of Philadelphia docs who wanted to better understand why patients with low socioeconomic status kept ending up in emergency rooms and hospitals.

Best of all, to do this, they used a novel methodology: they found some patients and.... asked!

Their report appears in the latest issue of Health Affairs.

64 hospitalized patients with low socioeconomic status were approached to participate in a "qualitative" research interview (here's one example of how it's done). The patients were selected because they had been hospitalized via the ER multiple times, were between the ages of 18-64 years, were uninsured or on Medicaid, lived in a poor ZIP-code region of the city. 24 said no, leaving 40 subjects who agreed to have their interviews recorded. A rigorous analysis followed, with two "coders" who listened to the recordings and independently developed themes or ideas. They then circled back to the patients for confirmation.

Two themes emerged:

1) Convenience/Access: Even if they have access to primary care, the emergency room and inpatient setting remains the more convenient option.  That's because walk-in is available 24/7 and all testing as well as specialty care is available during a one-time visit.  Zero dollar primary care co-pays don't make up for the hassle, time and expense of calling ahead for appointments, arranging transportation (even if vouchers through Medicaid are available) or being referred for separate testing as well as specialty consultation.

2) Technology: Based on personal experience with their primary care docs, the emergency rooms and hospitals were perceived to have more technically proficient providers who were better able to achieve the correct diagnosis and render the correct treatment in a timely fashion.

A subset of patients seemed to come from chaotic life circumstances. Those patients found hospitals offered what the researchers described as "respite" and social "support."

The presence of Medicaid insurance had little to do with the attitudes described above.

The DMCB's take:

While subjective qualitative research is viewed with disdain by researchers, policymakers and journal editors, occasionally, good studies like this comes along.  This article sheds important light on a potential Achilles heel of accountable care organizations (ACOs) as well as the patient centered medical home (PCMH).

That Achilles heel? Just because you build it, these 40 patients - and millions who live in poverty like them - won't come.

What's more, they are making rational decisions.

The authors point out that system solutions include co-locating multiple services (primary care, labs, x-rays and specialists), improving the quality of primary care and, when possible, mitigating any social challenges. The DMCB agrees, but is unaware of any ACOs or medical home initiatives that, outside of the usual process measures, specifically address these patients' special concerns.

The DMCB's suggestions:

Advocates for ACOs and the PCMH need to get real, lower expectations and recognize that a key solution to the problem of health care overutilization by persons in poverty is to stop politicians and health care leaders from medicalizing poverty. 

That being said, one possible solution for ACOs and PCMHs serving fragile patients with poverty is high intensity biopsychosocial intervention.  It sounds expensive but full time community-based care management with low case loads and lots of physician support may help ameliorate some of the dysfunction.  It's probably less expensive than all those hospitalizations.

Finally, this may be an opportunity for nimble population health management service providers.  If any are already out there serving this population, the DMCB would like to know about it.

Image from Wikipedia

What Can World War Z Tell Us About Accountable Care Organizations?

Unable to resist the allure of another zombie movie, the Disease Management Care Blog saw World War Z.  While the gruesome scenes of chomping and stampeding hoards of infected undead were cinematic eye candy, the DMCB was undeterred.

It was naturally thinking about accountable care organizations and how they compare to zombies.


                                     Zombies                           ACOs

Premise:                      Undead                           Unproven

Spread via:                   Bites                                 Hype

The Hero:                 Brad Pitt                         Donald Berwick, MD

Why Worry:         The U.N is in charge             C.M.S. is in charge

Initial Response:      Offshore boats                  Offhand hope

Best managed
by..........                  Fleeing                            Fleeing

DMCB spouse
perspective........          Gore                             Bore

Confronted by
hoards of attacking                                   Refer to PCPs, wait
undead you.....        Toss grenades           years for shared savings

Diet:                         Bared brains                    Shared gains      


Image from Wikipedia 

Sure, Accountable Care Organizations ACOs Can Save Money, But Can They MAKE Money?

ACOs at work.

According to this Bloomberg news release, some of Medicare's Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are already achieving cost savings. Mt. Sinai and Coastal Carolina are reducing emergency room visits while Hackensack is reducing costs.

All three institutions are using two key ingredients:

1) information technology-based risk stratification to identify the persons at greatest risk and

 2) dedicated full-time nurses who perform telephonic and in-person outreach, coordinate care and provide patient coaching that, in turn, is tailored to that risk.

To the DMCB, the good news is that ACOs are using the two approaches that define modern-day disease and population health management. That industry's success will be Mt Sinai's, Coastal Carolina's and Hackensack's success.

The bad news is that the news release only addresses half the question: did any savings exceed the institutions' cost of the risk stratification and the nurse-FTEs? If the early answer is no, then avoided ER visits and reduced costs could turn out to be much like Governor Christie's lap band: so far so good but it's still risky and could ultimately be all for naught.

And on an unrelated note, this just-published New England Journal article makes note of "not made in America" health care innovations from overseas that could hold important lessons for the United States. In particular, the authors point out that Germany's DRG hospital payment system includes 30-days of post-discharge care and includes the physician payment. Readmissions within that 30 day window are, with a few exceptions, not covered and physician payment is possible because docs are often employees of the hospitals.

"Interesting!" says the DMCB, but is reminded that Germany is hardly a model for reducing inflationary cost trends.   It also specifically recalls hearing Germany's Minister of Health, Daniel Bahr, express impatience with his country's DRG system just last week. He criticized it for not advancing enough quality in his keynote address at the HauptKongress in Berlin.

Medicare, Accountable Care Organizations & Medical Homes: Experimental, Potential or "Essential?"

Time to measure some
new Medicare office drapes?

One major and longstanding criticism of CMS' numerous innovation and demonstration projects is that they seldom lead to any meaningful reform of the core Medicare program.  In response, the Affordable Care Act created an "Innovation Center."  Despite legions of lobbyists, a 'third rail' dread afflicting our political class and a powerful Medicare voting bloc, the intrepid folks in the Center promise to deliver insights that will advance quality, lower costs, increase access and spare all sacred cows.

Naturally, the thousands of health care experts who regularly read the Disease Management Care Blog have their doubts.  As a result, they're unlikely to be moved by Karen Davis and colleagues' "Medicare Essential" proposal appearing in the May issue of Health Affairs.

Assuming that the most wildly optimistic Accountable Care Organization (ACO) and medical home pilot programs projections are fulfilled, Dr. Davis et al propose the creation of a new "Medicare Essential" program that would co-exist with standard Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

"Essential's" essential purpose would be to finance ACOs and medical homes.  Given the authors' enthusiasm, the DMCB is surprised that their Health Affairs paper isn't also recommending measuring drapes for the program's new offices.
 
In "Medicare Essential," Parts A (hospital), B (providers) and D (drugs) would be combined. There would be a single overall deductible, followed by low co-pays for primary care and higher co-pays for specialty and emergency room care Preventive care would have first dollar coverage. Pharmaceuticals would be governed by a single national formulary with low co-pays for generics as well as for preferred brands and condition-specific/value-based drugs. Persons in the "Essential" program who are receiving care in ACOs or medical homes (financed with capitation, bonuses, gain sharing and monthly fees) would naturally have even lower co-pays.
 
Using "modeling by the Actuarial Research Corporation" and, as the DMCB understands it, transferring all savings back to the beneficiary, monthly out-of-pocket costs for the average Medicare enrollee could be reduced from the currently level of $427 to $354.  As an added bonus, if the patient used an ACO/Medical Home, the out of pocket would be further reduced to $254.

Case closed, right?

The DMCB isn't too sure.

Don't Measure Those "Essential" Medicare Program Office Drapes Quite Yet: While Davis et al should be commended for sending the savings back to the patient instead of Uncle Sam, their optimistic actuarial "research" projections can't be based on any consistent, statistically significant and real-world published proof.  That's because there is no consistent, statistically significant and real-world published proof that ACOs and medical homes save money.  Come back, says the DMCB, when you have an analysis based on some real numbers.

Behavioral Economics: Furthermore, we don't know if monthly beneficiary savings of $73 to $173 are enough to move market share away from Medicare and Medicare Advantage to "Essential."  That's doubly true if ACOs and medical homes, despite their quality, are viewed by patients as another way to impose a restricted network.

Disease Management Playbook: Advocates for the earliest versions of disease management likewise used official sounding projections to confidently project huge benefits for the Medicare program. When reality rudely intruded, the industry's fall was spectacular and almost fatal.  With friends like Dr. Davis similarly doubling down with huge ACO and medical home promises, who needs enemies?

Reinventing A 3rd Wheel? Many Advantage plans have similar co-pay arrangements and are already investing in ACO-like and medical home programs in their networks. They are likewise more than able to leverage out-of-pocket expenses to incent beneficiary behavior.

Suppose You Gave An ACO Party and Nobody Came? The last time the DMCB looked, many parts of the country lacked fully functional ACOs and medical homes. Dr. Davis says beneficiaries will respond by demanding local access to the Essential program and therefore turbocharge additional health reform. The DMCB is unaware of any published data that supports that notion and, furthermore, wonders if the local lack of these programs will translate into even more variation in the U.S. health care system.