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

The Italics and Dot-Dot-Dot Edition of the Cavalcade of Risk

Welcome to your latest edition of the Cavalcade of Risk.  The Population Health Blog is pleased to offer this linked summary of some of the best and latest bloggery dealing with economic risk.

Knowing how busy readers are, this particular edition wanted to focus on the "bottom line" of each entry. The most important insight is at the end of each paragraph.....

Enjoy!

Auto

Wondering if that non-performing capital assessment called a "parked car" can be addressed by "peer-to-peer car sharing?'  Well, if you think you can grab a portion of Hertz's market share by renting that car, you may want to pause and think about what your automobile insurance has to say about it.  Hank Stern over at the Insure Blog points out that a wreck may not be covered leaving you personally responsible for another party's injuries....

Workers Comp

Did you know that employers can be arbitrary, hostile and vindictive?  That employees can be sullen, suspicious and uncooperative?  Toss in a significant  job injury, and you've got is what AMAXX Blog writer Michael Stack describes as an unwritten part of a workers compensation adjuster's job description: being a peacemaker. Employees ultimately do better if they get to work sooner rather than later, and bosses do better they step back and let the workers comp adjuster deal with any possibility of malingering....

Data Privacy

After Target and eBay, your company's (or, come to think about it, government's) databases may not only be next, that possibility is greater than you realize.  RJ Weiss at the Weiss Insurance Agencies does readers a service by summarizing some of the numbers around the risk of data breaches, including a cost of $195 to $246 per record, an average loss of 2.8% of customers and that having strong preventive measures in place can reduce your cost by $8.98 per record.  Important sources of break-ins include those portable devices and sloppy third parties....

Health Insurance

We'd all like to think that hospitals are working hard to reduce costs and increase quality thanks to the government's value-based purchasing initiative.  Jason Shafrin of the Healthcare Economist summarizes a recent peer-reviewed publication on the topic and the bottom line answer is "not exactly." While results may be more a function of the baseline that was used, there was no discernible impact on clinical process or patient experience performance for Medicare beneficiaries....

Speaking of payment initiatives, your host's Population Health Blog (PHB) takes a look at another recent scientific publication that examines how a statewide bundled payment program stumbled.  The process was stymied by the usual payer-provider tensions, inadequate information technology, regulatory concerns and difficulties on defining just what makes up an "episode of care." It turns out that getting bundled payment off the ground is far harder than it looks.... 

Getting health insurance between jobs should be easy, but it's not. Louise over the Colorado Health Insurance Insider cuts through the noise of Obamacare and the individual market by offering up some useful insights, including the definition of a "qualifying event," the 60-day rule and the option of using Medicaid to trigger a qualifying event to navigate the 60-day rule....

The next host of the Cavalcade of Risk is Paul Dzielinski.  The PHB is looking forward to his hosting debut!

Think Bundled Payment is Inevitable? Think Again

Getting bundles of these is easy?

This just published Health Affairs article finds some flies in the bundled payment ointment.  The summary below speaks for itself.

In 2010, California's Integrated Healthcare Association and RAND piloted a bundled payment with gain-sharing arrangement for a set of orthopedic surgery procedures. Six commercial health insurance plans, eight hospitals and one independent practice association (IPA) agreed to participate in a uniform payment program. There were technical consultants, a steering committee, and physician committees that presided over deciding which services would be included in each of the orthopedic bundles.

Problems abounded. There were delays, fewer than anticipated surgeries, doubts about whether the bundles would result in meaningful change, concerns about administrative burdens and problems fitting the bundles into some of the existing capitated contracts.

It all boiled down to:

1) Details: it turns out that an episode of care is complex and intertwined, making it difficult to establish consensus over what should - and should not - be covered in a bundle payment.  Insurers naturally favored inclusion of as much as possible while providers favored preserving separate fees for as many related services as possible.

2) Distrust: each of the participants had different motivations. Insurers wanted the overall volume of orthopedic procedures to drop. Hospitals wanted their implementation costs covered. Insurers wanted to price the bundle using a roll-up of fee-for-service minus a discount, while the hospitals demanded a higher aggregate payment plus higher volumes of referrals from the insurers. Insurers wanted to transfer risk, while the hospitals wanted a stop-less provision.

3) Information technology: the legacy systems of both the hospitals and insurers were unable to process the bundles. Attempts to switch to a manual system only increased inefficiencies.

4) Whither the physicians: Not only was it complex figuring out how to compensate doctors for their services within a bundle, California has a prohibition against the "corporate practice of medicine" by hospitals.  Other regulatory concerns over managed care contracts made things worse.

5) Critical mass: the absolute volume of orthopedic procedures was less than anticipated.  This diminished the financial as well as educational return on investment.

The introduction to the article sums up the Population Health Blog's takeway:

"Evidence is lacking on the effectiveness of bundled payment in terms of improving the quality of care, reducing its costs or both.  Existing evidence about bundled payment programs mostly comes from bundled payment designed with more limited scope that have little generalizability to current programs."

This real world attempt shows that "bundled payments" are not a health reform slam-dunk.

Prospective Payment Good, Fee For Service Bad, Right? Unless You're a Patient That Is.....

Applying the brake in the name of patient care?

The Disease Management Care Blog poses a simple question: knowing that, despite the best of care, things can occasionally go wrong following surgery (for example, inpatient MRSA infections can still happen and readmission rates will never go to zero), do you really want your doctor or hospital to not be paid for the additional care that you may require?

Go to the websites of organizations like Robert Wood Johnson or The Brookings Institution and you'll find impressive expert papers that extol a variety of "payment reforms" designed to "align incentives," "reduce waste" and "achieve cost savings."  Dig into these reforms and readers will encounter admiration for payment approaches like "prospective payment," case-based," "bundling," and "shared savings."  You'll also find a deep disdain for "fee-for-service" (FFS). 

Prospective good, FFS bad, right? 

"Not always," replies the DMCB. It depends on your point of view. Like, if you're a patient.

The DMCB explains.

The DMCB learned long ago to simplistically think of provider payments in terms of "gas" and "brake" pedals.  FFS applies gas and accelerates provider services; that's because each time a "service" is provided it subsequently generates a "fee." 

In contrast to FFS, case payment, bundling and capitation apply the brakes, because providers receive the payments up-front. Since the money is in hand, providers have an economic incentive to preserve it and withhold services.  The DMCB thinks of "shared savings" in terms of brakes because the up-front payment is essentially held in escrow until the savings (versus a targeted level of utilization) are achieved.

The simplest example of how this can be applied is to hospitalization.  If hospitals are paid for each day that the patient is in a hospital, that's FFS (otherwise known in the industry as "per diem"). 

Instead of per diems, most hospitals are paid with a different payment mechanism based on "diagnosis related groups" (DRGs). Every time a patient is admitted, that generates a payment (similar to FFS).  That payment, however, is not pegged to the number of days the patient stays in the hospital. Instead, the payment is bundled to pay for the entire hospitalization.  That's why hospitals are always willing to admit patients (the gas) and then in a hurry to discharge them (the brakes).

Under the payment reforms championed by Robert Wood Johnson or The Brookings Institution, the inpatient payment bundling would be expanded to pay for the entire case after discharge from the hospital.  Under this system, if the case had to be readmitted, the hospital and providers are SOL.  After all, why should they be rewarded for shoddy care?

Unless, of course, you're the patient.  The DMCB worries that a one-size-fits all approach to payment policy could have unintended consequences. Patients battling unanticipated outcomes would likely prefer that their providers be incented to give additional care.  They want to be back in the hospital.

The payment policy may be good from the point of view of health reform, but it can be bad for patient care. 

The DMCB asks if we are on the verge of another round of unintended health care consequences.

We'll know soon enough when anecdotes of patients being inappropriately denied readmission begin to appear.