Skip to content

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

PLOS BLOGS Speaking of Medicine and Health

Accountable Care Organizations in the U.S.

Original post by Benjamin Geisler, posted on Health Care Value Strategies

In the U.S. everybody is talking about Accountable Care Organizations or ACOs these days. The reason being that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or CMS released the rules for shared savings between ACOs and CMS  last week. Medicare is a benefit for U.S. citizens and residents who paid taxes for a certain time, and it kicks in for all at age 65, regardless of income level. Medicaid is a governmental program for the poor, co-financed by the Federal government and the States and administered by the latter. The complete proposed rule is 429 pages long and they’re seeking comments on it from now until early June.

What is an ACO?
ACOs will take care of Medicare patients. An ACO is supposed to be formed by a group of providers, hospitals or physician groups, or both, so there will be no “middle men” that could manage the providers (and siphon off more money!), as was the idea in the Medicare Advantage program.

The ACO model is not just another attempt to curb costs, but ACOs will also be held accountable for quality. Other than that, CMS will not regulate them much. The idea is that different ACOs can develop different models of organizing and paying for care, as long as they meet the budget and quality goals. Decentralized accountability and leadership with (monetary) sticks and carrots is likely to produce better results for the whole country than central rules with no enforcement: if ACOs incur too many costs or do not meet the quality targets, they may have to forgo payments, or even pay CMS money back; if, on the other hand, they meet or beat their goals they can get bonuses.

How much money will this save CMS?
CMS hopes that ACOs could save it $170-960 million over three years, so $60-320 million annually. GoozNews writes that that’s a “droplet” given the $1.8 trillion budget for that period (0.01-0.05%, to be precise). However, one should bear in mind that ACOs will not care for Medicaid patients (which, supposedly, are also included in this budget, albeit most is for the Medicare program).
Also, ACOs will only care for 1.5-4 million beneficiaries, so that’s only between $14 and $213 for each beneficiary per year.
If start-up costs in the first year are between $132-263 million, then the savings in years 2 and 3 would already be $126-438 million or $32 to $292 per enrollee. The hope is that ACOs will pay off more years after they’re introduced, but I couldn’t find anything on projections. As Elliott Fisher and others wrote last year in Health Affairs, the ACO model relies on quality improvement that will eventually lead to cost-savings system-wide, and on “reliable and progressively more sophisticated performance measurement, to support improvement and provide confidence that savings are achieved through improvements in care”. The performance measurements (or standardized “metrics”) are not yet in place, and most are just process measures (which are thought to lead to better outcomes), not actual outcome measures.

What kind of a payment models are we talking about? Is this the end of ‘fee-for-service’?
The short answer is: No, it’s not the end of fee-for-service!

Some might think the ACO models means capitation for sure, but Medicare will still pay for each service a clinician or a facility provides. This means that the more services a provider organization renders, the more he/she is paid, and, as it is often recognized, this is the wrong incentive (purely economically, why should the individual clinician provide less services if they’re paid by the number of procedures?). So the ACO payment model only differs from the traditional fee-for-service model in the following ways: it’s all about the bonuses and penalty payments. Estimates are about $800 mio. in bonuses and $40 mio. in penalty payments over three years.

As you can see, the success of a ACO will depend on how they will land within the “sweet spot” of not cutting to many services and getting enough bonuses and if they can influence their decision-makers (the individual clinicians!) to provide only reasonable services and referrals that will increase quality.

Why should an existing provider organization become an ACO and who will apply?
ACOs will have a minimum size of  5,000 “ensured lives”. So this is not for a small physician group. Rather, the first systems that will apply and be approved as ACOs will be already integrated health care systems. Physicians in those organizations will likely already be used to working together closely and there will be a focus on primary care. In some, physicians might be salaried and make only as much use of hospital stays, referrals, tests and procedures as medically necessary. Having said that, I realize that medical practice varies heavily and is influenced by the local or sub-regional “medical culture” (as proven by the Darmouth Atlas and eloquently described by Atul Gawande). Therefore, if supposedly already low cost/high quality regions like:

  • Grand Junction, Colorado
  • Tallahassee, Florida
  • Cedar Rapids, Iowa
  • Portland, Maine
  • Grand Rapids, Michigan
  • Asheville, North Carolina
  • Newark, New Jersey
  • Manchester, New Hampshire
  • Buffalo, New York
  • Rochester, New York
  • Bend, Oregon
  • Everett, Washington
  • La Crosse, Wisconsin

(as identified by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement) will have the first or the most ACOs, the potential savings for CMS might rather be small while ACOs will or will not be paid slightly or a lot more. The latter depends on if the estimates of CMS will be regional (or even sub-regional) or national estimates. ACOs will be paid 50-60% of the savings, but if there aren’t much savings in a given region, than ACOs are stuck with their costs.

Will this work? Are there  other consequences?
For CMS, it’s almost a win/win. If ACOs won’t incur savings, they will have to pay 7.5% of the costs above the “expected” costs in the standard model (or 10% if you’re shooting for the 60% bonus). So CMS will only lose if the ACOs’ patients will cost more than 107.5% (or 110% for the more risk-seeking ACOs). Of course, these figure do not include the costs of setting up and running this system. The hope is, I guess, to change the entire or a large proportion of the system, and not just <1% of the entire budget.

For the provider organizations, this is a huge chance. Currently, most hospitals just break even with Medicare patients, some lose money on them. If you improve your operations in an integrated system, set up quality improvement and potentially reduce the usage of some unnecessary tests and treatments, this will also have repercussions for how your organization treats other patients. There will be some investments, but the pay-off will also come from non-Medicare patients. Nevertheless, this is not for everybody. If the provider organization is more fragmented, if there is weak physician leadership, if there is a high usage of specialists in the system and they’re independent, it will be difficult to get everybody on board to form a high-performing ACO.

For patients, it is a mixed blessing. You could argue that in some ACOs there will be restrictions for seeing specialists and other services, something that patients usually hate. However, if quality and outcomes improve in the ACO model, this would be highly desirable. The first thing that will happen is that Medicare patients will be sent a notice, and if they don’t want their information to be shared in the ACO, they can actually opt out. What I am wondering is: how will this play out politically?

Benjamin Geisler is a comparative effectiveness researcher with experience in health technology assessment/systematic reviews and decision-analytic modeling.

  1. I think this would be a feather in the hat of the democrats which would make it anti republican simply because in the eyes of the public from this point into the near future any health care changes will be associated with the current sitting president and his party. However I’m not seeing the incentive for the exceptional health care professionals to opt into a program like this when they can make more money somewhere else which would bring us another common situation in America where the professionals at the bottom of said profession bet it lawyers or teachers etc will be the ones over worked in these kinds of programs creating a whole new set of problems. I do believe it is a step in the right direction but there are no experts so trail and error will have to take place.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Add your ORCID here. (e.g. 0000-0002-7299-680X)

Back to top