"Lost to follow-up": the public health goals of accountable care

The Affordable Care Act made admirable strides toward the "triple aim" of reducing health care costs, increasing health care quality, and improving the health of the community at large. A key element of reform is the accountable care organization (ACO), which restructures health care delivery such that networks of providers are held responsible for a group of patients they serve. The recently announced Medicare ACO program lays the foundation for 2 of its 3 major goals by allowing ACOs to share in any cost savings, provided they meet quality criteria. Yet it seems that the public health goals of accountable care-arguably the most important of the 3-have been left behind. To better address public health goals, we propose a novel method for quality reporting within ACOs: introducing an "expanded denominator" that attributes patients to a health system if they have ever been seen within the system. An expanded denominator would ensure that ACOs are held accountable not only for patients already engaged in primary care but also for patients with fragmented care and high-risk community members not receiving adequate care. Ultimately, payment reform in Medicare, and potentially Medicaid, must support this new approach to quality measurement for it to have lasting ramifications.     

Adoption of Health System Innovations: Evidence of Urban-Rural Disparities from the Ohio Primary Care Marketplace

BackgroundAccountable care organizations (ACOs), patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs), and the meaningful use of electronic health records (EHRs) generated particular attention during the last decade. Translating these reforms into meaningful increases in population health depends on improving the quality and clinical integration of primary care providers (PCPs). However, if these innovations spread more quickly among PCPs in urban and wealthier areas, then they could potentially worsen existing geographic disparities in health outcomes.ObjectiveTo determine the market penetration of Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACOs, PCMHs, and the meaningful use of EHRs among PCPs across urban and rural counties in Ohio.DesignRetrospective, observational study of the percent of PCPs in a county who are affiliated with PCMH, ACO, and meaningful use (MU) of EHR.ParticipantsPCPs in all of Ohio’s 88 counties from 2011 to 2015.Main MeasuresPrimary care market penetration of ACO, PCMH, and meaningful use of EHRKey ResultsIn 2015, the Ohio primary care market penetration of PCMH was 23.4%, ACO was 27.7%, MU stage 1 was 55.8%, and MU stage 2 was 26.6%. During the study period, PCMH and ACO market penetration increased faster in urban counties relative to rural counties, and market penetration of meaningful use of EHR increased faster in rural counties.ConclusionsMarket penetration of PCMH and ACOs increased faster in urban markets compared to rural markets. However, the adoption of EHRs increased faster in rural markets. The results are a cause for optimism as well as a call to action: although recent efforts to increase PCMH and ACO adoption were less effective among the rural population in Ohio, federal programs to accelerate adoption of EHRs were overwhelmingly successful in rural areas.     

Innovation in the Safety Net: Integrating Community Health Centers Through Accountable Care

BACKGROUND

Safety net primary care providers, including as community health centers, have long been isolated from mainstream health care providers. Current delivery system reforms such as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) may either reinforce the isolation of these providers or may spur new integration of safety net providers.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the extent of community health center involvement in ACOs, as well as how and why ACOs are partnering with these safety net primary care providers.

DESIGN

Mixed methods study pairing the cross-sectional National Survey of ACOs (conducted 2012 to 2013), followed by in-depth, qualitative interviews with a subset of ACOs that include community health centers (conducted 2013).

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and seventy-three ACOs completed the National Survey of ACOs. Executives from 18 ACOs that include health centers participated in in-depth interviews, along with leadership at eight community health centers participating in ACOs.

MAIN MEASURES

Key survey measures include ACO organizational characteristics, care management and quality improvement capabilities. Qualitative interviews used a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, then coded for thematic content using NVivo software.

KEY RESULTS

Overall, 28% of ACOs include a community health center (CHC). ACOs with CHCs are similar to those without CHCs in organizational structure, care management and quality improvement capabilities. Qualitative results showed two major themes. First, ACOs with CHCs typically represent new relationships or formal partnerships between CHCs and other local health care providers. Second, CHCs are considered valued partners brought into ACOs to expand primary care capacity and expertise.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of ACOs include CHCs. These results suggest that rather than reinforcing segmentation of safety net providers from the broader delivery system, the ACO model may lead to the integration of safety net primary care providers.     

Implementation of collaborative care for depressive disorder treatment among accountable care organizations

Collaborative care – primary care models combining care management, consulting behavioral health clinicians, and registries to target mental health treatment – is a cost-effective depression treatment model, but little is known about uptake of collaborative care in a national setting. Alternative payment models such as accountable care organizations (ACOs), in which ACOs are responsible for quality and cost for defined patient populations, may encourage collaborative care use.Determine prevalence of collaborative care implementation among ACOs and whether ACO structure or contract characteristics are associated with implementation.Cross-sectional analysis of 2017–2018 National Survey of ACOs (NSACO). Overall, 55% of ACOs returned a survey (69% of Medicare, 36% of non-Medicare ACOs); 48% completed at least half of core survey questions. We used logistic regression to examine the association between implementation of core collaborative care components – care management, a consulting mental health clinician, and a patient registry to track mental health symptoms – and ACO characteristics.Four hundred five National Survey of ACOs respondents answering questions on collaborative care implementation.Only 17% of ACOs reported implementing all collaborative care components. Most reported using care managers (71%) and consulting mental health clinicians (58%), =just 26% reported using patient registries. After adjusting for multiple ACO characteristics, ACOs responsible for mental health care quality measures were 15 percentage points (95% CI 5–23) more likely to implement collaborative care.Most ACOs are not utilizing behavioral health collaborative care. Including mental health care quality measures in payment contracts may facilitate implementation of this cost-effective model. Improving provider capacity to track and target depression treatment with patient registries is warranted as payment contracts focus on treatment outcomes.     

Ethical Challenges for Accountable Care Organizations: A Structured Review

BACKGROUND

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are proliferating as a solution to the cost crisis in American health care, and already involve as many as 31 million patients. ACOs hold clinicians, group practices, and in many circumstances hospitals financially accountable for reducing expenditures and improving their patients’ health outcomes. The structure of health care affects the ethical issues arising in the practice of medicine; therefore, like all health care organizational structures, ACOs will experience ethical challenges. No framework exists to assist key ACO stakeholders in identifying or managing these challenges.

Methods

We conducted a structured review of the medical ACO literature using qualitative content analysis to inform identification of ethical challenges for ACOs.

Results

Our analysis found infrequent discussion of ethics as an explicit concern for ACOs. Nonetheless, we identified nine critical ethical challenges, often described in other terms, for ACO stakeholders. Leaders could face challenges regarding fair resource allocation (e.g., about fairly using ACOs’ shared savings), protection of professionals’ ethical obligations (especially related to the design of financial incentives), and development of fair decision processes (e.g., ensuring that beneficiary representatives on the ACO board truly represent the ACO’s patients). Clinicians could perceive threats to their professional autonomy (e.g., through cost control measures), a sense of dual or conflicted responsibility to their patients and the ACO, or competition with other clinicians. For patients, critical ethical challenges will include protecting their autonomy, ensuring privacy and confidentiality, and effectively engaging them with the ACO.

Discussion

ACOs are not inherently more or less “ethical” than other health care payment models, such as fee-for-service or pure capitation. ACOs’ nascent development and flexibility in design, however, present a time-sensitive opportunity to ensure their ethical operation, promote their success, and refine their design and implementation by identifying, managing, and conducting research into the ethical issues they might face.     

US Approaches to Physician Payment: The Deconstruction of Primary Care

In this paper, we describe a range of payment options to support the PCMH, identifying their conceptual strengths and weaknesses. These include enhanced FFS payment for office visits to the PCMH; paying additional FFS for “new” PCMH services; variations of traditional FFS combined with new PCMH-oriented per patient per month capitation; and combined capitation payments for traditional primary care medical services as well as new medical home services. In discussing options for PCMH payment reform we consider issues in patient severity adjustment, performance payment, and the role of payments to community service organizations to collaborate with the PCMH. We also highlight some of the practical challenges that can complicate reimbursement reform for primary care and the PCMH. Through this discussion we identify key dimensions to provider payment reform relevant to promoting enhanced primary care through the patient centered medical home. These consist of paying for the basic medical home services, rewarding excellent performance of medical homes, incentivizing medical home connections to other community health care resources, and overcoming implementation challenges to medical home payments. Each of these overarching policy issues invokes a substantial subset of policy relevant research questions that collectively comprise a robust research agenda. We conclude that the conceptual strengths and weaknesses of available payment models for medical home functions invoke a complex array of options with varying levels of real-world feasibility. The different needs of patients and communities, and varying characteristics of practices must also be factors guiding PCMH payment reform. Indeed, it may be that different circumstances will require different payment approaches in various combinations.     

The Impact of New Payment Models on Quality of Diabetes Care and Outcomes

Historic changes in healthcare reimbursement and payment models due to the Affordable Care Act in the United States have the potential to transform how providers care for chronic diseases such as diabetes. Payment experimentation has provided insights into how changing incentives for primary care providers can yield improvements in the triple aim: improving patient experience, improving the health of populations, and reducing costs of healthcare. Much of this has involved leveraging widespread adoption of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) with diabetes often the focus. While evidence is mounting that the PCMH can improve diabetes outcomes, some PCMH demonstrations have displayed mixed results. One of the first large-scale PCMH demonstrations developed around diabetes was conducted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Different payment models were employed across a series of staggered regional rollouts that provided a case study for the influence of innovative payment models. These learning laboratories provide insights into the role of reimbursement models and changes in how practice transformation is implemented. Ultimately, evolving payment systems focused on the total cost of care, such as Accountable Care Organizations, hold promise to transform diabetes care and produce significant cost savings through the prevention of complications.     

Patient-Centered Medical Home: How It Affects Psychosocial Outcomes for Diabetes

Fragmentation of the current U.S. health care system and the increased prevalence of chronic diseases in the U.S. have led to the recognition that new models of care are needed. Chronic disease management, including diabetes, is often accompanied by a myriad of associated psychosocial issues that need to be addressed as part of a comprehensive treatment plan. Diabetes care should be aligned with comprehensive whole-person health care. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) has emerged as a model for enhanced primary care that focuses on comprehensive integrated care. PCMH demonstration projects have shown improvements in quality of care, patient experience, care coordination, access to care, and quality measures for diabetes. Key PCMH transformative features associated with psychosocial issues related to diabetes reviewed in this article include integration of mental and behavioral health, care management/coordination, payment reform, advanced access, and putting the patient at the center of health care. This article also reviews the evidence supporting comprehensive and integrated care for addressing psychosocial issues associated with diabetes in the medical home.     

The patient-centered medical home neighbor: A primary care physician's view

The American College of Physicians' position paper on the patient-centered medical home neighbor (PCMH-N) extends the work of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) as a means of improving the delivery of health care. Recognizing that the PCMH does not exist in isolation, the PCMH-N concept outlines expectations for comanagement, communication, and care coordination and broadens responsibility for safe, effective, and efficient care beyond primary care to include physicians of all specialties. As such, it is a fitting follow-up to the PCMH and moves further down the road toward improved care for complex patients. Yet, there is more work to be done. Truly transforming the U.S. health care system around personalized medical homes embedded in highly functional medical neighborhoods will require better staffing models; more robust electronic information tools; aligned incentives for quality and efficiency within payment and regulatory policies; and a culture of greater engagement of patients, their families, and communities.     

Translating Evidence into Practice: ACOs’ Use of Care Plans for Patients with Complex Health Needs

BackgroundCare plans are an evidence-based strategy, encouraged by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and are used to manage the care of patients with complex health needs that have been shown to lead to lower hospital costs and improved patient outcomes. Providers participating in payment reform, such as accountable care organizations, may be more likely to adopt care plans to manage complex patients.ObjectiveTo understand how Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) use care plans to manage patients with complex clinical needs.DesignA qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Medicare ACOs.ParticipantsThirty-nine interviews were conducted across 18 Medicare ACOs with executive-level leaders and associated clinical and managerial staff.ApproachDevelopment, structure, use, and management of care plans for complex patients at Medicare ACOs.Key ResultsMost (11) of the interviewed ACOs reported using care plans to manage care of complex patients. All care plans include information about patient history, current medical needs, and future care plans. Beyond the core elements, care plans included elements based on the ACO’s planned use and level of staff and patient engagement with care planning. Most care plans were developed and maintained by care management (not clinical) staff.ConclusionsACOs are using care plans for patients with complex needs, but their use of care plans does not always meet the best practices. In many cases, ACO usage of care plans does not align with prescribed best practices: ACOs are adapting use of care plans to better fit the needs of patients and providers.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-020-06122-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.KEY WORDS: primary care, accountable care organizations, complex patients, care plans     

The Patient-Centered Medical Home: Preparation of the Workforce,More Questions than Answers

As American medicine continues to undergo significant transformation, the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) is emerging as an interprofessional primary care model designed to deliver the right care for patients, by the right professional, at the right time, in the right setting, for the right cost. A review of local, state, regional and national initiatives to train professionals in delivering care within the PCMH model reveals some successes, but substantial challenges. Workforce policy recommendations designed to improve PCMH effectiveness and efficiency include 1) adoption of an expanded definition of primary care, 2) fundamental redesign of health professions education, 3) payment reform, 4) responsiveness to local needs assessments, and 5) systems improvement to emphasize quality, population health, and health disparities.Key words: Health policy, Workforce, Patient-centered care, Medical education—financing and administration, Medical education—interprofessional training, faculty development, undergraduate and graduate training     

How the Affordable Care Act will strengthen the nation's primary care foundation

As the country turns toward implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, realizing the potential of reform will require significant transformation of the American system of health care delivery. To that end, the new law seeks to strengthen the nation’s primary care foundation through enhanced reimbursement rates for providers and the use of innovative delivery models such as patient-centered medical homes. Evidence suggests that these strategies can return substantial benefits to both patients and providers by increasing access to primary care services, reducing administrative hassles and burdens, and facilitating coordination across the continuum of care. If successfully implemented, the Affordable Care Act has the potential to realign incentives within the health system and create opportunities for providers to be rewarded for delivering high value, patient-centered primary care. Such a transformation could lead to better outcomes for patients, increase job satisfaction among physicians and encourage more sustainable levels of health spending for the nation.     

Developing a Policy-Relevant Research Agenda for the Patient-Centered Medical Home: A Focus on Outcomes

Background  

The Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) is a widely endorsed model of delivery system reform that emphasizes primary care. Pilot demonstration projects are underway in many states, sponsored by Medicare, Medicaid, major health plans and multi-payer coalitions.     

Nationwide Qualitative Study of Practice Leader Perspectives on What It Takes to Transform into a Patient-Centered Medical Home

BackgroundDespite widespread adoption of patient-centered medical home (PCMH), little is known about why practices pursue PCMH and what is needed to undergo transformation.ObjectiveExamine reasons practices obtained and maintained PCMH recognition and what resources were needed.DesignQualitative study of practice leader perspectives on PCMH transformation, based on a random sample of primary care practices engaged in PCMH transformation, stratified by US region, practice size, PCMH recognition history, and practice use of Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) PCMH survey.Participants105 practice leaders from 294 sampled practices (36% response rate).ApproachContent analysis of interviews with practice leaders to identify themes.ResultsMost practice leaders had local control of PCMH transformation decisions, even if practices adopted quality initiatives under the direction of an organization or network. Financial incentives, being in a statewide effort, and the intrinsic desire to improve care or experiences were the most common reasons practice leaders decided to obtain PCMH recognition and pursue associated care delivery changes. Leadership support and direction were highlighted as essential throughout PCMH transformation. Practice leaders reported needing specialized staff knowledge and significant resources to meet PCMH requirements, including staff knowledgeable about how to implement PCMH changes, track and monitor improvements, and navigate implementation of simultaneous changes, and staff with specific quality improvement (QI) expertise related to evaluating changes and scaling-up programs.ConclusionPCMH efforts necessitated support and assistance to frontline, on-site practice leaders leading care delivery changes. Such change efforts should include financial incentives (e.g., direct payment or additional reimbursement), leadership direction and support, and internal or external staff with experience with the PCMH application process, implementation changes, and QI expertise in monitoring process and outcome data. Policies that recognize and meet the needs of on-site practice leaders will better promote primary care practice transformation and move practices further toward their PCMH transformation goals.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-020-06052-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.KEY WORDS: practice transformation, quality improvement, leadership, primary care     

Supreme Court review of the Affordable Care Act: the future of health care reform and practice of gastroenterology

After decades of failed attempts to enact comprehensive health care reform, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been regarded as the most significant piece of domestic policy legislation since the establishment of Medicare in 1965. The ACA would cover an estimated 32 of the 50 million uninsured Americans by expanding Medicaid, providing subsidies to lower income individuals, establishing health insurance exchanges, and restricting insurance companies from excluding patients from coverage. The ACA also includes many payment and health care delivery system reforms intended to improve quality of care and control health care spending. Soon after passage of the ACA, numerous states and interest groups filed suits challenging its legality. Supreme Court consideration was requested in five cases and the Supreme Court selected one case, brought by 26 states, for review. Oral arguments were heard this spring, March 26-28. The decision will have far reaching consequences for health care in America and the practice of gastroenterology for decades to come. This article reviews the four major issues before the Supreme Court and implications for health care reform and future practice of gastroenterology. Payment reforms, increased accountability, significant pressures for cost control, and new care delivery models will significantly change the future practice of gastroenterology. With these challenges however is a historic opportunity to improve access to care and help realize a more equitable, sustainable, and innovative health care system.     

The Policy Context of Patient Centered Medical Homes: Perspectives of Primary Care Providers

BACKGROUND

Interest in the patient centered medical home (PCMH) model has increased significantly in recent years. Despite this attention, information is limited regarding the influence of policy context on implementation of the PCMH model. Using comparative, qualitative data, we identify several key policy impediments to PCMH implementation, and propose practical guidelines for addressing these issues.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Qualitative, semi-structured in-person interviews with representatives of physician organizations and primary care practices pursuing PCMH.

PARTICIPANTS

Practitioners and staff at 16 physician practices in Michigan, as well as key leaders of physician organizations.

KEY RESULTS

We identified five primary policy issues cited by physicians and physician organization leaders as most impactful on their efforts to adopt PCMH: misalignment of current reimbursement schemes, administrative burden, conflicting criteria for PCMH designation, workforce policy issues, and uncertainty of health care reform. These policies were largely seen as barriers to their ability to implement PCMH.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers’ motivation to embrace PCMH, and their level of confidence regarding the results of such change, are greatly influenced by their perception of the external environment and the control they believe they have over this environment. Having policies in place that shape the path to PCMH in a manner that makes it as easy as possible for providers to accomplish the desired changes could well make the difference in whether successful transformation is achieved.     

Fundamental Reform of Payment for Adult Primary Care: Comprehensive Payment for Comprehensive Care

Primary care is essential to the effective and efficient functioning of health care delivery systems, yet there is an impending crisis in the field due in part to a dysfunctional payment system. We present a fundamentally new model of payment for primary care, replacing encounter-based imbursement with comprehensive payment for comprehensive care. Unlike former iterations of primary care capitation (which simply bundled inadequate fee-for-service payments), our comprehensive payment model represents new investment in adult primary care, with substantial increases in payment over current levels. The comprehensive payment is directed to practices to include support for the modern systems and teams essential to the delivery of comprehensive, coordinated care. Income to primary physicians is increased commensurate with the high level of responsibility expected. To ensure optimal allocation of resources and the rewarding of desired outcomes, the comprehensive payment is needs/risk-adjusted and performance-based. Our model establishes a new social contract with the primary care community, substantially increasing payment in return for achieving important societal health system goals, including improved accessibility, quality, safety, and efficiency. Attainment of these goals should help offset and justify the costs of the investment. Field tests of this and other new models of payment for primary care are urgently needed.     

Getting Value from Health Spending: Going Beyond Payment Reform

It is widely held that fee-for-service (FFS) payment systems reward volume and intensity of services, contributing to overall cost inflation, while doing little to reward quality, efficiency, or care coordination. Recently, The National Commission on Physician Payment Reform (sponsored by SGIM) has recommended that payers “should largely eliminate stand-alone fee-for-service payment to medical practices because of its inherent inefficiencies and problematic financial incentives.” As the current and former Chief Medical Officers of a large national insurer, we agree that payment reform is a critical component of health care modernization. But calls to transform payment simultaneously go too far, and don’t go far enough. Based on our experience, we believe there are several critical ingredients that are either missing or under-emphasized in most payment reform proposals, including: health care is local so no one size fits all; upgrading performance measures; monitoring/overcoming unintended consequences; using a full toolbox to achieve transformation; and ensuring that the necessary components for successful delivery reform are in place. Thinking holistically and remembering that healthcare is a complex adaptive system are crucial to achieving better results for patients and the health system.     

Leadership in creating accountable care organizations

General internists need to take an active leadership position in the creation of accountable care organizations (ACOs). The basic idea behind ACOs is relatively simple. Physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers will continue to be paid fee-for-service by the Medicare program, but if they can work together to better manage people with chronic conditions, reduce avoidable complications, reduce unnecessary specialty referrals, and improve transfer of beneficiaries as they transition from one care provider to another; then there is the possibility of shared savings with the Medicare program. ACOs are likely to alter existing referral patterns among general internists and specialty physicians and engender debates over how to allocate any financial savings. They are scheduled to begin operation on January 2012. As ACOs are established, general internists should review the operation of the care management and disease management programs. They should understand the financial arrangements and quality indicators that the ACOs establish. They should be involved in identifying the patients that would benefit from better care management. They should identify changes in care processes and payment reforms that would improve the care for these patients. ACOs represent an opportunity for general internists to change the way medical care is delivered.