Search

To understand the investments that Medicare Shared Savings Program accountable care organizations (ACOs) in the ACO Investment Model (AIM) made to participate in the program and the costs that they incurred as a result of their efforts to lower spending and improve quality.We conducted a systematic review and categorization of all available and approved quarterly expenses reported by AIM ACOs.We reviewed final approved quarterly expense reports submitted by ACOs detailing how they spent funds in the quarter. All distinct line-item descriptions were classified into a more informative and consistent set of categories. We then applied higher conceptual dimensions (type of care input and type of ACO strategy) to these newly categorized expenses to facilitate additional analysis of spending patterns.AIM ACOs reported expenses of $264.8 million over the 3 performance years (2016-2018). The majority of the $264.8 million in expenditures was incurred for personnel (55.5%), followed by infrastructure (22.3%), management firm expenses (15.3%), and internal programs and systems (6.9%). The dominant identifiable ACO strategy was care coordination and management, accounting for 52.9% of related ACO expenses.AIM ACOs invested most heavily in personnel, information technology, and care management, with less than half of the investments explicitly tied to a strategy for improving quality or reducing spending. Efforts to change clinician practice patterns, alter the way patients access the health care system, and institute other practice redesigns were not primary targets for investment.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) developed the Accountable Care Organization (ACO) Investment Model (AIM) to encourage the growth of Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACOs in rural and underserved areas. AIM provides financial support to eligible MSSP ACOs by means of prepayment of shared savings. Estimation of the performance of AIM ACOs on measures of spending and utilization in their first performance year would be useful for understanding the viability of ACOs located in these areas.We analyzed Medicare claims and enrollment data for a group of fee-for-service beneficiaries who had been attributed to 41 AIM ACOs and for a comparable group of beneficiaries who resided in the ACO markets but were served primarily by non-ACO providers. We used a difference-in-differences study design to compare changes in outcomes from the baseline period (2013 through 2015) to the performance period (2016) among beneficiaries attributed to AIM ACOs with concurrent changes among beneficiaries in the comparison group. The primary outcome of interest was total Medicare Part A and B spending.Provider participation in AIM was associated with a differential reduction in total Medicare spending of $28.21 per beneficiary per month relative to the comparison group, which amounted to an aggregate decrease of $131.0 million. Over the same period, CMS made $76.2 million in prepayments and paid an additional $6.2 million in shared savings to ACOs in which shared savings exceeded the prepayments. After we accounted for this $82.4 million in CMS spending, the aggregate net reduction was $48.6 million, which corresponded to a net reduction of $10.46 per beneficiary per month. Decreases in the number of hospitalizations and use of institutional post-acute care contributed to the observed reduction in overall spending.With up-front investments, participation in ACO shared savings contracts by providers serving rural and underserved areas was associated with lower Medicare spending than that among non-ACO providers. (Funded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.).

Unlike other post-acute care settings, a large and growing share of Medicare Fee-For-Service patients are admitted to home health without a prior hospitalization or facility-based post-acute stay. Differences in home health patients by admission source have implications for standardizing measurement, and potentially payment, across post-acute care settings. We examined home health patients’ demographic, health, and utilization patterns when stratified by their admission source. We found that community-admitted patients were more likely to be dually eligible, have multiple home health episodes, have Alzheimer disease, and have suffered from depression. Noncommunity admission sources were associated with higher 30-day post home health admission hospitalization rates. These differences should be accounted for in properly incentivizing agencies to care for all types of patients appropriate for home health.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Public Health Emergency (PHE) has had a substantial impact on the provision and utilization of healthcare services. Given the high mortality rate associated with COVID-19 amongst older adults, COVID-19 is likely to have a profound impact on all hospice users due to disruptions in providing services. Our work describes how Medicare beneficiaries have utilized the Medicare Hospice Benefit (MHB) during the PHE and how that compares to utilization of the MHB prior to the PHE. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 100% Part A and Part B Fee-for-Service (FFS) Medicare claims from January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2020. We identified approximately 42.3 million unique Medicare FFS beneficiaries from January 2019 through December 2020. Of these, 1.6 million (3.8%) had at least one hospice claim and 1.7 million (4.0%) had at least one Medicare Part A or Part B claim with a COVID-19 diagnosis during the same time period. The rate of COVID-19 amongst FFS Medicare patients who utilized hospice was 8.3%. Average per-beneficiary per-month hospice visits fell by 28.2% for aides and 15.4% for nurses from December 2019 (7.1 aide visits, 6.5 skilled nursing visits) through December 2020 (5.1 aide visits, 5.5 skilled nursing visits). CMS should continue to monitor the prevalence of COVID-19 amongst hospice users and measures of hospice utilization amongst all hospice users in order to better understand how the PHE impacts the provision of the MHB and ensure beneficiaries continue to have access to needed services.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The ACO Investment Model (AIM) was designed to encourage providers in rural or underserved areas to participate in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (SSP) by providing up‐front financial support for care transformation. In the second performance year, there were 41 ACOs that continued participation in AIM, with 423,434 beneficiaries assigned them. Our research objective was to determine whether the significant reductions in total Medicare spending we found in the first performance year were sustained in the second year, and whether specific ACO or market characteristics were associated with spending in both performance years. STUDY DESIGN: We utilized a difference‐in‐differences evaluation design to estimate differences in total spending between Medicare fee‐for‐service (FFS) beneficiaries attributed to AIM ACOs and comparison beneficiaries, before versus after the start of AIM. The comparison group included beneficiaries residing in each AIM ACO’s market who were eligible but not attributed to an ACO. Regression and weighting were used to adjust for demographic characteristics and health status. We stratified first and second performance year results based on ACO and market characteristics, including whether an ACO used a management company; partnered with a hospital; had fewer than 6,500 enrolled beneficiaries; was in the top quartile of rurality among AIM markets; had a discontinuous market; or had total Medicare spending at baseline that was above the median among all AIM markets. POPULATION STUDIED: Medicare FFS beneficiaries attributed to ACOs in AIM, which targeted ACO formation in rural/underserved areas in 2016 and 2017. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Across all 41 AIM ACOs, we estimated a significant reduction in total spending of $36.94 per beneficiary per month (PBPM) in the second performance year—a reduction of 3.5% and similar to findings from the first performance year. There were no significant differences in AIM impacts based on any of our six stratifications, but results across the two performance years suggest that greater reductions were achieved by ACOs working with a management company. CONCLUSIONS: ACOs participating in AIM sustained reductions in total Medicare spending across the first two performance years and across diverse ACO and market characteristics. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY OR PRACTICE: Results from the second performance year strengthen the evidence that ACOs can help reduce Medicare spending in rural or underserved areas. Among AIM markets, variations in market‐level baseline spending, market dispersion, and high rurality were not barriers to achieving spending reductions. ACOs locating in rural or underserved areas may benefit through partnership with a management company. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

A criticism of Medicare’s home health prospective payment system is its partial reliance on cost-based reimbursement of therapy services provided by home health agencies (HHAs) to Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries, potentially overincentivizing the provision of therapy services. Using Medicare FFS home health claims and assessment data, we estimated a model to predict therapy use as a proxy for clinical need and replace actual therapy use with the prediction in the home health payment system. We estimated a $1.178 billion (95% confidence interval, $1.171-$1.184) decrease in home health payments relative to levels under the current system. The majority of the decrease was due to the model predicting fewer high therapy episodes than actually occurred. It may therefore be more appropriate to predict both therapy and nontherapy use, requiring an overhaul of the current system.

Background Children at high risk for developing type 1 diabetes (T1D) can be identified on the basis of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotype and the subsequent development of islet cell autoantibodies. Several studies have documented reduced incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in new-onset T1D when high-risk children are identified at an early age. Many have questioned whether general population screening for T1D risk should be standard of practice. We sought to perform a purely economic, cost-benefit analysis to determine if a screening program to reduce the incidence of DKA at diagnosis in children less than 5 yr is cost effective. Methods We compared the cost of population screening with the benefit of preventing DKA. The cost of screening included one-time HLA typing on the entire population followed by islet cell autoantibody testing in high-risk children every 6 months until age 5 yr. The potential benefits of screening included reductions in parental lost income, medical expenses, morbidity, and mortality. Results Screening for T1D risk for the sole purpose of reducing the cost of DKA at onset of T1D was not economically viable unless HLA testing and autoantibody testing could be performed for less than $1 and $0.03, respectively. Conclusions Current screening costs far outweigh the economic benefits of preventing new-onset DKA in children under 5 yr of age.

Children at high risk for developing type 1 diabetes (T1D) can be identified on the basis of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotype and the subsequent development of islet cell autoantibodies. Several studies have documented reduced incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in new-onset T1D when high-risk children are identified at an early age. Many have questioned whether general population screening for T1D risk should be standard of practice. We sought to perform a purely economic, cost-benefit analysis to determine if a screening program to reduce the incidence of DKA at diagnosis in children less than 5 yr is cost effective.We compared the cost of population screening with the benefit of preventing DKA. The cost of screening included one-time HLA typing on the entire population followed by islet cell autoantibody testing in high-risk children every 6 months until age 5 yr. The potential benefits of screening included reductions in parental lost income, medical expenses, morbidity, and mortality.Screening for T1D risk for the sole purpose of reducing the cost of DKA at onset of T1D was not economically viable unless HLA testing and autoantibody testing could be performed for less than $1 and $0.03, respectively.Current screening costs far outweigh the economic benefits of preventing new-onset DKA in children under 5 yr of age.