Tag Archive: Medicare Shared Savings Program

One year after jettisoning single payer, Vermont now looks to control medical costs via expanded “all payer” ACO

One year after Vermont abandoned its plan to move to a single payer health finance framework amid concerns over the ability of tax revenues to cover rising medical utilization costs under that payment model, the state is rolling out an alternative aimed at reining in those costs. It would do so through a proposed “all payer model.” The model builds on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s Medicare Shared Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) model in which providers share risk with reimbursements tied to the overall cost and quality of care provided rather than discrete medical procedures under the traditional fee for service model. Reflecting the pervasiveness of costly, chronic health conditions no longer largely confined to the Medicaid eligible population, the Vermont proposal would expand that model to all forms of reimbursement, including Medicaid and commercial plans:

The State would agree to coordinate with Medicaid and commercial insurers, and in return the federal government would allow Medicare to participate in the ACO value-based payment model. As is true today, health care providers’ participation in ACOs is voluntary; the ACO must be attractive to providers and offer an alternative health care delivery model that is appealing enough to join.

The goal of the proposed all payer model is to limit the annual growth of statewide medical spending to 3.5 percent with a maximum spending growth of 4.3 percent:

The goal of this financial target is to bring health care spending closer to economic growth. When health care costs grow faster than Vermont’s economy, Vermont families find their premiums rising faster than wages. This is also true in the state’s Medicaid budget, which grows faster than the revenue sources used to fund it.

The board’s authority to regulate reimbursement rates exists under current state law, according to a term sheet outlining the proposal. Vermont will seek any necessary waivers from the federal government to operate the all payer model, noting the state has jointly developed a policy framework and the needed waivers in consultation with the federal Health and Human Services Department’s Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The fee for service reimbursement model is no longer suitable and is “antiquated” according to the Vermont proposal:

When the fee-for-service health care payment model was devised over 50 years ago, the average life expectancy of Americans was significantly shorter than it is today, and the burden of chronic disease was smaller. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that treating people with chronic diseases accounts for 86 percent of our nation’s health care costs. Health care reimbursement was designed to pay for acute medical conditions that required a single visit to the doctor or a single hospitalization. By contrast, persons with chronic conditions require regular, ongoing care across the continuum of traditional medical services and community-based services and supports. Fee-for-service reimbursement makes it difficult for innovative health care providers to adapt to the changing needs of the population that they serve. The antiquated system provides clear financial incentives to order additional tests and procedures, yet it does not reward doctors and other health care professionals for providing individualized and coordinated care for complex chronic conditions. In the end, patients may receive care that is expensive, fragmented, and disorganized.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

Ex-Obama advisers seek health care cost control – Yahoo! News

Under the proposal, the major public and private players in each state would negotiate payment rates with service providers such as hospitals. The idea is to get away from paying for each individual test and procedure. Negotiated rates could be based on an entire course of treatment. Payments would have to fit within an overall budget that could grow no faster than the average rise in wages.

The spending limits would be enforced by an independent council, but crucial details need to be spelled out. In Massachusetts, for example, budget-busting providers will be required to file plans with the state laying out how they’ll amend their spendthrift ways.

The federal government would provide grants to states interested in developing their plans.

Tanden joined a brain trust of former administration officials floating the proposal recently in the New England Journal of Medicine. The group included Peter Orszag (former budget director), John Podesta (transition director), Donald Berwick (first Medicare chief), Ezekiel Emanuel (Orszag’s health policy guru), and Joshua Sharfstein (former No. 2 at the Food and Drug Administration). Also on board was former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., Obama’s first pick to shepherd his health care overhaul.

via Ex-Obama advisers seek health care cost control – Yahoo! News.

This item from the Associated Press dubs the initiative “Health Care Overhaul, Version 2.0,” with the goal of establishing a “first-ever budget for the nation’s $2.8-trillion health care system, through negotiated limits on public and private spending in each state.”

The proposal represents an expansion of the accountable care organization concept in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s Medicare Shared Savings Program (Section 3022 of the PPACA) beyond Medicare to encompass private payments.  It is a government led market intervention designed to shift the business model and economics of the health care industry away from the current model that rewards the provision of discrete medical procedures to an all inclusive, coordinated system of care. 

Arguably, the existing health maintenance organization (HMO) is based on the same principle.  But that hasn’t bent the so-called cost curve. The difference here is that the power of government would be brought to bear to hold down costs such as in Massachusetts. The Bay State recently enacted legislation that among other things, subjects providers to cost growth benchmarks. Those providers exceeding the benchmarks must file and implement a performance-improvement plan, with potential penalty up to $500,000 for failure to comply.  The New England Journal of Medicine has more details on the Massachusetts law here.

 


Need a speaker or webinar presenter on the Affordable Care Act and the outlook for health care reform? Contact Pilot Healthcare Strategies Principal Fred Pilot by email fpilot@pilothealthstrategies.com or call 530-295-1473. 

%d bloggers like this: