Accountable Care Organization (ACO)

On April 22, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission submitted a public letter to the New York State Department of Health (DOH) expressing “strong concerns” over state regulations offering to provide antitrust immunity to certain healthcare collaborations undertaken with DOH’s approval and supervision.  This letter is consistent with the FTC’s continued opposition to grants of immunity from federal antitrust laws based on state action.  The letter also presents a meaningful opportunity to re-evaluate the interplay between state and federal antitrust enforcement authority, and the related doctrine of state action immunity, particularly in the healthcare arena which has seen an unprecedented spike in collaborative arrangements following passage of the Affordable Care Act.
Continue Reading State Regulatory Scheme Offering Antitrust Immunity to Healthcare Collaborations Creates Tension Between Federal and State Antitrust Enforcement

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) announced on March 10, 2015 that it is adding a new Accountable Care Organization (ACO) model to its cadre of innovative models.[1] Titled the “Next Generation ACO Model,” CMS’ new ACO model allows provider groups to assume higher levels of financial risk and reward than currently available under its Pioneer Model and Shared Savings Program model. CMS noted that the goal of the Next Generation ACO Model (Next Generation) is to “test whether strong financial incentives for ACOs can improve health outcomes and lower expenditures for Original Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries.”[2]
Continue Reading Medicare ACO v. 3.0—More Risk, More Money?

The Texas Medical Association (TMA) and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas are launching a new services company, TMA PracticeEdge, to facilitate bringing the benefits of value-based reimbursements to the state’s independent physicians.

Independent practitioners face challenges to participating in (and benefitting from) alternatives to fee-for-service payment, such as having the funds necessary to invest upfront in resources for improved care management. TMA PracticeEdge aims to help providers address the barriers. The company, for example, will offer consultations on basic practice management and administrative simplification, assistance with the implementation of health information technology infrastructure, and experience with risk-based contracts. Additional services will be available for practices interested in creating care teams or developing an Accountable Care Organization.Continue Reading New Venture Seeks to Support Independent Physicians in Texas

Some of the largest healthcare providers and insurers in the country have joined to form the Healthcare Transformation Task Force in an effort to change healthcare industry payment models.  The announcement of the task force and its efforts come shortly after the Department of Health and Human Services announced plans to overhaul Medicare’s fee-for-service program and transfer non-managed care spending to contracts that incentivize quality performance and cost control.  A unified vision of shifting to incentive based contracts has brought together health systems, Ascension, Trinity Health, Partners HealthCare, and Advocate Health Care, insurance titans Aetna and Health Care Service Corp., and Caesars Entertainment and the Pacific Business Group on Health to form the Healthcare Transformation Task Force.  The goal of the task force is to transform 75% of their business contracts to incentive based contracts focused on improving healthcare quality and lowering healthcare costs.
Continue Reading Task Force of Healthcare Providers and Insurers are Shifting to Incentive Based Contracts

On January 26, 2015, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell announced specific goals and a timeline for shifting Medicare reimbursements from the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) model, to a quality or value-based model.[1] This is the first time in Medicare’s history that HHS is setting specific goals for such a shift. Secretary Burwell noted that by moving towards a reimbursement model that rewards quality of care, rather than simply paying for each individual service without evaluating the outcome of such services, that the goals of building a health care system that delivers better care, spends health care dollars more wisely and results in healthier Americans will be realized.
Continue Reading HHS Aims to Tie Most Medicare Reimbursements to Quality by 2018

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released proposed regulations to clarify and build on current regulatory requirements for Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) that participate in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP).  Among the changes is one addressing when an ACO must be formed as an independent legal entity, separate from any of its multiple participants.  According to CMS, this proposed change is designed to clarify existing regulations and to ensure that ACO decision-making is governed by individuals with fiduciary duties to the ACO alone.
Continue Reading CMS’ Proposed Regulations Include Significant Antitrust Implications For Entities Interested In Forming ACOs

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released second year results on its Pioneer Accountable Care Organization (ACO) program. [1] [2]  The Pioneer ACO program is CMS’ ambitious foray into the ACO space and a predecessor to the broader Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) that has resulted in the formation of hundreds of new ACOs nationwide.  CMS originally selected 32 provider organizations with a proven ability to coordinate care for their patients with the goal of transitioning the providers in those organizations from a fee-for-service payment model, to a shared savings model and finally to a population based payment model.  The Pioneer ACO program kicked off in 2012 and was intended to (1) improve quality and health outcomes for patients served by each Pioneer ACO, (2) achieve cost savings for the Medicare program and (3) reward providers who were able to achieve the dual goals of cost savings and improved quality.  Furthermore, Pioneer ACOs are eligible for higher levels of shared savings and subject to greater downside risk than MSSP ACOs. So, how have the Pioneer ACOs performed during their first two years?
Continue Reading Pioneer ACOs: Slowed Health Spending, Improved Quality and More Drop Outs?