Peter Wehrwein

Editor

So last week it was all doom and gloom about Pioneer ACOs.

The buzz in health care wonkdom was all about 9 of the 32 organizations defecting from a program supposedly designed for the best and brightest of American health care organizations — with maybe more to follow. Accepting downside risk was just too perilous. Lags in getting data from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) were undermining cost and quality control efforts. And the contradiction of being responsible (aka accountable) for the costs of Medicare enrollees but having no direct control over where they receive care — a central feature of the ACO model — was simply untenable.

But this morning CMS attempted to change the doleful Pioneer ACO tune with a long-awaited announcement of cost and quality results from 2012, the first year the Pioneer ACOs were in operation.

The government agency spin was unabashedly upbeat: The announcement characterized the results as “positive and promising”

The Wall Street Journal, which got the scoop on the results, was more measured (no surprise there). The headline on this morning’s front-pager is “Mixed Results in Health Pilot Plans.” But story creates a favorable impression with sunny quotes from executives whose Pioneer ACOs had good rookie years and will get back shared savings.

“We did great,” the Journal quotes Gary Gottlieb, president and chief executive of Partners Healthcare in Boston, as saying. “We saved about $14.4 million for Medicare and will get back a little over $7 million.”

Here are a few highlights from today’s CMS announcement:

  • Thirteen of the 32 Pioneer ACOs reduced costs enough to generate savings large enough to split with CMS. The total savings tallied up to $87.6 million. The Journal reported that an additional five Pioneer ACO generated savings but apparently not enough to meet the threshold required for a split with CMS.
  • Two of the 32 had shared losses, totaling $4 million. The Journal identified Atrius Health, a not-for-profit group in Massachusetts, as one of them.
  • All 32 Pioneer ACOs earned the incentive payments available for reporting quality measures.
  • Beneficiaries in 25 of the 32 Pioneer ACOs had lower risk-adjusted hospital readmission rates than regular Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries.
  • Rates for blood pressure and LDL cholesterol checks of adults with diabetes were higher among the Pioneer ACO beneficiaries than they were for a comparison group of adult diabetics in managed care plans.
  • Seven of the 32 Pioneer ACOs that didn’t generate savings have told CMS they want to leave the Pioneer program for the less-demanding Medicare Shared Savings Program. Two want out of the ACO program altogether, although CMS is not saying which two.

Here is a list of the nine ACOs leaving the Pioneer program:

  • Healthcare Partners of California ACO LLC; Los Angeles and Orange Counties, CA
  • Healthcare Partners of Nevada ACO LLC; Clark and Nye Counties, NV
  • JSA Care Partners LLC; Orlando, Tampa Bay, and surrounding areas in South Florida
  • Physician Health Partners LLC; Denver, CO
  • Plus (North Texas Specialty Physicians and Texas Health Resources; Tarrant, Johnson, and Park Counties, North Texas
  • Presbyterian Healthcare Services; Central New Mexico
  • Primecare Medical Network; Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, Southern California
  • Seton Health Alliance; Central Texas
  • University of Michigan; Southeastern Michigan

Managed Care’s Top Ten Articles of 2016

There’s a lot more going on in health care than mergers (Aetna-Humana, Anthem-Cigna) creating huge players. Hundreds of insurers operate in 50 different states. Self-insured employers, ACA public exchanges, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid managed care plans crowd an increasingly complex market.

Major health care players are determined to make health information exchanges (HIEs) work. The push toward value-based payment alone almost guarantees that HIEs will be tweaked, poked, prodded, and overhauled until they deliver on their promise. The goal: straight talk from and among tech systems.

They bring a different mindset. They’re willing to work in teams and focus on the sort of evidence-based medicine that can guide health care’s transformation into a system based on value. One question: How well will this new generation of data-driven MDs deal with patients?

The surge of new MS treatments have been for the relapsing-remitting form of the disease. There’s hope for sufferers of a different form of MS. By homing in on CD20-positive B cells, ocrelizumab is able to knock them out and other aberrant B cells circulating in the bloodstream.

A flood of tests have insurers ramping up prior authorization and utilization review. Information overload is a problem. As doctors struggle to keep up, health plans need to get ahead of the development of the technology in order to successfully manage genetic testing appropriately.

Having the data is one thing. Knowing how to use it is another. Applying its computational power to the data, a company called RowdMap puts providers into high-, medium-, and low-value buckets compared with peers in their markets, using specific benchmarks to show why outliers differ from the norm.
Competition among manufacturers, industry consolidation, and capitalization on me-too drugs are cranking up generic and branded drug prices. This increase has compelled PBMs, health plan sponsors, and retail pharmacies to find novel ways to turn a profit, often at the expense of the consumer.
The development of recombinant DNA and other technologies has added a new dimension to care. These medications have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other 80 or so autoimmune diseases. But they can be budget busters and have a tricky side effect profile.

Shelley Slade
Vogel, Slade & Goldstein

Hub programs have emerged as a profitable new line of business in the sales and distribution side of the pharmaceutical industry that has got more than its fair share of wheeling and dealing. But they spell trouble if they spark collusion, threaten patients, or waste federal dollars.

More companies are self-insuring—and it’s not just large employers that are striking out on their own. The percentage of employers who fully self-insure increased by 44% in 1999 to 63% in 2015. Self-insurance may give employers more control over benefit packages, and stop-loss protects them against uncapped liability.