There are different ways to measure how Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) accountable care organizations (ACOs) have saved money, and the way used can drastically affect the amount of savings reported, explained Clif Gaus, ScD, president and CEO of the National Association of ACOs.
There are different ways to measure how Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) accountable care organizations (ACOs) have saved money, and the way used can drastically affect the amount of savings reported, explained Clif Gaus, ScD, president and CEO of the National Association of ACOs.
Transcript
NAACOS recently released a study about how much MSSP ACOs are savings, and the findings differ greatly from what CMS has reported but are in line with research out of Harvard. What are the savings NAACOS found and what is the controversy around how to measure savings?
So, there are really are 2 ways of measuring costs and performance. The first way is the MSSP benchmark way. The benchmarks are set based on historical costs, and over a 3-year period, and then trended forward for the performance year. However, those benchmarks are capped in terms of when risk changes and goes up, the benchmark doesn’t go up. So, the patients may become sicker in the subsequent years, and cost more, but the benchmark doesn’t increase. So, ACOs are against a much harder goal or bar of performance, and therefore not always achieving as much savings as much as they truly are.
The other way of measuring is to compare precisely the ACO beneficiaries based on their risk, based on their geography, their age, and match those beneficiaries to a control group of beneficiaries who are not in the ACO, but who are living in the same geographic area, have the same illnesses, etc. And when you compare those 2 groups—the ACO beneficiaries and the like nonbeneficiaries—over time, what you see is that the ACO beneficiaries’ costs are substantially lower than the control group by almost 2-fold.
So, CMS based on benchmarks was showing gross savings of, I think it was in the range of $900 million from 2013, 2014, 2015. But when you compare them to the savings from the control group, those savings were $1.8 billion. So, the savings essentially based upon that match control group are twice what CMS was estimating.
Dr Kathy Zackowski Discusses the Importance of Rehabilitation Research and Trials in MS
April 26th 2024Kathy Zackowski, PhD, National MS Society, expresses the inherent value of quality rehabilitation trials for broadening clinical understandings of multiple sclerosis (MS) and bettering patient outcomes.
Read More
Examining Low-Value Cancer Care Trends Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic
April 25th 2024On this episode of Managed Care Cast, we're talking with the authors of a study published in the April 2024 issue of The American Journal of Managed Care® about their findings on the rates of low-value cancer care services throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
Listen
Navigating Health Policy in an Election Year: Insights From Dr Dennis Scanlon
April 2nd 2024On this episode of Managed Care Cast, we're talking with Dennis Scanlon, PhD, the editor in chief of The American Journal of Accountable Care®, about prior authorization, price transparency, the impact of health policy on the upcoming election, and more.
Listen
Award-Winning Poster Presentations From AMCP 2024
April 23rd 2024At the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) 2024 annual meeting, multiple poster presentations concerned with health equity, data collection, glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists, and more were acknowledged for their originality, relevance, clarity, bias, and quality.
Read More