Currently Viewing:
The American Journal of Accountable Care March 2019
Safety Net Representation in Federal Payment and Care Delivery Reform Initiatives
J. Mac McCullough, PhD, MPH; Natasha Coult, MS; Michael Genau, MS; Ajay Raikhelkar, MS; Kailey Love, MBA, MS; and William Riley, PhD
Currently Reading
ACO Use of Case Mix Index to Comprehensively Evaluate Postacute Care Partners
Mark E. Lewis, MPH; and Avery M. Day, MPH
Improved Cost and Utilization Among Medicare Beneficiaries Dispositioned From the ED to Receive Home Health Care Compared With Inpatient Hospitalization
James Howard, MD; Tyler Kent, BS; Amy R. Stuck, PhD, RN; Christopher Crowley, PhD; and Feng Zeng, PhD
Effective Population Health Care Delivery Under Medicare’s Merit-based Incentive Payment System: Realigning Accountability With Capability
Adam S. Wilk, PhD; and Sanjula Jain, PhD
Making Sense of Changes in Healthcare: Lessons From the AcademyHealth National Health Policy Conference
Jaime Rosenberg

ACO Use of Case Mix Index to Comprehensively Evaluate Postacute Care Partners

Mark E. Lewis, MPH; and Avery M. Day, MPH
This article describes how one accountable care organization (ACO) created a risk-adjusted algorithm to evaluate current and potential candidates for skilled nursing facility partnerships.

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) continually strive to achieve the triple aim: an enhanced patient experience and improved population health at a decreased cost. One area of opportunity identified by a Philadelphia-area ACO (PAACO) to achieve this goal was to decrease skilled nursing facility (SNF) utilization and cost. The PAACO’s 2017 attributed population had utilized more than 130 facilities despite a group of preferred SNFs having been previously determined. There is currently no standard risk-adjusted algorithm for rating SNFs. The PAACO thus created a risk-adjusted algorithm that would rank the facilities based on a weighting system of key indicators of quality. Points were awarded or detracted based on expected amount thresholds; the sum of the points was multiplied by the case mix index, which served as a normalizing factor. The results revealed that the group of preferred SNFs was performing worse than all other facilities included in the analysis. Areas for opportunity were identified for the preferred group, and as a true community partner, the PAACO will work with these facilities to improve their ranking. This approach could not only decrease costs for the PAACO, but also increase the CMS star rating for these facilities.

The American Journal of Accountable Care. 2019;7(1):24-27
An accountable care organization (ACO) continually strives to achieve the triple aim of enhanced patient experience and improved population health at a decreased cost. Although many ACOs face similar challenges to achieve this goal, each one has a unique set of obstacles to overcome. For one Philadelphia-area ACO (PAACO), a medical cost analysis directed attention to skilled nursing facility (SNF) utilization as a foremost area of opportunity. Postacute care is an important aspect in the continuum of care that is essential to achieving the triple aim.1 The literature indicates that 20% of Medicare patients require skilled nursing post hospital discharge, and in 2013, postacute care services accounted for 12% of Medicare annual expenditures ($60 billion).1,2

The New England Journal of Medicine published an article in 2014 that focused on postacute Medicare expenditures and discussed the importance of ACO–SNF relationships.3 A postacute care strategy is a critical part of value-based care and population health.1 A SNF admission can easily accumulate a burdensome cost, and with the implementation of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative, this can consume a sizable portion of the resources allocated for the 90 days of care.3,4 Due to the programmatic financial incentives, health systems are encouraged to send patients to postacute care facilities where efficient and high-quality recovery will take place.3 For an ACO, understanding postacute care partners’ performance is important, as many hospitals and providers only have a basic understanding of postacute care services and do not look beyond the facility’s length of stay (LOS); this lack of understanding can lead to the neglect of other quality metrics that play a role in patient care.1

Once partnerships are formed, goals may be aligned to benefit both the ACO and the SNF. Examples of this include quicker response times to urgent requests, provision of complete clinical information resulting in appropriate treatment options, development of evidence-based care pathways, and alignment of patient-specific care goals and discharge planning processes.3,4 A systematic review conducted in 2011 revealed that poorly coordinated care transitions contributed to more than $12 billion in healthcare expenditures.5 One of the top priorities of healthcare reform is to dissolve the silos that exist across the healthcare system and create a continuous line of communication among all facilities.5 Herein lies the vital role that an ACO can play.

One study in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society utilized both publicly reported and self-reported metrics to rate the quality of a SNF beyond the CMS star rating.2 The authors’ findings revealed that although a facility may have a lower readmission rate with higher-acuity patients, other metrics may cause the facility to look less favorable compared with its counterparts in the absence of risk adjustment. Another study, published in Health Services Research, concluded that a statistically significant difference (P ≤.001) occurred between preferred and nonpreferred facilities in LOS (3.5 days shorter in preferred), Medicare spending ($687 lower in preferred), and readmission rates (1.4% lower in preferred) when risk adjusted.6 These results strengthen the notion that the incorporation of risk-adjustment factors, such as case mix index (CMI), will lead to better-informed decisions made by an ACO regarding which SNFs would be good candidates for partnership.2

In a densely populated market, the ability to identify facilities that can accommodate and provide high-quality care to patients with complex conditions is vital. Quality goes beyond the physical care rendered to patients; it also encompasses costs not captured in the SNF claim.7 Readmissions to hospitals not only increase the ACO’s overall costs and detract from the BPCI budget, but they may affect a hospital’s reimbursement as well. The national average readmission rate is 17%.1 Almost half of the SNFs utilized by the PAACO in 2017 exceeded this average, despite the fact that most ACOs are incentivized to bring down readmission rates. A readmission may imply that the care provided at the SNF, or hospital, was insufficient.7 Patients should be evaluated to see if home health is a more appropriate option, as it is highly cost-effective compared with a SNF stay. Some home health agencies are ramping up efforts to further the variety of nursing and therapy services in the home, more than the standard twice-a-week protocol.1 This allows the patient to receive services similar to those provided at a SNF at a much lower cost.

The PAACO’s attributed population was admitted to 134 distinct SNFs in 2017, for which claims data were examined. For comparison purposes, it should be noted that prior to the implementation of ACOs and the BPCI program, hospitals were referring patients to 58 postacute care facilities, on average.6 The PAACO’s referral patterns far exceed this amount and pinpoint the first area of opportunity for cost reduction. The intent of the PAACO’s analysis was to provide quantitative guidance for deciding with which SNFs a strategic partnership should be formed. Originally, quality key indicators used to evaluate and measure a SNF’s performance were limited to the facility’s LOS, readmissions, and costs. Although the most comprehensive analyses of SNF quality will include clinical components of care not captured in a claim, data on LOS and readmissions are critical to include in partnership discussions because both will contribute to the total medical cost of the ACO.1


The PAACO designed a risk-adjusted algorithm whereby a formulated point system for key indicators of quality created weight, which yielded a composite numerical rank for each facility. The PAACO learned that some facilities specialize in specific conditions, whereas others are highly selective in admissions criteria; therefore, the consideration and evaluation of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) are important to counteract these differences.6 Regardless of which of these groups a facility fell into, several SNFs claimed that they admitted numerous high-acuity patients. With the intent to either validate or refute such assertions, the PAACO would apply its internally developed severity index to the analysis as a normalizing factor.

To begin this work, the PAACO needed to determine which measurement components would yield the most comprehensive model possible. First, they established a severity index at the DRG level, which incorporated the respective weights made available by CMS.8 The admitting DRG severity scores were formulated, which led to the facility’s individual CMI. This calculation displayed the acuity of the caseloads and allowed for ease of comparison across facilities; a higher CMI equated to a higher caseload acuity. From there, key indictors at the facility level were layered in: estimated versus actual LOS of caseload, estimated versus actual cost of caseload, percent of readmissions, and CMS star rating. With these outlined, facility-level claims data were assessed and calculations applied where appropriate.

Copyright AJMC 2006-2019 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Welcome the the new and improved, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up