‘Twas a fun-filled day with solid information about the emerging market for accountable care organizations and patient-centered medical homes. I’m talking about the first annual CRG conference on Health Plan Involvement in Patient-Centered Medical Homes and ACOs. But here’s the rub: exactly where health plans fit in the mix is still unclear.
Dennis Horrigan, chief executive of CIPA WNY IPA (Buffalo, NY), put up a nifty chart (see below) of what an ACO might look like and wondered aloud just how premiums and risk will be divvied up among plans and providers. Horrigan said he showed this very chart to Aetna chief executive Mark Bertolini who according to Horrigan responded he’d be willing to pay a percentage of premiums to the ACO under this structure and guarantee reserves for three years.
My guess — as the purported Bertolini comment suggests — is that health plans will continue to play a role as risk managers in any delivery system that emerges (short of single-payer or nationalized healthcare). Yes, ACOs pose a disintermediation threat to insurers; to wit, a self-insured employer could conceivably pay an ACO to manage care, bypassing the health plan. But a lock-out isn’t in the cards. More likely under the ACO model is a diminished role for health insurers, particularly in care management and provider network management.
Health plans are striving in their approach to PCMHs, for example, to prove they can drive physician behavior and care management. The hammer is payments and incentives, with most early models involving usual fee-for-service payments, a per member per month fee for care management, and in some cases bonuses or incentives for meeting care quality goals. But it’s not clear which of the new payment models best drive change — or whether health plan can sustain the additional PMPM payments without seeing immediate savings.
Brian Ebersole of the Pennsylvania Governor’s Office of Health Care Reform said the state has used several provider payment models in its chronic care PCMH project. In one, providers receive up to $20,000 in practice transformation funds, a care management PMPM of $1.50 and up to $2.50 PMPM for NCQA recognition. In another, providers receive $1.50 PMPM for practice support, $1.50 PMPM for care management and a bonus based on shared savings.
According to Ebersole, shared savings have “made a huge difference” in impacting physician behavior. But a study by the Integrated Healthcare Assn. argues that shared savings are limited in their ability to impact physician behavior because they create upside opportunity but no downside risk; instead, capitation is best because it offers both upside and downside. Donald Liss, M.D., senior medical director, Independence Blue Cross, said at the conference that global capitation might work today — despite its past failings — because of improved technology (registries and EHRs), risk stratification, and evidence-based medicine.
Robert Reid, M.D., associate medical director of Group Health (Seattle), said in the early 2000s Group Health had offered its staff physicians incentives — putting up to 20% of their pay at risk. Group Health had also instituted other initiatives to improve physician efficiency and care quality. All of which ultimately proved counterproductive. Group Health eventually dumped incentives in favor of straight salaries for staff physicians. It also added nurses and clinical pharmacists, reduced the number of patients a doctor sees annually by 22% to 1800, and added PCMH components such as next-day outreach to members admitted to the E.R. and pre-visit chart review. The increased emphasis on primary care delivered a 1.5 times return, Reid said.
One thing was clear from the one-day conference. Most of the initial efforts at PCMHs and ACOs are just tinkering around the edges. The concept may make intuitive sense. But getting there — and figuring out everyone’s role — won’t be easy.

Source: CIPA WNY IPA
Like this:
Like Loading...