- The Medicare patients will be invisible to the providers for one year so as to discourage lowering costs improperly. How will this affect the providers’ ability to design cost-lowering programs?
- ACOs are not closed networks;
- When ACO beneficiaries go outside the ACO, and healthcare cost savings or excess is passed onto the ACO, even though the ACO had no control over such things. Imagine how seasonal residence plays into this;
- Demonstration projects show a lot of patient “churn,” further challenging the ability of an ACO to control costs;
- It looks like the two sided model will put 25% of reimbursement at risk;
- Even Mayo, Geisinger and Cleveland are saying they won’t participate in ACOs.
ACOs are S.T.U.P.I.D
We have probably never seen so much enthusiasm and spending on anything in our history as we are on healthcare reform. The point is to slow spending and improve quality by incentivizing cost-saving, quality-enhancing behavior. And the Accountable Care Organization is the new healthcare delivery model designed to save us from our greedy, over-utilizing selves. Here’s how it works:
First, you take a lot of primary care physicians and tell them they will get more money by (1) taking an expanded role in taking care of patients, and (2) reducing the expenses associated with that care. Then you tell them two really special things: first, you tell them “Uh, since we’re afraid that you will improperly reduce the amount of care the patients need, we won’t tell you which patients are in an ACO and which are not.” Second, you tell them “We really mean it when we tell you that we intend for you to make more money, but we won’t tell you exactly how we’re gonna do that. Trust us, ok?”
Second, you empower physicians to lead the charge. After all, they’re the only participants in ACOs that smart people think can control costs and quality. And you do this by telling them to (1) shell out about $26 Million to form an ACO, (2) go to Wharton and get an MBA, (3) educate themselves about all the intricacies of information technology and work out the kinks involved in implementing electronic medical records, and (4) keep taking care of those patients while you do all this. Finally, you keep the identity of patients secret from the physicians so there is no way to prepare care plans that take into account the diseases faced by the patients. No problem.
Third, you let patients run amok. They can go into an ACO…or not. They can go in and out of ACOs. They’re like kids that way, but they’re responsible for reading the 397 pages of ACO regs and then deciding whether they like the idea of not. Oh, and they have absolutely no incentive to sign up for ACO care. And why would they? “Hey, how about you go with this ACO, which will get more money if they spend less on you. How’s that sound?” How could this possibly be sold to Medicare patients? “This ACO will get paid for getting you well! Your primary care doctor that you’ve trusted for 20 years and who helps you get and stay healthy…that person doesn’t have the same incentive to get you well.” NOT.
Simplicity. There is none. Never before in our history have we seen something so simple (patient rationing) become so complicated (rationing = less expensive care). And so many acronyms and governmental departments and positions too! There are one sided models, two sided models and now a Pioneer model, for those who are especially adventurous. And did I mention that the basis for healthcare reform, the one that only the state of Washington has the courage to articulate, is really just rationing?
Troubling to pretty much everyone. Yes. Except for policy makers, there has yet to be any significant support for anything other than the IDEA that healthcare should cost less and be more outcome oriented. Even the Mayo, Geisinger and Cleveland systems have all politely declined at this point.
Unlimited flexibility. Yes, this is true, especially as it relates to patients. See, patients can be in a cost saving ACO or not. They can go in and out of them and the ACO will bear the cost. That’s right: patients can go in and out of them—ACO, non-ACO, and yet only the ACO will be penalized for cost increases. Let’s see, the ACO model is the cost saving model. And the plan is to allow patients to choose for society to save money or not. And the patients have zero incentives for participating in an ACO. And who is responsible for the behavior of these patients? Uh, well, we all are.
Patient accountability. This is completely lacking in the ACO model. There is absolutely nothing to incentivize patients for making healthy decisions and to punish them for making unhealthy ones. Also primary care driven. Not really. There aren’t enough to go around, but some guy who knows a doctor is free to see you now. Oh, also pro competitive, meaning everyone will wanna be an ACO, so that will create competition in the market and a tremendous drive to drive costs down and quality up. Ok, not really, but wouldn’t it be nice if that COULD happen. In fact, healthcare reform is functioning to do one sure thing—reduce competition, since only the biggest, strongest organizations can afford to compete or to be one.
Inexpensive. Nah. While the initial cost projections suggested about a $2 Million price tag for forming one, they are now up in the $12 to 26 Million range.
Direct and demonstrative. NOT. The entire healthcare reform delivery plan is like pushing a mouse through a maze by its tail.
Healthcare reform is like Alice in Wonderland at its best. It only makes sense on mind-altering drugs. Moreover, the shizo message from our policymakers on the whole issue is dumbfounding. “We are committed to lowering healthcare costs. ACOs will do this. Patients can be in them…or not.” Some legislators think they’ve created a panacea with ACOs, but then don’t want to compel them. It’s just political nonsense.
Look, slowing healthcare cost creep and quality enhancement are good things. We all (patients included) ought to be outcome driven and focused so that the end result is actually healthcare. ACOs just don’t and won’t do that, which may have something to do with the recent announcement by Mayo, Cleveland and Geisinger that they’re really not that interested in playing with them.
So, What are ACO's Really All About?
Policymaker: Well, we’re pretty excited about these ACO regs
Reporter: These ACOs are really supposed to lower healthcare costs and improve quality?
Policymaker: You bet. We really believe in them. It’s the a common sense model that is primary care driven.
Reporter: So, then I suppose all the Medicare patients are gonna be in them, so that we get the cost reduction and health benefits?
Policymaker: Ummm, no. We don’t want to require that. We want to design the perfect system, but we don’t want to require anyone to use it.
Reporter: Why not? If you believe in it, why not just implement it?
Policymaker: It’s not American to require people to do anything.
Reporter: That’s confusing. What’s the value of having spent so much time and money on the perfect system if it isn’t actually implemented?
Policymaker: Oh, it will be! Trust me, when Medicare patients see the value of being in a healthcare delivery model that makes more money by reducing the amount spent on care, they’re gonna flock to it.
Reporter: How will you know?
Policymaker: Great question. We’re gonna track it. We’re gonna assign the patients to an ACO and then watch the cost fall and the quality rise.
Reporter: How is the patient gonna feel about being assigned to an ACO, one where maybe their physician isn’t even participating?
Policymaker: Oh, no problem at all. Good care is good care. We think the physician patient relationship is overrated.
Reporter: Really? It seems so personal and essential.
Policymaker: Not really. We just think that. We’re not even gonna tell physicians who’s in an ACO or not?
Reporter: Why not?
Policymaker: Cause we think physicians might prefer the money from reducing costs over helping people get well.
Reporter: So you think paying physicians for saving money will cause them to provide insufficient care?
Policymaker: No, we think paying them to provide really excellent care will drive costs sky high.
Reporter: So is the goal to reduce the quality of care?
Policymaker: No, just the amount of it, because the more you provide, the more it costs.
Reporter: Sounds like healthcare reform is about rationing.
Policymaker: (Laughs). Oh my, no! That would never fly. What we have to do is to make sure patients get exactly what they want and, at the same time, reduce costs.
Reporter: And ACOs will do that?
Policymaker: You bet. That’s the magic. By providing the perfect system and then by mixing it with patient choice and secrecy, we’re convinced we’ll see reduced costs and higher quality.
IPAs Again
Independent practice associations (“IPAs”) are gaining momentum in response to healthcare reform and market changes responding to healthcare reform. In an era when consultants are selling one-size-fits-all solutions, physicians have to consider IPAs as a viable option once again, but they have to fine tune their expectation to recent changes.
In the thunderous noise wrought by talk about accountable care organizations (ACOs), physicians are scrambling to see where they might fit in the future of healthcare. While we think those changes will be neither as severe or as pervasive as feared, we do see huge opportunities for ANY organization which can (1) reduce healthcare expenditures, and (2) improve quality. Healthcare businesses of the future will view utilization skeptically. Hospitals of the future will look like medical practices with beds. Medical practices of the future will have a stake in the cost and quality of care being delivered and will view utilization skeptically.
Ignoring Primary Care: Obscuring the Obvious
Healthcare reform used to imply just regulatory change. As time marches on, it also implies market change. Most pundits agree that, whatever happens to the healthcare reform law, whether or not it is found to be unconstitutional, the healthcare business community is unleashed. Change is afoot!
If you follow my nahsaying on the issue, then you know I believe the expectations regarding ACOs are overblown and unrealistic. Martians will not land here en masse, although there may be an occasional stow away on a NASA craft. Put another way, as some others have said, ACOs are like unicorns—magical, mythical beasts that no one has ever seen. I don’t expect many to come prancing around in Florida, at least not South Florida, anytime soon.