In August, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a sweeping proposed rule that, if enacted, will significantly change the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP).
In the current program, the track (1, 1+, 2, or 3) chosen by an accountable care organization (ACO) determines the methodology used to assign beneficiaries to that ACO. Under the proposed rule, an ACO will be allowed to select between two beneficiary assignment methods, prospective or retrospective, regardless of track or risk level, and to change its choice annually.
Under the proposed rule, CMS will offer the choice of retrospective or prospective beneficiary assignment to ACOs in the BASIC and ENHANCED tracks for agreement periods beginning July 1, 2019, or later. An ACO will be able to choose a beneficiary assignment methodology at the time of entry and can alter this selection prior to the start of each performance year. Under retrospective assignment, an ACO’s assigned population is based on services incurred during the performance year. Under prospective assignment, an ACO’s assigned population is based on services incurred during the 12-month period ending three months prior to the start of the performance year. If an ACO changes its assignment methodology election, its historical benchmark will be updated (consistent with current practice).
Under current rules, the beneficiary assignment methodology is determined by the track in which an ACO participates. Under the proposed rule, ACOs will be able to select an assignment methodology independent of their track.
There are distinct trade-offs between the two assignment methodologies, and the optimal choice will vary by ACO. In this paper, the third in a series of Milliman white papers about the proposed rule, Milliman’s Colleen Norris, Jason McEwen, and Jonah Broulette explore the differences between the two proposed assignment methodologies and considerations for ACOs as they evaluate their options.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) changed the benchmark methodology for accountable care organizations (ACOs) entering a renewal Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) agreement period in 2017 and thereafter. The 2017 methodology introduced a regional adjustment, where an ACO’s historical expenditures are adjusted upward or downward based on how their costs compare to regional expenditures on a risk-adjusted basis. Because the risk adjustment depends on an ACO’s benchmark period risk scores, accurate and complete diagnosis coding during the benchmark period now has a significant influence on the calculation of the ACO’s benchmarks in future performance years.
CMS uses benchmark year (BY) 3 risk scores for the calculation of the regional adjustment, scores that are based on diagnoses from claims incurred in BY2. MSSP ACOs anticipating renewals in 2020 need to be working this year (2018) to ensure accurate and complete coding. Similarly, 2019 is the critical year for 2021 renewals.
In this paper, Milliman’s Jonah Broulette, Noah Champagne, and Kate Fitch explain how BY3 risk scores affect the benchmark calculation for MSSP renewals, present an overview of the prior and new risk adjustment calculations in MSSP, and illustrate how the change can affect an ACO’s benchmark under various scenarios.
Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is frequently associated with the very young and the elderly but is a largely under-recognized burden among working-age adults. Although the burden of CAP among the elderly has been established, there are limited data on the economic burden of CAP in the employed population.
This study assesses the economic impact of CAP in the United States in working-age adults from an employer perspective by estimating the incidence rate and costs of healthcare, sick time, and short-term disability for this patient population and recommends prevention strategies that may reduce the morbidity and costs associated with CAP among working-age adults, especially those with comorbidities.
This research was first published in American Health & Drug Benefits, Vol. 6, No. 8 (September/October 2013).
Atrial fibrillation is the most common form of cardiac arrhythmia, better known as an irregular heartbeat. The disorder has significant health and cost concerns for the Medicare population because of its association with an increased risk for stroke and all-cause mortality.
A study published in the May/June issue of American Health & Drug Benefits by Milliman’s Kate Fitch, Jonah Broulette, Bruce Pyenson, and Kosuke Iwasaki used Medicare Part D claims data to assess the use of the anticoagulant drug warfarin in the Medicare population.
Here is an excerpt highlighting key points from the study entitled “Utilization of Anticoagulation Therapy in Medicare Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation:”
• Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are at a significant, 5-fold increased risk for stroke and all cause mortality compared with those without AF.
• Oral anticoagulation therapy is recommended by national guidelines as the cornerstone for stroke prevention in patients with AF.
• Warfarin significantly reduces the risk for ischemic stroke; newer anticoagulant agents have shown even greater reduction of stroke risk compared to warfarin.
• Although AF risk increases with age, this present study shows that anticoagulation therapy is underutilized in Medicare beneficiaries who have nonvalvular AF (NVAF), resulting in an increase in ischemic strokes.
• These findings suggest the need to follow guideline-based anticoagulation recommendations in patients with NVAF to prevent strokes and the associated excess in healthcare costs, reduced quality of life, and even death.
• These findings also raise the need to investigate provider compliance with clinical guidelines regarding oral anticoagulation therapy for stroke prevention in older patients (aged >65 years) with NVAF.
A copy of the entire study can be read here.
Winghan Jacqueline Kwong, of Daiichi Sankyo Inc. also co-authored the study.