Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced a new payment model called Direct Contracting for entities that want to take on risk for fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiary expenditures. This program built upon existing Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) efforts to reduce healthcare expenditures while attempting to improve the quality of care for FFS Medicare beneficiaries. Although Direct Contracting is designed to appeal to a wide range of entities (including those that have not previously participated in risk programs with CMS) many current Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) and Next Generation accountable care organizations (ACOs) are naturally going to want to understand the potential pros and cons of this program, and how it compares to their current ACO risk-sharing structures.
In this paper, Milliman’s Colleen Norris, Brent Jensen, and Dustin Grzeskowiak provide an in-depth technical evaluation of Direct Contracting, based on the CMS request for applications, along with comparisons to its sister programs MSSP and Next Generation ACO.
Population-based payments (PBPs) provide Next Generation ACO Model (NextGen) participants with an alternative funding mechanism that can be used to improve overall care management, with the goal of achieving higher savings. Accountable care organizations (ACOs) that are able to negotiate payment structures with participating providers at lower costs than the fee-for-service rates paid by the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS) can generate additional income.
While PBPs are currently restricted to the NextGen program, if the payment method proves successful, CMS could introduce a similar mechanism to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) or other risk-sharing programs.
In this article, Milliman consultants Noah Champagne and Jason McEwen list the four alternative payment mechanisms that NextGen participants can elect, including PBPs and all-inclusive population-based payments (AIPBPs). They discuss how ACOs can generate additional revenue by strategically employing these mechanisms and provide an example of a PBP arrangement.
In September 2016, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) selected NORC at the University of Chicago to conduct an independent evaluation of the Next Generation Accountable Care Organization (NGACO) Model program. On August 27, 2018, CMMI released NORC’s first report on the findings of its evaluation, which included NORC’s estimate of the impact of the NGACO program on Medicare Part A and Part B spending (gross impact) in 2016. NORC defined the net impact of the program by combining this gross impact with the results of the NGACO program’s shared savings and losses. These results were published by CMMI in October 2017 (i.e., shared savings and losses).
In this paper, Milliman consultants combine the aggregate gross impact of each of the NGACOs shown in the NORC report with the shared savings/(loss) results of each NGACO to calculate the net impact of each individual NGACO.
Next Generation Accountable Care Organizations (NGACOs) now need to choose between whether they want to have their annual financial reconciliations based upon capped claims or uncapped claims. Previously, they didn’t have a choice and reconciliations were based upon capped claims. For some NGACOs, the choice between an annual financial reconciliation based upon capped claims or uncapped claims could have significant impact. Milliman consultants provide more perspective in this paper.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has released the 2016 financial results for each of the Next Generation Accountable Care Organizations (NGACOs). The financial results may influence key decisions that each NGACO needs to make very soon regarding the magnitude of their risk parameters for 2018. In this article, Milliman consultants explains those results and offer considerations for NGACOs to think about.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is striving to link 50% of Medicare payments to alternative payment models by 2018. One of the primary alternative payment models offered to Medicare providers is the Next Generation Accountable Care Organization (NGACO). Due to the potential large risk exposure for organizations considering this model, they should work with an actuary to understand the critical elements driving financial success (or failure). In this article, Milliman’s Charlie Mills, Cory Gusland, and Noah Champagne identify five key financial considerations that all ACOs should review before committing to the program. The considerations are ranked by the authors’ perceived importance, with one being the most important.
5. ACO’s CY2014 experience is the baseline for the first three performance years
4. Risk score changes are capped at 3% from the baseline year to each performance year
3. First dollar savings and losses
2. The 2016 benchmark trends are likely understated
1. In order to achieve savings, participants must outperform trended baseline less discount