Evaluation of Spending Differences Between Beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage and the Medicare Shared Savings Program

Accountable Care Organization Leader Perspectives on the Medicare Shared Savings Program: A Qualitative Study

Importance

The Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) includes more than 400 accountable care organizations (ACOs) and is among the largest and longest running value-based payment efforts in the US. However, given recent program reforms and other changes in the health care system, the experiences and perspectives of ACO leaders remain incompletely characterized.

Objective

To understand the priorities, strategies, and challenges of ACO leaders in MSSP.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this qualitative study, interviews were conducted with leaders of 49 ACOs of differing sizes, leadership structures, and geographies from MSSP between September 29 and December 29, 2022. Participants were asked about their clinical and care management efforts; how they engaged frontline clinicians; the process by which they distributed shared savings and added or removed practices; and other factors that they believed influenced their success or failure in the program.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Leader perspectives on major themes related to ACO initiatives, performance improvement, and the recruitment, engagement, and retention of clinicians.

Results

Of the 49 ACOs interviewed, 34 were hospital-associated ACOs (69%), 35 were medium or large (>10 000 attributed beneficiaries) (71%), and 17 were rural (35%). The ACOs had a mean (SD) tenure of 8.1 (2.1) years in MSSP. Five major themes emerged: (1) ACO leaders reported a focus on annual wellness visits, coding practices, and care transitions; (2) leaders used both relationship-based and metrics-based strategies to promote clinician engagement; (3) ACOs generally distributed half or more of shared savings to participating practices; (4) ACO recruitment and retention efforts were increasingly influenced by market competition; and (5) some hospital-associated ACOs faced misaligned incentives.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, the ACO leaders reported varied approaches to promoting clinician alignment with ACO goals, an emphasis on increasing annual wellness visits, and new pressures related to growth of other care models. Policymakers hoping to modify or expand the program may wish to incorporate these perspectives into future reforms.

Is there an advantage? Considerations for researchers studying the effects of the type of Medicare coverage

OBJECTIVE

To describe common methodological problems that arise in comparisons of Medicare Advantage (MA) and Traditional Medicare (TM) and within-MA studies and provide suggestions of how researchers can address these issues.

STUDY SETTING

Published research evaluating Medicare coverage options in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

We considered key conceptual challenges and promising solutions that have been used thus far and suggest additional directions.

DATA COLLECTION

Not available.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Many existing studies of MA versus TM include significant limitations, such as failing to account for unobserved confounders driving both beneficiary coverage choice and health outcomes once enrolled, not accounting for variation in benefit generosity, provider networks, or plan design across MA plans, and/or having been conducted at a time when MA enrollment was less than a third of all Medicare beneficiaries. We provide a review of methods that can help researchers to overcome these weaknesses and suggest additional methods and data sources that may aid future research.

CONCLUSIONS

The MA program is becoming an essential part of the US healthcare system. By accounting for non-random movement into and out of MA and studying the heterogeneity of beneficiary experience across plan and market characteristics, researchers can provide the high-quality evidence necessary for policymakers to design the program and reform TM in ways that maximize beneficiary outcomes.