Adam A Markovitz1, John M Hollingsworth2, John Z Ayanian3, Edward C Norton4, Phyllis L Yan5, Andrew M Ryan6. 1. University of Michigan Medical School and School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan (A.A.M.). 2. University of Michigan Medical School and Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, Ann Arbor, Michigan (J.M.H.). 3. University of Michigan Medical School, School of Public Health, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, and Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, Ann Arbor, Michigan (J.Z.A.). 4. University of Michigan School of Public Health, and Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts (E.C.N.). 5. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan (P.L.Y.). 6. University of Michigan School of Public Health, Center for Evaluating Health Reform, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, Ann Arbor, Michigan (A.M.R.).
Abstract
Background: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) are associated with modest savings. However, prior research may overstate this effect if high-cost clinicians exit ACOs. Objective: To evaluate the effect of the MSSP on spending and quality while accounting for clinicians' nonrandom exit. Design: Similar to prior MSSP analyses, this study compared MSSP ACO participants versus control beneficiaries using adjusted longitudinal models that accounted for secular trends, market factors, and beneficiary characteristics. To further account for selection effects, the share of nearby clinicians in the MSSP was used as an instrumental variable. Hip fracture served as a falsification outcome. The authors also tested for compositional changes among MSSP participants. Setting: Fee-for-service Medicare, 2008 through 2014. Patients: A 20% sample (97 204 192 beneficiary-quarters). Measurements: Total spending, 4 quality indicators, and hospitalization for hip fracture. Results: In adjusted longitudinal models, the MSSP was associated with spending reductions (change, -$118 [95% CI, -$151 to -$85] per beneficiary-quarter) and improvements in all 4 quality indicators. In instrumental variable models, the MSSP was not associated with spending (change, $5 [CI, -$51 to $62] per beneficiary-quarter) or quality. In falsification tests, the MSSP was associated with hip fracture in the adjusted model (-0.24 hospitalizations for hip fracture [CI, -0.32 to -0.16 hospitalizations] per 1000 beneficiary-quarters) but not in the instrumental variable model (0.05 hospitalizations [CI, -0.10 to 0.20 hospitalizations] per 1000 beneficiary-quarters). Compositional changes were driven by high-cost clinicians exiting ACOs: High-cost clinicians (99th percentile) had a 30.4% chance of exiting the MSSP, compared with a 13.8% chance among median-cost clinicians (50th percentile). Limitation: The study used an observational design and administrative data. Conclusion: After adjustment for clinicians' nonrandom exit, the MSSP was not associated with improvements in spending or quality. Selection effects-including exit of high-cost clinicians-may drive estimates of savings in the MSSP. Primary Funding Source: Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and National Institute on Aging.
Background: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) are associated with modest savings. However, prior research may overstate this effect if high-cost clinicians exit ACOs. Objective: To evaluate the effect of the MSSP on spending and quality while accounting for clinicians' nonrandom exit. Design: Similar to prior MSSP analyses, this study compared MSSP ACO participants versus control beneficiaries using adjusted longitudinal models that accounted for secular trends, market factors, and beneficiary characteristics. To further account for selection effects, the share of nearby clinicians in the MSSP was used as an instrumental variable. Hip fracture served as a falsification outcome. The authors also tested for compositional changes among MSSP participants. Setting: Fee-for-service Medicare, 2008 through 2014. Patients: A 20% sample (97 204 192 beneficiary-quarters). Measurements: Total spending, 4 quality indicators, and hospitalization for hip fracture. Results: In adjusted longitudinal models, the MSSP was associated with spending reductions (change, -$118 [95% CI, -$151 to -$85] per beneficiary-quarter) and improvements in all 4 quality indicators. In instrumental variable models, the MSSP was not associated with spending (change, $5 [CI, -$51 to $62] per beneficiary-quarter) or quality. In falsification tests, the MSSP was associated with hip fracture in the adjusted model (-0.24 hospitalizations for hip fracture [CI, -0.32 to -0.16 hospitalizations] per 1000 beneficiary-quarters) but not in the instrumental variable model (0.05 hospitalizations [CI, -0.10 to 0.20 hospitalizations] per 1000 beneficiary-quarters). Compositional changes were driven by high-cost clinicians exiting ACOs: High-cost clinicians (99th percentile) had a 30.4% chance of exiting the MSSP, compared with a 13.8% chance among median-cost clinicians (50th percentile). Limitation: The study used an observational design and administrative data. Conclusion: After adjustment for clinicians' nonrandom exit, the MSSP was not associated with improvements in spending or quality. Selection effects-including exit of high-cost clinicians-may drive estimates of savings in the MSSP. Primary Funding Source: Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and National Institute on Aging.
Authors: Adam A Markovitz; John M Hollingsworth; John Z Ayanian; Edward C Norton; Nicholas M Moloci; Phyllis L Yan; Andrew M Ryan Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: John Hsu; Christine Vogeli; Mary Price; Richard Brand; Michael E Chernew; Namita Mohta; Sreekanth K Chaguturu; Eric Weil; Timothy G Ferris Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Adam A Markovitz; Michael D Rozier; Andrew M Ryan; Susan D Goold; John Z Ayanian; Edward C Norton; Timothy A Peterson; John M Hollingsworth Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kenton J Johnston; Timothy L Wiemken; Jason M Hockenberry; Jose F Figueroa; Karen E Joynt Maddox Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ingrid Schubert; Dominikus Stelzer; Achim Siegel; Ingrid Köster; Claudia Mehl; Peter Ihle; Christian Günster; Patrik Dröge; Andreas Klöss; Erik Farin-Glattacker; Erika Graf; Max Geraedts Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Adam L Sharp; Aniket A Kawatkar; Aileen S Baecker; Rita F Redberg; Ming-Sum Lee; Maros Ferencik; Yi-Lin Wu; Ernest Shen; Chengyi Zheng; Stacy Park; Steve Goodacre; Praveen Thokala; Benjamin C Sun Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Adam A Markovitz; Andrew M Ryan; Timothy A Peterson; Michael D Rozier; John Z Ayanian; John M Hollingsworth Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Andrea Acevedo; Brian O Mullin; Ana M Progovac; Theodore L Caputi; J Michael McWilliams; Benjamin L Cook Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 3.734