Accountable Care Organization Model Research Articles

Accountable Care Organization Attribution and Post-Acute Skilled Nursing Facility Outcomes for People Living With Dementia

ObjectivesUnder the Accountable Care Organization (ACO) model, reductions in healthcare spending have been achieved by targeting post-acute care, particularly in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). People with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) are frequently discharged to SNF for post-acute care and may be at particular risk for unintended consequences of SNF cost reduction efforts. We examined SNF length of stay (LOS) and outcomes among ACO-attributed and non–ACO-attributed ADRD patients. DesignObservational serial cross-sectional study. Setting and ParticipantsTwenty percent national random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries (2013-2017) to identify beneficiaries with a diagnosis of ADRD and with a hospitalization followed by SNF admission (n = 263,676). MethodsOur primary covariate of interest was ACO (n = 66,842) and non-ACO (n = 196,834) attribution. Hospital readmission and death were measured for 3 time periods (<30, 31-90, and 91-180 days) following hospital discharge. We used 2-stage least squares regression to predict LOS as a function of ACO attribution, and patient and facility characteristics. ResultsACO-attributed ADRD patients have shorter SNF LOS than their non-ACO counterparts (31.7 vs 32.8 days; P < .001). Hospital readmission rates for ACO vs non-ACO differed at ≤30 days (13.9% vs 14.6%; P < .001) but were similar at 31-90 days and 91-180 days. No significant difference was observed in mortality post–hospital discharge for ACO vs non-ACO at ≤30 days; however, slightly higher mortality was observed at 31-90 days (8.4% vs 8.8%; P = .002) and 91-180 days (7.6% vs 7.9%; P = .011). No significant association was found between LOS and readmission, with small effects on mortality favoring ACOs in fully adjusted models. Conclusions and ImplicationsBeing an ACO-attributed patient is associated with shorter SNF LOS but is not associated with changes in readmission or mortality after controlling for other factors. Policies that shorten LOS may not have adverse effects on outcomes for people living with dementia.

Study: ACO model not serving needs of Medicare clients with depression

A new longitudinal study concludes that the accountable care organization (ACO) model, in which groups of providers offer coordinated care to a designated population, is failing Medicare beneficiaries with mental health needs. The study's corresponding author told MHW that the results reflect the lingering disparity in care between chronic medical illnesses and common mental health conditions such as depression.

Nurses can be key "REACH" accountable care organization partners to mitigate Medicare inequity.

We propose that Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) can be key Accountable Care Organization (ACO) partners in mitigating Medicare inequity due to a shortage of primary care physicians. This shortage particularly impacts minority Medicare beneficiaries residing in urban and rural Health Professional Shortage Areas. In order to expand the primary care workforce to open the gateway to our health care system for these beneficiaries, we propose that APRNs provide primary care in a Medicare Neighborhood Clinic, as key partners of a modified "REACH" (Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health) ACO model. We review the long history of ineffective efforts to alleviate the physician primary care shortage. After highlighting a report emphasizing the importance of nurses in achieving health equity, we describe the APRN role in a Medicare Neighborhood Clinic, and its potential for alleviating the primary care shortage. This clinic, as part of the modified "REACH" strategy, provides nurses with a key role in achieving Medicare equity. We contend that this strategy, as a means of APRNs providing value-based care to all Medicare beneficiaries while restraining the Medicare budget, contributes to transforming primary care for Medicare equity.

All-payer value-based contracting in organizations with Medicare ACOs.

To measure the prevalence of non-Medicare value-based contracting and participation in contracts with downside risk among organizations participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). Cross-sectional analysis of 2022 accountable care organization (ACO) survey. The author analyzed surveys from 100 organizations participating in the MSSP that reported the number of covered lives they have in value-based contracts in traditional Medicare (ACOs), Medicare Advantage (MA), commercial payers, Medicaid managed care organizations, Medicaid, and direct-to-employer arrangements. We analyzed the distribution of covered lives across shared-savings, shared-risk, and full-risk contracts and analyzed changes between 2018 and 2022. Respondents reported 15.5 million covered lives in value-based contracts. All respondents have Medicare ACO contracts, and roughly 75% reported value-based contracts with commercial and MA plans. Approximately one-third reported such contracts with Medicaid managed care plans. Seventy percent of covered lives in respondents' Medicare ACO contracts included downside risk for losses compared with 51% of lives in commercial plans and 45% in MA plans. Compared with a similar 2018 survey, the proportion of respondents in value-based MA contracts doubled, and the proportion in commercial contracts rose by half. Organizations that participate in Medicare ACO models have substantially increased their participation in value-based contracts with other payers. They reported a higher proportion of Medicare ACO covered lives in downside risk arrangements than in commercial or MA contracts.

The Case for Administrative Benchmarks (and Some Challenges)

Summary Most U.S. Medicare beneficiaries are in population-based programs where spending targets, known as benchmarks, are used to determine payments. These include both the Medicare Advantage (MA) program, which relies on private health plans to manage care, and Accountable Care Organization (ACO) models, where providers are rewarded if they efficiently deliver care. When well designed, these models can incentivize reductions in spending and improve patient outcomes. A crucial aspect of these models, however, is how the benchmarks are determined. Policy makers have multiple approaches at their disposal, and each comes with unique strengths and weaknesses. The most common benchmark setting approach is empirical in that benchmarks are tied to actual spending or near-term forecasts based on lagged spending in fee-for-service traditional Medicare (TM). Empirical benchmarks reduce the risk that plans and providers face from fluctuations in costs that are beyond their control. That risk is absorbed by Medicare, so program spending will rise or fall with TM spending. Empirical benchmark systems have several significant weaknesses — including a ratchet effect and a collective success problem — that make it difficult for plans and providers to share in savings over the long run. This limits the long-term success of these population-based models. In contrast, administrative benchmarks are set by taking a base rate (such as historical spending) and growing it by an administrative factor that can reflect policy goals, anticipated volume, and intensity growth, or a socially agreed-upon rate, such as gross domestic product growth. The key feature is that, without policy action, the benchmark trajectory is not influenced by realized spending trends. An example of the administrative benchmark approach is the Accountable Care Prospective Trend component of the benchmarks for ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program, which uses an initial benchmark, based on baseline spending, that grows based on spending growth that was forecast when the program was launched rather than realized spending growth. This administrative benchmark allows benchmark growth to diverge from, rather than track with, realized spending growth, which avoids shortcomings of empirical benchmarks and allows for greater incentives to deliver care efficiently, providing predictability over time. The key to success for administrative benchmarks is that the administrative growth rate needs to be set low enough so that Medicare saves money relative to what would happen without ACOs or MA, but high enough to still encourage participation.

To What Extent Are ACO and PCMH Models Advancing the Triple Aim Objective? Implications and Considerations for Primary Care Medical Practices.

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) and patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) have emerged to advance the health care system by achieving the Triple Aim of improving population health, reducing costs, and enhancing the patient experience. This review examines evidence regarding the relationship between these innovative care models and care outcomes, costs, and patient experiences. The 28 articles summarized in this review show that ACO and PCMH models play an important role in achieving the Triple Aim, when compared with conventional care models. However, there can be drawbacks associated with model implementation. The long-term success of these models still merits further investigation.

Study: Value‐based model in Medicare causes little change in MH spending

Results of a new study suggest that the accountable care organization (ACO) model of care that has grown substantially in the Medicare program since the adoption of the Affordable Care Act has not dramatically altered the provision of mental health services for patients with serious mental illness (SMI). The small savings in total health care spending that the study found in its examination of data for the SMI population is attributed mainly to savings in spending for chronic medical conditions.

Medicare's Specialty-Oriented Accountable Care Organization: First-Year Results For People With End-Stage Renal Disease.

The Comprehensive End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Care (CEC) Model was the first Medicare specialty-oriented accountable care organization (ACO) model. We examined whether this model provided better results for beneficiaries with ESRD than primary care-based ACO models. We found significant decreases in Medicare payments ($126 per beneficiary per month), hospitalizations (5percent), and likelihood of readmissions (8percent) among beneficiaries with ESRD during the first year of alignment with the CEC Model and no impacts on these measures among beneficiaries with ESRD who were aligned with primary care-based ACOs, relative to fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. Neither the CEC nor primary care-based ACO models significantly reduced the likelihood of catheter use, but fistula use increased for CEC Model beneficiaries to levels just above statistical significance. Other populations with chronic conditions may benefit from the testing of a specialty-oriented ACO model. In addition, primary care-based ACOs may benefit from applying CEC Model strategies to high-need subpopulations. Last, the strategies that enabled ESRD Seamless Care Organizations to achieve reductions in hospitalizations and readmissions even without hospital participation as owners could inform physician-led ACOs' efforts to coordinate with hospitals in their areas.

What Can Canada Learn From Accountable Care Organizations: A Comparative Policy Analysis.

Introduction:Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), implemented in the United States (US), aim to reduce costs and integrate care by aligning incentives among providers and payers. Canadian governments are interested adopting such models to integrate care, though comparative studies assessing the applicability and transferability of ACOs in Canada are lacking. In this comparative study, we performed a narrative literature review to examine how Canadian health systems could support ACO models.Methods:We reviewed empirical studies (published 2011–2020) that evaluated ACO impacts in the US. Thematic analysis and critical appraisal were performed to identify factors associated with positive ACO impacts. These factors were compared with the Canadian context to assess the applicability and transferability of ACO models within Canada.Findings:Physician-led models, global budgets and financial incentives, and focus on collaborative care may optimize ACO impacts. While reforms towards alternative payments and team-based care are not unprecedented in Canada, significant further reforms to physician remuneration, intersectoral collaboration, and accountability for performance are required to support ACO-like models.Conclusion:This comparative study uncovered several insights on the applicability and transferability of ACOs to the Canadian context. Further comparative research outside the US is needed to infer the essential components of successful ACO models.

Ancillary Cost Implications of Physicians Multisiting and Inter‐Organizational Collaboration During Healthcare Delivery

This study investigates diagnostic testing and pharmacy expenditures, commonly referred to as ancillary costs in the United States acute‐care hospitals. These ancillary costs are charges associated with services provided to support patient treatment, including laboratory, radiology, and pharmacy charges. Despite of investment in inter‐organizational and technological collaboration practices, these costs continue to rise. Our research examines the role of individual healthcare providers, namely multisiting physicians, who practice at more than one hospital, in reducing ancillary cost. We also look at how inter‐organizational collaboration measured by the hospital's affiliation in an accountable care organization (ACO) model affect this relationship. To do this, we assembled a unique data set of 163,617 patients treated by 4411 physicians at 182 hospitals in Florida from 2014 to 2016. Using an econometric estimation approach accounting for endogeneity, we find that patients treated by multisiting physicians experienced, on an average, per‐hospitalization reduction in laboratory and radiology charges of 58.57% and 30.11%, respectively. These savings increase when multisiting physicians have less practice experience. We also find that hospitals participating in ACO model complement the savings achieved through multisiting physicians in the form of even lower pharmacy costs. In post‐hoc analyses, we find such cost reduction comes from reducing the total number of procedures or tests ordered. We also show that the lower treatment charges do not compromise the clinical quality of patients treated by multisiting physicians. Collectively, the findings offer important insights to the healthcare operations management literature on the interaction between individual‐organizational collaboration efforts and patient‐level outcomes.

Shared Savings Model Risk in the MSSP Program

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) for accountable care organizations (ACOs) as part of the Affordable Care Act. Participating ACOs accept risk for the financial outcomes of their assigned populations and share in gains (and, depending on the ACO model, losses) when these are generated. Gains and losses are calculated by comparing actual costs of the ACO population against a benchmark cost based on the historical performance of members in the ACO. Participating ACOs are at risk of model error. Because of stochastic variance in cost distributions and the imperfect operation of the risk-adjustment process, there is a nontrivial probability that an ACO may experience a false positive (gains are calculated where no gains were actually generated) or false negative (a loss is calculated by the model when no losses were actually generated). Using a sample of Medicare fee-for-service data, we model outcomes for typical ACOs and for ACOs consisting of chronic patients. For a typical ACO, the probability of model error resulting in a false positive or false negative outcome is between 5% and 8%. Chronic populations with higher variance have higher probabilities of model error, between 26% and 28% for a diabetes population, and about 23% for a cancer population. In the case of an ACO that generates gains through increased efficiency, model error can result in the ACO failing to realize gains, or even (in a minority of cases) require a reimbursement to the payer. From the perspective of the payer with a number of ACOs, the average overpayment or recovery will be minor. The percentage overpayment (recovery) increases as the prevalence of chronic patients increases. For a population of cancer patients a payer can expect to pay (or recover) between 1.0% and 2.0% of claims, while for a diabetes population the range is 1.5–2.5%. For an individual ACO the loss or gain is more significant because the ACO gains or loses the full amount, with a relatively high probability. While this study has focused on the Medicare Shared Savings Program, the MSSP is just an example of a class of gainsharing models that is increasingly prevalent in value-based contracts. Payers and providers who negotiate value-based contracts need to be aware of and account for model risk in their contracts, particularly as the sizes of populations under management become smaller.

Ancillary Cost Implications of Multisiting and Organizational Boundary Spanning during Healthcare

This study investigates the management of diagnostic testing and pharmacy expenditures in U.S. acute-care hospitals. These so-called ancillary costs are charges associated with services provided to support patient treatment, including laboratory, radiology, and pharmacy charges. Previous studies suggest that investing in structural and technological boundary-spanning practices may help reduce the increasing ancillary costs. In this research, we examine the role of individual boundary spanners, namely multisiting physicians who practice at more than one hospital, in reducing ancillary cost. We also look at how organizational boundary spanning abilities measured by the hospital’s affiliation in an accountable care organization (ACO) model affect this relationship. To do this, we assembled a unique data set of 163,617 patients treated by 4,411 physicians at 182 hospitals in Florida from 2014 to 2016. Using an econometric estimation approach accounting for endogeneity, we find that patients treated by multisiting physicians experienced per-hospitalization reductions in laboratory and radiology charges of 49.16% and 32.04%, respectively. These savings increase, moreover, when multisiting physicians have less practice experience. We also find that hospitals participating in ACO model complements the savings achieved through multisiting physicians in the form of even lower pharmacy costs. In our post-hoc analysis, we find the cost reduction that multisiting physicians achieve come through reducing the total number of procedures or tests ordered. We also find that lower treatment charges do not compromise the clinical quality of patients treated by multisiting physicians. Collectively, the findings offer important insights to the healthcare operations management literature on the interaction between individual-organizational boundary-spanning efforts and patient-level outcomes.

Clinical laboratory services for primary healthcare centers in urban cities: a pilot ACO model of ten primary healthcare centers

BackgroundPrimary healthcare centers (PHC) ensure that patients receive comprehensive care from promotion and prevention to treatment, rehabilitation, and palliative care in a familiar environment. It is designed to provide first-contact, continuous, comprehensive, and coordinated patient care that will help achieve equity in the specialty healthcare system. The healthcare in Saudi Arabia is undergoing transformation to Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) model. In order for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to achieve its transformational goals in healthcare, the improvement of PHCs’ quality and utilization is crucial. An integral part of this service is the laboratory services.MethodsThis paper presents a pilot model for the laboratory services of PHC's in urban cities. The method was based on the FOCUS-PDCA quality improvement method focusing on the pre-analytical phase of the laboratory testing as well as the Saudi Central Board for Accreditation of Healthcare Institutes (CBAHI) gap analysis and readiness within the ten piloted primary healthcare centers.ResultsThe Gap analysis, revealed in-consistency in the practice, lead to lower the quality of the service, which was seen in the low performance of the chosen key performance indicators (KPI's) (high rejection rates, lower turn-around times (TAT) for test results) and also in the competency of the staff. Following executing the interventions, and by using some of the ACO Laboratory strategies; the KPI rates were improved, and our results exceeded the targets that we have set to reach during the first year. Also introducing the electronic connectivity improved the TAT KPI and made many of the processes leaner.ConclusionsOur results revealed that the centralization of PHC's laboratory service to an accredited reference laboratory and implementing the national accreditation standards improved the testing process and lowered the cost, for the mass majority of the routine laboratory testing. Moreover, the model shed the light on how crucial the pre-analytical phase for laboratory quality improvement process, its effect on cost reduction, and the importance of staff competency and utilization.

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementation of Value-Based Care Models in New Medicaid Accountable Care Organizations in Massachusetts: A Study Protocol.

Introduction: Massachusetts established 17 new Medicaid accountable care organizations (ACOs) and 24 affiliated Community Partners (CPs) in 2018 as part of a large-scale healthcare reform effort to improve care value. The new ACOs will receive $1.8 billion dollars in state and federal funding over 5 years through the Delivery System Reform Incentive Program (DSRIP). The multi-faceted study described in this protocol aims to address gaps in knowledge about Medicaid ACOs' impact on healthcare value by identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation and sustainment of the DSRIP-funded programs.Methods and analysis: The study's four components are: (1) Document Review to characterize the ACOs and CPs; (2) Semi-structured Key Informant Interviews (KII) with ACO and CP leadership, state-level Medicaid administrators, and patients; (3) Site visits with selected ACOs and CPs; and (4) Surveys of ACO clinical teams and CP staff. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research's (CFIR) serves as the study's conceptual framework; its versatile menu of constructs, arranged across five domains (Intervention Characteristics, Inner Setting, Outer Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Processes) guides identification of barriers and facilitators across multiple organizational contexts. For example, KII interview guides focus on understanding how Inner and Outer Setting factors may impact implementation. Document Review analysis includes extraction and synthesis of ACO-specific DSRIP-funded programs (i.e., Intervention Characteristics); KIIs and site visit data will be qualitatively analyzed using thematic analytic techniques; surveys will be analyzed using descriptive statistics (e.g., counts, frequencies, means, and standard deviations).Discussion: Understanding barriers and facilitators to implementing and sustaining Medicaid ACOs with varied organizational structures will provide critical context for understanding the overall impact of the Medicaid ACO experiment in Massachusetts. It will also provide important insights for other states considering the ACO model for their Medicaid programs.Ethics and dissemination: IRB determinations were that the overall study did not constitute human subjects research and that each phase of primary data collection should be submitted for IRB review and approval. Study results will be disseminated through traditional channels such as peer reviewed journals, through publicly available reports on the mass.gov website; and directly to key stakeholders in ACO and CP leadership.

Post-Acute Care for Medicare Beneficiaries in Accountable Care Organizations

Post-acute care (PAC) is a component of health-care utilization and spending that is subject to the discretion of providers. Prior research has demonstrated that Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) recognize PAC as a logical target for increased efficiency and cost savings. As part of the evaluation of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Next Generation ACO (NGACO) Model, we investigated NGACOs’ approaches to PAC services and the impact of these efforts on utilization and cost using a mixed-methods study design. We conducted interviews and surveys with NGACO leadership and providers and performed a difference-in-differences analysis of utilization and spending based on Medicare claims data. We found that NGACOs focused specifically on establishing partnerships with skilled nursing facilities (SNF) to facilitate transitions in care by establishing new channels of communication, sharing performance data, embedding staff in SNFs, and (in some cases) sharing financial risk. We observed a statistically significant decrease in SNF spending, a trend toward fewer SNF days, and statistically significantly lower expenditures for other PAC settings (e.g., inpatient rehabilitation and long-term acute care facilities). These findings suggest that NGACOs have contributed to improving transitions in care and diverting beneficiaries from intensive PAC settings. Nonetheless, the reduction in PAC spending alone did not translate to a decline in total cost of care. Future ACOs may need to expand their focus to the inpatient utilization and spending that precedes PAC in order to impact total cost of care.

Differences in Savings and Quality by Type of ACO Model

2016-2018 Next Generation Accountable Care Organization (ACO) and Medicare Shared Savings Program cost and quality data show similar performance, suggesting that increasing financial risk to health systems may not affect performance.

Health Expenditures and Quality Health Services: The Efficiency Analysis of Differential Risk Structures of Medicare Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs)

Medicare Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) represent the nation’s largest initiative of Medicare alternative payment models toward value and health outcomes. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have tested various ACO models with differential risk structures, and have issued a final rule to accelerate the ACOs to assume greater financial risks. In response, this research investigates whether superiority exists among various ACO models and determines their potential cost reductions. The results indicate that in minimizing health expenditures given quality services, or maximizing quality services given health expenditures, one-sided ACOs are more efficient than two-sided ACOs, so it might not be advisable to mandate the transition of ACOs from one-sided to two-sided. This research also shows that Medicare ACOs should be able to reduce expenditures significantly through efficiency improvement, without switching to two-sided tracks. Another finding is that the benchmark expenditures for a significant number of Medicare ACOs are below the efficient expenditures and should be adjusted upward.

Cost and Quality Performance of Accountable Care Organizations: An Empirical Investigation

We examine the impact of leadership diversity, care delivery, and experience on cost and quality performance of 255 Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) - networks of healthcare providers who join voluntarily to provide high-quality coordinated care to patients to reduce medical expenditures. We ope-rationalize care delivery using primary care services and association with community and rural health clinics. Our results suggest that: (i) having diverse leadership in their governing board helps in better cost performance of ACOs, (ii) using specialists for providing primary care services increases cost and reduces quality performance, (iii) ACOs that are associated with community and rural health clinics exhibit better quality and cost performance; specifically, providing majority of care services by primary care providers and nurse practitioners, and having affiliation with hospitals improve cost performance of such ACOs. While differences across payer types and patient populations exist, our research suggests ample improvement opportunities in the ACO model and provides policy level directives for managing the ACOs.

Oregon Experiment with Medicaid Accountable Care and Pediatric Preventive Care Utilization Among Infants

Research ObjectiveIn August 2012, Oregon began enrolling Medicaid beneficiaries in coordinated care organizations (CCOs), a unique mandatory‐enrollment accountable care organization (ACO) model with payment methods strongly tied to preventive care and care coordination through patient‐centered medical homes. No study has examined the impact of CCOs on preventive care utilization among infants. The main goal of this study was to examine the impact of this new delivery model on the utilization of preventive care services among infants enrolled in Medicaid during 2 years after birth. We also investigated heterogeneous impacts of the CCO model for preterm and full‐term infants as well as over time.Study DesignWe linked Oregon 2008‐14 birth certificates to Medicaid eligibility and claims data, and created the pre‐ and post‐CCO cohorts of Medicaid infants. Medicaid infants were defined as being enrolled in Medicaid for at least 80% of the two years after birth. Pediatric preventive care outcomes included indicators of preventive care adequacy as recommended by American Academy of Pediatrics: six well‐child visits by the first birthday, nine well‐child visits by the second birthday, and annual developmental screening. We estimated logistic regression models and linear probability models, adjusting for time trends of outcomes and a comprehensive set of maternal and infant characteristics. We utilized a difference‐in‐differences approach to examine heterogeneous effects of CCOs for preterm and full‐term infants. Spline regression was used to test the effect of CCOs on the outcomes for every six months from the start of the CCO implementation. We conducted a range of sensitivity analyses, such as different thresholds of Medicaid enrollment for the definition of Medicaid infants and excluding infants of mothers in the Medicaid expansion group.Population Studied36 546 pre‐CCO infants born between August 2008 and July 2010 and 47 973 post‐CCO infants born between August 2012 and December 2014Principal FindingsDuring the 2 years after birth, infants enrolled in Medicaid CCOs had higher probability of well‐child visit adequacy: 10% points (95%CI: 8.2; 11.8) by the first birthday and 5.7% point (95%CI: 4.3; 7.1) by the second birthday. Annual probability of developmental screening increased by 23.1% points (95%CI: 21.6; 24.6) after the CCO implementation. No difference in the CCOs’ impact was found between preterm infants and full‐term infants. Increase in preventive care was found to start in the second year of the CCO implementation.ConclusionsThe CCO model was associated with an increase in preventive care utilization among infants enrolled in Medicaid during the first 2 years of birth.Implications for Policy or PracticeIncrease in preventive services among low‐income infants after CCO implementation implies that the Oregon Medicaid ACO model could improve quality of care for infants in their early years. A growing number of states have been adopting accountable care models for their Medicaid enrollees. Our findings suggest that other states benefit from studying the Oregon approach to accountable care for Medicaid enrollees that integrates financing and delivery of care, and implements a payment methodology with clear performance targets for pediatric preventive services.Primary Funding SourceCenters for Disease Control and Prevention.

Association of Organizational Factors and Physician Practices’ Participation in Alternative Payment Models

Consolidation among physician practices and between hospitals and physician practices has accelerated in the past decade, resulting in higher prices in commercial markets. The resulting integration of health care across clinicians and participation in alternative payment models (APMs), which aim to improve quality while constraining spending, are cited as reasons for consolidation, but little is known about the association between integration and APM participation. To examine the association of organizational characteristics, ownership, and integration with intensity of participation in APMs among physician practices. A cross-sectional descriptive study, adjusted for sampling and nonresponse weights, was conducted in US physician practice respondents to the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems conducted between June 16, 2017, and August 17, 2018; of 2333 responses received (response rate, 46.9%) and after exclusion of ineligible and incomplete responses, the number of practices included in the analysis was 2061. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019. Self-reported physician practice characteristics, including ownership, integration (clinical, cultural, financial, and functional), care delivery capabilities, activities, and environmental factors. Participation in APMs: (1) bundled payments, (2) comprehensive primary care and medical home programs, (3) pay-for-performance programs, (4) capitated contracts with commercial health plans, and (5) accountable care organization contracts. A total of 49.2% of the 2061 practices included reported participating in 3 or more APMs; most participated in pay-for-performance and accountable care organization models. Covariate-adjusted analyses suggested that operating within a health care system (odds ratio [OR] for medical group: 2.35; 95% CI, 1.70-3.25; P < .001; simple health system: 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.97; P = .02; and complex health system: 1.76; 95% CI, 1.25-2.47; P = .001 relative to independent practices), greater clinical (OR, 4.68; 95% CI, 2.28-9.59; P < .001) and functional (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 2.00-8.97; P < .001) integration, and being located in the Northeast (OR for Midwest: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.65; P < .001; South: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.66; P < .001; and West: 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.91; P = .01) were associated with greater APM participation. Greater APM participation appears to be supported by integration and system ownership.