Dataset Information

Spending differences associated with the Medicare Physician Group Practice Demonstration.

ABSTRACT:

Context

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently launched accountable care organization (ACO) programs designed to improve quality and slow cost growth. The ACOs resemble an earlier pilot, the Medicare Physician Group Practice Demonstration (PGPD), in which participating physician groups received bonus payments if they achieved lower cost growth than local controls and met quality targets. Although evidence indicates the PGPD improved quality, uncertainty remains about its effect on costs.

Objective

To estimate cost savings associated with the PGPD overall and for beneficiaries dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

Design

Quasi-experimental analyses comparing preintervention (2001-2004) and postintervention (2005-2009) trends in spending of PGPD participants to local control groups. We compared estimates using several alternative approaches to adjust for case mix.

Setting

Ten physician groups from across the United States.

Patients and participants

The intervention group was composed of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries (n = 990,177) receiving care primarily from the physicians in the participating medical groups. Controls were Medicare beneficiaries (n = 7,514,453) from the same regions who received care largely from non-PGPD physicians. Overall, 15% of beneficiaries were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

Main outcome measure

Annual spending per Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary.

Results

Annual savings per beneficiary were modest overall (adjusted mean $114, 95% CI, $12-$216). Annual savings were significant in dually eligible beneficiaries (adjusted mean $532, 95% CI, $277-$786), but were not significant among nondually eligible beneficiaries (adjusted mean $59, 95% CI, $166 in savings to $47 in additional spending). The adjusted mean spending reductions were concentrated in acute care (overall, $118, 95% CI, $65-$170; dually eligible: $381, 95% CI, $247-$515; nondually eligible: $85, 95% CI, $32-$138). There was significant variation in savings across practice groups, ranging from an overall mean per-capita annual saving of $866 (95% CI, $815-$918) to an increase in expenditures of $749 (95% CI, $698-$799). Thirty-day medical readmissions decreased overall (-0.67%, 95% CI, -1.11% to -0.23%) and in the dually eligible (-1.07%, 95% CI, -1.73% to -0.41%), while surgical readmissions decreased only for the dually eligible (-2.21%, 95% CI, -3.07% to -1.34%). Estimates were sensitive to the risk-adjustment method.

Conclusions

Substantial PGPD savings achieved by some participating institutions were offset by a lack of saving at other participating institutions. Most of the savings were concentrated among dually eligible beneficiaries.

SUBMITTER: Colla CH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3484377 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Spending differences associated with the Medicare Physician Group Practice Demonstration.

Colla Carrie H CH Wennberg David E DE Meara Ellen E Skinner Jonathan S JS Gottlieb Daniel D Lewis Valerie A VA Snyder Christopher M CM Fisher Elliott S ES

JAMA 20120901 10

<h4>Context</h4>The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently launched accountable care organization (ACO) programs designed to improve quality and slow cost growth. The ACOs resemble an earlier pilot, the Medicare Physician Group Practice Demonstration (PGPD), in which participating physician groups received bonus payments if they achieved lower cost growth than local controls and met quality targets. Although evidence indicates the PGPD improved quality, uncertainty remains about ...[more]

PMID: 22968890

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the association between hospital-cardiologist integration and Medicare spending for stable angina patients.Data sources and study settingThis study used Medicare Standard Analytic Files from 2013 to 2020 and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services National Downloadable File for accompanying physician data.Study designThis was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with a new diagnosis of stable angina between 2013 and 2020.Data collection/extraction methodsPatients with a new diagnosis of stable angina were categorized by whether they received care from an independent or a hospital-integrated cardiologist.Principal findingsTotal spending for this sample was high: an average of $103,946 per patient over 12 months. Adjusted for covariates, patients of integrated cardiologists did not spend significantly more or less than clinically comparable patients of independent cardiologists (-$3856, 95% CI: -$8631 to 920, p = 0.11). This was true for overall inpatient (-$2622, 95% CI: -6069 to 825, p = 0.14) and outpatient (-1162, 95% CI: -$3510 to 1185, p = 0.33) spending as well as cardiology-specific inpatient and outpatient spending. Among high-risk patients, overall spending between the integrated and independent groups was comparable, though patients of integrated cardiologists incurred lower spending than those of their independent counterparts in inpatient care (-$13,589; 95% CI: -24,432 to -2746, p = 0.01). In a supplemental analysis, findings suggested that site-neutral payments would have resulted in lower spending among patients of integrated physicians.ConclusionsSpecific clinical settings may lend themselves to efficiencies created by integration for certain complex patients, though we do not test a causal mechanism here. Adoption of site-neutral payment policy may also lead to lower spending among patients of integrated physicians.What is known on this topicHospital-physician integration has increased significantly in the United States. Policymakers and health policy experts have expressed concerns that hospital-physician integration leads to increased health spending and may threaten healthcare affordability. While some studies link integration to greater spending, many use incomplete measures of spending, do not consider the potential benefits of care coordination, or rely on outdated data.What this study addsSpending among patients with stable angina, a common cardiovascular condition, was nearly equal, on average, across patients of integrated and independent cardiologists. Inpatient spending on high-risk patients was somewhat lower for those under the care of integrated cardiologists. Overall, patients of integrated cardiologists incurred largely comparable spending relative to patients of independent cardiologists, indicating that the impact of hospital-physician integration may depend on the clinical context.

Project description:ImportanceBiosimilars, or highly similar versions of complex biologic drugs, have the potential to slow drug spending growth; however, biosimilar uptake in the United States has been slow. Little is known about barriers to biosimilar uptake following drug launch.ObjectiveTo examine the patient, physician, and practice characteristics associated with biosimilar use in the Medicare population.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used regression analysis to estimate the association between biosimilar use and various characteristics. Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who received a filgrastim product or an infliximab product between the launch of a class's first biosimilar (quarter 3 2015 for filgrastim-sndz and quarter 4 2016 for infliximab-dyyb) and December 2018. Data analysis was conducted from March to November 2020.ExposuresPatient demographic characteristics and product clinical indications; physician demographic characteristics, specialty, and volume of filgrastim or infliximab biologic administration; hospital size, ownership, 340B status, academic medical center status, and system affiliation; physician office size and multispecialty status.Main outcomes and measuresAdministration of a filgrastim or infliximab biosimilar.ResultsThe final filgrastim sample included 25 870 patients (11 857 [45.8%] men; 14 224 [55.0%] aged 65-74 years; 22 617 [87.4%] White individuals) who had 259 178 administrations (79 017 [30.5%] biosimilar administrations), and the final infliximab sample included 14 786 patients (4765 [32.2%] men; 8773 [59.3%] aged 65-74 years; 13 467 [91.1%] White individuals) who had 174 973 administrations (9012 [5.2%] biosimilar administrations). In adjusted analyses, no patient demographic characteristics and 2 of 9 clinical indications (22.2%) were associated with biosimilar use (filgrastim, neutropenia: adjusted difference, -2.0 [95% CI, -3.9 to -0.2] percentage points; P = .03; infliximab, Crohn disease: adjusted difference, -1.8 [95% CI, -2.9 to -0.8] percentage points; P = .001). Several physician characteristics were associated with biosimilar administrations, including high filgrastim or infliximab prescribing volume (high vs low volume, filgrastim: adjusted difference, 3.6 [95% CI, 1.5 to 5.8] percentage points; P = .001; infliximab: adjusted difference, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.3 to 2.2] percentage points; P = .007) and specialty (eg, hematologist-oncologists vs primary care, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -3.0 [95% CI, -5.4 to -0.5] percentage points; P = .02). Numerous practice characteristics were associated with biosimilar use, including practice setting (outpatient hospital department vs office practice, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -16.1 [95% CI, -18.1 to -14.1] percentage points; P < .001; infliximab: adjusted difference, 3.0 [95% CI, 2.2 to 3.7] percentage points; P < .001) and hospital outpatient department ownership status (for-profit vs not-for-profit, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -17.4 [95% CI, -21.6 to -13.3] percentage points; P < .001; infliximab: adjusted difference, 10.8 [95% CI, 6.7 to 14.9] percentage points; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, practice setting and hospital ownership status had the largest associations with biosimilar usage, suggesting practices play a role in steering physicians toward certain medications. However, the types of practices with high biosimilar use differed by drug class. Further research is needed to understand the reasons for these differences across drug classes.

Project description:ImportanceThe benefits of public payment policy may extend to private populations through "spillover" effects. If cost-saving efforts in Medicare also reduce costs among commercially insured patients, Medicare payment systems could be a versatile policy tool in future reform efforts.ObjectivesTo determine whether physicians who participated in a Medicare Accountable Care Organization (ACO) reduced spending among their commercial patients.DesignThis was a retrospective, longitudinal study which was conducted using Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) claims data from 2010 to 2015. We compared patients seen by physicians who participated in a Medicare ACO to patients whose physicians were not part of an ACO. We used a difference-in-differences (DIDs) design to test whether physician participation in an ACO was associated with reduced spending among their commercially insured patients. We also tested for heterogeneous effects: we assessed whether spillovers were larger among patients with clinical conditions (acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, congestive heart failure) that have previously been targeted by Medicare payment programs.SettingThis was a population-based study of commercially insured patients in Michigan.ParticipantsPatients who experienced a significant clinical episode (eg, labor and delivery, acute myocardial infarction) between 2010 and 2015.ExposureOur patient-level exposure is treatment by a Medicare ACO-affiliated physician.Main outcomes and measuresMedical spending of 0-90 days and 91-365 days after a clinical episode.ResultsPatients in the exposure group (n=54,750) and in the control group (n=137,883) were similar in demographic characteristics of age, sex, and type of clinical episodes. Adjusted mean 90-day spending in the preexposure period was $21,292 among the exposure group and $21,157 among the comparison group; these means declined to $21,250 and $20,995 in the postperiod, yielding a DIDs estimate of $119 [95% confidence interval (CI), -$170 to $408]. Adjusted means for 91-365 days spending in the preperiod were $4258 among the exposure group and $4251 among the comparison group; these means rose to $4338 and $4421 in the postperiod, yielding a DIDs estimate of -$90 (95% CI, -$312 to $132). We also separately examined patients with conditions that have been targeted by other Medicare payment programs. Among these patients, 90-day spending did not differ between exposure and comparison groups (DIDs, -$223; 95% CI, -$2037 to $1591), although 91-365 days spending decreased among the exposure group with marginal statistical significance (DIDs, -$1160; 95% CI, -$2459 to $140).Conclusions and relevancePhysicians who participated in Medicare ACOs did not reduce spending among most of their commercially insured patients. Medicare policy is unlikely to confer significant spillover benefits to the commercially insured population.

Project description:ImportanceThe 2 primary efforts of Medicare to advance value-based care are Medicare Advantage (MA) and the fee-for-service-based Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). It is unknown how spending differs between the 2 programs after accounting for differences in patient clinical risk.ObjectiveTo examine how spending and utilization differ between MA and MSSP beneficiaries after accounting for differences in clinical risk using data from administrative claims and electronic health records.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective economic evaluation used data from 15 763 propensity score-matched beneficiaries who were continuously enrolled in MA or MSSP from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, with diabetes, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or hypertension. Participants received care at a large nonprofit academic health system in the southern United States that bears risk for Medicare beneficiaries through both the MA and MSSP programs. Differences in beneficiary risk were mitigated by propensity score matching using validated clinical criteria based on data from administrative claims and electronic health records. Data were analyzed from January 2019 to May 2022.ExposuresEnrollment in MA or attribution to an accountable care organization in the MSSP program.Main outcomes and measuresPer-beneficiary annual total spending and subcomponents, including inpatient hospital, outpatient hospital, skilled nursing facility, emergency department, primary care, and specialist spending.ResultsThe sample of 15 763 participants included 12 720 (81%) MA and 3043 (19%) MSSP beneficiaries. MA beneficiaries, compared with MSSP beneficiaries, were more likely to be older (median [IQR] age, 75.0 [69.9-81.8] years vs 73.1 [68.3-79.8] years), male (5515 [43%] vs 1119 [37%]), and White (9644 [76%] vs 2046 [69%]) and less likely to live in low-income zip codes (2338 [19%] vs 750 [25%]). The mean unadjusted per-member per-year spending difference between MSSP and MA disease-specific subcohorts was $2159 in diabetes, $4074 in CHF, $2560 in CKD, and $2330 in hypertension. After matching on clinical risk and demographic factors, MSSP spending was higher for patients with diabetes (mean per-member per-year spending difference in 2015: $2454; 95% CI, $1431-$3574), CHF ($3699; 95% CI, $1235-$6523), CKD ($2478; 95% CI, $1172-$3920), and hypertension ($2258; 95% CI, $1616-2,939). Higher MSSP spending among matched beneficiaries was consistent over time. In the matched cohort in 2018, MSSP total spending ranged from 23% (CHF) to 30% (CKD) higher than MA. Adjusting for differential trends in coding intensity did not affect these results. Higher outpatient hospital spending among MSSP beneficiaries contributed most to spending differences between MSSP and MA, representing 49% to 62% of spending differences across disease cohorts.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, utilization and spending were consistently higher for MSSP than MA beneficiaries within the same health system even after adjusting for granular metrics of clinical risk. Nonclinical factors likely contribute to the large differences in MA vs MSSP spending, which may create challenges for health systems participating in MSSP relative to their participation in MA.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage (MA) has entailed a major expansion of government-financed, privately administered health insurance in the US. As policy makers consider options to expand Medicare further, it is informative to compare the performance of traditional Medicare (TM) and MA.ObjectiveTo assess whether MA is associated with differential changes in health care utilization and spending for beneficiaries entering Medicare from commercial insurance compared with beneficiaries entering TM.Design setting and participantsThis retrospective cohort study with a difference-in-differences analysis and propensity score matching compared health care utilization and spending between beneficiaries enrolling in MA and beneficiaries enrolling in TM with a Medicare Supplement plan 1 year before vs 1 year after their initial Medicare enrollment. Participants included beneficiaries aged 65 to 70 years who remained enrolled with a large insurer when transitioning from commercial insurance to Medicare between June 2018 and December 2018. Data were analyzed from February 2020 to October 2021.Main outcomes and measuresUse of, and spending on, institutional (Part A) and professional (Part B) medical services, measured as overall spending per member per month, and as rates of services per thousand members per year, including inpatient stays, inpatient days, physician visits, and injectable drug administrations.ResultsAmong 1082 matched beneficiaries (541 joining MA, 541 joining TM with a Supplement plan), 585 (54.1%) were female, and the mean (SD) age at Medicare enrollment was 66 (1.4) years. Prior to Medicare enrollment, there was no statistically significant difference in outcome trends between the MA and TM groups. The first year of MA enrollment was associated with a differential reduction in institutional (Part A) spending of $95 (95% CI, $7-$183) per member per month, corresponding to a differential reduction in inpatient stays of 63 (95% CI, 10-116) per thousand members per year. Medicare Advantage was associated with a differential reduction in total spending (Parts A and B) of $142 (95% CI, $0-$282) per member per month, which was 36% of total spending in TM. There was no differential reduction in professional (Part B) spending (per member per month, $47; 95% CI, $51-$145) or utilization.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study with a difference-in-differences analysis, during the first year of Medicare coverage, MA was associated with large reductions in institutional (Part A) utilization and spending.

Dataset Information

Spending differences associated with the Medicare Physician Group Practice Demonstration.

Context

Objective

Design

Setting

Patients and participants

Main outcome measure

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Spending differences associated with the Medicare Physician Group Practice Demonstration.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets