Controlling Health Care Spending - The Massachusetts Experiment

Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 04/2012; 366(17):1560-1. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1201261
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT As debate rages on about implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), national attention is once again focused on Massachusetts, which instituted a similar comprehensive health care reform package in 2006. After expanding health insurance coverage to almost 98% of the state population, Massachusetts is now struggling to control increasing health care costs that threaten the continued viability of its reforms. This second phase of health care reform presents entirely new challenges. Whereas expanding coverage has popular appeal, cost control does not. Whereas expanding coverage injects additional dollars into the health care system, cost control does the opposite. Whereas expanding . . .

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) seek to reduce growth in healthcare spending while ensuring high-quality care. We hypothesized that accountable care organization implementation would selectively limit the use of discretionary cardiovascular care (defined as care occurring in the absence of indications such as myocardial infarction or stroke), while maintaining high-quality care, such as nondiscretionary cardiovascular imaging and procedures. The intervention group was composed of fee-for-service Medicare patients (n=819 779) from 10 groups participating in a Medicare pilot accountable care organization, the Physician Group Practice Demonstration (PGPD). Matched controls were patients (n=934 621) from nonparticipating groups in the same regions. We compared use of cardiovascular care before (2002-2004) and after (2005-2009) PGPD implementation, studying both discretionary and nondiscretionary carotid and coronary imaging and procedures. Our main outcome measure was the difference in the proportion of patients treated with imaging and procedures among patients of PGPD practices compared with patients in control practices, before and after PGPD implementation (difference-in-difference). For discretionary imaging, the difference-in-difference between PGPD practices and controls was not statistically significant for discretionary carotid imaging (0.17%; 95% confidence interval, -0.51% to 0.85%; P=0.595) or discretionary coronary imaging (-0.19%; 95% confidence interval, -0.73% to 0.35%; P=0.468). Similarly, the difference-in-difference was also minimal for discretionary carotid revascularization (0.003%; 95% confidence interval, -0.008% to 0.002%; P=0.705) and coronary revascularization (-0.02%; 95% confidence interval, -0.11% to 0.07%; P=0.06). The difference-in-difference associated with PGPD implementation was also essentially 0 for nondiscretionary cardiovascular imaging or procedures. Implementation of a pilot accountable care organization did not limit the use of discretionary or nondiscretionary cardiovascular care in 10 large health systems. © 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.
    Circulation 11/2014; 130(22):1954-61. DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.011470 · 14.95 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND Spending and quality under global budgets remain unknown beyond 2 years. We evaluated spending and quality measures during the first 4 years of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Alternative Quality Contract (AQC). METHODS We compared spending and quality among enrollees whose physician organizations entered the AQC from 2009 through 2012 with those among persons in control states. We studied spending changes according to year, category of service, site of care, experience managing risk contracts, and price versus utilization. We evaluated process and outcome quality. RESULTS In the 2009 AQC cohort, medical spending on claims grew an average of $62.21 per enrollee per quarter less than it did in the control cohort over the 4-year period (P<0.001). This amount is equivalent to a 6.8% savings when calculated as a proportion of the average post-AQC spending level in the 2009 AQC cohort. Analogously, the 2010, 2011, and 2012 cohorts had average savings of 8.8% (P<0.001), 9.1% (P<0.001), and 5.8% (P = 0.04), respectively, by the end of 2012. Claims savings were concentrated in the outpatient-facility setting and in procedures, imaging, and tests, explained by both reduced prices and reduced utilization. Claims savings were exceeded by incentive payments to providers during the period from 2009 through 2011 but exceeded incentive payments in 2012, generating net savings. Improvements in quality among AQC cohorts generally exceeded those seen elsewhere in New England and nationally. CONCLUSIONS As compared with similar populations in other states, Massachusetts AQC enrollees had lower spending growth and generally greater quality improvements after 4 years. Although other factors in Massachusetts may have contributed, particularly in the later part of the study period, global budget contracts with quality incentives may encourage changes in practice patterns that help reduce spending and improve quality.
    New England Journal of Medicine 10/2014; 371(18):1704-14. DOI:10.1056/NEJMsa1404026 · 54.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was designed to (1) decrease the number of uninsured Americans, (2) make health insurance and health care affordable, and (3) improve health outcomes and performance of the health care system. During the design of ACA, children in general and children and youth with special health care needs and disabilities (CYSHCN) were not a priority because before ACA, a higher proportion of children than adults had insurance coverage through private family plans, Medicaid, or the State Children's Health Insurance Programs (CHIP). ACA benefits CYSHCN through provisions designed to make health insurance coverage universal and continuous, affordable, and adequate. Among the limitations of ACA for CYSHCN are the exemption of plans that had been in existence before ACA, lack of national standards for insurance benefits, possible elimination or reductions in funding for CHIP, and limited experience with new delivery models for improving care while reducing costs. Advocacy efforts on behalf of CYSHCN must track implementation of ACA at the federal and the state levels. Systems and payment reforms must emphasize access and quality improvements for CYSHCN over cost savings. Developmental-behavioral pediatrics must be represented at the policy level and in the design of new delivery models to assure high quality and cost-effective care for CYSHCN.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License, where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.
    Journal of developmental and behavioral pediatrics: JDBP 03/2015; DOI:10.1097/DBP.0000000000000151 · 2.12 Impact Factor