Aco whitepaper final

Following the Patient Protection and Afforda- ferral Regions (HRR) associated with the hospitals
ble Care Act’s emphasis on Accountable Care Or- that each entity utilizes.
ganizations (ACOs) and the announcement of the
Of the 164 identified ACOs, the sponsoring
Medicare Shared Savings Program, an increased
entities included hospital systems, physician groups
interest has emerged among providers and payers
and insurers with a market presence in 41 states but
to create ACOs. To date, little has been published
less than half of all HRRs. Of these entities, 99
regarding the types and locations of organizations
were primarily sponsored by hospital systems, 38
adopting principles of accountable care.
by physician groups and 27 by insurers.
As part of an ongoing national study, Leavitt
Partners identified ACOs from news releases, me-
dia reports, trade groups, collaborations and inter-
views through the beginning of September 2011.
Also included were entities that either self-
identified as being an ACOs or specifically adopted
the tenets of accountable care including financial
A clear movement is evolving within the
accountability for the health care needs of a popula-
health care industry towards the accountable care
tion, managing the care of that population and bear-
model of providing health services. Adoption of
ing that responsibility at an organizational level.
this model will vary greatly due to both regional
Leavitt Partners then mapped the market of each of
differences as well as variations among the spon-
these entities based on the States and Hospital Re-
soring entities.

Since the 2010 passage of the Patient Protec- ent approaches that can lead to the desired results.
tion and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), industry, To this end, the loose definition of an ACO sug-
media and national interest has grown in the con- gested by McClellan et al is the most fitting: an
cept of the Accountable Care Organization (ACO) organization that seeks “per capita improvements
1,2 3
. With backing from the White House and the in quality and cost” with some degree of accounta-
conviction of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid bility8. To clarify, an ACO must be, to some ex-
Services (CMS) leadership that they will lead to tent, financially accountable for the health care
4
better care, better results and decreased costs , needs of a population, manage the care of that pop-
Medicare has placed added emphasis on develop- ulation and bear that responsibility at an organiza-
ing ACOs as part of the Shared Savings Program5 tional level.
6
and Pioneer ACO demonstration projects. Addi-
While the “Accountable Care Organization”
tionally, private payers are experimenting with
name is of recent devise9, the concepts it embraces
ACO-centric initiatives in an effort to increase the
are not new to this period: management of and ac-
value they receive for the prices they pay by lower-
countability for health care. From the earliest ex-
ing the cost of care, improving the outcomes, or,
periments with capitated payments to the most re-
ideally, both7.
cent pioneer ACO demonstration programs, the
goal of improving outcomes while providers man-
age some degree of risk has been approached in
many different ways. To date, there is no consen-
sus regarding which models are best, and the amor-
phous concept of what an ACO consists of, what it
While there are some specific requirements to is expected to do and how it achieves its aims is yet
participate in Medicare’s demonstration programs, to be adequately defined, tested or analyzed.
ACOs can take many different forms within and Leavitt Partners Center for ACO Intelligence has
apart from Medicare. Since there are likely many begun to study the organizations that are attempting
models that will be able to achieve the same goals, to achieve the aims of an ACO without limiting the
there is little reason to define what an ACO is and, approaches the organizations may take and hope to
instead, the emphasis should be on identifying what learn which, and to what degree, approaches are
an individual ACO does and then study the differ- successful at improving the value of health care.

Without mandatory accreditation10 or some implementation phase; some ACOs are started by
minimum requirement to become an ACO, Leavitt hospitals and others by physician groups or insur-
Partners has sought to pinpoint ACOs by identify- ance companies; some are large integrated systems
ing two types of organizations: those that self- and others are smaller and primarily variations on
identify as ACOs and those who have been specifi- the patient-centered medical home. Starting with
cally identified as adopting the tenets of accounta- this initial list, Leavitt Partners will continue to
ble care. Leavitt Partners has used news releases, track these and future ACOs over time and evaluate
media reports, trade groups, collaborations, inter- the effectiveness of different approaches to achiev-
views and contacts within organizations through ing the goals of improving care and lowering cost.
the beginning of September 2011 to identify 164 This paper addresses the geographic growth of
ACO entities, including those that are actively ACOs in the United States and summarizes the
bearing risk and coordinating care and those that types of organizations that are implementing the
are implementing such programs. Initial review ACO model. This information is useful as it indi-
shows large variability between ACO organiza- cates the regions which should expect initial ACO
tions: some organizations have been bearing risk growth and describes the types of entities that will
and coordinating care for decades, while others drive the initial creation of ACOs.
have newly adopted the ACO model and are in an

1) Dispersion of accountable care organiza- care and are backing ACOs throughout the coun-
tions varies significantly by market. There is try. The multitude of entities creating ACOs
extreme variation in the present growth of ac- have led to many different models of providing
countable care organizations with some markets care for a patient population.
having multiple ACOs with others having
none. Much ACO growth appears to be a reac- 4) Significant investment in the accountable

tion to other organizations in the market: when care model exists independent of the Medicare

one institution forms an ACO, its competitors Shared Savings Program. Though the Medi-

often follow suit. care Shared Savings Program final regulations
have been released, implementation is still in its
2) Certain regions of the United States are infancy. Regardless, ACO growth is growing
devoid of accountable care organiza- independent of Medicare as multiple entities
tions. While ACO growth is extensive in some throughout the country are already operating un-
regions, others have no current ACO activi- der accountable care payment contracts.
ty. Poorer and rural regions in particular have
little ACO growth. 5) The success of different accountable care
models is yet unproven. The overriding goal of
3) Hospitals and hospital systems are the pri- accountable care organizations is to lower costs,
mary backers of ACOs. Nearly two-thirds of improve care, or both. While there are many
ACOs identified were started by hospitals or hos- different models of providing accountable care,
pital systems. Insurers and Physician Groups, which approaches are most successful at realiz-
though, are also adopting tenets of accountable ing an ACO’s goals is still unclear.

Health care delivery in America is still pri- were unclear, as was often the case with large
marily a cottage industry with few national insurance companies, those ACOs were not in-
health care providers. Most health service pro- cluded on the map; of the 140 ACOs mapped,
viders are regional and are focused around one 127 did not extend beyond one state.
market area, whether because of the simplicity of
Generally, states with larger populations are
dealing with one state law, the difficulties in ex-
associated with more ACOs, though the trend in
panding beyond a relatively small footprint or for
the South, through the plains states and into the
other reasons. Figure 1 depicts the dispersion of
mountain west is toward fewer ACOs. There
ACOs at the state level. Leavitt Partners classi-
are also noticeable outliers such as Montana, the
fied state coverage based on the location of hos-
45th most populous state, which has the same
pitals affiliated with the ACO. Where ACOs
number of ACOs (three) as Illinois and Georgia,
cover multiple states, both states were depicted
the 5th and 9th most populous state, respectively.
on the map. When the geographic boundaries

An indicator of competition among provid- than the state map suggests: While only nine
ers is the number of ACOs in Hospital Referral states do not have ACOs, less than half of all
Regions (HRRs). Developed by the Dartmouth HRRs (144 out of 306) have an ACO. This clus-
Institute for Health Policy, the 306 HRRs are tering within HRRs suggests that competing
regional health care markets where patients are health systems are simultaneously creating
referred for tertiary care11,12. Multiple ACOs in a ACOs. This may arise from providers in a mar-
single HRR is indicative of markets where health ket who seek to match or copy what a competitor
care providers within the regions may be compet- is doing or it may be indicative of previously-
ing for the same patients. Figure 2 shows the integrated systems that are better prepared to be-
number of ACOs by HRR, determined by the come ACOs. Additionally there likely are mar-
location of hospitals affiliated with the ACO. ket-specific reasons that have previously affected
When an ACO covers multiple HRRs, all were the growth of health care entities in different are-
included on the map. When an ACO covers a as of the country which differently affect market-
poorly-defined region or is nearly national in level ACO growth.
scope, as is the case with some insurance compa-
ny sponsored ACOs, the ACO was excluded
from this map.

The smaller size of HRRs shows the trend
of entities creating ACOs in narrower regions

Another interesting aspect of this map is the chronic diseases14. Accordingly, it would seem
dearth of ACOs in the Southeast and Appalachi- that these regions stand to benefit the most from
an regions which consistently rank as the least coordinated care15. The reason for the lack of
healthy areas of the country13 with a high preva- ACOs in these regions is unclear.
lence of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and other

defined as a hospital or health system, an inde-
pendent physician association (IPA) or as an in-
surer. In actuality, some ACOs were started by
organizations that do not clearly fit into one of
these three categories and others were formed as
joint ventures. In seeking to simplify the classifi-
Traditional approaches to coordinated care cations, each organization was classified by the
have been structured around hospital systems or entity that was predominantly responsible for the
payers affiliated with hospital systems. ACOs, ACO’s creation and grouped the ACOs based on
though, can be started by any entity that is able to the state where the sponsoring entity is headquar-
cover a large number of lives and bear some tered. Table 1 shows the breakdown of the num-
form of risk for that population. Leavitt Partners ber of ACOs formed by each sponsoring entity.
defined the sponsoring entity as the organization There is a clear trend toward hospital systems
that is primarily responsible for the ACO. In sponsoring ACO development, as they accounted
evaluating the sponsoring entity, each entity was for more than 60% of all sponsoring entities.

Hospital Hospital
State IPA Insurer Total State IPA Insurer Total
System System
Alabama 0 0 0 0 Montana 1 0 2 3
Alaska 0 0 0 0 Nebraska 1 0 0 1
Arizona 2 1 0 3 Nevada 0 0 0 0
Arkansas 0 0 1 1 New Hampshire 2 0 0 2
California 8 7 2 17 New Jersey 5 3 1 9
Colorado 1 0 1 2 New Mexico 1 1 1 3
Connecticut 1 0 1 2 New York 4 3 1 8
Delaware 0 0 0 0 North Carolina 2 2 1 5
D.C. 0 0 0 0 North Dakota 0 0 0 0
Florida 2 1 0 3 Ohio 7 0 0 7
Georgia 1 2 0 3 Oklahoma 1 0 0 1
Hawaii 1 0 0 1 Oregon 2 1 0 3
Idaho 0 0 0 0 Pennsylvania 4 0 2 6
Illinois 3 1 1 5 Rhode Island 0 0 0 0
Indiana 1 0 1 2 South Carolina 1 0 0 1
Iowa 1 0 0 1 South Dakota 0 0 0 0
Kansas 0 0 0 0 Tennessee 2 1 2 5
Kentucky 2 1 0 3 Texas 8 4 0 12
Louisiana 1 0 0 1 Utah 1 0 0 1
Maine 1 0 1 2 Vermont 0 0 0 0
Maryland 2 0 2 4 Virginia 1 0 0 1
Massachusetts 5 2 2 9 Washington 3 3 0 6
Michigan 8 3 1 12 West Virginia 0 0 0 0
Minnesota 2 2 3 7 Wisconsin 7 0 1 8
Mississippi 0 0 0 0 Wyoming 1 0 0 1
Missouri 3 0 0 3 Total 99 38 27 164

With the Medicare Shared Savings Program changes to the care process, rather than radically
still to be implemented, the substantial growth of redesigning the organization to become something
Accountable Care Organizations indicates a trend fundamentally different in the future. It appears,
within the health care industry towards the account- for now, that defining oneself as an ACO represents
able care model, partially independent of govern- an acceptance of the direction the industry has been
ment incentives. With significant regional varia- headed rather than an adoption of a truly new form
tion, it is unclear, though, what is driving market- of care delivery.
level ACO growth. In some large markets, such as
Boston, ACOs are proliferating, while in other large
markets, such as Washington DC, they are not.
Market specific clustering is a prevalent feature—if
there is one ACO, it is more likely that another is
nearby. Further tracking of ACO growth and dis-
persion will provide a more sound conclusion as to
The range of entities that have sponsored
whether ACO adoption is primarily a response to
ACOs, from small IPAs to national insurance com-
competitors, indicated by future ACO growth re-
panies indicates the wide range of business models
maining concentrated around existing ACOs, or
that will ultimately provide accountable care. Un-
indicative of the success and effectiveness of the
der the Shared Savings Program, entities must be
model, thereby dispersing throughout all markets.
care providers to qualify16, but non-provider insur-
As a consensus regarding the definition of an ance companies are a major backer of ACO growth,
ACO continues to develops, evidence exists that the indicating a much broader definition of what type
basic tenets of accountable care have existed in of entity can provide accountable care. Important
many organizations for years, and only the title of insights will be drawn by observing which models
ACO is new. Preliminary review of the organiza- succeed in reaching the overriding goal of increas-
tions we have identified indicates a trend toward ing value through improving quality, lowering costs
proclaiming oneself as an ACO with only modest or both.

With neither a set definition nor a national method an ACO is not always clear, leading to possibly
for identifying ACOs, it is difficult to precisely inaccurate depictions of the geographic dispersion
identify and study such organizations. It is possible of ACOs. For example, some sponsoring organiza-
that some of the organizations which should be tions have a population they presently serve, but
considered ACOs are missing from our study and the ACO they have announced may only exist in
some, such as organizations that self-identify as part of the region that the sponsoring organization,
ACOs but will never ultimately adopt any type of as a whole, covers. Additionally, some ACOs are
care coordination or bear any risk for a population, organized by regional or national entities that may
may not belong. Accurate representation of all cover ill-defined patient populations in many states,
ACOs will happen with further analysis of the cur- making completely accurate determination of the
rent organizations on our list and future identifica- geographic region that the ACO covers unknowa-
tion of other ACO entities. ble.

There are also limitations with mapping where the
ACO is located. The geographic area covered by

1
Goldsmith, Jeff. “Accountable Care Organizations: The Case For Flexible Partnerships Between Health
Plans And Providers,” Health Affairs 30, no. 1 (January 1, 2011): 32 -40; Steven M. Lieberman and John
M. Bertko, “Building Regulatory And Operational Flexibility Into Accountable Care Organizations And
‘Shared Savings’,” Health Affairs 30, no. 1 (January 1, 2011): 23 -31.
2
“National Accountable Care Organization Congress: Overview”, n.d., http://www.acocongress.com/
overview.html.
3
HealthCare.gov. “Accountable Care Organizations: Improving Care Coordination for People with Medi-
care”, March 31, 2011, http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/03/accountablecare
03312011a.html.
4
Berwick, Donald M. “Launching Accountable Care Organizations — The Proposed Rule for the Medicare
Shared Savings Program,” New England Journal of Medicine 364 (April 21, 2011): e32.
5
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Overview of the Shared Savings Program”, May 17, 2011,
https://www.cms.gov/sharedsavingsprogram/.
6
Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation. “Pioneer ACO Model”, n.d., http://innovations.cms.gov/areas
-of-focus/ seamless-and-coordinated-care-models/pioneer-aco/.
7
Delbanco, Suzanne F., et al. Promising Payment Reform: Risk-Sharing with Accountable Care Organiza-
tions (The Common wealth Fund, July 2011), http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/
Publications/Fund%20Report/ 2011/Jul/1530Delbancopromisingpaymentreformrisksharing%202.pdf.
8
McClellan, Mark, et al. “A National Strategy To Put Accountable Care Into Practice,” Health Affairs 29,
no. 5 (May 1, 2010): 982-990.
9
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Public Meeting, November 8, 2006, http://www.medpac.gov/
transcripts/1108_1109_medpac.final.pdf.
10
The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) is implementing a voluntary accreditation process;
see “Accountable Care Organization Accreditation”, n.d., http://www.ncqa.org/tabid/1312/Default.aspx.
11
For more information on HRRs, please see Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.
“Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care”, n.d., http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/.
12
Geographic boundary files for HRRs were obtained from Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care. “Downloads”,
n.d., http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/tools/downloads.aspx#boundaries.
13
United Health Foundation. “America’s Health Rankings”, n.d., http://www.americashealthrankings.org/.
14
Center for Disease Control. “Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System”, August 19, 2011, http://
www.cdc.gov/brfss/.
15
Peikes, Deborah, et al. “Effects of Care Coordination on Hospitalization, Quality of Care, and Health Care
Expenditures Among Medicare Beneficiaries,” JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
301, no. 6 (February 11, 2009): 603 -618.
16
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Proposed Rule: Medicare Shared Savings Program, 42 CFR
Part 425, 2011, http://www.ftc.gov/opp/aco/cms-proposedrule.PDF.

Aco whitepaper final

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Aco whitepaper final (20)

More from Leavitt Partners (11)

Recently uploaded (20)

Aco whitepaper final