Skip to main content

MSSP saves Medicare $1.66 billion as program changes loom

Medical professional shaking hands with man in wheelchair

The good news: The Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) has reported a fifth consecutive year of savings while delivering high-quality care for Medicare beneficiaries in accountable care organizations (ACOs).

The tricky news: With participation dropping since performance year 2018, ACOs will need places to pivot as success becomes more dependent on risk progression, benchmarking and equity goals.

The 2021 MSSP results

CMS reported the following highlights from the 2021 MSSP performance year:

  • 99% of participants met the quality targets required for shared savings;
  • 58% earned shared savings;
  • ACOs outperformed non-MSSP providers in metrics related to diabetes, blood pressure, select cancers, fall risk, flu vaccination, tobacco screening and smoking cessation, and screening/remission for depression.
  • ACOs with specific characteristics saved more than their counterparts. This includes ACOs labeled low revenue and those dominated by primary care providers.

For example, low-revenue ACOs saved $237 net per capita compared to $124 saved by high-revenue ACOs. Low-revenue ACOs are those in which Medicare Part A and B revenue makes up less than 35% of Parts A and B expenditures. In addition, ACOs with at least 75% primary care physicians netted $281 in per capita savings versus $149 for those with fewer PCPs.

More than half of MSSP ACOs are in one-sided risk models (280 of 475), with more than 75% (212 of 280) of those participants having expenditures lower than the benchmark — these participants could have been eligible to generate shared savings. Out of the 90 ACOs that have expenditures exceeding benchmark, over 75% (68) were at one-sided risk. Of the ACOs that were in two-sided models, only 15 generated losses that required repayment to CMS, with most of these either renewing or reentering their third performance year.

Overall, the results bode well for MSSP as important CMS rule changes --  finalized and proposed — continue to shape the program.

Two races: Toward risk and toward the bottom

MSSP has always had its naysayers, with risk and benchmarking topping the list of model design critiques.

Due to a December 2018 final CMS rule, MSSP now includes “Pathways to Success,” which gives participants a glide path toward increased risk. A BASIC track was established as part of the rule for ACOs to join an upside-only risk model while phasing toward downside risk. The glide path comprises Levels A through E, through which risk and incentives increase. The path is in addition to existing tracks whose risk models vary.

While this slowed the prior path toward two-sided risk, some believe CMS is still moving too fast. What was designed to encourage participation resulted in more than a 13% loss of program participants after the December 2018 rule.

DataGen's senior director of advanced analytics, Alyssa Dahl, notes: "There is concern over the cohort left in the program and selection bias among the providers still participating."

The other concern is quality. While 99% of MSSP ACOs met quality targets, nearly 10% of these had an overall score of less than 80% — the equivalent of a report card of C, D or F. Because it is also challenging to impact cost and outcomes concurrently, ACOs run the risk of advancing quality while losing their ability to bend the cost curve — what John Kalamaras, DataGen's director of business intelligence analytics, describes as "the limbo bar that can only go so low."

Another factor is the "ratchet effect" — the unintended impacts of benchmarking. As McKinsey reports: "This approach is commonly referred to as 'rebasing' … [in which] ACOs become 'victims of their own success': Improvements made by the ACO in one year lead to a benchmark that is even harder to beat in the following year."

The opposite is also true (e.g., savings earned by simply going from bad to better, otherwise known as the "race to the bottom").

More flexibility and funding

Like so many aspects of healthcare, MSSP reveals what the pandemic giveth and taketh away. Due to the public health emergency, ACOs can delay moving to the next level of risk in performance year 2022 but must leapfrog to where they would have been in subsequent years.

This option was enacted through the final FY 2022 Medicare Hospital IPPS and LTCH Rates rules — two of many regulatory actions CMS is taking to maintain MSSP participation while encouraging new entrants. The 2023 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule proposes changes that "seek to reverse certain [MSSP] trends" (e.g., fewer beneficiaries, including those who belong to high-cost and/or underrepresented groups), including:

  • advanced payments to low-revenue ACOs that are new to MSSP;
  • more options for slower risk assumption; and
  • a "more long-term benchmarking" approach to counteract ratcheting.

These proposals will help determine MSSP's popularity and longevity. The stakes are high for CMS, which seeks to have 100% of traditional Medicare enrollees in value-based care arrangements by 2030.

Organizations considering MSSP can benefit from DataGen's specific program experience, including data management and performance analysis for strategic shifts.


Popular posts from this blog

BPCI Advanced – take advantage of the model extension now

The Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) Advanced Model is now open for applications until May 31, 2023. This model provides a unique opportunity to acute care hospitals and physician group practices who are looking to: evaluate their bundle performance; rejoin if they have previously dropped out due to being under a convener; or take advantage of the changes to the model. With a small window to sign the participation agreement, you’ll need experts to process data quickly and accurately for evaluation. BPCI Advanced Program Details The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced in October 2022 that this program will extend from January 2024 to December 2025. Data used for evaluation will be taken from the baseline period between October 2018 and September 2022. A participation agreement will be sent out in September 2023 and needs to be signed by October 2023 in order to participate. Those who apply before the May 31 deadline will benefit

You’ve been accepted to the Enhancing Oncology Model. Now what?

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Innovation Center recently announced approved applicants for the new Enhancing Oncology Model. If your facility has been selected by CMS, are you still weighing your options during the current baseline evaluation period?  Two deciding factors may include the program data that CMS provides and whether EOM is enough of an improvement over the prior Oncology Care Model to make your investment worthwhile. Another factor to consider: Will you have the resources in place to conduct a baseline evaluation before EOM’s program start on July 1, 2023? How EOM differs from OCM EOM aims to improve the coordination of oncology care, drive practice transformation and reduce Medicare fee-for-service spending through episode-based payment. It includes three major updates: Fewer cancer types. Compared with OCM’s 21, EOM will be limited to seven common cancer types: breast, prostate, lung, small intestine/colorectal, multiple myeloma, lymphoma and chronic le

3 Major Areas to Focus on After Receiving NCQA PCMH Recognition

First off, congratulations to you and your practice for achieving National Committee for Quality Assurance Patient-Centered Medical Home recognition! Gaining NCQA PCMH status is a big accomplishment for which you should be very proud. Now that you’ve completed the necessary steps to implement changes and earn recognition, you may be wondering what’s next. In this guide, we’ll navigate what to do next, PCMH standards and guidelines to follow and 2024 annual reporting requirements to focus on. Let’s get into it! What to do after earning NCQA PCMH recognition Before you’re ready to start earning the great benefits of PCMH recognition , you need to plan what actions you’ll take to maintain your status. Remember, PCMH is not a project, but a continual progression of the way care is delivered to patients, meeting them where they are. So, if you’re a practice that wishes to keep its PCMH, you’ll need to be accountable for each criterion you achieved when initially receiving PCMH recognition.