Hoard

On Thursday, October 20, 2011, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”) released its final regulations for accountable care organizations (“ACOs”). As you may recall, the primary goals of ACOs are to realize cost savings and improve quality of care by encouraging primary care physicians, specialists, hospitals, and other health care providers to coordinate their care for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries and commercially- insured patients.

When DHHS released its proposed ACO regulations, a wide spectrum of health care providers voiced concerns that the program was overly burdensome in light of the anticipated savings that would be shared by participants. The recently-released ACO final regulations contain a number of changes that were implemented in response to commenters from the private sector. Highlights of the changes include the following:
• Removing two-sided risk from Track 1 of the Medicare Shared Savings Program (“MSSP”).
• Adopting a preliminary prospective-assignment method with beneficiaries identified quarterly, with a final reconciliation after each performance year based on patients served by the ACO.
• Reducing the number of measures to assess quality to 33 measures in 4 domains.
• Implementing longer phase-in measures over the course of the MSSP agreement: first year, pay for reporting; second year and third year, pay for reporting and performance.
• Realizing shared savings on the first dollar for all ACOs in both Track 1 and Track 2 once the minimum savings rate has been achieved.
• Providing eligibility to Federally Qualified Health Centers and Rural
Health Clinics to form and participate in ACOs.
• Providing for establishment of the MSSP by January 1, 2012, with the first round of applications due in early-2012, and the first ACO agreements commencing on April 1, 2012 and July 1, 2012.
• Removing meaningful use of EHR as a requirement for participation.
• Adopting a two-step process for assignment of beneficiaries to an ACO.

Under the MSSP models initially proposed by DHHS, many commenters expressed concerns that the allocation of risk under the MSSP would serve as a barrier to ACO participation. As a threshold matter, this article will discuss important changes to the process of selecting a “track” under the MSSP which will allow an ACO that is unsure whether it will achieve savings in the initial term to participate in the MSSP without risk of loss.

As background, under the MSSP, groups of providers in ACOs who meet certain quality standards are able to share in savings the ACO achieves for the Medicare program. The general model is structured such that the higher the quality of care an ACO’s providers deliver, the more shared savings the providers can retain.

In the proposed rule, ACOs would be able to choose from two tracks when entering into the required three-year agreement with CMS to participate in the MSSP. Track 1 would consist of two years of one-sided shared savings with a mandatory transition in the third year to performance-based risk under a two-sided model of shared savings and losses (i.e., for the first two years, the ACO would not be at risk for loss in the event that it was unable to achieve savings). Track 2 would comprise three years under the two-sided performance-based risk model. Therefore, under the proposed rule, any ACO participating
in the MSSP would ultimately be required to undertake some risk of loss in the event it failed to achieve savings.

Under the final rule, DHHS elected to remove the two-sided risk from Track 1. Thus, two tracks will still be offered for ACOs: Track 1, which permits first dollar sharing without the requirement to repay losses, and Track 2, which provides higher sharing rates for ACOs willing to also share in losses. This change, and others made by DHHS in its final regulations, addressed many of the concerns expressed by private commenters, and should encourage participation in the MSSP.

If you are interested in learning more about ACOs, the Blalock Walters Health Care Team is ready to assist. Please contact our office for additional information.

On Thursday, October 20, 2011, the United States Department of Health and Human Services released its final regulations for accountable care organizations (“ACOs”). As you may recall, the primary goals of ACOs are to realize cost savings and improve quality of care by encouraging primary care physicians, specialists, hospitals, and other health care providers to coordinate their care for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries and commercially-insured patients.

In our prior ACO Primer posts discussing the proposed ACO regulations, we analyzed some of the important regulatory and operational aspects of forming and operating a successful ACO. The recently-released ACO final regulations contain a number of changes that were implemented in response to comments from the private sector. Highlights of the changes include the following:

Read The Full Article

Controlled Substance Prescribing Practitioner Designation

October 10, 2011

Florida’s new controlled substance prescription drug law went into effect in July. Among other things, the new law requires that any physician who prescribes controlled substance medications to a patient for chronic nonmalignant pain must designate himself or herself as a “controlled substance prescribing practitioner” with the Florida Department of Health (“DOH”) by January 1, [...]

Read the full article →

Controlled Substance Prescription Drug Law Now in Effect! Is Your Practice Prepared

July 8, 2011

On July 1, 2011, Florida’s new controlled substance prescription drug law went into effect.  The new law will impact a significant number of Florida physicians, and our clients, as it:  (i) regulates the ownership and operation of pain-management clinics; and (ii) requires any physician who prescribes controlled substance medications to a patient for chronic nonmalignant pain [...]

Read the full article →

ACO Primer Part 4: Regulatory Compliance

May 9, 2011

In the fourth installment of our series on accountable care organizations (“ACOs”), we will focus on certain regulatory compliance concerns associated with the development and operation of ACOs. Please recall that the purpose of ACOs is to achieve significant efficiencies and cost savings across an expansive market. However, actually achieving and rewarding such efficiencies and [...]

Read the full article →

ACO Primer Part 2: ACOs and Antitrust

April 5, 2011

In the second installment of our series on accountable care organizations (“ACOs“), we will focus on the threshold issue of antitrust compliance in the formation and operation of ACOs.  Under the recently-released regulations governing ACOs, ACOs will be permitted to provide services to both Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries and commercially-insured patients.  Thus, ACOs will have the potential [...]

Read the full article →

Stark In-Office Ancillary Services Exception Update

December 8, 2010

STAT Health Care News In a prior client alert, we discussed a new, health care reform-imposed requirement that a Medicare beneficiary referred for MRI, CT, or PET services under the In-Office Ancillary Services Exception to the Stark II law (“IOASE”) must, at the time of referral, be provided with a list of “alternate” suppliers located [...]

Read the full article →

New Registration Requirement for Pain-Management

September 28, 2010

In response to the increasing threat posed by the abuse of prescription drugs, specifically narcotic painkillers, the Florida Legislature passed legislation aimed at limiting the availability of such drugs by slowing the proliferation of pain-management clinics throughout the state.  As a result, many privately-owned pain-management clinics, facilities, or offices will be required to, among other [...]

Read the full article →

Critical Changes to Stark II and the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute

April 28, 2010

By Brent T. Hoard, Esq.   Ancillary Services Exception: Does your practice rely on the Stark II exception and rule, in order to self-refer Medicare patients for CT, MRI, or PET scans?  If so, absent additional clarification from Congress or CMS, effective January 1, 2010 (i.e., immediately), the referring physician must inform the patient in writing [...]

Read the full article →