• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.

We need to vote them all out and restore sane Democratic government.

There’s always a light at the end of the frog.

After dobbs, women are no longer free.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

The gop couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

Somebody needs to explain to DeSantis that nobody needs to do anything to make him look bad.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

President Biden is doing good where he can, and getting it done.

“What are Republicans afraid of?” Everything.

You are so fucked. Still, I wish you the best of luck.

Not all heroes wear capes.

We know you aren’t a Democrat but since you seem confused let me help you.

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.

Fani Willis claps back at Trump chihuahua, Jim Jordan.

Happy indictment week to all who celebrate!

Maybe you would prefer that we take Joelle’s side in ALL CAPS?

If you are still in the gop, you are either an extremist yourself, or in bed with those who are.

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

The lights are all blinking red.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Anderson On Health Insurance / Losing the first five

Losing the first five

by David Anderson|  April 20, 20158:20 am| 11 Comments

This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance

FacebookTweetEmail

If a program charges an entire group of people to lose five pounds a piece, does the pre-exisisting case mixture matter?

Definately.

The person who is one hundred pounds above their ideal who can start walking a mile or two a day and substituting water with lemon in lieu of full calorie pop will have a much easier time dropping the first five pounds than someone who is just slightly above their “ideal” weight and is working out four days a week.  It really does not matter what incentives you tie to the first five pounds lost, the second person is much closer the the possibility frontier than the first person, so the marginal movement of five pounds is usually a lot harder.

The second person may try to game the system and do what every wrestler did before weigh-ins by running for an hour in a garbage bag and sweatsuit after fasting for the past thirty hours.  They might hit the weight for the thirty seconds they need to hit the weight, but then they’ll rehydrate and gain four pounds in the next twenty minutes.  The first person is so far from the possibility frontier, minor initial changes can produce reasonably rapid, sustained weight loss.  Those gains will start to get a lot harder and a lot smaller after the first few weeks as the first person begins to get closer to the possibility frontier, so the performance gains go from two or three pounds a week to half a pound or a pound a week.

Why does this matter for a health policy writer?

If we substitute the costs for weights, and provider groups for people, we start to see the incentive structure for pay for performance Accountable Care Organizations (ACO).

The Incidental Economist is going gangbusters on ACO evaluations.

McWilliams et al shows that the first year of Medicare ACOs delivered real cost savings (1.2%) while keeping quality either constant or improving quality.  This is a real win.  Usually, a policy that produces higher quality at the same cost is a good win, or the same quality at slightly lower costs is a win.  Doing both at the same time is a significant public policy win.  McWilliams et al also showed that the provider groups that are least efficient before they started their ACO year showed the biggest gains.  Using the weight loss model, this is fairly intuitive, as organizations that have a lot of easy wins lying around are more likely to pick up a couple of them fairly quickly than organizations that already had integrated a lot of the easy wins and thus were running fairly efficiently.

This last piece, less efficient organizations pre-ACO getting the largest gains and thus the largest bonus payments, is important.  Currently ACOs are scored based on their own history.  Efficient organizations will have a lot harder time getting large gains and thus large bonuses than relatively inefficient provider groups.  Is this desirable?  The incentive structure would be for efficient organizations to either drop out of the ACO system, or never join the ACO system while less efficient organizations that know they have a lot of fat to cut, join ACOs or continue their membership because they’ll get good bonuses?

I don’t know.  The argument for maintaining this set of incentives is that it would pick up some of the easiest fruit on the lowest branches by moving the least efficient provider frontier significantly inward over the next couple of years.  It would reduce the cost variance by trimming the expensive outliers.  They may still be less efficient and most costly than the best in class practictioners, but the gap would be a lot smaller.

The argument against this incentive structure is two fold. First, it is an equity argument that good practicioners should not be penalized for being good practictioners.  Secondly, the goal of the ACOs is to transform how we pay for healthcare towards quality and outcomes instead of by the widget.  The organizations that were already running fairly efficient, high quality practices are more likely to be the ones that can continue to be leaders of the pack as long as the financial incentive is to maintain high quality and low cost care.  They’ll be the best in class and the source of the next round of lessons learned, so we should pay for the learning by doing and learning by obersation that the high quality ACOs are providing to the public.

The second post by Austin Frackt highlights some of the alternative payments methodologies and their incentive structures:

“[A] large organization may have the option of becoming an ACO or developing an MA plan. Such an organization, whose spending exceeds the local MA benchmark based on local FFS spending, would have an incentive to become an ACO. The more efficient organizations would have an incentive to create MA plans.” I had not considered the ACO vs MA tradeoff before. This is particularly interesting, and complicated.

Going to a Medicare Advantage (MA plan) for an efficient MCO would create the same basic incentive structure of cost controlling via improving quality and prevention intsead of widget paying.  Speaking purely as a plumber, there is an insurance company admin gap where doing nothing makes sense as the ACO won’t pay and the cost of starting a Medicare Advantage plan, especially for a provider group that is not already part of an integrated payer provider system, is higher than the capturable benefits.  The other option would be to change how incentive payments are calculated:

Basing payments on cost performances on peer groups has worked well in Medicaid payments to psychiatric hospitalsand psychiatric units in New Hampshire, accommodating systematic differences in casemix while maintaining incentives for cost-effective car

Under this scheme, ACOs would be compared against who they serve instead of their own past history.  If a very efficient practice is delivering high quality care to a particular case mix that is 10% under national averages or national benchmarks but the ACO has not significnatly cut their year over year costs, the current system will not give them a bonus.  The proposed system would give them a bonus.  Inefficient ACOs that treat the same type of population for 4% more than national benchmarks but showing a 3% drop year over year currently get a bonus but under the new system, they would not get money for being less efficient than national average.  This proposal would be an analogue to the second Silver pricing methodology on the Exchange where there should be constant jockeying towards a well defined but not always known baseline.

This is interesting stuff for if we can get the incentives right on ACOs to take them to national scale as the default payment mechanism for care, then the cost curve will be bent without sacrificing quality of care.

 

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Monday Morning Open Thread: Patriots’ Day
Next Post: A Depressing Cover Story »

Reader Interactions

11Comments

  1. 1.

    greennotGreen

    April 20, 2015 at 8:47 am

    “Definately”? Is that lolcat?

  2. 2.

    rikyrah

    April 20, 2015 at 8:53 am

    very interesting piece this morning.

  3. 3.

    raven

    April 20, 2015 at 8:56 am

    there is only one kind of history

  4. 4.

    Punchy

    April 20, 2015 at 9:16 am

    Grapplers at my school would also intentionally swallow their chaw in an effort to induce massive vomiting, which would supposedly knock off another pound or 2 before weigh-in…..

  5. 5.

    Steve in the ATL

    April 20, 2015 at 9:32 am

    You lost me at “pop”

  6. 6.

    richard mayhew

    April 20, 2015 at 9:47 am

    @Steve in the ATL: Ok, then Tonic…. and now I reveal where I grew up as that is a sub-regionalism of a regional accent

  7. 7.

    Amir Khalid

    April 20, 2015 at 10:30 am

    @Punchy:
    Eww.

  8. 8.

    Richard Mayhew

    April 20, 2015 at 11:00 am

    @Punchy: but thta only works once and only if there is anything in the stomach — the combination of dehydration and fasting dramatically reduces the effectiveness of that scheme

  9. 9.

    bobbo

    April 20, 2015 at 12:24 pm

    @greennotGreen:

    “Definately”? Is that lolcat?

    There is a finate number of responses to that question.

  10. 10.

    narya

    April 20, 2015 at 1:07 pm

    Another factor in this set of calculations (IMHO) is how the payments for quality care are distributed. One of the disadvantages (potentially) of being a health center such as an FQHC but NOT being a hospital or being associated with a hospital in an ACO is that improvements on the health center side that reduce hospitalizations, say, don’t actually result in bonuses to the health center.

    That is, it becomes more expensive for the health center to provide comprehensive services to someone with a chronic health condition like diabetes (e.g., through increased patient education and case management), but the health center is absorbing those costs and not reaping the benefits of lower overall cost of care, when the cost reduction is actually a reduction in the costs incurred by hospitalization.

  11. 11.

    Richard Mayhew

    April 20, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    @narya: yep, this stuff is HARD!

    Trying to figure out how to actually pay people for the actual value they contribute instead of what they are doing is tough… and the ACO model is, in my opinion, a good start, but just that, a start with lots of tweaks needed.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Chris on Late Night Weekend Wrap-Up Open Thread: Journamalism, Not A Dependable Profit Center (Apr 15, 2024 @ 9:27am)
  • Chris T. on Monday Morning Open Thread: The Tariff We Pay for Civilization (Apr 15, 2024 @ 9:26am)
  • Ohio Mom on Monday Morning Open Thread: The Tariff We Pay for Civilization (Apr 15, 2024 @ 9:26am)
  • TBone on Monday Morning Open Thread: The Tariff We Pay for Civilization (Apr 15, 2024 @ 9:24am)
  • Matt McIrvin on Late Night Weekend Wrap-Up Open Thread: Journamalism, Not A Dependable Profit Center (Apr 15, 2024 @ 9:24am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!