Medicare’s accountable care organization initiative faces a lot of hurdles on its way to putative success, including ludicrous patient attribution methods, excessive administrative cost imposition, provider group dropouts, and just a general lack of guidance on how to best structure an ACO. Theoretically ACOs will encourage greater care coordination and better primary care, lowering overall spending. The extent to which the method by which physicians are compensated by an ACO affects these goals was examined in a study published in the Annals of Family Medicine. (Annals Article) If an ACO is at risk for all the patient’s health costs and also is compensated in part by how well it performs on various quality measures, the structure of primary care physician compensation can play an important role in maximizing ACO reimbursement. Paying primary care physicians for “productivity”–how many patients do they see and how many chargeable services do they generate, can obviously be counterproductive in an at-risk ACO, but using salaries or basing a large percentage of compensation on quality can also create untoward incentives. Using survey data, the researchers sought to ascertain how ACOs were paying their primary care physician members. On average across all ACO practices, doctors received 49% of their compensation from salary, 46% from productivity, 3.5% from quality measures and 1.5% from other factors. This compensation pattern was similar to that used in practices which were not in ACOs. By comparison, primary care physicians who were not in ACOs, but did have substantial risk for primary care costs, received 67% of their compensation in salary. Since most practices are not solely ACO businesses and have a mix of payer types and risk and non-risk arrangements, designing an appropriate physician compensation structure is complex. In addition, the actual effects of how a primary care doctor is compensated on that physician’s practice style are not well-understood. And compensation may not be the best tool to affect appropriate delivery of care for each patient, which is the ultimate goal. A strong commitment to evidence-based medicine, couple with shared decision-making with patients, buttressed by usable health information technology, may be a better method to ensure appropriate and adequate care.
✅ Subscribe via Email
About this Blog
Healthy Skeptic Podcast
Research
MedPAC 2019 Report to Congress
June 18, 2019
Headlines
Tags
Access
ACO
Care Management
Chronic Disease
Comparative Effectiveness
Consumer Directed Health
Consumers
Devices
Disease Management
Drugs
EHRs
Elder Care
End-of-Life Care
FDA
Financings
Genomics
Government
Health Care Costs
Health Care Quality
Health Care Reform
Health Insurance
Health Insurance Exchange
HIT
HomeCare
Hospital
Hospital Readmissions
Legislation
M&A
Malpractice
Meaningful Use
Medicaid
Medical Care
Medicare
Medicare Advantage
Mobile
Pay For Performance
Pharmaceutical
Physicians
Providers
Regulation
Repealing Reform
Telehealth
Telemedicine
Wellness and Prevention
Workplace
Related Posts
Commentary
March 24, 2023
The CDC Is a Font of Methodological and Statistical Error
Several times in the last three years I and others have pointed out serious flaws…
Commentary
March 24, 2023
A Couple of Health Care Notes
A couple of pieces of health care research focus on high health care spending and…
Commentary
March 21, 2023
Minnesota’s New Energy Insanity, Part 7
Minnesota is a particularly poor place to rely on solar power, but other states aren't…