New Marketplace

Opportunities for Risk-Taking Primary Care Providers

Article · May 8, 2018

In a world of MACRA alternative payment models, accountable care organizations, and Medicare Advantage plans, primary care physicians have the opportunity to embrace risk-based payment models and capitation. While capitation may rekindle ghosts from managed care in the 1990s for some doctors, its promise has also fueled a flurry of investments, acquisitions, and growth of risk-bearing primary care providers. A recent example is Optum’s proposed purchase of the DaVita Medical Group in December 2017 for $4.9 billion, which is undergoing regulatory review. The promise of financial rewards for risk-based models of care has also led to the growth of innovative primary care groups that are forgoing the fee-for-service (FFS) model.

Our experience is that practices that succeed at making the shift from fee-for-service to managing risk are routinely able to increase their practice profitability by at least 25%. The potential for robust economic benefit is associated with a provider’s ability to handle two-sided risk: both upside risk (sharing in cost-savings bonuses based on operational efficiencies) and downside risk (losing revenue based on failure to meet clinical and/or financial performance thresholds).

While many providers still depend on the relative safety and predictability of FFS revenue, the shift to value-based revenue is expanding and likely to be economically more attractive for primary care because it allows primary care to recapture revenue that formerly went to downstream providers. To succeed in such models, practices must fully commit to comprehensive workflow redesign to improve performance related to saving on clinical costs, attaining quality outcome measures, and documenting coding and reporting of risk-based quality metrics. Equally critical is the mind-set change necessary for primary care doctors to adopt a philosophy of solving the challenges of delivering on total patient health, cost, and quality instead of relying on the outdated production paradigm of maximizing RVUs, revenue, and downstream referrals.

Risk-based models of care generate income for primary care providers and cost savings for payers by reducing spending relative to benchmarks set by CMS or medical loss ratio targets negotiated with health plans. Most of the economic value comes from reducing hospitalizations, which can be dramatic; some risk-bearing practices are reducing hospital days by 38% on a risk-adjusted basis. Meaningful savings are also generated by reducing use of post-acute care facilities, emergency departments, diagnostic tests, and referring to more cost-effective specialists who do not add facility fees, order fewer expensive diagnostic tests, are better at engaging patients in their care, and are more judicious in their approach to procedures.

It is critical for risk-bearing providers to work with commercial payers to agree upon a high enough benchmark in order to have an opportunity to achieve savings. For Medicare ACO and Medicare Advantage patients, it is essential to code health risk accurately so the Medicare calculated benchmarks reflect the likely cost of caring for patients. Benchmarks should be adjusted up or down based on risk adjustment scores related to the patient, such as demographics, Medicaid eligibility, and health status.

Medicare Advantage plans receive a monthly member payment that is based on a county benchmark rate multiplied by a patient’s risk score minus Medicare’s coding intensity adjustment. Revenue based on risk adjustment coding differences can be enormous. For example, monthly payments can vary by 400% from about $550 to $2,250 depending on risk scores. Proper risk adjustment is important because it reduces the incentive for risk-based payers and providers to cherry-pick the healthiest patients. For ACOs, the risk score modulates the benchmark for savings that a practice needs to exceed to receive additional revenue from shared savings.

When risk-based practices redesign their care processes to improve health and reduce hospitalizations, they also need to achieve more accurate coding, which can lead to improved revenue. Specifically, providers need to make concerted efforts to complete annual wellness visits for the majority of patients, typically more than 70% of patients, to document all diagnoses annually. An effective process is to begin outreach for wellness visits in January and work through their rosters by summer. Once wellness visits are complete, they then spend the remainder of the year managing those diagnoses aimed at secondary prevention and closing gaps in care to improve quality metrics.

By repeating these processes annually, in addition to reductions in hospital utilization, the risk-bearing practices can increase the risk scores of their patient populations by about 20% per year and improve Medicare Star measure performance. Medicare does claw back some of these upward adjustments with “coding intensity adjustments,” which is currently set at a 5.91% reduction in Medicare Advantage payments.

Short-term revenue opportunities are not equally distributed across patient panels. Our practice’s data reveal that most of the savings are concentrated in patients with congestive heart failure, COPD, chronic pain, coronary artery disease, depression, and type 2 diabetes. This is because there are many proven outpatient treatment strategies that can dramatically reduce exacerbations of these conditions. Because patients typically stay with their doctors 5 to 7 years and these risk-bearing primary care doctors are not limited to billable procedures, efforts to change patient social determinants and lifestyle choices can yield significant results.

The common denominator for lowering total clinical cost appears to be more time spent with primary care physicians. For example, ChenMed doctors spend 189 minutes per year per patient, compared to 21 minutes on average for Medicare patients in traditional primary care practices. Some ChenMed providers conduct weekly visits for certain patients. Transitional care visits are particularly important and can reduce costs because timely primary care follow-up reduces readmissions. Risk-based providers also should augment frequent visits with sophisticated remote monitoring programs for indicators such as daily weight, ambulatory blood pressure, blood sugar, PHQ-9 scores, and physical activity. They also should use qualitative data captured from telephone calls with patients to determine when to bring patients into clinics for evaluation.

To reduce hospitalizations, risk-based providers employ same-day appointments (sometimes during evening and weekend hours) for urgent care patients to avoid ED visits. Unsurprisingly, it is easy for a Medicare patient seeking urgent care in an emergency department to meet admission or observation criteria despite having conditions that can safely be treated as outpatients by primary care physicians. When this happens, it costs the capitated primary care provider at least $1,000 in lost revenue, and much more if the patient is admitted.

An additional tactic we use to reduce hospitalizations is to conduct weekly discussions reviewing every hospitalization with the goal of identifying system issues that can be mitigated by more effective care processes. In these weekly discussions, we discovered the impact of poor medication compliance, adherence, and concordance in our population. This led to the creation of in-office medication dispensing and an increase in adherence of between 17 and 29 percentage points, depending on the medication. These interventions have allowed ChenMed to reduce risk-adjusted hospitalizations, resulting in an additional 15.3% reduction from 2015 to 2016, which results in revenue to the practice from the averted admissions.

We find that physicians learn quickly. Data from the Alternative Quality Contract in Massachusetts demonstrate that practices can achieve quality gains and cost savings in year one and that quality and savings improve annually. Moreover, data from the ACO program suggest that smaller, independent, and physician-led practices outperform large health systems.

We view the movement toward risk-based reimbursement as very positive for primary care physicians. It is much more rewarding to be a leader, identifying ways for each patient to achieve better outcomes at lower cost, than someone focused simply on addressing an isolated acute episode with a procedure or prescription. Risk-based models of care enable and encourage this new mind-set and, in our experience, yield higher job satisfaction and physician incomes. In fact, we have not yet discovered a practice that — after making the move to a fully committed risk-based group — has decided to revert to fee-for-service. But most important, these models create strong incentives to deliver care that is better at engaging patients and their caregivers, and is more coordinated, safer, and outcomes oriented.

New Call for Submissions ­to NEJM Catalyst

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

More From New Marketplace
Effect of Value-Based Payment Programs on Providers That Serve the Poor

Financial Incentives and Vulnerable Populations — Will Alternative Payment Models Help or Hurt?

Understanding APMs’ potential consequences for vulnerable populations is critical if we wish to maximize benefits and reduce harms.

Example 4-Quadrant Analysis and Price Setting for a Single-Procedure Bundle - Lessons Learned from DRG Implementation

Making Bundled Payments Work: Leveraging the CMS DRG Experience

Given its clout and experience, CMS is uniquely positioned to lead the U.S. health system toward high-value care. Bundled pricing based on real costs, leveraging lessons from DRG implementation, would establish the right types of provider incentives.

The Unrealized Potential of EMRs: Interoperability and the Opportunity for Disruption

NEJM Catalyst hosted clinical and business leaders, along with the originator of “disruptive innovation,” to consider the user frustration, high cost, and lack of interoperability of electronic medical records.

Steven Seltzer Andrew Menard Clayton Christensen Edward Prewitt Electronic Medical Records Roundtable Head Shots

The Unrealized Potential of EMRs: Why They Fall Short and the Unexpected Source of a Solution

NEJM Catalyst hosted clinical and business leaders, along with the originator of “disruptive innovation,” to consider the user frustration, high cost, and lack of interoperability of electronic medical records.

Robert Gavin head shot

Amazon and CVS: Short-Lived Unicorns in Health Care, or Healers of the “Tapeworm”?

Will Amazon–Berkshire Hathaway–JP Morgan and CVS-Aetna change the health care game? To one health care employer purchaser, these announcements feel a lot like Groundhog Day.

Fiona Scott Morton head shot

We Can’t Spend All Our Money on Health Care

We have to think about how much we want to spend on health according to how much it’s worth to us at the margin.

Simplified Chain of Production for Primary Care Services Generating Retail Prescriptions. Solid arrows indicate contractual relationships or ownership, and the dashed arrow indicates referral for prescription.

Does CVS–Aetna Spell the End of Business as Usual?

What might one of the largest mergers in history mean for the health care delivery system?

Lack of Incentive Is Top Barrier to Implementing Value-Based Payment

Survey Snapshot: Payer-Provider Alignment Is Difficult Even for Integrated Organizations

NEJM Catalyst Insights Council members say stronger incentives and better use of analytics could improve alignment.

Kaplan04_pullquote Time to Sink Two Canoe Payment Models Argument

Time to Sink the Two-Canoe Argument

Although the transition from fee-for-service to quality-based payment can leave physicians feeling trapped “with a foot in two canoes” while straddling the two payment methods, there are compelling ethical, professional, and business reasons against rationalizing continued support of fee-for-service medicine.

Mostashari01_pullquote - Medicare Advantage Holds the Key to Reforming the ACO Program

Medicare Advantage Holds the Key to Reforming the ACO Program

Value-based care continues to be the emphasis of federal policymakers, as well as many providers. Aligning Medicare Advantage with ACOs would boost both programs.

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

Topics

The Adverse Impact of the Physician-Hero

In a value-based world, the sickest patients need the benefit of a comprehensive team to…

Financial Incentives and Vulnerable Populations —…

Understanding APMs’ potential consequences for vulnerable populations is critical if we wish to maximize benefits…

Change the Model → Change the…

If we’re going to change the health care payment model, do we need to change…

Insights Council

Have a voice. Join other health care leaders effecting change, shaping tomorrow.

Apply Now