IBJNews

Will ACOs really get off the ground?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The hype over accountable care organizations—something every major hospital in Indianapolis is moving to become—is increasingly being laced with skepticism as the economics behind the idea get more scrutiny.

Accountable care organizations were one of the key provisions in the 2010 health reform law designed to help reduce the cost of medical care.

The idea is that doctors, hospitals and other health care providers would work together to care for a specific population of patients. By coordinating care, an accountable care organization should be able to reduce errors and avoid duplication of services, thereby saving money. A chunk of the savings would be paid by the federal Medicare program back to the hospitals and doctors in the accountable care organization.

Private health insurers, such as Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc., want to create similar ACO contracts with hospitals and doctors, in which they would eventually pay “capitated” payments to ACOs for each patient they manage. Such a system would let hospitals and doctors keep whatever money is left over from those payments at the end of the year—or eat whatever overages occurred.

A new paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests the potential for ACO savings could be 30 percent or more—or it could be a lot less. The question is whether health care providers across the board really embrace the idea, or instead find the idea of gaining market share or gaining market power to be too alluring.

And not everyone—particularly medical device companies and specialists—will come out as winners under ACOs.

“However, we do not know how well ACOs will sidestep cost-ineffective technologies, particularly if the latest shiny innovation increases market share,” wrote Harvard professors Katherine Baicker and Amitabh Chandra in their August paper. “The viability of ACOs will depend on the receptiveness of physicians to capitated payments—some specialists will see their incomes fall and are unlikely to take these cuts quietly. While their concerns may not resonate with patients, they might if providers claim that valuable care is being withheld.”

In anticipation of the ACO concept being implemented by Medicare and private health plans, many hospitals and doctors have been merging, figuring they can work better together if they all work for the same employer. But this consolidation also gives them more heft in negotiating prices with health insurers, note Baicker and Chandra.

“It is worth reiterating, however, that some of the savings from lower quantities may be offset with higher prices as ACOs exert market power,” they wrote.

Even if ACOs could significantly reduce health care spending, there are big questions about whether they will even get off the ground.

The American Hospital Association estimates that small ACOs would need $5.3 million in startup capital investments and another $6.3 million per year for operating costs. For larger ACOs, as would most likely be formed in Indianapolis, the association estimates an initial capital investment of at least $12 million and annual operating expenses of $14 million.

"As the expected payouts from CMS or commercial contracts are yet to be solidified, these substantial costs present a degree of risk that many smaller health care entities may be unable to [make]," concluded a recent report by Health Capital Consultants, a St. Louis-based consulting firm for hospitals and physicians.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT