Valuation of Alternative Payment Models
|
|
- Douglas Norton
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Valuation of Alternative Payment Models No portion of this white paper may be used or duplicated by any person or entity for any purpose without the express written permission of PYA.
2 I. Introduction: The Intersection of New Payment Models and the Fraud and Abuse Laws With the goal of improving healthcare quality and patient outcomes while reducing total costs of care, payers now are promoting alternative payment models, or APMs, which compensate providers based on the value of the care they deliver, rather than the volume of services they perform. This transition from fee-for-service payments to value-based reimbursement, however, presents many challenges for providers, including compliance concerns. As directed under Section 512(b) of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently issued a report to Congress on the impact of the current fraud and abuse laws on providers willingness and ability to participate in APMs. CMS concluded these laws may serve as an impediment to robust, innovative programs that align providers by using financial incentives to achieve quality standards, generate cost savings, and reduce waste. To encourage provider participation in Medicare APMs, CMS and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) have promulgated specific waivers of the fraud and abuse laws as part of Medicare shared savings and episodic payment programs. Generally speaking, these waivers insulate from challenge financial arrangements among model participants, provided specific requirements are satisfied. Those requirements vary by program, and strict compliance is required to invoke waiver protection. In broad terms, the waivers require the following: (1) the terms of the financial arrangement are memorialized in writing prior to the relevant performance period, and (2) the arrangement is structured in a manner that promotes the APM s underlying purposes (i.e., improving healthcare quality and outcomes and lowering costs). 2 Valuation of Alternative Payment Models
3 Unless and until these laws change, however, financial arrangements among providers under APMs outside of waiver protections must be structured to comply with the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law. This includes demonstrating that any payment made to a physician participating in an APM is consistent with fair market value. Even if a financial arrangement is protected under a Medicare APM waiver, demonstrating fair market value may be prudent for three reasons: (1) the waivers remain untested, and thus some degree of risk remains; (2) the agencies may revise the waivers at any time; and (3) if one or more of the parties is a not-for-profit entity, that entity may be at risk under tax-exempt organization regulations if the financial arrangement is not commercially reasonable. With fee-for-service reimbursement, valuation has been the means by which providers have proven payments represent fair compensation for the volume of work performed, and not rewards for patient referrals. Under APMs, however, patient referrals are less of a prized commodity; instead, providers will assign more value to quality and efficiency in care delivery. Regulators focus on improper care, poor quality of care, and patient steerage (also known as lemon dropping and cherry picking ). These new and different concerns necessitate new and different measures to evaluate and guard against improper utilization of resources and demonstrate fair market value. INCENTIVES The requirements of the aforementioned Medicare APM waivers provide a starting point with regard to those measures. The more the APM and associated financial arrangements in question are structured in a manner similar to governmental programs and their associated waivers, the better the argument that payments made under those models are incentives and rewards for physicians and other providers to deliver high-quality, efficient care, and not to influence referrals. While a starting point, the Medicare APM waivers are only one tool available to those evaluating the fair market value of financial arrangements relating to APMs. In the following sections, we describe how different APMs work and analyze how to demonstrate value within each model. Valuation of Alternative Payment Models 3
4 II. APM Categories From the least to the most dramatic shift from fee-for-service reimbursement, there are four general categories of APMs: (1) pay-for-performance arrangements (i.e., defined bonuses or adjustments to fee-for-service payments based on providers performance on quality and efficiency metrics); (2) shared savings arrangements; (3) episodic payments (also known as bundled payments); and (4) global budgets. While each APM that falls under a specific category operates differently, those APMs share common characteristics with regard to incentives and degrees of risk. Rewards the achievement of specified performance standards Incentive: Upward or downward adjustments to fee-for-service payments based on scores on objective performance measures Structure: Model co-exists with fee-for-service Pay-for- Performance (P4P) Examples: Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program; Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program; Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program; Physician Value Modifier Program; Medicare Quality Payment Program Rewards providers for working together to reduce payer s total cost of care for a defined population Incentive: Portion of the realized savings, in addition to fee-for-service payments Shared Savings Arrangements Structure: One- or two-sided models, depending on risk tolerance Examples: Medicare Shared Savings Program, Next Generation ACOs Rewards coordination and efficiency among all providers within a specific episode of care Incentive: Retention of overage of payment if costs are managed below target Episodic Payments Structure: Single payment rate for all services furnished during an identified episode of care, prospective or retrospective models, depending on risk tolerance Examples: Bundled Payment for Care Improvement; Episodic Payment Models Rewards provider network for managing a defined patient population within a specified budget Incentive: Reduction in unnecessary and avoidable services to remain within budget Structure: Advance payment for provider network to assume full responsibility for defined population Global Budgets Examples: Comprehensive ESRD Care Model; Direct Primary Care; Provider-Sponsored Medicare Advantage Plans 4 Valuation of Alternative Payment Models
5 III. Key Principles of APM Valuation A. P4P Payments In many instances, a provider receives P4P payments directly from a payer based on the individual provider s scores on pre-determined performance measures. Other arrangements involve payments to a group practice, health system, or provider network for distribution to participating providers. The manner in which such funds are distributed to those providers may be subject to challenge if the formula or payments are not consistent with fair market value or commercially reasonable. At present, there is little market data or consistent practice concerning such distributions of P4P payments to individual providers. Absent such benchmarks, one must consider other approaches to valuing these incentive payments. The traditional method of measuring a provider s time and effort to produce a certain result makes little sense in allocation of P4P payments. Adherence to clinical guidelines may result in a physician expending less time and effort, as several guidelines address overutilization of services. In other cases, the incentivized behaviors will require more work and resources for achievement. Importantly, physicians may be expending additional effort not readily measured by hours or work relative value units (wrvus), such as patient engagement, communication and coordination with other providers, or efficient management of clinical and administrative staff. One key factor in valuing P4P compensation is determining whether the measures for the compensation are appropriate and legitimate. For measures to be appropriate, they must require meaningful levels of achievement, and in many cases, improvement over historical levels, to justify the payment to an individual physician. One should also consider whether there is a reasonable relationship between the behavior that the group practice, health system, or provider network desires to incentivize and the value of the P4P payment made to physicians. If there is not, one can argue that the payment received by an individual physician serves another purpose, such as influencing referrals. The criteria for receiving remuneration and the potential amount of the P4P payment must be communicated to the physician in advance of his or her providing the services to which the payment relates. Simply put, the offer of a reward does not create an incentive to behave in a certain way if the physician is not aware of the award prior to the performance period. Valuation of Alternative Payment Models 5
6 B. Shared Savings Distributions Shared savings programs usually involve a payer agreeing to compensate a provider network a portion of the difference between the payer s actual total cost of care for a specified population and a pre-determined benchmark (one-sided), so long as the network achieves a certain score on defined quality measures. A small, yet growing, number of shared savings programs involve downside risk, i.e., the network must repay certain amounts to the payer if the actual total cost of care exceeds the benchmark (two-sided). Both one-sided and two-sided shared savings arrangements are intended to incentivize the network to identify and implement strategies to reduce costs while maintaining quality. Upon receipt of a shared savings payment, a network then makes categorical distributions. Typically, a portion of the payment is reserved by the network to repay initial infrastructure investments and/or fund ongoing operations. The remaining dollars then are divided among categories of participating providers based on a pre-determined formula. For example, the network may allocate a certain percentage of shared savings to fund a specialist pool and another percentage to fund a primary care physician pool. The funds in these pools then are distributed to individual participants. These categorical and individual distributions must be analyzed because different considerations will often apply to each. 1. Categorical Distributions Market Data. The approach that is likely the most amenable to valuing shared savings distributions is currently the analysis of market data to determine what the marketplace pays for comparable ownership interests or services. However, given the recent origins of the shared savings model and scarcity of available market data, even the market approach can be difficult to apply to categorical distributions. During this period of transition from fee-for-service to value-based payments, available survey data lags behind by one or two years, and generally reflects information from a limited number of respondents regarding somewhat limited data categories, with most participants predominantly still functioning under fee-for-service reimbursement. As value-based payments increase as a proportion of total compensation, the compensation data based on fee-for-service payments of past years becomes less and less comparable. Until reliable survey data related to value-based payments is available, appraisers likely will have to be flexible, using and appropriately adjusting proxy data, and understanding and documenting appropriate rationales and parameters for assessing value-based compensation. Currently, published data derived directly from value-based compensation models is sparse. Available data sources include the National Association of ACOs 2016 ACO survey (network-level expenses, accountable care organization [ACO] start-up and operating costs) and the Brookings Institute 2014 ACO implementation guide (estimates of ACO operating costs). 6 Valuation of Alternative Payment Models
7 Data is available from the public websites of the ACOs participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). These ACOs are required by MSSP regulations to publish information such as the ACO s composition and anticipated shared savings distribution formula. Mining this data can determine what percentages of shared savings are planned for distribution among participants and what portion will be retained by the provider network to cover start-up and administrative expenses. Additionally, Medicare publishes data regarding the actual payments earned by ACOs under the MSSP. This data can be used to further investigate not only whether a participating network has earned bonus payments (and the associated factors leading to that success), but also the range of payments received by the different networks. Appraisers can further assess these distributed amounts to estimate the implied categorical distributions based on the ACO s self-reported allocation percentages. Repayment of Investments and Operating Costs. Some MSSP ACOs have reported a policy of recouping all costs incurred in establishing the provider network before distributing shared savings. However, based on the publicly reported MSSP information, the majority of ACOs currently do not require full repayment of start-up costs prior to these distributions. In the case in which a health system incurs the start-up costs for an ACO, one may argue those costs should be repaid prior to any other distribution of shared savings. However, a strong argument can be made that the health system s return on investment is realized through its enhanced ability to succeed under new healthcare payment and delivery models. The health system s ACO investment, therefore, is analogous to an investment in a new facility in which members of its medical staff will provide services. There is limited market data available on the portion of shared savings that should be reserved for reinvestment in network infrastructure (e.g., staffing, technology). The diverse approaches reported by MSSP ACOs range from systems requiring full investment expense recoupment prior to any distributions, to ACOs retaining more than 20% of shared savings. Relative Contribution to Success. Generally speaking, primary care physicians are best positioned to impact total cost of care through patient engagement, preventive care, referrals to other healthcare providers, and care coordination. However, specialists and hospital-based physicians may have a greater impact with high-complexity, high-cost patients through shared decision-making and care management. Assumption of Risk. If a shared savings arrangement includes down-side risk, the degree to which a category of providers assumes risk of repayment also would impact the appropriateness of any shared savings allocation. For example, a hospital participating in an ACO with community physicians may be willing to accept responsibility for repayment to incentivize physicians participation in such an APM. In such case, it may be appropriate for the hospital to receive a higher percentage of any shared savings. Valuation of Alternative Payment Models 7
8 In evaluating shared savings distribution models, the consideration of risk may not be limited to any repayment obligation. It may be appropriate, for example, to consider providers potential loss of fee-for-service revenue due to participation in a shared savings arrangement in evaluating a distribution formula. 2. Individual Distributions An evaluation of the manner in which shared savings are distributed to individual providers requires careful consideration and identification of the goals of the clinically integrated network (CIN), the interventions that will achieve those goals, the metrics that accurately will measure the interventions and outcomes, and the direct connection between the physicians actions and shared savings. Without extensive market data to assess the fair market value of distributions to individual physicians, the rationale for the distributions becomes paramount. Individual distributions may be subject to challenge if they do not bear some relationship to the network s goals of improving quality and outcomes and reducing total costs of care. For example, a significant distribution rendered to a physician who made no real contribution to the network s success may raise the inference of improper payments for referrals. Gatekeeper Measures. Gatekeeper measures provide a minimum threshold of performance necessary for a participant to receive, or in some cases, be further evaluated for the receipt of, shared savings. For example, an ACO may require that a participating provider achieve a specified score on identified performance measures as a condition of receiving any shared savings distribution. The use of gatekeeper measures provides one reliable means for demonstrating the relationship between any payment to a participating provider and the network s achievement of its goals. Distributions Based on Patient Attribution. For primary care physicians, patient attribution total or panel size may be a reasonable substitute for wrvu production (assuming any necessary adjustments are made to account for variances in patient acuity and other factors). Patient attribution also can provide a reasonable, if not entirely nuanced, approximation of an individual physician s contribution to the network s cost-savings efforts for the purpose of allocating shared savings on an individual basis. Unfortunately, the volatility of patient attribution data in the current market benchmarks suggests that this information may not be consistently reported by respondents. Benchmark data regarding patient attribution should be carefully considered for the purpose of setting and evaluating compensation. As more market participants move toward a global budget model, and a growing number of systems depend upon this measure, more reliable data should become available. 8 Valuation of Alternative Payment Models
9 Distributions Based on Performance on Selected Measures. To the extent scores on certain performance measures are tied to reductions in costs, a portion of the shared savings could be distributed to reward the best performers on those metrics. For example, distributions may be tied to the percentage of a physician s patients who receive annual wellness visits or other preventive services. Such a formula would provide a more direct reward for highly effective care, closely linking incentives to desired outcomes. While the inclusion of quality metrics in determining any value-based payment distribution is prudent, and it makes sense to include higher rewards for higher levels of performance, networks should still test the distribution model to ensure the structure is not likely to result in an inappropriate windfall to participants. Cap on Individual Distributions. One way to prevent such windfalls is to include a cap on individual distributions. For example, the amount of an individual physician s shared savings distribution may be capped at a percentage of that physician s total fee-for-service payments. The inclusion of a cap in a formula that otherwise calls for equal distribution of funds among participating physicians, for example, may prevent significant inequality between effort and reward. 3. IRS Private Letter Ruling On April 8, 2016, the IRS released Private Letter Ruling (PLR) denying tax-exempt status to a non-mssp ACO comprised of a tax-exempt health system and independent community physicians. The IRS concluded that because the ACO did not exclusively promote community health, but benefited the ACO s physicians, it could not qualify for tax-exempt status. While recognizing that MSSP ACOs further the charitable purpose of lessening the burden of government, the IRS determined this purpose was not applicable to commercial ACOs. The IRS noted that not all activities that promote health are necessarily charitable activities. In the case of a commercial ACO at least according to the IRS the primary benefit goes to unrelated healthcare providers, not the general public. In light of the PLR, those ACOs pursuing commercial contracts must be prepared to demonstrate the manner in which distributions made to participating providers will promote the federal government s stated purposes of improving the quality of care, enhancing patients experience of care, and reducing healthcare costs. In making this case, an ACO then can equate its distribution to providers with the productivity-based compensation paid by a tax-exempt health system to its employed and contracted providers the payment is consistent with the value provided by the physician. Valuation of Alternative Payment Models 9
10 C. Episodic Payment Distributions Under a retrospective bundled payment arrangement (the most common arrangement in the current market), a single entity (e.g., a provider network or a hospital) is accountable to a payer for the total cost of all care furnished to a patient during a specific episode of care, regardless of provider. The mechanics of these arrangements are relatively straightforward: (1) a discounted target price is established for a specific episode of care (e.g., date of admission for knee replacement surgery through 90 days post-discharge), based on historical data; (2) participating providers furnish services throughout the episode and receive fee-for-service payments; (3) if the payer s total cost of care is less than the target price, the payer compensates the difference to the entity; (4) if the payer s total cost of care is higher than the target price, the entity pays the difference to the payer; and (5) participating providers share the payment or costs with the entity, depending on the parties prior agreement. For such an arrangement, an appraiser may be called upon to evaluate the payments made between the entity and its participating providers. In that case, the principles discussed in the prior section about shared savings arrangements would be applicable. Under a prospective episodic payment arrangement, the payer makes a single payment to the entity for a specific episode of care, and the entity then distributes that payment among the providers involved in the patient s care. Again, an appraiser may be asked to evaluate the payments made by the entity to the providers. In that case, the principles discussed in the following section on global budgets would be applicable. D. Global Budget Distributions Unlike P4P, shared savings, and episodic payments all of which are expanding rapidly global budgets have not yet achieved widespread adoption, as this payment model is the most removed from fee-for-service reimbursement. Under this model, the payer agrees to pay a budgeted amount to a provider network to provide a specific range of services for a defined population for a certain period of time. As a condition of coverage, the individuals within the population are required to receive specified services from providers within the network. Two key factors determine the amount of the global budget: the scope of services to be provided (e.g., preventive and primary care services vs. all medically necessary services with specified exclusions) and the patient population (e.g., individuals with a specific highcost diagnosis vs. residents of a geographic area). Like episodic payments, global budgets may be retrospective (network providers continue to receive individual fee-for-service payments subject to reconciliation at the end of 10 Valuation of Alternative Payment Models
11 the performance period) or prospective (with periodic payments made to the network for distribution to its participants). Under these arrangements, the provider network bears the risk of increasing healthcare costs, and thus its participants must be incentivized to maintain their patients health, as opposed to providing additional (or more costly) healthcare services. At the same time, the network must monitor its participants to prevent lemon dropping or cherry picking, as the payer will condition payments for satisfactory scores on performance measures to restrict such activities. All of these factors come under consideration in evaluating the fair market value of network payments to participating providers. Presumably, global budget payments should be distributed among providers according to their relative roles in providing care to the patient, as opposed to the sheer volume of services provided. The significant challenge is in the appropriate measurement and representation of these relative efforts. In place of the relative value unit used today to measure the amount of work performed by a physician, a network will require a relative efficiency measure to quantify the physician s role in the network s success (or lack thereof). CMS now is developing patient relationship categories and codes that define and distinguish the relationship and responsibility of a physician with a specific patient at the time of furnishing an item or service. As these codes become available, they will be useful in distributing payments among participating providers based on their relative involvement in patients care. Valuation of Alternative Payment Models 11
12 The value of a physician to a provider network, however, is not defined solely by the role he or she plays in patients care. The network also will want to evaluate and reward physicians based on specific performance measures tied to quality of care and controlled costs. In the context of global payments, fair market value is a more elusive concept, as it becomes intertwined in the network s success in establishing a reward system that incentivizes certain physician behaviors. If the network is not successful in this regard, there will be less money available for distribution. At this point, the concerns underlying the fraud and abuse laws improper payment for referrals and overutilization of services should have limited relevance given the incentive structure on which global payment distributions are built. The role of the appraiser, therefore, likely will shift to evaluating the manner in which payments are calculated and distributed. IV. Conclusion The health of our economy is tied directly to the success of the transition from volume-based to value-based reimbursement, given these APMs potential for driving down healthcare spending. The appraiser will play a key role in this transition, giving providers the confidence to pursue new financial relationships without risk under the fraud and abuse laws. Although valuation of APMs is less straightforward than valuation of productivity-based compensation models, appraisers can identify and employ reliable standards by which to evaluate fair market value. With our extensive experience and expertise in the valuation of physician compensation, coupled with our consultants comprehensive understanding of alternative payment models, PYA can assist your organization meet the challenges of participating in these new models. To discuss how we can be of service to your organization, please contact one of the following: Lyle Oelrich Principal loelrich@pyapc.com (800) Martie Ross Principal mross@pyapc.com (800) Carol Carden Principal ccarden@pyapc.com (800) No portion of this white paper may be used or duplicated by any person or entity for any purpose without the express written permission of PYA. 12 Valuation of Alternative Payment Models
FMV Considerations for Bundled Payment Arrangements
FMV Considerations for Bundled Payment Arrangements Matthew J. Milliron, MBA HealthCare Appraisers, Inc. Becker s CEO + CFO Roundtable November 8, 2016 Today s Roadmap Healthcare Transactions Refresh Bundled
More informationTrends in Physician Compensation Arrangements: Compliance Tips and FMV Health Care Compliance Association. April 22, :30-5:30
Trends in Physician Compensation Arrangements: Compliance Tips and FMV Health Care Compliance Association April 22, 2013 4:30-5:30 Jen Johnson, CFA Partner at VMG Health, a healthcare valuation and consulting
More informationFUNDS FLOW METHODOLOGY FOR RISK-BASED CONTRACTS
CENTER FOR INDUSTRY TRANSFORMATION MAY 2015 FUNDS FLOW METHODOLOGY FOR RISK-BASED CONTRACTS Authors Amy Bibby Partner, DHG Healthcare amy.bibby@dhgllp.com Matthew Fadel Manager, DHG Healthcare matt.fadel@dhgllp.com
More informationCaught between Scylla and Charibdis: Regulatory Parameters for Designing P4P and Gainsharing Programs
Caught between Scylla and Charibdis: Regulatory Parameters for Designing P4P and Gainsharing Programs Bruce J. Toppin, Esq. Vice President and General Counsel North Mississippi Health Services Daniel F.
More informationCutting Edge Issues Related to. April 16, Payments to Physicians Under P4P Compensation Models
Cutting Edge Issues Related to Payments to Physicians Under P4P Compensation Models April 16, 2014 2515 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214.369.4888 Fax: 214.369.0541 3100 West
More informationShared Savings Program ACOs and Payors: Opportunities and Challenges in a New Era of Accountable Care
APRIL 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAYORS, PLANS, AND MANAGED CARE PRACTICE GROUP Shared Savings Program ACOs and Payors: Opportunities and Challenges in a New Era of Accountable Care Amy J. Davis, Esquire Lumeris
More informationRobert Resnik MD MBA
Robert Resnik MD MBA Movement from FFS to Value Based Value Based Spectrum P4P Clinical Integration Shared Savings Bundled Payments Shared Risk Capitation Global Full Risk Partial Risk ACO vs. Clinically
More informationOhio Hospital Association 2014 Annual Meeting. Compensating Employed Physicians In An Evolving Health Care Environment
Ohio Hospital Association 2014 Annual Meeting June 10, 2014 Compensating Employed Physicians In An Evolving Health Care Environment Kimberly Mobley, Sullivan, Cotter and Associates, Inc., kimmobley@sullivancotter.com
More informationThe ACO Track One+ Model: New Rewards for Risk
The ACO Track One+ Model: New Rewards for Risk Executive Summary, May 2017 Accountable Care Organization Task Force AUTHOR Neal D. Shah Polsinelli PC Chicago, IL 1 This is an important year for Medicare
More informationDesigning Value-Based Payments That Support Affordable, High-Quality Healthcare Services. Harold D. Miller
Designing Value-Based Payments That Support Affordable, High-Quality Healthcare Services Harold D. Miller First Edition December 2018 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... I I. WHAT IS AN ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT MODEL?...
More informationACOs AND OTHER MODELS OF CARE: FROM FORMATION TO OPERATION TAX CONSIDERATIONS AND MORE
ACOs AND OTHER MODELS OF CARE: FROM FORMATION TO OPERATION TAX CONSIDERATIONS AND MORE Donald B. Stuart, Esq. Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP I. ACCOUNTABLE CARE ORGANIZATIONS (ACOs) II. AFFORDABLE
More informationClinically Integrated Networks and Population Health The next chapter in healthcare
Clinically Integrated Networks and Population Health The next chapter in healthcare M A T T H E W M A T U S I A K, D H S C, F R I P H ( UK) M T ( A S C P ) Health System Challenges While the Uninsured
More informationThe Impact of Emerging Reimbursement Models on Physician Compensation
The Impact of Emerging Reimbursement Models on Physician Compensation By: Beth Connor Guest, Chief Counsel, Cigna HealthSpring and Patricia O. Powers, Office of General Counsel, Vanderbilt University.
More informationNo change from proposed rule. healthcare providers and suppliers of services (e.g.,
American College of Physicians Medicare Shared Savings/Accountable Care Organization (ACO) Final Rule Summary Analysis Category Final Rule Summary Change from Proposed Rule and Comments ACO refers to a
More informationGulf Coast and LA HFMA Payer Summit Value-based contracts same healthcare business?
Gulf Coast and LA HFMA Payer Summit Value-based contracts same healthcare business? Richard R. Vath, MD FMOLHS SVP/Chief Clinical Transformation Officer President Health Leaders Network and Medicare ACO
More informationThe Payment Reform GLOSSARY. Definitions and Explanations of the Terminology Used to Describe Methods of Paying for Healthcare Services.
The Payment Reform GLOSSARY Definitions and Explanations of the Terminology Used to Describe Methods of Paying for Healthcare Services First Edition INTRODUCTION There is growing national recognition that
More informationBundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced Program Compliance. To Receive CPE Credit. Individuals. Groups
Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced Program Compliance BKD National Health Care Group November 19, 2018 To Receive CPE Credit Individuals Participate in entire webinar Answer polls when they
More informationFundamentals of Healthcare Valuation
Carol Carden, CPA/ABV, ASA, CFE Page 0 Agenda Healthcare Industry Overview Healthcare Valuation Approaches Healthcare Valuation Considerations and Trends Recent Reform Initiatives Page 1 Healthcare Industry
More informationProposed ACO Rule: A Giant Step Toward Reform or a Leap of Faith for Providers? April 27, 2011
Proposed ACO Rule: A Giant Step Toward Reform or a Leap of Faith for Providers? April 27, 2011 Barbara Eyman Ropes & Gray Barbara.Eyman@ropesgray.com 202.508.4760 Ropes & Gray LLP Stephen Warnke Ropes
More information9/23/2016. Our Services. Transitioning from Fee-for-Service to Value-based Reimbursement. Key Trends and Strategies for Rural Health Providers
Transitioning from Fee-for-Service to Value-based Reimbursement Key Trends and Strategies for Rural Health Providers Paul MacLellan, CEO >> Health care consulting company >> Wholly owned subsidiary of
More informationEvaluating the Fair Market Value of Pay for Performance
April 2014 healthcare financial management FEATURE STORY Jen Johnson Alexandra Higgins Evaluating the Fair Market Value of Pay for Performance 1 AT A GLANCE When assessing a pay-for-performance arrangement,
More informationAAOS MACRA Proposed Rule Summary (Short)
AAOS MACRA Proposed Rule Summary (Short) Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), Advanced Alternative Payment Model (APM) Incentive, and Criteria for Physician-Focused Payment Models Ref: CMS-5517-P
More informationNotice ; Request for Comments Regarding Participation by Tax-Exempt Hospitals in Accountable Care Organizations
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL & HAND DELIVERY SE:T:EO:RA:G (Notice 2011-20) Courier s Desk Sarah Hall Ingram Commissioner Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20224 RE: Notice 2011-20;
More informationRe: Medicare Program; Request for Information Regarding the Physician Self-Referral Law [CMS NC]
August 24, 2018 The Honorable Seema Verma Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health & Human Services Attention: CMS-1693-P P.O. Box 8016 Baltimore, MD 21244-8016 Submitted
More informationGoals of the Presentation. ACO Compliance Planning: Navigating 1/22/2016. Disclaimer
ACO Compliance Planning: Navigating the Briar Patch HCCA Managed Care Compliance Conference February 1, 2016 Erin Roberts, Partner, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP Barry Herrin, Partner, Smith Moore Leatherwood
More informationCMS PROPOSES KEY PROVISIONS OF MACRA PHYSICIAN PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR 2019
Thursday, April 28, 2016 CMS PROPOSES KEY PROVISIONS OF MACRA PHYSICIAN PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR 2019 The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) late yesterday issued a proposed rule implementing key
More informationHospital Incentive Payments to Physicians for Quality and Cost Savings
Hospital Incentive Payments to Physicians for Quality and Cost Savings Implications under the Fraud and Abuse Laws March 1, 2011 Dennis S. Diaz Davis Wright Tremaine LLP dennisdiaz@dwt.com 213-633-6876
More informationHHS Issues Final ACO Regulations
Client Alert October 25, 2011 HHS Issues Final ACO Regulations On Oct. 20, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the
More informationevaluating the fair market value of pay for performance
REPRINT April 2014 Jen Johnson Alexandra Higgins healthcare financial management association hfma.org evaluating the fair market value of pay for performance A critical test for determining whether a pay-for-performance
More informationSeptember 6, Re: CMS-1600-P; CY 2014 Physician Fee Schedule Proposed rule comments
September 6, 2013 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attention CMS-1600-P Mail Stop C4-26-05 7500 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 Re: CMS-1600-P;
More informationOIG 125 N: Solicitation of New Safe Harbors and Special Fraud Alerts
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004 2654 Tel: 202 783 8700 Fax: 202 783 8750 www.advamed.org By Electronic Submission via www.regulations.gov Ms. Patrice Drew Office of Inspector
More informationAvoiding Regulatory Land Mines in Commercial ACOs
Avoiding Regulatory Land Mines in Commercial ACOs Robert Belfort, Partner Healthcare Industry Martin Thompson, Partner Healthcare Industry Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP September 30, 2014 Agenda 1 Antitrust
More informationFigure 1: Original APM Framework
Contents Overview... 2 This Year s APM Measurement Effort... 3 Scope... 3 Data Source... 4 The LAN Survey... 4 The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Survey... 8 The America s Health Insurance Plans Survey...
More informationFAQs: Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs)
FAQs: Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) ACOs are groups of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers who voluntarily form partnerships to collaborate and share accountability for the quality
More informationMar. 31, 2011 (202) Federal agencies address legal issues regarding Accountable Care Organizations
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Room 352-G 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201 Office of Media Affairs MEDICARE FACT SHEET FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
More informationACOs at a Crossroads: Cost, Risk and MACRA. Allison Brennan, Vice-President of Policy Clif Gaus, President and CEO.
National Association of ACOs ACOs at a Crossroads: Cost, Risk and MACRA Allison Brennan, Vice-President of Policy Clif Gaus, President and CEO www.naacos.com ACOs at a Crossroads: Costs, Risk and MACRA
More informationMACRA: Redefining How CMS Pays Doctors. White Paper ELLIS MAC KNIGHT, MD DAN KIEHL, JD CONTACT. Senior Vice President/CMO. Associate Consultant
MACRA: Redefining How CMS Pays Doctors White Paper ELLIS MAC KNIGHT, MD Senior Vice President/CMO DAN KIEHL, JD Associate Consultant June 2016 CONTACT For further information about Coker Group and how
More informationAll About APMs: What Will It Take for Physicians to Earn the APM Bonus Under MACRA?
All About APMs: What Will It Take for Physicians to Earn the APM Bonus Under MACRA? By Robert F. Atlas, David B. Tatge, and Lesley R. Yeung June 2016 On May 9, 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
More informationCardiac Bundle (AMI, CABG, and SHFFT), CR and ACO Track 1+ January 11, 2017
To Dial-in: 877.668.4490 or 408.792.6300 Event Number: 669 367 723 Cardiac Bundle (AMI, CABG, and SHFFT), CR and ACO Track 1+ January 11, 2017 CMS Final Rule and Materials Advancing Care Coordination through
More informationHEALTH CARE FRAUD. EXPERT ANALYSIS HHS OIG Adopts New Anti-Kickback Safe Harbor and Civil Monetary Penalty Exceptions
Westlaw Journal HEALTH CARE FRAUD Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 22, ISSUE 7 / JANUARY 2017 EXPERT ANALYSIS HHS OIG Adopts New Anti-Kickback Safe Harbor and
More informationSummary of proposed rule provisions for Accountable Care Organizations under the Medicare Shared Savings Program
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Room 352-G 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201 Office of Media Affairs MEDICARE FACT SHEET FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
More informationRE: Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program: Accountable Care Organizations
February 6, 2015 Marilyn Tavenner Administrator Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Department of Health and Human Services 7500 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21244 Submitted electronically
More informationThe 2018 Advance Notice and Draft Call Letter for Medicare Advantage
The 2018 Advance Notice and Draft Call Letter for Medicare Advantage POLICY PRIMER FEBRUARY 2017 Summary Introduction On February 1, 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the
More informationThis Webcast Will Begin Shortly
This Webcast Will Begin Shortly If you have any technical problems with the Webcast or the streaming audio, please contact us via email at: webcast@acc.com Thank You! 1 Accountable Care Organizations Under
More informationWhite Paper. AMGA Advocacy. Taking Risk, 3.0: Medical Groups Are Moving to Risk Is Anyone Else? AMGA s Third Annual Survey on Taking Risk
White Paper AMGA Advocacy Taking Risk, 3.0: Medical Groups Are Moving to Risk Is Anyone Else? AMGA s Third Annual Survey on Taking Risk AMGA Advocacy Taking Risk, 3.0: Medical Groups Are Moving to Risk
More informationA Practical Discussion of Value and Quality Based Payments What Do I Do Now?
Emerging Challenges in Primary Care: 2016 A Practical Discussion of Value and Quality Based Payments What Do I Do Now? Modified from AHLA Physicians and Hospitals Law Institute 2016 Faculty Ellie Bane
More information5 critical issues for BPCI-A
REPRINT June 2018 John M. Harris Molly Johnson Amanda Brown healthcare financial management association hfma.org 5 critical issues for BPCI-A Many hospitals and health systems may benefit from participation
More informationAdvancing Risk Capability in 2015: Medicare Shared Savings Program and ACO Investment Model. March 23, 2015 // 12:00 P.M. 1:00 P.M.
Advancing Risk Capability in 2015: Medicare Shared Savings Program and ACO Investment Model March 23, 2015 // 12:00 P.M. 1:00 P.M. EST CENTER FOR INDUSTRY TRANSFORMATION The DHG Healthcare Center for Industry
More informationNational Association of ACOs. ACO Cost and MACRA Implementation Survey. May
National Association of ACOs ACO Cost and MACRA Implementation Survey May 2016 www.naacos.com ACO Cost and MACRA Implementation Survey 1 May 2016 Dear ACO Colleague: We are pleased to release the results
More informationPrepared for: Practical Advice on Physician Compensation: Achieving Compliance and FMV
Prepared for: Practical Advice on Physician Compensation: Achieving Compliance and FMV Jen Johnson, CFA Perspective: 3 rd party valuation expert with understanding of legal and compliance issues. Managing
More informationCOMPENSATING EMPLOYED PHYSICIANS Tax Law, Stark and Anti-Kickback Implications. AHLA Tax Issues for Healthcare Organizations October 20-22, 2013
AHLA B. Compensating Employed Physicians Tax Law, Stark, and Anti-Kickback Implications Linda Sauser Moroney Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP Milwaukee, WI Claire M. Turcotte Bricker & Eckler LLP West Chester,
More informationDETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY A DESIGNATED COLLABORATING ORGANIZATION
DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY A DESIGNATED COLLABORATING ORGANIZATION One of the most important features of any commercial contract is the type of consideration the payment that
More informationAlternative Payment Models and Clearinghouses Education and Impacts. White Paper by the Emerging Trends and Strategic Innovation Committee
Alternative Payment Models and Clearinghouses Education and Impacts White Paper by the Emerging Trends and Strategic Innovation Committee May 5, 2017 Introduction Alternative Payment Models, or APMs, are
More informationPhysician Care: Physician Compensation. Presented by Albert R. Riviezzo, Esq. Fox Rothschild LLP Exton, PA
Physician Care: Physician Compensation Presented by Albert R. Riviezzo, Esq. Fox Rothschild LLP Exton, PA Overview Compensation trends for employed physicians Regulatory risks of physician compensation
More informationThe ACO Effort: A Status Report
1 The ACO Effort: A Status Report J. Mark Waxman mwaxman@foley.com 617-342-4055 2 Whats the fuss about? A need for accountability for cost and quality A belief that the system can improve if: Provider
More informationMedicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (HR. 2; MACRA)
Fact Sheet April 23, 2015 H.R.2 - Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) Background. The Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate formula (SGR), passed by Congress in 1997, was intended to
More informationThe Transition to Value-Based Health Care: Recommendations for Medical Device Manufacturers
The Transition to Value-Based Health Care: Recommendations for Medical Device Manufacturers April 27, 2017 LLP Agenda Introduction Shift to Value-Based Care New Models of Medical Device Company Operation
More informationMarch 28, Dear Administrator Slavitt:
20555 Victor Parkway Livonia, MI 48152 tel 734-343-1000 trinity-health.org March 28, 2016 Andy Slavitt Administrator Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
More informationOIG 127 N: Solicitation of New Safe Harbors and Special Fraud Alerts
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20004 2654 Tel: 202 783 8700 Fax: 202 783 8750 www.advamed.org By Electronic Submission via www.regulations.gov Ms. Patrice Drew Office of Inspector
More informationTop 10 Issues in APM Contract Negotiations
Legal Issues in New Contracting and Risk Sharing Models - What To Know Before You Sign Alexis Finkelberg Bortniker Foley & Lardner LLP 617-226-3177 Abortniker@foley.com June 2, 2017 Top 10 Issues in APM
More informationThe MACRA Proposed Rule on MIPS and APMs: Summary and Key Takeaways
The MACRA Proposed Rule on MIPS and APMs: Summary and Key Takeaways A White Paper May 2016 Impact Advisors LLC 400 E. Diehl Road Suite 190 Naperville IL 60563 1-800- 680-7570 Impact- Advisors.com Executive
More informationValue Based Contracting
Value Based Contracting CONCEPTS FOR THE MEDICAL PRACTICE dhgllp.com/healthcare 225 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30303 Bill Hannah PRINCIPAL Bill.Hannah@dhgllp.com 404.575.8921 Doral Davis-Jacobsen
More informationNext Generation Accountable Care Organization (ACO) Model Overview
The Physicians Advocacy Institute s Medicare Quality Payment Program (QPP) Physician Education Initiative Next Generation Accountable Care Organization (ACO) Model Overview Ad 1 P a g e MEDICARE QPP PHYSICIAN
More informationAffordable Care Act Update: Implementing Medicare Costs Savings
Affordable Care Act Update: Implementing Medicare Costs Savings This new law recognizes that Medicare isn t just something that you re entitled to when you reach 65; it s something that you ve earned.
More informationEight Indispensable Financial Considerations of Shifting from Volume to Value Reimbursement
Eight Indispensable Financial Considerations of Shifting from Volume to Value Reimbursement September 25-26, 2017 Max Reiboldt, CPA President CEO Learning Objectives This session will provide you with
More informationVolume to Value The Great Transformation of American Medicine
Volume to Value The Great Transformation of American Medicine 2010-2020 Richard I. Fogel, MD FHRS Chief Clinical Officer St. Vincent Health October 2015 Fee for Service You get paid for what you do The
More informationCY 2018 Quality Payment Program Final Rule Summary
CY 2018 Quality Payment Program Final Rule Summary On November 2, 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its final rule outlining the requirements for year two of the Quality
More informationGrowth and Success of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) in the US from Dennis Horrigan June 2016
Growth and Success of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) in the US from 2010-2016 Dennis Horrigan June 2016 Introducing Dennis Horrigan Dennis R. Horrigan President and Chief Executive Officer Catholic
More informationAssessing ACO Performance
Assessing ACO Performance David V. Axene, FSA, FCA, CERA, MAAA As more health plans utilize Accountable Care Organizations (i.e., ACOs) as part of their network operations, ACO performance assessment is
More informationProposed Changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program for Accountable Care Organizations
Proposed Changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program for Accountable Care Organizations Background As of 2014, more than 330 Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) agreed to participate in the Medicare
More informationCo-Management Arrangements and Their Continuing Evolution Trends Issues Fair Market Value
Co-Management Arrangements and Their Continuing Evolution Trends Issues Fair Market Value Presented by: Gregory D. Anderson, CPA/ABV, CVA HORNE LLP 601.268.1040 greg.anderson@horne-llp.com Ann S. Brandt,
More informationMACRA: APPLICATIONS & IMPLICATIONS September 13, /13/2016. Mark Blessing, CPA, FHFMA Partner
MACRA: APPLICATIONS & IMPLICATIONS September 13, 2016 Mark Blessing, CPA, FHFMA Partner mblessing@bkd.com Zach Remmich Managing Consultant zremmich@bkd.com 1 TO RECEIVE CPE CREDIT Participate in entire
More informationMedicare Program; Request for Information Regarding the Physician Self-Referral Law. AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 06/25/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-13529, and on FDsys.gov [Billing Code: 4120-01-P] DEPARTMENT
More informationMay 10, General Comments
May 10, 2010 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Lou Felice Chair, Health Care Reform Solvency Impact (E) Subgroup Re: Request for Information: Medical Loss Ratios; Request for Comments Regarding Section 2718 of the Public
More informationHEALTHCARE BULLETIN. July 8, 2008 CMS PROPOSES NEW STARK EXCEPTION FOR INCENTIVE PAYMENT AND SHARED SERVICES PROGRAMS
HEALTHCARE BULLETIN July 8, 2008 CMS PROPOSES NEW STARK EXCEPTION FOR INCENTIVE PAYMENT AND SHARED SERVICES PROGRAMS The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ( CMS ) issued a proposed rule that would
More informationPREPARING FOR THE NEXT GENERATION OF MANAGED CARE CONTRACTING
PREPARING FOR THE NEXT GENERATION OF MANAGED CARE CONTRACTING Nanci Robertson, RN BSN President - Robertson Consulting, Inc. Doral Jacobsen, MBA FACMPE CEO - Prosper Beyond, Inc. DORAL JACOBSEN AND NANCI
More informationGainsharing Is it Still Feasible? May 14, 2010
7 th Annual Illinois Chapter ACC Practice Management Symposium Gainsharing Is it Still Feasible? May 14, 2010 W. Kenneth Davis, Jr. Partner Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 525 W. Monroe Chicago, Illinois 312.902.5573
More information2014 Lathrop & Gage LLP Lathrop & Gage LLP Lathrop & Gage LLP
Legal Issues for Physician Owned Implant Manufacturer/Distribution Companies (PODs) October 24, 2014 Randal L. Schultz, Esq. 10851 Mastin Blvd, Building 82, Suite 1000 Overland Park, KS 66210-1669 913.451.5192
More informationMarch 1, Chairman Lamar Alexander United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Washington, DC 20510
March 1, 2019 Chairman Lamar Alexander United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Washington, DC 20510 Dear Chairman Alexander: On behalf of AMGA and our members, I appreciate
More informationOverview of Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program: Accountable Care Organizations
I. Background A. Introduction and Overview of Value-Based Purchasing B. Statutory Basis for the Medicare Shared Savings Program C. Overview of the Medicare Shared Savings Program 7 Value-based purchasing
More informationMACRA and the Evolving Health Care Landscape. Jarrod Fowler, M.H.A. FMA Director of Health Care Policy and Innovation
MACRA and the Evolving Health Care Landscape Jarrod Fowler, M.H.A. FMA Director of Health Care Policy and Innovation MACRA The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) Passed Congress
More informationTAX ISSUES FOR ACOs AND OTHER NEW PAYMENT METHODOLOGIES. AHLA TAX ISSUES October 15-16, By John R. Holdenried Baird Holm LLP
TAX ISSUES FOR ACOs AND OTHER NEW PAYMENT METHODOLOGIES AHLA TAX ISSUES October 15-16, 2012 By John R. Holdenried Baird Holm LLP I. Background on New Medicare Payment Methodologies A. Shared Savings Payments
More informationCPC+ PAYMENT METHODOLOGIES: BENEFICIARY ATTRIBUTION, CARE MANAGEMENT FEE, PERFORMANCE-BASED INCENTIVE PAYMENT, AND PAYMENT UNDER THE MEDICARE
CPC+ PAYMENT METHODOLOGIES: BENEFICIARY ATTRIBUTION, CARE MANAGEMENT FEE, PERFORMANCE-BASED INCENTIVE PAYMENT, AND PAYMENT UNDER THE MEDICARE PHYSICIAN FEE SCHEDULE Version 2 February 17, 2017 Table of
More informationAnti-Kickback Statute Jess Smith
Anti-Kickback Statute Jess Smith Overview 1972 - Enacted 1977 - Violation became a felony 1996 - Expanded to include all Federal Health Care Programs 2009 - Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement
More informationPractical Considerations for Medical Practices Considering Converting Their Vascular Access Centers Into Medicare-Certified Ambulatory Surgery Centers
Practical Considerations for Medical Practices Considering Converting Their Vascular Access Centers Into Medicare-Certified Ambulatory Surgery Centers James B. Riley, Partner +1 312 750 8665 jriley@mcguirewoods.com
More informationApproved Models to Align Incentives between Hospitals and their Physicians
Approved Models to Align Incentives between Hospitals and their Physicians Agenda I. Alignment Model Overview II. Co-Management III. Clinically Integrated Networks CIN Definition & Overview Network Development
More informationPRIMER: MACRA and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Tara O Neill Hayes January 31, 2016
PRIMER: MACRA and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Tara O Neill Hayes January 31, 2016 Background On April 16, 2015, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) was signed into
More informationThe Latest in P4P Arrangements: How to Remain Compliant
The Latest in P4P Arrangements: How to Remain Compliant CSHA 2015 Annual Meeting & Spring Seminar Paul R. DeMuro Of Counsel Broad and Cassel pdemuro@broadandcassel.com Jennifer Johnson Partner VMG Health
More informationALSTON&BIRD LLP. Summary of Agency Proposals Related to Accountable Care Organizations and the Medicare Shared Savings Program. I.
ALSTON&BIRD LLP Summary of Agency Proposals Related to Accountable Care Organizations and the Medicare Shared Savings Program I. Executive Summary On March 31, 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
More informationAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HEALTH SERVICES COST REVIEW COMMISSION. AND Mercy Medical Center (HOSPITAL) REGARDING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HEALTH SERVICES COST REVIEW COMMISSION AND Mercy Medical Center (HOSPITAL) REGARDING GLOBAL BUDGET REVENUE AND NON-GLOBAL BUDGET REVENUE - 1 - CONTENTS I. OVERVIEW... - 3 - II. TERM
More informationStakeholder Innovation Group (SIG):
Stakeholder Innovation Group (SIG): Intake Form for New Payment Model Idea that Requires State/Federal Approval (to be added to the Innovations Website) Purpose: The purpose of this form is to collect
More informationHealth Care Contracting
Health Care Contracting Best Practices Toolkit and Three Tenets of Defensibility Presented by Presented at The Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association Annual Conference September 27, 2017 Barbra
More informationMACRA Final Rule Summary
MACRA Final Rule Summary On October 14, 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its final rule implementing the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA),
More informationPhysician Contracting An Overview of Legal Policy No. 9
Physician Contracting An Overview of Legal Policy No. 9 Learning Objectives To Understand: CHI policy requirements for physician contracting Recent updates to Legal Policy No. 9 How to obtain review and
More informationMACRA Overview. April 2016
MACRA Overview April 2016 CMS is Focused on Progression from Volume-Based to Value-Based Payments Hospitals have some value-based payment via Hospital VBP, readmissions, and HAC programs Other provider
More informationFirst a word about the rising cost of retiree healthcare
Medicare Trends First a word about the rising cost of retiree healthcare The average 66-year-old couple is expected to spend nearly 60% of their Social Security income on medical bills, according to a
More informationThe Road to Value. Aric R. Sharp, MHA, CMPE, FACHE Vice President Accountable Care UnityPoint Health February 3, 2017
The Road to Value Aric R. Sharp, MHA, CMPE, FACHE Vice President Accountable Care UnityPoint Health February 3, 2017 1,500 Physicians UnityPoint Clinic 17 hospitals + 15 rural network hospitals 35,000
More informationRE: Additional Input regarding Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and the Medicare Shared Saving Program
221 MAIN STREET, SUITE 1500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 PBGH.ORG OFFICE 415.281.8660 FACSIMILE 415.520.0927 February 14, 2011 Donald M. Berwick, M.D. Administrator Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
More informationNational APM Data Collection Frequently Asked Questions for 2018
National APM Data Collection Frequently Asked Questions for 2018 Last updated on 1/25/18 Please note this document may be updated and improved periodically based on feedback from health plans and other
More informationACO Legal Issues Update
ACO Legal Issues Update Third National Accountable Care Organization Congress October 30 November 1, 2012, Beverly Hilton Hotel, Los Angeles, CA Robert Homchick roberthomchick@dwt.com Robert L. Schuchard
More information