Feature

CMS pushing primary care with two new payment models

View on the News

AAFP is excited about Primary Care First

We are pretty excited about Primary Care First, for what it symbolizes.

The academy has long suggested that fee for service is not congruent with the core elements of advanced primary care, and our internal policies have asked for payments for primary care patients to be realigned in a way that would facilitate or drive this type of care.

There are a lot of details that we need to understand, but I think this model represents a really significant step towards prospective population-based payments. This model enables primary care physicians to continue to provide continuous and comprehensive care to their patients. It is a big step away from fee for service and we think that’s good for primary care.

I think primary care when it functions at its best really relies upon three elements; continuity and comprehensiveness are probably the two most important elements, and the third is coordination. These three elements are associated with better outcomes and lower cost in several studies. The idea that a patient would have a longitudinal (continuous) relationship with a primary care physician who provides comprehensive services is a desired policy objective.

This model, by implementing prospective, per patient payments, allows practices to focus on longitudinal patient-centered care versus episodes of care that drive revenue. The fee for service, in contrast, offers a payment by service, so it creates individual episodes of care. For the last decade we have questioned whether fee for service can really drive the key elements of primary care of the patient.

There’s always a place for fee for service, but as a foundation, I think the prospective nature of payments is a really important element of what the CMS did. Since physicians would receive payments in advance for providing comprehensive care, they won’t have to generate services to manage their revenue cycle.

I think the Direct Contracting payment model is interesting in that it requires a practice to have a minimum of 5,000 beneficiaries and involves the practice taking on risk for a large population of people. There are a lot more questions on the direct contracting side, but I think, philosophically, we could see why it would be a successful payment model.

From a 30,000 foot perspective, the Primary Care First program should allow any physician practice, regardless of size, to participate. It’s conceivable even for a solo practice to participate in this model.

Our main concern about this model is its geographic restrictions, and we would like to see more states added to this program quickly.

R. Shawn Martin is president of advocacy, practice advancement and policy of the American Academy of Family Physicians. He made these comments in an interview.


 


A second option, the Direct Contracting model is “more ambitious and aimed at larger practices,” Mr. Azar said – those that serve at least 5,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

“Just like in Primary Care First, when patients have a better experience and stay healthier, these practices will make more money,” he continued. “But if patients end up sicker, Direct Contracting Practices will bear the risk for the extra health spending, not just at their own practice, but throughout the system.”

Options under the Direct Contracting model are designed for organizations ready to take on full financial risk that have experience managing large populations with accountable care organizations or working with Medicare Advantage plans, Ms. Verma explained.

The Direct Contracting model will start with two options. The Professional population-based payment (PBP) model offers a lower risk-sharing arrangement (50% savings/losses), while the Global PBP offers a 100% savings/losses risk-sharing arrangement.

CMS also is requesting information on a third payment model, the Geographic PBP model, which would have a similar risk-sharing arrangement as the Global PBP, but participants would assume responsibility for the total cost of care for all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in a defined region.

This model also will launch in 2020.

The new Medicare primary care options were commended by quarters not always supportive of the current government.

Andy Slavitt, CMS administrator under President Obama, voiced his support for the new models.

“There are several watershed moments in the history of the Medicare program, like the coverage of prescription drugs and the shift to paying for better care,” he tweeted April 22. This announcement is “another one as it eases the connection of Medicare beneficiaries to a primary care physician and gives doctors the freedom, rewards, and tools to keep people healthy.”

He continued: “With this great starting point, even as CMS listens to input, physicians and patient groups should be considering who this helps move ... to a healthier country with a more sustainable system.”

TheaDesign/Thinkstock

The American Medical Association also voiced its support.

“Providing adequate financial support for high-quality primary care must be an essential element of any strategy to improve the quality and affordability of our country’s health care system, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, immediate past chair of the AMA Board of Trustees, said in a statement. “Many primary care physicians have been struggling to deliver the care their patients need and to financially sustain their practices under current Medicare payments. The new primary care payment models announced today will provide practices with more resources and more flexibility to deliver the highest-quality care to their patients.”

The American College of Physicians also noted their support of the new models.

“ACP is optimistic that the new models will emphasize the important role primary care plays in value-based care delivery, that models are voluntary and have a range of risk options, and that practices should use population health management data to reap potential benefits,” Robert McLean, MD, ACP president, said in a statement.

The success and viability of these models will depend on the extent that they are supported by payers in addition to Medicare and Medicaid, are adequately adjusted for differences in the risk and health status of patients seen by each practice, are provided predictable and adequate payments to support and sustain practices (especially smaller independent ones), are appropriately scaled for the financial risk expected of a practice, are provided meaningful and timely data to support improvement, and are truly able to reduce administrative tasks and costs, among other things.”

Pages

Recommended Reading

Malpractice: Diagnostic errors top allegation involving children
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
U.S. measles cases nearing postelimination-era high
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Gaps exist in rotavirus vaccination coverage in young U.S. children
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
CMS pushing primary care with two new payment models
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Misleading information, reimbursement among the barriers to teledermatology progress
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Report: Part B funds stable, hospital trust running out
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Navigating the Oncology Care Model
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Depression treatment rates rose with expanded insurance coverage
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Pretrial screening panels: Do they reduce frivolous claims?
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management
Statute of limitations in malpractice actions
Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management